To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature offers a critical overview of work on Latin literature. Where are we? How did we get here? Where to next? Fifteen commissioned chapters, along with an extensive introduction and Mary Beard's postscript, approach these questions from a range of angles. They aim not to codify the field, but to give snapshots of the discipline from different perspectives, and to offer provocations for future development. The Critical Guide aims to stimulate reflection on how we engage with Latin literature. Texts, tools and territories are the three areas of focus. The Guide situates the study of classical Latin literature within its global context from late antiquity to Neo-Latin, moving away from an exclusive focus on the pre-200 CE corpus. It recalibrates links with adjoining disciplines (history, philosophy, material culture, linguistics, political thought, Greek), and takes a fresh look at key tools (editing, reception, intertextuality, theory).
In the last decade, the increased complexity of, and levels of access to, financial products and services, together with rising household debt and the funding of an ageing population, have prompted the State to place increased focus on financial education, with the dual objectives of regulating to enhance market efficiency and mitigating social welfare issues attributed to poor financial decisions. Financial literacy is crucial for young adults as they embark on life events involving major expenditure and debt, particularly for university students who have already accrued a debt based on Higher Education contribution scheme liability and who are making labour market decisions. This paper investigates the determining factors of personal financial literacy levels among a sample of university students at different stages of study and across diverse study areas including business, education, arts, humanities and the sciences; with some interesting findings for policy makers. It also provides indicative evidence of students’ preferred method of learning more about personal finance to facilitate the effective design of personal financial literacy programs.
Improving dietary reporting among people living with obesity is challenging as many factors influence reporting accuracy. Reactive Reporting may occur in response to dietary recording, but little is known about how image-based methods influence this process. Using a 4-d image-based mobile food record (mFRTM), this study aimed to identify demographic and psychosocial correlates of measurement error and reactivity bias, among adults with BMI 25–40 kg/m2. Participants (n 155, aged 18–65 years) completed psychosocial questionnaires and kept a 4-d mFRTM. Energy expenditure (EE) was estimated using ≥ 4 d of hip-worn accelerometer data, and energy intake (EI) was measured using mFRTM. EI:EE ratios were calculated, and participants in the highest tertile were considered to have Plausible Intakes. Negative changes in EI according to regression slopes indicated Reactive Reporting. Mean EI was 72 % (sd = 21) of estimated EE. Among participants with Plausible Intakes, mean EI was 96 % (sd = 13) of estimated EE. Higher BMI (OR 0·81, 95 % CI 0·72, 0·92) and greater need for social approval (OR 0·31, 95 % CI 0·10, 0·96) were associated with lower likelihood of Plausible Intakes. Estimated EI decreased by 3 % per d of recording (interquartile range − 14 %,6 %) among all participants. The EI of Reactive Reporters (n 52) decreased by 17 %/d (interquartile range − 23 %,–13 %). A history of weight loss (> 10 kg) (OR 3·4, 95 % CI 1·5, 7·8) and higher percentage of daily energy from protein (OR 1·1, 95 % CI 1·0, 1·2) were associated with greater odds of Reactive Reporting. Identification of reactivity to measurement, as well as Plausible Intakes, is recommended in community-dwelling studies to highlight and address sources of bias.
These have been good years for Ennius perennis. A couple of years on from his Loeb renewal, two superb books keep the lifeblood pulsing. Ennius’ Annals. Poetry and History, edited by Cynthia Damon and Joseph Farrell, is a masterclass of a conference volume. The lucid introduction, a sort of ‘Whither Ennius?’, powerfully situates it in the receding wake of Otto Skutsch's monumental edition and the fresher waves of Ennius and the Architecture of the Annals, Jackie Elliott's powerful challenge to ‘Virgiliocentric’ reconstructions of this fragmentary text. As those studies made plain enough in their different ways, reception and interpretation of the Annals are interlocked to a special degree, and the fourteen chapters in this book (plus afterword by Mary Jaeger) roam nicely around and between both.
Privacy and public interest are reciprocal concepts, mutually implicated in each other’s protection. This chapter considers how viewing the concept of privacy through a public interest lens can reveal the limitations of the narrow conception of privacy currently inherent to much health research regulation (HRR). Moreover, it reveals how the public interest test, applied in that same regulation, might mitigate risks associated with a narrow conception of privacy. The central contention of this chapter is that viewing privacy through the lens of public interest allows the law to bring into focus more things of common interest than privacy law currently recognises. We are not the first to recognise that members of society share a common interest in both privacy and health research. Nor are we the first to suggest that public is not necessarily in opposition to private, with public interests capable of accommodating private and vice versa. What is novel about our argument is the suggestion that we might invoke public interest requirements in current HRR to protect group privacy interests that might otherwise remain out of sight.
These days Flavian epic and intertextuality go together like toast and butter, or a persistent cough and fever, depending on your taste. Either way, Intertextuality in Flavian Epic. Contemporary Approaches is not perhaps the most startling of titles. But the book within is an impressive collection, its four editors (Neil Coffee, Chris Forstall, Lavinia Galli Milić, and Damien Nelis) leading a star cast of Flavians in a wide-ranging and stimulating set of chapters.
In recent years, there has been tremendous support for working toward the RDoC goals of identifying the neurobiological mechanisms that cut across or are common to multiple psychiatric disorders. Identifying the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying transdiagnostic symptoms will improve the validity of disease classifications by grouping individuals based on multiple dimensions of behavior and biology. This could potentially account for heterogeneity and comorbidity observed among DSM diagnostic categories.
Singapore, an urbanised, developed nation, with a high reliance on food importation and a high prevalence of eating out is facing rising rates of obesity and diabetes. The objective of the current study was to characterise and evaluate the Singapore government’s policies to improve the food environment and to identify and prioritise concrete actions.
The Healthy Food Environment Policy Index tool and process were used. An expert panel rated the Singapore government’s implementation of forty-seven indicators compared with international best practice in 2018. Indicators were prioritised, and specific recommendations were proposed by panel.
Twenty experts primarily from academia.
As compared with international benchmarks, the level of implementation of most indicators (thirty-three indicators, 70 %) by the Singapore government was evaluated as being at least moderate. Highly rated indicators included those related to provision of healthier meals at school, supporting the use of healthier ingredients by food vendors and governmental leadership. More policy indicators (6, 26 %) as compared with infrastructure support indicators (2, 8 %) received a ‘very little or no implementation’ rating. After rating, the experts prioritised eleven indicators and proposed thirty-one actions informed by several considerations including those of effectiveness, political acceptability, feasibility and unique characteristics of food retail in Singapore.
Supported by documented evidence, an independent expert panel identified areas of strengths and provided specific recommendations to meaningfully improve the Singapore food environment to facilitate healthier eating. Fundamental recommendations including improving nutrition profiling and strengthening monitoring systems have the potential to positively influence environments across policy domains.
First up, a brace of major Teubner editions. Marcus Deufert's De rerum natura marks a significant moment in Lucretian studies. I suspect that most people, at least in the Anglosphere, are still using Cyril Bailey's venerable Oxford Classical Text (revised in 1922) for everyday reading, if not the equally antique Loeb (W. D. Rouse, 1924). In broadest outline, text-critical views haven't changed much since: a ‘closed’ tradition, in which two Carolingian manuscripts rejoicing in the workaday names Oblongus and Quadratus are prime witnesses, but often problematic ones; a mass of manuscripts from Renaissance Italy, which editors consult primarily for conjectures. But the last century has seen plenty of important work, and Deufert can report more precisely on the various corrections made in O and Q; affirm that all Italian manuscripts descend from O, and give them a stemma; pan many more humanist conjectures; wade in the muddy river (xxi) of modern interventions; and offer his own solutions to, or non liquet on, textual problems small and large. The result is a text with plenty of novelties (and many questions left open), and an edition with a very different look.
Cicero has a unique place in the history of Latin. A political and intellectual figure elevated to iconic status both by his own efforts and by posterity; author of more extant prose – dozens of speeches, the treatises philosophical and rhetorical, and nearly a thousand letters – than any other pagan Roman; model of good style and set-text author par excellence, from antiquity to modernity. So far, so uncontroversial. But when and how did he acquire this place atop the canon? It's a question that Caroline Bishop, Thomas Keeline, and Giuseppe La Bua have each asked, and one to which they offer some interestingly different answers.
Reflecting on present unease about structural biases in the discipline, and aiming to offer a data-rich response to some recent criticisms of this Journal, the Editorial Board has undertaken a study of the representation of female scholars in the Journal of Roman Studies. To that end, we have gathered data on publications, submissions and JRS Editorial Board membership for the past fifteen years, from Volume 95 (2005) through to the present volume, Volume 109 (2019). The data are set out in the final section (VII), following a brief review of the main results. Our goal here is neither to present a definitive analysis, nor to offer a commentary on the underlying causes of the patterns revealed (on which we expect much fruitful discussion elsewhere). Rather, the JRS Editorial Board aims to make key data available both to inform a much wider debate within the profession as a whole and, importantly, to inform this Journal’s policies, procedures and active outreach. The Board is also acutely aware that any analysis of gender bias needs to be framed carefully — both by an awareness that there are other under-represented groups in the discipline (on which our data in their current form would regrettably only offer a most imperfect picture), and by a sensitivity to the limitations of a conception of gender as a simple binary.
How did the Romans do philology? Think in terms of the Latin language, and Varro's De lingua Latina, Caesar's De analogia, or Quintilian's chapters on grammar might come to mind. Think of commentary on texts, and names like Servius, Asconius, and Porphyrio won't be far away. But few of us, it's probably fair to say, could claim a deep acquaintance with all of those, and still fewer have acquired much sense of the broader picture – and it is broad – of ancient scholarship in and on Latin. Cue James Zetzel's Critics, Compilers, and Commentators, a massive and remarkable study of Roman philology from antiquity into the early Middle Ages.
Epistles 1.20 is an unorthodox plea for length in court speeches. It is also one of the two salient peaks of ‘Quintilian in Brief’, a whole letter modelled, selectively and unpredictably, on Quintilian’s chapter on style (Institutio 12.10). This chapter reads it in detail, for argument and for intertexture, and shows that it is an imitative tableau of unusual complexity, focused on Institutio 12.10 but ranging widely across Quintilian’s work and looking through ‘windows’ to Cicero’s Brutus and Orator. The letter – addressed to Tacitus – also engages obliquely but closely with his Dialogus de oratoribus; Pliny’s anonymous interlocutor, I suggest, is a version of Tacitus’ Aper. A postscript on Epistles 1.21 reads this short note about buying slaves as a wry miniaturisation of Institutio 11, and sharp intertextual annotation of Epistles 1.20 and its virtuosic imitatio.
Chapter 3 begins an inductive argument for establishing Quintilian’s presence in the Epistles and establishes a method for reading it. It considers ten brief liaisons in which Pliny culls an epigram, metaphor or other distinctive detail from the Institutio. I argue that these similarities show imitation, not accident, and situate them within an imitative culture where declaimers, poets and prose writers routinely borrowed and improved on each others’ sententiae. These encounters are routinely self-conscious, but not necessarily (I argue) systematic or invested in allusively taking position against Quintilian: their function is also, and importantly, aesthetic. Lexical signatures play a part, but a much more discreet one than usually supposed – suggesting that we might all do well to spend less time with concordances and word searches and more time reading for the idea.
This chapter reads the cycle of letters to Quadratus and Fuscus of which Epistles 7.9 (Chapter 8) forms the keystone. Epistles 6.11 introduces these two young men as the bright future of Roman oratory, with a fanfare constructed from Quintilian (Institutio 10) and Tacitus’ Aper (Dialogus). Epistles 6.29 is the partner to Epistles 7.9, matching but varying its imitation of Quintilian and Cicero, as Pliny continues playing praeceptor in surprising and arch ways. Epistles 9.36 and 9.40, describing his villa routine to Fuscus, constitute the twin sphragis of the collection. These deceptively simple letters take us to the core of Pliny’s self-styling as man and author, perofmed with pregnant imitations which confirm Quintilian’s very special, and very personal, role in the Epistles.
This short chapter first reviews the argument of the book, then goes back to beginnings. The Institutio opens with strong generic positioning, situating Quintilian’s project against Cicero’s Orator and Sallust’s Jugurtha. Pliny’s cover note (Epistles 1.1) operates more discreetly, but reveals itself, through precise reworking of Quintilian’s cover note to Trypho, as an infrared invitation to read this collection of letters as ‘Quintilian in Brief’. Further traces of Quintilian’s first and last prefaces (Institutio 1.pr. and 12.pr.) in Epistles 1.2 and 9.1-2 offer final, open-ended confirmation that the Insitutio is hard-wired into the Epistles from start to end: Latin prose imitation, in Pliny’s hands, is a very fine art.
Lupercus is addressed twice in Pliny’s collection, receiving two very different pieces of Quintilianic imitation. Epistles 9.26 is a partner-letter to Epistles 1.20 (subject of Chapter 6), arguing for audacity in oratory. It opens with another window imitation (Institutio 2 and De oratore), and proceeds – I suggest – to some especially free imitatio of Institutio 12.10, completing in quite different fashion the work begun in Epistles 1.20. Epistles 2.5 is a partner to Epistles 7.9 (subject of Chapter 8), and behaves differently again. A relatively short letter, it features dense, eclectic and wide-ranging imitation of the Institutio. More than that: with two more window imitations (Cicero and Seneca the Elder), I argue, the letter miniaturises Quintilian’s first book and styles itself as a belated proem to Pliny’s collection.