Book contents
- Ancient Greek Texts and Modern Narrative Theory
- Ancient Greek Texts and Modern Narrative Theory
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Acknowledgements
- Chapter 1 Narratology and Classics
- Chapter 2 Word and World: Fiction(ality)
- Chapter 3 Voice(s): Author/Narrator/Character
- Chapter 4 Minds
- Chapter 5 Motivation
- Chapter 6 Ancient Texts and Postmodern Challenges
- References
- Index Locorum
- General Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 May 2023
Book contents
- Ancient Greek Texts and Modern Narrative Theory
- Ancient Greek Texts and Modern Narrative Theory
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Acknowledgements
- Chapter 1 Narratology and Classics
- Chapter 2 Word and World: Fiction(ality)
- Chapter 3 Voice(s): Author/Narrator/Character
- Chapter 4 Minds
- Chapter 5 Motivation
- Chapter 6 Ancient Texts and Postmodern Challenges
- References
- Index Locorum
- General Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Ancient Greek Texts and Modern Narrative TheoryTowards a Critical Dialogue, pp. 169 - 190Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Alber, J., Iversen, S., Nielsen, H. S and Richardson, B. (2010) ‘Unnatural narratives, unnatural narratology: Beyond mimetic models’, Narrative, 18/2: 113–36.Google Scholar
Allan, R. J. (2020) ‘Narrative immersion: Some linguistic and narratological aspects’, in Grethlein, J., Huitink, L. and Tagliabue, A. (eds.), Experience, Narrative, and Criticism in Ancient Greece: Under the Spell of Stories. Oxford: 15–35.Google Scholar
Allan, R. J., de Jong, I. J. F. and de Jonge, C. (2017) ‘From enargeia to immersion: The ancient roots of a modern concept’, Style, 51/1: 34–51.Google Scholar
Amory, A. (1963) ‘The reunion of Odysseus and Penelope’, in Taylor, C. H. (ed.), Essays on the Odyssey. Bloomington: 100–36.Google Scholar
Anderson, M., Cairns, D. and Sprevak, M. (eds.) (2019) Distributed Cognition in Classical Antiquity. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Arweiler, A. and Möller, M. (eds.) (2008) Vom Selbst-Verständnis in Antike und Neuzeit. Berlin.Google Scholar
Auerbach, E. (2013) Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Princeton.Google Scholar
Auhagen, U. (1998) ‘Heu quid agat? – Erlebte Rede bei Valerius Flaccus und seinen Vorgängern’, in Eigler, U. and Lefèvre, E. (eds.), Ratis omnia vincet: Neue Untersuchungen zu den Argonautica des Valerius Flaccus. Munich: 51–66.Google Scholar
Austin, N. (1975) Archery at the Dark of the Moon: Poetic Problems in Homer’s Odyssey. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Badian, E. (1993) ‘Thucydides and the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War: A historian’s brief’, in Plataea to Potidaea: Studies in the History and Historiography of the Pentecontaetia. Baltimore: 125–62.Google Scholar
Bakker, E. J. (2009) ‘Homer, Odysseus, and the narratology of performance’, in Grethlein, J. and Rengakos, A. (eds.), Narratology and Interpretation: The Content of Narrative Form in Ancient Literature. Berlin: 117–36.Google Scholar
Banfield, A. (1982) Unspeakable Sentence: Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction. Boston.Google Scholar
Barwick, K. (1928) ‘Die Gliederung der narratio in der rhetorischen Theorie und ihre Bedeutung für die Geschichte des antiken Romans’, Hermes, 63/2: 261–87.Google Scholar
Beck, D. (2009) ‘Speech act types, conversational exchange, and the speech representational spectrum in Homer’, in Grethlein, J. and Rengakos, A (eds.), Narratology and Interpretation: The Content of Narrative Form in Ancient Literature. Berlin: 137–51.Google Scholar
Bing, P. (2020) ‘Anachronism as a form of metalepsis in ancient Greek literature’, in Matzner, S. and Trimble, G. (eds.), Metalepsis: Ancient Texts, New Perspectives. Oxford: 99–118.Google Scholar
Birke, D., von Contzen, E. and Kukkonen, K. (2022) ‘Chrononarratology: modelling historical change for narratology’, Narrative, 30/1: 26–46.Google Scholar
Blank, D. L. (ed.) (2007) Sextus Empiricus, Against the Grammarians: Introduction, Translation, Commentary. Oxford.Google Scholar
Bolens, G. (2008) Le Style des gestes: Corporéité et kinésie dans le récit littéraire. Lausanne.Google Scholar
Boucher, J. (1996) ‘What could possibly explain autism?’, in Carruthers, P. (ed.), Theories of Theories of Mind. Cambridge: 223–41.Google Scholar
Bouquet, M. and Méniel, B. (eds.) (2011) Servius et sa réception de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance. Rennes.Google Scholar
Bowie, E. (1993) ‘Lies, fiction and slander in early Greek poetry’, in Gill, C. and Wiseman, T. P. (eds.), Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World. Exeter: 1–37.Google Scholar
Bowie, E. (1994) ‘The readership of the Greek novels in the ancient world’, in Tatum, J. (ed.), The Search for the Ancient Novel. Baltimore: 435–59.Google Scholar
Bremer, J. M., de Jong, I. and Kalff, J. (eds.) (1987) Homer, beyond Oral Poetry: Recent Trends in Homeric Interpretation. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Budelmann, F. (2020) ‘Metalepsis and readerly investment in fictional characters’, in Matzner, S. and Trimble, G. (eds.), Metalepsis: Ancient Texts, New Perspectives. Oxford: 59–78.Google Scholar
Budelmann, F. and Easterling, P. (2010) ‘Reading minds in Greek tragedy’, G&R, 57: 289–303.Google Scholar
Budelmann, F. and Sluiter, I. (eds.) (2023) Minds on Stage. Greek Tragedy and Cognition. Oxford.Google Scholar
Bühler, W. (1976) ‘Das Element des Visuellen in der Eingangsszene von Heliodors Aithiopika’, WS, 10: 177–85.Google Scholar
Byre, C. S. (1988) ‘Penelope and the suitors before Odysseus. Odyssey 18.158–303’, AJPh, 109/2: 159–73.Google Scholar
Calame, C. (1999) ‘Performative aspects of the choral voice in Greek tragedy’, in Goldhill, S. and Osborne, R. (eds.), Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy. Cambridge: 125–53.Google Scholar
Calboli, G. (ed.) (1993) Cornifici Rhetorica ad C. Herennium: Introduzione, testo critico, commento. Bologna.Google Scholar
Casali, S. and Stok, F. (2008) Servius: Exegetical Stratifications and Cultural Models. Brussels.Google Scholar
Chatman, S. B. (1978) Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca.Google Scholar
Christensen, J. (2020) The Many-Minded Man: The Odyssey, Psychology, and the Therapy of Epic. Ithaca.Google Scholar
Clarke, M. (2019) Achilles Beside Gilgamesh: Mortality and Wisdom in Early Epic Poetry. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Clay, D. (1998) ‘The theory of the literary persona in antiquity’, Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici, 40: 9–40.Google Scholar
Dachs, H. (1913) Die lysis ek tou prosopou: Ein exegetischer und kritischer Grundsatz Aristarchs und seine Neuanwendung auf Ilias und Odyssee. Erlangen.Google Scholar
Dawe, R. D. (1963) ‘Inconsistency of plot and character in Aeschylus’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, 9: 21–62.Google Scholar
de Jong, I. J. F. (1987) Narrators and Focalizers: The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
de Jong, I. J. F. (2005) ‘Aristotle on the Homeric narrator’, Classical Quarterly, 55: 616–21.Google Scholar
de Jong, I. J. F. (2009) ‘Metalepsis in ancient Greek literature’, in Grethlein, J and Rengakos, A. (eds.), Narratology and Interpretation: The Content of Narrative Form in Ancient Literature. Berlin: 87–116.Google Scholar
de Jong, I. J. F. (2014a) ‘The anonymous traveller in European literature: A Greek meme?’, in Cairns, D. L and Scodel, R. (eds.), Defining Greek Narrative. Edinburgh: 314–33.Google Scholar
de Jong, I. J. F. (2020) ‘Metalepsis and the apostrophe of Heroes in Pindar’, in Matzner, S. and Trimble, G. (eds.), Metalepsis: Ancient Texts, New Perspectives. Oxford: 79–98.Google Scholar
de Jong, I. J. F. and Nünlist, R. (eds.) (2007) Time in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative, Vol. 2. Leiden.Google Scholar
de Jong, I. J. F., Nünlist, R. and Bowie, A. (eds.) (2004) Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature. Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative, Vol. 1. Leiden.Google Scholar
De Temmerman, K. (2014) Crafting Characters: Heroes and Heroines in the Ancient Greek Novel. Oxford.Google Scholar
De Temmerman, K. and van Emde Boas, E. (eds.) (2018a) Characterization in Ancient Greek Literature. Leiden.Google Scholar
De Temmerman, K. and van Emde Boas, E. (2018b) ‘An Introduction’, in De, K. Temmermann, E. van Emde Boas, (eds.), Characterization in Ancient Greek Literature. Leiden: 1–26.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. and Gadamer, H.-G. (1989) Dialogue and Deconstruction: The Gadamer–Derrida Encounter, ed. Michelfelder, D. P. and Palmer, R. E.. Albany.Google Scholar
Dickey, E. (2007) Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises, from Their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period. Oxford.Google Scholar
Dillon, M. (1995) ‘By gods, tongues, and dogs: The use of oaths in Aristophanic comedy’, G&R, 42: 135–51.Google Scholar
Dover, K. J. (1964) ‘The poetry of Archilochus’, in Pouilloux, J. (ed.), Archiloque: 7 exposés et discussions; Vandoeuvres-Genève, 26 aôut–3 septembre 1963. Geneva: 181–212.Google Scholar
Effe, B. (1975) ‘Entstehung und Funktion “personaler” Erzählweisen in der Erzählliteratur der Antike’, Poetica, 7/2: 135–57.Google Scholar
Egger, B. (1994) ‘Women and marriage in the Greek novels. The boundaries of romance’, in Tatum, J. (ed.), The Search for the Ancient Novel. Baltimore: 260–80.Google Scholar
Eisen, U. and von Möllendorff, P. (eds.) (2013) Über die Grenze: Metalepse in Text- und Bildmedien des Altertums. Berlin.Google Scholar
Elmer, D. F. (2008) ‘Heliodoros’s “sources”. Intertextuality, paternity, and the Nile River in the Aithiopika’, TAPhA, 138/2: 411–50.Google Scholar
Elsner, J. (2023) ‘Visual epitome in late antique art’, in Formisano, M. and Sacchi, P (eds.), Epitomic Writing in Late Antiquity and Beyond: Forms of Unabridged Writing. London: 202–29.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. (2016) ‘Ancient commentaries on Theocritus’ Idylls and Virgil’s Eclogues’, in Kraus, C. and Stray, C. (eds.), Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre. Oxford: 397–418.Google Scholar
Feeney, D. C. (1993) ‘Epilogue. Towards an account of the ancient world’s concepts of fictive belief’, in Gill, C. and Wiseman, T. P. (eds.), Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World. Exeter: 230–44.Google Scholar
Feeney, D. C. (1995) ‘Criticism ancient and modern’, in Innes, D., Hines, H. and Pelling, C. (eds.), Ethics and Rhetoric. Oxford: 301–10.Google Scholar
Feeney, D. C. (2008) ‘Review: Irene J. F. de Jong, René Nünlist, Time in Ancient Greek Literature’, BMCR, 20080724.Google Scholar
Felson-Rubin, N. (1987) ‘Penelope’s perspective: Character from plot’, in Bremer, J. M., de Jong, I. and Kalff, J. (eds.), Homer, beyond Oral Poetry: Recent Trends in Homeric Interpretation. Amsterdam: 61–83.Google Scholar
Fludernik, M. (2003a) ‘Scene shift, metalepsis, and the metaleptic mode’, Style, 37/4: 382–400.Google Scholar
Fludernik, M. (2012) ‘How natural is “unnatural narratology”; or, What is unnatural about unnatural narratology?’, Narrative, 203: 357–70.Google Scholar
Fludernik, M. (2015) ‘Plotting experience: A comment on Jonas Grethlein’s “Heliodorus Against Palmer, Zunshine & Co.”’, Style, 49/3: 288–93.Google Scholar
Fludernik, M., Falkenhayner, N. and Steiner, J. (eds.) (2015) Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven. Faktuales und fiktionales Erzählen i. Würzburg.Google Scholar
Ford, A. L. (2002) The Origins of Criticism: Literary Culture and Poetic Theory in Classical Greece. Princeton.Google Scholar
Formisano, M. and Sacchi, P. (eds.) (2023) Epitomic Writing in Late Antiquity and Beyond: Forms of Unabridged Writing. London.Google Scholar
Fowler, D. (2001) ‘Narrative: Introduction’, in Harrison, S. (ed.), Texts, Ideas and the Classics. Scholarship, Theory and Classical Literature. Oxford: 65–9.Google Scholar
Frank, J. (1945) ‘Spatial form in modern literature: An essay in two parts’, The Sewanee Review, 53/2: 221–40.Google Scholar
Fränkel, H. (1993) Dichtung und Philosophie des frühen Griechentums: Eine Geschichte der griechischen Epik, Lyrik und Prosa bis zur Mitte des fünften Jahrhunderts, 4th ed. Munich.Google Scholar
Franz, M. (1991) ‘Fiktionalität und Wahrheit in der Sicht des Gorgias und des Aristoteles’, Philologus, 135/2: 240–8.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1960 [1892]) ‘On sense and reference’, in Black, M. and Geach, P. T. (eds.), Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: 56–78.Google Scholar
Fuhrer, T. (2015) ‘Teichoskopia: Female figures looking on battles’, in Fabre-Serris, J. and Keith, A. (eds.), Women and War in Antiquity. Baltimore: 52–70.Google Scholar
Fuhrmann, M. (1992) Die Dichtungstheorie der Antike: Aristoteles, Horaz, Longin. Eine Einführung. Darmstadt.Google Scholar
Fulkerson, L. (2020) ‘Close encounters: Divine epiphanies on the fringes of Latin love elegy’, in Matzner, S. and Trimble, G. (eds.), Metalepsis: Ancient Texts, New Perspectives. Oxford: 147–66.Google Scholar
Fusillo, M. (1985) Il tempo delle Argonautiche: Un’analisi del racconto in Apollonio Rodio. Rome.Google Scholar
Fusillo, M. (1996) ‘Il romanzo antico come paraletteratura? Il topos del racconto di ricapitolazione’, in Pecere, O. and Stramaglia, A. (eds.), La letteratura di consumo nel mondo greco-latino. Cassino: 49–67.Google Scholar
Gadamer, H.-G. (1990) Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. 6th ed. Tübingen.Google Scholar
Gaifman, M. and Platt, V. (eds.) (2018) ‘Special issue: The embodied body in antiquity’, Art History 41/3.Google Scholar
Gallagher, C. (2006) ‘The rise of fictionality’, in Moretti, F. (ed.), The Novel, Vol. 1: History, Geography and Culture. Princeton: 336–63.Google Scholar
Gallagher, C. (2011) ‘What would Napoleon do? Historical, fictional, and counterfactual characters’, NLH, 42/2: 315–36.Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. (2001) ‘The practice of mind: Theory, simulation or primary interaction?’, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8/5–7: 83–108.Google Scholar
Garcea, A., Lhommé, M.-K. and Vallat, D. (eds.) (2016) Fragments d’érudition. Hildesheim.Google Scholar
Gill, C. (1983) ‘The question of character-development: Plutarch and Tacitus’, CQ, 33/2: 469–87.Google Scholar
Gill, C. (1984) ‘The ethos/pathos distinction in rhetorical and literary criticism’, CQ, 34, 1: 149–66.Google Scholar
Gill, C. (1986) ‘The question of character and personality in Greek tragedy’, Poetics Today, 7/2: 251–73.Google Scholar
Gill, C. (1990) ‘The character-personality distinction’, in Pelling, C. (ed.), Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature. Oxford: 1–31.Google Scholar
Gill, C. (1993) ‘Plato on falsehood – not fiction’, in Gill, C. and Wiseman, T. P. (eds.), Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World. Exeter: 38–87.Google Scholar
Gill, C. (1996) Personality in Greek Epic, Tragedy, and Philosophy: The Self in Dialogue. Oxford.Google Scholar
Gill, C. (2008) ‘The ancient self: Issues and approaches’, in Remes, P. and Sihvola, J. (eds.), Ancient Philosophy of the Self. New York: 35–56.Google Scholar
Glauch, S. (2009) An der Schwelle zur Literatur: Elemente einer Poetik des höfischen Erzählens. Studien zur historischen Poetik i. Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Glauch, S. (2010) ‘Ich-Erzähler ohne Stimme: Zur Andersartigkeit mittelalterlichen Erzählens zwischen Narratologie und Mediengeschichte’, in Haferland, H. and Meyer, M. (eds.), Historische Narratologie – mediävistische Perspektiven: Tagung an der Universität Osnabrück vom 22. bis zum 25. November 2007. Berlin: 149–86.Google Scholar
Goheen, R. F. (1955) ‘Aspects of dramatic symbolism: Three studies in the Oresteia’, AJP, 76/2: 113–37.Google Scholar
Goldhill, S. (1990) The Poet’s Voice: Essays on Poetics and Greek Literature. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Goldhill, S. (1995) Foucault’s Virginity: Ancient Erotic Fiction and the History of Sexuality. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Goldhill, S. (2015) ‘A guide to narratology. I.J.F. de Jong, Narratology and Classics. A Practical Guide’, CR, 65/2: 327–9.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (2006) Simulating Minds: The Philosophy, Psychology, and Neuroscience of Mindreading. Oxford.Google Scholar
Gould, J. (1978) ‘Dramatic character and “human intelligibility” in Greek tragedy’, PCPhS, 24: 43–67.Google Scholar
Graf, F. (1997) ‘Medea, the enchantress from afar: Remarks on a well-known myth’, in Clauss, J. J. and Johnston, S. I. (eds.), Medea: Essays on Medea in Myth, Literature, Philosophy and Art. Princeton: 21–43.Google Scholar
Grethlein, J. (2003) Asyl und Athen: Die Konstruktion kollektiver Identität in der griechischen Tragödie. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Grethlein, J. (2006) Das Geschichtsbild der Ilias: Eine Untersuchung aus phänomenologischer und narratologischer Perspektive. Göttingen.Google Scholar
Grethlein, J. (2010) ‘The narrative reconfiguration of time beyond Ricœur’, Poetics Today, 31/2: 313–29.Google Scholar
Grethlein, J. (2011a) ‘Die Fabel’, in Zimmermann, B. (ed.), Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaften. Griechische Literatur. Vol. 1: Die Literatur der archaischen und klassischen Zeit. Munich: 321–5.Google Scholar
Grethlein, J. (2011b) ‘Review of R. Scodel, Epic Facework. Self-presentation and Social Interaction in Homer’, Mnemosyne, 64/3: 481–5.Google Scholar
Grethlein, J. (2012a) ‘Review of Irene J. F. de Jong, Space in Ancient Greek Literature. Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative 3’, BMCRev, 20120918.Google Scholar
Grethlein, J. (2012b) ‘Xenophon’s Anabasis from character to narrator’, JHS, 132: 23–40.Google Scholar
Grethlein, J. (2013a) ‘Choral intertemporality in the Oresteia’, in Gagné, R. and Hopman, M. (eds.), Choral Mediations in Greek Tragedy. Cambridge: 78–99.Google Scholar
Grethlein, J. (2013b) Experience and Teleology in Ancient Historiography. ‘Futures Past’ from Herodotus to Augustine. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Grethlein, J. (2015) ‘Aesthetic experiences, ancient and modern’, New Literary History, 46/2: 309–33.Google Scholar
Grethlein, J. (2017b) Aesthetic Experiences and Classical Antiquity: The Content of Form in Narratives and Pictures. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Grethlein, J. (2018) ‘More than minds: Experience, narrative, and plot’, Partial Answers, 16/2: 279–90.Google Scholar
Grethlein, J. (2019) ‘“Stories embroidered beyond truth”: Reading Herodotus and Thucydides in light of Pindar’s Olympian 1’, in Baines, J., van der Blom, H., Chen, Y. S. and Rood, T. (eds.), Historical Consciousness and the Use of the Past in the Ancient World. Sheffield: 313–29.Google Scholar
Grethlein, J. (2020) ‘Plato in therapy: A cognitivist reassessment of the Republic’s idea of mimesis’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 78/2: 157–70.Google Scholar
Grethlein, J. (2021) The Ancient Aesthetics of Deception. The Ethics of Enchantment from Gorgias to Heliodorus. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Grethlein, J. and Huitink, L. (2017) ‘Homer’s vividness: An enactive approach’, JHS, 137: 67–91.Google Scholar
Grethlein, J., Huitink, L. and Tagliabue, A. (eds.) (2019) Experience, Narrative and Criticism in Ancient Greece: Under the Spell of Stories. Oxford.Google Scholar
Grethlein, J. and Rengakos, A. (eds.) (2009) Narratology and Interpretation: The Content of Narrative Form in Ancient Literature. Berlin.Google Scholar
Grisolia, R. (2001) Oikonomia: Struttura e tecnica drammatica negli scoli antichi ai testi drammatici. Naples.Google Scholar
Gutzwiller, K. J. (2010) ‘Literary criticism’, in Clauss, J. J. and Cuypers, M. (eds.), A Companion to Hellenistic Literature. Chichester: 337–65.Google Scholar
Haferland, H. (2014) ‘“Motivation von hinten”: Durchschaubarkeit des Erzählens und Finalität in der Geschichte des Erzählens’, Diegesis 3/2: 66–95.Google Scholar
Haferland, H. and Meyer, M. (eds.) (2010) Historische Narratologie – Mediävistische Perspektiven. Berlin.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. (1987) The Poetics of Aristotle: Translation and Commentary. Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. (2002) The Aesthetics of Mimesis: Ancient Texts and Modern Problems. Princeton.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. (2011) Between Ecstasy and Truth: Interpretations of Greek Poetics from Homer to Longinus. Oxford.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. (2014) ‘Diegesis – Mimesis’, in Hühn, P. (ed.), The Living Handbook of Narratology. Hamburg.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. (2014) ‘Laughter’, in Revermann, M. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Comedy. Cambridge: 189–205.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. (2015) ‘Fiction’, in Destrée, P. and Murray, P. (eds.), A Companion to Ancient Aesthetics. Chichester: 341–53.Google Scholar
Handke, P. (2019 [1966]) Publikumsbeschimpfung und andere Sprechstücke. Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. (2001) ‘General introduction: Working together’, in Harrison, S. (ed.), Texts, Ideas and the Classics: Scholarship, Theory and Classical Literature. Oxford: 1–25.Google Scholar
Haubold, J. (2014) ‘Beyond Auerbach: Homeric narrative and the Epic of Gilgamesh’, in Cairns, D. L. and Scodel, R. (eds.), Defining Greek Narrative. Edinburgh: 13–28.Google Scholar
Heitman, R. (2005) Taking Her Seriously: Penelope and the Plot of Homer’s Odyssey. Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Hempfer, K. W. (1990) ‘Zu einigen Problemen einer Fiktionstheorie’, ZFSL, 100: 109–37.Google Scholar
Herman, D. (ed.) (2011a) The Emergence of Mind: Representations of Consciousness in Narrative Discourse in English. Lincoln.Google Scholar
Herman, D. (2011b) ‘Introduction’, in Herman, D. (ed.) The Emergence of Mind: Representations of Consciousness in Narrative Discourse in English. Lincoln: 1–40.Google Scholar
Holmes, B. (2010) The Symptom and the Subject: The Emergence of the Physical Body in Ancient Greece. Princeton.Google Scholar
Hölscher, U. (1967) ‘Penelope vor den Freiern’, in Meller, H. and Zimmermann, H.-J. (eds.), Lebende Antike: Symposion für Rudolf Sühnel. Berlin: 27–33.Google Scholar
Horkheimer, M. and Adorno, T. W. (1969) Dialektik der Aufklärung: Philosophische Fragmente. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Hose, M. (1996) ‘Fiktionalität und Lüge. Über einen Unterschied zwischen römischer und griechischer Terminologie’, Poetica, 28/3–4: 257–74.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. L. (2009) Critical Moments in Classical Literature: Studies in the Ancient View of Literature and Its Uses. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. and Russell, D. (eds.) (2011) Plutarch: How To Study Poetry (de audiendis poetis). Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hutto, D. D. (2007) ‘Folk psychology without theory or simulation’, in Hutto, D. D. and Ratcliffe, M. (eds.), Folk Psychology Re-assessed. Dordrecht: 115–35.Google Scholar
Hutto, D. D. (2008) Folk Psychological Narratives: The Sociocultural Basis of Understanding Reasons. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Iser, W. (1991) Das Fiktive und das Imaginäre: Perspektiven literarischer Anthropologie. Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Iversen, S. (2011) ‘“In flaming flames”: Crises of experientiality in non-fictional narratives’, in Alber, J. and Heinze, R. (eds.), Unnatural Narratives – Unnatural Narratology. Berlin: 89–103.Google Scholar
Iversen, S. (2020) ‘Transgressive narration: The case of autofiction’, in Fludernik, M. and Ryan, M.-L. (eds.), Narrative Factuality: A Handbook. Berlin: 555–64.Google Scholar
Jaeger, W. (1943) Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, Vol. 2. In Search of the Divine Centre. New York.Google Scholar
Jahn, M. (2011) ‘Mind = mind + social mind? A response to Alan Palmer’s target essay’, Style, 45/2: 249–53.Google Scholar
Janko, R. (ed.) (2011) Philodemus On Poems Books 3–4 with the Fragments of Aristotle On Poets: Introduction, Translation, Commentary. Oxford.Google Scholar
Jannidis, F. (2004) Figur und Person: Beitrag zu einer historischen Narratologie. Berlin.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. A. and Parker, H. (eds.) (2009) Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome. Oxford.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. A. (2010) Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A Study of Elite Communities. Oxford.Google Scholar
Jones, M. (2012) Playing the Man: Performing Masculinities in the Ancient Greek Novel. Oxford.Google Scholar
Kablitz, A. (2008) ‘Literatur, Fiktion und Erzählung – nebst einem Nachruf auf den Erzähler’, in Rajewski, I. and Schneider, U. (eds.), Im Zeichen der Fiktion: Aspekte fiktionaler Rede aus historischer und systematischer Sicht. Stuttgart: 13–44.Google Scholar
Kania, A. (2005) ‘Against the ubiquity of fictional narrators’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 63/1: 47–54.Google Scholar
Kannicht, R. (1980) ‘Der alte Streit zwischen Philosophie und Dichtung’, AU, 23/6: 6–36.Google Scholar
Katz, M. (1991) Penelope’s Renown: Meaning and Indeterminacy in Homer’s Odyssey. Princeton.Google Scholar
Kelly, A. (2012) ‘The audience expects: Odysseus and Penelope’, in Minchin, E. (ed.), Orality and Literacy in the Ancient World. Leiden: 3–24.Google Scholar
Kelly, A. (2014) ‘Homeric battle narrative and the ancient Near East’, in Cairns, D. L. and Scodel, R. (eds.), Defining Greek Narrative. Edinburgh: 29–54.Google Scholar
Kim, L. Y. (2010) Homer Between History and Fiction in Imperial Greek Literature. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Klauk, T. and Köppe, T. (2014) ‘Bausteine einer Theorie der Fiktionalität’, in Klauk, T. and Klöppe, T. (eds.), Fiktionalität: Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch. Berlin: 3–32.Google Scholar
Klimek, S. (2010) Paradoxes Erzählen: Die Metalepse in der phantastischen Literatur. Paderborn.Google Scholar
Klooster, J. (2013) ‘Apostrophe in Homer, Apollonius and Callimachus’, in Eisen, U. E. and von Moellendorff, P. (eds.), Über die Grenze: Metalepse in Text- und Bildmedien des Altertums [Transferring Borders. Metalepsis in Texts and Artifacts of Antiquity]. Berlin: 151–73.Google Scholar
Knights, L. C. (1933). How Many Children Had Lady Macbeth? An Essay in the Theory and Practice of Shakespeare Criticism. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Köhnken, A. (1974) ‘Pindar as innovator: Poseidon Hippios and the relevance of the Pelops story in Olympian 1’, CQ, 24/2: 199–206.Google Scholar
Konstan, D. (1994) Sexual Symmetry. Love in the Ancient Novel and Related Genres. Princeton.Google Scholar
Konstan, D. (2004) ‘“The Birth of the Reader”. Plutarch as a literary critic’, Scholia, 13/1: 3–27.Google Scholar
Köppe, T. (2014) ‘Die Institution Fiktionalität’, in Klauk, T. and Klöppe, T. (eds.), Fiktionalität: Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch. Berlin: 35–49.Google Scholar
Köppe, T. and Stühring, J. (2011) ‘Against pan-narrator theories’, Journal of Literary Semantics, 40/1: 59–80.Google Scholar
Kragl, F. (2019) ‘Autor und Erzähler – Mittelalter’, in von Contzen, E. and Tilg, S. (eds.), Handbuch historische Narratologie. Berlin: 82–93.Google Scholar
Krieter-Spiro, M. (2009) Homers Ilias. Dritter Gesang (G). Fasz. 2, Kommentar. Berlin.Google Scholar
Krumrey, B. (2015) Der Autor in seinem Text: Autofiktion in der deutschsprachigen Gegenwartsliteratur als (post-)postmodernes Phänomen. Göttingen.Google Scholar
Kukkonen, K. (2014) ‘Presence and prediction: The embodied reader’s cascades of cognition’, Style, 48/3: 367–84.Google Scholar
Kuzmičová, A. (2012) ‘Presence in the reading of literary narrative: A case for motor enactment’, Semiotica, 189/1: 23–48.Google Scholar
Kuzmičová, A. (2013) Mental Imagery in the Experience of Literary Narrative: Views from Embodied Cognition. Stockholm.Google Scholar
Laird, A. (2008) ‘Approaching style and rhetoric’, in Whitmarsh, T (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Greek and Roman Novel. Cambridge: 201–17.Google Scholar
Lamarque, P. and Olsen, S. H. (eds.) (1994) Truth, Fiction, and Literature: A Philosophical Perspective. Oxford.Google Scholar
Lather, A. (2021) Materiality and Aesthetics in Archaic and Classical Poetry. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Lattmann, C. (2005) ‘Die Dichtungsklassifikation des Aristoteles’, Philologus, 149/1: 28–51.Google Scholar
Lauwers, J., Schwall, H. and Opsomer, J. (eds.) (2018) Psychology and the Classics: A Dialogue of Disciplines. Berlin.Google Scholar
Leudar, I. and Costall, A. (2009b) ‘Introduction: Against “Theory of Mind”’, in Leudar, I. and Costall, A. (eds.), Against Theory of Mind. Houndmills: 1–16.Google Scholar
Leverage, P., Mancing, H., R. Schweickert and J. M. William (eds.) (2011) Theory of Mind and Literature. West Lafayette.Google Scholar
Lieberg, G. (1982) Poeta creator: Studien zu einer Figur der antiken Dichtung. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Lloyd-Jones, H. (1972) ‘Tycho von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff on the dramatic technique of Sophocles’, CQ, 22/2: 214–28.Google Scholar
Lord, A. B. (1938) ‘Homer and Huso ii: Narrative inconsistencies in Homer and oral poetry’, TAPhA, 69: 439–45.Google Scholar
Lovatt, H. (2020) ‘Metalepsis, grief, and narrative in Aeneid 2’, in Matzner, S. and Trimble, G. (eds.), Metalepsis: Ancient Texts, New Perspectives. Oxford: 167–94.Google Scholar
Lowe, N. J. (2000) The Classical Plot and the Invention of Western Narrative. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lugowski, C. (1976 [1932]) Die Form der Individualität im Roman: Studien zur inneren Struktur der frühen deutschen Prosaerzählung. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Lüthi, M. (1975) Das Volksmärchen als Dichtung: Ästhetik und Anthropologie, Vol. 1. Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Mackay, E. A. (2001) ‘The frontal face and “you”: Narrative disjunction in early Greek poetry and painting’, Acta Classica, 44: 5–34.Google Scholar
Manieri, A. (1998) L’immagine poetica nella teoria degli antichi: Phantasia ed enargeia. Pisa.Google Scholar
Mar, R., Djikic, M. and Oatley, K. (2008) ‘Effects of reading on knowledge, social abilities, and selfhood: Theory and empirical studies’, in Zyngier, S., S., Bortolussi, M., Chesnokova, A. and Auracher, J. (eds.), Directions in Empirical Literary Studies: In Honor of Willie van Peer. Amsterdam: 127–37.Google Scholar
Margolin, U. (1989) ‘Structuralist approaches to character in narrative: The state of the art’, Semiotica, 75: 1–24.Google Scholar
Mariani, A. J. (1978) ‘The Forged Feature: Created Identity in Homer’s Odyssey’. PhD diss, Yale University.Google Scholar
Matzner, S. (2020) ‘By way of introduction. Back to the future: Problems and potentials of metalepsis avant Genette’, in Matzner, S. and Trimble, G. (eds.), Metalepsis: Ancient Texts, New Perspectives. Oxford: 1–24.Google Scholar
Matzner, S. and Trimble, G. (eds.) (2020) Metalepsis: Ancient Texts, New Perspectives. Oxford.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. G. (2003) ‘Persona<l> problems. The literary persona in antiquity revisited’, Materiali e discussioni, 50: 55–80.Google Scholar
McDermott, E. A. (1989) Euripides’ ‘Medea’: The Incarnation of Disorder. University Park.Google Scholar
McHale, B. (1983) ‘Unspeakable sentences, unnatural acts. Linguistics and poetics revisited’, Poetics Today, 4/1: 17–45.Google Scholar
Meineck, P., Short, W. M. and Devereaux, J. (eds.) (2019) The Routledge Handbook of Classics and Cognitive Theory. London.Google Scholar
Mendelsohn, D. (2000) The Elusive Embrace: Desire and the Riddle of Identity. New York.Google Scholar
Mikalson, J. D. (1991) Honor Thy Gods: Popular Religion in Greek Tragedy. Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Montanari, F. (ed.) (2020) History of Ancient Greek Scholarship: From the Beginnings to the End of the Byzantine Age. Leiden.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. R. (1989) ‘A sense of the ending: The conclusion of Heliodoros’ Aithiopika’, TAPhA, 119: 299–320.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. R. (1991) ‘Reader and audiences in the Aithiopika of Heliodoros’, in Forsten, E. (ed.), Groningen Colloquia on the Novel 4. Groningen: 85–103.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. R. (1993) ‘Make-believe and make believe: The fictionality of the Greek novels’, in Gill, C. and Wiseman, T. P. (eds.), Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World. Exeter: 175–229.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. R. (1999) ‘The story of Knemon in Heliodoros’ Aithiopika’, in Swain, S. (ed.), Oxford Readings in the Greek Novel. Oxford: 259–85.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. R. (2018) ‘Heliodorus’, in Temmerman, K. D. and Boas, E. van Emde (eds.), Characterization in Ancient Greek Literature. Leiden: 628–49.Google Scholar
Morrison, J. V. (1992) Homeric Misdirection: False Predictions in the Iliad. Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Müller, M. (1966) Athene als göttliche Helferin in der Odyssee: Untersuchungen zur Form der epischen Aristie. Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Munteanu, D. L. (2012) Tragic Pathos: Pity and Fear in Greek Philosophy and Tragedy. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Nannini, S. (1986) Omero e il suo pubblico nel pensiero dei commentatori antichi. Rome.Google Scholar
Narrative (2015) Special Issue ‘Social Minds in Factual and Fictional Narration’, 23/2.Google Scholar
Nielsen, H. S., Phelan, J. and Walsh, R (2015) ‘Ten theses about fictionality’, Narrative, 23/1: 61–73.Google Scholar
Nightingale, A. W. (2006) ‘Mimesis: Ancient Greek literary theory’, in Waugh, P. (ed.), Literary Theory and Criticism. Oxford: 37–47.Google Scholar
Nooter, S. (2012) When Heroes Sing: Sophocles and the Shifting Soundscape of Tragedy. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Nünlist, R. (2009) The Ancient Critic at Work: Terms and Concepts of Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Onea, E. (2014) ‘Fiktionalität und Sprechakte’, in Klauk, T. and Klöppe, T. (eds.), Fiktionalität: Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch. Berlin: 68–96.Google Scholar
Orlemanski, J. (2019) ‘Who has fiction? Modernity, fictionality, and the Middle Ages’, NLH, 50/2: 145–70.Google Scholar
Otto, N. (2009) Enargeia: Untersuchung zur Charakteristik alexandrinischer Dichtung. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Page, D. L. (1955) The Homeric Odyssey: The Mary Flexner Lectures Delivered at Bryn Mawr College, Pennsylvania. Oxford.Google Scholar
Palmer, A. (2015) ‘Response to Jonas Grethlein’s essay “Is narrative ‘the description of fictional mental functioning’? Heliodorus Against Palmer, Zunshine & Co.”’, Style, 49/3: 285–88.Google Scholar
Pelling, C. (ed.) (1990) Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature. Oxford.Google Scholar
Pelling, C. (2013) ‘Xenophon’s and Caesar’s third-person narratives – or are they?’, in Marmodoro, A. (ed.), The Author’s Voice in Classical and Late Antiquity. Oxford: 39–76.Google Scholar
Peponi, A.-E. (2012) Frontiers of Pleasur: Models of Aesthetic Response in Archaic and Classical Greek Thought. Oxford.Google Scholar
Phelan, J. (1989) Reading People, Reading Plots: Character, Progression, and the Interpretation of Narrative. Chicago.Google Scholar
Pier, J. (2014) ‘Metalepsis’, in Hühn, P., Meister, J. C., J. Pier and W. Schmid (eds.), Handbook of Narratology. Berlin: 326–43.Google Scholar
Pinheiro, M. P. F. (1998) ‘Time and narrative technique in Heliodorus’ “Aethiopica”’, ANRW ii 34/4: 3148–73.Google Scholar
Pitcher, L. (2012) ‘Themistogenes’, in Worthington, I. (ed.), Brill’s New Jacoby. Leiden.Google Scholar
Plotke, S. (2017) Die Stimme des Erzählens: Mittelalterliche Buchkultur und moderne Narratologie. Göttingen.Google Scholar
Pratt, L. H. (1993) Lying and Poetry from Homer to Pindar: Falsehood and Deception in Archaic Greek Poetics. Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Premack, D. and Woodruff, G. (1978) ‘Does the chimpanzee have a Theory of Mind?’, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1.4: 515–26.Google Scholar
Primavesi, O. (2009) ‘Zum Problem der epischen Fiktion in der vorplatonischen Poetik’, in Peters, U. and Warning, R. (eds.), Fiktion und Fiktionalität in den Literaturen des Mittelalters. Munich: 105–20.Google Scholar
Privitera, S. (2018) ‘Odyssey 20 and cognitive science: A case study’, in Lauwers, J., Schwall, H. and J. Opsomer (eds.), Psychology and the Classics. Berlin: 32–45.Google Scholar
Puelma, M. (1989) ‘Der Dichter und die Wahrheit in der griechischen Poetik von Homer bis Aristoteles’, MH, 46/2: 65–100.Google Scholar
Purves, A. (2015) ‘Ajax and other objects: Homer’s vibrant materialism’, Ramus, 44: 75–94.Google Scholar
Raaflaub, K. (2010) ‘Ulterior motives in ancient historiography: What exactly, and why?’, in Foxhall, L., Gehrke, H.-J. and Luraghi, N. (eds.), Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greece. Stuttgart: 189–210.Google Scholar
Raffa, M. (2011) ‘Il canto di Achille (Ps. Plut. De mus. 40, 1145d–f’, QUCC, 99: 165–76.Google Scholar
Rajewski, I. (2020) ‘Theories of fictionality and their real other’, in Fludernik, M. and Ryan, M.-L. (eds.), Narrative Factuality: A Handbook. Berlin: 29–50.Google Scholar
Ramsay, R. (1991) ‘Autobiographical fictions: Duras, Sarraute, Simon, Robbe-Grillet. Re-writing history, story, self’, The International Fiction Review, 18: 25–33.Google Scholar
Richardson, B. (1997a) ‘Beyond poststructuralism: Theory of character, the personae of modern drama, and the antinomies of Critical Theory’, Modern Drama, 40/1: 86–99.Google Scholar
Richardson, B. (1997b) Unlikely Stories: Causality and the Nature of Modern Narrative. Newark.Google Scholar
Richardson, B. (2000) ‘Narrative poetics and postmodern transgression: Theorizing the collapse of time, voice, and frame’, Narrative, 8/1: 23–42.Google Scholar
Richardson, B. (2006) Unnatural Voices: Extreme Narration in Modern and Contemporary Fiction. Columbus.Google Scholar
Richardson, B. (2019) A Poetics of Plot for the Twenty-First Century: Theorizing Unruly Narratives. Columbus.Google Scholar
Richardson, B. (2020) ‘Transcending humanistic and cognitive models: Unnatural characters in fiction, drama, and popular culture’, in Alber, J. and Richardson, B. (eds.), Unnatural Narratology: Extensions, Revisions, and Challenges. Columbus: 135–64.Google Scholar
Richardson, B. (2021) Essays in Narrative and Fictionality: Reassessing Nine Central Concepts. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Richardson, N. J. (1980) ‘Literary criticism in the exegetical scholia to the Iliad: A sketch’, CQ, 30/2: 265–87.Google Scholar
Richardson, N. J. (1986) ‘Pindar and later literary criticism in antiquity’, ARCA, 19: 383–401.Google Scholar
Rispoli, G. M. (1988) Lo spazio del verisimile: Il racconto, la storia e il mito. Naples.Google Scholar
Rood, T. (2015) ‘Review of D. Cairns and R. Scodel (eds.), Defining Greek Narrative’, CR, 65/2: 329–30.Google Scholar
Rösler, W. (1980) ‘Die Entdeckung der Fiktionalität in der Antike’, Poetica, 12/3–4: 283–319.Google Scholar
Rösler, W. (1985) ‘Persona reale o persona poetica? L’interpretazione dell’“io” nella lirica greca arcaica’, QUCC, 19/1: 131–44.Google Scholar
Ruffell, I. A. (2011) Politics and Anti-Realism in Athenian Old Comedy: The Art of the Impossible. Oxford.Google Scholar
Russo, J. (1982) ‘Interview and aftermath: Dream, fantasy, and intuition in Odyssey 19 and 20’, AJPh, 103/1: 4–18.Google Scholar
Ryan, M.-L. (1991) Possible Worlds, Artificial Intelligence and Narrative Theory. Bloomington.Google Scholar
Ryan, M.-L. (2001) Narrative as Virtual Reality: Immersion and Interactivity in Literature and Electronic Media. Baltimore.Google Scholar
Ryan, M.-L. (2010) ‘Narratology and cognitive science: A problematic relation’, Style, 44/4: 469–95.Google Scholar
Ryan, M.-L. (2015) ‘Response to Jonas Grethlein’s “Is narrative ‘the description of fictional mental functioning’? Heliodorus Against Palmer, Zunshine & Co.”’, Style, 49/3: 293–8.Google Scholar
Sandnes, K. O. (2009) The Challenge of Homer: School, Pagan Poets and Early Christianity. London.Google Scholar
Santini, C. and Stok, F. (eds.) (2004) Hinc italae gentes: Geopolitica ed etnografia dell’Italia nel commento di Servio all’Eneide. Pisa.Google Scholar
Savarese, R. J. and Zunshine, L. (2014) ‘The critic as neurocosmopolite; or, what cognitive approaches to literature can learn from disability studies: Lisa Zunshine in conversation with Ralph James Savarese’, Narrative, 22/1: 17–44.Google Scholar
Schaefer, U. (2004) ‘Die Funktion des Erzählers zwischen Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit’, in Haubrichs, W., Lutz, E. and Ridder, K. (eds.), Erzähltechnik und Erzählstrategien in der deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters: Saarbrücker Kolloquium 2002, Wolfram-Studien xviii. Berlin: 83–98.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, J.-M. (2014) ‘Fictional vs. factual narration’, in Hühn, P., Meister, J. C., Pier, J. and Schmid, W. (eds.), Handbook of Narratology. Berlin: 98–114.Google Scholar
Schein, S. (2019) ‘Homerus ethicus’, in Grace Canevaro, L. and Rourke, O. (eds.), Didactic Poetry of Greece, Rome, and Beyond: Knowledge, Power, Tradition. Swansea: 75–95.Google Scholar
Schirren, T. (2005) Philosophos Bios: Die antike Philosophenbiographie als symbolische Form. Studien zur Vita Apollonii des Philostrat. Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Schlaffer, H. (1990) Poesie und Wissen: Die Entstehung des ästhetischen Bewusstseins und der philologischen Erkenntnis. Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Schlemm, A. (1893) De Fontibus Plutarchi Commentationum de Audiendis Poetis et de Fortuna. Göttingen.Google Scholar
Schlunk, R. (1974) The Homeric Scholia and the Aeneid: A Study of the Influence of the Ancient Homeric Literary Criticism on Vergil. Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Schmedt, H. (2020) Antonius Diogenes, “Die unglaublichen Dinge jenseits von Thule”: Edition, Übersetzung, Kommentar. Berlin.Google Scholar
Schmitt, A. (2010) ‘Making the case for self-narration against autofiction’, Auto/Biography Studies, 25/1: 122–37.Google Scholar
Schmitz, T. A. (1997) Bildung und Macht: Zur sozialen und politischen Funktion der zweiten Sophistik in der griechischen Welt der Kaiserzeit. Munich.Google Scholar
Schmitz, T. A. (2015) ‘Review of Irene J. F. Jong, Narratology and classics: A practical guide’, Mnemosyne, 69/4: 707–10.Google Scholar
Schneider, C. (2019) ‘Handlung und Handlungslogik – Mittelalter’, in von Contzen, E. and Tilg, S. (eds.), Handbuch Historische Narratologie. Stuttgart: 249–61.Google Scholar
Schneider, R. (2001) ‘Toward a cognitive theory of literary character: The dynamics of mental-model construction”, Style, 35/4: 607–39.Google Scholar
Schollmeyer, J. (2021) Gorgiasʼ Lobrede auf Helena: Literaturgeschichtliche Untersuchungen und Kommentar. Berlin.Google Scholar
Scodel, R. (1997) ‘Teichoscopia, catalogue, and the female spectator in Euripides’, Colby Quarterly, 33/1: 76–93.Google Scholar
Scodel, R. (2005) ‘Review of I. J. F. de Jong, R. Nünlist, A. M. Bowie, Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature. Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative, Vol. 1’, BMCRev, 20050748.Google Scholar
Scodel, R. (2008) Epic Facework: Self-Presentation and Social Interaction in Homer. Swansea.Google Scholar
Scodel, R. (2012) ‘ἦ and Theory of Mind in the Iliad’, in Meier-Brügger, M. (ed.), Homer, gedeutet durch ein großes Lexikon. Berlin: 319–34.Google Scholar
Scodel, R. (2014a) ‘Introduction’, in Cairns, D. L. and Scodel, R. (eds.), Defining Greek Narrative. Edinburgh: 1–10.Google Scholar
Scodel, R. (2014b) ‘Narrative focus and elusive thought in Homer’, in Cairns, D. L. and Scodel, R. (eds.), Defining Greek Narrative. Edinburgh: 55–74.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1979) ‘The logical status of fictional discourse’, in Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: 58–75.Google Scholar
Sheppard, A. (2014) The Poetics of Phantasia: Imagination in Ancient Aesthetics. New York.Google Scholar
Sorabji, R. (2006) Self: Ancient and Modern Insights about Individuality, Life and Death. Chicago.Google Scholar
Sorabji, R. (2008) ‘Greco-Roman varieties of self’, in Remes, P. and Sihvola, J. (eds.), Ancient Philosophy of the Self. New York: 13–34.Google Scholar
Sourvinou-Inwood, C. (1979) Theseus as Son and Stepson: A Tentative Illustration of Greek Mythological Mentality. London.Google Scholar
Spearing, A. C. (2005) Textual Subjectivity: The Encoding of Subjectivity in Medieval Narratives and Lyrics. Oxford.Google Scholar
Stenger, J. R. (2016) ‘Athens and/or Jerusalem? Basil’s and Chrysostom’s views on the didactic use of literature and stories’, in Gemeinhardt, P., Hoof, L. v. and van Nuffelen, P. (eds.), Education and Religion in Late Antique Christianity. London: 86–99.Google Scholar
Struck, P. T. (2016) Divination and Human Nature: A Cognitive History of Intuition in Classical Antiquity. Princeton.Google Scholar
Swain, S. (1996) Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World, ad 50–250. Oxford.Google Scholar
Tagliabue, A. (2015) ‘Heliodorus’s Aethiopica and the Odyssean Mnesterophonia: An intermedial reading’, TAPhA, 145/2: 445–68.Google Scholar
Tagliabue, A. (2017) Xenophon’s Ephesiaca: A Paraliterary Love-Story from the Ancient World. Groningen.Google Scholar
Telò, M. (2011) ‘The eagle’s gaze in the opening of Heliodorus’ “Aethiopica”’, AJPh, 132/4: 581–613.Google Scholar
Thalmann, W. (2014) ‘Review of Irene J.F. de Jong (ed.), Space in Ancient Greek Literature. Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative 3’, JHS, 134: 175–6.Google Scholar
Thiemann, A. (2019) ‘Postmodernity’, in Wagner-Egelhaaf, M. (ed.), Handbook of Autobiography/Autofiction. Berlin: 778–804.Google Scholar
Tilg, S. (2017) ‘Eine Gattung ohne Namen, Theorie und feste Form: Der griechische Roman als literaturgeschichtliche Herausforderung’, in Grethlein, J. and Rengakos, A. (eds.), Griechische Literaturgeschichtsschreibung: Traditionen, Probleme und Konzepte. Berlin: 83–101.Google Scholar
Tilg, S. (2019) ‘Autor und Erzähler – Antike’, in von Contzen, E. and Tilg, S. (eds.), Handbuch historische Narratologie. Berlin: 69–81.Google Scholar
van Emde Boas, E. (2018) ‘Aeschylus’, in de Temmermann, K. and van Emde Boas, E. (eds.), Characterization in Ancient Greek Literature. Leiden: 317–36.Google Scholar
Veyne, P. (1988) Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths? An Essay on the Constitutive Imagination. Chicago.Google Scholar
Vlahos, J. B. (2011) ‘Homer’s Odyssey: Penelope and the case for early recognition’, College Literature, 38: 1–75.Google Scholar
Vogt-Spira, G. (2020) ‘Review of S. Feddern, Der antike Fiktionalitätsdiskurs’, Anzeiger für die Altertumswissenschaft, 73/1: 8–18.Google Scholar
Vogt-Spira, G. (2022) ‘Secundum verum fingere: Wirklichkeitsnachahmung, Imagination und Fiktionalität. Epistemologische Überlegungen zur hellenistisch-römischen Literaturkonzeption’, in Studien zur römischen Anthropologie. Freiburg: 95–118.Google Scholar
von Contzen, E. (2014) ‘Why we need a medieval narratology: A manifesto’, Diegesis, 3/2: 1–21.Google Scholar
von Contzen, E. (2015) ‘Why medieval literature does not need the concept of social minds: Exemplarity and collective experience’, Narrative, 23: 140–54.Google Scholar
von Contzen, E. (2018) ‘Diachrone Narratologie und historische Erzählforschung: Eine Bestandsaufnahme und ein Plädoyer’, Beiträge zur mediävistischen Erzählforschung, 1: 18–38.Google Scholar
von Contzen, E. and Tilg, S. (2020) ‘Fictionality before fictionality? Historicizing a modern concept’, in Fludernik, M. and Nielsen, H. S. (eds.), Traveling Concepts: New Fictionality Studies. Berlin: 91–114.Google Scholar
von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. (1927) Die Heimkehr des Odysseus: Neue homerische Untersuchungen. Berlin.Google Scholar
Wagner, F. (2002) ‘Glissements et déphasages: Note sur la métalepse narrative’, Poétique, 130: 235–53.Google Scholar
Walker, A. D. (1993) ‘Enargeia and the spectator in Greek historiography’, TAPhA, 123: 353–77.Google Scholar
Walsh, G. B. (1984) The Varieties of Enchantment: Early Greek Views of the Nature and Function of Poetry. Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Walsh, R. (2007) The Rhetoric of Fictionality: Narrative Theory and the Idea of Fiction. Columbus.Google Scholar
Walton, K. L. (1990) Mimesis as Make-Believe: On the Foundations of the Representational Arts. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Webb, R. (2009) Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice. Farnham.Google Scholar
Webb, R. (2016) ‘Sight and insight: Theorizing vision, emotion and imagination in ancient rhetoric’, in Squire, M. (ed.), Sight and the Ancient Senses. London: 205–19.Google Scholar
White, H. (1975) Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Baltimore.Google Scholar
Whitmarsh, T. (2001) Greek Literature and the Roman Empire: The Politics of Imitation. Oxford.Google Scholar
Whitmarsh, T. (2011) Narrative and Identity in the Ancient Greek Novel: Returning Romance. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Whitmarsh, T. (2013) ‘An I for an I: Reading fictional autobiography’, in Marmodoro, A. and Hill, J. (eds.), The Author’s Voice in Classical and Late Antiquity. Oxford: 233–47.Google Scholar
Winkler, J. J. (1985) Auctor & Actor: A Narratological Reading of Apuleius’s Golden Ass. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Winkler, J. J. (1990) The Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece. New York.Google Scholar
Winkler, J. J. (1999) ‘The mendacity of Kalasiris and the narrative strategy of Heliodoros’ Aithiopika’, in Swain, S. (ed.), Oxford Readings in the Greek Novel. Oxford: 286–350.Google Scholar
Wolf, W. (1993) Ästhetische Illusion und Illusionsdurchbrechung in der Erzählkunst. Theorie und Geschichte mit Schwerpunkt auf englischem illusionsstörenden Erzählen. Anglia xxxii. Tübingen.Google Scholar
Wolf, W. (2008) ‘Is aesthetic illusion “illusion référentielle”? “Immersion” in (narrative) representations and its relationship to fictionality and factuality’, Journal of Literary Theory, 2/1: 99–126.Google Scholar
Wright, D. H. (1993) Der Vergilius Vaticanus: Ein Meisterwerk spätantiker Kunst. Graz.Google Scholar
Zanker, G. (1981) ‘Enargeia in the ancient criticism of poetry’, RhM, 124/3–4: 297–311.Google Scholar
Zeitlin, F. I. (1991) ‘Introduction’, in Vernant, J.-P.. and Zeitlin, F. I. (eds.), Mortals and Immortals: Collected Essays. Princeton: 3–26.Google Scholar
Zipfel, F. (2001) Fiktion, Fiktivität, Fiktionalität: Analysen zur Fiktion in der Literatur und zum Fiktionsbegriff in der Literaturwissenschaft. Berlin.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., Racine, T. P., Sinha, C. and Itkonen, E. (eds.) (2008) The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Zunshine, L. (2011) ‘1700–1775: Theory of Mind, social hierarchy, and the emergence of narrative subjectivity’, in Herman, D. (ed.), The Emergence of Mind: Representations of Consciousness in Narrative Discourse in English. Lincoln, NE: 161–86.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. (2004) ‘The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension’, in Ross, B. H. (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation 44. New York: 35–62.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. (2014) ‘Embodiment and language comprehension: Reframing the discussion’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18/5: 229–34.Google Scholar