Book contents
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures and Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Canons
- Chapter 3 Periodisations
- Chapter 4 Author and Identity
- Chapter 5 Intertextuality
- Chapter 6 Mediaeval Latin
- Chapter 7 Neo-Latin
- Chapter 8 Reception
- Chapter 9 National Traditions
- Chapter 10 Editing
- Chapter 11 Latin Literature and Linguistics
- Chapter 12 Latin Literature and Material Culture
- Chapter 13 Philosophy
- Chapter 14 Political Thought
- Chapter 15 Latin Literature and Roman History
- Chapter 16 Latin Literature and Greek
- Envoi
- Index Locorum
- General Index
- References
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Texts, Tools, Territories
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 January 2024
Book contents
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures and Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Canons
- Chapter 3 Periodisations
- Chapter 4 Author and Identity
- Chapter 5 Intertextuality
- Chapter 6 Mediaeval Latin
- Chapter 7 Neo-Latin
- Chapter 8 Reception
- Chapter 9 National Traditions
- Chapter 10 Editing
- Chapter 11 Latin Literature and Linguistics
- Chapter 12 Latin Literature and Material Culture
- Chapter 13 Philosophy
- Chapter 14 Political Thought
- Chapter 15 Latin Literature and Roman History
- Chapter 16 Latin Literature and Greek
- Envoi
- Index Locorum
- General Index
- References
Summary
This volume reflects on modes of scholarship in Latin literature: what texts do we read? How do we read them? And why? The introductory chapter first surveys the tools of the trade in the twenty-first century, then asks how ‘classical Latin’ is defined. We reflect on the exclusion of Christian Latin texts from the Oxford Latin Dictionary, try to quantify the corpus of surviving classical Latin, and uncover striking continuities between the canon of authors prescribed by Quintilian and modern teaching and research in classical Latin; commensurately, we draw attention to the neglect suffered by most surviving classical Latin authors and still more by the pagan and Christian texts of late antiquity. In the process we set an agenda for the volume as a whole, of ‘decentring’ classical Latin, and offer some first points of orientation in the late antique, mediaeval and early modern eras. Third, we look afresh at relations between Latin and fellow sub-disciplines in Classics and beyond. How much do we have in common, and what problems stand in the way of more successful communication? We close with some reflections on ‘close reading’ and on the possibility of evolving ‘distant reading’.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature , pp. 1 - 42Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Adams, J. N. (2007) The Regional Diversification of Latin, 200 bc – ad 600, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apostol, R. (2015) ‘Urbanus es, Corydon: ecocritiquing town and country in Eclogue 2’, Vergilius 61: 3–28.Google Scholar
Bagnall, R. and Heath, S. (2018) ‘Roman studies and digital resources’, JRS 108: 171–89.Google Scholar
Barchiesi, A. (2001a) ‘The crossing’, in Harrison, S. J., ed., Texts, Ideas, and the Classics: Literary Theory and Classical Scholarship (Oxford), 142–63.Google Scholar
Beagon, M. (2005) The Elder Pliny on the Human Animal: Natural History Book 7, Oxford.Google Scholar
Berger, J.-D., Fontaine, J. and Schmidt, P. L., eds. (2020) Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike. Sechster Band: Die Literatur im Zeitalter des Theodosius (374–430 n. Chr.), 2 vols., Munich.Google Scholar
Bernstein, N. (2020) ‘Quantitative and qualitative perspectives on the use of poetic tradition in Silius Italicus’ Punica’, in Coffee et al. 2020, 373–88.Google Scholar
Berti, M. (2019) Digital Classical Philology: Ancient Greek and Latin in the Digital Revolution, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berti, M., et al. (2009) ‘Collecting fragmentary authors in a digital library’, in Proceedings of the 9th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (Austin, TX), 259–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, E., Brill, S. and Holmes, B., eds. (2019) Antiquities Beyond Humanism, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bispham, E., Rowe, G. and Matthews, E., eds. (2007) Vita vigilia est: Essays in Honour of Barbara Levick, London.Google Scholar
Blanshard, A., Goldhill, S., Güthenke, C. et al. (2020) Postclassicisms: the Postclassicisms Collective, Chicago.Google Scholar
Blum, R. (1991) Kallimachos: the Alexandrian Library and the Origins of Bibliography, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
Brink, C. O. (1957) Latin Studies and the Humanities: an Inaugural Lecture, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Cameron, A. (2016) ‘The last days of the academy in Athens’, in Cameron, A, Wandering Poets and Other Essays on Late Greek Literature and Philosophy (Oxford), 205–46.Google Scholar
Carey, S. (2003) Pliny’s Catalogue of Culture: Art and Empire in the Natural History, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudhuri, P., Dasgupta, T., Dexter, J. P. and Iyer, K. (2018) ‘A small set of stylometric features differentiates Latin prose and verse’, Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 34: 716–29.Google Scholar
Chesi, G. M. and Spiegel, F., eds. (2020) Classical Literature and Posthumanism, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffee, N. (2019) ‘Intertextuality as viral phrases: roses and lilies’, in Berti 2019, 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffee, N. and Gawley, J. (2020) ‘How rare are the words that make up intertexts? A study in Latin and Greek epic poetry’, in Coffee et al. 2020, 409–20.Google Scholar
Coffee, N., Forstall, C., Galli Milić, L. and Nelis, D., eds. (2020) Intertextuality in Flavian Epic Poetry: Contemporary Approaches, Berlin.Google Scholar
Conte, G. B. (1994) Latin Literature: A History (trans. J. B. Solodow, rev. D. P. Fowler and G. W. Most), Baltimore.Google Scholar
Conybeare, C. and Goldhill, S., eds. (2020) Classical Philology and Theology: Entanglement, Disavowal and the Godlike Scholar, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corcoran, S. (2017) ‘Roman law and the two languages in Justinian’s empire’, BICS 60: 95–116.Google Scholar
Dexter, J. P., Katz, K, Tripuraneni, N et al. (2017) ‘Quantitative criticism of literary relationships’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114 (16): E3195–E3204.Google ScholarPubMed
Diels, H (1905) ‘Der lateinische, griechische und deutsche Thesaurus’, Neue Jahrbücher fur das klassische Altertum 15: 689–96.Google Scholar
Dinter, M. T., Guérin, C. and Martinho, M., eds. (2020) Reading Roman Declamation: Seneca the Elder, Oxford.Google Scholar
Dolbeau, F. (1998) ‘Découvertes récentes d’oeuvres latines inconnues’, SEJG 38: 101–42.Google Scholar
Doody, A. (2010) Pliny’s Encyclopedia: The Reception of the Natural History, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doody, A. and Taub, L., eds. (2009) Authorial Voices in Greco-Roman Technical Writing, Trier.Google Scholar
Duncan-Jones, R. (1982) The Economy of the Roman Empire: Quantitative Studies, 2nd edn, Cambridge.Google Scholar
du Plessis, P. J. , ed. (2013) New Frontiers: Law and Society in the Roman World, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
du Plessis, P. J., Ando, C. and Tuori, K., eds. (2016) The Oxford Handbook of Roman Law and Society, Oxford.Google Scholar
Eck, W. (2002) ‘L’empereur romain chef de l’armée. Le témoignage des diplômes militaires’, Cahiers Glotz 13: 93–112.Google Scholar
Fane-Saunders, P. (2016) Pliny the Elder and the Emergence of Renaissance Architecture, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. (2001) Latin Language and Latin Culture from Ancient to Modern Times, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, J. (2003) ‘Classical genre in theory and practice’, New Literary History 34: 383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeney, D. (2016) Beyond Greek: The Beginnings of Latin Literature, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fögen, T. (2009) Wissen, Kommunikation und Selbstdarstellung: Zur Struktur und Charakteristik römischer Fachtexte der frühen Kaiserzeit, Munich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Formisano, M. (2017) ‘Introduction: the poetics of knowledge’, in Formisano and van der Eijk 2017, 12–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Formisano, M. (2018) ‘Marginality and the classics: exemplary extraneousness’, in Formisano and Kraus 2018, 1–28.Google Scholar
Formisano, M. and Kraus, C. S., eds. (2018) Marginality, Canonicity, Passion, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Formisano, M. and van der Eijk, P., eds. (2017) Knowledge, Text, and Practice in Ancient Technical Writing, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklinos, T. E. and Fulkerson, L. (2020) ‘Authoring, reading and exploring an Appendix’, in Franklinos, T. E. and Fulkerson, L., eds., Constructing Authors and Readers in the Appendices Vergiliana, Tibulliana, and Ovidiana (Oxford), 1–23.Google Scholar
Frier, B.W. (2016) The Codex of Justinian. A New Annotated Translation, with Parallel Latin and Greek Text, 3 vols., Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gazzarri, T. (2020) The Stylus and the Scalpel: Theory and Practice of Metaphors in Seneca’s Prose, Berlin.Google Scholar
Gebhardt, U. C. J. (2009) Sermo iuris: Rechtssprache und Recht in der augusteischen Dichtung, Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, R. K. (2014) ‘Suetonius and the uiri illustres of Pliny the Younger’, in Power, T. J. and Gibson, R. K., eds., Suetonius the Biographer: Studies in Roman Lives (Oxford), 199–230.Google Scholar
Gibson, R. K. (2016) ‘Fifty shades of orange: Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries’, in Kraus and Stray 2016, 346–75.Google Scholar
Gibson, R. K. (2021) ‘Fifty years of Green and Yellow: the Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics series 1970–2020’, in Harrison, S. and Pelling, C., eds., Classical Scholarship and its History from the Renaissance to the Present: Essays in Honour of Chris Stray (Berlin), 175–217.Google Scholar
Gibson, R. K. and Kraus, C. S., eds. (2002) The Classical Commentary: Histories, Practices, Theory, Leiden.Google Scholar
Gibson, R. K. and Morello, R., eds. (2011) Pliny the Elder: Themes and Contexts, Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gildenhard, I. (2010) Creative Eloquence: The Construction of Reality in Cicero’s Speeches, Oxford.Google Scholar
Glotfelty, C. (1996) ‘Introduction: literary studies in an age of environmental crisis’, in Glotfelty, C. and Fromm, H., eds., The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology (Athens, GA), xv–xxxvii.Google Scholar
Goldhill, S. (2020) ‘The union and divorce of classical philology and theology’, in Conybeare and Goldhill 2020, 33–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodyear, F. R. D. (1992) Review of OLD, in F. R. D. Goodyear (ed. Coleman, K et al.), Collected Papers in Latin Literature (London), 281–7. First published in Proceedings of the African Classical Associations 17 (1983), 123–46.Google Scholar
Gunderson, E. (2003) Declamation, Paternity and Roman Identity: Authority and the Rhetorical Self, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunderson, E. (2020) ‘Theology’s shadow’, in Conybeare and Goldhill 2020, 199–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güthenke, C. and Holmes, B. (2018) ‘Hyperinclusivity, hypercanonicity and the future of the field’, in Formisano and Kraus 2018, 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, E. and Stead, H. (2019) A People’s History of Classics: Class and Greco-Roman Antiquity in Britain and Ireland, London.Google Scholar
Hardie, P. (2018) ‘A tale of two loves: the greatest hits of post-medieval writing in the Latin language’, TLS 19.1.2018.Google Scholar
Harries, J. (2006) Cicero and the Jurists: From Citizens’ Law to the Lawful State, London.Google Scholar
Haskell, Y. (2001) ‘The Columbus paradigm – or complex? – in neo-Latin studies’, SO 76: 47–51.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. (2010) ‘Ai–ZYTHIUM: DOMIMINA NUSTIO ILLUMEA, or out with the OLD (1931–82)’, in Stray, C., ed., Classical Dictionaries: Past, Present, Future (London), 139–76.Google Scholar
Herzog, R. and Schmidt, P. L. (2002–) Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike, Munich.Google Scholar
Heslin, P. (2020) ‘Lemmatizing Latin and quantifying the Achilleid’, in Coffee et al. 2020, 389–408.Google Scholar
Hinds, S. (2000) ‘Essential epic: genre and gender from Macer to Statius’, in Depew, M. and Obbink, D., eds., Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society (Cambridge, MA), 221–44.Google Scholar
Hinds, S. (2020) ‘Pre- and post-digital poetics of “transliteralism”: some Greco-Roman epic incipits’, in Coffee et al. 2020, 421–46.Google Scholar
Hopkins, K. (2018a) ‘Christian number and its implications’, in Hopkins 2018c, 432–80. First published in JBCS 6 (1998), 185–226.Google Scholar
Hopkins, K. (2018b) ‘Economic growth and towns in classical antiquity’, in Hopkins 2018c, 160–206. First published in P. Abrams and E. A. Wrigley, eds. (1978) Towns and Societies: Essays in Economic History and Historical Sociology (Cambridge), 35–77.Google Scholar
Houlden, J. L. (1990) ‘Commentary (New Testament)’, in Coggins, R. J. and Houlden, J. L., eds., A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (London and Philadelphia), 129–32.Google Scholar
Howley, J. (2013) ‘Why read the jurists? Aulus Gellius on reading across disciplines’, in du Plessis 2013, 9–30.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G. O. (2008) Talking Books: Readings in Hellenistic and Roman Books of Poetry, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G. O. (2013) ‘Genre and super-genre’, in Papanghelis, Harrison and Frangoulidis 2013, 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. A. (2010) Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, N. M. (2020) Venantius Fortunatus: Vita Sancti Martini. Prologue and Books i–ii, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Keeline, T. and Kirby, T. (2019) ‘Auceps syllabarum: a digital analysis of Latin prose rhythm’, JRS 109: 161–204.Google Scholar
Kelly, C. (2018) ‘Introduction – Keith Hopkins: sighting shots’, in Hopkins 2018c, 1–54.Google Scholar
Kenney, E. J. (1975) New Frameworks for Old: The Place of Classical Literature in the Cambridge Classical Course. An Inaugural Lecture, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kenney, E. J. (1982) ‘Books and readers in the Roman world’, in Kenney and Clausen 1982, 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, E. J. and Clausen, W., eds. (1982) The Cambridge History of Classical Literature, ii: Latin Literature, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kestemont, M., Karsdorp, F. et al. (2022) ‘Forgotten books: the application of unseen species models to the survival of culture’, Science 375: 765–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, A. (2020) ‘Tactical interactions: dialogues between Greece and Rome in the military manuals of Aelian and Arrian’, in König, Uden and Langlands 2020, 134–56.Google Scholar
König, A., Uden, J. and Langlands, R., eds. (2020) Literary Interactions in the Roman Empire, 96–235: Cross-Cultural Interactions, Cambridge.Google Scholar
König, J. and Whitmarsh, T., eds. (2007) Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kraus, C. S. and Stray, C., eds. (2016) Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kühner, R. and Stegmann, C. (1912) Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre, 2nd edn, 2 vols., Hannover.Google Scholar
Laird, A. and Miller, N., eds. (2018) Antiquities and Classical Traditions in Latin America, Hoboken.Google Scholar
Laurence, R. (2004) ‘The uneasy dialogue between ancient history and archaeology’, in Sauer 2004, 99–113.Google Scholar
Lavan, M. (2018) ‘Pliny Epistles 10 and imperial correspondence: the Empire of letters’, in König, A. and Whitton, C., eds., Roman Literature under Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian: Literary Interactions, ad 96–138 (Cambridge), 280–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavan, M. (2020) ‘Beyond Romans and others: identities in the long second century’, in König, Uden and Langlands 2020, 37–57.Google Scholar
Leonhardt, J. (2013) Latin: Story of a World Language (trans. K. Kronenberg), Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. T. and Short, C. (1879) A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews’ Edition of Freud’s Latin Dictionary, Oxford.Google Scholar
Mantovani, D. (2018) Les juristes écrivains de la Rome antique: les oeuvres des juristes comme littérature, Paris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, W. (2002) ‘A network with a thousand entrances: commentary in an electronic age?’, in Gibson and Kraus 2002, 359–402.Google Scholar
Meineck, P., Short, W. M. and Devereaux, J., eds. (2019) The Routledge Handbook of Classics and Cognitive Theory, London.Google Scholar
Morgan, T. (2019) ‘Pagans and Christians: fifty years of anxiety’, in Stray, C., Pelling, C. and Harrison, S., eds., Rediscovering E. R. Dodds: Scholarship, Education and the Paranormal (Oxford), 182–97.Google Scholar
Murphy, T. (2004) Pliny the Elder’s Natural History: The Empire in the Encyclopedia, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesselrath, H.-G. (2014) ‘Emperors and empire in Libanius’, in van Hoof, L, ed., Libanius: a Critical Introduction (Cambridge), 187–219.Google Scholar
Netz, R. (2020) Scale, Space and Canon in Ancient Literary Culture, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papanghelis, T. D., Harrison, S. J. and Frangoulidis, S., eds. (2013) Generic Interfaces in Latin Literature: Encounters, Interactions and Transformations, Berlin.Google Scholar
Parker, H. N. (2009) ‘Books and reading Latin poetry’, in Johnson, W. R. and Parker, H. N., eds., Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome (New York), 186–229.Google Scholar
Peirano Garrison, I. (2020) ‘Source, original and authenticity between philology and theology’, in Conybeare and Goldhill 2020, 86–109.Google Scholar
Reynolds, L. D., ed. (1983) Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics, Oxford.Google Scholar
Reynolds, L. D. and Wilson, N. G. (2013) Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, 4th edn, Oxford.Google Scholar
Rigby, K. (2015) ‘Ecocriticism’, in Wolfreys, J., ed., Introducing Ecocriticism in the 21st Century, 2nd edn (Edinburgh), 122–54.Google Scholar
Riggsby, A. M. (2019) Mosaics of Knowledge: Representing Information in the Roman World, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggsby, A. M. (2022) ‘What do (Cicero’s) letters count as evidence for?’, in Gibson, R. and Morello, R., eds., The Epistolary Cicero: Further Readings in the Letters, Dublin (= Hermathena 202–3), 265–84.Google Scholar
Sauer, E., ed. (2004) Archaeology and Ancient History: Breaking Down the Boundaries, London.Google Scholar
Saunders, T. (2008) Bucolic Ecology: Virgil’s Eclogues and the Environmental Literary Tradition, London.Google Scholar
Scheidel, W. (2019) Escape from Rome: The Failure of Empire and the Road to Prosperity, Princeton.Google Scholar
Scheidel, W. (2020) ‘The ancient historian on the tightrope’, recorded lecture, http://web.stanford.edu/~scheidel/Scheidel%20AAH%202020%20Keynote%20Lecture.mp4Google Scholar
Schliephake, C., ed. (2017) Ecocriticism, Ecology, and the Cultures of Antiquity, Lanham, MD.Google Scholar
Seo, J. M. (2019) ‘Classics for all: future antiquity from a global perspective’, AJPh 140: 399–715.Google Scholar
Shuger, D. (1994) The Renaissance Bible: Scholarship, Sacrifice, and Subjectivity, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Starks-Estes, L. S. (2020) Ovid and Adaptation in Early Modern English Theatre, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Stevenson, J. (2005) Women Latin Poets: Language, Gender, and Authority from Antiquity to the Eighteenth Century, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stover, J. and Kestemont, M. (2016) ‘The authorship of the Historia Augusta: two new computational studies’, BICS 59: 140–57.Google Scholar
Stray, C. (2012) ‘The Oxford Latin Dictionary: a historical introduction’, in Glare 2012, viii–xvii.Google Scholar
Surtees, A. and Dyer, J., eds. (2020) Exploring Gender Diversity in the Ancient World, Edinburgh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taplin, O., ed. (2000) Literature in the Greek and Roman Worlds: A New Perspective, Oxford.Google Scholar
Traub, V., Badir, P. and McCracken, P., eds. (2019) Ovidian Transversions: ‘Iphis and Ianthe’, 1300–1650, Edinburgh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trombley, F. (2006) ‘Overview: the geographical spread of Christianity’, in Mitchell, M. M. and Young, F. M., eds., The Cambridge History of Christianity. 1: Origins to Constantine (Cambridge), 302–13.Google Scholar
Umurhan, O. (2018) Juvenal’s Global Awareness: Circulation, Connectivity, and Empire, London.Google Scholar
Underwood, T. (2019) Distant Horizons: Digital Evidence and Literary Change, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Sickle, J. (1980a) ‘The book roll and some conventions of the poetic book’, Arethusa 13: 5–42.Google Scholar
Vinzent, M. (2019) Writing the Early History of Christianity: from Reception to Retrospection, Cambridge.Google Scholar
White, P. (1993) Promised Verse: Poets in the Society of Augustan Rome, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Williams, G. D. (2012) The Cosmic Viewpoint: A Study of Seneca’s Natural Questions, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winsbury, R. (2009) The Roman Book: Books, Publishing and Performance in Classical Rome, London.Google Scholar
Zainaldin, J. (2020) Gargilius Martialis. The Agricultural Fragments, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zetzel, J. E. G. (2005) Marginal Scholarship and Textual Deviance: The Commentum Cornuti and the Early Scholia on Persius. BICS Supplement 84, London.Google Scholar
Zetzel, J. E. G. (2018) Critics, Compilers and Commentators: An Introduction to Roman Philology 200 bce–800 ce, Oxford.Google Scholar
Ziogas, I. (2021) Law and Love in Ovid: Courting Justice in the Augustan Age, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerberg, D. (2018) Not All Dead White Men: Classics and Misogyny in the Digital Age, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by