[Update: a nice external writeup of this event has now been published by ‘Mixed up in Classics’ at mixedupinclassics.wordpress.com/2020/07/22/inclusive-classics-conference/]

(Posted on behalf of Professor Barbara Goff)

Well, the event exceeded all our expectations.  150 participants registered, including about 30 students and 30 school teachers, and also including colleagues from New Zealand, China, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Italy, France, Austria, Spain, Greece and Belgium.  It was a remarkable meeting, and my co-organiser and I are so pleased we went the online route – without that, we would never have met so many inspiring classicists.

The Zoom format was a bit daunting at first to manage, but we had excellent technical support from Reading’s very own Dr James Lloyd, and our confidence did grow over the two days.  We adopted a new format for this workshop which we can highly recommend.  Speakers’ materials were precirculated online, and then speakers’ actual presentations were very short – only 5 minutes.  Subsequent to that, questions were posted in the chat and moderated by one of the hosts, after which the workshop went into breakout rooms of about 7 people each, for smaller group discussions.

The chat was astonishingly rich, as people did not only post questions but also numerous suggestions for each other, with links and recommendations of books and websites.  All the chat was saved so it can form part of our final report to the Council of University Classics Departments (CUCD) who will publish it in their Bulletin.  I loved reading all the exchanges, although it was hard work to winnow them when it was my turn to moderate and feed pertinent questions to speakers.  I also loved being in the breakout rooms, where I met a huge range of people interested both in the ancient world and in how to promote new ideas about its diversity.

All the papers were stimulating and many dove-tailed with each other in very rewarding ways.  Highlights of discussion included: how to decolonise the teaching of classics in schools as well as at universities; what role reception studies can play in reconceptualising our relations to the ancient world; how to factor a greater range of texts into teaching in order to understand the diversity of antiquity; how the move of teaching online has enhanced some opportunities, and encouraged people to rethink resources; whether we can rethink Classics without rethinking other aspects of the university and higher education generally; and whether we should consider renaming our discipline.  This was all in addition to more specific discussion generated by the variety of papers.  We closed with a panel that included a teacher, two students, and two academics from South America, who debated specific suggestions towards more inclusive teaching, which will also form part of our report.

Work is now afoot to convene a steering committee who will make the workshop an annual event.  Meanwhile, one of our participants has come up with an ‘Inclusive Unseens’ project, which is crowdsourcing new passages for the Latin GCSE unseen.  Teachers and academics are collaborating to provide passages from a greater variety of places, cultures and social classes across the Roman world. 

It is great to know that there is so much energy for the project of making our discipline more welcoming and better suited to our multicultural world.  If you would like to be part of a new Working Group which links the Department of Classics at Reading with the Department of Archaeology, to investigate the inclusivity of our courses and scholarship, please do get in touch.

Last autumn – it seems a long time ago! – I was very honoured to be invited to speak on ‘Classics and Race’ at an event hosted by St Andrews.  The organisers were aware of my research on Classics in West Africa, and I was pleased to be able to share that, plus I spoke about books that had recently inspired me, like Superior: the return of race science and Afropean: notes from Black Europe.

Afropean reminds readers of the persistent presence of people of African descent within a European continent that people sometimes think of as ‘white’. Superior starts with a visit to the British Museum, where the neoclassical architecture shows us that ‘Britain framed itself as the heir to the great civilizations of Egypt, Greece, the Middle East, and Rome’.  This cultural power and entitlement expressed itself in many ways, including the domination of non-white people throughout the world.  The legacies of this hierarchical attitude beset us still today.

Both these books invite reflections from classicists who are keen to site our discipline firmly in the twenty-first century, and to foreground a history that need not be one only of exclusion. Although these books address questions of race (even while they query the term), other recent work in Classics has shown how the marginalised populations of women and the working class have laboured to build meaningful relationships with the art, literature and history of the ancient Greeks and Romans.  This is an important reminder about what our discipline can be and do, at a time when numerous communities across the world are protesting the fallout from centuries of racism.

The move to ‘decolonise’ Classics take place in a context when disciplines like History, Art History, and Mediaeval Studies have all had similar developments.  All of these disciplines want to rethink their history and make themselves welcoming to more diverse populations of students and scholars.   The ‘Classics and Race’ workshop was part of this, as was the ‘Decolonising Classics’ workshop organised at Reading by Katherine Harloe and Rachel Mairs, in 2018.

All these intellectual currents came together at St Andrews, and I was delighted when Dr Alexia Petsalis-Diomidis suggested that she and I collaborate to organise a seminar series on inclusive Classics at the Institute of Classical Studies.  Alexia has long been involved in outreach events that promote diversity within Classics, and has a special interest in how material culture can be used in such contexts.

Events quickly overtook us and we found ourselves organising a big one-day workshop instead of a seminar series; our call for papers produced 12 contributions that range widely over topics like how to teach the ancient Persians, how to teach Latin to students with dyslexia, how to make the Parthenon Marbles accessible to blind students, and how to negotiate a career in Classics as a person of colour.  When Covid-19 struck, we realised we had been even more overtaken by events.  We wondered whether to cancel or postpone, but decided the issues were too urgent.  So we agreed to take the event online, and spread it out over two afternoons, so as not to have too much ‘Zoom fatigue’.

The wonderful thing that has now happened is that instead of getting 30 scholars and students from the UK in a room at the Institute in London, we have 106 participants from 11 countries.  Needless to say, we are terrified, but wildly excited too. It is a sign that these discussions are timely and are what people want to engage with.  We are very much looking forward to intense and fruitful conversations, and we must cross our fingers that the new technology can keep up with the ancient discipline.  Have a look at our programme here.

And please feel free to get in touch for further information.

Professor Barbara Goff (b.e.goff@reading.ac.uk).

Rome’s forgotten poetry:

Poetic production between community-based art, folklore, and avant-garde entertainment

Panel in the 13^th Celtic Conference in Classics, Lyon 15-18 July 2020

Poetry was an omnipresent element of cultural practice of the Roman world. The corpus of ‘published’ (literary) poetry that survives until the present day, to a very large extent, was the product of individuals who, as members of Rome’s ruling classes or their protégés, would find a medium for personal expression and declaration of feelings and beliefs in their poetic compositions, a way to demonstrate artistic skills and aspirations, a ticket to the limelight, etc. Persius’ first satire, for example, is abundant in references to this role of literature in the 1^st c. AD: the satirist finds in his little book the way to express his innermost thoughts (1.120), whereas the majority of poets publish their work in the hope of public attention (1.26-77). 

Not all of the poetic activity of the Romans was made public, however. Poetry was written also casually and shared among friends, either expressing affection or wittiness, as Cicero (Fam. 12.16) tells us about one of his friends. And although the surviving remnants of published evidence is more easily accessible to us, poetic activity was documented more conspicuously in everyday life in the Roman world. For one, messages conveyed in verses inscribed in the walls of Pompeii testify to this, whereas verse inscriptions are visible and tangible reminders of poetic compositions that belonged to the people outside the educated elite and beyond the city of Rome.

Beyond its production, poetic activity was also apparent in recitations and manifold performances that are not necessarily best described as examples of dramatic or performing genres. In a notorious passage, Livy (7.2.1-8) explores the development of what one might loosely describe as forms of scenic entertainment in its various manifestations before the paradigmatic shift associated with Livius Andronicus. However, performances of this type with casual verse composition and exchanges between actors have survived until much later, with the participation and active as well as passive involvement of people regardless their social class. Petronius (Sat. 90) reports such a poetic recitation without the expected results, whereas Persius again in his first satire gives examples of poetic recitations that provoke his criticism (1.15-23, 88-90). All these examples elevate Latin poetry from compositions that were merely produced for publication, recitations and performances with specific settings, and artistic products associated with an educated upper class, to a predominantly cultural activity which was inclusive, with the engagement of people that we do not need to understand as historically or socially determined communities.

Disentangling the widespread, shared cultural practice  from dogmatically imposed social and spatial constraints, we propose to examine the poetry of ‘the people’ in its own right, while including its social dynamics, with a view to how poetry as a cultural activity interacted with society, which role(s) it played to its heterogeneous audiences, and how the Romans construed poetry by perpetually interacting with it. Thus, we will look into the poetics of these compositions and enquire into the extent to which people complied to traditional norms and genres. From a different angle, it is also possible to investigate this evidence and examples as parts or variables of ‘popular culture’, exploiting the framework that has been developed recently by Horsfall (2003), Toner (2009), and Grig (2017). Finally, research on literary developments and poetic compositions as cultural activities will contribute to a better understanding of the Roman poetic landscape, as well as of the Roman literary culture (Fantham 1996). Overall, we believe that this approach is designed to bridge the gap between composition and activity in our studying of Roman poetry, considering literary production across social, ethnic, and linguistic groups.

Within this context, we would like to invite proposals for a panel in the 13th Celtic Conference in Classics (Lyon, 15-18 July 2020). Proposals can address themes and answer questions related, but not limited, to:

Evidence

• Evidence for documented but not survived poetic activity and its reception in the historical, social, and literary context.
• Poetic compositions shared within communities and networks without any intention to be published can be examples of this.
• Poetic compositions publicly displayed (e.g. inscriptions), but not published.
• Testimonia of oral composition.

Poetics

• Poetics of the poetry of the people: stylization; metres and canons; compliance with or divergence from the traditional forms?
• Themes in the poetry of the people: love, death, wittiness, satire.
• Short poetic compositions that cannot be defined in terms of genre.

Poetry as cultural activity

• Forms and contexts of poetic recitations and performing acts in their historical and literary contexts; the evidence for mime.
• Literary production that is deliberately associated with or disassociated from social classes and its implications. Poetic composition beyond the city of Rome.
• Poetic production and/against consumption; different compositions in private/public spheres of cultural activities; was the consumed poetry the same or correspondent to the poetry they composed and/or published?
• Poetry of the people and interaction with the historical, social, and political contexts. E.g. Suetonius (Ner. 39.1) reports the short compositions against Nero that people circulated or posted.

Confirmed speakers:

Yelena Baraz (Princeton University)

Hans Bork (Stanford University)

Maria Jennifer Falcone (University of Pavia)

Jan Kwapisz (University of Warsaw)

Marie Ledentu (Université Lyon III – Jean Moulin)

Luke Roman (Memorial University)

Christoph Schubert (Friedrich-Alexander-Universität)

Please, send your abstracts (300 words) to either of or both the organisers: Dr Andreas Gavrielatos (a.gavrielatos@reading.ac.uk) and Professor Peter Kruschwitz (peter.kruschwitz@univie.ac.at) by the 28^th February 2020. We aim to complete the selection of papers by the Ides of March.

Due to some secured funding, a limited amount of money will be used to support participants towards travel expenses and/or registration fees. Priority will be given to those without a permanent post, independent researchers, scholars from under-represented groups, etc.