Many a reader's first impression when presented with this almost 850-page thick cuboid will undoubtedly be one of mild puzzlement: they printed it? They did. And anyone caring or daring to open that object will swiftly understand why an exclusively digital edition would have been a miss. This handbook is not only an authoritative collection of contributions meant to last, but it also strikes the reader as an impressively rich garland of reader-friendly and generally up-to-date flowers of scholarship that can survive both thorough scrutiny and intellectual fatigue. Since it should, and will, be used and re-used by readers, its tangible physicality is a most welcome (and quite fitting) feature. The too-faint simulacra of a PDF-file would simply struggle to get the attention the content deserves. Here is not the place to review every single article. In what follows I shall first offer a brief overview of the content before taking a critical stance. Finally, I shall highlight some elements that I thought interesting or problematic in particular contributions.

The volume starts with a foreword by the editor, followed by 31 contributions written by leading, and mostly well-established, scholars in the field of Epicurean studies. It is divided into three parts. The chapters are all in English, with one of them translated from German and three from Italian. It ends with an index.

The first part, ‘Epicurus’, is the largest, with fourteen chapters, thus occupying nearly half the volume. Thanks to such unsparing apportionment, this part covers vast and various areas of Epicureanism. There is hardly any single significant philosophical issue generally addressed in scholarship that is not treated in some detail, even if certain topics (as the editor acknowledges with the example of Epicurean justice, cf. pp. 4–5) do not receive a dedicated treatment but are rather dealt with across several chapters. In such cases, and also because not all contributors make the appropriate cross-references, the index comes in handy. Further, the fact that this part is arranged thematically has led several contributors to adopt a synchronic approach that allows them to utilise a wider range of sources; unlike the suggestion of the title, the focus is thus not exclusively Epicurus’ Epicureanism. The only notable exception, both in terms of outlook and content, is T. Dorandi's initial contribution, which sets the historical and textual stage diachronically.

The second part, ‘Ancient Epicureanism and Its Critics’, is composed of nine chapters. The first seven are concerned with one (or two) ancient author(s) who are notorious for transmitting Epicurean doctrine, be it critically (e.g. Plutarch) or apologetically (e.g. Diogenes of Oenoanda). Apart from Chapter 15 on Philodemus and the Herculaneum papyri, where substantial historical background is discussed, biographical and historical information is generally kept to a minimum. The focus is rather given to the doctrinal attitude throughout the respective author's work, with particular attention paid to conservatism and innovation. The last two chapters are somewhat different in that they explore a more diffuse phenomenon: the Rabbinic and the Christian receptions of Epicureanism from their beginnings to the Middle Ages. They thus lead seamlessly to the final section of the book.

The third and final part, ‘Early Modern and Later Reception’, examines the thrilling journey of Epicureanism from the rediscovery, editions, translations and eventual publications of the ancient sources starting from the early fifteenth century, through the conciliatory efforts of P. Gassendi and others wavering between ‘Neo-Epicurean’ materialism (cf. G. Paganini, p. 675) and Christian theology, to its interpretations and re-use by modern and postmodern scholars. While the first chapters are rather historical and cohesive (reading Chapters 24–7 in a row is worthwhile), the later ones focus more on the free-standing exegesis of particular authors.

After this short overview I would like to highlight some of the strengths and weaknesses of the volume. Given how much has recently been written and published on Epicureanism, the very existence of such an updated survey of current scholarship is most welcome. Still, in order to do it right and not to idly reduplicate, say, the (still useful and excellent) Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism edited by J. Warren in 2009, the Handbook had to offer more than, and something different from, a mere update. It succeeds in this task in at least two important respects. First, the dual approach, according to topic in Part 1 and according to author in Part 2, represents an invaluable addition that allows for a fine-grained interpretation of Epicurean doctrine both philosophically and historically. One might at most ponder whether the diachrony of Part 2 should not have begun with the kathêgemones instead of Philodemus. Second, dedicating Part 3 to the modern reception of Epicureanism was a fruitful decision. For C. Wilson's contribution in Warren's Companion was as enticing as it was frustratingly short given the amount of information on the table. After the edition of Dynamic Reading: Studies in the Reception of Epicureanism edited by B. Holmes and W.H. Shearin (who is aptly the author of the last chapter of the Handbook) in 2012, ignoring reception altogether would have been the only, though regrettable, alternative to having at least several chapters devoted to it. The downside of such a breadth is that it makes any absence of discussion a relative lack. In other words, the Handbook is so comprehensive that the very few areas that are not given equal treatment look like they were neglected. Let me offer a couple of examples.

Arguably the most regrettable shortcoming concerns the absence of a chapter that is exclusively concerned with Epicurus’ relation to his predecessors, most notably Democritus and Aristotle. Obscure as this relation is in its details, there is no doubt that Epicurus was no pure autodidact, and there is a long tradition of scholarship focusing on what Epicurus had read or which criticisms his arguments were providing an answer to. Of course, most contributors are aware of this more or less implicit legacy, and they mention it occasionally (e.g. V. Tsouna in Chapter 7, pp. 155–7). Nevertheless, a chapter focusing on this complex aspect would have been particularly welcome. Similarly, one may regret the absence of a discussion à la Diskin Clay dedicated to the pragmatic and concrete aspects, both literary and institutional, of Epicurus’ philosophy qua applied doctrine. For questions of genre and format are proving increasingly relevant to the appraisal of philosophical content, while the cult-like practices and inclusive nature of the Garden offer a productive way to approach the ancient perspective on, and application of, the doctrine (cf. the articles edited by M. Beretta, F. Citti and A. Iannucci in Il culto di Epicuro [2014], and by D. De Sanctis, E. Spinelli, M. Tulli and F. Verde in Questioni epicuree [2015], esp. pp. 53–128). Here too, such reflections are obliquely present in a few contributions (e.g. Chapter 19 by M. Graver on Seneca or Chapter 21 by P. Gordon on Diogenes of Oenoanda), yet the topic could have been given more specific attention. But, of course, all books, even good ones, must end, and a selection is inevitable. Consequently, let me emphasise that, while some editorial choices might be objectionable, this is only because one wishes the behemoth were even bigger, not because it is unsatisfactory as it stands.

I shall finish this review with two remarks that are specific to certain chapters: the first one concerned with the use of secondary sources, the second one with humour.

First, some chapters lack important references. While it is only natural, though unfortunate, that B. Taylor's careful analysis of Epicurean phylogeny and Lucretian metaphors in Lucretius and the Language of Nature (2020) could not be used in E. Piergiacomi's analysis (Chapter 12, esp. pp. 319–23 on Lucretius), such a situation is less true and more problematic in the case of D. Lehoux's ‘Cosmology and Meteorology’ (Chapter 4). In his contribution Lehoux neither uses nor mentions the fundamental work of F. Bakker's Epicurean Meteorology: Sources, Method, Scope and Organization published in 2016 (mentioned by E. Spinelli and F. Verde, cf. p. 100 n. 15). He thus fails to address several central points pertaining to the truth-value of multiple explanations or the scientific knowledge available to, and used by, Epicurus in the Letter to Pythocles. Similarly, G. Striker's short bibliography does not go beyond 2009, thereby omitting recent scholarship, for example concerning the truth and falsehood of utterances (cf. A. Bown, Epicurus on Truth and Falsehood [2016]).

Second, I would like to praise the use of humour in many chapters. For example, Mitsis imagines a fictive answer to those who think that the Epicurean conception of friendship is dull (p. 280); M. McOsker excogitates a dialogue between Philodemus and Lucretius about the worth of poetry (pp. 367–8); G. Danzig begins his contribution with several jokes to demonstrate the ambivalence of the term apiqoros in contemporary Jewish culture (pp. 549–51); and J.I. Porter compares Nietzsche's self-contradicting uses of Epicurus with J. Pollock's painting (and Hegel's and Marx's with Rembrandt's; p. 787). G. Roskam even manages to write in the first paragraph: ‘In short, if Epicurus was a tree trunk, Plutarch himself was a cactus’ (p. 284), and ends his contribution with: ‘We can confidently conclude, then, that Epicurus was no tree trunk. What this study has not demonstrated is that Plutarch was no cactus either. But that is a different story’ (p. 304). Indeed, γελᾶν ἅμα δεῖ καὶ φιλοσοφεῖν.

The picture of Epicureanism that emerges from this volume is a protean one, ever hesitating between ridiculed straw man and serious contender, never to be dismissed and yet often rejected, tweaked and abused to suit one's agenda. This holds true in modern times as well, as Part 3 shows, for example, in the case of Thomas Jefferson or Jacques Derrida. Epicureanism has always been a challenge, a doctrine which one's own theory has to survive or yield to – the perfect soil for biased treatments to thrive. To sum up, one might be tempted to consider the Handbook as the Companion on steroids, but this would not do justice to either of them. The former offers an expansion rather than a lush, updated replacement of the latter. As to the negligible deficiencies, it is the vicious fate of high-quality work that trifling shortcomings appear all the more salient. With its commendable emphasis on the ancient and modern reception of Epicureanism, this volume can establish itself as the current most comprehensive port-of-call for all budding and advanced scholars of Epicureanism.