Book contents
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures and Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Canons
- Chapter 3 Periodisations
- Chapter 4 Author and Identity
- Chapter 5 Intertextuality
- Chapter 6 Mediaeval Latin
- Chapter 7 Neo-Latin
- Chapter 8 Reception
- Chapter 9 National Traditions
- Chapter 10 Editing
- Chapter 11 Latin Literature and Linguistics
- Chapter 12 Latin Literature and Material Culture
- Chapter 13 Philosophy
- Chapter 14 Political Thought
- Chapter 15 Latin Literature and Roman History
- Chapter 16 Latin Literature and Greek
- Envoi
- Index Locorum
- General Index
- References
Chapter 2 - Canons
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 January 2024
Book contents
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures and Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Canons
- Chapter 3 Periodisations
- Chapter 4 Author and Identity
- Chapter 5 Intertextuality
- Chapter 6 Mediaeval Latin
- Chapter 7 Neo-Latin
- Chapter 8 Reception
- Chapter 9 National Traditions
- Chapter 10 Editing
- Chapter 11 Latin Literature and Linguistics
- Chapter 12 Latin Literature and Material Culture
- Chapter 13 Philosophy
- Chapter 14 Political Thought
- Chapter 15 Latin Literature and Roman History
- Chapter 16 Latin Literature and Greek
- Envoi
- Index Locorum
- General Index
- References
Summary
Moving between an analysis of the canon as a critical mechanism and a focus on the physical limits and definition of Latin literature, the chapter reviews the very discourse of the canon and its impact on the field. The ‘canonised’ nature of Classics determines not just a hierarchy of texts and methodologies worthier of being taught and researched but also informs the very approach to non-canonical or ‘para-canonical’ texts. Any canon, in other words, is not just about what we study, it is also about how we study it. Opening up the canon is a dynamic and self-reinforcing process and one which involves both readers who embody difference (social, racial, gender etc.) accessing and studying an expanded and evolving canon, and texts that embody difference (peripheral, post-classical, marginal etc.) being ‘read into’ the canon by an increasingly diverse readership. Interrogating our canon of Latin literature, this chapter argues, implies a fundamental repositioning of one’s scholarly stance not just towards non-canonical texts but also towards canonical authors.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature , pp. 43 - 96Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Adler, E. (2020) The Battle of the Classics: How a Nineteenth-Century Debate Can Save the Humanities Today, New York and Oxford.Google Scholar
Appiah, K. A. (2009) ‘Whose culture is it?’, in Cuomo, J, ed., Whose Culture: The Promise of Museums and the Debate over Antiquities (Princeton), 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apter, E. S. (2013) Against World Literature: On the Politics of Untranslatability, London.Google Scholar
Arnold, M. (1869) Culture and Anarchy: An Essay in Political and Social Criticism, London.Google Scholar
Arnold, M. (1895) ‘The function of criticism at the present time’, in Arnold, and Pater 1895, 3–86.Google Scholar
Arnold, M. and Pater, W. (1895) The Function of Criticism at the Present Time and An Essay on Style, New York and London.Google Scholar
Augoustakis, A. (2010) Motherhood and the Other: Fashioning Female Power in Flavian Epic, Oxford.Google Scholar
Barbantani, S. (1993) ‘I poeti lirici del canone alessandrino nell’epigrammatistica’, Aevum(ant) 6: 5–97.Google Scholar
Barnard, H. L. (2017) Empire of Ruin: Black Classicism and American Imperial Culture, Oxford.Google Scholar
Barchiesi, A. (2002) Review of Von Göttern und Menschen erzählen. Formkonstanzen und Funktionswandel vormoderner Epik. Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftliche Beiträge (ed. Barcelò, P, Riemer, P, Rüpke, J, and Scheid, J), BMCRev 2002.06.26.Google Scholar
Barton, W. M. (2018) The Pervigilium Veneris: A New Critical Text, Translation and Commentary, London and New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battistoni, F. (2006) ‘The ancient pinakes from Tauromenion: some new readings’, ZPE 157: 169–80.Google Scholar
Bell, D. (2011) The Reforming of General Education: The Columbia Experience in its National Setting, New Brunswick and London.Google Scholar
Blum, R. (1991) Kallimachos: The Alexandrian Library and the Origins of Bibliography, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
Bond, S. (2018) ‘What is “the West”? Addressing the controversy over HUM110 at Reed College’, Society for Classical Study Blog, https://classicalstudies.org/scs-blog/sarah-bond/blog-what-west-addressing-controversy-over-hum110-reed-college, accessed 6 June 2019.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1993) The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bowersock, G. W. (2011) ‘The tremendous, ferocious Bentley’, in The New York Review of Books 24.11.2011.Google Scholar
Casali, S. (2004) ‘Nisus and Euryalus: exploiting the contradictions in Virgil’s Doloneia’, HSPh 102: 319–54.Google Scholar
Chaddock, K. R. (2002) ‘A canon of democratic intent: reinterpreting the roots of the Great Books movement’, The History of Higher Education Annual 22: 5–32.Google Scholar
Chin, C. (2008) Grammar and Christianity in the Late Roman World, Philadelphia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citroni, M. (2005) ‘The concept of the classical and the canons of model authors in Roman literature’, in Porter 2006, 204–36.Google Scholar
Clinton, H. (1854) Literary Remains of Henry Fynes Clinton Consisting of an Autobiography and a Literary Journal and Brief Essays on Theological Subjects, London.Google Scholar
Coetzee, J. M. (2011) ‘What is a classic?’, Current Writing: Text and Reception in Southern Africa 5: 7–24.Google Scholar
Connolly, J. (2007) ‘Being Greek/being Roman: Hellenism and assimilation in the Roman empire’, Millennium: Jahrbuch zu Kultur und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends n. Chr./Yearbook on the Culture and History of the First Millennium C.E. 4: 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connors, C. (2008) ‘Politics and spectacle’, in Whitmarsh, T., ed., The Cambridge Companion to the Greek and Roman Novel (Cambridge), 162–84.Google Scholar
Conybeare, C. (2020) ‘Virgil, creator of the world’, in Conybeare, C and Goldhill, S, eds., Classical Philology and Theology: Entanglement, Disavowal and the God-Like Scholar (Cambridge), 180–98.Google Scholar
Copeland, R. and Sluiter, I. (2009) Medieval Grammar and Rhetoric: Language Arts and Literary Theory, ad 300–1475, Oxford.Google Scholar
Coss, J. (1919) ‘The new freshman course at Columbia College’, Columbia University Quarterly 21: 248.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
Cotton, H. and Eck, W. (2005) ‘Josephus’ Roman audience: Josephus and the Roman elites’, in Edmondson, J., Mason, S. and Rives, J., eds., Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (Oxford), 37–52.Google Scholar
Crummell, A. (1897) ‘The attitude of the American mind toward the negro intellect’, American Negro Academy 3: 8–19. Reprinted in Oldfield, J. R., ed.,Civilization and Black Progress: Selected Writings of Alexander Crummell on the South (Charlottesville, VA, 1995), 204–13.Google Scholar
Eliot, T. S. (1974) What Is a Classic? An Address Delivered before the Virgil Society on the 16th of October, 1944, New York.Google Scholar
Elsner, J. (2004) ‘Late antique art: the problem of the concept and the cumulative aesthetic’, in Swain, S and Edwards, M, eds., Approaching Late Antiquity: The Transformation from Early to Late Empire (Cambridge), 271–309.Google Scholar
Fabricius, Io. Alb. (1697) Bibliotheca Latina sive notitia auctorum veterum latinorum quorumcumque scripta ad nos pervenerunt, Hamburg.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. (2002) ‘Greek lives and Roman careers in the classical vita tradition’, in Cheney, P and de Armas, F. A, eds., European Literary Careers: The Author from Antiquity to the Renaissance (Toronto), 24–45.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. (2003) ‘Classical genre in theory and practice’, New Literary History 34: 383–408.Google Scholar
Feeney, D. (2016) Beyond Greek: The Beginnings of Latin Literature, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felson, N. (2016) ‘Appropriating ancient Greek myths: strategies and caveats’, Studies in Gender and Sexuality 17: 126–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, S. (1982) Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Formisano, M. (2007) ‘Towards an aesthetic paradigm of late antiquity’, AntTard 15: 277–84.Google Scholar
Formisano, M. (2014) ‘Reading décadence: reception and the subaltern late antiquity’, in Formisano, M and Fuhrer, T, eds., Décadence: ‘Decline and Fall’ or ‘Other Antiquity’? (Heidelberg), 7–18.Google Scholar
Formisano, M. (2018) ‘Marginality and the Classics: explaining extraneousness’, in Formisano and Kraus 2018, 1–28.Google Scholar
Formisano, M. and Kraus, C., eds. (2018) Marginality, Canonicity, Passion, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganiban, R. (2007) Statius and Virgil: The Thebaid and the Reinterpretation of the Aeneid, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genette, G. (1997) Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation (Literature, Culture, Theory), Cambridge.Google Scholar
Ghosh, A. (1998) ‘The march of the novel through history: the testimony of my grandfather’s bookcase’, The Kenyon Review 20: 13–24.Google Scholar
Gianotti, G. F. (2003) ‘La storiografia letteraria: il paradigma della letteratura latina’, in Casarsa, L., Cristante, L. and Fernandelli, M., eds., Culture europee e tradizione latina (Trieste), 65–87.Google Scholar
Gildenhard, I. (2003) ‘The “annalist” before the annalists: Ennius and his Annales’, in Eigler, U., ed., Formen römischer Geschichtsschreibung von den Anfängen bis Livius: Gattungen, Autoren, Kontexte (Darmstadt), 93–114.Google Scholar
Gildenhard, I. (2010) ‘Buskins & SPQR: Roman receptions of Greek tragedy’, in Revermann, M, ed., Beyond the Fifth Century: Interactions with Greek Tragedy from the Fourth Century bce to the Middle Ages (Berlin), 153–86.Google Scholar
Goldhill, S., ed. (2001) Being Greek under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Goodyear, F. (1983) Review of Oxford Latin Dictionary, ed. P. G. Glare, Oxford 1968–82, PACA 17: 124–36.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
Gow, A. and Page, D. (1968) The Greek Anthology: Garland of Philip and Some Contemporary Epigrams, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Graff, G. (1992) Beyond the Culture Wars: How Teaching the Conflicts Can Revitalize American Education, New York.Google Scholar
Grafton, A. (1990) Forgers and Critics: Creativity and Duplicity in Western Scholarship, Princeton.Google Scholar
Grafton, A., Most, G. and Zetzel, J. (1985) Wolf, F. A. Prolegomena to Homer, 1795. Translated with Introduction and Notes, Princeton.Google Scholar
Grafton, A. and Weinberg, J. (2011) I Have Always Loved the Holy Tongue: Isaac Casaubon, the Jews, and a Forgotten Chapter in Renaissance Scholarship, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, E., (2010) Afro-Greeks: Dialogues between Anglophone Caribbean Literature and Classics in the Twentieth Century, Oxford.Google Scholar
Greenwood, E. (2016) ‘Reception studies: the cultural mobility of classics’, Daedalus 145: 41–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, E., ed. (2022) Diversifying Classical Philology, 2 vols., Baltimore, MD (= AJPh 143.2 and 143.4).Google Scholar
Greetham, D. (1991) ‘[Textual] criticism and deconstruction’, Studies in Bibliography 44: 1–30.Google Scholar
Guillory, J. (2013) Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation, Chicago.Google Scholar
Gurd, S. (2005) Iphigenias at Aulis: Textual Multiplicity, Radical Philology, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Güthenke, C. and Holmes, B. (2018) ‘Hyperinclusivity, hypercanonicity, and the future of the field’, in Formisano and Kraus 2018, 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hägg, T. (2010) ‘Canon formation in Greek literary culture’, in Thomassen, E, ed., Canon and Canonicity: The Formation and Use of Scripture (Copenhagen), 109–28.Google Scholar
Hairston, E. A. (2013) The Ebony Column: Classics, Civilization and the African American Reclamation of the West, Knoxville, TN.Google Scholar
Haley, S. (2009) ‘Be not afraid of the dark: critical race theory and classical studies’, in Nasrallah, L and Schüssler Fiorenza, E, eds., Prejudice and Christian Beginnings: Investigating Race, Gender and Ethnicity in Early Christian Studies (Minneapolis), 27–50.Google Scholar
Hall, E. (2008a) ‘Putting the class into classical reception’, in Hardwick and Stray 2008, 386–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, E. (2008b) ‘Navigating the realms of gold: translation as access route to the Classics’, in Lianeri, A and Zajko, V, eds., Translation and the Classics: Identity as Change in the History of Culture (Oxford), 315–40.Google Scholar
Hardie, P. (1993) The Epic Successors of Virgil: A Study in the Dynamics of Traditions, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hardwick, L. (2013) ‘Against the democratic turn: counter-texts, counter-context, counter-arguments’, in Hardwick, L and Harrison, S. J, eds., Classics in the Modern World: A Democratic Turn? (Oxford), 15–32.Google Scholar
Hauser, E. (2018) ‘“There is another story”: writing after the Odyssey in Margaret Atwood’s The Penelopiad’, Classical Receptions Journal 10: 109–26.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. (2013) ‘The Carmina Einsidlensia and Calpurnius Siculus’ Eclogues’, in Buckley, E. and Dinter, M., eds., A Companion to the Neronian Age (Oxford), 170–87.Google Scholar
Holzberg, N. (2004) ‘Impersonating the banished philosopher Pseudo-Seneca’s Liber Epigrammaton’, HSPh 102: 423–44.Google Scholar
Horsfall, N. (1997) ‘Criteria for the dating of Calpurnius Siculus’, RFIC 125: 166–97.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. (2002) ‘The sense of an author: Theocritus and [Theocritus]’, in Kraus, C and Gibson, R, eds., The Classical Commentary: Histories, Practice, Theory (Leiden and New York), 89–108.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G. O. (2009) ‘Read the instructions: didactic poetry and didactic prose’, CQ 59: 196–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jauss, K. (1985) ‘The identity of the poetic text in the changing horizon of understanding’, in Valdes, M. and Miller, O., eds., The Identity of the Literary Text (Toronto), 146–74.Google Scholar
Joshel, S. and Murnaghan, S., eds. (2005) Women and Slaves in Greco-Roman Culture: Differential Equations, London and New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karakasis, E. (2016) T. Calpurnius Siculus: A Pastoral Poet in Neronian Rome, Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, N. M. (2013) Epigrams from the Anthologia Latina: Text, Translation and Commentary, London.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. A. (2001) ‘The origin and concept of the canon and its application to the Greek and Latin classics’, in Gorak, J, ed., Canon vs. Culture: Reflections on the Current Debate (New York and London), 105–16.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. A. (2002) ‘Cicero’s oratorical and rhetorical legacy’, in May, J. M., ed., Brill’s Companion to Cicero: Oratory and Rhetoric (Boston), 481–501.Google Scholar
Kennedy, R. F., Roy, C. S. and Goldman, M. L. (2013) Race and Ethnicity in the Classical World: An Anthology of Primary Sources in Translation, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
Kenney, E. J. (2006) Review of S. Di Brazzano (ed.), Laus Pisonis. Introduzione, edizione critica, traduzione e commento, CR 56: 119–21.Google Scholar
Kenney, E. J. and Clausen, W. V. (1982) The Cambridge History of Classical Literature. Vol. 2, Latin Literature, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kermode, F. (1983) The Classic: Literary Images of Permanence and Change, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
König, A., Langlands, R. and Uden, J. (2020) Literature and Culture in the Roman Empire, 96–235: Cross-Cultural Interactions, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, J. and Whitmarsh, T., eds. (2007) Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Krebs, C. (2012) A Most Dangerous Book: Tacitus’s Germania from the Roman Empire to the Third Reich, New York.Google Scholar
Lacy, T. (2008) ‘Dreams of a democratic culture: revising the origins of the Great Books idea, 1869–1921’, The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 7: 397–441.Google Scholar
Lee, B. T., Finkelpearl, E. and Graverini, L., eds. (2014) Apuleius and Africa, New York.Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, M. and Fant, M., eds. (2016) Women’s Life in Ancient Greece and Rome: A Source Book in Translation, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Leonard, M. (2012) Socrates and the Jews: Hellenism and Hebraism from Moses Mendelssohn to Sigmund Freud, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liveley, G. (2006) ‘Surfing the third wave? Postfeminism and the hermeneutics of reception’, in Martindale, C. and Thomas, R., eds., Classics and the Uses of Reception (Malden), 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lössl, J. and Watt, J. (2011) Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad, Farnham.Google Scholar
MacCormack, S. (1998) The Shadows of Poetry: Vergil in the Mind of Augustine, Berkeley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martindale, C. (2013) ‘Reception – a new humanism? Receptivity, pedagogy, the transhistorical’, Classical Receptions Journal 5: 169–83.Google Scholar
McCoskey, D. (2019) ‘The subjects of slavery in 19th-century American Latin schoolbooks’, CJ 115: 88–113.Google Scholar
Metzger, B. M. (1997) The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance, Oxford.Google Scholar
Milnor, A. (2008) Gender, Domesticity, and the Age of Augustus: Inventing Private Life, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moatti, C. (2015) The Birth of Critical Thinking in Republican Rome, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohr, A. (2007) ‘Jerome, Virgil, and the captive maiden: the attitude of Jerome to classical literature’, in Scourfield, D, ed., Texts and Culture in Late Antiquity: Inheritance, Authority, and Change (Swansea), 299–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Möller, M. (2004) Talis oratio – qualis vita: Zu Theorie und Praxis mimetischer Verfahren in der griechisch-römischen Literaturkritik, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Morrison, T. (1989) ‘Unspeakable things unspoken: the Afro-American presence in American Literature’, Michigan Quarterly Review 28.1: 1–34.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, A. (2013) What Is a Classic? Postcolonial Rewriting and Invention of the Canon, Stanford.Google Scholar
Najman, H. (2017) ‘Ethical reading: the transformation of the text and the self’, JThS 68: 507–29.Google Scholar
Nervegna, S. (2007) ‘Staging scenes or plays? Theatrical revivals of “old” Greek drama in antiquity’, ZPE 162: 14–42.Google Scholar
Netz, R. (2020) Scale, Space and Canon in Ancient Literary Culture, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niehoff, M., ed. (2012) Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters, Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, D. and Millis, B. (2012) Inscriptional Records for the Dramatic Festivals in Athens: IG II2 2318–2325 and Related Texts, Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppel, H. (1937) Kanon: Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte des Wortes und seiner lateinischen Entsprechungen, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Peirano, I. (2012a) The Rhetoric of the Roman Fake: Latin Pseudepigrapha in Context, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Peirano, I. (2012b) ‘Authenticity as an aesthetic value: ancient and modern reflections’, in Sluiter, I. and Rosen, R., eds., Aesthetic Value in Classical Antiquity (Leiden), 215–42.Google Scholar
Pelttari, A. (2014) The Space that Remains: Reading Latin Poetry in Late Antiquity, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, R. (1968) History of Classical Scholarship: From the Beginning to the End of the Hellenistic Age, Oxford.Google Scholar
Pocock, J. (1977) ‘Gibbon’s decline and fall and the world view of the late Enlightenment’, Eighteenth-Century Studies 10: 287–303.Google Scholar
Porter, J. (2005) ‘What is “classical” about classical antiquity? Eight propositions’, Arion 13: 27–62.Google Scholar
Porter, J., ed. (2006) Classical Pasts: The Classical Traditions of Greece and Rome, Princeton.Google Scholar
Preston, R. (2001) ‘Roman questions, Greek answers: Plutarch and the construction of identity’, in Goldhill 2001, 86–119.Google Scholar
Rankine, P. D. (2019) ‘The classics, race, and community-engaged or public scholarship’, AJPh 140: 345–59.Google Scholar
Rankine, P. D. (2020) ‘Classics for all? Liberal education and the matter of Black Lives’, in Moyer, I., Lecznar, A. and Morse, H., eds., Classicisms in the Black Atlantic (Oxford), 265–89.Google Scholar
Reynolds, L. D. (1983a) ‘Eutropius’ and ‘Justinus’ in Reynolds 1983b, 159–62 and 197–9.Google Scholar
Reynolds, L. D., ed. (1983b) Texts and Transmission: A Survey of Latin Classics, Oxford.Google Scholar
Rich, A. (1972) ‘When we dead awaken: writing as re-vision’, College English 34: 18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard, C. J. (1994) The Founders and the Classics: Greece, Rome and the American Enlightenment, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Richlin, A. (2014) Arguments with Silence: Writing the History of Roman Women, Ann Arbor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggsby, A. (2019) Mosaics of Knowledge: Representing Information in the Roman World, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roman, L. (2001) ‘The representation of literary materiality in Martial’s Epigrams’, JRS 91: 113–45.Google Scholar
Rondholz, A. (2012) The Versatile Needle: Hosidius Geta’s Cento Medea and Its Tradition, Berlin.Google Scholar
Ronnick, M. V., ed. (2005) The Autobiography of William Sanders Scarborough: An American Journey from Slavery to Scholarship, Detroit.Google Scholar
Russell, D. A. (1979) ‘De imitatione’, in Woodman, T. and West, D. A., eds., Creative Imitation and Latin Literature (Cambridge), 1–16.Google Scholar
Rutherford, I. (1999) Canons of Style in the Antonine Age: Idea-Theory and Its Literary Context, Oxford.Google Scholar
Seo, M. (2019) ‘Classics for all: future antiquity from a global perspective’, AJPh 140: 699–715.Google Scholar
Shanzer, D. (2012) ‘Augustine and the Latin classics’, in Vessey, M., ed., A Companion to Augustine (Malden), 161–74.Google Scholar
Sheets, K. B. (2005) ‘Antiquity bound: the Loeb Classical Library as middlebrow culture in the early twentieth century’, The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 4: 149–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuger, D. K. (1994) The Renaissance Bible: Scholarship, Sacrifice, and Subjectivity, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Sluiter, I. (2000) ‘The dialectics of genre: some aspects of secondary literature and genre in antiquity’, in Depew, M. and Obbink, D., eds., Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons and Society (Cambridge, MA), 183–204.Google Scholar
Smith, B. H. (1988) Contingencies of Value: Alternative Perspectives for Critical Theory, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Stephens, S. A. and Vasunia, P. (2010) Classics and National Cultures, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, A. (1978) ‘The canon of Polykleitos: a question of evidence’, JHS 98: 122–31.Google Scholar
Stok, F. (2012) ‘Commenting on Virgil, from Aelius Donatus to Servius’, Dead Sea Discoveries 19: 464–84.Google Scholar
Stray, C. (2018) Classics in Britain: Scholarship, Education, and Publishing 1800–2000, Oxford.Google Scholar
Swain, S. (2010) Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World, ad 50–250, Oxford.Google Scholar
Telò, M. (2016) Aristophanes and the Cloak of Comedy: Affect, Aesthetics, and the Canon, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trivedi, H. (2007) ‘Western classics, Indian classics: postcolonial contestations’, in Hardwick, L. and Gillespie, C., eds., Classics in Post-Colonial Worlds (Oxford), 286–304.Google Scholar
Turner, J. (2000) Philology: The Forgotten Origins of the Modern Humanities, Princeton.Google Scholar
Vardi, A. (2000) ‘An anthology of early Latin epigrams? A ghost reconsidered’, CQ 50: 147–58.Google Scholar
Whitmarsh, T. (2013) Beyond the Second Sophistic: Adventures in Greek Postclassicism, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., ed. (1905) Die griechische und lateinische Literatur und Sprache, Berlin.Google Scholar
Winterer, C. (2002) The Culture of Classicism: Ancient Greece and Rome in American Intellectual Life, 1780–1910, Baltimore.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witty, F. J. (1958) ‘The Pínakes of Callimachus’, The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy 28: 132–6.Google Scholar
Wolf, F. A. (1787) Geschichte der römischen Litteratur nebst biographischen und litterarischen Nachrichten von den lateinischen Schriftstellern, ihren Werken und Ausgaben, Halle.Google Scholar
Wolf, F. A. (1834) Vorlesung über die geschichte der römischen literatur (ed. Gürtler, J. D), Leipzig.Google Scholar
Woolf, G. (1994) ‘Becoming Roman, staying Greek: culture, identity and the civilizing process in the Roman east’, The Cambridge Classical Journal 40: 116–43.Google Scholar
Woolf, G. (2003) ‘The city of letters’, in Edwards, C. and Woolf, G., eds., Rome the Cosmopolis (Cambridge), 203–21.Google Scholar
Worthington, I. (1994) ‘The canon of the ten Attic orators’, in Worthington, I, ed., Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action (Routledge), 244–63.Google Scholar
Yale University (1828) Reports on the Course of Instruction in Yale College by a Committee of the Corporation and the Academical Faculty, New Haven.Google Scholar
Zajko, V. (2008) ‘What difference was made? Feminist models of reception’, in Hardwick and Stray 2008, 195–206.Google Scholar
Zetzel, J. (1980) ‘Horace’s Liber sermonum: the structure of ambiguity’, Arethusa 13: 59–77.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
Zetzel, J. (2005) Marginal Scholarship and Textual Deviance: The Commentum Cornuti and Early Scholia on Persius, London.Google Scholar
Zetzel, J. (2018) Critics, Compilers and Commentators: An Introduction to Roman Philology, 200 bce–800 ce, Oxford.Google Scholar