Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T14:51:44.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reception

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2014

Extract

It might seem unduly cautious to consider reception as still an ‘emerging’ sub-discipline within Classics, but a selection of publications from recent years provides evidence of its continuous development and diversification. Edited volumes (the preferred format in reception studies’ infancy) are still very much in evidence, but, as this subject review indicates, an increasing number of monographs bear witness to the confidence and rigour of new work in the field.

Type
Subject Reviews
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2014 

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

1 Homer and the Politics of Authority in Renaissance France. By Bizer, Marc. Classical Presences. New York, Oxford University Press, 2011. Pp. xii + 245. 4 illustrations. Hardback £55, ISBN: 978-0-19-973156-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Black Odysseys. The Homeric Odyssey in the African Diaspora Since 1939. By McConnell, Justine. Classical Presences. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013. Pp. x + 312. 5 illustrations. Hardback £65, ISBN: 978-0-19-960500-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Britain and its Empire in the Shadow of Rome. The Reception of Rome in Socio-political Debate from the 1850s to the 1920s. By Butler, Sarah J.. London, Bloomsbury Academic, 2012. Pp. viii + 256. Hardback £65. ISBN: 978-1-44-115925-0Google Scholar.

4 For example, Vance, N., The Victorians and Ancient Rome (Oxford, 1997)Google Scholar; Bradley, Mark (ed.), Classics and Imperialism in the British Empire (Oxford, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Porter, J. I., ‘Reception Studies: Future Prospects’, in Hardwick, L. and Stray, C. (eds.), A Companion to Classical Receptions (Oxford, 2008), 476Google Scholar.

6 The Classics and Colonial India. By Vasunia, Phiroze. Classical Presences. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013. Pp. xii + 416. 11 b/w illustrations, 4 colour plates. Hardback £85, ISBN: 978-0-19-920323-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Madly After The Muses. Bengali Poet Michael Madhusudan Datta and His Reception of the Graeco-Roman Classics. By Riddiford, Alexander. Classical Presences. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013. Pp. xix + 296. 3 illustrations. Hardback £60, ISBN: 978-0-19-969973-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 ‘Your Secret Language’. Classics in the British Colonies of West Africa. By Goff, Barbara. Classical Diaspora. London, Bloomsbury Academic, 2013. Pp. 248. Hardback £65, ISBN: 978-1-78093-205-7Google Scholar.

9 The Classics and South African Identities. By Lambert, Michael. Classical Diaspora. London, Bloomsbury Academic, 2011. Pp. 256. Paperback £19.99, ISBN: 978-0-71563-796-8Google Scholar.

10 See Porter, (n. 5), 469–81; Güthenke, Constanze, ‘Shop Talk: Reception Studies and Recent Work in the History of Scholarship’, Classical Receptions Journal 1.1 (2009), 104–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Classical Culture and Modern Masculinity. By Orrells, Daniel. Classical Presences. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011. Pp. ix + 301. 2 illustrations. Hardback £66, ISBN: 978-0-19-923644-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Adventures with Iphigeneia in Tauris. A Cultural History of Euripides’ Black Sea Tragedy. By Hall, Edith. New York, Oxford University Press, 2013. Pp. xxxii + 378. 87 illustrations, 3 maps. Hardback £41.99, ISBN: 978-0-19-539389-0Google Scholar.

13 Hall's approach is prefigured in her monograph on the Odyssey: The Return of Ulysses. A Cultural History of Homer's Odyssey (London, 2008)Google Scholar.

14 One small gripe: the illustrations, which are certainly necessary to a study of this kind, are small and often hard to make out. Colour plates, or at least larger images, would have been very welcome indeed in a work which includes close discussions of visual evidence.