Writing, Performance, and Authority in Augustan Rome. By MICHÈLE LOWRIE. 

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Pp. xv + 426. Cloth. $135.00. ISBN: 

978-019-954567-4.



Order this text for $115.94 from Amazon.com 

using this link and benefit CAMWS and the Classical Journal:



http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect-home/classjourn-20



Previously published CJ Online reviews are at 

http://classicaljournal.org/reviews.php





CJ Online 2010.06.07



Declaration of interest: my inclusion in the Acknowledgements refers to 

early drafting towards portions of Part 3. I have been interested, to say 

the least, in getting to see the finished product. Now, wow.



This is an event -- a belter. A grand power-surge of a book that bids to 

crown the noughties with a fizzing synthesis in vindication of 

textualist-oriented study of "high" poetry in Lat. Lit. (See TOC below.) 

Tenaciously drawing on the most incisive theorizing going, L gives the 

heartland of Augustan poetry a good rap, to see what claims ought to be 

made for its purchase on the politics of Augustan culture and aesthetics. 

The route is through the traction programmed into creative deployment of 

the image-repertoire/s of composition, delivery, and impact (inclusive of 

its limitations, channelling, failure). "Of the four general attitudes, or 

approaches to the critical approach, that it is possible to take [between 

self-referential vacuity and reality-creating plenipotentiality] -- viz., 

the dogmatic, the syncretistic, the skeptical, and the instrumentalistic -- 

no sober critic will choose other than the fourth." [[1]] Not that 

inspiration (or for that matter intoxication) will tell any of us straight 

out what difference poems made to Rome besides filling cultural repertoire 

and "shelves"; but putting the squeeze on the classic texts' manipulation 

of notions of their own effectivity (and ineffectuality) can yield up how 

they point us at reading. In a nutshell, what point do the great Augustan 

poets make on the point of "reading" -- considered as "multi-instrumental" 

discourse, as medium, as social-political venue?



The book's design is an intricately crafted feat of composition. L tells us 

(p. xii) she has leavened an original introduction dense with theory, to 

leave us with a couple of preparatory feelers: the first heralds themes to 

come through an Aeneid range-finder and sampler, the next ushers us through 

precursors and prequels onto the threshold. The tough stuff is distributed 

through the chapters that lead off and/or cash out the main quadripartite 

programme (she signposts Chapters 1, 3, 12, 16). One accurate way to decoct 

the complex of critical instruments in play -- at once martialled and 

construed -- is a profile by index entry: praise, prayer, ritual, song; 

festival, occasion, triumph; address/apostrophe, deixis, 

ecphrasis/enargeia; performative discourse/speech act theory, 

presence/absence, representation; inscription, writing, monument, tablets; 

authority, exemplum, law; aesthetics, book, literature, reading. (Notably 

played down: frame, Greek/s in Rome, imagination, intertext, littérature 

latine inconnue, paratext, psychoanalysis, rhetoric, translation.) 

Influences star Adorno on lyric, Austin, Bourdieu, Judith Butler on the 

powering of language, De Man on modernity, Derrida on citation, fold, mark, 

dissemination, testimony. (Disputants featured include: Habinek on 

foundational song, Dupont, Wiseman, Nagy and Hellenism in general, on 

performance.) Many of the forms of argument were threshed for the book in 

fashioning the series of magisterial reviews L has contributed over the 

decade -- gritty, punctilious, consequential -- and she folds into the 

exegesis her own running self-commentary -- with the same qualities -- 

thereby (I plead) calling the tune and the shots on any reviewer.



Bar one or two asides (on Woody Allen, on Bush), L runs down every twist 

and quirk in the conceptual apparatus she commandeers or surmounts with 

unwaveringly ferocious determination and never a sloppy short-cut or 

mystificatory get-out. As a fellow-believer in "close reading" as the 

engine-room of literary studies, I applaud the book's up-front organization 

around "applied" showcase treatment of loci, topoi, genres, monuments. L 

will now be essential reading for (* = highlights): *Augustus, Res Gestae; 

Catullus (1, 42, 50, 65-66, 68, 101); Horace (Epodes 11, 17, Odes 1.20, 21, 

3.1, 22, 25, 30, 4.1, 2, 5, 6, 11, *15, *Carmen Saeculare, *Satires 2.1, 

*Epistles 1.19, *2.1, Ars 391-407); Ovid (Amores 1.11-12, Heroides 16-17, 

20-21, Metamorphoses 6.422-674, *15.745-879, Tristia *2, 4.2, Ex Ponto 2.1, 

3.4); Propertius (2.1, 10-14, 34, 4.3, 6, *11); Virgil (Eclogues 5, 6, 

*Georgics 3.1-48, Aeneid 1.1, 257-62, 3.443-57, 6.77-105, 755-9, 8.285-8, 

714-22); *ILS 5050; *Mausoleum complex; *Ara Pacis. Other passages and 

texts (Lucretius, Ovid, Ars, Fasti, Remedia; Livy Preface, Vitruvius 1 

Preface, Pliny Natural History 28.10-13, Suetonius Augustus 99-101) are 

touched upon -- though not Tibullus, whose "commitment to song" robs his 

work of the targetted "productive interaction of performance with writing" 

(p. xii). [[2]]



L works to a tight self-imposed schedule of focus on poetic capital made 

from friction inside sovereign antithesis between writing and song, as 

poetry fashions scenarios for its own delivery that enliven script and/or 

tape event. She therefore sticks with the terms used, to grill the use and 

the use made of the terms, following the grain of individual passages in 

building to genre- and eventually era-wide assessments of Augustan culture 

through literature. [[3]] Monuments that come with inscriptions are in, 

otherwise out (no Villa della Farnesina, then, for all its artfully 

textured presentation of imagery -- culture as imagination brought to life, 

but a script without room/s for [literal] lines). So too the canon does 

indeed get to rule, as if Augustan culture were not shaped retroactively by 

its inspiriting mythologizers (from latest Ovid through L). The question of 

what put Augustus (for the likes of me, always "Augustus" -- "Mr. 

Exaggeration", say, "Hypeperbole" or "Highperbole") in place as the 

exemplum he was designed and designated to be blanks out the history that 

kept (on reshaping) this foundational role present and authorized, through 

his succession (the Res Gestae inscriptions were Tiberian works), change of 

régime, dynasty, tetrarchic re-bore, religious revolution, through way 

post-Roman classicizing imperialisms. (Surprisingly, L is prepared to treat 

Virgil commentators on Eclogues on stage and Suetonius on obligatory serial 

Last Words as if bona fide "Augustan" evidence.)



On the one hand, any historian is going to resist L's award of poetic 

perdurability beyond the reach of repressive force as a romantic article of 

faith in The Library: the paper legalese on which awards of land by the 

legion were signed by the first brace of Caesars surely bound imperial Rome 

to Augustus as capstone of a centred worldwide system invested in 

perpetuity which carried its literary consecration by Virgil and Horace 

along with it, that way round, as (granted: effectual) symbolic capital. 

Had Flavian rupture not sutured but tipped into epistemic shift, ditched 

with "Caesar" and "Augustus" would have gone Aeneid and Odes alike, as 

surely as Eclogues and Satires I required their writers' sublation in 

tandem with Octavian's to survive as key "sym-ptomatic" prequels. What 

bound them all up together and dipped these "one-offs" in gold back then 

only inaugustated their reign.



On the other, it is possible to play off the Augustan canon against rival 

versions and later writerly constellations, extant or constructable, that 

would trouble L's claims that her poets were specially exercised and 

engaged in thrusting their perils of performativity arch theme at "us" 

readers. We could compare Neronian and Trajanic preoccupations (think 

Persius or Juvenal 7); this might make diagnosis of circularity 

pre-programmed into the argument more likely -- maybe the Augustans' 

hegemony lodges fair and square in concession of their canonicity? Does 

reading (cashing out) literary metaphors for literature depend on 

transferential effacing of the snag that the literal is itself metaphoric 

currency, especially in the reification of literature as 

self-dramatization? If Caesar was retroactivated into precursor status so 

Augustus could play off/through his model, so post-Augustans riffed unruly 

on "his" dead Strong Poets society: if they were less literal about their 

metaphors, that need not make their writing any the less concerned with the 

stakes of figured self-enactment, the literariness of their literature. Our 

first post-Augustan beauty parade of poets of the era (Ex Ponto 4.16) 

features Marsus, Rabirius, Macer, Pedo, Carus, Seuerus, Numa, Priscus 

(bis), Montanus, Sabinus, Largus, Camerinus, Tuscus, Marius, Trinacrius, 

Lupus, Tuticanus, Rufus, Turannius, Melissus, Varius, Graccus, Proculus, 

Passer, Grattius, Fontanus, and Capella, alongside Ovid (one of them still 

substantially with us), and mononomic Manilius' deterministic shares in 

active textuality could further show up L's glitterati as already the 

first-flush poets of transition, enshrined as so much quality (muddled) 

guesswork about how advent shakedown might in time live on to mask the 

entrenched order of late/r Augustus.



So when L's last section PART IV (pp. 372-84) calls us to multiply-heralded 

reckoning with the finale of the Metamorphoses, "explicit[ly] ... 

countervail[ing] Augustus' wishes" (with a [parody-]courtier's gesture of 

"independence"), and we reach "the climax" from Ovid "the last of the 

Augustans and this ... his culminating statement", we should indeed mark 

his latecomer's "revision of the tradition established by the previous 

generation of Augustans", and press hard the contention that Ovid claims, 

let alone realises the claim, that his "writing surpasses [or even 

'surpasses'] the indestructibility of fate" as his literary monument trumps 

Horace's prediction of (or prayer for) self-immortalization through oral 

performance with his own equivalent through reading aloud (Odes 3.30.10, 

dicar, Met. 15.878, legar: both future indicative?, neither 

optative-subjunctive?). [[4]] The "getting to know you" of Odes 2.20.19, 

noscent ("heard of Horace? -- yep"), as opposed to "textbook" status, 20, 

discet), suggests rather that mock-modest Ovid's twin objective is merely 

to capture eternal "celebrity" (fama, 878) plus the mouthing of just his 

name, with a headstone's, a book-tag's, legibility ("O-V-I-D spells ...? 

Ovid"). Rather than a loophole to freedom through disseminative de- then 

re-contextualization in the hands of readers out of 'Gus's reach, irony 

ironized through parody here gets flattened in order to "offer[] the 

capstone for the development of these intertwined ideas [written fixity and 

the living reauthorization of reading] throughout this period". The 

fulminatio in clausula comes as a shock, as this final "pun" works through 

hyperimposition of kaleidoscopic Metamorphoses' outro onto endless Aeneid's 

entrée (in Chapter 1, Arma virumque cano) to provide a teleological 

terminus for a story-analysis of early Augustan poetry that was in fact 

strung between taxonomic genres and woven dialectically across the 

over-arc-ing antithetical fission inherent within all notions of "singer 

song-writing". When the scene was set with Virgil writing that he was 

singing (when he was not depicting) and Catullus singing that he was 

writing (when he was not hymning, cursing, and charming), a narrative 

through Actium to Ara Pacis didn't seem on the cards: the original target 

was (what I'm calling) the "instrumentalist" problematic of tuning in to 

the functionality of literariness within a society predominantly located -- 

in reach -- through its literature. [[5]]



In essence, L chases down what there is "in" her chosen texts and monuments 

to indicate how they reckon (maintain, imagine, pretend) they come to carry 

punch. In my book, she demolishes recent moves supposed to reflate Latin 

poems as vectors of ritual power derived from participatory "first 

performances". (But in my view the Roman cultivation of the book-unit 

packaging poem sub-units as in any concept album should rule out any 

perverse urge to wish away the experience of reading from literary 

experience before any of this gets a look-in: e.g. Propertius 4.6 comes 

always already as a figure in the design of Book 4, framed by 4.1's 

programme/s, and imbricated with 4.5 and 4.7 as Actium between Acanthis and 

Cynthia, and accordingly no "hard nut to crack for subversive readers", p. 

188; L half-makes but muffs the point at p. 80 with foreclosure on the 

consequentiality of Odes 3.21 for 3.22, without running the tape backwards 

from 3.23.) Why anyone should want to "have been there and then", i.e. not 

reading, is no doubt something else, but that these bearers of culture 

afforded "Augustans", and delivers us, live textuality in a pact of 

re-citationality is, praise be, what ordains this writing literature, cf. 

esp. pp. 52-4.) L in fact demonstrates superbly through interactive 

scrutiny in combination with the epigraphic acta how the Carmen Saeculare 

semi-detaches from evocative presencing of the ludi, charging up textuality 

for post-event, as once pre-event, performance in every re-reading. (Add 

that its special status as neither exception nor rule is signalled by its 

non-inclusion in a book combined with short weight as a stand-alone: the 

graphematic equivalent of its ritual status as once-in-a-lifetime unicum.) 

She shows decisively how tales of convivial performance, village-mime, 

agora-style flyting, and so on, merit much the same other-than-historical 

reception as they are deployed in the course of aetiological myth- and 

anti-myth-making as the kitsch idylls of communitas offered up in Greek 

theorizing (and scholarship), in the mock-regressive Aeneid and the last 

Horatian Ode, and (naturally) in Augustan pageantry. So too recitatio 

soirée, declamation binge, an audience with the Leader, all serve up with 

their different degrees of in/authenticity the potential for allegories of 

reading with every unrolling of the text. Elegiac rhetoric provides L with 

a straightforward counter-instance of potency in [captivating] denial in 

exchange for self-centred re-orientation of values and aspirations, while 

oceanic Roman epistolarity invents (stylish) emperors of stylus mirrored in 

their (almighty but transferential) tingod purple addressee, demands 

reading as pledged life-on-the-line response, and tips writing in absence 

into an endlessly expansive decentering of vantage-point to an Italy-, then 

empire-, and virtually world-wide constituency of post-city-state 

self-presences. (This Actian effect of incorporating the outlook from Egypt 

as last of the diadochic independent others is indeed topped by those 

catchy blogs from Ovid the Goth courtesy of imperial relegation, but 

Eclogues and Satires all along sang the Mediterranean from the same 

hymnbook.) [[6]]



Prophecy and scripture; authority and (most excitingly) law ... -- provide 

intimidating cloaks of mystification that (so long as they get their way) 

endow the wearer with the oomph to dictate reality: whether donned by 

poetic convention, by monumental titanism, or by dictator's diktat, the 

zygotic apparatus that models metaphoric twosomes of verbal-scriptural 

felicity into self-enacting certainty welds say-so into superordination 

(sooth in saying, gospel in testament; the authority behind authority, law 

of law ...). L reaches into the machinery further than anyone to explore 

the convergent/asymptotic semiology of self-beatifying grandiosity 

("Augustus") dreamed up through paper, pun and pyramid between writers, 

junta and ruler. No doubt self-consciousness is always over-determined, so 

historians can never be content to adopt an account in the terms of the 

culture's own image-repertoire, but L's strategy as literary historian and 

text-reliant classicist sticks her fastest to the core vocabulary 

"literally" attaching to performance and score in response to the 

sociologically-minded provocation represented by Tom Habinek's scheme for 

Roman culture. This dramatizes a montage constantly re-founding the polity 

in affirmative-operative commitment to socially-scripted "writ" through 

felicitously activated "song-acts" tending toward reactive-responsive 

self-policing of society around imprinted themes of right behaviour, 

self-evident hierarchic norms, traditional sanctions for adjustment as 

retrieval. [[7]] For Habinek's project it was as satisfying as it was 

serendipitous to cathect the scheme onto Latin keywords, but his 

intervention is an anti-formalist revisionism breaking with passive 

habituation to Roman art-writing as inconsequence, one option among several 

lifestyle leisure activities detaining a self-fascinated fraction of the 

élite. His specimens of curse, spell, hymn, encomium, verdict, decree, 

etc. did not require explicit title or watchword to qualify: functionality 

was a dimension of all locution, never conceivably quite aside from the 

bizz of social life. For me, he tells a story of charisma starring 

something much like the live gig on record as conceived against a setting 

of embedded performance routines, a tale which sits tight with re-thinking 

in contemporary criticism of the whole oral-script bag of 

folk-country-blues-rock-jazz-hiphop, similarly beset with phonocentric 

nostalgia and with aesthetic preciosity. In response, L attends very 

precisely indeed -- religiously -- to the head terms cano and dico 

(vocalization marked authoritative, at point of origin), carmen (effectual 

recorded utterance); canto (performance without claiming authorship), 

loquor (unmarked utterance); (tabulae, in-between transient drafting or 

propositioning and authorized laying down of the law); fari, fatum, liber, 

litterae, scribo; recito, lego, -ere, lego, -are, lex (operations with 

utterance storage whether inscribed in minds, on hearts, or recorded 

message in stone, on paper). [[8]]



For the balance of the book, relentless pursuit of the mix in the 

self-presentations by various authors, oeuvres and genres, polarized as 

"singing" or "writing", but without fixed positions, uncovers through 

enallage between enantiomorphs a welter of nuanced claims for "(really) 

signifyin'" and "(finally) nailing it". That poems can tell us how poems 

tell us something's happening here must be a benign metaphor for processing 

reception as literature, but the literalness of L's circumscription of her 

magic circle detains her in the paratextual margins where up-front liaisons 

with singer, reader, audience are forged and explicit mention of 

programmatics cluster. But it's always a two-way street when proem or 

postem or other poetic obtrusion sets up the text it frames, and in the 

case of "Augustan poetry" metapoetic self-commentary seeps and seethes 

through metaphoric displacement to keep the tape rolling out literary 

"happening -- same and different every time". (The Ars Poetica, not quite a 

book, nor in a book, hustles away instantiating all the other verse-forms 

and styles it rehearses passim, mainly without prompts in its theatre of 

language. The "invaticanation" poem Odes 1.20 puts up seal, container, 

storage, theatre, echo, response, consumption, untempered testa -- cf. 

tête -- to self-image its uates-cano bombination, pp. 67-71.) Other 

readers will wonder at the rigour. I hope all of us already hear, heed 

even, the hypotext sing-songing through what Virgil's pen-toting lines say 

should matter if his poem does. When Ovid demystifies bardolatry as 

scribble-worship the vibe comes through loud and clear, the catachrestic 

gaiety of the cynicism mode. Lyric powers my Horace's flapping aural 

lyrics, anyhow; and charmer Propertius spells haunting affect. Hey-ho 

(let's go). If you want to tune in to today's most powerful protreptic 

toward sharing the spin sealed into these classic acts, I recommend you 

don't miss Michèle Lowrie's big say-so. [[9]] She is so good at dissecting 

what she's doing as she dissects what her poems of choice are pitching our 

way.



L's translations are on the dutiful/ploddy side considering so many gems 

get quoted; there are one or two corking typos among the errata. [[10]]



TABLE OF CONTENTS: 



1. Arma uirumque cano 

2. Some Background 



PART I: Writing, Performance, and Performativity 

3. The Performance of Horatian Lyric: The Limits of Reference 

4. Horatian Lyric and Metaphorical Truths 

5. At the Limits of Performativity: The Carmen Saeculare 

6. Monument and Festival in Vergil 

7. Elegy: Overcoming Inability 



PART II: Performance and the Augustan Literary Epistle 

8. Love and Semiotics 

9. Beyond Performance Envy: Horace, Epistles 2.1 

10. De- and Re-Contextualization 

11. Ovid's Triumphs in Exile: Representation and Power 



PART III: Writing, Performance, and Politics 

12. Auctoritas and Representation: Augustus' Res gestae 

13. Occasion and Monument: The Ara Pacis 



PART IV: Reading and the Law 

14. Literature and the Law 

15. Inscription and Testimony: Propertius 4.11 

16. The Pragmatics of Literature: Ovid 





JOHN HENDERSON 

King's College, Cambridge 

[log in to unmask] 



[[1]] Duns C. Penwiper, "A complete analysis of Winnie-the-Pooh", in F.C. 

Crews (1964) The Pooh Perplex, London: p. 87.



[[2]] Note the featurette of exhaustive listings of loci for the vocabulary 

of song and music in Horatian lyric (pp. 73-4).



[[3]] More care is needed over some of the framed compositions, esp. 

Eclogue 2, where the proem prescribes mode of performativity for the 

singing of (such) carmina (v. 6: p. 84); the narration of Epodes 5 is -- 

magnum fas nefasque -- effaced, to enhance mime-like features, leading to 

disastrously curtailed play for the curse-poem's toxicity, along with its 

characters' (pp. 110-11: the deixis of the finale's hoc ... spectaculum 

includes the evil reading eye. Perfunctory presentations of 11, 13, 17 make 

this L's least effective batch of samples of effectuality).



[[4]] Not so much how, but why, does L decide that Propertius 4.6.85, 

ducam, which she has just translated "as a Pindaric future: 'I will lead' 

... is more probably subjunctive, like the verbs attaching to the other 

poets listed: 'may I lead'"? The question whether Propertius is a case like 

the others is the point of crowning the priamel: what's riding on it is the 

answer, "Propertius ends with a wish for poetic performance, for Augustan 

triumph, rather than the actual thing. But this means he produces 

literature. The pragmatic failure of a poem to praise actually results in a 

better poem and hence a more valuable tribute than pragmatically successful 

praise." (pp. 194-5)



[[5]] Conversely, L aims off morphing plotted through the grands recits of 

Aeneid and Ab Urbe Condita, which get holistic treatment, though how Livy 

presented Augustan Rome is so vastly unrecoverable from his extant 

"prelusory" narration/s from the present (pp. 157-8).



[[6]] For Horace and Ovid, though not Livy (or Virgil?), I can't see it as 

"Unimaginable ... that the social context of the Roman empire would exceed 

its own spatial and temporal constraints" (p. 122: but this is a chapter 

shutdown).



[[7]] (2005) The World of Roman Song: From Ritualized Speech to Social 

Order, Baltimore.



[[8]] I hope you, L's reader, never forget or swallow polarization of 

Virgil as Homer-redivivus's cano versus Horace as Muse-priest's canto (Odes 

3.1.4), as "the claim to authoritative poetic discourse" vs. "full-fledged 

song", so that "Vergil proclaims his subject matter with 'cano' and leaves 

the situation of utterance indeterminate, but Horace hints at a specific 

occasion" (p. 112): she goes on both to treat "Horace's declaration of song 

in the moment of utterance [as] highly grammatological" and yet to hive off 

the inaugural euphemia, first from its poem design, second from its block 

of Roman Modes (3.1-6), third from the arc to the epilogue bookend's 

monumentalizing tropes of indelibility, and hence from its triptych album 

(p. 113): "The lack of integration between this stanza and the rest of the 

ode further isolates this performative moment." So much for the song's exit 

tropes of proemial atrium refused for homesome valleydiction (vv. 45-8). 

She leaves unremarked the textual turn to the Horace-Ovid trick of playing 

dum loquor/loquimur, as "generaliz[ing] or 'as we speak'", which paces out 

footage to get the measure of its metric space (so the poem lengthens in 

deploring the timed space it lengthens into to make the point and make it 

bad; p. 112 and n. 46).



[[9]] One way to reflect on L's own intrication in her project is to follow 

the fortunes of the performative in her own persuasively troped rhetoric 

(e.g.): "Augustus brought peace ... He won popular consent ... Augustus, in 

my view, believed ... Furthermore, I think he understood ... The stability 

Augustus attempted to perpetuate ... Let us consider him the auctor of the 

monuments ... as the guarantor of their meaning" (pp. 282-3). With the 

poems, always check out insinuated "success/failure", plus their criteria, 

e.g. "The ritual language depicted in the poem may fail, communication may 

derail, but the hendecasyllables succeed as invective, and the poem 

succeeds as an allegory of reading" (p. 39 on Catullus 42); or, in Ovid's 

sequel, at Amores 1.11-12, "the tablets' failure in their mission reported 

in the next poem reveals pessimism about literature's ability to be 

effective ... These tablets fail in performativity and monumentality 

together" (pp.198-9): no success like failure, the poets know it; and use 

surreal paradox, mindgame ruse, and sundry rhetorical baffles precisely to 

thwart verdicts (e.g. the liar's paradox of Ovid Amores 3.12: p.201; 

Arethusa's letter "reduces writing to a medium for love, and hence dooms it 

to failure", so compelling a plea, the beats-sex irresistibility of 

helpless appeal: Propertius 4.3, pp. 220-3).



[[10]] p. 27 Homerein; 33 touching (contingens); 35 will I give (dono); 52 

greately; 59 Achises; 79n that <in> early Greece; 80 <A>iakideo; 86 merte; 

87 acta reveals ... 27 boys and <27> girls; 88 are lessened (minuentur); 98 

I try in the last chapter = ?; 107 his does not expect; 125 cante; 143n a 

few late readings; 144n the success of poems had previously achieved; 147n 

Colemen; 151 both ... or; 153 does ... means; 164 that <of> a goose; 162 

Aen. 3 = 10; 179 wears down (conterat); 187 Fama uolent; 192 draws 

(traxit); 197 spere; 198 Ovids develops; 198n iuuat (for iuuet); 202 let 

yield (concedent); 220 asymetrically; 222 Arthusa; 230 Lea<n>der; 235 

wordly; 240 adaption; 241 pontifici libri; 268 hesistate; 275 no trans for 

T. 4.2.25-6; 290 it is (for is sit); 294n parallalels; 296 convention 

always imply; 306 -nth year (for -um) 308 a Rome (arche); 314 officients; 

322n A, B and C thinks; 334n Caesar ... Preface (for Augustus ... Preface 

vii); 338 go jump in (for swim); 346 the legally the; 352 no trans for 

tunsa; 361 Ovid's remarks this part; 365 worthy <of> a; 367 A and B 

upholds; 370 no trans for solus; 380n 1999 for 1998; 389 Barchiesi (2000): 

nn.290-46; 397 Heinze: 153-680 for 153-68; 401 Lefkowitz: TV KAI ETW (for 

Greek); 406 Rüpke (2001) sozial (for sozialen); 416 Propertius 2.10 before 

2.1; 421 denotation has no ref.





If you have been forwarded this review, you may subscribe to the listserv 

by sending an email to: [log in to unmask]

Leave the subject line blank, and in the first line of the message write: 

SUBSCRIBE CJ-Online



You may remove yourself from the CJ-Online listserv by sending an email to: 

[log in to unmask]

Leave the subject line blank, and in the first line of the message write: 

UNSUBSCRIBE CJ-Online