In 1999, W. published this ground-breaking and important study, and it has stood up exceptionally well over the last decade. Now in its second edition, a brief overview of the contents will suffice. M. Nussbaum's foreword is an excellent introduction to the history of sexuality studies within Classics. W.'s introduction deals with the linguistic landscape, a history of sexuality studies and the complex relationship between representation and reality. Chapter 1 examines the protocols of masculine sexual behaviour when it came to slaves of both sexes, prostitutes of both sexes and wives. The sources from Rome make it abundantly clear that males, married or not, could engage in sexual acts with other males, in certain contexts and configurations without fear of reprisal: but they must play the insertive role, and must not be on the giving end of fellatio, otherwise they risked social opprobrium. Masculinity, for the Romans, was about domination. Chapter 2 explains in some detail the difference between ‘homoeroticism’ and ‘pederasty’ (that is, sexual relations with freeborn young Roman men, which the Romans do not seem to have tolerated). W. also proves that ‘pederasty’ is not specifically labelled as a ‘Greek’ practice in Roman sources. The first three chapters read like received wisdom: a tribute to the influence and importance of the book. But we need to remember that its carefully-argued theses and marshalling of ancient evidence are meant to correct earlier, deeply-held misconceptions (that Roman society was a macho heterosexual society, for instance, or one which was ‘homophobic’). Chapter 3 deals with sexual crimes such as the seduction of freeborn Romans, rape and adultery, and also with concepts such as pudicitia. Chapter 4 is an especially fascinating study of how the various outward markers of ‘effeminacy’ – perfume, curled hair, mincing gait – did not necessarily signal to the Romans (as they might to us) ‘homosexuality’, or even a desire to be anally penetrated. Effeminacy was also associated with foreigners, self-control in the face of death, even heteroerotic activity, for example; W. urges us to remember that ‘effeminacy must be kept distinct from specific sexual acts and roles’ (p. 156). Chapter 5 examines which sexual roles were available to Roman men and the relationship between identities and specific sexual practices. Welcome portions include an argument against the existence of a ‘homosexual subculture’ in ancient Rome, and a clear and much-needed explanation of the cinaedus figure, who looks to a modern audience very much like a proto-homosexual male. W. points out that it is not the gender of his preferred partner or the sexual acts he liked to indulge in (being anally penetrated, for instance) that made him a cinaedus, but the abrogation of his masculinity. We cannot therefore class ridicule of these men as ‘homophobia’, as the issue was one of gender deviance, not sexual orientation.

In a new afterword W. outlines new directions for ancient sexuality studies and poses further questions. He also defends at length and with clarity his use of the penetrative paradigm which has come under fire from some scholars in recent years, and explains why he feels this is still an applicable model for ancient sexuality. Some have criticised the book's synchronic approach, but W. is correct to point out that in many ways (especially in the area of sexual ideology) Rome remained a socially static society for centuries, not given to profound change over time. In addition to taking into account post-1999 scholarship throughout the second edition, W. has added an absorbing new appendix, ‘Pompeiian Graffiti in Context’, updated the bibliography, strengthened and refined the arguments, made stylistic improvements and refreshed the Greek and Latin translations.

My one quibble is that although it is entitled Roman Homosexuality it does not treat lesbianism in any sustained, significant way (a brief excursus is found on pp. 234–9). W. states, ‘in general the Latin textual tradition does not suggest a cultural environment in which the set homosexuality consisted of the two subsets male and female’ (pp. 8–9); still, this subject is missed.

The subject is male homoeroticism, but it is more truly about ancient ideologies of masculinity: the norms, values and assumptions the Romans held about males and sexual relations between them, how specific practices were labelled and evaluated, which were acceptable and how these practices affected a man's masculine status. The volume is a supreme pleasure to read: lucid, beautifully written, amusing, insightful, blessedly jargon-free. It is also good solid history: carefully written, and making no claims it cannot back up with ancient sources. The type of history, in other words, that gives ancient cultural studies – and sexuality studies in particular – a good name.