page 2, lines 28–30 read as follows:
D. rightly stresses that scholars have produced contradictory portraits of Fulvia, which swing between optimistic and pessimistic visions of her agency, but overlook the means for resolving these differences (pp. 10–11).
However, they should read:
D. rightly stresses that scholars have produced contradictory portraits of Fulvia, which swing between optimistic and pessimistic visions of her agency, but overlooks the means for resolving these differences (pp. 10–11).
The Publisher apologises for the error.