McG.'s monograph explores the concept of plagiarism and the various uses of this concept (rather than actual cases of plagiarism as one might surmise from the title) in the Latin literary world of classical antiquity. The book opens with an introductory chapter that outlines the Romans' notion of plagiarism in comparison with ancient Greek and modern views of and approaches to this phenomenon. The following five chapters address numerous individual cases of either accusation (Chapters 2 and 3, constituting Part 1) or denial of plagiarism (Chapters 4 to 6, Part 2) drawn from a wide array of Latin texts. The conclusion adds another case study and then provides a succinct summary. An extensive bibliography and a general index conclude the volume.

The range of authors/texts concerned with the idea of literary theft, and the diverse ways in which this idea could be used in Roman culture, are striking. Vitruvius, Pliny the Elder, Manilius and Priscian employ the rhetoric of plagiarism to downplay the achievement of their predecessors/rivals and to emphasise their own (Chapter 2). Martial accuses a certain Fidentinus of stealing from him entire poems (Chapter 3). Terence denies allegations of literary theft against his own plays (Chapter 4). Seneca the Elder refutes charges of plagiarism on behalf of others (Chapter 5). Macrobius defends Virgil against hostile critics who accused him of stealing from earlier poets (Chapter 6). Overall, the most interesting and successful aspect of this study is the exploration of the role plagiarism plays, through different rhetorical strategies, in a broader context of literary polemics in general. Needless to say, such a concise overview can hardly do justice to McG.'s meticulous and penetrating discussions of individual cases which he conducts with constant attention to the logic behind a particular accusation or denial of plagiarism (sometimes even suffering, to borrow his own words, from ‘excessive subtlety’ [p. 214 n. 16]). His use of earlier scholarship is likewise thorough and accurately acknowledged.

While McG.'s study certainly is a rich and original contribution to the research on plagiarism and, more broadly, the issues of authorship, literary property and the reuse of earlier texts in ancient culture, I would – somewhat provocatively – question his underlying premise that it is legitimate to view plagiarism in antiquity as an established concept (‘both familiar and distant, both like and unlike the modern idea it anticipates’ [p. 4]) rather than as a loose conglomerate of related phenomena. No doubt, this is to an extent merely a matter of terminology, but it subtly affects McG.'s entire approach. For example, as a result, he fails sufficiently to differentiate between wholesale plagiarism and piecemeal plagiarism, which he views as two forms of the same offence (p. 18). It seems obvious, however, that their essence is fundamentally different: the former concerns the authorship of a single text, the latter the relationship between two texts; the former is a matter of establishing fact (did the alleged author actually write this text?), the latter, ultimately, of interpreting facts (do the parallels between these two texts constitute a case of plagiarism?). This is, of course, not to say that McG. is unaware of these differences; yet, although he does occasionally comment on them in the course of individual close readings, they are not stated explicitly in programmatic passages (in the conclusion he again speaks of ‘a coherent concept, which is … manifested in wholesale and localized theft’ [p. 222]) and do not affect the structure of presentation.

Most cases of (accusation/denial of) plagiarism discussed are those of piecemeal plagiarism, and accordingly McG. pays much attention to interpretative strategies with which critics either support or refute charges of literary theft. The issue generally is whether it is a case of culpable plagiarism or legitimate reuse (e.g. imitation) (cf. p. 193: ‘there was no fixed textual barrier separating imitation and plagiarism, which made it so that one man's faithful imitatio could be another man's manifest theft’). The criteria employed in ancient discussions are either aesthetic (does the borrowing author rework the model creatively enough?) or intentionalist (does he attempt to conceal his debt to an earlier author and thus gain undue credit?). The resulting picture is, however, asymmetrical: detailed arguments based on aesthetic and/or intentionalist criteria are predominantly used to deny plagiarism, whereas accusations are commonly made without much elaboration (a point somewhat obscured in McG.'s account). In other words, much less logic can be expected from allegations of plagiarism than from their denials. This is, I suggest, another indication that ‘literary theft’ is not as such a concept and is only conceptualised in order to be refuted. In this connection, it is not irrelevant to stress that neither Latin nor Greek has a specific term for plagiarism, both using a more general word denoting ‘theft’ (furtum, κλοπή; though on the other hand one wonders whether furtum/κλοπή is not sometimes as neutral and technical a term as ‘borrowing’). Its use to refer to literary theft in particular was, no doubt, well established, but it entails an intrinsic paradox: it is, strictly speaking, impossible to steal what is immaterial. In my view, it is precisely the lack of a proper concept – the concept of theft being figuratively used instead – that marks, in one way or another, ancient approaches to plagiarism.

That said, there is no doubt that McG.'s monograph will deservedly become a standard work on the subject of plagiarism in Latin antiquity, and all interested in different modes of literary reuse can greatly benefit from reading it. The book will also be consulted with profit by those approaching individual (con)texts discussed in it from other perspectives, for McG.'s close readings are always illuminating and original.

I noticed only a few misprints: ‘nihi’ for ‘nihil’ (p. 43 n. 34), ‘Synapothescontes’ for ‘Synapothnescontes’ (pp. 136, 236 and 240), ‘Diphilius’ for ‘Diphilus’ (p. 139 n. 87), ‘Ὁηήρου’ for ‘Ὁμήρου’ (p. 216 n. 28), ‘Virgiliana’ for ‘Vergiliana’ (p. 217 n. 33); ‘εὐπραζίαι’ (p. 155 n. 30), ‘ἄναζ’ and ‘ἀναρρήζειε’ (p. 194 n. 60) should have ξ instead of ζ; ‘ὃλον’ (p. 126 n. 49), ‘ανάπηρα’ (p. 161 n. 49), ‘ήθῶν’ (p. 201 n. 82) have problems with diacritics.