This book has its origin in two conferences, the Fourth Celtic Conference in Classics held at Lampeter in 2006 and a short conference on early Constantinople held at Edinburgh in 2007. Its avowed purposes are to show how ‘the study of each of the two Romes can illuminate each other’ (p. 5) and to combat any remaining teleological temptations concerning the decline of old Rome on the Tiber and the rise of the New Rome, Constantinople, on the Bosporus. Naturally, therefore, the focus throughout the book remains firmly on developments from the early fourth to the early sixth centuries a.d. The result is a collection of 17 essays of an average of 24 pages each arranged into 6 different parts. There are 28 figures beginning with 2 maps of late-antique Rome and Constantinople. All the essays are in English, and the majority of the contributors are from the UK, two from the USA, and one each from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada and France.

Part 1, ‘Introduction: Rome and Constantinople in Context’, provides an admirable introduction to the work as a whole. In an introductory essay, the editors endeavour to set the historical context for the rest of the book and so provide a brief account of the foundation of Constantinople, a description of its evolution and growth during the fourth century, a description of literary and physical developments at Rome during the same century, a brief survey of the function of each city as a Christian capital and a summary of the subsequent histories of each city during the fifth and sixth centuries. G. surveys the different representations of the two cities during the fourth century in particular, with the emphasis very much on their visual representation. Ward-Perkins systematically compares different elements of the physical infrastructure of the two cities, from their obelisks, walls and aqueducts to their private houses and church buildings.

In Part 2, ‘Urban Space and Urban Development in Comparative Context’, Matthews provides a translation of the Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae followed by a brief commentary on the main features of the work. Crow surveys the history of the water supply network at Constantinople from the reign of Constantine I until that of Heraclius. Finally, Machado considers the development and significance of aristocratic housing at Rome and Constantinople during the late-antique period, although the nature of the surviving evidence is such that the emphasis is very much on old Rome.

Part 3, ‘Emperors in the City’, begins with Humphries, who discusses the relationship of Valentinian III with Rome in order to highlight the fact that the transition from an imperial to a papal city did not occur in quite so smooth or linear a fashion as is sometimes assumed. Van Nuffelen discusses the role of public ritual at Constantinople and the quiet competition between emperor and bishop as each strove for control, with the emphasis on the sad consequences for John Chrysostom when, as a recent arrival in the city, he failed to understand the rules of this new game.

In Part 4, ‘Panegyric’, Rees starts with the assumption that the author of the latest panegyric among the collection of twelve Latin panegyrics conventionally referred to as the Paneyrici Latini, Pacatus, was the collection's editor, and then explores the reason for his selections, to conclude that the joint purpose of the collection was both to advertise Gallic Latinity and to signal Gaul's preference for Rome over Constantinople. Vanderspoel reviews the value of Themistius' speeches as evidence for the changing status of Constantinople, as well as for his own attitudes towards both Rome and Constantinople. K. surveys the different treatments of Rome and Constantinople in the works of the poet Claudian, with particular emphasis on the anti-Constantinopolitanism of the In Eutropium and its significance. Finally, Gillett analyses the political significance of so-called epic panegyric as practised from Claudian to Sidonius Apollinaris as a means of communication between the emperor or his senior general and the senatorial aristocracy at Rome.

In Part 5, ‘Christian Capitals?’, Salway re-examines the purpose behind the journey from Bordeaux to Jerusalem as recorded in the Itinerarium Burdigalense to conclude that the original intention may have been to travel to Constantinople on political business of some type, and the continued journey to Jerusalem no more than an afterthought. Curran re-assesses the significance of the Cento of Proba as evidence for the Christianisation of Rome. McLynn analyses the significance of canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople in 381 in its immediate context, to conclude that ‘in awarding the bishop of Constantinople second place to Rome, they were therefore awarding him nothing’ (p. 355). Finally, Blaudeau re-examines the often difficult relationship between the sees of Rome and Constantinople during the period 449–536.

Part 6, ‘Epilogue’, contains a single essay. In this, Kaldellis objects to the description of the Byzantine empire as Byzantine, to the description of its inhabitants as Byzantines, and to the characterisation of Byzantium as a multi-ethnic empire rather than as a nation-state. Drinking deep from the poisoned well of theory, he seems to want us to refer to the Byzantines as Romans instead, regardless of the practical consequences of this.

The title of this work may prove slightly misleading in that many of the essays do not deal directly with Rome or Constantinople, but with literary works that contain some mention, often quite small, of one or both of the cities. Hence if anyone expects a detailed and systematic comparison of the cities, theme by theme, period by period, a book-length expansion of the approach adopted by Ward-Perkins in his essay, he or she will be severely disappointed. Nor are all the contents of this volume quite so fresh or innovative as the editors sometimes seem to think. Crow's essay is simply a summary of a chapter in a book that he co-edited (The Water Supply of Byzantine Constantinople [2008]). Furthermore, one occasionally feels that the authors are attacking straw men, that no modern historian really holds the propositions against which they are arguing.

There seem to be few factual errors. The statement in reference to the depiction of the Basilica of St Peter on the Tabula Peutingeriana that ‘Rome had traditionally lacked an architectural icon as such’ (p. 51) is simply untrue. As the coinage illustrates, the Temple of Roma had become the architectural symbol of Rome by the third century. Furthermore, it has been well demonstrated (Bowersock 2005) that Constantine I played no part in the construction of St Peter's despite the re-emergence of this false claim here (p. 74). However, the overall standard of the essays remains very high, with those by McLynn, Rees, Salway and Vanderspoel in particular offering genuine new insights into some perennial problems. It has also been produced to a remarkably high standard, with only one typographical error noted (p. 76: ‘at nearby at’).

This is a welcome volume which will serve as the starting point for many other studies as they attempt to explore the changing status of either Rome or Constantinople and the often difficult relationship between the two during the Late Roman (or Early New Roman, but definitely not the Early Byzantine) period.