'Signs of Cleopatra is not addressed primarily to specialists in ancient history or art. It is part of the series Gender, Culture, Difference, the aim of which, as explained by the General Editor Catherine Belsey (ix-x), is to present ?a new kind of cultural history,? explicitly feminist in its concerns, and committed to ?theoretically informed ways of reading.? Although the statement of mission mentions particularly ?English departments [that] are looking for a way forward,? the kind of comprehensive cultural history that is advocated is likely to appeal also to scholars of antiquity, especially those who study the classical tradition. Cleopatra holds interest for both classical scholars and for readers concerned with issues of gender and power. Hamer proposes to show how representations of Cleopatra, in words and pictures alike, reflect the notions of gender and power that prevail in successive cultural contexts from her lifetime through the present, and how the process of representation is related to the construction of social order. She does not attempt a comprehensive survey, but offers instead five chapters that highlight specific times, places, texts, and monuments. (...) As outlined, Hamer?s program is plausible. The choice of Cleopatra as subject, the focus on the ways, means, and ends of the process of representation, the inclusion of a wide variety of texts and monuments, the selection of specific examples - all are good. (...) The promise of Hamer?s program is lost in its execution. The work is flawed on two levels: first, the author?s range of interests is not matched by control of the material; and second, the argumentation depends far too heavily and uncritically on secondary sources. Both faults reflect problems common in the current generation of cultural history. (...) This book shows in the clearest possible way that the new cultural studies cannot succeed without both providing a coherent theoretical foundation and mastering the processes and the products of traditional humanistic scholarship. Only then is progress possible.' (A.A. DONOHUE in Bryn Mawr Classical Review 1993.05.27).