Aulus Gellius, discussing a remarkable fact about the lyre, cites Suetonius alongside other learned men (alii docti viri) as a source (NA 9.7.3). This assessment testifies, in part, to Suetonius’ curiosity and breadth of interests. P.'s contributions to the scholarly conversation, represented in this volume by eleven new and twenty-one previously published papers, match that curiosity and breadth. This volume's best asset, in fact, is the breadth of its coverage: far from sticking to the popular Lives of the Caesars, P. ranges into debates across the Suetonian corpus. A reader could do worse than peruse the questions that P. confronts in order to get a sense of what Suetonian scholars have been asking recently. This volume caps off a decade or so of scholarship that reconsiders Suetonius’ reputation as a writer. As a volume of collected papers, it is necessarily looking over its shoulder; but it is compelling enough to start a new conversation.

P.'s robust knowledge of the Suetonian corpus and surrounding scholarly conversation stems from the fact that he has been such a vital contributor. Such is the advantage of collecting papers whose ink has only recently dried. To those who have followed the debate, the line of conversation will be familiar. Many of the papers are short notes, although they add up to a considerable whole. Reading the book is somewhat like going out for tapas. The variety is impressive, and most dishes are well cooked. This reader enjoyed his meal; others might be looking over the menu for a larger entrée. Papers 11, 14, 15, 16 and 23 circle similar material. Often the arguments made in each are persuasive, but I sense that a more complete article could have synthesised the material more powerfully.

In addition to the typical front and back matter, including a table-setting preface, an index and a helpfully substantial bibliography, the volume has an introduction and four parts. The introduction pairs nicely with P.'s introduction to the volume that he co-edited with R.K. Gibson (Suetonius the Biographer [2014]) and introduces the initial line of analysis that appears in the first paper by analysing some of Pliny's letters.

P. devotes Part 1 to the Illustrious Men. The first and longest paper focuses on the chronology of Suetonius’ career, arguing from readings of Pliny's letters that the Illustrious Men was published in 105 or 106 ce and attending to the subsequent consequences that this date would have for the rest of Suetonius’ career. The second paper examines Suetonius’ use of two acrostics. The subsequent four papers (3–6) address the possible inclusion of different Lives in the Illustrious Men or the placement of certain episodes or figures in the biographical collection (e.g. did Suetonius write a Life of Licinius Calvus, and was it to be found in the Orators or Poets? P. says yes and the Orators, even if Suetonius would have commented on his poetic achievements). Paper 7 puts on display P.'s interest in and aptitude for textual criticism as he notes why a scholiast, and not Suetonius, made an error in transmitting Suetonius’ Passienus Crispus (Suet. fr. 71 Reiff.). Finally, P. employs evidence from Suetonius to help date Curtius Rufus. Refreshingly, P. does not assume that Suetonius is prone to error – rather the opposite, that Suetonius had command of his material. What a profitable assumption to make.

The eight papers of Part 2 (9–16) focus on poetic allusions in the Suetonian corpus. Again, the first paper is the longest, and in it P. notes a divergence between how Suetonius handles poetic allusions in the Illustrious Men and in the Caesars: Suetonius employs poems or allusions to poems in his Illustrious Men as direct sources for the history of his biographical subjects in contrast to the Caesars, in which emperors often quote poetry themselves. In subsequent chapters P. specifies the lines from a Sophocles speech that constitute a Suetonian allusion (10), and then shows how Suetonius’ poetic allusions reinforce his characterisation of individual emperors (11–13) or major themes in individual Lives (14). This final paper boasts some particularly exciting insights into Suetonius’ biographical structures. The last two papers of this section (15–16) cover some conceptually similar ground to what has come before while also looking ahead to topics to come (Suetonius’ relationship to Tacitus and textual criticism).

Part 3, ‘Textual Conjectures’, contains eight papers (17–24), proposing a variety of emendations or arguing for / against previous emendations and manuscript readings (17: De Grammaticis 13.1; 18: Iul. 49.2 and Gal. 20.1; 19: Aug. 99.1; 20: Ner. 29; 21: Ner. 34.2; 22: Gal. 1; 23: Ves. 23.1; 24: Dom. 10.3). P. is quick to note when his proposed text was accepted by R. Kaster in his 2016 OCT, but the appearance of Kaster's edition reveals the weakness of this section of the volume. For one thing, Kaster's work on the Suetonian stemma has recalibrated how readers of the text should approach textual questions. While P. is adept at textual criticism and may well be correct about his proposed emendations, he has not updated the notes in light of Kaster's stemma, nor does he substantially engage with the textual sea change that has occurred since these notes were initially published.

Part 4, ‘Suetonius and History’, the final octet (papers 25–32), contains the greatest number of newly written papers (only 25, 27 and 30 were previously published). Two of the papers are of article length, and both are engaging reads. In the first (25) P. takes on the tough question of whether Suetonius alludes to Tacitus. P. has a (too?) rigorous sense of the grounds for what can constitute allusion, leading him to conclude that Suetonius ‘seems entirely ignorant of Tacitus’ writings’ (p. 198). It seems that P.'s desire to free Suetonius from Tacitus’ influence results in a restrictive argument. The second (29) sees P. attempt to use Suetonius to verify Jesus’ flight to Egypt – the argument is intriguing, but the reasoning circular. The paper on Suetonius’ firing from his imperial post (26) finds a way to shed new light on an old question. The rest of the papers discuss knotty moments of historical interest, making discerning and judicious claims about specific passages in the Caesars (27: Cal. 32.1–3; 28: Cal. 57.4 and Josephus AJ 19.87; 30: Ner. 37.2; 31: Ner. 44.1). Paper 32 acts in some ways as a conclusion in miniature to the book, and P.'s assertion that ‘There is more literary license in Suetonius’ Lives than readers have allowed’ (p. 242) aptly articulates one of the volume's core tenets.

This volume could serve as an introduction to readers unfamiliar with recent scholarship on some of the innovative work that demonstrates Suetonius’ literary techniques and ambitions (esp. R. Poignault 2009 and Power and Gibson 2014). Gone are the days of Suetonius the ‘erudite compiler’ (R. Syme 1958) with his ‘scissors-and-paste technique’ (M. Grant 1970), and P. perhaps most of all has put to bed this mischaracterisation. The biographer is too far-ranging in his interests and capable with his technique to be so characterised now; P.'s near encyclopaedic knowledge of Suetonius’ work and the scholarly conversation surrounding it has been essential in pushing the conversation forward. This volume is no exception. But in many ways, P.'s Suetonius is also conventional – he fits in with his contemporaries, and P., occasionally writing from a defensive position, highlights the consonances between Suetonius and authors of more established reputations. But Suetonius is also a literary innovator; his oddity is a strength. After reading this volume, I would like to repurpose the slogan of a few American cities: keep Suetonius weird.