I’m very conscious of the risk of seeming – or indeed becoming – obsessed with one negative review; I’m sure there are plenty more such reviews to come, probably more carefully framed and less entertainingly vituperative. But my sense is that this review is less about my book than what that book is perceived to represent, from someone who feels outraged by it not just on their own behalf but on behalf of an entire scholarly tradition that feels under attack; and so it’s not unreasonable to reflect on what the review tells us, perhaps inadvertently, about that tradition. Especially to reflect on the bits that seem really odd…
For the most part, I can easily imagine why Professor Jenkyns dislikes the book, and by extension me for writing it, but at times the only reaction I can offer to some of his more esoteric invective is “huh?”. Case in point: the implication – a nicely framed bit of aporia – that perhaps I’m not interested in classical antiquity, but only in saying things about it. Now, I honestly don’t understand why this comment is supposed to be devastating, because the distinction doesn’t make sense to me. Of course I’m interested in classical antiquity, or I wouldn’t be bothered about talking about it, and vice versa. Is there a world in which people talk about things they’re not interested in, or don’t talk about things they are interested in? But of course the whole point of such a dog whistle is that only its target audience will hear it and understand the message.
I can best make sense of this by adding a ‘really’ or a ‘real’. If I were really interested in classical antiquity, I would understand the need to devote myself to it completely, even or perhaps especially the boring bits, rather than always seeking to connect it to more modern concerns. If I were interested in real classical antiquity, I would recognise that it’s all about the language rather than that archaeological nonsense, and all about Greece and Rome rather than other stuff. If I were really interested in real classical antiquity, I would stop saying nasty things about elitism and racism, and acknowledge that there is a wonderful essence that transcends such petty concerns.
It’s a variant of “not quite one of us”, isn’t it? If I am interested only in saying things about classical antiquity, then clearly I am insufficiently dedicated, inadequately trained, probably not up to it, prone to causing trouble and Not A Proper Classicist. And since I don’t offer an uncritical defence and celebration of Proper Classics As Traditionally Practised, then clearly I am not really interested in classical antiquity, but only in saying things about it. Which is bad.
To which the answer is, I guess, guilty as charged. But it’s still a really odd way of putting it.
Sphinx 
I find this whole ‘proper classicist’ debate delightfully absurd. Of course you are. It’s just a different subfield, and why would everyone be amazing at everything? Do physicists and mathematicians do have a similar go at each other for working in a subfield that has little to do with someone else’s area of expertise? I’m a Classical philologist by training, so naturally I need the help of a social historian when I work on Latin inscriptions. Should I be scolded in a similar way you were for your modest (and utterly readable) proposal? Wouldn’t it be much better to accept one’s limitations and then move on to meaningful collaboration, rather than dissing each other’s approaches? Why is it the end of the world for a historian not to be a philologist? I don’t get it. I’d probably draw a line at not knowing any ancient languages at all (as in, not even having passed Latin 1/Greek 1) – one wouldn’t be much of an English historian without any understanding of the English language either, I guess, but it doesn’t require an expert in Shakespeare and Chaucer to work on modern English history. That would be a good rule for us as a discipline as well. Anyway. My inane ramblings, avoiding to finish an article…
It is very strange. I detect both a powerful, if not downright arrogant, assertion of ownership and control – only specific people are entitled to pronounce on anything to do with classical antiquity, and everyone else is an interloper – and a deep fear that the discipline might simply dissolve or be subsumed. The fact that I find both these propositions bizarre is just another sign that I don’t belong in the club…
Yes, I should be writing a chapter too.
I have read that the phrase “Patrolling The Boundary’s” is used for this kind of review.