In this monograph, Anthony Smart discusses the presence and use of grief and sorrow in the Roman world from the Republic through the (mostly early) Empire. He does so by zooming in on epitaphs and epigraphic sources (chapter 1), on four historical and literary figures (chapters 2–5: Livy, Plutarch, Cicero, and Caesar), and on the portrayal of tears (chapter 6). As Smart indicates in the introduction and epilogue, his main objective is to show that “grief and loss mattered in Rome” (p. 155). Smart argues that although there existed a shared language of grief and grief was often used for political or social purposes, this does not mean that grief was universal, but rather that it remained an individual reaction to loss.
In the first chapter “Epitaphs and epigraphy”, Smart sets out to show that the often formulaic nature of inscriptions and images on the epitaphs should not lead modern scholars to conclude that loss was not personally felt or coped with. Beyond these shared cultural forms and “semiotics of memorialization” lie “the realities of emotional turmoil” (p. 24). Smart explores both visual imagery and the epitaphs themselves, specifically focusing on inscriptions that record the deaths of wives, mothers, and children, while linking these ancient practices to modern photography of the dead.
In the second chapter, Smart turns to Livy and the author’s use of grief as a narrative tool to create a specific version of Roman history and republican virtues. He does so by discussing three key passages in the first two books of the Ab Urbe Condita in which Livy incorporates the gendered performance of grief as a catalyst of the narrative.
In the third chapter, Smart turns to Plutarch and, principally, to the author’s own experience of loss and his Consolatio ad uxorem. He argues that Plutarch, in his presentation of idealized modes of behavior, neither ignored nor disapproved of grief, but rather advocated between the lines for the control of emotions, as the work offered him a means not only to console others but also to navigate his own grief.
In the fourth chapter, Smart focuses on Cicero and aims to show that Cicero’s grief after his exile and after the decease of his daughter Tullia was not excessive and therefore did not separate him from the rest of Roman aristocracy. Rather, it formed part of a shared emotional community in which members understood one another’s pain and grief and responded to it, for example through letters of consolation. To this end, Smart first expounds modern theories of grief and prolonged grief disorder (PGD) and links Cicero’s reactions to similar situations in nineteenth-century literature. He then uses that perspective to reflect on several of Cicero’s letters written after his exile and the death of Tullia, as well as on the Tusculanae disputationes.
The fifth chapter is dedicated to Caesar and to the ways in which both Caesar himself and others used grief to create a particular public or historical image of him. Smart discusses passages from Cicero and Plutarch, from Caesar’s own De bello Gallico and De bello civili, and finally from Lucan’s De bello civili. He argues that Caesar did experience grief, could be moved by it to act in certain ways, and attempted to shape and control his own emotional persona. His death provoked public grief, which in turn transformed into anger and violence, as depicted in Lucan’s epic.
In the sixth and final chapter, Smart focuses on the presence and description of tears in the Roman world. He discusses how tears could be used for rhetorical or political purposes, while nevertheless remaining indicative of contemporary attitudes toward grief and sorrow.
What clearly emerges from the introduction onward is that Smart is exceptionally well read in the topics and authors he discusses, as well as in the methodologies he applies. As he explains in the introduction, he draws on an interesting interdisciplinary framework, taking particular inspiration from the philological approach of David Konstan, the historical approach of Valerie Hope, and the archaeological approach of Maureen Carroll. He is also familiar with current scholarship in the history of emotions and with modern mental health theories (e.g., Freud, Bowlby, Kübler-Ross, DSM-5), and he productively incorporates these insights into his study of grief and sorrow.
The emphasis he places on the complexity of emotions, as simultaneously culturally defined and deeply individual, together with the attention he pays to the methodological difficulties involved in studying them, provides the necessary nuance to the volume’s broader argument. Another strength of the volume is the author’s extensive attention to both epigraphic and literary sources, which enables him to move beyond the perspective of the upper classes of Roman society.
Additionally, the volume offers an excellent example of how an interdisciplinary approach, firmly embedded in the methodological frameworks of the history of emotions, can provide fresh perspectives on grief in particular and emotions more generally in Roman antiquity. Also stimulating are the many comparisons between Roman experiences of loss and grief and examples from other times and places (e.g., Shakespeare, Thomas Jefferson and Abigail Adams, and the Henry Beeson Flanner family).
Despite these clear strengths, other elements are somewhat less convincing. In general, the volume seems to lack an overarching structure. The reader is not informed why the topics of the individual chapters were selected or how they are supposed to fit together. It is difficult to see why Smart moves the reader from epigraphy to Livy and Plutarch, then back to Cicero and Caesar, before concluding with the thematic chapter on tears. This lack of clarity and guidance is also evident within the chapters themselves, in which Smart often moves associatively from one discussion to another and combines multiple arguments within a single chapter. One might question, for example, to what extent the discussion of Lucan truly informs us about Caesar rather than about Lucan’s own broader literary techniques.
Another aspect that leaves the reader somewhat unsatisfied is the limited amount of close reading. The frequent presentation of scholarly opinions throughout the volume illustrates Smart’s erudition and wide reading, but it often prevents the author from moving beyond the surface of the narrative under discussion. The fact that the original texts are mostly quoted only in footnotes, and are often not even provided there, further contributes to the impression that some arguments are insufficiently substantiated to fully convince the reader or, at the very least, to demonstrate the novelty of the claims being made. Moreover, one may question to what extent some of Smart’s often rather general claims are as innovative as he presents them to be. An example is his reading of Plutarch’s writings, which is interesting and methodologically sound, but perhaps not quite as much “against the grain” (p. 59) as suggested. Similar observations could be made regarding the chapters on Livy and Cicero, which do not really offer such a “different perspective” (p. 85). Several specific claims could also be debated, such as the assertion that Brutus’ wife Porcia committed suicide (p. 102) and the suggestion that emotional responses to loss in antiquity can be measured (accurately? entirely?) “through archaeological study, and especially the notations in the epitaphs” (p. 39). At times, Smart seems to set aside his otherwise nuanced attention to the complexity of the topic in service of his broader argument. The typographical errors scattered throughout the volume (e.g., pp. 11, 94, 99, 115, 130, 134, 146, 149, 151) likewise suggest that an additional round of proofreading would have been beneficial.
Despite these reservations, this study remains a valuable contribution to current scholarship on grief and loss, and on emotions in Roman antiquity more generally, and it demonstrates the merits and potential of Smart’s approach. It is therefore highly recommendable to scholars interested in the topic and willing to engage with the many ideas presented throughout the volume. To quote Smart once more, “grief and loss mattered in Rome,” and studies such as this one are therefore greatly appreciated.