The history of books and libraries in Rome from the middle of the 2nd century BC to the end of the 2nd century AD is a good subject for a monograph. This volume consists of an introduction and six chapters, the first of which considers the availability of texts of Greek New Comedy in Terence’s day, and the last discusses the losses caused by the fire in Rome in AD 192, about which we now have more information thanks to the recovery some twenty years ago of Galen’s essay De indolentia. Pp. 219—242 offer substantial bibliography and indexes. I note with mild surprise that much of chapter 6 is scheduled to appear again in a forthcoming issue of Mnemosyne.
Chapter 1 contains a discussion of the chronology of Terence’s productions, which is a contribution to the history of the Roman theatre, but the period in question is very short, and one does not learn much about library resources at the time.
Chapter 2 focuses on early Roman grammarians, emphasising the importance of Crates of Mallos’ embassy to Rome and the acquisition of substantial collections of books from Greece. On p. 149 the reference to Johannes Lydus, De mensibus 1.28 is problematic. Apart from the fact that it is misleading to describe the 6th-century author as medieval, what he says is puzzling. The notion that the king of Pergamon might win favour with Rome by sending a gift of parchment invites the question “What would the Romans at that date have used it for?” There is a useful account of the collegium poetarum on pp. 66-69. At p. 61 n. 62 I miss a reference to the edition of the Rhesus by Almut Fries.
Chapter 3 deals with the formation and organisation of Roman libraries, with a good opening statement on p. 79. Lucullus and Varro figure prominently, as does Tyrannion of Amisus, who was involved in the restoration of Aristotle’s library. Lucullus gave support to visiting Greeks wishing to consult texts (Plutarch, Lucullus 41.1-2). I suspect that later in this passage ἐϲτία and πρυτανεῖονshould be translated “board and lodging”. At p. 105 I would question the accuracy of the figure of 30,000 books allegedly owned by Tyrannion (Suda T 1184). Numerals are notoriously exposed to corruption as a result of abbreviation. A reason for scepticism is that it is now thought that the very rich owner of the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum may not have owned more than about 1,000 scrolls.
Chapter 4 discusses the fascinating inscription IG XIV 1097, 1098, 1098a found in Rome. It records the dates at which various Athenian comedies were produced at the Dionysia in the years between 440 and 349. The author does not mention Regenbogen’s view that the text was a “work of reference for visitors to the library”—one might object that this was a very expensive alternative to a few scrolls—but suggests that it gave encouragement to Roman authors to match the achievements of the Greeks. Or was it part of a plan, never realised, to build in Rome a library to match that of Alexandria?
Chapter 5 is mainly concerned with what Roman writers tell us about the Alexandrian library, with an introductory section on the alleged library of the Athenian tyrant Pisistratus. In this chapter the accuracy of numerals is once again a problem. On p. 153 the Letter of Aristeas is cited for the report that Demetrius of Phalerum told the king that there were already 200,000 books in the library and that soon there would be 500,000. On p. 159 it is stated that Gellius and Isidore give the figure of 700,000, but on p. 143 Isidore is cited for the figure of 70,000. The author does not mention that Epiphanius, De ponderibus et mensuris, ch. 9 (Migne PG 43,251) reports the same anecdote about Demetrius of Phalerum but gives the figure of books so far acquired as 54,800. Unlike other figures attested this is not a round number and looks much more like the result of an inspection carried out by library staff. On p. 157 the word charta is translated “paper” at Pliny NH 13.69-70, and here too it is suggested that the Romans received parchment from Pergamon.
Chapter 6 discusses Galen’s comments on the consequences of the fire that did great damage in Rome in 192 AD. Some textual criticism is required. On p. 182 I think one has to read τί δεῖ λέγειν …? in § 14. On p. 190 there is an unfortunate misprint at the end of the passage cited from §17, which was given in the correct form on p. 189. In this passage I am not sure that the pronoun αὐτά is correct and wonder if perhaps ὄντα should be read, so as to obtain the sense “no longer extant”. On pp. 192 and 196 the author makes good conjectures in §§ 16 and 17.
One final observation: a little more might have been said about authors who clearly depended on access to very large numbers of texts. Plutarch and Athenaeus are mentioned in this context, but one might wonder whether anything more could be said about Pliny the Elder and the grammarian Herodian. The latter, who spent part of his career in Rome, quotes from an astonishing number and variety of texts, as is being made ever clearer by current decipherment of the Vienna palimpsest of his De prosodia catholica. This work was dedicated to Marcus Aurelius (d. 180). Did the author bring from Alexandria an enormous private library, or was everything available in Rome?
The English, though clear for the most part, is by no means faultless; p. 78 is disfigured by several infelicities, and on some other pages there are expressions which are unidiomatic or difficult to understand. It is time for publishers to accept the fact that although a reasonable competence in English is easily acquired, copy-editing by native speakers is essential if high standards are to be maintained.