Tragic Rites: Narrative and Ritual in Sophoclean Drama by Adriana Brook (review)

be the only man to be harmed by those resources,” etc. At 140 T 2 sanctitas is rendered as “scrupulousness,” but perhaps that should be saved for diligentia; rather, “integrity, probity” (OLD s.v. 3b). 140 F 6 eiusdem generis “of the same gender,” not “according to the same principle.” 141 F 12A.4 (similarly 157 F 5): delete “had strong feelings aroused” and add “were” before “rebuked.” 143 + 144 F 2: ut infamiam . . . tolleret “in order to put an end to the ill-repute,” not “so that he removed the defamation.” Cn. Plancius was charged de sodaliciis, which is oddly rendered “conspiracy” at 167 F 1, though she more accurately renders it “illegal associations” in F 2. 170 T 2, an admittedly corrupt text, is oddly handled: voluptatibus is rendered as “wishes” (as if it were voluntatibus) and instead cupiditates is rendered as “pleasures,” rather than “desires.” 175 F 7: infirmus here is surely “sick,” not “deficient in resources.” Finally, I notice that there are some omissions, including two fragments of Hortensius that are among the addenda to Malcovati’s fourth edition (538). In addition, Pompey spoke at a contio in favor of Cicero’s restoration in 57 (Red. sen. 29). Two other orators would have merited inclusion: P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (ibid. 25) and P. Lentulus Spinther (ibid. 26 and Brut. 268). In spite of some disagreements, these volumes mark an advance over Malcovati and should give powerful impetus to the study of Roman Republican oratory.