In his 2017 book Civil Wars: A History in Ideas (cited by many of the contributors in this volume), David Armitage argued that Roman definitions of and views on civil war have shaped our understanding of this phenomenon into the modern era. This may obtain in a broad sense, but as the diverse contributions here demonstrate, it is impossible to articulate a singular, unified conception of ‘civil war’ in the Roman world. For an ‘unspeakable’ phenomenon, it has many names (bellum civile, but also emphylios polemos, seditio, stasis, etc.), and in historiographical writing its nature and parameters were continually redefined according to the needs and interests of each author. Civil war was not necessarily a stable concept even within a particular author's corpus, as Henriette van der Blom's chapter on Cicero shows especially well. The chronological arrangement of this volume's eighteen main chapters is particularly effective at illustrating how the understanding of the late republican civil wars changed over time, as the generation of eyewitnesses gave way to those who had not lived through the conflicts in question and as the impulse to justify civil war as a necessary agent of change went through cycles of urgency (high under the Julio-Claudians, less pressing under the Antonines, critical once again after Septimius Severus’ rise). While many readers will probably use this volume for this or that essay depending on their interests, reading the chapters in order illustrates both changes and continuities over three centuries and gives a vivid sense of how dynamic and mutable the concept of civil war remained.

In a brief introduction, editors Lange and Vervaet touch upon the problems of defining the Late Republic both in terms of periodisation and characterisation (e.g., should we speak of a ‘fall’?) and preview the themes and questions that will tie together the various contributions: how did historiographers explain civil war and its reoccurrence, and how did individual authors’ historiographical programmes and personal prerogatives shape its representation? The individual chapters cover a broad chronological range (from Sulla to the Severans) and a variety of genres are represented (including biography, autobiography/memoir and epic poetry in the form of Lucan's De bello civili). Many of the usual suspects (Caesar, Sallust, Tacitus) receive fresh treatment here, and the collection is enlivened by the inclusion of less-expected authors like Josephus and Florus.

While they are not formally divided into sections, logical groupings among some of the chapters emerge. For example, the first three chapters share a methodological struggle: how do we reckon with the fact that so many of our contemporary or eyewitness accounts are only partially extant (or not at all)? Through fragments of Sulla's memoir, L. and V. examine the dictator's role in articulating the nature of Roman civil war, including the possibility that Sulla himself established the common usage of the term bellum civile. Andrew Turner's chapter on the ‘lost’ historians of the late republican civil wars asks what, if anything, the fate of lost histories — how long they were in circulation, why they fell out of circulation, and how their authors were remembered — might suggest about the attitudes toward the civil wars contained therein. Richard Westall surveys passages from several fragmentary histories from the first century to examine how their authors depicted the civil wars fought in their own lifetimes and finds themes that are unevenly represented in extant sources (e.g. loyalty). Westall makes a convincing case for the need to account for fragmentary sources, however difficult to access, since they add valuable colour and contours to the picture created by our more complete sources.

In another thematic pairing, Federico Santangelo's chapter on Plutarch and Kathryn Welch's on Appian both encourage new consideration of the ways in which their authors made use of available source material. Both contributions demonstrate the ways in which the parameters of our knowledge of late republican civil war are formed to some extent by chance, as our sources are shaped by the interests and idiosyncrasies of the individual authors. Acknowledging that Plutarch had at his disposal a wealth of source material for the civil wars that vastly surpasses our own, Santangelo highlights the prominence of the Greek east in Plutarch's biographies of prominent figures of the civil wars. Plutarch reminds us of the geographically widespread impact of the civil wars, something often obscured by Italy-centric sources. Welch's chapter continues the recent reassessment of Appian as a more thoughtful and artful writer than was previously acknowledged. Welch argues that Appian's uneven allocation of material and contradictory statements about the scope of his work are not evidence of a tendency to cut-and-paste sources together in uncritical and slapdash fashion (as has often been charged), but rather suggests that these apparent irregularities reflect the historian's evolving interests. As Appian immersed himself in the available sources for the civil wars, his interest was piqued and he reshaped the plan of his work accordingly — what scholar cannot relate to this?

Overall, this is a valuable volume that contributes a number of illuminating case studies to contemporary discussions about how the memory and representation of civil war were forged, contested and adapted. While the constraints of space preclude giving every chapter of this diverse array its due here, the individual contributions each add a new perspective to the conversation around their respective author and how they understood and represented the late republican civil wars. If there is one element a reader might be left wanting, it would be a more substantial introduction or a concluding essay to highlight the connections among the various contributions. It is when these contributions are in dialogue with each other (directly or indirectly) that this volume most shines, and more cultivation of the seeds of connection within individual chapters would have amplified the value of this collection even further, elevating its contribution to something greater than the (already considerable) sum of its parts. However, particularly for the reader who takes the time to explore the full collection, this volume successfully illustrates the fluid nature of the memory of late republican civil war and the diverse ways in which historiographical writing shaped (and was shaped) by it over the centuries.