I read this book to get some information about an incident in British history which proved the backround to Johnathan Swifts book of the same name. The incident is well described and broadened out to tell of the clash in learning between those who felt the ancients were absolute, and the moderns who felt that currently learning improved upon those of the ancients. While this might seem esoteric today, the efforts which went into this debate provided the motivation and justification for many fields of learning - e.g. archaeology which was just emerging.The book takes the debates to its European context, and spreads it out in time to Alexander Pope and his times; all the time giving the conflicting views on whether Homer could be bettered, or if Virgil's interpretations of Greek myths was superior (itself an aid to the `modern' concepts).On first reading, I was overwhelmed with the amount of scholars mentioned, and the sheer detail which they contributed. I enjoyed the reflections on the history of the events, and its references to historiography (in the second section), I was a bit lost in the detail of the literary interactions. However I do this think book is a great resource for the overall controversy; is fair to the protagonists, and comes up with a number of interesting ways of viewing the conflict of ideas.