| Title | The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2000 |
| Published in | Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society |
| Pages | 183-203 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Sluiter, Ineke |
| Editor(s) | Depew, Mary , Obbink, Dirk |
| Translator(s) |
| In ancient eidography (explicit descriptions of “genre”), “secondary literature” was rarely regarded as a full-blown genre (εἶδος) (see the fourth major section, earlier). However, it is perfectly possible for the modern researcher to identify the parameters that define the particular niche of the ancient commentator (second section, earlier). Every commentary must assume both the basic value of the source-texts and an element of inadequacy in them, which the commentator must redress. The commentator is duty-bound to give an optimal representation of his source-text, but at the same time, he cannot give up his critical judgment. The commentator has a dual professional affiliation, as a doctor, philosopher, or astronomer, etc., and as a “grammarian,” an interpreter of someone else’s work. Since the latter qualification is less impressive socially, the commentator will be at pains to downplay that part of his work. Finally, the activities of commentators presuppose the unchangeable nature of the source-text, but their own work is located in the environment of the classroom, with emphasis on the oral, almost improvised transmission of ever-accumulating knowledge. Ancient commentators themselves are familiar with generic distinctions and apply the notion of genre, borrowed from philology, to their work on the source-texts (third section, earlier). They are also aware of the fact that they themselves are engaged in a type of work with distinctive objectives and tasks. They are eager to stress that fact, and they reflect on their position—even though they do not call their own work a separate “genre” (fifth section, earlier). There is a risk of reducing the term “genre” to virtual meaninglessness if every subdivision made in ancient texts is described as the recognition of a new genre. Ancient commentators are fond of drawing all kinds of distinctions, both in ordering the corpora they are working on and in identifying the special nature of their own achievement compared with that of their predecessors. The prefatory passages dealt with in the fifth section earlier undoubtedly exemplify the rhetoric of self-legitimation, and they are indicative of the reflection of the commentators on the nature of their activities. However, it is possible to engage in that rhetoric and in self-reflection without conceptualizing it in terms of genre. [conclusion 202–203] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6IXo92il3CT8q6x |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"394","_score":null,"_source":{"id":394,"authors_free":[{"id":518,"entry_id":394,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":317,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sluiter, Ineke","free_first_name":"Ineke","free_last_name":"Sluiter","norm_person":{"id":317,"first_name":"Ineke","last_name":"Sluiter","full_name":"Sluiter, Ineke","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132967278","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":519,"entry_id":394,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":59,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Depew, Mary","free_first_name":"Mary","free_last_name":"Depew","norm_person":{"id":59,"first_name":" Mary","last_name":"Depew","full_name":"Depew, Mary","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/174040806","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":520,"entry_id":394,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":318,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Obbink, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Obbink","norm_person":{"id":318,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Obbink","full_name":"Obbink, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132550458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity"},"abstract":"In ancient eidography (explicit descriptions of \u201cgenre\u201d), \u201csecondary literature\u201d was rarely regarded as a full-blown genre (\u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2) (see the fourth major section, earlier). However, it is perfectly possible for the modern researcher to identify the parameters that define the particular niche of the ancient commentator (second section, earlier). Every commentary must assume both the basic value of the source-texts and an element of inadequacy in them, which the commentator must redress. The commentator is duty-bound to give an optimal representation of his source-text, but at the same time, he cannot give up his critical judgment.\r\n\r\nThe commentator has a dual professional affiliation, as a doctor, philosopher, or astronomer, etc., and as a \u201cgrammarian,\u201d an interpreter of someone else\u2019s work. Since the latter qualification is less impressive socially, the commentator will be at pains to downplay that part of his work. Finally, the activities of commentators presuppose the unchangeable nature of the source-text, but their own work is located in the environment of the classroom, with emphasis on the oral, almost improvised transmission of ever-accumulating knowledge.\r\n\r\nAncient commentators themselves are familiar with generic distinctions and apply the notion of genre, borrowed from philology, to their work on the source-texts (third section, earlier). They are also aware of the fact that they themselves are engaged in a type of work with distinctive objectives and tasks. They are eager to stress that fact, and they reflect on their position\u2014even though they do not call their own work a separate \u201cgenre\u201d (fifth section, earlier).\r\n\r\nThere is a risk of reducing the term \u201cgenre\u201d to virtual meaninglessness if every subdivision made in ancient texts is described as the recognition of a new genre. Ancient commentators are fond of drawing all kinds of distinctions, both in ordering the corpora they are working on and in identifying the special nature of their own achievement compared with that of their predecessors. The prefatory passages dealt with in the fifth section earlier undoubtedly exemplify the rhetoric of self-legitimation, and they are indicative of the reflection of the commentators on the nature of their activities.\r\n\r\nHowever, it is possible to engage in that rhetoric and in self-reflection without conceptualizing it in terms of genre. [conclusion 202\u2013203]","btype":2,"date":"2000","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6IXo92il3CT8q6x","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":317,"full_name":"Sluiter, Ineke","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":59,"full_name":"Depew, Mary","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":318,"full_name":"Obbink, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":394,"section_of":319,"pages":"183-203","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":319,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Depew\/Obbink2000","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2000","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2000","abstract":"The literary genres given shape by the writers of classical antiquity are central to our own thinking about the various forms literature takes. Examining those genres, the essays collected here focus on the concept and role of the author and the emergence of authorship out of performance in Greece and Rome.\r\n\r\nIn a fruitful variety of ways the contributors to this volume address the questions: what generic rules were recognized and observed by the Greeks and Romans over the centuries; what competing schemes were there for classifying genres and accounting for literary change; and what role did authors play in maintaining and developing generic contexts? Their essays look at tragedy, epigram, hymns, rhapsodic poetry, history, comedy, bucolic poetry, prophecy, Augustan poetry, commentaries, didactic poetry, and works that \"mix genres.\"\r\n\r\nThe contributors bring to this analysis a wide range of expertise; they are, in addition to the editors, Glenn W. Most, Joseph Day, Ian Rutherford, Deborah Boedeker, Eric Csapo, Marco Fantuzzi, Stephanie West, Alessandro Barchiesi, Ineke Sluiter, Don Fowler, and Stephen Hinds. The essays are drawn from a colloquium at Harvard's Center for Hellenic Studies. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yqvzvd62JmM5MpJ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":319,"pubplace":"Cambridge (Mass.)","publisher":"Harvard University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2000]}
| Title | The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2000 |
| Published in | Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society |
| Pages | 183-203 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Sluiter, Ineke |
| Editor(s) | Depew, Mary , Obbink, Dirk |
| Translator(s) |
In ancient eidography (explicit descriptions of “genre”), “secondary literature” was rarely regarded as a full-blown genre (εἶδος) (see the fourth major section, earlier). However, it is perfectly possible for the modern researcher to identify the parameters that define the particular niche of the ancient commentator (second section, earlier). Every commentary must assume both the basic value of the source-texts and an element of inadequacy in them, which the commentator must redress. The commentator is duty-bound to give an optimal representation of his source-text, but at the same time, he cannot give up his critical judgment. The commentator has a dual professional affiliation, as a doctor, philosopher, or astronomer, etc., and as a “grammarian,” an interpreter of someone else’s work. Since the latter qualification is less impressive socially, the commentator will be at pains to downplay that part of his work. Finally, the activities of commentators presuppose the unchangeable nature of the source-text, but their own work is located in the environment of the classroom, with emphasis on the oral, almost improvised transmission of ever-accumulating knowledge. Ancient commentators themselves are familiar with generic distinctions and apply the notion of genre, borrowed from philology, to their work on the source-texts (third section, earlier). They are also aware of the fact that they themselves are engaged in a type of work with distinctive objectives and tasks. They are eager to stress that fact, and they reflect on their position—even though they do not call their own work a separate “genre” (fifth section, earlier). There is a risk of reducing the term “genre” to virtual meaninglessness if every subdivision made in ancient texts is described as the recognition of a new genre. Ancient commentators are fond of drawing all kinds of distinctions, both in ordering the corpora they are working on and in identifying the special nature of their own achievement compared with that of their predecessors. The prefatory passages dealt with in the fifth section earlier undoubtedly exemplify the rhetoric of self-legitimation, and they are indicative of the reflection of the commentators on the nature of their activities. However, it is possible to engage in that rhetoric and in self-reflection without conceptualizing it in terms of genre. [conclusion 202–203] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6IXo92il3CT8q6x |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"394","_score":null,"_source":{"id":394,"authors_free":[{"id":518,"entry_id":394,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":317,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sluiter, Ineke","free_first_name":"Ineke","free_last_name":"Sluiter","norm_person":{"id":317,"first_name":"Ineke","last_name":"Sluiter","full_name":"Sluiter, Ineke","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132967278","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":519,"entry_id":394,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":59,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Depew, Mary","free_first_name":"Mary","free_last_name":"Depew","norm_person":{"id":59,"first_name":" Mary","last_name":"Depew","full_name":"Depew, Mary","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/174040806","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":520,"entry_id":394,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":318,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Obbink, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Obbink","norm_person":{"id":318,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Obbink","full_name":"Obbink, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132550458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity"},"abstract":"In ancient eidography (explicit descriptions of \u201cgenre\u201d), \u201csecondary literature\u201d was rarely regarded as a full-blown genre (\u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2) (see the fourth major section, earlier). However, it is perfectly possible for the modern researcher to identify the parameters that define the particular niche of the ancient commentator (second section, earlier). Every commentary must assume both the basic value of the source-texts and an element of inadequacy in them, which the commentator must redress. The commentator is duty-bound to give an optimal representation of his source-text, but at the same time, he cannot give up his critical judgment.\r\n\r\nThe commentator has a dual professional affiliation, as a doctor, philosopher, or astronomer, etc., and as a \u201cgrammarian,\u201d an interpreter of someone else\u2019s work. Since the latter qualification is less impressive socially, the commentator will be at pains to downplay that part of his work. Finally, the activities of commentators presuppose the unchangeable nature of the source-text, but their own work is located in the environment of the classroom, with emphasis on the oral, almost improvised transmission of ever-accumulating knowledge.\r\n\r\nAncient commentators themselves are familiar with generic distinctions and apply the notion of genre, borrowed from philology, to their work on the source-texts (third section, earlier). They are also aware of the fact that they themselves are engaged in a type of work with distinctive objectives and tasks. They are eager to stress that fact, and they reflect on their position\u2014even though they do not call their own work a separate \u201cgenre\u201d (fifth section, earlier).\r\n\r\nThere is a risk of reducing the term \u201cgenre\u201d to virtual meaninglessness if every subdivision made in ancient texts is described as the recognition of a new genre. Ancient commentators are fond of drawing all kinds of distinctions, both in ordering the corpora they are working on and in identifying the special nature of their own achievement compared with that of their predecessors. The prefatory passages dealt with in the fifth section earlier undoubtedly exemplify the rhetoric of self-legitimation, and they are indicative of the reflection of the commentators on the nature of their activities.\r\n\r\nHowever, it is possible to engage in that rhetoric and in self-reflection without conceptualizing it in terms of genre. [conclusion 202\u2013203]","btype":2,"date":"2000","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6IXo92il3CT8q6x","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":317,"full_name":"Sluiter, Ineke","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":59,"full_name":"Depew, Mary","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":318,"full_name":"Obbink, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":394,"section_of":319,"pages":"183-203","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":319,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Depew\/Obbink2000","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2000","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2000","abstract":"The literary genres given shape by the writers of classical antiquity are central to our own thinking about the various forms literature takes. Examining those genres, the essays collected here focus on the concept and role of the author and the emergence of authorship out of performance in Greece and Rome.\r\n\r\nIn a fruitful variety of ways the contributors to this volume address the questions: what generic rules were recognized and observed by the Greeks and Romans over the centuries; what competing schemes were there for classifying genres and accounting for literary change; and what role did authors play in maintaining and developing generic contexts? Their essays look at tragedy, epigram, hymns, rhapsodic poetry, history, comedy, bucolic poetry, prophecy, Augustan poetry, commentaries, didactic poetry, and works that \"mix genres.\"\r\n\r\nThe contributors bring to this analysis a wide range of expertise; they are, in addition to the editors, Glenn W. Most, Joseph Day, Ian Rutherford, Deborah Boedeker, Eric Csapo, Marco Fantuzzi, Stephanie West, Alessandro Barchiesi, Ineke Sluiter, Don Fowler, and Stephen Hinds. The essays are drawn from a colloquium at Harvard's Center for Hellenic Studies. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yqvzvd62JmM5MpJ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":319,"pubplace":"Cambridge (Mass.)","publisher":"Harvard University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity"]}