{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029097963142580018, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013094083414161009, 'mean_word_length': 4.877492877492878, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The History of Make-Believe: Tacitus on Imperial Rome (review)

It seems to me unlikely that duplicity took so long to wash up on the muddy shores of Roman social relations. Readers may have difficulty imagining pre-Tiberian Romans as noble savages, and to his credit Corbeill recognizes that by employing a narrative of decline and loss of innocence in man’s relation to nature he is embracing one of Rome’s own most duplicitous tropes (11). He has produced a very stimulating book that is clearly written and engaging. Though not everyone will want to follow him in every broad generalization, his particular points are well observed and his generalizations will stimulate further research. If I could have had his ear before publication I would only have urged him to adopt a more consistently generous standard of acknowledgement. Newcomers depend on notes in current books to lead them to a just appreciation of l’histoire du question. The lynchpin of chapter 3, for example, is Servius’ remark about mourning women beating their breasts to express milk for the dead. I have a hunch that Corbeill first encountered this reference in Maurin, “Funus et rites de separation” (1984), and then contracted the anxiety of influence, which might explain his defensive comment that Maurin “makes a similar suggestion, without argument” (97, n. 130) and his remark that Maurin “accepts Servius auctor’s [sic] statement without discussion” (87, n. 85). Readers of chapter 4 would not know from the notes just how important is Edwards’ The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome (1993) for discussions of deportment and depravity in Roman politics, and this reviewer seems to remember having seen the works of physiognomists applied to cinaedi somewhere before (122). Corbeill has plenty of originality on his own account. I would love it if he tackled next the question of differences between Roman gestures and those of other peoples in the empire. Why is it that Attic orators never refer to their opponents’ facial expressions (148)? I look forward to hearing more.