{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018311291963377416, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.111801242236025, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
THE RECEPTION OF KATABASIS

tangle of colonial legacies that result. Far from being at best scattered and at worst irrelevant, the activist agenda of critical classical reception analyses both the scholarly content and the larger discipline and institution out of which the discipline was generated. Be it literary studies, history or art history, humanistic subdisciplines that focus on the early Americas must necessarily highlight the longer, more insidious legacies that Classics – with all its reach and influence – may obscure. In the essay on the seventeenth-century relationships between the Wendat people and French Jesuits Yuzwa concludes with the idea of the ‘classical imaginary’ and what it can offer scholars of Classics and the early Americas alike. As a Latin Americanist, I wonder: what was the classical imaginary, if not explicitly the colonial reality? It is my great hope that reception scholars continue to focus on the latter rather than relying on the former.