Robyn Roslak's Neo-Impressionism and Anarchism in Fin-de-Si?cle France offers compelling insight into the relationship between the Neo-impressionists' landscapes of the 1880s and 1890s and their socio-political sympa thies. Concentrating on the (sub)urban cityscapes of Paris by Paul Signac and Maximilien Luce, and to a lesser extent on the Proven?al landscapes of Signac and Henri-Edmond Cross, Roslak contextualises their pro duction with in-depth historical analysis and a critical eye. She incorporates theories of cultural and historical geography, citing the work of Denis Cosgrove and Stephen Daniels, as well as of tourism studies, to chal lenge the predominantly technique-centred art history of the movement. The result is a fluid and complex network of literary, touristic, geographical, and political histories that enriches our understanding of the stylistic and social development of Neo-impressionism. Roslak's investigation into the anarchism of the Neo-impressionists pays tribute to the ground-breaking research of Robert and Eugenia Herbert of the 1960s, whose articles in the Burlington Magazine and the lat ter's The Artist and Social Reform gave clear evidence of the Neo-impressionists' anarchist affiliations. The his tory of Neo-impressionism, nevertheless, retains a degree of academic discomfort towards its followers' politics. The word 'anarchy', with its unfortunate analo gies to terrorism, violence and chaos, sadly still holds sway in the minds of many art historians as tricky, dark, historical terrain. Typically we find Neo-impressionist scholars edging around the sensitive issue of their sub jects' radical politics, to the extent that even such heavy-hitters as Jean Sutter and Fran?oise Cachin have almost totally dismissed it in their studies. Following on the heels, however, of John Hutton (Neo-Impressionism and the Search for Solid Ground (Louisiana State University Press: Baton Rouge, 1994)), Martha Ward (Pissarro, Neo-Impressionism, and the Spaces of the Avant-Garde (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1996)), and Joan Halperin (F?lix F?n?on: Aesthete and Anarchist in Fin-de-Si?cle Paris (Yale University Press: New Haven and London, 1988)), Roslak takes the matter head on. She begins with a close and subtle reading of the writings of Neo-impressionism's main defender, the critic F?lix F?n?on. Roslak argues that F?n?on's comments on Neo-impressionism go beyond mere poetic device; he ascribes the words, 'nomenclature', 'synthesis', 'decoration', and 'arabesque' to his analyses of Signac's paintings, concepts that Roslak shows were laden with profound scientific and political meaning and not only for anarchists (indeed, Roslak keenly observes how Science was upheld, not only in the minds of anarchists, but also by staunch Republicans, for the social good). For example, in her first main chapter Roslak dissects the varied meanings of the words 'nomenclature' and 'synthesis', descriptions that were used repeatedly by critics and friends of the Neo-impressionists in discussion of their work. The indi vidual unit or 'nomenclature' of the Neo-impressionist style was, of course, its divisionist touch: the dot or point. Applied with vigorous attention to detail necessi tated by an understanding of colour theory, the Neo-impressionists' facture was founded on scientific principles. Amassed together, the dots formed a lumines cent, vibrating synthesis that became complete by the optical mixture of the retina when viewed at a distance from the canvas. Importantly, Roslak explains that these concepts 'nomenclature' and 'synthesis' functioned also as chemical metaphors for anarchists to explain that the individual in an ideal society would have his autonomy and personal freedom as well as free associ ation with others in a community founded on mutual aid. Described using biological references to the cells that together make up the human body or chemical references to atoms grouping to form compounds, anarchists such as Peter Kropotkin, Elis?e Reclus and Jean Grave per ceived the way to social harmony as informed by the irre futable laws of nature. Roslak asks: The undeniable similarity between the surface of a neo-impressionist canvas and the anarchists' ideal social structure leads inevitably to a question: did the artists, following the example of the anarchists they admired, choose an expli citly divided touch for their painting as a means of repre senting atoms and molecules and therefore, by extension, liberated humans?' (p. 25). Roslak concludes that we must not see anarchist theory as a 'ready-made