Until recently Bellum Civile IV was the only book of the epic without a commentary dedicated to all or part of its contents. But with the publication of P. Esposito's commentary in 2009 (Bellum Civile (Pharsalia) Libro IV) and Asso's in 2010 it can now take its place at the table. A.'s commentary, as it is written in English, is likely to attract a wider readership, but its readers must be prepared for a bumpy ride; it has its strengths, to be sure, but the copyediting of the volume (or of much of it) is sub-par, and the central section of the commentary (on the Vulteius episode, ll. 402–581) is regrettably thin.

In the introduction A. covers much of the ground one expects and requires. Particularly helpful are A.'s review of the evidence for Lucan's life (2–9) and his discussion of ‘Language and Style’ (18–32), which includes sections on diction, syntax and word order, rhetorical devices, and metre. Less satisfying is A.'s discussion of the Bellum Civile as an ‘antiphrastic’ epic (10–14), which focuses mostly on Lucan's putative Republicanism and the BC's relation to Virgil; here I would have liked some discussion of the work's place in the broader sweep of historical epic at Rome and an acknowledgement of the influence of post-Virgilian epic, in particular, Ovid's Metamorphoses. The introduction also includes a section on ‘Book IV and its place in the poem’ (14–17) and a ‘Note on the Latin text’ (33–5).

A.'s text is largely based on Housman's; the apparatus criticus is drawn from R. Badali's edition (Lucani Opera (1992)). The Latin text is in itself clean, and I found only two formatting errors in the apparatus criticus. There are, however, several discrepancies between the text and the commentary (e.g., in l. 719 we read Housman's incauto metuentis ab hoste, but in the corresponding note (p. 266) A. rejects Housman and defends Shackleton Bailey's metuens incauto ex hoste). There are also a few discrepancies between the text and the translation. For example, A. gives saeuis libertas uritur armis (578: uritur Ω) but follows Axelson's emendation subditur in the translation (‘freedom submits to reckless war’ (p. 79)), and although indulsit (l. 664) is defended in the corresponding note (p. 250) against inclusit, a conjecture accepted in Shackleton Bailey's text, A. translates the conjecture (‘he enclosed’ (p. 85)). As for the translation, there are moments with which one might quibble, but, on the whole, I found it serviceable.

The commentary is divided into three parts: (1) ‘The Battle of Ilerda’ (ll. 1–401), (2) ‘Mutual Suicide: Volteius and the Opitergians’ (ll. 402–581), (3) ‘Curio in Africa’ (ll. 581–824). The third part, which stems from A.'s 2002 PhD thesis, is the strongest; it is thorough in its coverage of the text, is well researched, and contains many perceptive and learned insights. A. especially excels when discussing ethnographical details, mythological references, diction, and rhetorical devices, to which he consistently pays close attention throughout the commentary. A. is less attentive, however, both here and elsewhere, to verbal parallels with and allusions to literary predecessors; for these one may wish to consult Esposito's commentary, instead. Another virtue of the third part is that it contains relatively few errors. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the rest, where typographical errors, problems of English idiom, run-on sentences, spelling inconsistencies, and other kinds of mistakes abound. As I do not have the space to list here the many errors I found, I refer the reader to Braund's review (Gnomon 83 (2011), 549–52), which documents well the volume's unsatisfactory copyediting. Even so, I would encourage the reader not to give up on the first part of the commentary (‘The Battle of Ilerda’), which, though poorly copyedited, approaches in substance the standard of the third.

But I advise the reader to steer clear of Part II (‘Volteius and the Opitergians’), which has been prepared in a hasty and careless manner. It is the thinnest portion of the commentary, covering about eight lines of text per page (compared with 4½ per page in Part I and 3 per page in Part III). Groups of lines are passed over in silence or acknowledged only by unnecessary paraphrase (see, e.g., ll. 425–30, 434–9, 450–4, 535–8, 540–3, 558–61, 563–7), and when there is commentary, it is often too brief to be helpful; extreme examples include A.'s note ad 557–8 (‘See Esposito 2001, 42–3’) and the enigmatic ‘uergere] mergere’ ad 525–6. A. overlooks many details that deserve attention (e.g., odoratae pinnae (l. 438), uaris (l. 439)) and on several occasions ignores relevant secondary literature (e.g., M. Leigh's Lucan: Spectacle and Engagement (1997) in connection with deuota iuuentus in l. 533 or when the phrase reappears in l. 695). The rich intertextuality of the text often fails to come sufficiently into view as well; for example, in ll. 549–56 (the Spartoi/terrigenae simile) several allusions might have been noted, but are not (e.g., Ap. Rh. 3.1391–2 ad 553–4, Ov., Her. 12.97–100 ad 555–6; also, cf. Ov., Met. 3.120–1 ad 546–7). The following line numbers also do not match up with those in the text: 532–3 are given as 531–2 in the commentary, 538 as 539, and 543–4 as 544–5.

The volume concludes with a bibliography, an index locorum, and an index nominum et rerum.