This chapter compares two reading lists of Greek literature, one from the Augustan Age and one from the Second Sophistic: Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ On Imitation and Dio of Prusa’s letter On... Show moreThis chapter compares two reading lists of Greek literature, one from the Augustan Age and one from the Second Sophistic: Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ On Imitation and Dio of Prusa’s letter On Training for Public Speaking (oration 18). Although several scholars have argued that the two lists are similar, this chapter argues that they are fundamentally different. Dionysius prefers Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Herodotus and Demosthenes, he ignores Hellenistic and imperial writers, and he demands that his students work hard. Dio recommends Menander, Euripides, Xenophon and Aeschines, he includes orators from the Augustan Age, and he tells his addressee that laborious training is not needed. In many points Dio’s reading list corresponds more closely to Quintilian’s contemporary canon (in Institutio oratoria book 10) than to Dionysius’ On Imitation. Three factors can explain the differences between the reading lists presented by Dionysius and Dio: their audiences, the literary preferences of the Augustan Age and the Flavian Age, and the genres of their works. Dionysius’ reading list is part of a serious rhetorical treatise which foregrounds the ‘beauty’ of classical Greek literature. Dio’s reading list is presented in a light-hearted letter which adopts a more pragmatic (and at times humoristic) approach to rhetorical imitation. Show less
a successful book in Italy and then beyond the Alps. While the literary reception of Ariosto inFrance has already been widely studied since the work of Alexandre Ciorănescu and SijbrandKeyser, this... Show morea successful book in Italy and then beyond the Alps. While the literary reception of Ariosto inFrance has already been widely studied since the work of Alexandre Ciorănescu and SijbrandKeyser, this PhD dissertation consists of an analysis of the diffusion of this masterpiece throughthe prism of the loving passion. In the sixteenth century, during the first French reception, readers and authors felt passionately about amorous episodes, and more specifically ones about the madness of desperate lovers. French authors took several figures of unfortunate lovers from the abundance of characters in Orlando furioso. Besides, thanks to its plasticity, Ariosto’s text was able to inspire most literary genres. We study the evolution of this representation of passion in French translations and imitations, both through a diachronic analysis and an analysis by literary genre. While in the first translations the French transposition can sometimes influence the representation of passion, the love poetry adopted more aesthetical an approach of these episodes. We insist on the 1570s, as they demonstrate the presence of remake in the epic genre but also of many partial imitations. Thus, the representation of the sentiment amoureux will progressively be depicted with more diversity and complexity until the beginning of the seventeenth century when it evolved towards a more psychological approach. Show less
By focusing on the fascinating connections between the ideas on imitation and emulation expressed by Dionysius (in On Imitation and other relevant passages), Quintilian (in Institutio 10 and other... Show moreBy focusing on the fascinating connections between the ideas on imitation and emulation expressed by Dionysius (in On Imitation and other relevant passages), Quintilian (in Institutio 10 and other relevant passages) and contemporary Greek and Latin authors, this dissertation sheds light on the intercultural dialogue and exchange of ideas between Greek and Roman intellectuals in early imperial Rome.Although we may well assume that Dionysius represents a Greek, Quintilian a Roman perspective on imitation in the field of rhetoric, the twofold hypothesis of this dissertation is that these two critics 1) made use of a shared discourse of imitation, and 2) each adapted this shared discourse, and made it subservient to their own rhetorical agendas, which are determined by factors such as writing goal, readership, pedagogical aims, and developments of classicism and literary taste in the decades between their activities.This hypothesis allows us to consider the remarkable differences and similarities between the mimetic ideas of Dionysius, Quintilian and their Greek and Latin colleagues in relation not only to the traditional parameters of ‘Greekness’ and ‘Romanness’, but also to the idea of a shared conceptual framework of imitation that could be used discretionally. Show less
