This book offers a fresh look at one of the most tenacious features of Romantic Hellenism: its fascination with modern Greece as material and ideal alike. It suggests that literary representations of modern Greece, by both foreign and Greek writers, run on notions of a significant landscape. Landscape, as a critical term, is itself the product of the period when Greece assumed increasing importance as a territorial, political and modern entity. The implied authority of nature, in turn, follows its own dynamic and highly ambivalent logic of representation. Greece operated as a material symbol, one that shared the brittle structure of the Romantic image. To explicate this enabling structure this study draws on the critical writings of Herder, Schiller and the early Romantics, while grounding mainly German philhellenic writing in its cultural and political context. Main authors discussed are Friedrich Hölderlin and Wilhelm Müller, but also the first generation of Greek writers in the new nation state after 1821: Alexandros Rizos Rangavis, Panagiotis Soutsos, Andreas Kalvos and Dionysios Solomos. To enlist authors challenged to write from within the place of Greece allows not only a new take on the problematic imagery of Greece, but also gives a new dimension to the study of Hellenism as a trans-national movement.

This article revisits exemplarity as a strategy of approaching, reading, and using the past. By going beyond treating it mostly as a historical phenomenon, in terms of its use as a purely pre-modern rhetorical trope connected to historical and ethical writings in the Greek and Roman world, I suggest that exemplarity has critical potential to make us reconsider its ability to break through temporalities in a calculated and sceptical way. As such, it offers a provocation to Reception Studies to engage with exemplarity both in and as a more deliberate and strategic manner.

The canon has long served as a means of controlling the information that the professional classicist, who is facing a vast field of potentially relevant material, can be expected to possess. But recent developments (e.g. the rise of reception studies, a broadened definition of the ancient Mediterranean, comparative antiquities) have put pressure on this strategy. In this chapter we consider the limitations of two possible responses to such a situation—what Sheldon Pollock has called ‘hypercanonicity’, a doubling down on the canon, and ‘hyperinclusivity’, an attempt to encompass everything—before advocating what we call the ‘open field’, an embrace of the many different and singular configurations of knowledge that are coming to define the classicist in the twenty-first century.

No abstract

No abstract