Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:25:48.573Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 4 - Author and Identity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2024

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

Summary

This chapter addresses problems in the philosophy of interpretation with regard to Latin authors. Its central question is what we mean by the ‘author’. The history of ‘persona’, the notion that the speaker in first-person literature and by extension the image of the author presented in any text is a ‘mask’, is explored for its theoretical and interpretive value, but also critiqued for the potential ethical and political issues it raises. The author should be considered not a window onto the life of the flesh-and-blood Roman, but rather as a construct arising in part, but only in part, from an initial human consciousness living in a specific historical place and time, then developed through a dynamic process of reception. The battle for the life and soul of the author is the story of interpretation, in which the question of the extent to which ‘original intention’ can or should be the goal of exegesis was one of the great controversies of the 20th century and remains a creatively unsolvable problem. I argue that there are certain kinds of readings which are rightly and explicitly situated outside the scope of ‘original intention’, of which I take feminist readings as exemplary.

Keywords

authorreaderintentionpersonameaningfictionalityintersectionalitygender
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature , pp. 158 - 207
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, H. P. (2011) ‘Reading intended meaning where none is intended: a cognitivist reappraisal of the implied author’, Poetics Today 32: 461–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, W. S. (1964) ‘Anger in Juvenal and Seneca’, University of California Publications in Classical Philology 19: 127–96.Google Scholar
Anderson, W. S. (1982) Essays in Satire, Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, R. (2005) Ovid and His Love Poetry, London.Google Scholar
Ash, R. (2013) ‘Drip-feed invective: Pliny, self-fashioning, and the Regulus letters’, in Marmodoro and Hill 2013, 207–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barthes, R. (1975) The Pleasure of the Text (trans. R. Miller), New York.Google Scholar
Barthes, R. (1977) Image – Music – Text: Essays Selected and Translated by Stephen Heath, London.Google Scholar
Bartsch, S. (2006) The Mirror of the Self: Sexuality, Self-Knowledge, and the Gaze in the Early Empire, Chicago.Google Scholar
Bartsch, S. and Schiesaro, A., eds. (2015) The Cambridge Companion to Seneca, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batstone, W. W. (2018) ‘Sulpicia and the speech of men’, in Frangoulidis, S. and Harrison, S. J., eds., Life, Love and Death in Latin Poetry (Berlin), 85–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beard, M. (2002) ‘Ciceronian correspondences: making a book out of letters’, in Wiseman, T. P., ed., Classics in Progress: Essays on Ancient Greece and Rome (Oxford), 103–44.Google Scholar
Bennett, A. (2005) The Author, the New Critical Idiom, Abingdon.Google Scholar
Bennett, A. and Royle, N. (2016) An Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory, 5th edn, London and New York.Google Scholar
Bertens, H. (2014) Literary Theory: The Basics, 3rd edn, Abingdon.Google Scholar
Booth, W. C. (1961) The Rhetoric of Fiction, Chicago.Google Scholar
Braund, S. M. (1996) The Roman Satirists and Their Masks, London.Google Scholar
Burke, S. (1995) Authorship, from Plato to the Post-Modern: A Reader, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Churchill, L. J., Brown, P. R. and Jeffrey, J. E., eds. (2002) Women Writing Latin in Roman Antiquity, Late Antiquity and the Early Christian Era, New York.Google Scholar
Clay, D. (1998) ‘Theory of the literary persona in antiquity’, MD 40: 9–40.Google Scholar
Drinkwater, M. (2013) ‘Militia amoris: fighting in love’s army’, in Thorsen, T. S., ed., The Cambridge Companion to Latin Love Elegy (Cambridge), 194–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durling, R. M. (1958) ‘Ovid as praeceptor amoris’, CJ 53: 157–67.Google Scholar
Eagleton, T. (2003) After Theory, London.Google Scholar
Eagleton, T. (2012) The Event of Literature, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
Edmunds, L. (2001) Intertextuality and the Reading of Roman Poetry, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Elliott, R. C. (1982) The Literary Persona, Chicago.Google Scholar
Fabre-Serris, J. (2018) ‘Intratextuality and intratextuality in the Corpus Tibullianum (3.8–18)’, in Harrison, S. J., Frangoulidis, S. and Papanghelis, T., eds., Intratextuality and Latin Literature (Berlin), 67–79.Google Scholar
Farrell, John (2017) The Varieties of Authorial Intention: Literary Theory Beyond the Intentional Fallacy, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Joseph (2019) ‘Virgil’s intertextual personae’, in Martindale, C. and Mac Góráin, F., eds., The Cambridge Companion to Virgil, 2nd edn (Cambridge), 299–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetterley, J. (1978) The Resisting Reader: A Feminist Approach to American Fiction, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
Fish, S. (1991) ‘Biography and intention’, in Epstein, W. H., ed., Contesting the Subject: Essays in the Postmodern Theory and Practice of Biography and Biographical Criticism (West Lafayette, IN), 9–16.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, W. (2000) Slavery and the Roman Literary Imagination, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, R. and Hanink, J., eds. (2016) Creative Lives in Classical Antiquity: Poets, Artists and Biography, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M. (1977) Language, Counter-Memory Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews (ed. Bouchard, D; trans. D. Bouchard and S. Simon), Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Fowler, D. P. (2001) ‘Narrative: introduction’, in Harrison, S. J., ed., Texts, Ideas, and the Classics: Scholarship, Theory, and Classical Literature (Oxford), 65–9.Google Scholar
Freudenberg, K. (2001) Satires of Rome: Threatening Poses from Lucilius to Juvenal, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freudenberg, K. (2005) ‘Introduction’, in Freudenberg, K., ed., The Cambridge Companion to Roman Satire (Cambridge), 1–30.Google Scholar
Fulkerson, L. (2017) A Literary Commentary on the Elegies of the Appendix Tibulliana, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gallia, A. B. (2016) ‘“Some of my best friends”: reading prejudice in Juvenal’s third Satire’, CJ 111: 319–46.Google Scholar
Genette, G. (1997) Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Geue, T. (2019) Author Unknown: The Power of Anonymity in Ancient Rome, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S. and Gubar, S. (1979) The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination, New Haven.Google Scholar
Gill, C. (1988) ‘Personhood and personality: the four-personae theory in Cicero De officiis 1’, OSAPh 6: 169–99.Google Scholar
Glendinning, S. (2011) Derrida: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gloyn, E. (2013) ‘Reading rape in Ovid’s Metamorphoses: a test-case lesson’, CW 106: 676–81.Google Scholar
Gold, B. K., ed. (2012) A Companion to Roman Love Elegy, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, T. (1990) The Ancient Quarrel between Poetry and Philosophy, Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowers, E. (2003) ‘Fragments of autobiography in Horace Satires 1’, ClAnt 22: 55–92.Google Scholar
Green, F. M. (2015) ‘Witnesses and participants in the shadows: the sexual lives of enslaved women and boys’, Helios 42: 143–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, E. (1998) ‘Travesties of love: violence and voyeurism in Ovid Amores 1.7’, CW 92: 409–18.Google Scholar
Greene, E. (2000) ‘Gender identity and the elegiac hero in Propertius 2.1’, Arethusa 33: 241–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurd, S. A. (2011) Work in Progress: Literary Revision as Social Performance in Ancient Rome, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haley, S. P. (1993) ‘Black feminist thought and Classics: re-remembering, re-claiming, re-empowering’, in Rabinowitz, N. S. and Richlin, A., eds., Feminist Theory and the Classics (New York), 23–43.Google Scholar
Hallett, J. P. (1989) ‘Women as same and other in classical Roman elite’, Helios 16: 59–78.Google Scholar
Hallett, J. P. (2002) ‘The eleven elegies of the Augustan poet Sulpicia’, in Churchill, , Brown, and Jeffrey, 2002, 45–65.Google Scholar
Hardie, P. R. and Moore, H., eds. (2010) Classical Literary Careers and Their Reception, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, S. J. (2013) ‘Author and speaker(s) in Horace’s Satires 2’, in Marmodoro, and Hill, 2013: 153–71.Google Scholar
Hauser, E. (2016) ‘Optima tu proprii nominis auctor: the semantics of female authorship in ancient Rome, from Sulpicia to Proba’, Eugesta 6.Google Scholar
Hemelrijk, E. (1999) Matrona docta: Educated Women in the Roman Elite from Cornelia to Julia, London.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. G. W. (1991) ‘Wrapping up the case: reading Ovid, Amores 2.7 (+8) i’, MD 27: 37–88.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. G. W. (1992) ‘Wrapping up the case: reading Ovid, Amores 2.7 (+8) ii’, MD 28: 27–83.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. G. W. (2003) ‘Portrait of the artist as a figure of style: P.L.I.N.Y’s letters’, Arethusa 36: 115–25.Google Scholar
Highet, G. (1974) ‘Masks and faces in satire’, Hermes 102: 321–37.Google Scholar
Hinds, S. (1987) ‘The poetess and the reader: further steps towards Sulpicia’, Hermathena 143: 29–46.Google Scholar
Hirsch, E. D. (1967) Validity in Interpretation, New Haven.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, E. D. (1976) The Aims of Interpretation, Chicago.Google Scholar
Holzberg, N. (1998) ‘Four poets and a poetess or a portrait of the poet as a young man? Thoughts on book 3 of the corpus Tibullianum’, CJ 94: 169–91.Google Scholar
Hubbard, T. K. (2004) ‘The invention of Sulpicia’, CJ 100: 177–94.Google Scholar
Iddeng, J. W. (2005) ‘How shall we comprehend the Roman I-poet?’, C&M 56: 185–205.Google Scholar
Irwin, W. (1999) Intentionalist Interpretation: A Philosophical Explanation and Defence, Westport, CT.Google Scholar
Irwin, W., ed. (2002) The Death and Resurrection of the Author?, Westport, CT.Google Scholar
James, S. L. (1997) ‘Slave-rape and female silence in Ovid’s love poetry,’ Helios 24: 60–76.Google Scholar
James, S. L. (2012) ‘Teaching rape in Roman love elegy, Part II’, in Gold, 2012, 549–57.Google Scholar
Jansen, L., ed. (2014) The Roman Paratext: Frames, Texts, Readers, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, C. C. (2006) Figuring Genre in Roman Satire, Oxford.Google Scholar
Keith, A. M. (1994) ‘Corpus eroticum: elegiac poetics and elegiac puellae in Ovid’s Amores’, CW 88: 27–40.Google Scholar
Keith, A. M. (1999) ‘Slender verse: Roman elegy and ancient rhetorical theory’, Mnemosyne 52: 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keith, A. M. (2006) ‘Critical trends in interpreting Sulpicia’, CW 100: 3–10.Google Scholar
Keith, A. M. (2008) Propertius: Poet of Love and Leisure, Bristol.Google Scholar
Kletke, S. (2016) ‘Why is Sulpicia a woman?’, Mouseion 13: 625–53.Google Scholar
Kutzko, D. (2006) ‘The major importance of a minor poet: Herodas 6 and 7 as a quasi-dramatic diptych’, in Harder, M. A., Regtuit, R. F. and Wakker, C. G., eds., Beyond the Canon (Leuven), 167–84.Google Scholar
Laird, A. (2016) ‘Recognising Virgil’, in Fletcher, and Hanink, 2016, 75–100.Google Scholar
Levinson, J. (1992) ‘Intention and interpretation: a last look’, in Iseminger, G., ed., Intention and Interpretation (Philadelphia), 221–56.Google Scholar
Littlewood, C. A. J. (2015) ‘Theater and theatricality in Seneca’s world’, in Bartsch and Schiesaro 2015, 161–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liveley, G. (1999) ‘Reading resistance in Ovid’s Metamorphoses’, in Barchiesi, A, Hardie, P. R, and Hinds, S. E, eds., Ovidian Transformations: Essays on Ovid’s Metamorphoses and Its Reception (Cambridge), 197–213.Google Scholar
Liveley, G. (2012) ‘Teaching rape in Roman elegy, Part I’, in Gold 2012, 541–8.Google Scholar
Lowrie, M. (2009) Writing, Performance, and Authority in Augustan Rome, Oxford.Google Scholar
Mack, M. (1951) ‘The muse of satire’, Yale Review 41: 80–92.Google Scholar
Marmodoro, A. and Hill, J., eds. (2013) The Author’s Voice in Classical and Late Antiquity, Oxford.Google Scholar
Martelli, F. (2017) ‘The triumph of letters: rewriting Cicero in Ad fam. 15’, JRS 107: 90–115.Google Scholar
Martindale, C. (1993) Redeeming the Text: Latin Poetry and the Hermeneutics of Reception, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. G. (2003a) ‘Persona<l> problems: the literary persona in antiquity revisited’, MD 50: 55–80.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. G. (2003b) ‘Pliny and gloria dicendi’, Arethusa 36: 227–34.Google Scholar
McCarthy, C. (2016) ‘Textual criticism and biblical translation’, in Barclay, J, ed., The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Companion (Princeton), 532–56.Google Scholar
McCutcheon, R. W. (2016) ‘A revisionist history of Cicero’s Letters’, Mouseion 13: 35–63.Google Scholar
McIntosh Snyder, J. (1989) The Woman and the Lyre: Women Writers in Classical Greece and Rome, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Milnor, K. (2002) ‘Sulpicia’s (corpo)reality: elegy, authorship and the body in [Tibullus] 3.13’, ClAnt 21: 259–82.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. J. T., ed. (1985) Against Theory: Literary Studies and the New Pragmatism, Chicago.Google Scholar
Moi, T. (2002) Sexual/Textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory, 2nd edn, London.Google Scholar
Moodie, E. K. (2012) ‘The bully as satirist in Juvenal’s third satire’, AJPh 133: 93–115.Google Scholar
Morello, R. (2003) ‘Pliny and the art of saying nothing’, Arethusa 36: 187–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morello, R. (2008) ‘Segregem eam efficit: Virgil’s Camilla and the scholiasts’, in Casali, S. and Stok, F., eds., Servio: stratificazioni esegetiche e modelli culturali/Servius: Exegetical Stratifications and Cultural Models, Collection Latomus 317 (Brussels), 38–57.Google Scholar
Morrison, A. D. (2013) ‘Authorship and authority in Greek fictional letters’, in Marmodoro, and Hill, 2013, 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nappa, C. (1998) ‘Place settings: convivium, contrast, and persona in Catullus 12 and 13’, AJPh 119: 389–97.Google Scholar
Nichols, M. F. (2009) ‘Social status and the authorial personae of Horace and Vitruvius’, in Houghton, L. B. T. and Wyke, M., eds., Perceptions of Horace: A Roman Poet and His Readers (Cambridge), 109–22.Google Scholar
Nappa, C. (2017) Author and Audience in Vitruvius’ De agricultura, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Oliensis, E. (1998) Horace and the Rhetoric of Authority, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliensis, E. (2014) ‘The paratext of Amores 1: gaming the system’, in Jansen 2014, 206–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Rourke, D. (2018) ‘Make war not love: militia amoris and domestic violence in Roman elegy’, in Gale, M. R. and Scourfield, J. H. D., eds., Texts and Violence in the Roman World (Cambridge), 110–39.Google Scholar
Pandey, N. B. (2018) ‘Caput mundi: female hair as symbolic vehicle of domination in Ovidian love elegy,’ CJ 113: 454–88.Google Scholar
Pasco-Pranger, M. (2012) ‘Duplicitous simplicity in Ovid, Amores 1’, CQ 62: 721–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearcy, L. T. (2006) ‘Erasing Cerinthus: Sulpicia and her audience’, CW 100: 31–6.Google Scholar
Peirano Garrison, I. (2012) The Rhetoric of the Roman Fake: Latin Pseudepigrapha in Context, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirano Garrison, I. (2013) ‘Ille ego qui quondam: on authorial (an)onymity’, in Marmodoro and Hill 2013, 251–85.Google Scholar
Peirano Garrison, I. (2014) ‘Sphragis: paratextual autobiographies’, in Jansen 2014, 224–42.Google Scholar
Perkins, C. A. (2015) ‘The poeta as rusticus in Ovid Amores 1.7’, Helios 42: 267–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plant, I. M. (2004) Women Writers of Ancient Greece and Rome: An Anthology, London and Norman, OK.Google Scholar
Plate, L. (2016) ‘Gynocriticism’, in Naples, N., Wickramasinghe, M. and Wong Wai Ching, A., eds., The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies (Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
De Pretis, A. (2003) ‘“Insincerity,” “facts,” and “epistolarity”: approaches to Pliny’s epistles to Calpurnia’, Arethusa 36: 127–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, B., ed. (2011) Implied Author: Back from the Grave or Simply Dead Again? (= Style 45), DeKalb, IL.Google Scholar
Richlin, A. (1991) ‘Reading Ovid’s rapes’, in Richlin, A., ed., Pornography and Representation in Greece and Rome (Oxford), 158–79.Google Scholar
Rimell, V. (2006) Ovid’s Lovers: Desire, Difference and the Poetic Imagination, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Roman, L. (2014) Poetic Autonomy in Ancient Rome, Oxford.Google Scholar
Salzman-Mitchell, P. (2005) A Web of Fantasies: Gaze, Image, and Gender in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
Schlegel, C. M. (2005) Satire and the Threat of Speech: Horace Satires 1, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
Schmid, W. (2009) ‘Implied author’, in Hühn, P., Pier, J., Schmid, W. and Schönert, J., eds., Handbook of Narratology (Berlin), 161–73.Google Scholar
Sharrock, A. R. (1991) ‘Womanufacture’, JRS 81: 36–49.Google Scholar
Sharrock, A. R. (2000) ‘Constructing characters in Propertius’, Arethusa 33: 263–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharrock, A. R. (2015) ‘Warrior women in Roman epic’, in Keith, A. and Fabre-Serris, J., eds., Women and War in Antiquity (Baltimore), 157–78.Google Scholar
Sharrock, A. R. (2020) ‘Gender and transformation: reading, women, and gender in Ovid’s Metamorphoses’, in Sharrock, A. R., Malm, M. and Möller, D., eds., Ovidian Readings: Transformations of Language, Gender and the Metamorphoses (Oxford), 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharrock, A. R. (2021) 读者与文本身份政治:女性与男性, 读者与文本’ [Identity politics: women and men, readers and texts], (trans. Yi Zeng), in Liu, J., ed., 全球视野下的古罗 马诗人奥维德研究前沿 [The New Frontiers of Research on the Roman Poet Ovid in the Global Context] (Beijing).Google Scholar
Showalter, E. (1977) A Literature of Their Own: British Women Novelists from Brontë to Lessing, Princeton.Google Scholar
Showalter, E. (1979) Towards a Feminist Poetics, London.Google Scholar
Skoie, M. (2002) Reading Sulpicia: Commentaries 1475–1990, Oxford.Google Scholar
Skoie, M. (2012) ‘Corpus Tibullianum, book 3’, in Gold 2012, 86–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spentzou, E. (2002) Readers and Writers in Ovid’s Heroides: Transgressions of Genre and Gender, Oxford.Google Scholar
Stevenson, J. (2005) Women Latin Poets: Language, Gender, and Authority from Antiquity to the Eighteenth Century, Oxford.Google Scholar
Tarrant, R. J. (2016) Texts, Editors, and Readers: Methods and Problems in Latin Textual Criticism, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tempest, K. (2013) ‘An “ethos” of sincerity: echoes of the De republica in Cicero’s Pro Marcello’, G&R 60: 262–80.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. (2001) Virgil and the Augustan Reception, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Thomson, A. (2006) ‘Deconstruction’, in Waugh, 2006a, 298–318.Google Scholar
Turpin, W. (2016) Ovid, Amores Book 1, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Uden, J. (2014) The Invisible Satirist: Juvenal and Second-Century Rome, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhlig, A. (2016) ‘A poetic possession: Pindar’s Lives of the poets’, in Fletcher and Hanink 2016, 103–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volk, K. (2005) ‘Ille ego: (mis)reading Ovid’s elegiac persona’, A&A 51: 83–96.Google Scholar
Watson, P. (1983) ‘Ovid, Amores 2, 7 and 8: the disingenuous defence’, WS 17: 91–103.Google Scholar
Waugh, P., ed. (2006a) Literary Theory and Criticism: An Oxford Guide, Oxford.Google Scholar
Waugh, P. (2006b) ‘Introduction: criticism, theory, and anti-theory’, in Waugh 2006a, 1–33.Google Scholar
White, P. (2010) Cicero in Letters: Epistolary Relations of the Late Republic, Oxford.Google Scholar
Whitmarsh, T. (2013) ‘An I for an I: reading fictional autobiography’, in Marmodoro and Hill 2013, 233–47.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. K. and Beardsley, M. C. (1946) ‘The intentional fallacy’, The Sewanee Review 54: 468–88.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. K. and Beardsley, M. C. (1949) ‘The affective fallacy’, The Sewanee Review 57: 31–55.Google Scholar
Wyke, M. (1987) ‘Written women: Propertius’ scripta puella’, JRS 77: 47–61.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×