A Place for Serious Classics

I'm wondering, does anyone have any good/reliable resources (preferably online) or can anyone give me a brief run-down of what female literacy rates were like within the classical world (central and peripheral) among Roman citizens from about the 1st to the 3rd centuries A.D.? What percentage of women, and, indeed, what type of women were literate? Concerning the women who were literate, how literate did they to / could they be?; was the reading level very basic or did some (or many?) read critically?

Anyone know of a convenient online source for synopses of Ancient Greek Verbs (including irregulars)?

Thanking you in advance.

I have recently been studying the occurrence (or lack thereof) of "gender-neutral" occupations as held in Scripture (both the NT and OT). I happened upon Acts 16:14 wherein Lydia is called a "seller of purple" (porphyropolis). This is evidently the feminine form of the term "porphyropoles". Since there are both masculine and feminine forms of the term in Greek, I am wondering if this occupation was performed by both males and females. If so, there is no indication given that the church disapproved of females being "sellers of purple" and so, this scripture, by implication, may lend (scriptural) support to (or at least not disapproval of) certain gender-neutral occupations.

My questions are: Is there any other evidence (historically?/scripturally?) for other (apparently) gender-neutral occupations among the Jews in the OT and/or among the Christians in the NT? Also, could the masculine form of "porphyropoles" be used also to refer to (only?) women who engaged in such an occupation?

Some interesting ancient numismatic metamorphoses (click the link indicated on each page):

http://www.writer2001.com/athena.htm

http://www.writer2001.com/parisii.htm

Illuminating Hadrian's Wall:

In a recent review of Knox's new Blackwell Companion to Ovid, Antonio Ramírez de Verger first complains and then attacks theory. (BMCR)

He complains that the imbalance between the two chapters on editions and commentaries and the four 'theoretical' chapters reveal "the pitiful status of Latin studies at present." This status, it appears, stems from the difficulty of understanding the writers who use theory.

He selects the following statement as paradigmatic: "This Ovidian technique-ironic prefiguring realized through intertextual anticipation, when a character who lives in a precise moment of the model-text 'unintentionally' foretells his/her own future or others' by using words destined to appear in the continuation of the model-texts-finds prominent application in the Heroides" (Casali, p. 346)."

He finds that statement so opaque that he must deduce from the surrounding material that is means " Ovid has turned some epic characters into elegiac ("transcoding their story from one genre to another, elegy")." This is, A claims, "A lot of baggage for such a short journey, as the Spanish saying goes."

Despite the ironic way A presents his critique ("pay no attention to me"), it is not hard to see that he has missed the point. I understand Casali to be claiming that Ovid uses allusions to create dramatic irony. This might also be part of the generic play Ovid so much enjoys. The journey, it is clear, is longer than A. allows. More importantly, there is very little theory in what he quotes - the deeper and more troublesome issue of intertextuality are largely absent. His attack amounts to little more than a complaint that Casali does not write as clearly as A. wishes. A lot of baggage for a short trip.

This type of complaint is all too common. It is like blaming the car for speeding rather than the driver. It doesn't matter if one drives a theory Ferrari or a traditionalist Oldsmobile, it is the driver who speeds, not the car, and it is the driver who gets the ticket.

I had hoped that classics had moved beyond such pointless caviling at theory.