No CrossRef data available.
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.
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.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 June 2014
The study of classical reception, the influence of classical texts and culture in later times and works, has been one of the biggest growth areas in classical scholarship in the twenty-first century. There has been considerable discussion of how classical reception is to be defined: for some orientation see Hardwick 2003, Martindale and Thomas 2006, and Hardwick and Stray 2008. Most would now view it as a kind of dialogue between classical original(s) and later work(s) which use, appropriate, or modify the original(s), and emphasize the need to understand both cultural contexts as well as remembering our own situatedness. When we look at, say, Ben Jonson's reception of Horace there are three contexts involved: ourselves in our own period and culture, Jonson in his, and Horace in his, and we are in effect reading Jonson reading Horace. In a sense, all that classical scholars do is a form of reception, as they are always inevitably receiving classical texts in the particular light of their own culture and characteristics, whether or not they articulate this explicitly. One strand of classical reception is connected with translation: a translation is never a neutral rendering of a text but is always necessarily coloured by the culture and ideology of the translator. Another is connected with literary imitation or adaptation: classical works can be very effectively recast in a new cultural context. As we shall see, Horace has been richly received in both these ways, and in others.
1 Mariotti 1996–8: iii.81–612.
2 Harrison 2007a; Davis 2010a.
3 Houghton and Wyke 2009.
4 See e.g. Palmer 1989; Pucci 1991; Flammini 2007–8; Longobardi 2010.
5 See, for example, Rudd 1976: 54–83; Freudenburg 2001.
6 For a brief account of the surviving manuscripts, see Munk Olsen 1996. For surveys of his influence, see Quint 1988; Friis-Jensen 1993, 2007.
7 Friis-Jensen 1993.
8 Friis-Jensen 1993; Harrison 1997; Friis-Jensen 2007.
9 Ludwig 1993b; Houghton 2009.
10 Ziolkowski 2000; Wälli 2002.
11 Lyons 2007.
12 For surveys, see Ludwig 1993b; McGann 2007.
14 For two of the most important, see, for poets working in Italy, Poeti d'Italia in lingua latina, <http://www.mqdq.it/mqdq/poetiditalia/indice_autori_alfa.jsp?scelta=AZ&path=autori>, and, more generally (and especially for poets working in the UK), the vast resources of the Birmingham Philological Museum, <http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/>.
15 See especially Knight and Tilg 2014.
16 See the helpful new edition in Robin 2009.
17 Conveniently found in Ludwig 1993b.
18 For an edition of his Latin poems, see Putnam 2009.
19 See the recent edition of his poems in Fantazzi 2012, and the study of Lefèvre and Schäfer 2008.
20 For texts, see Schäfer 2008; Forster 2011. For discussion, see Auhagen et al. 2000.
21 See Schäfer 1976; Gruber 1997.
22 Printed in Ludwig 1993b. See also Ford 1997; Soubeille 1998. For other French Horation odes of the sixteenth century, see Schmitz 1994.
23 For a study of its erotic poems, see Schäfer 2004.
24 Texts at <http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/garcilaso.html>; English discussion in Lumsden 1947.
25 Discussion in Glomski 1987; texts available at <http://neolatina.bj.uj.edu.pl>.
26 See McFarlane 1981.
27 For a splendid recent edition see Green 2011. For discussions, see Green 2000, 2009; Harrison 2012.
29 See Thill 1991, 1993.
30 For a partial modern text and commentary see Thill 1987.
31 See Winter 2002.
32 See Lefèvre and Schäfer 2010.
33 For a selection, see Thill 1995. See also Schäfer 2006; Fordoński and Urbański 2010.
34 Stevenson 2009.
35 See Burrow 1993; J. Scodel 2010: 213–20.
36 See Moul 2010.
37 For Marvell, see Nuttall 1993; for Cowley, see Hopkins 1993.
38 For Pope, see Stack 1985; Rudd 1994: 61–90. For Dryden, see Gillespie 1993.
39 See now Williamson 1996.
40 For introductions to Neo-Latin Horation imitation see Money 1998: 1–53; Money 2007. For Alsop, see Money 1998.
41 See Hopkins and Martindale 2012, and the still useful collection of data in Goad 1918.
42 On von Hagendorn, see Schmidt 2002a; on Wieland, Curran 1995; on Herder, Schmidt 2003–4; on Lessing, Hamilton 2001.
43 See Orlando 1993.
44 Childe Harold, Canto IV (1919), line 77.
45 On elite education, see Gaisser 1994; on Horace as model, see Harrison 2007c.
46 See Rudd 2005: 177–90.
47 For a survey, see Vance 1997: 175–93.
48 See now Gaskin 2013 for Housman's engagement with and similarities to Horace.
49 See further Medcalf 1993.
50 See Talbot 2009.
51 See Peacock 1992.
52 See Bacon 2001.
53 See Pound 1970; Bunting 2000.
54 Mariotti 1996–8: iii.81–612.
55 In Heaney 2006.