The aim of the book is an admirable one: ‘to ask what conclusions can be drawn from a corpus of private Latin inscriptions from Roman Italy about the identity, social condition and cultural activity of men and women participating in the process of epigraphic commemoration and dedication’ (1). Identity can be a thorny hedge in a number of disciplines, and the approach taken by the author is bold: he hopes to demonstrate that women participated as significantly as men in a variety of ways and contexts. Peter Keegan notes correctly that broad studies can overlook micro-regional identity, personal and collective identity (4). The notion of assessing funerary texts in closer detail as case studies (rather than as a large corpus) is inspired and a social historian's perspective can certainly cast a new light on epigraphic evidence. The selection of epigraphic materials in this work, however, is never explained and can seem somewhat arbitrary. K.'s approach in assessing the representation of male and female identities through a selection of ‘private’ Latin inscriptions has a number of merits, although terms such as ‘private’ required further clarification, especially when ‘private’ texts were set in a public context.
The book is arranged into five thematic chapters that stand independently. While there is some overlap in material, interaction between chapters is minimal. Ch. 1 ‘Inscription and Imagination’ attempts to reconstruct the ancient epigraphic discourse through an ‘imaginary journey’ from Ostia to Rome. The journey is an innovative perspective, examining eight inscriptions (primarily funerary) and literary sources. Many of the texts have limited contextual detail (for example, Rome, first century a.d.) and they vary in date (from the second century b.c. to the second century a.d.). The emerging image of commemoration is one in which epigraphic practice, the epigraphic landscape, the ancient audience and ‘social norms’ appear static. Interesting observations are presented, such as a discourse on the retrograde C in epigraphic formula (11–21), but a cohesive ‘imaginary journey’ does not in the end emerge. Two texts are accompanied by photographs, but poor image quality (regrettably recurrent throughout the work) inhibits the reader's ability to visualize and understand how social mores were conveyed.
Ch. 2 ‘The Symbolic Grammar of Identity’ endeavours to apply modern social theories to a series of funerary monuments. Monuments vary in chronology as well as social status. K. has sophisticated ideas (for example, gender rôles on the epitaph of Fonteia Eleusis (45–7)), but it is difficult to assess social norms or the representation of identity without comparing similar monuments from similar contexts. Ch. 3 ‘Reconstruction of Epigraphic Culture’ explores the context in which men and women set up monuments. The first part (61–74) examines collective burials and literacy in a largely theoretical manner. The following section assesses eleven inscriptions set up by Roman women (74–81) in Italy. Textual analysis is the focus and only two images are provided. Ch. 4 ‘Recognitions of Gender and Status in Epigraphic Eulogy’ (87–122) examines the depiction of a wife in the Laudatio Turiae. K.'s juxtaposition of a document with parallel literary accounts and social theory is compelling. Ch. 5 (123–57) ‘Rituals of Life and Death in the Eternal City’ compares epigraphic fasti with Ovid's Fasti, noting female participation in ritual and worship. Analysis of the literature is detailed, though text is sparingly provided.
One broader issue is K.'s treatment of practicalities in epigraphic commemoration. He questions a woman's acceptance of formulaic terminology on her epitaph from a feminist perspective: ‘Why should it be that women identified themselves by the symbolism of patriarchal oppression’ accepting a ‘language of social subordination’ (20). This is problematic not only in applying modern gender ideology to the ancient world, but also in overlooking the process of creating a monument. The epigraphic formula in epitaphs was constrained by a number of practical considerations: convention, clarity and the space available on the stone. The assumption that a woman (who was unlikely to have commissioned/composed her own epitaph) had a choice in vocabulary, or would have seen a conventional practice as ‘social subordination’, is dubious. By not considering the process of commissioning a text/monument, one can lose sight of a key way in which men and women could be included (or excluded) from participating in commemoration.
K.'s approach in trying to build a bridge between epigraphy and social history is admirable and bold. His case studies, which illustrate difficulties and controversies in the fields of epigraphy and social history, would be beneficial for students and academics in a number of disciplines (social history, classics, archaeology and epigraphy). However, the language is often encumbered with unnecessary jargon. I offer just one example from many. ‘Specifically, despite the issues of essentialism, and constructionism, appropriation and marginalization, specificity and inter-subjectivity, all the interested parties espouse a desire to re-examine traditional periodizations, reassess teleological notions of historical development, and confront the dichotomy between lived reality and the artificially linear, narrative constructs of the past’ (45). Immense footnotes, often employed to explain social theory, can also detract from the clarity of the argument. The bibliography, though extensive, contains a handful of books from the past ten to fifteen years with clear absences from key scholars (for example, J. Bodel in D. Green (ed.), Commemorating the Dead: Texts and Artifacts in Context (2008), 177–242 and H. Mouritsen, JRS 95 (2005), 38–63). But overall, despite encumberances of style and some mis-placed feminism, K. has produced a detailed and ambitious work, which illustrates both the value of a detailed case study and the importance of employing a clear set of criteria in selecting a corpus of inscriptions.
