This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
E.g. Ann Ellis Hanson, “The Medical Writers' Woman”, in: David Halperin, John Winkler, and Froma Zeitlin, eds.,Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 309–38; Lesley Dean-Jones,Women's Bodies in Clasical Greek Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994); Rebecca Flemming,Medicine and the Making of Roman Women: Gender, nature, and authority from Celsus to Galen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); Monica H. Green,Women's Healthcare in the Medieval West (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2000); eadem, Monica H. Green,The Trotula; A medieval compendium of women's medicne (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001).
Helen King, “The Daughter of Leonides: reading the Hippocratic corpus”, in: Averil Cameron, ed.,History as Text: The Writing of Ancient History (Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1990), 13–32.
See Lloyd's,Adversaries and authorities; Investigations into ancient Greek and Chinese science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 20–46.
For a guarded but positive comment on this question, see the words of the late Kwang-chih Chang, Chang, “China on the Eve of the Historical Period,” in:The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 B.C., ed. by Michael Lowe and Edward L. Shaughnessy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 71–73.
The use of the past in early Chinese rhetoric is explored quite brilliantly in David Schaberg'sA Patterned Past: Form and Thought in Early Chinese Historiography (Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 2001).
The origin of the Chinese writing system is still a problem of debate. Qiu Xigui, perhaps China's leading epigrapher, believes that “late Shang script was not too distant from the period in which a complete writing system was formed”. See hisChinese Writing, translated by Gilbert L. Mattos and Jerry Norman (Berkeley: The Society for the Study of Early China, 2000), p. 43. While there are indications that the late Shang system had much earlier antecedents, there is as yet no compelling evidence that those antecedents are part of a complete writing system.
See, for example, Chen Mengjia,Shangshu tonglun, (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1985), p. 193 where he claims that this particularShangshu chapter was written just before the time of Mencius (perhaps the fourth century B.C.E.) and was moreover altered as late as the Qin (221–206 B.C.E.).
See, for example, the highly skeptical comments of the eminent nineteenth-century scholar Cui Shu (1740–1816) inKaoxin lu (rpt. Taibei: Shijie, 1968), vol. II, p. 35. For more current scholarship on the origin of the Confucian classics see Michael Nylan,The Five “Confucian” Classics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001).
These are immensely complicated issues, but a good Chinese-language summary can be found in Yang Bojun's introduction to his four-volumeChunqiu Zuozhuan zhu (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1981), pp. 1–55. Some idea of the issues involved can be gained from Anne Cheng's and Chang I-jen's entries on these texts inEarly Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide, ed. by Michael Loewe (Berkeley: The Society for the Study of Early China, 1993).
Chinese Writing, p. 45. For an even stronger statement of the same principle, see William G. Boltz,The Origin and Early Development of the Chinese Writing System, American Oriental Series, Vol. 78, (New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society, 1994), pp. 27–28.
Jerry Norman,Chinese (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 10. Anyone who still believes the old saw that an isolating language cannot express certain abstractions should contemplate the highly polemical but interesting work of Robert Wardy,Aristotle in China: Language, Categories and Translation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
Later Mohist Logic, Ethics, and Science (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1978);Yin-Yang and the nature of correlative thinking, IEAP Occasional paper and monograph series No. 6, Sigapore, 1986.
See hisFoundations of chinese Historiography: Literatury Representation in Zuo zhuanand Guoyu, Harvard Ph. D. Dissertation, Cambridge, 1995. Much of the argumentation of his dissertation is repeated and summarized inA Patterned Past (see above, n. 3).
John Cikoski, “On Standards of Analogic Reasoning in the Later Chou,”Journal of Chinese Philosophy 2–3 (June 1975): 325–357; and Janusz Chemielewski, “Concerning the Problem of Analogic Reasoning in Ancient China,”Rocznik Orientalisticzny 40, no. 2 (1979), 65–78.
I have in mind here the large comparative project of the late David I. Hall and Roger Ames, which has led to three books:Thinking Through Confucius (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987;Anticipating China: Thinking Through the Narratives of Chinese and Western culture (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995); andThinking from the Han: Self, Truth, and Transcendence in Chinese and Western Culture (Albany: State University of New York Prees, 1995); andThinking from the Han: Self, Truth, and Transcendence in Chinese and Western Culture (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998); and also the vast comparative work of François Jullien. with regard to rehetoric, I would especially make note of Jullien'sLe Détour et l'accès: stratégies du sens en Chine, en Grèce (Paris: Bernard Grasset, 1995). Another work that points to ostensible differences but then shows how much those differences must be qualified is Steven Shankman and Stephen Durrant,The Siren and the Sage: Knowledge and Wisdom in Ancient Greece and China (London and New York: Cassell, 2000).
In particular, his fundamental article on “Exempla und mos mairorum. Überlegungen zum kollektiven Gedächtnis der römischen Nobilität,” in: H.-J. Gehrke and A. Möller, eds.,Vergangenheit und Lebenswelt. Soziale Kommunikation, Traditionsbildung und historisches bewußtsein, ScriptOralia 90: (Tübingen: G. Narr, 1996), 301–338.
Unrelated to Flaig's argument: remains of a further exedra have been recently discovered, and there is no doubt it had a pendant, thus bringing the total number to four; see E. La Rocca's forthcoming report inRömische Mitteilungen. Among other benefits, the discovery cancels out some Freudian interpretations of the Augustan Forum.
An approach elaborated by J. Elsner,Art and the Roman Viewer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) and in a volume edited by him.Art and Text in Roman Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) [see the review of both volumes by D. Kleiner inIJCT 5 (1999/2000), 480–84]—the equivalent in art-historical interpretation to the “Appellstruktur der Texte” posited by Iser and Jauss.
G. Woolf,Becoming Roman: the origins of provincial civilization in Gaul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). Th most recent volume on romanization (S. Keay and N. Terrento, eds.,Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization [Oxford: Oxbow, 2001]), includes references to several important discussions before 1996. For a good treatment of the equally tricky concept of “Hellenization” see Peter Green's magisterialAlexander to Actium. The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990), esp. 312ff.
Cf. Pliny,NH 35.2.4 and the episode of an Augustus statue in Bithynia that was changed to Tiberius (Tac.Ann. 1.74 and Suet.,Tib. 58). Another example is the theomorphic statues discussed by H. Wrede,Consecratio in formam Deorum (Mainz am Rhein: Von Zabern, 1981); S. Matheson, “The Divine Claudia: Women as Goddesses in Roman Art,” in: D. Kleiner and S. Matheson, eds.,I, Claudia (New Haven: Yale University Art Gallery, 1996), 182–93; and E. D'Ambra, “Nudity and Adornment in Female Portrait Sculpture of the Second Century AD,” in: D. Kleiner and S. Matheson, eds.,I, Claudia II (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2000), 101–14.
See now Sophia Papioannou, Romanization and Greeks in Vergil's Aeneid (Univ. of Texas diss. 1998).
E. Gabba,Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the History of Archaic Rome (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1991), ch. 2.
[On which also see Egon Flaig's review article, “Kulturgeschichte ohne historische Anthropologie. Was römische Ahnenmasken verbergen,” in this journal (IJCT), 7 (2000/01), 226-44).—W. H.]
[Zu Southerns Buch s. den Besprechungsaufsatz von J. Marenbon, “Humanism, Scholasticism and the School of Chartres,” in dieser Zeitschrift (IJCT), 6 (1999/2000), 569–577.—W.H.]
Apart from T. Cave'sThe Cornucopian Text. Problems of Writing in the French Renaissance (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979), see M. Jeanneret,Perpetuum mobile. Métamorphoses des corps et des œuvres de Vinci à Montaigne (Paris: Macula, 1997), especially Part IV: “Travaux en cours”.
When Warner speculates that the name Marie Le Gendre could be a play on ‘themariée of a Le Gendre' (p. 224), it could equally be said that Marie represents and equivalent to Madeleine (i.e. Mary of Magdala)…
It would be worth reading this paper in conjunction with Barbara Feichtinger, ‘Verehrte Schwestern. Antike Frauengestalten als Identifikationsmodelle für gebildete Frauen in der Renaissance’ (with a résumé in French), in Michel Bastiaensen (ed.),La Femme lettrée à la Renaissance… Actes du Colloque international Bruxelles, 27–29 mars 1996, Travaux de l'Institut Interuniversitaire XII (Brussels: Peeters, 1997), pp. 25–48. This volume also contains an earlier study by C. Winn on Marie Le Gendre.
Agrippa d'Aubigné,Œuvres, ed. H. Weber, J. Bailbé and M. Soulié, Bibliothèque de la Pléiade (Paris, 1969),La Confession catholique du sieur de Sancy, p.584: ‘…de mesme curiosité [Madame de Villeroy]s’enquerit comment s’appellerait en Grec cette huile legere, que Sainct Dominique sema entre les cuisses d’une Nonnain, l’appelant huyle d’amour.”
See e.g. the edition of Anne de Marquets' multilingual poetry on the occasion of the Colloque de Poissy (1561): André Gendre, ‘Naissance des échanges polémiques à la veille des guerres civiles: Anne de Marquets et son adversaire protestant (texte intégral, avec une traduction et des annotations),Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 52 (2000), pp. 317–357. Also of interest is: Evelyne Berriot-Salvadore, ‘“Une nonain latinisante”: Anne de Marquets’, in:Poésie et Bible de la Renaissance à l’âge classique 1550–1680, éd. Pascale Blum et Anne Mantero (Paris: Champion, 1999).
Milton Studies 19 (1984), special issue,Urbane Milton. The Latin Poetry, ed. James A. Freeman and Anthony Low.
Milton in Italy: Contexts, Images, Contradictions, ed. Mario Di Cesare (Binghamton: MRTS, 1991).
John Milton,Latin writings: a selection, ed. and trans. John Hale, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 191 (Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum; Tempe, AZ: MRTS, 1998); John K. Hale,Milton’s languages: the impact of multilingualism on style (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
[On Bleecker in the perspective of the classical tradition see Roxanne M. Gentilcore, “Ann Eliza Bleecker’s Wilderness Pastoral: Reading Vergil in Colonial America,” in this journal (IJCT) 1.4 (Springer 1995), pp. 86–98.—W.H.]
[On Becker’s book see William, O. Stephens's review article “A Stoicism for Our Time?”, in this journal (IJCT) 6 (1999/2000) pp. 438–446,—W.H.
Roger Scruton, “A Catacomb Culture,”Times Literary Supplement, Feb. 16–22, 1990, p. 170. Cf. Ellis Sandoz,The Politics of Truth and Other Untimely Essays: The Crisis of Civic Consciousness (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1999), Chaps. 1–3.
Václav Havel,The Power of the Powerless: Citizens Against the State in Central-Eastern Europe, intro. Steven Lukes, ed. John Keane (London: Palach Press, 1985; rpr. London: Hutchinson and Co. Ltd., 1985), originallyMoc bezmocných [Londýnské ústredí Naardenského hnutí, 1979).
Zu den Gründen vgl. Herbert Jaumann, in:Wieland. Epoche—Werk—Wirkung, von Sven-Aage Jørgensen Herbert Jaumann, John McCarthy, Horst Thomé, München 1994, S. 185-207 (Arbeitsbereich VII: Wielandrezeption) im folgenden zit. alsWieland Arbeitsbuch 1994], sowie ders, “Vomklassischen Nationalautor zumnegativen Classiker (F. Schlegel): Wandel literaturgesellschaftlicher Institutionen und Wirkungsgeschichte, am Beispiel Wieland”, in:Klassik und Moderne. Die Weimarer Klassik als historisches Ereignis und Herausforderung im kulturgeschichtlichen Prozeß. Walter Müller-Seidel Zum 65. Geburtstag hg. von K. Richter u. J. Schönert, Stuttgart 1983, S. 3–36.
In seiner GedächtnisredeZum brüderlichen Andenken Wielands, gehalten in der Weimarer Freimaurerloge am 18. Februar 1813, bewundert ihn Goethe dafür. Gerade in ihrer vornehmen Indirektheit, die zumal heute zu genauer Lektüre zwingt, gehört diese Rede zu den einsichtsvollsten Charakteristiken des Dichters überhaupt.
Friedrich Sengle,Wieland, Stuttgart 1949, S. 493–508.
Jürgen Jacobs,Wielands Romane, München 1969.
Jan-Dirk Müller,Wielands späte Romane. Untersuchungen zur Erzählweise und, zur erzählten Wirklichkeit, München 1971.
Horst Thomé, “Utopische Diskurse Thesen zu WielandsAristipp,”Modern Language Notes 99 (1984), S. 503–521, und ders., “Wielands romane als Spiegel und Kritik der Aufklärung”, in:Wieland Arbeitsbuch 1994 (wie Fn. 1), S. 120–158, darin auch ein Abschnitt über “Die Übersetzungen aus der antiken Literatur im Kontext der Altersromane”. Zu Schiller vgl. Jürgen Habermas,Der, philosophische Diskurs der Moderne, Frankfurt/M. 1985. Kap. II über Hegel, mit einem Exkurs über Schillers ‘Ästhetische Briefe’. Zu diesen Fragen auch Herbert Jaumann, “Politische Vernunft, anthropologischer Vorbehalt, dichterische Fiktion. Zu Wielands Kritik des Politischen”, in:Modern Language Notes 99 (1984), S. 461–479, und ders., “Der deutsche Lukian. Kontinuitätsbruch und Dialogizität, am Beispiel von WielandsNeuen Göttergesprächen (1791)”, in:Der deutsche Roman der Spätaufklärung. Fiktion und Wirklichkeit, hg. von H. Zimmermann, Neue Bremer Beiträge 6, Heidelberg 1990, S. 61–90.
Christoph Martin Wieland,Übersetzung des Horaz, hg. von Manfred, Fuhrmann, Frankfurt/M.: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag 1986, darin bes. das dem Kommentar vorangestellte grundsätzliche Nachwort über “Wielands Horaz-Übersetzungen” (S. 1061–1095).
Christoph Martin Wieland,Geschichte des Agathon, hg. von Klaus Manger, Frankfurt/M.: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag 1986, undAristipp und einige seiner Zeitgenossen, hg. von Klaus Manger, Frankfurt/M.: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag 1988; vgl. auch K. Manger,Klassizismus und Aufklärung. Das Beispiel des späten Wieland, Frankfurt/M.: Klostermann 1991. Leider scheint die auf 12 Bände angelegte Wielandausgabe des Deutschen Klassiker Verlags nicht mehr fortgeführt zu werden—ein weiteres Fragment, so ist zu befürchten, in der an steckengebliebenen Projekten so reichhaltigen Geschichte der Wielandphilologie.
Über die korrekten Vornamen dieses für den Verf. so wichtigen Autors besteht immer wieder Unklarheit. Auch sonst sind mehrere Fehler in Orthographie, Interpunktion und leider auch Syntax stehengeblieben; die beiden letzten Zeilen von S. 286 werden auf der folgenden Seite oben wiederholt.
Vgl. Jan Philipp Reemtsma,Das Buch vom Ich. Christoph Martin Wielands “Aristipp und einige seiner Zeitgenossen”, Zürich: Haffmans 1993 (auch dtv 30760), 4. Kap.: “Lais.”
Zur Frage der Geschichtsphilosophie bei Wieland vgl. Herbert Jaumann in:Wieland Arbeitsbuch 1994 (wie Fn. 1), S. 87, 206.
Hans-Heinrich Reuter, “Die Philologie der Grazien. Wielands Selbstbildnis in seinen Kommentaren der Episteln und Satiren des Horaz” (zuerst 1967), in:Christoph Martin Wieland, hg. von H. Schelle, Wege der Forschung 421, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1981, S. 251–306.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Faculty Grant Programs The Association of Theological Schools
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kallendorf, C., Winkes, R., Pollitt, J.J. et al. Book reviews. Int class trad 8, 261–338 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02701810
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02701810