Anna Wolsfeld's adaptation of their 2015 dissertation brings together, for the first time since Max Wegner and Georg Daltrop's 1966 study, all the extant portraits of Titus and Domitian and proposes a new typological categorisation using the established Kopienkritik method. This is, however, not the sole aim of the work. W. also analyses the portraits of Titus and Domitian as part of the development of Roman imperial representation at large — to find out how they were perceived in relationship to those of emperors that came before and after.

Around half of the work comprises actual text (1–220), with the other half devoted to a catalogue with detailed descriptions of the extant portraits (221–327), bibliographic references and indices (329–98), fifteen appendices and 111 plates. The analysis is divided into five parts. The first (3–10) discusses the production and dissemination of imperial portraits in the ancient world, contains a short theoretical discussion on the imperial portrait as a means of communication, and provides an overview of previous research on the subject. Part II (11–13) presents the reader with the aim and scope of the study, in which it is stipulated that the analysis will roughly adopt a top-down structure (literally), starting with the portrait head (Part III, 15–97), followed by the statue/bust body and context of display (Part IV, 100–210), and concluding with a discussion on Titus and Domitian's (self-)representation within the larger context of Roman imperial rule (Part V, 211–20).

The comprehensiveness of this book is praiseworthy. W. provides detailed descriptions and discussions of the various portraits of Titus and Domitian (19–97), their statuary format (104–85), material (185–91), headgear (191–5) and presence in group displays (195–203). The book's diachronic interest is not limited to Part V, but resonates throughout, particularly when it comes to positioning the portraits of Titus and Domitian in relation with those of their Julio-Claudian predecessors. For example, W. shows that the Neronian trend to portray the emperor in military guise intensified under the Flavians in order to convey their military achievements, and, as such, this practice built on a recognisable (and by then acceptable) mode of representation. Similarly, W. demonstrates that the portraits of Titus and especially Domitian presented their viewers with luxurious hairstyles and youthful facial features, both characteristics of Nero's later portraits, while maintaining their typical Flavian physiognomy. Despite similarities, W. argues that these features could not have been meant to evoke Nero's memory (87–8, 216). Instead, the luxurious hairstyles followed a ‘Zeittrend’ (216) and were meant to convey the notions of otium and luxuria (86–7, 90–95). However, this raises a larger question. If we only look elsewhere to explain similarities between portraits of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ emperors, do we not merely reinforce the good/bad emperor narrative? If so, there is a risk that this narrative becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. E. Varner's chapter on the Flavian response to Nero's imagery in S. Bartsch et al. (eds), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Nero (2017), which W. unfortunately does not mention, provides an alternative view on this subject.

The majority of the entries in W.'s catalogue (Part VI) are concerned with freestanding portraits of Titus and Domitian. The remaining entries include cameos and relief sculptures depicting Titus or Domitian, and headless statue bodies that are reasonably certain once to have depicted Titus or Domitian. As such, it provides a commendable overview of the available source material, which will undoubtedly be valuable to many researchers. Readers may be surprised to find portraits of Augustus (D80), Vespasian (D66b), Nerva (D2, 33, 51, 59, 66a, U1, DM2–7), Trajan (D9, 14, 50, 54, 60-61, 71, 73, U10, U18, DM8–18) and some late antique emperors (D47, U8) listed as ‘Bildnisse des Domitian’ or ‘Unsichere Bildnisse des Titus und des Domitian’. These are included in the catalogue because they reveal traces of recarving that allow W. to establish Domitian as their original subject. Although each of these portraits gives us important insights into Domitian's representation, they should probably have been listed as a separate category as they do not represent Domitian in their current state.

Most of the individual entries in the catalogue are described using a standardised format: provenance, material, size, state of preservation, reworking (if applicable), costume and attributes (idem), date and bibliography. Unfortunately, the entries have not been made available in a digital format, nor are tables and maps provided to the reader. W.'s comprehensive corpus may therefore be less accessible to historians interested in larger chronological developments and/or geographical trends. The bibliography is up to date, though with some noteworthy exceptions. In addition to the above-mentioned Cambridge Companion to the Age of Nero (2017), which includes contributions by E. Varner and C. Vout on Nero's portraiture and the Flavians’ response to it, W. has not made use of M. Bradley's article in PBSR 79 (2011) on the iconography of under/overweight body types in Roman art — a defining feature of imperial representation in the period under discussion.

All in all, these criticisms should not detract from the many strengths of the book. The structured way in which the evidence is assembled and interpreted will make this work of great use to scholars interested in Titus and Domitian's visual representation and/or Roman imperial representation at large.