This one gets a point for being from 1932 so I am significantly more generous about like, the lack of good source criticism or incorporation of archaeology because I am aware that archaeology and classics weren’t talking to each other in the 30s. (Sidebar: Some absolutely Apollo’s dodgeball prophecy in the conclusion.)

Unfortunately her conceit is using ONLY contemporary sources–so Livy can only be used to talk about Augustan Rome, Cicero about the late Republic (which tbf is all we really want Cicero for anyway), etc, which means it’s a very scattershot book that skips over LARGE CHUNKS of Roman history (and ends with fucking Juvenal, like you’re telling me there were ZERO Roman writers after 128????) and for unclear reasons anything written by Romans in Greek doesn’t count, so there’s nothing from Marcus Aurelius.

Which does very nicely highlight the problems with this sort of historical analysis, that being that you’re left with Cicero’s personal letters and some poetry*, and that’s not…helpful. For most things. And I’m left wondering if you’re using such limited sources, what is the reason to read this book? Like it’s an interesting exercise for a graduate student but what is the lesson for the reader?

* Also some people I KNOW wrote about their own periods IN LATIN were inexplicably left out–nothing from either Pliny? Sallust??