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