This is an idiosyncratic book distilled from literally magisterial experience. The preface states, ‘I have not written this book for classical scholars’ (xi), and declares former students to be his ideal readership, many of whom may still be prejudiced against Aeneas. Although professional scholars may not be the target audience, most Latinists will be familiar with the difficulties of teaching the Aeneid, either as a vehicle for language instruction, or in translation — both are necessary, yet inadequate introductions to appreciating the poem's sublimity. Lee Pearcy's distinguished career in teaching and scholarship prepare him to address an enigma at the heart of the epic: the characterisation of Aeneas. Readers at different levels of sophistication will perceive the problem in diverse ways: the profound contradictions, opacity and even incoherence of the protagonist; the contrast with more effective character portrayals, both within the poem and in the epic tradition; and Aeneas’ puzzlingly unsatisfying emotional effect on most contemporary audiences (ch. 1 is called bluntly, ‘On Not Liking Aeneas’). P. attempts to explain how this potentially disappointing protagonist functions within the Aeneid, and what this says about the epic's project of political and historical world creation, a complete poetic act encompassing past, present and potential Romes. The literary question P. poses through his investigation of Aeneas focuses on why, not how the poem presents its protagonist so enigmatically; not all readers will agree with P.'s methods or conclusions, although there is much to learn from his deep soundings into the poem's fundamental dilemmas and his confident grasp of how to guide non-experts in the poem's historical and political background.

P. targets some of the poem's most persistently ambiguous moments in exploring the ambiguities of Aeneas’ portrayal: the Helen episode, Aeneas’ non-responses to Dido, the ‘reconciliation’ between Juno and Jupiter, and, of course, Turnus’ killing. For former students, the book's ideal readers, these episodes remain the stubbornly puzzling, insoluble moments that require attention, and Pearcy articulates the questions well. Nonetheless, P.'s approach produces somewhat idiosyncratic discussions as he examines Aeneas’ characterisation through a broad range of evidence indicated thematically by the chapter titles (the ‘Choices’, ‘Silences’, ‘Tears’ and ‘Anger’ of Aeneas). P. uses emotional inconsistencies to support his analysis of Aeneas as a psychologically aberrant figure who consistently identifies his own desires with externalised values (his pietas) and goals (Rome's destiny). In ch. 1, P. suggests that this portrayal may explain Aeneas’ lack of appeal to contemporary readers, who expect more individual agency; here P. adopts Porter's analysis of Aeneas as a ‘Lacanian pervert’, wholly identified with the desires of the Other (19–20). This account of pietas’ distorting effect on Aeneas’ character may well be helpful to some readers, but in a study so explicitly light on scholarly apparatus (minimal footnotes and bibliography, xi), the use of Lacanian terminology as an anchor for the argumentation seems incongruous.

The preface makes clear that the bibliography will be limited, and references to scholarship reflect the author's own intellectual debts and accessible suggestions for further exploration. P. addresses crucial moments that embody the essential questions of the epic, all of which have their own canonical bibliography in Anglophone scholarship: P.'s slim list of references seems almost to avoid some central discussions, especially from Feeney, whose only citation is ‘The Taciturnity of Aeneas’ (Classical Quarterly 33 (1983) 204–19) (full disclosure: Denis Feeney was my PhD supervisor). Where P. identifies the central questions around key moments in the poem, he frequently fails to acknowledge that others have articulated these literary questions in precisely the same terms: although cited, Feeney's framing of Aeneas’ ‘taciturnity’ is not noted, nor is Feeney's paradigmatic presentation of ‘The Reconciliations of Juno’ mentioned in the text or the notes of the relevant discussion (111). The absence of Feeney's Gods in Epic (1991) from the list of further reading is puzzling, since P. addresses many of the same passages, for instance, on Hercules’ tears (137–8): I recommend Feeney's discussion. Certain questions within the epic are familiar, but it seems strange not to mention where other scholars have directly addressed them, even if one does not agree with their conclusions. ‘Not liking Aeneas’ is a familiar literary problem that has been approached from many angles: P.'s brief account of Roman ideas of the self (28–30) neglects to indicate how scholars of Roman exemplarity and ancient literary characterisation have considered the topic. It is not clear whether P. regards the shared points of departure as simply universally known, or if these directly relevant studies regrettably had too little effect on his thinking to warrant further engagement.

I was engaged throughout by P.'s close readings of the Latin — all too few, as every one was illuminating — and clear explications of the poem's dilemmas. As a frequent teacher of the epic, I would certainly assign the second chapter, a rich account of late Republican political and military conflicts livened with canny quotes from Cicero and Catiline and interwoven with biographical details and commentary from Vergil and Horace: it is the most accessible account of the historical background that I have encountered, and much needed in the classroom. As promised, P. delivers a thoughtful work that will help curious recreational readers to appreciate the poem's irresolvable complexity.