Abel, K. 1967. Bauformen in Senecas Dialoge: Fünf Strukturanalysen: Dial. 6, 11, 12, 1 und 2. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

Albrecht, M. von. 2004. ‘Wort und Wandlung: Senecas Lebenkunst’, Mnemosyne Supplementum. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alexander, W. H. 1943. ‘Seneca’s Ad Polybium De Consolatione: A reappraisal’, Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada 37: 33–55.Google Scholar

Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfeld, J. and Schofield, M. (eds.) 1999. The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allison, P. M. 2001. ‘Using the material and written sources: Turn of the millennium approaches to Roman domestic space’, American Journal of Archaeology 105: 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altman, J. G. 1982. Epistolarity: Approaches to a Form. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar

Armisen-Marchetti, M. 2006. ‘Speculum Neronis: Un mode spécifique de direction de conscience dans le De clementia de Sénèque’, Revue des Études Latines 84: 185–201.Google Scholar

Armisen-Marchetti, M. 2007. ‘Échos du Songe de Scipion chez Sénèque: La Géographie de la Consolation à Marcia 26.6 et des Questions Naturelles I Praef. 8–13’, in Andrés, G. H. and Fernández Corte, J. C. (eds.). Munus quaesitum meritis: Homenaje a Carmen Codoñer. Salamanca: University of Salamanca, 71–9.Google Scholar

Armisen-Marchetti, M. 2008. ‘Imagination and meditation in Seneca: The example of praemeditatio’, in Fitch (2008: 102–13).Google Scholar

Armstrong, J. 2013. ‘“Bands of brothers”: Warfare and fraternity in early Rome’, Journal of Ancient History 1: 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asmis, E. 1982. ‘Lucretius’ Venus and the Stoic Zeus’, Hermes 110: 458–70.Google Scholar

Asmis, E. 1996. ‘The Stoics on women’, in Ward, J. (ed.). Feminism and Ancient Philosophy. New York and London: Routledge, 68–92.Google Scholar

Atkinson, J. E. 1985. ‘Seneca’s Consolatio ad Polybium’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt ii 32.2: 860–84.Google Scholar

Augoustakis, A. and Traill, A. (eds.) 2013. Blackwell Companion to Terence. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Babut, D. 1963. ‘Les Stoïciens et l’amour’, Revue des Études Grecques 76: 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Balsdon, J. P. V. D. 1966. ‘Fabula Clodiana’, Historia 15: 65–73.Google Scholar

Bannon, C. J. 1997. The Brothers of Romulus: Fraternal Pietas in Roman Law, Literature and Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Barnes, J. and Griffin, M. (eds.) 1989. Philosophia Togata: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society. Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Barnes, J. and Griffin, M. 1997. Philosophia Togata ii: Plato and Aristotle at Rome. New York: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baroin, C. 2010. ‘Remembering one’s ancestors, following in their footsteps, being like them: The role and forms of family memory in the building of identity’, in Dasen and Späth (2010: 19–48).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barrett, A. A. 1989. Caligula: The Corruption of Power. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barrett, A. A. 2002. Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Bartman, E. 1999. Portraits of Livia: Imaging the Imperial Woman in Augustan Rome. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bartsch, S. 1994. Actors in the Audience: Theatricality and Doublespeak from Nero to Hadrian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bartsch, S. and Wray, D. (eds.) 2009. Seneca and the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Basore, J. W. 1935. Seneca: Moral Essays, Vol. iii: De Beneficiis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Beard, M. 1985. ‘Writing and ritual: A study of diversity and expansion in the Arval Acta’, Papers of the British School at Rome 53: 114–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beard, M. 1998. ‘Imaginary horti: Or, up the garden path’, in Cima and La Rocca (1998: 23–32).Google Scholar

Beard, M. 2002. ‘Ciceronian correspondence: Making a book out of letters’, in Wiseman, T. P. (ed.). Classics in Progress: Essays on Ancient Greece and Rome. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 103–44.Google Scholar

Beard, M., North, J. and Price, S. 1998. Religions of Rome, Vol. i. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Beckmann, M. 2009. ‘The significance of Roman imperial coin types’, Klio 91: 144–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bellandi, F. 2004. ‘Epicuro, Seneca e il matrimonio del sapiens: Sul frammento 23 Vottero = 45 Haase del De matrimonio di Seneca’, Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici 53: 175–82.Google Scholar

Bellincioni, M. (ed. and trans.) 1979. Lucio Anneo Seneca, Lettere a Lucilio: Libro XV, Le Lettere 94 e 95. Brescia: Paideia.Google Scholar

Bergmann, B. 1994. ‘The Roman house as memory theater’, Art Bulletin 74.2: 225–56.Google Scholar

Bernstein, N. W. 2008. ‘Each man’s father served as his teacher: Constructing relatedness in Pliny’s Letters’, Classical Antiquity 27: 203–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bernstein, Neil Warren. 2009. ‘Adoptees and exposed children in Roman declamation: Commodification, luxury, and the threat of violence’, Classical Philology 104: 331–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bettini, M. 1991. Anthropology and Roman Culture: Kinship, Time, Images of the Soul. Trans. Van Sickle, J.. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Bickel, E. 1915. Diatribe in Senecae philosophi fragmenta, Vol. i: Fragmenta de matrimonio. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Bishop, J. D. 1985. Seneca’s Daggered Stylus: Political Code in the Tragedies. Meisenheim am Glan: Hain.Google Scholar

Blom, H. van der. 2010. Cicero’s Role Models: The Political Strategy of a Newcomer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bloomer, W. M. 1992. Valerius Maximus and the Rhetoric of the New Nobility. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar

Bloomer, W. M. 2006. ‘The technology of child production: Eugenics and eulogics in the de liberis educandis’, Arethusa 39: 71–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bluestone, N. H. 1987. Women and the Ideal Society: Plato’s Republic and Modern Myths of Gender. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar

Blundell, M. W. 1990. ‘Parental nature and Stoic oikeiosis’, Ancient Philosophy 10: 221–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boatwright, M. T. 1998. ‘Luxuriant gardens and extravagant women: The horti of Rome between Republic and Empire’, in Cima and La Rocca (1998: 71–82).Google Scholar

Bobzien, S. 1998. Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Boyle, A. J. (ed.) 1983. Seneca Tragicus: Ramus Essays on Senecan Drama. Berwick, Victoria, Australia: Aureal.Google Scholar

Bradley, K. R. 1986. ‘Seneca and slavery’, Classica et Mediaevalia 37: 161–72.Google Scholar

Bradley, K. R. 1991a. Discovering the Roman Family: Studies in Roman Social History. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bradley, K. R. 1991b. ‘Remarriage and the structure of the upper-class Roman family’, in Rawson (1991: 79–98).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Braund, S. (ed.) 2009. Seneca: De Clementia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Brennan, T. 1998. ‘The old Stoic theory of emotions’, in Sihvola and Engberg-Pedersen (1998: 21–70).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brennan, T. 2005. The Stoic Life: Emotions, Duties, and Fate. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Briscoe, J. 1993. ‘Some notes on Valerius Maximus’, Sileno 19: 395–408.Google Scholar

Brunschwig, J. 1986. ‘The cradle argument in Epicureanism and Stoicism’, in Schofield and Striker (1986: 113–44).Google Scholar

Cancik, H. 1967. Untersuchungen zu Senecas Epistulae morales. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar

Cancik-Lindemaier, H. 1998. ‘Seneca’s collection of epistles: A medium of philosophical communication’, in Collins, A. Y. (ed.). Ancient and Modern Perspectives on the Bible and Culture: Essays in Honor of Hans Dieter Betz. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 88–109.Google Scholar

Cantarella, E. 2002. ‘Marriage and sexuality in republican Rome: A Roman conjugal love story’, in Nussbaum and Sihvola (2002: 269–82).Google Scholar

Cantarella, E. 2002–2003. ‘Fathers and sons in Rome’, Classical World 96: 281–98.Google Scholar

Carlon, J. M. 2009. Pliny’s Women: Constructing Virtue and Creating Identity in the Roman World. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chaplin, J. D. 2000. Livy’s Exemplary Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cima, M. and La Rocca, E. (eds.) 1998. Horti Romani: Atti del Convegno Internazionale: Roma, 4–6 maggio 1995. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider.Google Scholar

Claassen, Jo-Marie. 1996. ‘Documents of a crumbling marriage: The case of Cicero and Terentia’, Phoenix 50: 208–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Claassen, Jo-Marie. 1999. Displaced Persons: The Literature of Exile from Cicero to Boethius. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar

Cloud, J. D. 1971. ‘Parricidium from the lex Numae to the lex Pompeia de parricidiis’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Romanistiche Abteilung 88: 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, S. T. 2008. ‘Augustus, Julia and the development of exile ad insulam’, Classical Quarterly 58: 206–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cole, S. 2006. ‘Elite scepticism in the Apocolocyntosis: Further qualifications’, in Volk and Williams (2006: 175–82).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coleman, R. 1974. ‘The artful moralist: A study of Seneca’s epistolary style’, Classical Quarterly 24: 276–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cooper, J. M. and Procopé, J. F. 1995. Seneca: Moral and Political Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Corbier, M. 1991. ‘Du nouveau sur l’avvncvlvs de Sénèque?’, in Fick-Michel, N. and Carrière, Jean-Claude (eds.). Mélanges: Etienne Bernand. University of Besançon; Paris: Diffusion Les Belles Lettres, 165–91.Google Scholar

Corbier, M. 2001. ‘Child-exposure and abandonment’, in Dixon, Suzanne (ed.). Childhood, Class and Kin in the Roman World. London: Routledge, 52–73.Google Scholar

Costa, C. D. N. (ed.) 1988. Seneca: 17 Letters. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.Google Scholar

Currie, S. 1998. ‘Poisonous women and unnatural history in Roman culture’, in Wyke, M. (ed.). Parchments of Gender: Deciphering the Bodies of Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press, 147–67.Google Scholar

Damon, C. and Takács, S. (eds.) 1999. ‘The Senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone patre: Text, Translation, Discussion’, American Journal of Philology 120 (special issue): 1–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dasen, V. 2010. ‘Wax and plaster memories: Children in elite and non-elite strategies’, in Dasen and Späth (2010: 109–45).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dasen, V. and Späth, T. (eds.) 2010. Children, Memory, and Family Identity in Roman Culture. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davies, M. 2014. ‘Living with Seneca through his epistles’, Greece & Rome 61: 68–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davis, J. 1980. ‘Exempla and anti-exempla in the Amores of Ovid’, Latomus 39: 412–17.Google Scholar

De Bruyn, T. 1999. ‘Flogging a son: The emergence of the “pater flagellans” in Latin Christian discourse’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 7.2: 249–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

De Pretis, A. 2003. ‘“Insincerity”, “facts”, and “epistolarity”: Approaches to Pliny’s epistles to Calpurnia’, Arethusa 36: 127–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Degl’Innocenti Pierini, R. 1981. ‘In angulo defixus: Seneca e l’emarginazione dell’esilio’, Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica 53: 225–32.Google Scholar

Degl’Innocenti Pierini, Rita. 1990. Tra Ovidio e Seneca. Bologna: Pàtron.Google Scholar

Degl’Innocenti Pierini, Rita. 1999. ‘L’interitus mundi nella Consolatio ad Polybium di Seneca e i “condizionamenti” del destinario’, in Tra Filosofia e Poesia: Studi su Seneca e Dintorni: Testi e manuali per l’insegnamento universitario del latino LVII. Bologna: Pàtron, 11–22.Google Scholar

Delarue, F. 2001. ‘Le Dossier du De matrimonio de Sénèque’, Revue des Études Latines 79: 163–87.Google Scholar

Deming, W. 1995. Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7. Society for New Testament Studies, Monograph Series, LXXXIII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Di Garbo, F. 2008. ‘La relazione pater/filius come paradigma di autorità: Alcune considerazioni su un sistema di rappresentazione e sulle sue implicazioni funzionali’, in Picone (2008: 259–79).Google Scholar

Dixon, S. 1988. The Roman Mother. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press; London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Dixon, S. 1992. The Roman Family. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dixon, S. 1993. ‘The meaning of gift and debt in the Roman elite’, Échos du Monde Classique/ Classical Views: 451–64.Google Scholar

Donini, P. 1999. ‘Stoic ethics’, in Algra et al. (1999: 675–738).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duff, J. D. 1915. L. Annaei Senecae Dialogorum Libri x., xi., xii.: Three Dialogues of Seneca. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Edmunds, L. 2009. ‘Horace’s Priapus: A life on the Esquiline (Sat. 1.8)’, Classical Quarterly 59: 125–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, C. 1993. The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, C. 1997. ‘Self-scrutiny and self-transformation in Seneca’s letters’, Greece and Rome 44: 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, C. 2009. ‘Free yourself! Slavery, freedom and the self in Seneca’s letters’, in Bartsch and Wray (2009: 139–59).Google Scholar

Engberg-Pedersen, T. 1986. ‘Discovering the good: Oikeiōsis and kathēkonta in Stoic ethics’, in Schofield and Striker (1986: 145–83).Google Scholar

Engberg-Pedersen, T. 1990. The Stoic Theory of Oikeiosis: Moral Development and Social Interaction in Early Stoic Philosophy. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar

Engel, D. M. 2003. ‘Women’s role in the home and the state: Stoic theory reconsidered’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 101: 267–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Evans Grubbs, J. 2002. Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eyben, E. 1991. ‘Fathers and sons’, in Rawson (1991: 114–43).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fantham, E. 1991. ‘Stuprum: Public attitudes and penalties for sexual offences in Republican Rome’, Échos du Monde Classique/Classical Views 35: 267–91.Google Scholar

Fantham, E. 2006. Julia Augusti. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fantham, E. 2007. ‘Dialogues of displacement: Seneca’s consolations to Helvia and Polybius’, in Gaertner (2007: 173–92).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Favro, D. 1992. ‘Pater urbis: Augustus as city father of Rome’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 51: 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Farney, G. D. 2007. Ethnic Identity and Aristocratic Competition in the Roman Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fear, T. 2007. ‘Of aristocrats and courtesans: Seneca, De Beneficiis 1.14’, Hermes 135: 460–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feeney, D. C. 1998. Literature and Religion at Rome: Cultures, Contexts and Beliefs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Feeney, Denis C. 2010. ‘Fathers and sons: The Manlii Torquati and family continuity in Catullus and Horace’, in Shuttleworth Kraus, C., Marincola, J. and Pelling, C. B. R. (eds.). Ancient Historiography and its Contexts: Studies in Honour of A. J. Woodman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 205–23.Google Scholar

Ferrill, A. 1966. ‘Seneca’s exile and the Ad Helviam: A reinterpretation’, Classical Philology 61: 253–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ferrill, A. 1980. ‘Augustus and his daughter: A modern myth’, in Deroux, C. (ed.). Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History. Brussels: Latomus, 332–46.Google Scholar

Fitch, J. G. (ed.) 2008. Seneca: Oxford Readings in Classical Studies. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Flower, H. I. 1996. Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Flower, H. I. 2006. The Art of Forgetting: Disgrace & Oblivion in Roman Political Culture. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar

Forbis, E. 1996. Municipal Virtues in the Roman Empire: The Evidence of Italian Honorary Inscriptions. Stuttgart: Teubner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Foucault, M. 1986. The Care of the Self: The History of Sexuality, Vol. iii. Trans. Hurley, R.. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar

Freeland, C. A. 2000. ‘Feminism and ideology in ancient philosophy’, Apeiron 33: 365–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gaertner, J. F. (ed.) 2007. Writing Exile: The Discourse of Displacement in Greco-Roman Antiquity and Beyond. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gardner, J. F. 1986. Women in Roman Law and Society. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gardner, J. F. 1998. Family and Familia in Roman Law and Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geffcken, K. A. 1973. Comedy in the Pro Caelio. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

George, M. (ed.) 2005. The Roman Family in the Empire: Rome, Italy, and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gibson, R. K. and Morrison, A. D. 2007. ‘Introduction: What is a letter?’, in Morello and Morrison (2007: 1–16).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gibson, R. 2012. ‘On the nature of ancient letter collections’, Journal of Roman Studies 102: 56–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gildenhard, I. 2007. Paideia Romana: Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations. Cambridge Philological Society.Google Scholar

Gill, C. 2006. The Structured Self in Hellenistic and Roman Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gill, C. 2013. ‘Stoic erôs: Is there such a thing?’, in Sanders, E., Thumiger, C., Carey, C. and Lowe, N. J. (eds.). Erôs in Ancient Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ginsburg, J. 2006. Representing Agrippina: Constructions of Female Power in the Early Roman Empire. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gloyn, L. 2014a: ‘Show me the way to go home: A reconsideration of Seneca’s De Consolatione ad Polybium’, American Journal of Philology 135: 451–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gloyn, L. 2014b: ‘My family tree goes back to the Romans: Seneca’s approach to the family in the Epistulae Morales’, in Wildberger, J. and Colish, M. L. (eds.). Seneca Philosophus. Berlin: De Gruyter, 229–68.Google Scholar

Gowers, E. 2011. ‘The road to Sicily: Lucilius to Seneca’, Ramus 40: 168–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gowing, A. M. 2005. Empire and Memory: The Representation of the Roman Republic in Imperial Culture. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gradel, I. 2002. Emperor Worship and Roman Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Graver, M. R. 1996. ‘Therapeutic Reading and Seneca’s Moral Epistles’. PhD thesis, Brown University.Google Scholar

Graver, M. R. 1998. ‘The manhandling of Maecenas: Senecan abstractions of masculinity’, American Journal of Philology 119: 607–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Graver, M. R. 2007. Stoicism and Emotion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, S. J. 2004. Ovid, Fasti I: A Commentary. Leiden and Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Griffin, M. T. 1962. ‘De Brevitate Vitae’, Journal of Roman Studies 52: 104–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Griffin, M. T. 1972. ‘The elder Seneca and Spain’, Journal of Roman Studies 62: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Griffin, M. T. 1992. Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics, 2nd edn, enlarged. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Griffin, M. T. 2013. Seneca on Society: A Guide to De Beneficiis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Griffin, M. T. and Inwood, B. 2011. Lucius Annaeus Seneca: On Benefits. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Griffith, M. 1998. ‘The king and eye: The rule of the father in Greek tragedy’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 44: 20–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grimal, P. 1978. Seneca: Macht und Ohnmacht des Geistes. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar

Gunderson, E. 2003. Declamation, Paternity and Roman Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Habinek, T. N. 1992. ‘An aristocracy of virtue: Seneca on the beginnings of wisdom’, in Dunn, F. M. and Cole, T. (eds.). Yale Classical Studies XXIX, Beginnings in Classical Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hachmann, E. 2006. L. Annaeus Seneca, Epistulae morales, Brief 66: Einleitung, Text und Kommentar. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar

Hadot, I. 1969. Seneca und die griechisch-römische Tradition der Seelenleitung. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Griffin, M. T. 2007. ‘Versuch einer doktrinalen Neueinordnung der Schule der Sextier’, Rheinisches Museum 150: 179–210.Google Scholar

Hallett, J. P. 1977. ‘Perusinae glandes and the changing image of Augustus’, American Journal of Ancient History 2: 151–71.Google Scholar

Hallett, Judith P. 1984. Fathers and Daughters in Roman Society: Women and the Elite Family. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hallett, Judith P. 2006. ‘Fulvia, mother of Iullus Antonius: New approaches to the sources on Julia’s adultery at Rome’, Helios 33: 149–64.Google Scholar

Harders, A.-C. 2010. ‘Roman patchwork families: Surrogate parenting, socialization, and the shaping of tradition’, in Dasen and Späth (2010: 49–72).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harich-Schwarzbauer, H. 2012. ‘Wissensinszenierung bei emotionaler Nähe: Senecas ad Helviam de consolation’, in Fuhrer, T. and Renger, A.-B. (eds.). Performanz von Wissen: Strategien der Wissensvermittlung in der Vormoderne. Heidelberg: Winter, 95–108.Google Scholar

Harlow, M. 1998. ‘In the name of the father: Procreation, paternity and patriarchy’, in Foxhall, L. and Salmon, J. (eds.). Thinking Men: Masculinity and its Self-Representation in the Classical Tradition. London: Routledge, 155–69.Google Scholar

Harries, J. 2007. Law and Crime in the Roman World. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris, W. V. 1994. ‘Child exposure in the Roman Empire’, Journal of Roman Studies 84: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hemelrijk, E. A. 2010. ‘Fictive kinship as a metaphor for women’s civic roles’, Hermes 138: 455–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Henderson, J. 2004. Morals and Villas in Seneca’s Letters: Places to Dwell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Henderson, J. 2006. ‘Journey of a lifetime: Seneca, Epistle 57 in book vi in EM’, in Volk and Williams (2006: 123–46).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Henry, D. and Henry, E. 1985. The Mask of Power: Seneca’s Tragedies and Imperial Rome. Chicago, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci; Warminster: Aris and Phillips.Google Scholar

Henry, D. and Walker, B. 1983. ‘The Oedipus of Seneca: An imperial tragedy’, in Boyle (1983: 128–39).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hense, O. 1905. C. Musonii Rufi Reliquiae. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Hill, L. 2001. ‘The first wave of feminism: Were the Stoics feminists?’, History of Political Thought 22: 13–40.Google Scholar

Hine, H. M. 2004. ‘Interpretatio Stoica of Senecan tragedy’, in Billerbeck, M. and Schmidt, E. (eds.). Sénèque le Tragique: Huit Exposés Suivis de Discussions. Vandœuvres, Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 173–220.Google Scholar

Hunter, D. G. 2007. Marriage, Celibacy, and Heresy in Ancient Christianity: The Jovinianist Controversy. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hutchinson, G. O. 1998. Cicero’s Correspondence: A Literary Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Imber, M. 2008. ‘Life without father: Declamation and the construction of paternity in the Roman Empire’, in Bell, S., and Hansen, I. L. (eds.). Role Models in the Roman World: Identity and Assimilation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 161–69.Google Scholar

Inwood, B. 1983. ‘Comments on Professor Görgemanns’ paper: The two forms of oikeiosis in Arius and the Stoa’, in Fortenbaugh, W. W. (ed.). On Stoic and Peripatetic Ethics: The Work of Arius Didymus. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 190–201.Google Scholar

Inwood, B. 1985. Ethics and Human Action in Early Stoicism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Inwood, B. 1995. ‘Politics and paradox in Seneca’s De Beneficiis’, in Laks and Schofield (1995: 241–65).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Inwood, B. 1999. ‘Stoic ethics’, in Algra et al. (1999: 675–705).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Inwood, B. (ed.) 2003. The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Inwood, B. 2005. Reading Seneca: Stoic Philosophy at Rome. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Inwood, B. (ed.) 2007a. Seneca: Selected Philosophical Letters. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Inwood, B. 2007b. ‘The importance of form in Seneca’s philosophical letters’, in Morello and Morrison (2007: 133–48).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Irwin, T. 1998. ‘Stoic inhumanity’, in Sihvola and Engberg-Pedersen (1998: 219–41).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jackson-McCabe, M. A. 2004. ‘The Stoic theory of implanted preconceptions’, Phronesis 49: 323–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

James, S. 2013. ‘Gender and sexuality in Terence’, in Augoustakis and Traill (2013: 175–94).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kamp, H. W. 1937. ‘Seneca’s marriage’, Classical Journal 32: 529–33.Google Scholar

Kassel, R. 1958. Untersuchungen zur Griechischen und Römischen Konsolationsliteratur. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar

Keen, R. 1985. ‘Lucretius and his reader’, Apeiron 19: 1–10.Google Scholar

Ker, J. 2006. ‘Seneca, man of many genres’, in Volk and Williams (2006: 19–41).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ker, J. 2009. The Deaths of Seneca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kerferd, G. B. 1972. ‘The search for personal identity in Stoic thought’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 55: 177–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kidd, I. G. 1978. ‘Moral actions and rules in Stoic ethics’, in Rist, J. (ed.). The Stoics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 247–58.Google Scholar

Kidd, I. G. 1988. Posidonius: ii. The Commentary: 2. Fragments 150–293. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kleiner, D. E. E. 1978. ‘The great friezes of the Ara Pacis Augustae: Greek sources, Roman derivatives and Augustan social policy’, Mélanges de l’ École Française de Rome. Antiquité 90: 753–85.Google Scholar

Komter, A. and Vollebergh, W. 1997. ‘Gift giving and the emotional significance of family and friends’, Journal of Marriage and Family 59: 747–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kurth, T. 1994. Senecas Trostschrift an Polybius: Dialog 11: Ein Kommentar. Stuttgart: Teubner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laks, A. and Schofield, M. (eds.). 1995. Justice and Generosity: Studies in Hellenistic Social and Political Philosophy, Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium Hellenisticum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langlands, R. 2006. Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lapidge, M. 1989. ‘Stoic cosmology and Roman literature, first to third centuries ad’. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt ii 36.3: 1379–429.Google Scholar

Lassen, E. M. 1992. ‘The ultimate crime: Parricidium and the concept of family in the late Roman Republic and early Empire’, Classica et Mediaevalia 43: 147–61.Google Scholar

Lavery, G. B. 1987. ‘Sons and rulers: Paradox in Seneca’s De ira’, L’Antiquité Classique 56: 279–83.Google Scholar

Leach, E. W. 1997–8. ‘Venus, Thetis and the social construction of maternal behavior’, Classical Journal 92: 347–71.Google Scholar

Lelis, A., Percy, W. A. and Verstraete, B. C. 2003. The Age of Marriage in Ancient Rome. Lewiston, NY: Mellen.Google Scholar

LeMoine, F. J. 1991. ‘Parental gifts: Father-son dedications and dialogues in Roman didactic literature’, Illinois Classical Studies 16: 337–66.Google Scholar

Lentano, M. (ed.) 1997. Contro il matrimonio, ovvero, Perché all’uomo saggio non convenga prender moglie: Lucio Annaeo Seneca. Bari: Palomar.Google Scholar

Levick, B. 1975. ‘“Julians and Claudians”’, Greece & Rome 22: 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Long, A. A. (ed.) 1971a. Problems in Stoicism. London: University of London, Athlone Press.Google Scholar

Long, A. A. 1971b. ‘Freedom and determinism in the Stoic theory of human action’, in Long (1971a: 173–199).Google Scholar

Long, A. A. 1995. Stoic Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Long, A. A. 2002. Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Long, A. A. and Sedley, D. N. 1987. The Hellenistic Philosophers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lutz, C. 1947. ‘Musonius Rufus: The Roman Socrates’, Yale Classical Studies 10: 1–147.Google Scholar

McGinn, T. 1998. Prostitution, Sexuality, and the Law in Ancient Rome. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

McLynn, N. 2010. ‘The manna from uncle: Basil of Caesarea’s address to young men’, in Kelly, C., Flower, R., Williams, M. S. and Williams, M. (eds.). Unclassical Traditions, Vol. i : Alternatives to the Classical Past in Late Antiquity. Cambridge Philological Society, 106–18.Google Scholar

McMaster, A. 2010. ‘The rules of gift-exchange: Catullus 12, 13 & 14’, Mouseion 10: 355–79.Google Scholar

Manning, C. E. 1973. ‘Seneca and the Stoics on the equality of the sexes’, Mnemosyne 26: 170–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Manning, C. E. 1974. ‘The consolatory tradition and Seneca’s attitude to the emotions’, Greece & Rome 21: 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Manning, C. E. 1976. ‘Seneca’s 98th Letter and the praemeditatio mali’, Mnemosyne 29: 301–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Manning, C. E. 1981. On Seneca’s Ad Marciam. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Manning, C. E. 1987. ‘The Sextii’, Prudentia 19: 16–27.Google Scholar

Marchesi, I. 2008. The Art of Pliny’s Letters: A Poetics of Allusion in the Private Correspondence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maslakov, G. 1984. ‘Valerius Maximus and Roman historiography: A study of the exempla tradition’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt ii 32.1: 437–96.Google Scholar

Mauch, M. 1997. Senecas Frauenbild in den philosophischen Schriften. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar

Maurach, G. 1970. Der Bau von Senecas Epistulae morales. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. G. 2008. ‘Roman historical exempla in Seneca’, in Fitch (2008: 299–315).Google Scholar

Mazzoli, G. 1989. ‘Le Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium di Seneca: Valore letterario e filosofico’, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt ii 36.3: 1823–877.Google Scholar

Milnor, K. L. 2005. Gender, Domesticity, and the Age of Augustus: Inventing Private Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Moller, D. 2005. ‘The marriage commitment: Reply to Landau’, Philosophy 80: 279–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Momigliano, A. 1963. ‘An interim report on the origins of Rome’, Journal of Roman Studies 53: 95–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Morello, R. and Morrison, A. D. (eds.) 2007. Ancient Letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Most, G. W. 1998. ‘À la recherche du texte perdu: On collecting philosophical fragments’, in Burkert, W., Gemelli Marciano, L., Matelli, E. and Orelli, L (eds.). Fragmentsammlungen philosophischer texter der Antike/Le raccolte dei frammenti di filosofi antichi (Aporemata 3). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1–15.Google Scholar

Mouritsen, H. 2011. The Freedman in the Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mulroy, D. 1988. ‘The early career of P. Clodius Pulcher: A re-examination of the charges of mutiny and sacrilege’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 118: 155–78.Google Scholar

Murnaghan, S. 1988. ‘How a woman can be more like a man: The dialogue between Isomachus and his wife in Xenophon’s Oeconomicus’, Helios 15: 9–22.Google Scholar

Nails, D. 2002. The People of Plato: A Prosopography of Plato and Other Socratics. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar

Neuhausen, K. A. 1984. ‘Hieronymus, Seneca und Theophrasts Schrift über die Freundschaft’, in Dassman, E. and Thraede, K. (eds.). Vivarium: Festschrift Theodor Klauser zum 90. Geburtstag. Munich: Aschendorff, 257–86.Google Scholar

Nugent, S. G. 1994. ‘Mater matters: The female in Lucretius’ De rerum natura’, Colby Quarterly 30: 179–205.Google Scholar

Nussbaum, M. 1994. The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Nussbaum, M. 1995. ‘Eros and the wise: The Stoic response to a cultural dilemma’, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 13: 231–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nussbaum, M. 2000. ‘Duties of justice, duties of material aid: Cicero’s problematic legacy’, Journal of Political Philosophy 8: 176–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nussbaum, M. 2002a. ‘The incomplete feminism of Musonius Rufus, Platonist, Stoic, and Roman’, in Nussbaum and Sihvola (2002: 283–326).Google Scholar

Nussbaum, M. 2002b. ‘The worth of human dignity: Two tensions in Stoic cosmopolitanism’, in Clark, G. and Rajak, T. (eds.). Philosophy and Power in the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of Miriam Griffin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 31–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nussbaum, M. and Sihvola, J. (eds.) 2002. The Sleep of Reason: Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Greece and Rome. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

O’Hara, S. F. 1993. ‘Patria potestas: A brief re-examination’, in Hillard, T. W., Kearsley, R. A., Nixon, C. E. V. and Nobbs, A. M. (eds.). Ancient History in a Modern University: Proceedings of a Conference Held at Macquarie University, 8–13 July, 1993, Vol. i. Michigan: Eerdmans, 210–16.Google Scholar

Oppel, J. 1993. ‘Saint Jerome and the history of sex’, Viator 24: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Packman, Z. M. 2013. ‘Family and household in the comedies of Terence’, in Augoustakis and Traill (2013: 195–210).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pagán, V. E. 2006. Rome and the Literature of Gardens. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar

Pembroke, S. G. 1971. ‘Oikeiōsis’, in Long (1971a: 114–49).Google Scholar

Penner, T. 1973. ‘The unity of virtue’, The Philosophical Review 82: 35–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Picone, G. (ed.). 2008. Clementia Caesaris: Modelli etici, parenesi e retorica dell’esilio. Palermo: Palumbo.Google Scholar

Pigoń, J. 2001. ‘Sejanus and the death of Drusus: One rumour or two? (Tacitus, Annals iv 10)’, in Kotula, T. and Ladomirski, A. (eds.). Le Monde romain et ses periphéries sous la République et sous l’Empire. Wrocław: Wrocław University Press), 147–52.Google Scholar

Plessis, P. du. 2010. Borkowski’s Textbook on Roman Law, 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ramelli, I. (ed.) 2009. Hierocles the Stoic: Elements of Ethics, Fragments and Excerpts. Trans. Konstan, David. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.Google Scholar

Ramsby, T. R. and Severy, B. 2007. ‘Gender, sex, and the domestication of the Empire in art of the Augustan age’, Arethusa 40: 43–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rawson, B. 1986. ‘The Roman family’, in Rawson, B. (ed.). The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1–57.Google Scholar

Rawson, B. (ed.) 1991. Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome. Canberra: Humanities Research Centre; Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rawson, B. 2003. Children and Childhood in Roman Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rawson, B. (ed.) 2011. A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Rawson, B. and Weaver, P. R. (eds.) 1997. The Roman Family in Italy: Status, Sentiment, Space. Canberra: Humanities Research Centre; Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reydams-Schils, G. 2002. ‘Human bonding and oikeiosis in Roman Stoicism’, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 22: 221–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reydams-Schils, G. 2005. The Roman Stoics: Self, Responsibility, and Affection. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Reynolds, L.D. 1965. L. Annaei Senecae Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Reynolds, L.D. 1977. L. Annaei Senecae Dialogorum Libri Duodecim. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Richardson-Hay, C. 2006. First Lessons: Book 1 of Seneca’s Epistulae Morales. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar

Richlin, A. 1981. ‘Approaches to the sources on adultery at Rome’, in Foley, H. P. (ed.). Reflections of Women in Antiquity. New York: Gordon and Breach, 379–404.Google Scholar

Riggsby, A. M. 2003. ‘Pliny in space (and time)’, Arethusa 36: 167–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rimell, V. 2013. ‘The best a man can get: Grooming Scipio in Seneca Epistle 86’, Classical Philology 108: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rist, J. M. 1969. Stoic Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rogers, R. S. 1965. ‘The case of Cremutius Cordus’, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 96: 351–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roller, M. B. 2001. Constructing Autocracy: Aristocrats and Emperors in Julio-Claudian Rome. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roller, M. B. 2004. ‘Exemplarity in Roman culture: The cases of Horatius Cocles and Cloelia’, Classical Philology 99: 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rose, C. B. 1990. ‘“Princes” and barbarians on the Ara Pacis’, American Journal of Archaeology 94: 453–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rose, C. B. 1997. Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio-Claudian Period. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rosenmeyer, T. G. 1989. Senecan Drama and Stoic Cosmology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Rosenmeyer, T. G. 2000. ‘Seneca and nature’, Arethusa 33: 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosenmeyer, T. G. 1987. ‘Seneca’s palinode. Consolatio ad Polybium and Apokolokyntosis’, The Ancient World 15: 105–9.Google Scholar

Rudich, V. 1987. ‘Seneca’s palinode: Consolatio ad Polybium and Apokolokyntosis’, The Ancient World 15: 105–9.Google Scholar

Rudich, V. 1997. Dissidence and Literature under Nero: The Price of Rhetoricization. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Russell, D. A. 1974. ‘Letters to Lucilius’, in Costa, C. D. N. (ed.). Seneca. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 70–95.Google Scholar

Saller, R. P. 1984. ‘Familia, domus, and the Roman conception of the family’, Phoenix 38: 336–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Saller, R. P. 1987. ‘Men’s age at marriage and its consequences in the Roman family’, Classical Philology 82: 20–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Saller, R. P. 1988. ‘Pietas, obligation and authority in the Roman family’, in Kneissl, P. and Losemann, V. (eds.). Alte Geschichte und Wissenschaftsgeschichte: Festschrift für Karl Christ zum 65. Geburtstag. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 393–410.Google Scholar

Saller, R. P. 1991. ‘Corporal punishment, authority and obedience in the Roman household’, in Rawson (1991: 144–65).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Saller, R. P. 1999. ‘Pater familias, mater familias, and the gendered semantics of the Roman household’, Classical Philology 94: 182–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Saller, R. P. 2000. ‘Status and patronage’, in The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. xi, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 817–54.Google Scholar

Salles, R. 2005. ‘Ἐκπύρωσις and the goodness of God in Cleanthes’, Phronesis 50: 56–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sampino, F. 2008. ‘Beneficium, società e potere: Una lettura del de beneficiis di Seneca’, in Picone (2008: 281–300).Google Scholar

Schafer, J. 2009. Ars Didactica: Seneca’s 94th and 95th Letters. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schafer, J. 2011. ‘Seneca’s Epistulae morales as dramatized education’, Classical Philology 106: 32–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schofield, M. 1991. The Stoic Idea of the City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schofield, M. 1995. ‘Two Stoic approaches to justice’, in Laks and Schofield (1995: 191–212).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schofield, M. and Striker, G. (eds.) 1986. The Norms of Nature: Studies in Hellenistic Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Paris: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.Google Scholar

Schönegg, B. 1999. Senecas Epistulae morales als philosophisches Kunstwerk. Berne and Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar

Sedley, D. 1999. ‘The Stoic-Platonist debate on kathēkonta’, in Ierodiakonou, K. (ed.). Topics in Stoic Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 128–52.Google Scholar

Sedley, D. 2003. ‘The School, from Zeno to Arius Didymus’, in Inwood (2003: 7–32).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sellars, J. 2007. ‘Stoic cosmopolitanism and Zeno’s Republic’, History of Political Thought 28: 1–29.Google Scholar

Severy, B. 2003. Augustus and the Family at the Birth of the Roman Empire. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Shaw, B. 2001. ‘Raising and killing children: Two Roman myths’, Mnemosyne 54: 32–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shelton, J. 1995. ‘Persuasion and paradigm in Seneca’s Consolatio ad Marciam 1–6’, Classica et Mediaevalia 46: 157–88.Google Scholar

Sihvola, J. and Engberg-Pedersen, T. (eds.) 1998. The Emotions in Hellenistic Philosophy. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Skard, E. 1932. Zwei Religiös-Politische Begriffe Euergetes-Concordia. Oslo: Dybwad.Google Scholar

Skidmore, C. 1996. Practical Ethics for Roman Gentlemen: The Work of Valerius Maximus. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spaeth, B. 1996. The Roman Goddess Ceres. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Stackelberg, K. T. von. 2009. The Roman Garden: Space, Sense, and Society. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stafford, E. J. 2005. ‘Viewing and obscuring the female breast: Glimpses of the ancient bra’, in Cleland, L., Harlow, M. and Llewellyn-Jones, L. (eds.). The Clothed Body in the Ancient World. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 96–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Star, C. 2006. ‘Commanding constantia in Senecan tragedy’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 136: 207–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Star, Christopher. 2012. The Empire of the Self: Self-Command and Political Speech in Seneca and Petronius. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stephens, W. O. 1996. ‘Epictetus on how the Stoic sage loves’, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 14: 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stevenson, T. R. 1992. ‘The ideal benefactor and the father analogy in Greek and Roman thought’, Classical Quarterly 42: 421–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stevenson, T. R. 2000. ‘Parens patriae and Livy’s Camillus’, Ramus 29: 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stewart, Z. 1953. ‘Sejanus, Gaetulicus and Seneca’, American Journal of Philology 74: 70–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stowell, M. C. 1999. ‘Stoic Therapy of Grief: A Prolegomenon to Seneca’s Ad Marciam, de consolatione’. PhD thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar

Sweeney, J. M. 1978. ‘The career of Cn. Domitius Calvinus’, The Ancient World 1: 179–85.Google Scholar

Syme, R. 1958. Tacitus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Syme, R. 1986. The Augustan Aristocracy. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Tanner, R. G. 1985. ‘Stoic philosophy and Roman tradition in Senecan tragedy’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt ii 32.2: 1100–33.Google Scholar

Temkin, O. 1991. Soranus’ Gynecology. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Thom, J. C. 2005. Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar

Thomas, Y. 1983. ‘Paura dei padri e violenza dei figli: Immagini retoriche e norme di diritto’, in Pellizer, E. and Zorzetti, N. (eds.). La paura dei padri nella società antica e medievale. Rome: Laterza, 113–140.Google Scholar

Too, Y. L. 1994. ‘Educating Nero: A reading of Seneca’s Epistles’, in Elsner, J. and Masters, J. (eds.). Reflections of Nero: Culture, History and Representation. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 211–24.Google Scholar

Torre, C. 1995a. ‘La concezione senecana del sapiens: Le metamorfosi animali’, Maia 47: 349–69.Google Scholar

Torre, C. 1995b. ‘Il cavallo immagine del sapiens in Seneca’, Maia 47: 371–78.Google Scholar

Torre, C. 2000. Il Matrimonio del Sapiens: Ricerche sul de Matrimonio di Seneca. University of Genoa.Google Scholar

Treggiari, S. 1991. Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Treggiari, S. 2007. Terentia, Tullia and Publilia: The Women of Cicero’s Family. Oxford: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Trillitzsch, W. 1965. ‘Hieronymus und Seneca’, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 2: 42–54.Google Scholar

Trinacty, C. V. 2009. ‘Like father like son: Selected examples of intertextuality in Seneca the Elder and Younger’, Phoenix 63: 260–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Turpin, W. 2008. ‘Tacitus, Stoic exempla, and the praecipuum munus annalium’, Classical Antiquity 27: 359–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Uzzi, J. D. 2007. ‘The power of parenthood in official Roman art’, Hesperia Supplements 41: Constructions of Childhood in Ancient Greece and Italy 61–81.Google Scholar

Vesley, M. E. 2003. ‘Father–son relations in Roman declamation’, The Ancient History Bulletin 17: 158–80.Google Scholar

Veyne, P. 1987. ‘The Roman Empire’, in Veyne, P. (ed.). A History of Private Life, Vol. i: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Vico, C. De. 1969. ‘Considerazioni sulla Consolatio ad Marciam di Seneca’, Giornale Italiano di Filologia 21: 137–45.Google Scholar

Vogt, K. M. 2006. ‘Anger, present injustice and future revenge in Seneca’s De Ira’, in Volk and Williams (2006: 57–74).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vogt, K. M. 2008. Law, Reason, and the Cosmic City: Political Philosophy in the Early Stoa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Volk, K. 2002. The Poetics of Latin Didactic: Lucretius, Vergil, Ovid, Manilius. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Volk, K. and Williams, G. (eds.) 2006. Seeing Seneca Whole: Perspectives on Philosophy, Poetry and Politics. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vottero, D. 1998. Lucio Anneo Seneca: I Frammenti. Bologna: Patron.Google Scholar

Wagoner, R. 2014. ‘Seneca on moral theory and moral improvement’, Classical Philology 109: 241–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wardle, D. 1997. ‘“The Sainted Julius”: Valerius Maximus and the dictator’, Classical Philology 92: 323–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wardle, D. 2000. ‘Valerius Maximus on the Domus Augusta, Augustus, and Tiberius’, Classical Quarterly 50: 479–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Watson, P. A. 1995. Ancient Stepmothers: Myth, Misogyny, and Reality. Leiden and New York: Brill.Google Scholar

Watson, P. A. and Watson, L. C. 2009. ‘Seneca and Felicio: Imagery and purpose’, Classical Quarterly 59: 212–25.Google Scholar

Weaver, P. R. C. W. 1972. Familia Caesaris: A Social Study of the Emperor’s Freedmen and Slaves. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Welch, K. 1995. ‘Antony, Fulvia, and the ghost of Clodius in 47 bc’, Greece & Rome 42: 182–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Welch, Kathryn. 2012. Magnus Pius: Sextus Pompeius and the Transformation of the Roman Republic. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wiesen, D. S. 1964. St. Jerome as a Satirist: A Study in Christian Latin Thought and Letters. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Wilcox, A. 2005. ‘Paternal grief and the public eye: Cicero Ad Familiares 4.6’, Phoenix 59: 267–87.Google Scholar

Wilcox, Amanda. 2006. ‘Exemplary grief: Gender and virtue in Seneca’s consolations to women’, Helios 33: 73–100.Google Scholar

Wilcox, Amanda. 2008. ‘Nature’s monster: Caligula as exemplum in Seneca’s dialogues’, in Rosen, R. M. and Sluiter, I. (eds.). Kakos: Badness and Anti-Value in Classical Antiquity. Boston and Leiden: Brill, 451–75.Google Scholar

Wilcox, Amanda. 2012. The Gift of Correspondence in Classical Rome: Friendship in Cicero’s Ad Familiares and Seneca’s Moral Epistles. University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar

Wildberger, J. 2006. Seneca und die Stoa: Der Platz des Menschen in der Welt, 2 vols. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Williams, G. (ed.) 2003. De Otio; De Brevitate Vitae. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Williams, G. 2006. ‘States of exile, states of mind: paradox and reversal in Seneca’s Consolatio Ad Helviam Matrem’, in Volk and Williams (2006: 147–73).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wilson, M. 1997. ‘The subjugation of grief in Seneca’s Epistles’, in Braund, S. M. and Gill, C. (eds.). The Passions in Roman Thought and Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 48–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wilson, Marcus. 2001. ‘Seneca’s Epistles reclassified’, in Harrison, S. J. (ed.). Texts, Ideas and the Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 164–87.Google Scholar

Wiseman, T. 1995. Remus: A Roman Myth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wood, S. 1995. ‘Diva Drusilla Panthea and the sisters of Caligula’, American Journal of Archaeology 99: 457–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zanker, P. 1988. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Trans. Shapiro, A.. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar