This is a curious if weighty tome. Its origins lie with a suggestion from Sir Roger Bannister in 2005 that ‘en route to the full biography of one of (Pembroke College's) illustrious fellows’ a new edition of the Autobiography would ‘be a good idea’, not least if it were to utilise other archival material. The reference to the ‘full biography’ must be to Fred Inglis’ unsatisfactory History Man: The Life of R.G. Collingwood (2009). That said, this is not so much a new edition as a reprint of the original complemented by what are loosely called ‘commentaries’, 12 in all, by 11 contributors, all acknowledged authorities in Collingwoodia. It also contains two previously unpublished original works, Log of a Journey in the East Indies in 1938–1939 (with a commentary) and a Collingwood letter to his sister Barbara Gnosspelius written in December 1938. The ‘commentaries’ review subjects such as Collingwood's philosophy of history, his rejection of the Oxbridge school of realism and his political outlook.

For the readers of this journal four of the essays are of direct relevance to Romano-British studies: Tessa Smith on Collingwood's childhood, James Patrick on his time at Oxford, Jan van der Dussen on the state of Collingwood's philosophical thinking in the year (1938) that the Autobiography was published, and above all Tony Birley's reassessment of Collingwood as an archaeologist and historian. Smith's essay makes a case for seeing in Collingwood's early years ‘a more critical and radical development which links to the “man of action” and political engagement set out at the end of An Autobiography … ’ (xlviii). Patrick offers the picture of a more socially engaged Collingwood at Oxford. Birley updates I.A. Richmond's critical assessment of Collingwood's abilities as an archaeologist (part of a broader obituary published in the Proceedings of the British Academy 29 (1943), 479–80). At the same time he counters the critical assessment I made of Collingwood in my study of Haverfield and his legacy (The Best Training Ground for Archaeologists (2007), 536ff. – hereafter Training).Footnote ¹ There is little with which to disagree in Birley's conclusions: it is as much a matter of emphasis. My opinion that Collingwood ‘failed’ to establish a school of students to carry on his work was meant as a comment on those who have previously pedalled ‘the great man passing on the baton’ in Romano-British studies. I do not deny that some were influenced by his teaching and work — Birley notes Richmond, E.B. Birley, C.E. Stevens and C.F.C. Hawkes; but for Hawkes, I cannot see any of these individuals claiming Collingwood as their mentor. Richmond claimed Haverfield, Birley had Michael Holroyd as much as Collingwood. Only for Leo Rivet could one make a case, but it depends on what one understands to be the mentor-student relationship at this, and indeed, any time. One might sit in on a particular don's lectures and even take tutorials with them but does that make one a ‘student’ in the disciple sense? If there was a ‘failure’ on Collingwood's part, it was as much a structural one, a consequence of the form and format of teaching archaeology at Oxford in the late 1920s and early 1930s. I have argued that Collingwood did not push the potential Haverfield legacy but was content to let others (un-)shape it. Roman Britain was still regarded as a fringe subject within the general gamut of ancient history and archaeology teaching in that university. It explains in turn why Durham and in particular E.B. Birley could emerge as the effective driving force in Romano-British studies in the university sector in the 1930s.

Van der Dussen's contribution in part criticises my conclusion that Collingwood's engagement with archaeology was subsidiary to his other, more substantial interests, although I quote him on the same (Training, 537). I would not dare to doubt Collingwood's commitment to archaeology but still, I read the evidence as showing that in practice Collingwood's work was more in the tradition of localised antiquarianism, there being nothing wrong in that, while his interpretation of the evidence in his works of synthesis was on a grander scale.

Overall, while I am not convinced that the contributions highlighted here are going to change substantially one's outlook on Collingwood, for those interested in the historiography of Romano-British studies this is a useful statement of Collingwood's relevance to the subject.