Censorship and Interpretation The Conditions of Writing and Reading in Early Modern England.

which appear boldly and effectively in this restricted compass. It is still more notable that the poet's anger_is most likely connected with love, as irvpl <j>Xe'yofiai (i.4) would suggest. (The phrase is different from ^Ac'yo/xai: I agree with L. C. Watson, Arae [1991], 262.) The poem thus belongs to an increasing number of finds from or related to Hellenistic elegy which show what seems a combination of ostensibly personal poetry about love with a series of mythological exempla (P. Oxy. 3723; SH 964). We seem even in this case to be dealing with something less massive than the Lyde or the Leontion; and in these papyrus works, at least, the amatory situation was probably a significant subject of the poetry (note here IXVTJCOVTCU doiSai'...cuc TC nvpl <f>Xeyoixai). The connections with Roman elegy are intriguing. Our poet is palpably conscious of the discords and disparities in the material and the types of poetry he brings together. We should not think of these poems as love-elegy at a more primitive stage in its evolution towards 'subjectivity'. Rather we should observe, in elegy, teasing treatment of professedly personal poetry which offers an interesting parallel to the related but different audacities developed by individual Roman poets. The genre itself is particularly important there: Roman elegists affect a compelling delimitation of elegy, but proceed to play with and break out of those limits. H. ascribes this piece to Hermesianax, on the basis of Paus. 7.18.2. One sees the attraction; but his attempt to reduce the interval in style from Hermes, fr. 7 Powell seems fairly forced. Some slight points on the first column. 8: very difficult, -oc j€ prevents a third-foot caesura; a connective T« with dc would produce a very weak clause. It might be worth remembering that OCT€, unlike oc -re, could be postponed (SH 974.1, cf. Hermes, fr. 7.35 Powell); and that the corruption in the couplet might be more complicated or extensive than the omission of one complete line. 10: H. assumes that x°^9\" iS 'he antecedent of dc; it is much more likely Zeus, so that A toe 8eic]ac is to be preferred. SeiAsuits sinners better than war. 18: one would expect the sense to be rather as in e.g. dAA' dAioV ot] e#ij/ce /Se'Aoc (cf. [Theocr.J 25.236, 239, eToicioc, dyejioiAioc; spacing, and word-end, would be acceptable). 19: ^eiSo/xcu seems a curious verb to use of Athene in relation to Heracles (PMG 933 is of course different); and fxeydXwc would then seem a curious adverb for it.

Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature. L. D. Reynolds , N. G. Wilson

Critique and crisis: Enlightenment and the pathogenesis of modern society

The Battle of the books: History and literature in the Augustan age

Thank you for reading essay on the principles of translation. Maybe you have knowledge that, people have look hundreds times for their chosen readings like this essay on the principles of translation, but end up in malicious downloads. Rather than enjoying a good book with a cup of coffee in the afternoon, instead they cope with some malicious bugs inside their computer. essay on the principles of translation is available in our book collection an online access to it is set as public so you can get it instantly. Our digital library hosts in multiple locations, allowing you to get the most less latency time to download any of our books like this one. Kindly say, the essay on the principles of translation is universally compatible with any devices to read.

Essay On The Principles Of Translation

The dissertation enquires into some of the forms that the reception of ancient Greek tragedy took in England between 1660 and 1760. It looks at those critics and translators who engaged most with ancient Greek tragedy and whose engagement was accompanied by an interest in ancient theory and native English literature. Chapter 1, after examining works by George Gascoigne and Francis Kinwelmershe, Thomas Goffe, Thomas May and Christopher Wase, considers William Joyner’s original tragedy The Roman Empress (1670) in order to see what use Joyner made of Sophocles’ Oedipus and Euripides’ Hippolytus and Medea. Chapter 2 turns to the writings of, especially, John Dryden, Thomas Rymer, John Dennis and Charles Gildon, who were the most prolific and interesting commentators on dramatic theory in England at this time, and assesses their different perspectives on the questions of tragedy and the modern stage. Chapter 3 addresses separately comments on ancient Greek tragedy contained in Jeremy Collier’s attack on contemporary English theatre in A Short View of the Immorality, and Profaneness of the English Stage (1698) and in replies to him. Chapter 4 concentrates on Lewis Theobald’s translations of Sophocles’ Electra (1714) and Oedipus (1715) and how his views of ancient Greek tragedy influenced, and were influenced by, his interest in Shakespeare, an edition of whose plays he published in 1733. Chapter 5 examines Thomas Francklin’s The Tragedies of Sophocles and A Dissertation on Antient Tragedy (both 1759) and how they reflect his interest in the contemporary stage and contemporary ideas about the value of simplicity in literature and art. I argue that the writers I examine reflect through their engagement with Greek tragedy ideas about the relationships between ancient and early modern English tragedy, particularly that of Shakespeare, and between the present and the past.

The Reception of Ancient Greek Tragedy in England 1660-1760

Editor's Note

is like the present, although the past always appears a pale imitation, and this implied linearity can seem like an unyielding march forward in time. What if earlier narrative forms are not imperfect articulations of the future but expressive of a distinct vision of reality and thus of life writing? In other words, what if medieval life writing was experimental on its own terms? My questions mean that I would have liked the book to demonstrate a more complex choreography between the past and present, which would have complemented Winstead’s insistence upon genre instability in lifewriting modes, regardless of time period. Still, this book is part of a series that aims to survey bodies of literature defined by literary time periods, which necessarily constrains Winstead’s arguments. More than once, for instance, she observes that the twelfth century proves a pivotal century when life writing transforms in one way or another, yet she does not explain why such transformations occur in that century as that is beyond the book’s purview. A survey, after all, observes, yet it does not necessarily explain what it details. In that sense, Winstead’s book is importantly productive: she opens lines of thinking about the literary history of life writing that invite readers to explore more, to pick up a line of thought and develop it. She ultimately has crafted a highly readable book that not only demonstrates the range of life writing during the long Middle Ages but also activates challenging and constructive questions about genre and its social role.

M Waters

Papers

The Reception of Ancient Greek Tragedy in England 1660-1760

Editor's Note

Romanticism and the Letter, ed. by Madeleine Callaghan and Anthony Howe (review)