CAESI IUVENCI AND PIETAS IMPIA IN VIRGIL

t is commonly remarked about the Georgics that the boundaries between man and beast are fluid.1 The society of bees, with its "kings" and "citizens," is obviously meant as some sort of allegory

for human society; the bulls and horses in Book 3 are subject to all-too-human emotions, such as the desire for glory or grief over their lost young; and in the other direction, the twin evils of Book 3, amor and the plague, have a chilling tendency to bring men down to the level of beasts. Against such a backdrop, the slaughtering of beasts becomes susceptible to moral ambiguity: sacrifice is the quintessential act of piety toward the gods, but murder is the quint- essential act of impiety. I shall argue that Virgil uses slaughtered bullocks, caesi iuvenci, to symbolize both pietas and impietas. I shall also suggest that this animal sacrifice is often meant to remind the reader of human sacrifice-something occurring not only throughout the Aeneid, but also in historical accounts of Octavian's subjugation of Perusia during the Civil Wars.

An examination of caesi iuvenci in the Georgics will illuminate Virgil's use of verbal ambiguity to create moral ambiguity. The phrase first appears at the end of Georgics 2, in a reference to the end of the Golden Age and the passing of the torch from Saturn to Jupiter (2.536-38):

ante etiam sceptrum Dictaei regis et ante impia quam caesis gens est epulata iuvencis, aureus hanc vitam in terris Saturnus agebat.

This instance of caesi iuvenci is anomalous both metrically and morally; only here does the adjective appear before the principle caesura, and only here is the context unequivocally negative. Commentators compare the passage in Aratus in which men of the Bronze Race dined on ploughing oxen, a crime leading to the departure of Dike from the earth (Phaen. 130-34):

XaXKCEiT1 YEVE11, 1npot'epov 6X0o? Epot v68pEE, o~i nproTotl K c6pyov EXaXKECacxvto lyaxatlpav

1 See, e.g., Liebeschuetz (1965), Gale (1991). The Classical Journal 91.3 (1996) 277-86

278 JULIA T. DYSON

EivOirTv, picco't P o Pv Eicci'aOVr' &poppycov, cAL ttE uitaloao Ai AiKTl KEivcov yEvo; av5pdv EniTxO' bnoupavit.

It was a popular passage of a (strangely) popular poem, which Cicero in fearless youth translated into Latin (ND 2.159):

ferrea turn vero proles exorta repente est, ausaque funestum prima est fabricarier ensem, et gustare manu iunctum domitumque iuvencum.

In the De Natura Deorum, Cicero's Stoic quotes the passage from Aratus in the context of demonstrating the usefulness of ploughing oxen: "So valuable was deemed the service that man received from cattle (bubus) that to eat their flesh was held a crime" (2.159). Varro, similarly, states that the useful services and companionship pro- vided by the bull (taurus) made it a capital crime to kill one in Attica (RR 2.5.4).2 Virgil thus draws on a tradition of viewing the eating of cattle as an act of criminal aggression-and postlapsarian discord between man and nature-both in myth and in history. Mynors, commenting on the Georgics lines, remarks, "As an example of impietas, we could not ask for better."3

Yet Virgil's treatment of the subject in the Georgics differs from others in an important respect. This difference, though seemingly small, has given rise to a scholarly controversy that well illustrates different strategies of reading Virgil. The problem is this. Aratus specifies that these are ploughing oxen, po&Wv apotipmyv; Cicero's translation highlights and elaborates on this fact: manu iunctum domitumque iuvencum, "the bullock yoked and trained by hand." All treatments besides Virgil's make clear that the crime consisted in killing for meat animals that were man's best friend, so to speak. But Virgil does not specify that these were ploughing animals, or useful, or companionable-he does not elaborate beyond the simple adjective caesi. This silence leads Thomas Habinek to argue that the use of caesi iuvenci with the verb epulor, a word etymologically derived from the ritual meal following a sacrifice, justifies reading this passage as a full-blown ritual sacrifice; its performance by a

2 It is difficult to say how sensitive Virgil and other Roman writers were to the distinctions between different members of the genus bovillum; iuvencus does seem to carry connotations of relative youth, and thus to exacerbate the criminality of the slaughter. See Mynors (1990) on 1.45-46, Krause (1931) 258-64.

3 Mynors (1990) on 2.536.

CAESI IUVENCI AND PIETAS IMPIA IN VIRGIL 279

gens impia thus forms a "provocative oxymoron."4 Richard Thomas argues strenuously against this view, pointing out that epulor is often used in non-sacral contexts, whatever its root meaning; that Aratus' version of the myth (which Habinek does not mention) would have been the first thought of Virgil's readers, steering them away from thoughts of sacrifice; and that iuvencus is indeed the most common word in the Georgics for ploughing cattle.5 What Thomas does not mention, however, is that the phrase caesi iuvenci, which appears 5 other times in Virgil's works, always (with one strange exception) does in fact designate bullocks that have been sacrificed. One other Greek hexameter source may also have some bearing on how to interpret the phrase here: Empedocles specifically notes the absence of sacrifice from the Golden Age, stating that the "altar was not drenched by the unspeakable slaughter of bulls, but this was held among men the greatest defilement-to tear out the life from noble limbs and eat them."6

Are we justified, then, in seeing the caesi iuvenci of Georgics 2 as sacrificial beasts? Given Virgil's affinity for significant ambiguity, it seems unsatisfying to say (with Thomas) that the slaughtered bullocks here simply reflect "Vergil's avoidance of the rather clumsy way in which Cicero translated Po'ov ... apotilpov."7 But it would also be going too far to say (with Habinek) that Virgil openly refers to an impious race performing a ritual slaughter. Virgil does not state such things; he leaves the words indeterminate, allowing them to be colored by their context here and elsewhere in the poem. This first instance of caesi iuvenci explicitly indicates impiety, and thus should not be read as an overt reference to "sacrifice." But the anomalous negative use is nevertheless enough to provide an unsettling echo when the phrase appears subsequently in contexts of sacral piety.

These impiously slaughtered bullocks are particularly noteworthy given the opening of the next book. Virgil's famous description of the temple he plans to build to Augustus is commonly regarded (in Joseph Farrell's phrase) as a "very inaccurate adumbration of the Aeneid."8 The passage has been much discussed, and there is no need here to go into the various arguments for and against seeing

4 Habinek (1990) 215. 5 Thomas (1991) 214-15. 6Fr. 128 Diels = 411 Kirk, Raven, and Schofield (1985) 318 (translation by KRS).

Putnam (1979) 162 mentions the Empedoclean fragment (along with the passages from Varro, Cicero, and Aratus discussed above, and Ovid Met. 15.81).

7Thomas (1991) 215. 8Farrell (1991) 314.

280 JULIA T. DYSON

it as an emblem of the Aeneid. In any event, slaughtered bullocks appear among the trappings of the temple, as something the poet in his imagination rejoices to see (Geo. 3.21-23):

ipse caput tonsae foliis ornatus olivae dona feram. iam nunc sollemnis ducere pompas ad delubra iuvat caesosque videre iuvencos.

The poet himself, crowned with the olive wreath worn by both athletic victor and officiant at a sacrifice,9 leads the bullocks to be sacrificed. Thirty lines after we first meet them in Book 2, caesi iuvenci, here again with no other adjectives modifying them, appear in a clearly celebratory religious context.10 As an example of pietas, we could not ask for better. Virgil does not comment explicitly on these apparently opposite uses of the same phrase-just as he does not comment on the discrepancy between his depictions of farmers as at once the inhabitants of the Golden Age of Saturn and the Iron Age of Jupiter, or Italy as a paradise without snakes before he lists all its poisonous snakes, or wine as one of the great boons to man- kind before he complains about its dangers."1 The Georgics are like that. We might even say that such paradoxes are at the heart of Virgil's meaning.

The final appearance of caesi iuvenci in the Georgics is in that bizarre and ultimately mysterious episode of the bugonia, in which the putrifying blood of slaughtered bullocks supposedly gives birth to bees (4.283-85):

tempus et Arcadii memoranda inventa magistri pandere, quoque modo caesis iam saepe iuvencis insincerus apes tulerit cruor.

Though this act has some of the characteristics of sacrifice, it differs enough from proper Roman ritual to leave the reader wondering whether it should be considered one. Standard sacrificial procedure

9 Mynors (1990) on 3.21. 10 Buchheit (1972) 81 notes that this repetition of caesi iuvenci is one of several thematic continuations (or reversals) between the end of Book 2 and the beginning of Book 3: "in Proomium III gegeniiber Finale II die Thematik entweder gesteigert oder in umgekehrter, d.h. positiver Wertung aufgenommen ist." Habinek (1990) 215 formulates the paradox clearly: "Two interpretations of ox-slaughter-as impious crime and as unifying ceremony-are delicately balanced at the very center of the Georgics."

1 See Ross (1987) 109-128 on the implications of "Laudations and the Lie."

CAESI IUVENCI AND PIETAS IMPIA IN VIRGIL 281

required a willing victim, quick cut of the throat, and ritual meal; the bugonia involves plugging the orifices of the beast as it struggles (multa reluctanti, 4.301), pulverizing its insides without breaking the skin, and leaving it to rot.12 Then a swarm of bees miraculously appears, whizzing from the rotten hide like the Parthians' fabled poisoned arrows (4.299-314). This may be an image of death and rebirth, but it must be acknowledged that Virgil describes it in shockingly violent language, starting with the darkly evocative insincerus cruor, sparing no detail of the bull's suffering as it suffocates, and ending with an image of treachery from Rome's worst enemies. If the bee society of Georgics 4 is in fact some sort of allegory for the Roman state,13 this description of "rebirth" seems dubious at best. The reader is left suspended between the impious slaughter of Georgics 2 and the pious sacrifice of Georgics 3. Could it be that the bugonia represents on some level the rebirth of Roman society from the perverse sacrifices of civil war, insincerus cruor?14

Though the phrase caesi iuvenci does not appear again in the Georgics, two vignettes from the plague at the end of Book 3 show Virgil probing the boundaries between human and animal sacrifice. When men attempt to sacrifice a plague-ridden animal, it wilts before they can complete the ritual; it has been noticed that this animal is described in terms recalling the sacrifice of Iphigeneia at the beginning of the DRN. Then a horse dies, then a bull-one who, as Monica Gale points out, seems to have led an "exemplary Epicurean life."15 The death of so many cows at this time, Virgil tells us, led to a shortage of animals to draw Juno's sacred chariot, which meant that it had to be drawn by ... buffaloes. This is rather an odd twist, since in the story Virgil is alluding to, as Servius tells us, and as we hear from Herodotus, the ones who had to draw the chariot were men (Cleobis and Biton). Why does Virgil give us buffaloes where we expect men? This substitution of animals for humans, I suggest, will have important ramifications in the Aeneid.16

The phrase caesi iuvenci occurs three times in the Aeneid. The first slaughtered bullocks are victims in an apparently routine sacrifice

12 Though Habinek (1990) 215 does read the bugonia as "an aetion of sacrifice," the objections of Thomas (1991) 213 are, I think, sound. 13 See, e.g., Griffin (1979) 94-111, Briggs (1980) 68-81, Dahlmann (1954) 547-62. 14 Farrell (1991) 263-64 remarks that the bee society of Georgics 4 "is wiped out by a disease thematically identical to civil war and then reborn through the miracle of the bugonia." I would emphasize also the bloodiness of the bugonia itself.

Is Gale (1991) 422-23. 16 On such substitution in the context of combat and sacrifice (the boxing

match), see Hunter (1989).

282 JULIA T. DYSON

performed by Helenus in Book 3, before he prophesies Aeneas' fu- ture (3.369-71). The next set, however, are more ominous. Their blood causes the unfortunate Nisus to slip near the end of the foot- race in Book 5 (5.327-33):17

iamque fere spatio extremo fessique sub ipsam finem adventabant, levi cum sanguine Nisus labitur infelix, caesis ut forte iuvencis fusus humum viridisque super madefecerat herbas. hic iuvenis iam victor ovans vestigia presso haud tenuit titubata solo, sed pronus in ipso concidit immundoque fimo sacroque cruore.

This episode contains some interesting echoes from the Georgics plague: the dying horse, like Nisus, is described as victor, and shares with him the phrase labitur infelix (3.498-99),18 which occurs nowhere else in Virgil's works. But more importantly, I would like to explore the symbolic implications of Nisus' slipping in the blood of the sacrificed animals-blood, not dung, as in the parallel scene in Homer. The change in this detail and the evocative phrase sacer cruor suggest that Virgil wishes to darken one of Homer's lightest moments. It has been remarked that the games in Book 5 prefigure events with tragic consequences later in the poem,19 and our first glimpse of Nisus and Euryalus in the footrace is no exception. In Book 5, it is the blood of slaughtered bullocks that causes Nisus' downfall; in Book 9, it is the blood of slaughtered men. After Nisus' first kill, Virgil emphasizes that the ground becomes hot and wet with the slain man's black blood, atro tepefacta cruore / terra torique madent (9.333-34), as the sacer cruor of the bullocks had wet the grass, madefecerat herbas. One might expect that blood-soaked ground would be a common image in the Aeneid, but in fact it occurs only once more.20 The desire for slaughter mesmerizes Euryalus as he is carried away by "too much slaughter and greed," nimia caede atque cupidine (9.354). Yet it is ultimately the two friends themselves who will be sacrificed. It has been noted that the Georgics plague borrows language from the Lucretian sacrifice of Iphigeneia;21 Philip

17 Hardie (1993) 51-52 observes that "Nisus and Euryalus had been caught up in sacrificial patterns from their first appearance in the Aeneid," noting the "sacri- ficial occasion" (funeral offerings for Anchises), the ritual vocabulary describing Nisus' fall (332-33 pronus ... concidit), and the "blood on the track." 18 Thomas (1988) on 3.498-99.

19 See, e.g., Putnam (1965) 64-104. 20 In 12.691, immediately before Turnus summons Aeneas to the final combat. 21 Gale (1991) 422.

CAESI IUVENCI AND PIETAS IMPIA IN VIRGIL 283

Hardie has shown how this Lucretian theme is "distributed" throughout Aeneid 2, coloring the scenes with Sinon, Laoco6n, and Iulus' flaming hair;22 Page Dubois points out important echoes in the Dido episode23-and the list goes on. I would add one more reminiscence, in the opening of the assembly that will send Nisus and Euryalus on their mission. The leaders are described in the words (9.226),

ductores Teucrum primi, delecta iuventus,

as the Greek leaders about to sacrifice Iphigeneia are described (DRN 1.86),

ductores Danaum delecti, prima virorum.

With this unmistakable echo,24 Virgil seems to be implying that the two friends will experience a sacrificial death symbolically parallel to that of Agamemnon's daughter.

It would be too much to discuss here the many scenes of human sacrifice in the Aeneid. The climactic sacrifice of Turnus is but the culmination of a theme that has been building throughout the poem.25 Virgil continually probes the boundaries between man and beast, symbolically substituting one for the other-as Nisus slips in the blood of sacrificed bullocks, later to become both a sacrificer of men and a victim himself. Slaughtered cattle have been the image of both pietas and impietas-as civil war, whose horrors pervade all of Virgil's works, combines the pietas of killing one's enemy with the impietas of killing one's brother.

Now let us turn to the final appearance of caesi iuvenci in the Aeneid, at the center of the shield of Aeneas. This patriotic ecphrasis fulfills Virgil's promise in the proem of Georgics 3: the poet/priest was to build a temple with Augustus in the center, in medio (Geo. 3.16 = Aen. 8.675), a procession of sacrificial bullocks (Geo. 3.22-23, Aen. 8.719), and conquered peoples all around (Geo. 3.26-33, Aen.

22Hardie (1984) 406-412. 23Dubois (1976) 19. 24Noted (but not interpreted) by Hardie (1994) on 9.226. 25 A few examples are Sinon (me destinat arae, 2.129); Priam, killed at his own

altar (altaria ad ipsa, 2.550); the scapegoat Palinurus (unum pro multis dabitur caput, 5.815); the 8 youths and the priest Haemonides whom Aeneas sacrifices (quos immolet, 10.529; immolat, 10.541); and Aulestes, killed by Messapus on an altar (haec melior magnis data victima divis, 12.296). See Hardie (1993) 19-56.

284 JULIA T. DYSON

722-28). Augustus is shown on the shield after his triple triumph of 29 B.C., dedicating not one temple but 300 (8.714-19):

at Caesar, triplici invectus Romana triumpho moenia, dis Italis votum immortale sacrabat, maxima ter centum totam delubra per urbem. laetitia ludisque viae plausuque fremebant; omnibus in templis matrum chorus, omnibus arae; ante aras terram caesi stravere iuvenci.

This is a joyous occasion, and the caesi iuvenci here, as in Georgics 3, are part of the celebration. But as I hope I have shown, slaughtered bullocks should put us on our guard.26 The "300 temples," each equipped with altar and sacrificial beast, are poetic fiction rather than historical fact: in the Res Gestae, written over 30 years after Virgil's death, Augustus claims to have built 12 temples and re- stored 82 (RG 19-21). "300" was often used in Latin parlance to represent "an indefinite large number."27 In reference to Augustus, it was the number attached to his slaughter of knights and senators at the altar of Divus Iulius after the capture of Perusia (40 B.C.), one of the greatest atrocities of his reign.28

This is not to say that the caesi iuvenci on the shield can be neatly equated with slaughtered citizens. Unlike the iuvenci, the knights and senators were killed at a single altar, not at 300 separate altars. The details about the number are also unclear: Dio claims "300 knights and many senators" (innilr TE TpaXc6otoa Koi i oIEUd oXX01ot TE, 48.14.4), while Suetonius says "300 of each order" (trecentos ... utriusque ordinis, Aug. 15), which could mean either "300, drawn

26 Putnam (1979) 169, pointing out that slaughtered bullocks were a token of "moral decline" in Georgics 2, sees their appearance in Georgics 3 as "disquieting"; he also suggests a connection between the proem of Georgics 3 and the shield of Aeneid 8, noting in particular the echo of caesi iuvenci. However, he finds it "unnec- essarily ironic, not to say bitter, to contend that Virgil adopts this strategy to offer visible proof of the ambiguous posture of Octavian and his associates (though the Aeneid offers some reason to commend such a view)." I am arguing that Virgil does employ such a strategy, though I would soften "visible proof" to "subtle suggestion."

27 See Fordyce (1977) on 8.716; Gransden (1976) 189-90; Weinstock (1971) 398-99. 28 Suetonius, Aug. 15: Scribunt quidam trecentos ex dediticiis electos utriusque

ordinis ad aram Divo lulio exstructam Idibus Martiis hostiarum more mactatos. Dio, 48.14.4: inti -bv Piog6v Kaoipt p

o Ur.i ITpo-rpq xoYthAtavov dtXOvrE4 tirii trE E ptr cotot

KaOl OcEur a a tot zE icc b6 Kcavvoizto b6 Tt ptoo ... 60T1ruacyv. Seneca Clem. 1.11.2 refers to the Perusinae arae as an example of Augustus' brutality. Woodman (1983) 182 notes that Perusia became "a byword for cruelty"; Heinze (1993) 188 associates the sacrifice by Augustus at Perusia with the sacrifice by Aeneas of 8 youths to the shade of Pallas. See Weinstock (1971) 398, Brenk (1988) 75.

CAESI IUVENCI AND PIETAS IMPIA IN VIRGIL 285

from both orders" (300 total) or "300 from each of the two orders" (600 total). However we interpret these sources, "300" is undoubtedly an exaggeration, numerologically appealing rather than factually accurate. Nevertheless, the sacrifices and the number 300 emerge clearly from both accounts; these must have been the elements that stood out in the popular imagination, and it is these elements that stand out on the shield of Aeneas. Did the sacrifice of 300 men, hostiarum more, really take place? Scribunt quidam, says Suetonius. Whether or not the incident was historical fact is probably irrelevant as far as Virgil is concerned, for the perception of history, not the reality, is what matters to the artist.

ante aras terram caesi stravere iuvenci.

It is an impressive spondaic line, and only when we get to the end of it do we hear that it is cattle who have been sacrificed.

Virgil does not refer explicitly to the human sacrifice commanded by Augustus, just as he does not point out to us that he has used caesi iuvenci to symbolize both pietas and impietas. But the slaugh- tered bullocks throughout his poems, like Dido in the Underworld, say much by their silence. It is characteristic of Virgil's art that the same phrase should convey both harmony and discord, triumph and murder. Virgil never forgot the suffering of the Civil Wars. The glorious prophecies of Rome with which the Aeneid almost ends do not obliterate its final image, the resentful soul of Aeneas' last sacrificial victim.29

JULIA T. DYSON University of Texas at Arlington

WORKS CITED

Brenk, F. E. 1988. "Wind and Waves, Sacrifice and Treachery: Diodorus, Appian and the Death of Palinurus in Vergil." Aevum 62: 69-80.

Briggs, W. W. 1980. Narrative and Simile from the Georgics in the Aeneid. Mnemosyne Suppl. 58. Leiden.

Buchheit, Vinzenz. 1972. Der Anspruch des Dichters in Vergils Georgika: Dichtertum und Heilsweg. Darmstadt.

Dahlmann, H. 1954. "Der Bienenstaat in Vergils Georgica." Akad. der Wissenschaft Mainz, 547-62.

2An earlier version of this paper was delivered at the 1995 CAMWS Annual Meeting. I am grateful to the editor and the referee for their helpful suggestions.

286 JULIA T. DYSON

Dubois, Page. 1976. "The qpapCiaK6 of Virgil: Dido as Scapegoat." Vergilius 22: 14-23.

Farrell, Joseph. 1991. Vergil's Georgics and the Traditions of Ancient Epic: The Art of Allusion in Literary History. Oxford.

Fordyce, C. J. 1977. P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Libri VII-VIII with a Commentary. Ed. John D. Christie. Oxford.

Gale, Monica. 1991. "Man and Beast in Lucretius and the Georgics." CQ 41: 414-26.

Gransden, K. W. 1976. Virgil. Aeneid. Book VIII. Cambridge. Griffin, J. 1979. "The Fourth Georgic, Virgil, and Rome." In Virgil, ed.

I. McAuslan and P. Walcot (Oxford, 1990), 94-111. Habinek, Thomas N. 1990. "Sacrifice, Society, and Vergil's Ox-Born

Bees." In Cabinet of the Muses: Essays on Classical and Comparative Literature in Honor of Thomas G. Rosenmeyer, ed. M. Griffith and D. J. Mastronarde. Atlanta, 209-223.

Hardie, Philip R. 1984. "The Sacrifice of Iphigeneia: An Example of 'Distribution' of a Lucretian Theme in Virgil." CQ 34: 406-412.

.1993. The Epic Successors of Virgil. Cambridge.

.1994. Virgil. Aeneid. Book IX. Cambridge. Heinze, Richard. 1993. Virgil's Epic Technique. Trans. Hazel and David

Harvey and Fred Robertson. Berkeley-Los Angeles. Hunter, R. 1989. "Bulls and Boxers in Apollonius and Vergil." CQ 39:

557-61. Kirk, G. S., J. E. Raven, and M. Schofield. 1983. The Presocratic Philo-

sophers. Cambridge. Krause, C. 1931. "Hostia." PW Suppl. 5: 236-82. Liebeschuetz, W. 1965. "Beast and Man in the Third Book of Virgil's

Georgics." G&R 12: 64-77. Mynors, R. A. B. 1990. Virgil's Georgics: A Commentary. Oxford. Putnam, Michael. 1965. The Poetry of the "Aeneid": Four Studies in Imag-

inative Unity and Design. Cambridge, MA . 1979. Virgil's Poem of the Earth: Studies in the Georgics. Princeton.

Ross, David O. Jr. 1987. Virgil's Elements: Physics and Poetry in the "Georgics." Princeton.

Thomas, Richard F. 1988. Virgil. Georgics. Vol. 1: Books 1-2. Cambridge. .

1988. Virgil. Georgics. Vol. 2: Books 3-4. Cambridge. . 1991. "The 'Sacrifice' at the end of the Georgics, Aristaeus, and

Vergilian Closure." CP 86: 211-18. Weinstock, Stefan. 1971. Divus Julius. Oxford. Woodman, A. J. 1983. Velleius Paterculus: The Caesarian and Augustan

Narrative (2.41-93). Cambridge.

caesi iuvenci jstorArticle Contentsp. [277]p. 278p. 279p. 280p. 281p. 282p. 283p. 284p. 285p. 286

Issue Table of ContentsThe Classical Journal, Vol. 91, No. 3 (Feb. - Mar., 1996), pp. 225-352Front Matter [pp. 254-337]Nonverbal Behaviors in Ovid's Poetry, Primarily "Metamorphoses" 14 [pp. 225-253]Vergil's Best Reader? Ovidian Commentary on Vergilian Etymological Wordplay [pp. 255-276]Caesi Iuvenci and Pietas Impia in Virgil [pp. 277-286]The ForumA Course on Classical Mythology in Film [pp. 287-295]Rethinking the Cursus Honorum [pp. 297-307]

CAMWS. The Ninth Decade [pp. 309-317]Program of the Ninety-Second Annual Meeting of the Classical Association of the Middle West and South. Vanderbilt University Nashville, Tennessee, April 10-13, 1996 [pp. 319-334]Book ReviewsReview: Literacy, Learning, and Ruling [pp. 338-344]Review: Literacy, Learning, and Ruling [pp. 344-346]Review: Literacy, Learning, and Ruling [pp. 346-347]

Books Received [pp. 348-352]Back Matter