Spaghettoni alla chitarra e ragù. Wikimedia. Click for credits

After aperitivo at the bar the conversation continues to unwind at our home while we consume a simple dinner made of spaghettoni al ragù, cheese with a side dish of boiled vegetables, all washed down with Chianti and some Grappa as digestivo.

Classicus and King Servius Tullius

Servius Tullius
Servius Tullius, 6th Roman King. Image via Wikipedia

Extropian: “In my Calonghi Latin dictionary classis means both ‘fleet’ and ‘social class’; classicus is both a ‘sailor’ and ‘a member of the first Servian class of citizens’, out of the five tax classes set up by the Roman King Servius Tullius.

So why do we say today that Herman Melville is a classic and that Dan Brown (or our Giorgio Faletti) will probably never be?”

Giorgio: “It implies some timeless worth, it is known. Less known perhaps the origin of the notion. In the 2nd century CE Aulus Gellius, a Roman grammarian, [see image below] in his Noctes Atticae (Attic nights) – I just found out – was the first to mean by classicus ‘a writer of the first Servian class’ (classicus scriptor). He was the first to connect via a metaphor 1) literary and 2) social excellence. Classicus to him was a first-class & exemplary writer.

English: Frontispiece to the 1706 edition of A...
English: Frontispiece to the 1706 edition of Auli Gellii Noctium Atticarum (Aulus Gellius Attic Nights) libri xx. prout supersunt, quos ad libros Mss. novo et multo labore exegerunt, perpetuis notis et emendationibus illustrarunt Joannes Fridericus et Jacobus Gronovii. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Extropian: “Well, it somewhat reflected the elitism of antiquity.”

Flavia: “Yes, but I’d say excellence is excellence. Horace and Virgil were of humble background (Horace – read a reply to Sledpress on him – was even the son of a freed slave,) but were revered as excellent (and timeless) as soon as their works came out.”

Giorgio: “Horace himself refers to his Odes as timeless. But people didn’t call them classici. The new meaning didn’t immediately spread. In the 5th and 6th centuries CE authors such as Martianus Capella, Fulgentius and Boethius began to reconsider earlier pagan authors as models of style and thought, although again no use was made of the term classicus in the sense Gellius did.”

Extropian: “I see.”

Villa Rotonda, Veneto, Italy, by Andrea Palladio (1508 – 1580). Click for attribution

Classicus to Renaissance People

Giorgio: “And throughout the Middle Ages too we have the concept but not the word for it. Until we get to the Renaissance men, in 1400s-1500s CE.

In their Latin classicus refers again to something seen as timeless and as a standard of excellence: to the people of the Renaissance [see a Palladian villa above] the Greek and Roman past was THE classicus exemplary model in all fields.”

Mario: “In fact we still say ‘Classical Antiquity’. Of course the Renaissance is neoclassical ante litteram since it found inspiration in Antiquity and looked down upon the Middle Ages.

By the way, wasn’t the second half of the 18th century labelled as neoclassical?”

Rome and the Grand Tour

Goethe in the Roman countryside as painted in 1787 by his friend Tischbein. Click to enlarge

Flavia: “It was. Giorgio and I recently visited the exhibition Rome and Antiquity. Reality and vision in the 18th century.

At the end of the War of the Austrian Succession (1748) a long period of peace ensued in Europe. Winckelmann arrived in Rome in 1755. He there conceived his master-work History of Ancient Art (1764) which influenced the entire neoclassical attitude from that year onwards and basically blew the minds (to mention the Germans only) of people like Hölderlin, Goethe, Lessing, Herder, Heine, Nietzsche etc. The marriage and the tyranny of Greece over Germany started with him.”

Giorgio: Those were the days of the Grand Tour. People flocked to Italy and especially to Rome to study classical culture. Rome with all her statues etc. also became a huge workshop of copies purchased worldwide. Bartolomeo Cavaceppi was the best sculptor to make casts, copies and fakes.

Caffè Greco – 86, via Condotti -, possibly the oldest caffè in Rome, frequented by Goethe, Byron, Stendhal, Liszt, Keats, Mendelssohn etc. Click to enter the Caffè Greco web site

Cavaceppi’s studio was in via del Babbuino, close to Caffè Greco (opened in 1760, see above,) to via del Corso (where Goethe lived at num 18 between 1786 & 1788,) to Piazza di Spagna: all popular places among the expatriates of the time. Cavaceppi’s shop was a must-see. Goethe was there and Canova himself was greatly impressed by Cavaceppi’s atelier. Goethe bought a cast of the Juno Ludovisi [see the last big picture below] but I forgot from whom though.

Anton Raphael Mengs, Jacques-Louis David, the Scottish architect Robert Adam, Canova, Piranesi with his efforts to build a map of Ancient Rome: surely a great period for our city.”

[The exhibition catalog is now on the living room table. Grappa is unfortunately served. Art and Bacchus are a perfect match since Homer, what did you think …]

Giorgio: “Last (but least) Italians played the guitar quite a lot during the 18th c. before the Spanish took over. I am studying Mauro Giuliani and Ferdinando Carulli who composed delightful classical pieces for this instrument, mixing sober taste (Giuliani) or brilliant grace (Carulli) with rationality.”

Jeu des dames, by Louis-Léopold Boilly (1761–1845). Click to enlarge. Elegance, sobriety, classical décor and Hellenic attire (and face features) of the women

Extropian (reading the catalog): “New archaeological discoveries fuelled the Roman and Greek frenzy. A great number of statues and mosaics were unearthed and reproduced. Décor and clothes were created in the neoclassical style in Europe and in the New World. Also Nero’s Domus Aurea wall paintings – at that time thought to belong to Titus’ thermae – were reproduced on mansions, on decorative furniture etc.

[Hope you can reach this great 3d reconstruction of Roman Emperor Nero’s Domus Aurea (see another movie below too:) you’ll think you are in a 18th century rich palace!]

The spirit of the Ancients and of the Enlightenment (Age of reason) splendidly matched. Classical triumphed and influenced the French and American Revolutions.”

Roman Emperor Nero’s Domus Aurea fresco. 1rst century CE

Classicism as a Concept. Mere Chance?

Extropian: “Classic, more generic for valuable, is related to classical … Wait a minute. Such fundamental concept going back to this Aulus Gellius, an almost unknown, second-rate Roman writer? Something is wrong here.”

Giorgio: “Weird in fact. I now read in Google what Ernst Robert Curtius observed (in his European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages):

What would modern aesthetics have done for a single general concept that could embrace Raphael, Racine, Mozart, and Goethe, if Gellius never lived?

Extropian: “Or if Servius Tullius didn’t divide Rome into 5 classes! I wonder whether we know the exact connection Gellius-Renaissance, but certainly goddess Fortune plays her tricks when making ideas successful or not, as Curtius also suggests.”

A cast of Juno Ludovisi (ie Antonia minor, Mark Antony’s daughter), similar to the one bought by Goethe. Antonia became a model of junoesque, imposing beauty


Grappa is making all blurred at this point.

That is, we have traced some origins but couldn’t define that general concept that can embrace Horace, Mozart, Mauro Giuliani, Haydn, Raphael, Schubert, Pindar, Canova, Racine, Goethe, Jane Austen and many elements of British and American Georgian culture.

A glass of Grappa
Grappa. Click for attribution

Next time Ferruccio Dante Michelangelo Busoni‘s aphorisms (big name, I know) on Mozart might help us hopefully.

Busoni’s aphorisms are in German since Busoni was Italian & somewhat German too [following Philippe’s advice we try to expand language variety in this blog.]

See you then.

A vase made for the foreign market. Italians found it too rich.

59 thoughts on “Ragù, Chianti (and Grappa.) Is ‘Classic’ Just a Trick by Goddess Fortune? (2)

    1. It may be. Also too long and too ambitious (‘overstretching’ you once said.) It should be rewritten. I was also overwhelmed by the complexity of the historical materials.


      1. Yes you did get into a maze of historical facts and semantic fancy footwork. I was a bit dazed after reading the whole post.
        However, here, it is still early so I have all day to work it out.


        1. The tone moreover was a bit ridiculous. I pruned the text a bit. My intention was that of making the whole thing less heavy after all.
          I once wrote a *post* on the dangers of such silly (and narcissistic) enthusiasm.


          1. Averna mi da un po’ di bruciore, non so perché. La grappa no.

            Troppa informazione. As Paul the Sage once said: “Man, you’re overstretching yourself, like the American army.” 🙂


          2. Ah, you haven’t seen overstretching till you’ve seen me in the gym. 🙂

            And I am not sure how to fix your back since I don’t know what you did to it, unless it was all the time at the computer writing this post. If you can find two tennis balls and a sock, just about anyone’s back can be made to feel better. I think I’ll make a video of that, now you’ve given me an idea.


          3. Oh my, Sledpress, I saw the Youtube movie you made for me. How terribly SWEET of youu!! I loved to hear your voice and see YOU for real. I’ll definitely try those tennis balls on my back! Thank you very much friend.

            Ah ah ah, not all the time I had to sit for THIS post but certainly my back hurts for my overall time before a screen, for playing the guitar sitting properly on a chair but also sprawling on a sofa, walking etc.


          4. De nada. You have inspired me to the idea of making a few more videos about quick and dirty fixes people can do for themselves when they are sore. I have to get my staff lined up again for this.


          5. I think it is a very good idea. I can’t wait to watch them. They might attract audience. Lots of people have have physical problems, you can help them. Mama Sled may be a good brand. People need a mama for that (or the goddess, if you prefer, which is exactly the same thing).


  1. Aside from the thought that the “long period of peace” actually came after the Seven Years War, an interesting treatise on what is “classic”. Something I have often wondered about when looking at classical art and listening to classical music.


    1. Glad if at least the post helped some mental linking. It cost me a few days of toil. Won’t get into the Seven Years War thing. You too may be right although that information I checked in the exhibition catalog.


  2. Hi Man of Roma,
    Thank you for this great, in-depth post. I love it. So the origin of the word ‘Classic’ came from Aulus Gellius in Attic Nights. This ‘second-rate’ writer from 2nd century CE coined the initial term. And, this word now refers to the innate ‘Excellence and Timelessness’ of a piece.

    It is easy to understand the ‘Timelessness’ concept, but, I wonder if the ‘Excellence’ includes perfection: Are we to assume they’re always mutually inclusive? Can Art appeal to us across the centuries with remarkable intensity and beauty, let’s say, in some convoluted manner like drawings and still be considered in this form classical?

    Some of this Art is so wild yet so controlled – an exciting paradox – that it is possible to imagine its perfection even though there is no proto-type for it save nature.


    1. Hi Geraldine,

      Your questions plunge deep into aesthetics, a really intangible branch of philosophy. Your mind is both gentle and speculative.

      What is beauty, excellence, perfection? Personally, since my (far away in time) background is historicism, I’m not totally at ease with absolute concepts outside a cultural, historical (hence relative) context.

      Even though some human values meet general consensus, it may disappoint you – and it grieves me a bit – that I am a (moderate) relativist. Behaviours, even notions of right and wrong, can be differently judged since for example in some US states some acts are a crime while in other states they are not.

      Back to the point, Hellenic excellence, with its elegant sobriety, formal rationality, order, extreme control, preference for simplicity over complexity, can be considered ‘perfect’ by many but a bit cold and too strict (I lack words) by romantic artists (Wagner and Mozart belong to two different planets) or not rich enough by Indians, whose aesthetic is based on complexity and God knows on what else (see the difference between a Greek and an Indian temple).

      On the whole – you said it – the capacity of resisting time is more understandable and simple evidence of value. At intervals though. Horace is timeless, but in spurts.


      1. Thank you for listening so well to my questions and responding. I will take some time to ponder your response.

        Comparing Wagner and Mozart in this context makes sense to me, especially in choosing Wagner. I think of perfection as something whole exuding innocence but that, of course, is subjective and may change at intervals. Mozart has this wholeness but, today, listening to Bach I perceived his music as intricate, complex, and, equally beautiful for the first time.

        Sometimes I find simplicity is the outcome or the end result of a whole load of knowledge/complexity behind it. So in this sense Bach has truth and beauty in his intricacies while Mozart has innocence and beauty. It’s as though Bach shows us formula and Mozart gives us the single equation. Far in the future people may think of their form as identical.

        Mille Grazie, MoR


        1. Mille grazie to you for being here Geraldine.

          Update. The way I see it – we are on slippery ground here – Mozart lacks Bach’s baroque sumptuousness although is complex too in his own way, Bach’s lacks Mozart’s lightness, transparency, humour (Bach is at times schwer and has no sense of humour at all). Both are tremendously deep and transcendental, though in different ways: Mozart being pagan, Bach pietist Lutheran.

          Your third paragraph is complex to comment on. I have to think of it.


          1. Hi MoR,
            Please dismiss what I’ve said because I’m still working it out and my thoughts are not honed (stupid in other words. It’s a great discussion and I’m dismayed I know so little.


          2. Geraldine, how can I dismiss what you said? You’re always showing great intuition and I love so much to have you here whatever you say. Pls don’t feel pressured.

            This thread on Bach, Mozart is on slippery ground for everybody. I’m even afraid some real music critic I know may read it. Pls be happy Geraldine.


          3. Ah, you’ve touched on why Bach’s music so often fails to engage me despite his stature and mastery. I never hear even a glimmer of anything I would call playful.

            Even Beethoven with his grim cachet used to wink every so often.


          4. Bach has some playfulness I’d say, and can express immense mystical joy, but not everyday joy, at least they way I live joy, and most of all – yes, we do agree – he has no humour at all. I’ve been venerating him all my life – together with other Germans, because they are really great – but after some time I lack air and need something Italian or French. Also Russian. Shostakovic, for ex.


      2. BTW, the notion of classic as a style or period of a style, is a product of 18th and 19th century art historians, I believe. It has more to do with growth and decay than with a particular form. Totally subjective and culturally determined.

        To say something is “a classic” or is “classic” expresses it’s resistance to time in critical favor, as you have said; or it’s quality of being a simple and clear example of something – Tertan’s case; or something much more subjective that is related to the stylistic historiography I’ve mentioned.

        I ramble…


        1. @Lichanos

          Rambling is always well accepted here 🙂

          Let me only point out that in my (heavy) post and in the discussion around it some arguable elements have come out. Simplifying:

          1) Classic: resistant to time in critical favour with no relation to a particular form or period.

          2) Classical: the same but related to the best forms of antiquity (ie the best of Greece also seen through the Roman lens, since historically the West has received ‘Greece’ via ‘Rome’ mostly).

          3) The two words have the same origin, from classicus, a Roman (ie Latin) word.

          4) The Roman grammarian Aulus Gellius coined a new meaning of the term classicus in the 2nd century AD: ‘first-class’ not only as member of the first class of citizens but as a standard of excellence in writing. A few centuries later – in Christian times – Martianus, Fulgentius and Boethius reconsidered earlier pagan authors as models of excellence though didn’t call them ‘classici’ like Gellius did. The new meaning of ‘classicus’ surfaced again during the Renaissance, the 18th century and later.

          So I guess it all started with Gellius’ Attic Nights – a ‘second-class’ author ironically – and not in the 18th century.


        2. I’ll add to your ramble to support your argument to some extent.

          The 19th Century’s important critic H. Taine certainly defined the “classical” ideal in art and essentially made that period of antiquity the standard to which all other art should somehow aspire. While we have moved on to some extent, I think Western Art historians and critics still tether themselves to that view of what is “classical” and perhaps it is fair to say that the artists of a four or five centuries generally did too. I think Taine was typical in his view, not one who established a definition.


          1. Hi Zeus,

            You seem to have a good knowledge of the French culture. I know Hippolyte Taine only indirectly through Gramsci. I know he was very influential, not only in France.

            Yes, we have moved on from the classical nowadays. In this blog I am interested in aspects of our roots, especially where such roots are not dead in the sense they make us the way we are.

            Even just taking our languages, and the words / concepts they contain, you have museums, or better, living arks, that preserve our deepest identity.

            Jung might possibly say something on this that I can’t. Jung seems very popular in the US, less here.


  3. Hi hombreromano,
    Hope everything is well. Were you the one that sent this morning an email under Eleusinian Mysteries asking why I chose to use Si te hic haberetur?

    Un abrazo,


    1. Of course it was me Anna. I’m slightly curious why you ask here … to check my identity? Wasn’t Roma, hombre romano (and btw no comment by my side) enough? Is a blog an email service?



    1. Ana,
      I saw a Canadian film two days ago, Barney’s Version, directed by Richard J. Lewis. Just *loved* it. Btw it made me almost cry, and not because of Mr Alzhe Imer, also present, but because it is among the rest also like a comparative manual of male and female psychology.

      Only, these two psychologies do not quite match or meet, thence the drama of the film (and the truthful beauty of both main characters.)

      I was just curious Ana. Pace.


        1. My eldest daughter saw the film and wept all night.
          Amazingly beautiful. But I won’t read the book. Canada is special when she shows her head a bit internationally (which I don’t know why she seldom does, at least seen from here).


          1. We have a giant neighbour who hogs the sunlight. Many Canadian productions are wrongly attributed to the U.S. and some of their best actors and producers are Canadians.


          2. It is a pity. My daughter, 27, felt this peculiarly Canadian / New World flavour and was delighted (she is a lot into US culture and a bit into France too). The film is set in Montreal. The characters, Jewish, are English speaking.


          3. I don’t think it’s arguing at all, although Paul may feel differently considering his lack of commenting on my blog in recent weeks! Hehe.


  4. The notion of “classic” is quite a flexible one today. I’ve always been fond of the twist the word was given in a wonderful short story by Lionel Trilling – a renowned American critic – that I read in high school: Of This Time, of That Place.

    The story concerns one Tertan, a brilliant student of art and philosophy, and his relationship with his professor. Tertan is also rather eccentric, not least in his dress, favoring a cane and an outmoded dandyish costume. The professor finally learns that Tertan is mentally ill – he is shocked and dismayed. “A classic case,” he is told. Visions of white temples on hills, the sounds of Bach harpsichord sonatas race through his head… 40 years ago – that’s most of what I remember.


    1. Of course, the notion of classic is flexible today. We discussed classic rock-pop here.
      It was Thomas (and later also Paul) to bring to our attention the difference between classic and classical in English. Complicated, since in Italian for ex. we only have ‘classico’ for both meanings; since our ‘classicistico’ may be derogatory a bit.

      ‘Of This Time, of That Place’ sounds intriguing. So this word ‘classic’ evoked white temples on hills in the teacher’s mind.


  5. I would look beyond Taine and back to Winckelmann for the notion of classic in Western Art History. W was the first to phrase it in turns of birth-maturity-decline-decadence, yada yada…

    Why do you say Jung is popular in the USA? You certainly hear his name thrown around, but mostly in the popular press and various “New Age” contexts. True, the Rudin Museum had a big show on his Red Book recently, but I think most people see him as an odd duck.

    As a college freshman, I forced myself on my professors often. I found myself in my psychology professor’s office, and I asked him what he thought of Jung. (I was quite fascinated by him at the time.) This academic, an experimental psychologist – in the lab section of freshman psych, we did Skinnerian conditioning of pigeons – replied, “I’ve never been able to understand what he means.”

    At the time, I thought, “Tut, tut, so narrow…” but now I find his honesty refreshing, and I agree with his assessment.


    1. I never found Jung even slightly difficult to understand, at least in a general way. Then again, I’m a devotee of science fiction and fantasy, adventure fiction (especially Rider Haggard, whom Jung apparently dug), myths and fairy tales, and not least Wagner. The only time I ever felt a little overwhelmed reading was in his alchemical investigations, and that was because of their daunting erudition.

      Jung grasped the human need for narrative, which is something I think we all comprehend instinctively. No one can resist telling their own story, following a good story, seeing themselves in a culturally accepted story. Christianity itself is not so much about an ethic as a story, or 90% of its adherents would probably not find it interesting at all.

      That said, there are probably plenty of Americans who think they know something about Jung but are really just in the grip of the same archetypes that he admonished us to comprehend, and respect without necessarily incarnating.


      1. I think a lot of people would give Jung credit for being a stimulating cultural critic, including me. I love his essay on flying saucers, “Things Seen in the Sky.”


        1. “Wotan” is the one that still sends shivers down my spine.

          I seized on his work originally because I was flat sick of having every story or poem I wrote “interpreted” in a reductionist way or laid to some sort of wishful thinking, when it seemed to me that there are just… stories, and we have to tell them, and they are not merely dressed up or disguised versions of what happened personally to us, even if personal experience is reflected. Most of the psychological writings I had read to that point were somehow diminishing and airless, and reading Jung was like finding someone that “gets” you at last.


          1. Well, there are plenty of boring, pedantic, critical hacks out there, and perhaps you have had the bad luck to read, or be read by, a lot of them. And it’s open to question whether psychologists are the people you should consult on questions of literature.

            Still, to me, Jung is just one great big wad of fuzzy wuzzy ‘deep’ ideas most of the time…with exceptions.


          2. Jungians have a knack for overwriting, (spare me June Singer, oh lordy), but especially when he was speaking personally and off the cuff, Jung could be very blunt and direct. His late-life memoirs are probably the most accessible thing he wrote, much of it dictated when he wasn’t up to lengthy prosody.

            His work on personality types is about as hard-headed as anything in the field, relying on where people fall between four pairs of contrasting ways of dealing with experience — all of them easily familiar to anyone who watches people. His interpretation of introversion, for example, was a mitzvah to someone like me who gets hives from being around too many people and too much incident, and is made wrong by the world because of it.

            If a psychologist can’t appraise the virtues of a literary work then he or she is not really interested in the human heart and needs to go learn a trade. In my opinion.


          3. @Lichanos & Sped

            I agree psychologists & literary people (writers plus critics) are two different things, but the former cannot but be interested in the work of the latter and sometimes the opposite applies. Dante deeply possessed all the ‘psychology’ of his time via Thomas of Acquino and others – lemme be so silly to brag Aquino, South Latium, is only 76 miles south of Rome 🙂


    2. @Sledpress

      As for Jung, I’m a bit interested in his archetype notion; much more in his personal and collective unconscious (even if linked to his achetypes) and the introverted / extroverted notions.

      I don’t much care about the authority of anyone’s ideas as long they interact with mine helping me to clarify personal lumpy mind stuff and proceed further. This of course happens to everybody. Dante, Homer Simpson, Thomas Jefferson, anyone’s thoughts can be useful.

      The Junghian personal and collective unconscious may interact with the museum (or ark?) mind idea I took from my mentor, for example.


      1. Jung’s character types are very important, and useful. They have been adopted by all sorts of hard-headed, emprical psychological investigators. They simply jettison Jung’s explanations of why people are this way, and simply accept that they are.

        I too found it very comforting to finally understand that I was simply a type, and that’s why I was different in some ways. Just the way it is. Takes all kinds…


  6. @Lichanos

    I would look beyond Taine and back to Winckelmann for the notion of classic in Western Art History.

    Winckelmann was certainly influential [Stendhal for ex took his nick from W’s birthplace]. He is well mentioned in my post. But that notion I believe to be much older. Leaving Gellius alone, the Renaissance, 2-3 centuries earlier, also explicitly returned to ancient models. Focusing just on architecture, think of Leon Battista Alberti, Filippo Brunelleschi, Palladio, Michelangelo etc.

    The Renaissance notion of classicism (based not only on Greek but on Roman models too, and captained by the Italians – later, in the 18th century, they were influential but not so important any more -) was with both soul and flesh, more similar to the original model, since the Italians were closer to antiquity than the Germans, or the English, or even the French.

    Winckelmann created like an obsession for an idealised, ‘eternal Greece’, among the Germans especially. Roman or Hellenistic art was only imitative to him [think only of Roman great innovations like realistic faces on statues, Nero’s Domus Aurea etc. ]. W’s vision is fascinating but superseded. His ‘wonderful ancientness‘ as ‘noble simplicity and calm grandeur’ captures only fractions of the ancient world, exactly like the white statues and columns he loved so much – which influenced our Canova (and Hollywood) – were an abstraction since in truth they were in full colour.

    Yes, ‘coloured Antiquity’ may be a metaphor.

    He possibly rejected a more complete vision of the Ancients because of beginning German idealism, of a Christian background and, as someone observed, for his being a homosexual who repressed his passions – nothing against gays of course.

    I’m emphasizing the ‘flesh’ in antiquity not because I am a weirdo but because it suffice to read almost any ancient author – Greek or Roman of any time – or watch ancient mosaics, statues, paintings, objects, vases etc. to realise how ‘full bodied’, ‘coloured’, non Winkelmann-like, antiquity was.

    Even sublime and obscenity, for example, in both Greece and Rome, whether we like it or not, were at times one.

    My knowledge of W’s being only indirect, I may have said a bunch of stupidities.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s