Macey 1991, xviii. Not to mention the roughly 180,000 articles that Macey
figures on for the same period (xvi).
Adam 1994, 508.
Respectively, Lynch 1972; Carlstein, Parkes, and Thrift 1978.
On the impact of the Industrial Revolution on the experience of time, see
Whitrow 1989, 157 – 69; cf. Elias 1992, 135 – 41; Adam 1994, 515.
Laurence and Smith 1995 – 96, 133; cf. Graf 1997, 11 – 12. My thanks to Joseph
Farrell for stimulating discussion of Rome ’s status as a modern society.
Bettini 1991, 113 – 93, on Roman temporal metaphors; Putnam 1986 on Horace ’s
(im)mortality-obsessed fourth book ofOdes.James Ker is currently at work on Roman
representations of time in a more “private” sphere; our concerns overlap to some
degree, but I hope that they will in the end complement each other.
As in my last book (Feeney 1998), where comparison between Greece and Rome
was the main theme in a discussion of the issues facing both us and them in under-
standing the interaction between literature and religion at Rome.
For an account, and critique, see Gell 1992; Adam 1994.
Worsley 1997 is an important study of the multiplicity of knowledge systems in
any society. Note, for example, his summary after discussing Australian Aboriginal
knowledge systems for classification of the natural world: “There is... no such thing
as Aboriginal thought with a capital T, all of a piece and based on a central unifying
principle: in Durkheim’s case, the elements of the social structure; in Lévi-Strauss’, the
