By: Dominick Mellusi

Dominick Mellusi — Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:56:13 +0000

First of all, thank you for this review. I believe it touches on most of the content of book that a review is supposed to. You review the author’s credentials and past publications in a way that makes relevant the topic at hand. You touch on her argument and the narrative that she is disagreeing with, that Rome remained a “backwater of the sciences”. You discuss the types of evidence that she presents as well as the narrow time period she focuses on, and the significance of that. I think it would be good to discuss in class the effect that this narrow focus on her final product. You do a good job of laying out the contents of the book while pointing out your own independent thoughts of which chapters seem more interesting than others. So it does not come off as just a summary of the book. I am glad you point out the historian’s ability to make clear that her methodology had limitations. I always make sure to look for that in scholarly work that I am reading. I also like the fact that you are not afraid to both criticize and praise which parts and aspects of the book you like and dislike. It seems it is the natural inclination for students to always praise whatever book they are reviewing. I would include myself in that (see my review from last week). You conclude your review by mentioning who the book’s audience is. I thought this was an interesting choice. I always begin papers by talking about who the audience is, and am considering doing it your way next time. Overall, I think your review provides a good starting point for Wednesday’s discussion. I am interested to see where we all agree and disagree with the topic and book at hand.

Comments on: Book Review on Engineering the Eternal City: Infrastructure, Topography, and the Culture of Knowledge in Late-Sixteenth Century Rome by Pamela O. Long

By: Dominick Mellusi