W.’s critical edition of Alexander Barclay's translation of Sallust's Bellum Iugurthinum (c. 1522) makes a welcome contribution to the study of early English translations of the Classics. Barclay's version indeed represents not only the first English version of any of Sallust's works but the first in England of any classical Roman historian, translated, moreover, directly from the Latin (rather than from an intermediate French source, as was often the case for other ancient authors). The choice of Sallust's monograph, composed c. 40 b.c. on the war fought by the Romans in north Africa (112–105 b.c.) against Jugurtha, king of Numidia, testifies to Sallust's broad popularity as well as the appeal of ‘a mercyall matter’ to Barclay's patron, Thomas Duke of Norfolk, whose victory at Flodden (1513) is compared with that of ‘mighty Marius’ (Preface, 23–5, 142–53; cf. Latin Preface, 18–20).

Accompanying the text is a comprehensive apparatus, comprising introduction and select bibliography preceding the text and appendices, explanatory notes, glossary and index of proper names following it. Section 1 of the introduction reviews Barclay's life (c. 1476–1552) and literary output, calling attention to his interest in classical as well as religious themes, his close and fruitful relations with the printer and bookseller Richard Pynson (c. 1509–1525) and his introduction of bilingual editions, aimed at two kinds of readers: ‘such as be ler[n]ed and vnderstande Latyn’ as well as ‘many noble gentylmen which vnderstand nat Latyn tong perfetly’, but may wish to compare the translation with the original (Preface, 36–7; cf. p. xx). Sections 2–3 summarise the main lines of Sallust's reception in the Middle Ages and Renaissance and provide a select list of Sallust editions from 1470 to 1521 pertinent to the present discussion or the history of the text. In Sections 4–5 W. turns to the main focus of his investigation, the principal source texts and commentaries that Barclay used and his distinctive method and style of translation. The concluding Section 6 contains a detailed comparison of the format, typographical features, text and illustrations in the two Barclay–Pynson editions of [1522?] and [1525?] and Thomas Paynell's 1557 edition, revealing decisions made at each of these stages for the sake of correcting or improving the translation or for stylistic and linguistic reasons. It is the first edition (BarcA) that W. has chosen as the basis of his own, in order to retain the characteristics of Barclay's original text, especially its orthography and, with occasional corrections, its particular punctuation system. Corrections from the second edition (BarcB) and linguistic variants from the third (BarcC) are cited in the apparatus to the text, while the explanatory notes provide fuller details on these as well as useful comments on both res and verba, from historical events and classical references to Barclay's own additions to the text, syntactical constructions and use of particular terms (such as ‘vertu’ and ‘common wayle’: notes on Prologue, 6–7 and 70–1).

A critical edition of any Renaissance text is an arduous and, as W. recognises, a hazardous undertaking, and this is especially true in the case of Sallust, given the large number of manuscripts (from an extremely long and contaminated tradition) extant in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century, and the habit of most presses of casually basing their editions on any exemplar at hand or recommended by their current collaborators (not always as judicious as Aldo's), or on a competitor's recent printing. Despite the difficulties, however, W.’s detailed analysis of the texts and commentaries available to Barclay have led to important results. First, it has made it possible to identify his principal source, a reprint of Jodocus Badius Ascensius's text of the Jugurtha in his edition of Sallust's opera (Paris 1504), accompanied by his Familiaris explanatio, and a second important point of reference, Pomponius Laetus's text (Rome 1490) as revised by Johannes Britannicus (Brescia 1495 or reprint), with the commentary of Johannes Chrysostomus Soldus (from which Badius himself borrowed). A reprint of Badius's 1504 edition was also used by Pynson for the parallel Latin text. In addition, the close scrutiny of Barclay's sources not only demonstrates his knowledge of major humanist editions and commentaries of the period, but elucidates his aims and methods as translator; for Barclay's incorporation into the text of particular readings and interpretations or additional bits of information from the commentaries – producing as it did a very different, expansive style, in contrast to Sallust's brevity and conciseness – was meant to help explain Sallust's often ‘obscure’ language or unfamiliar aspects of Roman history, or, at times, to enhance the rhetorical effect of certain passages. The careful collation of the variants in the three editions of Barclay's Jugurtha also offers evidence of changes in the English language and orthography, while allowing readers to track the textual decisions made by author and/or printer in preparing the text for publication.

In regard to Renaissance editions and commentaries on Sallust, a few items should be clarified or corrected. In the Selected List of Sallust Editions to 1521, the reference to Laurentius Valla (p. xxvi) should be qualified as an attribution, since there is no certain evidence that the commentary printed under his name for the first time in Philippus Pincius's edition of Venice 1491 (not 1490) is a genuine work of his (see Catalogus translationum et commentariorum, vol. 8, pp. 237–43). In the section on Soldus's Commentary (p. xlvii) ‘Laetus and Pomponius’ and ‘Laetus-Pomponius’ must each be a lapsus digiti for Laetus-Britannicus. I have not attempted any systematic proofreading of the volume, but have come across occasional typos in describing some editions in the Selected List of Sallust Editions (e.g. 1475, 1504.1, 1508.2 and 1504.4), and some inconsistencies in citing proper names.

More generally, readers interested in the transmission and reception of classical authors might have anticipated a fuller discussion of Barclay's Jugurtha in relation to earlier translations of Latin chronicles and especially (near) contemporary translations of other Roman historians, in particular, the partial English (or Scottish) versions of Caesar (1530) and Livy (1533; 1544). Situating Barclay's work in this broader context would bring into sharper relief both the traditional and innovative features of his own method in amplifying the text. It might also shed more light on persisting, or changing, interpretations of significant concepts in Roman ethico-political thought, particularly the notions of virtus and gloria (see, for instance, Preface, 40–4 on the usefulness of Sallust's history ‘specially to gentylmen/ which coueyt to attayne to clere fame and honour: by glorious dedes of chyualry’; cf. Iug. 4.5–6). In this respect, the cover illustration, a miniature from an early fifteenth-century French manuscript of Sallust's Bellum Catilinae, which seems an unusual choice for a sixteenth-century English text, might nevertheless raise an interesting question: to what extent, if any, did Barclay consider his own role as translator, engaged as he was in preserving memoria rerum gestarum, as worthy a contribution to the res publica as his patron's military achievements? (On this image see D. Byrne's article in JWCI 49 [1986] and his discussion of the iconographical programme of the Geneva manuscript.)

What distinguishes this volume above all, however, is the extensive and meticulous research on Barclay's source texts, which gives us valuable new insights into his work ‘as a commentary upon the Latin as well as a translation in its own right’ (p. lii) and brings us inside the complex process of preparing for the press the first English translation of a major work of Roman history: a significant contribution to the history of translating, editing and printing classical texts.