In this book (originally a University of Helsinki Ph.D dissertation, completed under the supervision of Olli Salomies) M. aims to analyse changes in the style and format of the senatorial cursus honorum in Latin and Greek inscriptions between 27 b.c. and a.d. 117. The chronological parameters are determined by the fact that the inscribed cursus became the standard form of senatorial representation under Augustus, while the structure of the cursus in the post-Trajanic period was complicated by the position of curator rei publicae (pp. 9–10). M.'s study depends on a corpus of 422 inscriptions (395 of which are included in an appendix, with dates and references, on pp. 213–88). By analysing the different stylistic elements of the inscribed cursus, M. demonstrates how these epigraphic texts helped to shape senatorial self-representation in the early Roman empire. His research builds upon the work of scholars such as W. Eck and G. Alföldy, proposing refinements and adjustments rather than revolutionary new theories. The book is sensible and scholarly, with its arguments supported by a wealth of detailed tables and graphs.

M. divides his study into three main sections. In Part 1, ‘Considerazioni generali’, he reviews the chronological and geographical distribution of cursus inscriptions. He shows how the inscribed cursus occurs mainly on Italian honorific and funerary monuments in the Augustan and Julio-Claudian period, but spreads throughout the provinces over the course of the following century (pp. 17–19). This development is ascribed to an increase in the number of non-Italian senators in this period, and to the growing desire to commemorate senatorial officials in the provinces with honorific statues. In this section M. also examines some interesting inscriptions which do not feature the full cursus, but restrict themselves to one or two high status positions, such as the consulship and priesthoods: these are overwhelmingly found in the Augustan and Julio-Claudian age rather than later periods (pp. 33–6).

Part 2, ‘Il cursus honorum in prospettiva strutturale’, analyses the different types of cursus inscriptions and the varying ways in which particular offices or honours, such as priesthoods and military decorations, were incorporated into the texts. M. highlights a significant stylistic change regarding the ordering of posts in the cursus. There were two main options available: the ‘ascending’ format, with the highest offices listed last, or a ‘descending’ arrangement, with the highest offices listed first. Under Augustus, there are 90 ascending examples compared with 10 descending texts, a proportion that remains roughly the same until the Trajanic period, by which time the descending format had grown in popularity (48 examples, compared with 47 ascending inscriptions) (pp. 47–9). This development seems to be prompted by a desire to ensure that the most prestigious positions were listed first in the inscription. M. draws our attention to a third, more problematic collection of cursus inscriptions which are not in either a descending or ascending format, but have an ‘ordine strutturato’. These inscriptions are composed of different groups of offices and honours, each with their own internal order (pp. 45–7, 50–62).

M. examines the placement of specific types of posts within the cursus. For example, priesthoods are sometimes included chronologically, but are often grouped together in their own section in a clear hierarchical order (pp. 88–9). Dona militaria and adlection to a higher rank within the senate were usually included at the chronologically appropriate place within the cursus (pp. 92–101). M. does occasionally over-interpret the statistical material. For example, he notes that adlectio inter patricios occurs chronologically in 8 out of 13 cases (61%), whereas other adlections to the rank of a specific magistrate (such as adlectio inter praetorios) are always placed in the correct order. This sample size is surely too small to support M.'s questioning of the scholarly consensus that adlectio inter patricios does appear in the correct chronological position most of the time (pp. 98, 208). The section concludes with a detailed and extensive discussion of the omission of posts from the inscribed cursus (pp. 108–32). M. shows how this often occurred when translating a text from the original Latin into Greek.

Part 3, ‘La menzione dei singoli onori: considerazioni stilistiche’, examines the placement of individual posts in the cursus. There are some interesting observations in this section that could help with dating inscriptions by stylistic criteria. In the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius it was common for a military tribunate to be listed without any indication of the legion in which it was held, but this would be all but unheard of by the reign of Trajan (pp. 134–6). Likewise, proconsulships are nearly always listed with a specific province in the Flavio-Trajanic inscribed cursus (95 texts including the province, 5 without it), whereas in the Augustan and Julio-Claudian period we find 38 inscriptions which omit the province and 62 which include it (pp. 138–9). These and other examples listed by M. show that the level of detail in the cursus increased over the course of the first century a.d. Part 3 concludes with a thorough analysis of the senatorial cursus and its representation in Greek inscriptions. M.'s sample includes 70 Greek and 7 bilingual texts, the vast majority of which date to the reign of Vespasian or later. The Greek monuments seem largely to have been translated from Latin originals. Two prominent characteristics stand out: virtually all the Greek texts are honorific inscriptions, and almost all list the senatorial career in an ascending format. Although the descending order had become more popular in Latin inscriptions over the first century a.d., this development seemed to have little impact in the Greek world (pp. 180–3).

M.'s short conclusion effectively articulates the value of his research (pp. 205–10). Although he acknowledges that his discoveries do not drastically change our knowledge of the inscribed cursus honorum, M. has succeeded in providing scholars with a series of stylistic criteria that will be useful in dating fragmentary or otherwise problematic texts in the future. The results support Eck's argument that Roman senators kept a record of their cursus, which was provided to clients and communities for use on honorific monuments. M. does point out, however, that dedicators often made changes to the text to suit their particular needs, which means that the final monument is a product of decisions made by both the honorand and the dedicator (p. 209). M.'s careful study will be required reading for prosopographers and epigraphers working on the senatorial order. It is to be hoped that he will extend his work in the future to examine the developments of the second and third centuries a.d.