The Oxford Handbook of Roman Studies eds. by Alessandro Barchiesi & Walter Scheidel (review)

The blurb on the front flap of the dust jacket claims that this Handbook is “a unique collection of fifty-five articles which together explore the ways in which ancient Rome has been, is, and might be studied. It is intended less as an encyclopaedia of the well-established, and more a research tool to aid the development of the subject: a guide that does not just inform but also inspires.” These are legitimate, but ambitious, objectives. In their “Introduction” (1–6) the two editors are clear about the readers they wish to reach: students and scholars in their formative stages; the “good neighbours”, i.e. “neighbouring disciplines [which] maintain an interest in developments in the study of Roman civilization” (4); and third, scholars and teachers of Roman matters in general. Much of this introductory chapter is given to a historiographical analysis of Roman Studies, particularly in relation to Latin Studies, but it is limited to German and English scholarship.

Chapter 1 on “New Media (and Old)” (7–27) falls outside the main body of the work divided into five parts. James J. O’Donnell provides thoughtful observations on the impact of the new media on our discipline (and one should be mindful of the fact that the printed book was at its inception a new medium with its critics). My discussion of the following 54 chapters is necessarily selective. I mostly focus on contributions which allow a compare-and-contrast approach. In this way I hope to bring out the strengths of this Handbook, but also some of its shortcomings.

Part I is about “Tools” and includes 11 contributions: Transmission and Textual Criticism (Mario De Nonno, 31–48); Iconography (Charles Brian Rose, 49–76); Linguistics (Joshua T. Katz, 77–92); Archaeology (Henry Hurst, 93–106); Epigraphy (John Bodel, 107–122); Papyrology (Roger S. Bagnall, 123–134); Numismatics (William E. Metcalf, 135–145); Prosopography (Werner Eck, 146–159); Metre (Llewelyn Morgan, 160–175); Literary Criticism (Joseph Farrell, 176–187); and Translation (Susanna Braund, 188–200).

Many contributors in this part are clearly aware of the objectives of this Handbook, such as Morgan and Farrell, whose chapters are exemplary. Others are not so successful, but De Nonno’s contribution is, in my view, simply unreadable—and at all levels: subject matter, organization, grammar and style. The author seems to assume that the intended readership will be unfamiliar with the procedure of recensio, yet does not explain it (32). Every page is riddled with minutiae, such as the fact that one of the “ancient editions” (?) of Terence “is attested to in a priceless late-antique codex held by the Vatican Library and [scil. previously] owned by one of the leading intellectuals of the sixteenth century, the Italian Pietro Bembo” (36). The translation from De Nonno’s original Italian also needed better copyediting before appearing in print, but this would have in no way rescued the chapter.

It is perhaps not surprising that Hurst’s Roman society is much less literate than Bodel’s and Bagnall’s. Hopefully the juxtaposition of their chapters on archaeology, epigraphy, and papyrology will encourage more cooperation across disciplines in the study of ancient literacy. It is, however, quite baffling that a fine scholar such as Bodel believes the famous dedication of the Pantheon1 to go back to the 20s bc and Agrippa himself (107). There is virtually no doubt that the carving and probably even the text are Hadrianic.²

Part II is made up of ten chapters on “Approaches”: Style (Alfonso Traina, 203–219); Gender Studies (Anthony Corbeill, 220–233); Culture-based Approaches (Matthew Roller, 234–249); Anthropology (Maurizio Bettini, 250–265); Roman Identity (Emma Dench, 266–280); Performance (Michèle Lowrie, 281–294); Psychoanalysis and the Roman Imaginary (Ellen Oliensis, 295–308); Art and Representation (Eugenio La Rocca, 309–348); Reception (Andrew Laird, 349–368); and Between Formalism and Historicism (Stephen Hinds...