Enfilade

From Oxford University Press:

Alexia Petsalis-Diomidis with Edith Hall, eds., The Classical Vase Transformed: Consumption, Reproduction, and Class in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Britain, special issue of Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 63.1 (June 2020).

The Classical Vase Transformed: Consumption, Reproduction, and Class in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Britain explores hitherto marginalized working-class and middle-class engagements with ancient Greek vases. Its origins lie in a symposium which took place in May 2016 at King’s College London, Ancient Greek Pots and Class in Britain, 1798–1939. This themed issue of BICS has three principal aims. First, to sharpen our awareness of the range of engagements with classical culture experienced at the lower end of the social spectrum, in the context of a scholarly focus on elites. Second, to help redress the balance within Classical Reception Studies, which is heavily skewed towards receptions of classical literature rather than classical material culture. And third, to increase the prominence of humble ceramics as compared to grand monumental sculpture, which remains the focus of studies on the reception of classical material culture. . . .

While a small but vocal minority of classicists remain unconvinced of the value of Classical Reception Studies, seeing ‘reception’ as an extraneous layer that needs to be ‘peeled off’ in order to access the ancient world ‘directly’, the theoretical basis of Classical Reception Studies continues to be a subject of scholarly debate (4). . . .

The reception of classical sculpture has fared relatively well within the disciplines of Art History, Eighteenth-Century Studies, and even Classical Archaeology. Areas of particular interest are collecting and the Grand Tour, and the nationalist use of sculptural archaeological remains in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (9). But the reception of Greek vases, including the history of scholarship, collecting, creative responses, and influence on the production of later painting, has only recently started to be explored in depth. This state of affairs gives rise to the third aim of the issue: to put the reception of Greek vases in the spotlight in the context of the dominance of monumental stone sculpture in studies of receptions of classical material culture. . . .

The full introduction (including notes) is available here»

C O N T E N T S

Acknowledgements
Contributors
List of Figures

• Alexia Petsalis-Diomidis, “Introduction,” pp. 8–14.

The Classical Vase Produced and Consumed in New Ceramic Forms
• Edith Hall, “How Much Did Pottery Workers Know about Classical Art and Civilisation?,” pp. 17–33.
• Alexia Petsalis-Diomidis, “Pottery Workers, ‘the Ladies’, and ‘the Middling Class of People’: Production and Marketing of ‘Etruscan and Grecian Vases’ at Wedgwood c.1760–1820,” pp. 34–53.
• Janett Morgan, “A Greek Tragedy? Why ‘Dillwyn’s Etruscan Ware’ Failed,” pp. 54–71.
• Paul Lewis, “Archaeology in the Home: Neoclassical Ceramics for New Audiences in Mid-Nineteenth-Century Britain,” pp. 72–88.

The Classical Vase Constrained in the Museum Cabinet and Transfigured in the Body
• Caspar Meyer, “Ancient Vases in Modern Vitrines: The Sensory Dynamics and Social Implications of Museum Display,” pp. 91–109.
• Helen Slaney, “Pots in Performance: Emma Hamilton’s Attitudes,” pp. 110–22.
• Abigail Baker, Myths of the Odyssey in the British Museum (and beyond): Jane Ellen Harrison’s Museum Talks and Their Audience,” pp. 123–37.

Response
• Katherine Harloe, “Classics Transformed? Ancient Figured Vases as a Test-Case for the Preoccupations of Classical Reception Studies,” pp. 138–42.