Jennifer Ingleheart | Durham University (original) (raw)

Uploads

Papers by Jennifer Ingleheart

Ancient Rome and the Construction of Modern Homosexual Identities, 2015

... AN ETHNOGRAPHY OF LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL CHANGE IN NORTH CENTRAL PHILADELPHIA 2004-2005 By Mar... more ... AN ETHNOGRAPHY OF LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL CHANGE IN NORTH CENTRAL PHILADELPHIA 2004-2005 By Mary Hufford and Rosina Miller Center for Folklore and Ethnography University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104 1 Page 2. Table of Contents ...

The Classical Review, 2007

whom among the heroines. But the main weakness of this approach is that it blurs the distinction ... more whom among the heroines. But the main weakness of this approach is that it blurs the distinction between author and ‘author’: inverted commas disappear along the way, and we tend to forget that a complex game is being played between (hidden) author, character(-as-author), and reader. Irony – although of a disputable kind – is crucial to the Heroides; putting it down serves a feminist purpose, to free the heroine from the ‘author–reader conspiracy’ (which, however, does not discriminate between, for example, Paris and Helen). But in this way we lose le plaisir du texte, and a clear sight of its functions; what we need is rather a more nuanced deμnition of (authorial) irony. E¶acing the author a¶ects F.’s view of the age-old issue of repetitiveness. Stating, rather captiously, that the community model ‘dispenses with the need to condemn Ovid for contaminatio of plot’, and that ‘remarkable similarities of content derive not (or not signiμcantly) from Ovid’s habit of repeating himself, but primarily from the mythological women’s duplication of the poetic principles and literary community of their creator’, only shifts responsibility from the author to the characters-as-authors; what we face is still a serial aesthetics shared by other areas of Ovidian poetry. I cannot but agree on Hypsipyle’s and Medea’s letters being written, and having to be read, together (see R. Ra¶aelli (ed.), Vicende di Ipsipile [Urbino, 2005], pp. 99–122). Disengagement on the authenticity issue may be less satisfying (p. 43; cf. pp. 21, 152 ¶.): ‘... it adds interesting but not insurmountable complications to our understanding of the two letters if they are written by two di¶erent authors’: this was a provocative move by Hinds in 1993 (MD); by now, we may regard the diptych as a brilliant experiment by Ovid in the experimental poetics of the Heroides, a mark of the Gedichtbuch. It is time for authenticity criticism and literary interpretation – especially of the ambitious kind practised by F. – to go together.

Classical Quarterly, 2010

Ancient Rome and the Construction of Modern Homosexual Identities, 2015

... AN ETHNOGRAPHY OF LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL CHANGE IN NORTH CENTRAL PHILADELPHIA 2004-2005 By Mar... more ... AN ETHNOGRAPHY OF LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL CHANGE IN NORTH CENTRAL PHILADELPHIA 2004-2005 By Mary Hufford and Rosina Miller Center for Folklore and Ethnography University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104 1 Page 2. Table of Contents ...

The Classical Review, 2007

whom among the heroines. But the main weakness of this approach is that it blurs the distinction ... more whom among the heroines. But the main weakness of this approach is that it blurs the distinction between author and ‘author’: inverted commas disappear along the way, and we tend to forget that a complex game is being played between (hidden) author, character(-as-author), and reader. Irony – although of a disputable kind – is crucial to the Heroides; putting it down serves a feminist purpose, to free the heroine from the ‘author–reader conspiracy’ (which, however, does not discriminate between, for example, Paris and Helen). But in this way we lose le plaisir du texte, and a clear sight of its functions; what we need is rather a more nuanced deμnition of (authorial) irony. E¶acing the author a¶ects F.’s view of the age-old issue of repetitiveness. Stating, rather captiously, that the community model ‘dispenses with the need to condemn Ovid for contaminatio of plot’, and that ‘remarkable similarities of content derive not (or not signiμcantly) from Ovid’s habit of repeating himself, but primarily from the mythological women’s duplication of the poetic principles and literary community of their creator’, only shifts responsibility from the author to the characters-as-authors; what we face is still a serial aesthetics shared by other areas of Ovidian poetry. I cannot but agree on Hypsipyle’s and Medea’s letters being written, and having to be read, together (see R. Ra¶aelli (ed.), Vicende di Ipsipile [Urbino, 2005], pp. 99–122). Disengagement on the authenticity issue may be less satisfying (p. 43; cf. pp. 21, 152 ¶.): ‘... it adds interesting but not insurmountable complications to our understanding of the two letters if they are written by two di¶erent authors’: this was a provocative move by Hinds in 1993 (MD); by now, we may regard the diptych as a brilliant experiment by Ovid in the experimental poetics of the Heroides, a mark of the Gedichtbuch. It is time for authenticity criticism and literary interpretation – especially of the ambitious kind practised by F. – to go together.

Classical Quarterly, 2010