This volume of eleven essays discusses editorial katharsis in the Classics. The collection examines manipulations of ancient Greek and Latin texts chronologically, ranging from the archaic period to the twenty-first century. The contributors provide wonderful case studies of what the term ‘expurgation’ may involve: bowdlerisation, anodyne euphemisms, more or less puritanical intimations, or even spiteful exclusions. They succeed in highlighting that what we as readers study, or simply read for pleasure, is the result of various intricate and interdependent mechanisms of selection, edition, translation, publication, social (mis)apprehension and legal procedures, which at times have inadvertently altered the original pieces of literature.
Bowie discusses the cleansing of Greek melic, elegiac and iambic poetry that started with Euenus of Paros (fifth century b.c.e.), continued with Plutarch and later Stobaeus, and can still be seen in nineteenth- and twentieth-century commentaries. B. notes that, even though riskier parts of Archilochus, for instance, are usually omitted, sensuality is not altogether banned if it is meant to edify, as is the case with Plutarch's How to Detect One's Ethical Progress 81e. Not much progress can be detected between Plutarch's time and twenty-first-century works, though, as can be seen in Campbell's edition (1967) or in Edmond's translation (1931) of Archilochus.
Ruffell provides a geographically limited overview of the scholarly reception of Aristophanic comic grotesque. He focuses on Mitchell's (1835) and Holden's (1848) editions and lists Aristophanic obscenities in the Acharnians, such as phallic, scatological or physical references, that were avoided for the sake of preserving the purity of prurient youths. With exact quotations from the text, accompanying translations and the omitted parts underlined, R. gives a comprehensive exegesis of how expurgation mirrored taboo notions of female sexuality, promoted masculinity, emasculated social liberations or symbolised political liberty in nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholarship.
Orrells’ analysis of Headlam's Herodas leaves nothing to be desired. His presentation of Headlam's personality and his reception of the Mimiambs in light of the concomitant socio-historical circumstances of Victorian England clarify the dynamics at play and instantiate that the edition and subsequent publication of any work is the product of personal, political and academic agendas. O. very perceptively notes that Herodas’ papyrus corresponded with nineteenth- and early twentieth-century considerations of female sexuality, male homosexuality and women's attempts for social liberation. The study of Herodas also entered into a socio-philological dialogue with contemporary literary works concerned with similar issues. Therefore, Headlam was in an advantageous, yet precarious momentum. His posthumous edition (A.D. Knox saw it to completion), albeit frequently allusive, attempts to find a way to introduce the aforementioned concerns into academia and lay people without compromising the integrity of the text.
Nisbet discusses a literary genre that more readily lends itself to expurgation due to its length and fragmentary nature, namely the Greek Anthology. N. argues that the classification of epigrams, their misunderstood value, and the interpretative and quantifying focus of introductions to editions, such as Paton's (1916), have deprived readers of a genre infused with Greek social history. Symonds’ edition (1873) re-evaluates epigrams and, even though he bypasses some ‘improprieties’, he still paves the road for more honest readings of the Anthology. Finally, N. considers Mackail's 1890 edition to be well organised, but he finds his consideration of the Anthology anachronistic.
Butterfield's essay explicates how Lucretius’ religious theses unfairly affected his Nachleben. The emergence of Christianity signalled centuries of anxiety that endangered the very existence of the text and thwarted its appreciation. B. takes us on a geographical and chronological voyage that ranges from the fifteenth- to eighteenth-century editions in Italy, France, Holland and England, in which Lucretius’ reception was marked by complete excision, promotion of the author's literary merits rather than his views, introductory apologies and emphasis on the value of Classics, calumniation of the poet's mental state, and careful wording of translations. Dryden's translation (1685), Alter's edition (1787), and Rouse's (1924) and Godwin's (1994) translations are mentioned as the notable exceptions for their academic integrity in the appreciation of Lucretius.
H. very concisely discusses the expected bowdlerisation of Horace's anti-female Epodes 8 and 12, the sexual Satire 1.2, and the pederastic Odes 4.1 and 4.10 in editions between 1660 and the 1990s. The inclusion of the pederastic poems in Brome's 1666 edition and Creech's 1684 indicates, according to H., the licentiousness during the reign of Charles II. Victorian prudery and female and student readership, however, in eighteenth- to twentieth-century publications led to the complete excision of Horace's pederastic poems, euphemisms and linguistic intimations for the sexual references, and commentaries arguing in favour of Horatian immaturity, or his imitation of precedent literary models. Mid to late twentieth-century works have naturally been more explicit, with Watson's commentary (2003) being a paragon of academic forthrightness.
Leary presents the omissions in Martial's editions by Paley and Stone (1868) and by Sellar and Ramsay (1884), but very perceptively instructs against cursory devaluation of those works. Martial's spirit, linguistic mannerisms and cultural commentary can be fully appreciated if one reads the entirety of his works. However, contemporary puritanism would not have allowed for such an excess; so the aforementioned editions, which partly emasculated the poet, thus succeeded in introducing him to students. L. also introduces the case of conscious and academically valid selection with a reference to Howell's (1995) and Watson and Watson's commentaries (2003). Finally, he gives a different perspective on ‘selection’ when he mentions Martial's own admittance of the possibility of castration of his writings (1.35).
Catullus’ sexual explicitness did not escape academic cleansing. Trimble elaborates on expurgated commentaries that can be classified into those attempting ‘to valorise the text’ (p. 144), those that elucidate, as the chronological and cultural hiatus between the poet and his readership is significant, and those providing a ‘“note-form” commentary’ (p. 144). Once more we are reminded that expurgation may indicate omission, in the case of commentary the existence of the Latin text but without commentary, and the use of euphemisms and comments diverting the reader's attention from the crude parts. T. also references practical problems that expurgators face, such as the numbering of poems and lines as well as how the circumvention of provocative passages may in fact produce a more titillating effect for the readership.
Morwood's contribution splendidly complements Trimble's argument. M. references the Delphin Classics editions of Dubois (1685) and Floridus (1688). M. argues that the Dubois edition of Catullus is marked by several omissions, although his commentary, albeit in Latin, is sexually explicit. Floridus, on the other hand, opts for appendising the ‘Obscoena’ of Apuleius. Concerns about the integrity of academic circles arises, according to M., when modern editions, such as Fordyce's Catullus (1961), severely emasculate the text, or when Dover's Clouds (1968) is met with hostility. M. very convincingly argues for academic and social emancipation. It is only when the ancient author is not anachronistically considered socially illegitimate that the text can be fully appreciated.
The two final contributions discuss familiar editions: Loeb and Penguin. Lawton comprehensively presents the translation strategies of Loeb in the twentieth century. He pinpoints Loeb's evasive techniques, noticeable to any reader, namely obfuscation, excision and non-translation, and retranslation. L. claims that the aforementioned negate the intent of James Loeb (p. 175). It seems to me that J. Loeb, unless considered anachronistically, has actually managed to make Classics accessible to everyone. As for occasional vagueness, he probably anticipated that the twentieth-century readership was not ready for more ‘precarious’ texts. Finally, Crowe eulogises Penguin and its uncompromising stance when it came to social disapproval or legal concerns. With riveting references to specific translations and quotations from the mail correspondence between Penguin editors and their legal consultant (provided by Penguin archival material), C. gives us the chance to reconsider the practical challenges of the publication process.
This is the first book that examines in great detail the phenomenon of expurgation and reveals the extent to which manipulation of the text can result in reprehensible publications that compromise the integrity of the ancient author. This is an excellent volume as a whole, as the heterogeneity of the contributions offers a new vantage point from which to re-evaluate the final products. No reader of this book will ever naïvely handle any publication, or will recklessly consider any bowdlerisation as anodyne.
