R.H. Martin and A.J. Woodman's Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics edition of Tacitus, Annals 4, first appeared in 1989 and ushered in the same authors' large Cambridge edition of Annals 3 in 1996 and Martin's Aris and Phillips edition of Annals 5 and 6 in 2001. In particular, the work of Woodman often clarified the rhetorical basis of Tacitus' writing through careful analysis of the intertextual connections with both historical and poetic predecessors. F.'s new commentary is less groundbreaking, but in its attempt to create a continuous explication of the text reflects a ‘modernist’ sensibility in undertaking this task.

This is not a historical commentary, although there is a prosopographical appendix that gives the basic biographical details of the individuals mentioned in Annals 4. Nor is it particularly concerned about textual details. The only major change F. makes is his own conjecture at 13.2 that Vibius Serenus is condemned on a charge of vis publica (unlawful use of force) ob atrocitatem poenarum (‘because of his imposition of cruel punishments’), instead of the transmitted morum (‘because of the frightfulness of his behaviour’: Woodman), explaining rather the reason for exile to Amorgus. The much more frequent use of morum in such cases as pravitate/severitate morum (Hist. 4.44.2; Ann. 13.2.1) and the historian's emphasis on the Senate's attitude towards the plaintiff, rather than a strict judicial interpretation, makes this emendation unlikely. Retention of the manuscript tradition for persequi incertum fuit, rather than Lipsius' fuerit, in 5.4 by treating the phrase as a vivid unreal conditional (‘if I were to narrate … it would indeed be dubious’) is, to my knowledge, unparalleled.

Instead F.'s commentary is strongly literary–psychological, emphasising the ways in which Tacitus constructs his history around a biography of Tiberius as emperor, contrasting the inscrutable princeps with his much more active adversaries, first Germanicus, then Agrippina and, paradoxically, Sejanus who is both an ally and an enemy. This reading of the Tiberian Annals as ‘interiorised history’ is set out clearly in F.'s introduction (pp. 7–16) and is explicated in the commentary. Book 4 introducing the second act of Tiberius' reign is particularly significant, as Tacitus himself indicates in Ann. 4.1, signalling a change in the emperor linked to Sejanus' prominence at Rome. This is not a particularly original treatment and the question of the historian's sources is treated very cursorily with references to Syme and Levick (p. 9). Historiographical tropes and schemes, so profitably investigated by Ginsburg, Woodman and Ash, to cite a few influential Tacitean scholars, are virtually absent. So in Ann. 4.25, F. notes the parallel between the deaths of Tacfarinas and Sallust's Catiline, but does not bring out how certain rhetorical features, such as triple anaphora, repeatedly used by Tacitus in this passage, are typical of Roman battle scenes from at least Caesar onwards.

This emphasis on characterisation and the literary means by which it is developed can pay dividends. F. rightly objects to Woodman and Martin's view of initium et causa (1.1) as mere emphasis via synonyms. The phrase surely refers to action and the intentions behind it, an interpretation that is strengthened by the intertext with Liv. 28.27.11 (already noted by Koestermann in his commentary), although F. offers a hendiadys (‘movente initiale’) in his translation facing the Latin text. However, at 51.2 F. rejects Woodman and Martin's interpretation of partae victoriae spes as ‘the hopes (of gain) from a winning a victory’, preferring ‘the hope of gaining a victory’. One's mileage may vary here, but the latters' interpretation fits better with the alternative of a particularly significant disgrace if the Roman soldiers were forced to retreat (si cedant, insignitius flagitium).

Choice of topics to explicate and depth of discussion is always an individual choice for each commentator and a reviewer will always desire wider discussion of some matters, while indicating less interest in others. F.'s treatment of Annals 4 by running commentary, chapter by chapter, possesses its merits in stressing the author's themes. It is diligent in considering the work of predecessors and in recognising work on Tacitus since Martin and Woodman's commentary (I am, however, surprised by the absence of J. Ginsburg's Tradition and Theme in the Annals of Tacitus [1981] from the bibliography). Italian students will appreciate the text and translation to go with the notes; scholars internationally will find that the commentary offers much to consider, even as they may frequently disagree with the interpretation.