No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

retrospectively nor ideologically. The section on philology, somewhat strangely, only considers Ovid (pp. 247-67, some three times the space given to the historical context of 27-23 B.C.E.). The final chapter in conclusion considers the deified Augustus. One wonders why the title of the book is Divus Augustus. There is a section on the views on Augustus in the ancient world, as in the Totengericht of Tacitus in the Annales. There is no other summation and the views of scholars, mentioned prominently in the foreword, are ignored. This book falls short of its own goal. Ever since K.-J. Hölkeskamp complained that M. Beard failed to give due recognition to the work of T. Itgenshorst on the Roman triumph (the only entry of recent scholarship on the Roman triumph is in fact Itgenshorst [p. 299]) it has also become acceptable to complain about the German tradition and its lack of acknowledgement of foreign approaches and scholarship (K.-J. Hölkeskamp, 'Review of M. Beard, The Roman Triumph, Cambridge (Mass.) 2007', Gnomon 82 [2010], 130-6; see the debate on the matter in BICS 2011 between M. Crawford and Hölkeskamp). This book's bibliography is at times rather outdated and too often ignores much important work in other languages (curiously, the three bibliographies are composed differently). And even taking into account that a range of scholarship in German, French, Italian and English is mentioned in the bibliography, for further reading no doubt, the debates and information from these volumes of scholarship are often not apparent in the actual text of this book. The intensive scholarship of the last 20 years on Augustus at times seems to have eluded the authors.