When I first started my thesis, my supervisor asked me to consider the difference between comparative literature and reception studies. The ensuing chaos of theory, dates, and nebulous definitions soon had me back in her office, hopelessly lost. In many ways, however, this was her intention – not to have me on the brink of theory-based collapse, but rather to have a feel for the territory I was entering into for the next few years. Definitions are hard to come by, and yet ‘Classical Reception’ is a widely used and accepted term. A year into my thesis, a new problem arrived; is ‘Classical Reception’ reallyClassics? Will I ever be respected as a ‘Classicist’ if my thesis is grounded in Reception? In response to this, my infinitely patient supervisor sent me a link to an upcoming conference. “I don’t have the answer to that,” she told me, “but maybe they will.”
The Classical Encounters conference, hosted by The Durham Centre for Classical Reception at The University of Durham, certainly did have the answer to my question, and many more besides. The diverse range of speakers covered topics from sculpture to cremation, children’s periodicals and boardgames to the exhibition of Schliemaan’s excavation of Troy, and a surprising array in between. The diversity of approach, subject matter, and presentation of evidence that each speaker represented was overwhelming, and in many ways comforting. It was clear, even by the end of the first panel, that there is no one approach to ‘Classical Reception’, nor one subject matter. Each paper was united by only two, somewhat nebulous criteria; they each involved some form of ‘classical’ material, and each paper focused on subjects from the long nineteenth century. With such freedom, the speakers demonstrated the variety of fields united by ‘Classical Reception’, an interdisciplinary forum, which promotes the adoption of technical skills, such as Thomas Couldridge’s discussion of drilling in the sculpture commonly known as ‘The Kensington Cupid’ which could have been a quiver, to liaising with political history, as in Maddalena Ruini’s study of Gladstone and the Homeric Age.
It was this sense of collaboration and diversification which was also exemplified in the debates held in the round-table panel. Professor Lorna Hardwick, Professor Charles Martindale, Dr Daniel Hartley, and Dr Edmund Richardson each provided a brief, but characteristic paper on the notion of what ‘Classical Reception’ is, and its future. Prof. Hardwick highlighted the importance of collaboration and identity inherent within such debates; what does it mean to consider ourselves Classicists? What does such a title signify, and what, or who, does it also exclude? Is it helpful or limiting to see ‘Classical Reception’ as a field? As for the future of the area, Prof. Hardwick highlighted how new theories, techniques, and fields are brought into contact with Classics increasingly, including the bourgeoning field of memory studies. Dr Hartley of the English Literature department at The University of Durham highlighted the role of interdisciplinary contact and communication, while Prof. Martindale further explored the idea of labels and disciplinary boundaries inherent within the question of ‘Classical Reception’. Perhaps Dr Richardson put it most succinctly, when he compared such debates to the identity trials of Alice in Wonderland. If this very brief summary of an enthusiastic and highly learned debate has left you more perplex than when you began, perhaps that is by design. As Prof. Hardwick and Prof. Martindale warded off the use of ‘field’ and ‘discipline’ as too rigid a notion for ‘Classical Reception’, the debate demonstrated the diversity, fluidity, and communicative nature of ‘Classical Reception’, a unifying concept which utilises the theory and approaches of reception theory, rather than a defined, and therefore in someway prohibited, subject area.
The remainder of the conference was spent listening to further exciting panels, building on the debates raised by the round table panel, and enjoying the extreme generosity and hospitality of the conference organisers and The Durham Centre for Classical Reception. I have never been to a conference quite so well catered and hosted, and the organisers should be truly proud of their achievement. Above all, it was wonderful to interact with speakers firmly established within their fields as career academics, in addition to the new work of rising doctoral researchers, together in a congenial and open setting. This structuring allowed conversation and debate to flow freely among all attendees for the two days, allowing for more insightful discussion and natural networking.
So, was my question ever answered? It was abundantly clear that ‘Classical Reception’ is an important part of Classics – although, after Prof. Hardwick’s insights, perhaps with the caveat, if one wishes to so define themselves as a Classicist – not only in subject matter and expertise, but also in something less definitive, and more important. The diversity and fluidity of the different subject areas accessed by ‘Classical Reception’, far from making it a bastardised field as I had begun to fear, in fact makes this area of study a vibrant community of scholars, coming together from different backgrounds and skill sets, to share and develop the study of the ‘Classical’ in different cultures and periods. You will definitely leave a Classical Reception conference having learned something from a field you have never before come into contact with, whether that be sculpting techniques, philology, or psychology. This sense of community and debate, so strongly felt at Classical Encounters, is akin to taking our seat next to Cebes at the foot of Socrates, debating, questioning, and learning from those around us.
Leave a Reply