This volume, edited by Lanza and Ugolini, is an English translation of the award-winning Italian collection Storia della filologia classica (2016). The original collection was designed for Italian university students, and as an introductory text this volume truly shines (p. vi). The contributions strike a balance between communicating well-established narratives of the history of classical philology and presenting new research and arguments to render it more complex.

Yet this is not a mere collection of introductory texts. The volume also has a more ambitious aim because, as Ugolini writes in the preface, ‘for a long time an updated history of classical philology has been a desideratum of classical scholars’ (p. v). In this he is certainly right. Most of the classic texts in the field are over half a century old and rarely consider the twentieth century. This is not to suggest that individual studies have not abounded or to neglect the recent boom in works on the history of philology more generally. But an updated history of classical philology has been long overdue. Writing the history of classical philology in toto would be an expansive task, and the editors rightly note that they cannot do justice to the entirety of this field in a single volume. The focus of this work is thus on the last 250 years, selected because this is the period in which classical philology ‘defined itself as an autonomous discipline’ (p. v).

The volume contains thirteen chapters, split into three sections, which progress chronologically from the eighteenth to the twentieth centuries. An introduction by Lanza and Ugolini places these sections upon a solid foundation, which outlines the deep history of classical philology, beginning with the libraries of antiquity. The introduction also articulates many of the overarching topics and tensions that recur in subsequent chapters. These include, but are not limited to, the relationship between pedagogy and scholarship, the difference between emulation or imitation and inspiration or renovation, the proper place and function of antiquity in society, and debates about what constituted philological work. By highlighting such matters at the outset, the introduction establishes a strong yet flexible frame within which the contributions can be understood.

In the introduction and the preface the editors also underscore two important principles informing the volume. The first is that the history of classical philology is better envisioned as encompassing a ‘plurality of subjects – that implies a plurality of approaches’ (p. 5). The second, which Ugolini communicates through the words of Lanza, who unfortunately passed away before this translation could appear, is that ‘there are no disciplines, but only problems to be solved’ (p. vii).

Part 1, ‘Towards a Science of Antiquity’, begins with F. Lupi's chapter on Richard Bentley. Lupi traces the development of Bentley's ‘rationalist inductive’ methods in their scholarly context by focusing on the successive innovations in Bentley's major works, such as the Epistola ad Joannem Millium and his edition of Horace (p. 30). Lupi thus reveals how Bentley's work ‘profoundly renewed’ English philology in the seventeenth century and influenced later scholars through his focus on linguistic and poetic forms (pp. 9, 10).

Chapter 2, by S. Fornaro on C. Gottlob Heyne, stands out for its clarity and comprehensiveness. In a short space Fornaro illuminates Heyne's importance for the history of classical scholarship while also explaining why his legacy was already in the process of being eclipsed in the years before his death in 1812. Given that Heyne tends to be overshadowed by Friedrich August Wolf in traditional histories of classical philology, and that much of Fornaro's work on Heyne has appeared in Italian, this chapter is especially valuable.

The next two chapters in Part 1 are by Ugolini. In one way, they are arguably the most conventional chapters in the volume. In the chapter on Wolf, Ugolini reiterates Wolf's central importance for the establishment of classical philology as a discipline and a ‘new science of antiquity’ (pp. 57–8, 80), while the chapter on Wilhelm von Humboldt trots out the well-known narrative about Humboldt's role in establishing the University of Berlin as ‘a new model of University’ (p. 98). Yet Ugolini also subverts and challenges these narratives through an analysis of the broader political, cultural and intellectual contexts in which both Wolf and Humboldt were operating. In so doing, Ugolini illustrates how and why the history of classical philology at this juncture is vastly more complicated – and interesting – than conventional accounts might suggest, and points to areas of research that are ripe for further investigation or debate.

Part 2, ‘The Illusion of the Archetype: Classical Studies in Nineteenth-Century Germany’, begins with another chapter by Fornaro, this time on Karl Lachmann. Drawing on S. Timpanaro's powerful analysis, she reiterates the extent to which Lachmann's so-called method never actually belonged to him, and the ways in which he fell short of his own stated ideals – as, for example, in his studies on epic (p. 123). She also foregrounds why it is important to consider the significance of Lachmann's work for German studies – and ‘for the political development of the German nation’ – as well as for classical philology (p. 126).

The next three chapters in this section are written by Ugolini. They are united by a focus on conflicts that arose in response to debates about philological methods, the aims of philological research and the role that classical philology should play in modern society. In Chapter 6, ‘Hermann contra Boeckh’, Ugolini revisits the so-called conflict between Wortphilologie and Sachphilologie. But Ugolini does so only after assessing this heuristically useful yet trivialising practice (p. 133), because of how it simplifies the kinds of complex methodological and conceptual issues this chapter then explores. ‘Nietzsche and the Controversy over the Tragic’ examines the different reactions provoked by the publication of the original version of The Birth of Tragedy in 1872, which underscores what was at stake in the adoption or rejection of Nietzsche's programme for a new philology. The last chapter in this section, ‘Wilamowitz: Philology as Totality’, takes a close look at what – exactly – philology was in Wilamowitz's view and what he believed it demanded from its practitioners.

Part 3, ‘Classical Philology in the Twentieth Century’, begins with Jaeger and ends with a discussion of new post-war approaches. Ugolini's chapter on Jaeger reads more like a biography than other chapters in the volume. But, given the nature of political events and cultural developments that occurred during his lifetime, this approach is especially productive here. L. Bossina's chapter on Giorgio Pasquali takes a similar approach by paying special attention to the difficulties that Pasquali faced as an Italian in Germany and as a German-trained scholar in Italy. Bossina is highly attentive to the scope, aims and methods of Pasquali's work, which makes the chapter an excellent snapshot of mid-twentieth-century Italian classical scholarship. Scholars unfamiliar with the topic will find this chapter especially valuable.

The final three chapters are arguably the most innovative of the book, because they eschew a focus on the work of individual philologists. Chapter 11, by P.M. Pinto, focuses on papyrology and explains how studies of papyrus fragments contributed new knowledge to existing understandings of classical antiquity. He highlights the advances made once the acquisition and analysis of such fragments came to be the purview of organised expeditions rather than simply collectors of ancient curiosities. In Chapter 12 A. Rodighiero traces how different receptions of classical antiquity can utilise and transform something known as the classical tradition. He does this through three case studies, one focused on the myth of Medea, another on cinema as a medium of communication, and a third on the translation of texts into Italian. In the final chapter, Lanza examines new approaches to classical philology that emerged in the second half of the twentieth century by focusing on the work of Bruno Snell, Eric R. Dodds, Jean-Pierre Vernant, Bruno Gentili and Nicole Loraux (who is the first woman to appear in these pages).

The volume concludes with a select bibliography for ‘Works of Classical Philology’ as well as a short list of important works on the history of classical philology. Both lists will be valuable for those interested in additional resources, although the reviewer wishes they were both longer. Additionally, while this is an edited volume and not a monograph, the collection would have benefited from a concluding chapter or postscript, either by the editors or an external scholar. This is because, in addition to revisiting the achievements of the volume, such a chapter would have provided an opportunity to reflect further on what the history of classical philology is and to instigate a broader debate about what it could be.

The work will have many audiences. It will be especially valuable as an introductory volume and as a gentle corrective for those who think that they know the history of classical philology already. Experts will inevitably quibble over what was left out of specific chapters pertaining to their own areas of expertise. But such experts will do well to remember that the volume never set out to cover everything and that any quibbles can be better read as an indication that there is more work to be done. For the volume, by offering an updated history of classical philology, invites others to step in to fill any gaps, to clear the cobwebs out from hitherto neglected corners and to explore those spaces not yet examined. So, let us get to it. The history of classical philology lives!