Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:09:28.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Roman Epic Theatre? Reception, performance, and the poet in Virgil's Aeneid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

Andrew Laird
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Past responses to ancient literature and the reading practices of previous centuries are of central relevance to the contemporary exegesis of Greek and Roman authors. Professional classicists have at last come to recognise this. However, accounts of reception still tend to engage in a traditional form of Nachleben, as they unselfconsciously describe the extent of classical influences on later literary production. This process of influence is not as straightforward as it may first seem. It is often taken for granted in practice, if not in theory, that the movement is in one direction only – from antiquity to some later point - and also that the ancient text which ‘impacts on’ on the culture of a later period is the same ancient text that we apprehend today. Of course it is never the same text, even leaving aside the problems of transmission. The interaction between a text and its reception in another place, in another time, in another text, is really a dynamic two-way process. That interaction (which has much in common with intertextuality) involves, or is rather constituted by, our own interpretation of it.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 49 , 2003 , pp. 19 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 2003

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Austin, R. G. (1968) ‘Ille ego qui quondam’, CQ 18, 107–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, R. G. (1964) P. Vergili Maronis: Aeneidos liber secundus, Oxford.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981) The dialogic imagination, tr. Emerson, C. and Holquist, M., Austin.Google Scholar
Benjamin, W. (1973) Illuminations, tr. Zorn, H., London.Google Scholar
Benjamin, W. (1977) The origin of German tragic drama, tr. Osborne, J., London.Google Scholar
Benjamin, W. (1998a) ‘The author as producer’, in Benjamin, W., Understanding Brecht, tr. Bostock, A., London, 85–103.Google Scholar
Benjamin, W. (1998b) ‘Conversations with Brecht’, in Benjamin, W., Understanding Brecht, London, 105–21.Google Scholar
Benjamin, W. (1998c) ‘What is Epic Theatre? [second version]’ (1939), Understanding Brecht London, 15–22.Google Scholar
Brecht, B. (1930) Versuche, Berlin.Google Scholar
Brecht, B. (1965) The Messingkauf dialogues, ed./tr. Willets, J., London.Google Scholar
Caro, M. (1950) ‘Comentadores’, Estudios de critica literaria y grammatical, vol. 2, Bogotá.Google Scholar
Clausen, W. (1994) A commentary on Virgil's Eclogues, Oxford.Google Scholar
Clausen, W. (1995) Appendix: ‘Harvard school’, in Horsfall, N., A companion to the study of Virgil, Leiden, 313–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conte, G. B. (1986) Rhetoric of imitation, Cornell.Google Scholar
Cooper, L. and Gudeman, A. (1928) A bibliography of the ‘Poetics’ of Aristotle, New Haven and London.Google Scholar
Cranz, F. E. (1971) A bibliography of Aristotle editions 1501–1600, Baden-Baden.Google Scholar
Crump, M. M. (1931) The epyllion from Theocritus to Ovid, Oxford.Google Scholar
Culler, J. (1981) The pursuit of signs: semiotics, literature, deconstruction, London.Google Scholar
Curtius, E. R. (1953) European literature and the Latin Middle Ages, tr. Trask, W., London.Google Scholar
De Jong, I. J. F. (1987) Narrators and focalizers: the presentation of the story in the Iliad, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
De Smet, I (1999) ‘Not for classicists? The state of neo-Latin studies’, JRS 89, 205–9.Google Scholar
De Smet, I (2001) ‘Giants on the shoulders of dwarves? Considerations on the value of Renaissance and early modern scholarship for today's classicists’, in Harrison, S. J. (ed.) Texts, ideas, and the classics: scholarship, theory and classical literature, Oxford, 252–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeney, D. C. (1983) ‘The taciturnity of Aeneas’, CQ 33, 204–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeney, D. C. (1991) The gods in Epic, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felson, N. (1994) Regarding Penelope: from character to poetics, Princeton.Google Scholar
Fenik, B. C. (1960) ‘The influence of Euripides on Virgil's Aeneid’, PhD thesis, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Fornara, C. (1983) The nature of history in ancient Greece and Rome, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, D. P. (1990) ‘Deviant focalization in Vergil's Aeneid’, PCPS 216. 42–63 (= Fowler (2000) 40–63).Google Scholar
Fowler, D. P. (2000) Roman constructions: readings in postmodern Latin, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fusillo, M., Hurst, A. and Paduano, G. (eds.) (1991) Licofrone: Alessandra, Milan.Google Scholar
Gamberale, L. (1991) ‘Preproemio’. in Enciclopedia Virgiliana, vol. 4, 259–61, Rome.Google Scholar
Genette, G. (1980) Narrative discourse, tr. Lewin, J., Oxford.Google Scholar
Goold, G. P. (1992), ‘The voice of Virgil’, in Woodman, A. J. and Powell, J. G. F. (eds.) Author and audience in Latin literature, Cambridge, 110–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardie, P. R. (1993) The epic successors of Virgil: a study in the dynamics of a tradition, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hardie, P. R. (1996) ‘Virgil and tragedy’, in Martindale, C. (ed.) The Cambridge companion to Virgil, Cambridge, 312–26.Google Scholar
Hardie, P. R. (1997) ‘Closure in Latin epic’, in Roberts, D.. Dunn, F., and Fowler, D. (eds.). Classical closure: reading the end in Greek and Latin literature, Princeton, 139–62.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. J. (1991) Vergil: Aeneid 10. Oxford.Google Scholar
Heinze, R. (1999) Virgil's epic technique, tr. Harvey, H.. Harvey, D., and Robertson, F., Bristol.Google Scholar
Horsfall, N. (1995) A companion to the study of Virgil, Leiden.Google Scholar
Horsfall, N. (2000) Virgil, Aeneid 7: a commentary, Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, G. (1988) Hellenistic poetry, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kallendorf, C. (1989) In praise of Aeneas: Virgil and epideictic rhetoric in the early Italian Renaissance, Hanover.Google Scholar
Keller, O. (1975) Brecht und der moderne Roman: Auseinandersetzung Brechts mit den Strukturen der Romane Döblins und Kafkas, Bern and Munich.Google Scholar
Koster, S. (1988) Ille ego qui: Dichter zwischen Wort und Macht, Erlangen and Nuremburg.Google Scholar
Lada, I. (1996) ‘Emotion and meaning in tragic performance’, in Silk, M. S. (ed.) Tragedy and the tragic, Oxford, 397–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laird, A. (1999) Powers of expression, expressions of power: speech presentation and Latin literature. Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laird, A. (2002a) ‘Authority and ontology of the Muses in epic reception’, in Spentzou, E. and Fowler, D., Cultivating the Muse. Oxford. 117–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laird, A. (2002b) ‘Juan Luis De La Cerda and the predicament of commentary’, in Gibson, R. K. and Kraus, C. S. (eds.) The classical commentary: history, practices, theory, Leiden. 171–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laird, A. (2002c) ‘Da Virgilio a Góngora: istruzione e innovazione nel commentario di La Cerda’, Umanesimo latino e umanesimo volgare, Studi umanistici Piceni 22, 219–26.Google Scholar
Lawrance, J. (1994) ‘El comentario de textos, III: después de Nebrija’, in Condoñer, C. and Iglesias, J. González (eds.) Antonio de Nebrija: edad media y renacimiento, Acta Salmanticensia, Estudios filológicos 257, 179–93.Google Scholar
Lessing, G. E. (1766) Laocöon, ed. McCormick, E. A. 1962, Indianapolis and New York.Google Scholar
Macleod, C. (1983) ‘Homer on poetry and the poetry of Homer’, in Collected papers, Oxford, 1–15.Google Scholar
Martindale, C. (1993) Redeeming the text: Latin poetry and the hermeneutics of reception, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Martindale, C. (1996) ‘Reception’, OCD. Oxford, 1294–5.Google Scholar
Martindale, C. (1997) ‘Introduction: The classic of all Europe’. Martindale, C. (ed.) The Cambridge companion to Virgil, Cambridge, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muecke, F. (1983) ‘Foreshadowing and dramatic irony in the story of Dido’, AJP 104, 134–55.Google Scholar
Murray, P. (1981) ‘Poetic inspiration in early Greece’. JHS 101, 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholls, D. (1989) Deity and domination: images of God and the state in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, London.Google Scholar
Nietzsche, F. (1980) On the advantage and disadvantage of history for life, tr. Preuss, P. (German orig. 1874) Indianapolis.Google Scholar
Otis, B. (1964) Ovid as an epic poet, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Quint, D. (1993) Epic and empire: politics and generic form from Homer to Milton, Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, J. (2002) review of W. R. Johnson. Lucretius and the modern world (2000), Scholia Reviews n.s. 11, 13.Google Scholar
Reinelt, J. (1994) After Brecht: British Epic Theatre, Ann Arbor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, J.-J. (1975) Du contrat social et autres oeuvres politiques, ed. Ehrard, J., Paris.Google Scholar
Schenkeveld, D. M. (1992) ‘Prose usages of Άκούεν “to read”’, CQ 42, 129–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, C. (1992) ‘Bard and audience in Homer’, in Lamberton, R. and Keaney, J. (eds.) Homer's ancient readers: the hermeneutics of Greek epic's earliest exegetes, Princeton, 3–30.Google Scholar
Silk, M. S. (2001) ‘Aristotle, Rapin, Brecht’, in Andersen, Ø. and Haarberg, J., Making sense of Aristotle: essays in poetics, London, 173–95.Google Scholar
Simón-Díaz, J. (1944) ‘Notas y commentarios para la biographia del P. Juan de la Cerda’, Razón y Fe, 424–34.Google Scholar
Stahl, H.-P. (1998) Vergil's Aeneid. Augustan epic and political context, London.Google Scholar
Stevens, J. (1945) ‘Un humaniste espagnol: le père Juan-Luis De La Cerda, commentateur de Virgile’, Les Études Classiques 13, 210–21.Google Scholar
Taplin, O. P. (1986) ‘Fifth-century tragedy and comedy – a synkrisis?’, JHS 106, 163–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, R. (2001) Virgil and the Augustan reception, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, P. and Sacks, G. (eds.) (1994) Cambridge companion to Brecht, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todorov, T. (1982) Theories of the symbol, Ithaca.Google Scholar
Van Sickle, J. (1995) review of Clausen (1994), Vergilius 41, 1–25.Google Scholar
Vogt-Spira, G. (1990) Strukturen der Mundlichkeit in der römische Literatur, Tübingen.Google Scholar
West, S. (1983) ‘Notes on the text of Lycophron’, CQ 33, 113–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigodsky, M. (1972) Virgil and early Latin poetry, Hermes Einzelschriften 24, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Willet, J. (ed.) (1964) Brecht on theatre: the development of an aesthetic, London.Google Scholar
Wiseman, T. P. (1982) ‘Acroasis: a forgotten feature of Roman literature’, Latin teaching 36.2, 33–7.Google Scholar