The current boom of surveys in neo-Latin studies is not limited to comprehensive presentations, such as Brill’s Encyclopaedia of the Neo‐Latin World (Leiden; Boston, 2014) or The Oxford Handbook of Neo-Latin (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2015). It is also reflected in genre-specific presentations such as this volume edited by two leading scholars in this area. This survey of neo-Latin drama brings together the results of many years of research. The book approaches its theme from various regional perspectives: the substantial introduction is followed by eleven chapters which trace the development of neo-Latin drama in different areas of Europe. Altogether it offers a European panorama of neo-Latin dramatic production, a valuable achievement and a useful tool, given that many projects in neo-Latin studies are confined to specific countries or other delimited geographic areas.

However, the title of the book is to a certain extent misleading. The coverage, which begins with the rediscovery of Senecan tragedies in the late thirteenth century, concludes in the middle of the seventeenth century. The last hundred years of Latin drama’s intense history in the early modern period have been disregarded. This is lamentable since the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries saw numerous successful and highly influential Latin playwrights including Charles Porée in France, Giuseppe Carpani in Italy, and Anton Claus in the German-speaking lands. An argument for the book’s terminus ad quem point might be convincingly advanced from the point of perspective of the history of science (cf. Cora Dietl’s argument on p. 104 “Following the traditional periodization of German language and literature, this survey ends in mid 17^th century […]).” But the contributors’ endeavours to justify it on cultural grounds are not convincing (cf. an unsupported statement regarding France: “Around 1630, an initial period corresponding to the birth of Jesuit theatre comes to an end” [458]).

As surveys, the contributions do not claim to present innovative scholarly results. Principally they bring together the fruit of older works. The quality of the papers varies considerably. Cora Dietl’s piece is a well-structured survey of humanist theatre in German-speaking lands. Her paper painstakingly situates influential Reformation-era dramas within their historical context, often alongside samples from the texts. Fidel Rädle’s contribution is a solid introduction to the first hundred years of Jesuit theatre in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Rädle not only focuses on representative plays and their playwrights, but also on actual performances, the role of the audience, and poetics—issues rarely taken into consideration by the other contributors. Jan Bloemendal provides an introduction to humanist and religious drama in the Low Countries (his chapter opens with a useful historical summary), while also offering, in a second article, interesting insights into hitherto little-known neo-Latin drama production in eastern and southeastern Europe. Mathieu Ferrand’s presentation of humanist drama in France is rather too narrowly focused for an overview. He does however introduce authors still unknown to the international scholarly community. Howard B. Norland’s essay is a clear presentation of the history of neo-Latin drama in Britain, while Raija Sarasti-Wilenius’s contribution does a good job of collecting the meager data available on neo-Latin theatre in the Nordic countries.

More disappointing is Jean-Frédéric Chevalier’s contribution on neo-Latin theatre in Italy. His methodological approach is unconvincing: in a section on early humanist theatre, for example, the author does not explain whether he presents all preserved dramas or only a handful of selected texts. In a section on Jesuit theatre, his focus on Bernardino Stefonio and Alessandro Donati is too narrow, and the cultural context of the Society is neglected. In addition, the author applies a somewhat hazy set of criteria for assessing the works he discusses: “important plays” (69), “most significant examples” (74), “apogee of Italian Jesuit theatre” (75). We might well assume that these assessments are not based on cultural or literary criteria, but on those of accessibility. Moreover, there are inaccuracies that could easily have been avoided. For example Martín Antonio Del Río is described as a playwright of the fifteenth century (49); we find the name “Tuccio” (72) and “Tucci” (73). It might have been better had Chevalier settled for an elaboration of his chapter on French Jesuit drama, which is solid—although at times the author is unclear in his attempts to link material. Why, for example is Mussato mentioned on 427? And is Tuccio really meant as a model on 431? The book’s section on Italy would have benefited from treatment by two different experts, one on humanist Italy and one on Italian Jesuit theatre.

Joaquín Pascual Barea’s chapter on neo-Latin drama in Spain, Portugal, and Latin America could be better tailored as a work intended as an overview. The author presents a vast number of names and titles, which might easily overwhelm an inexperienced reader. His examination of dramatic theory (on the influences of ancient poetics on Iberian neo-Latin theatre in general) is also too specific for a survey.

Despite these shortcomings, the publication is all in all a valuable workbook for scholars of neo-Latin drama and theatre. With its European perspective, it enables a reader to gain insights into developments contemporaneous with personal research, which is often inevitably reduced to smaller geographic areas. Furthermore, the book is also a useful tool for scholars of modern philology. Likewise, a scholar of early modern vernacular drama will find helpful surveys here of neo-Latin drama produced in contemporaneous cultural circles adjacent to their own interests. At the end of each chapter, bibliographic materials, along with suggestions for further reading and short biographies of the relevant playwrights are useful as quick reference guides.

DOI 10.1163/22141332-00301005-08