This book takes a linguistic and narratological approach to representations of speech, thought and writing by narrators in selected ‘war narratives’ of Caesar, Virgil and (in a more limited way) Sallust. After a brief introduction to the work's inspiration and core methodology, Chapters 2 and 3 offer a granular taxonomy and accounting of the linguistic concepts, forms and narrative techniques appearing in the author's proprietary corpus, viz. Caes. BGall. 1 and 7, Virg. Aen. 11 and 12, and Sall. Iug. (in Chapter 2 only). Phenomena discussed include various kinds of syntactic embedding (in direct and indirect discourse), deictic centres and narrative seeds; tables supplement the discussion in Chapters 1 and 2. Chapters 4 and 5 offer a discursive commentary on the representations of speech and thought that occur exclusively in the Caesarean and Virgilian portions of the corpus. These chapters offer insights about particular passages, and, in their concluding portions, present some interesting ways of thinking about the texts in question (e.g. ‘collective sentiments seem to be one of the few ways in which the narrator conveys what it is like to be in this story world and be part of battle’, p. 239). That the close readings engage somewhat unevenly with the extensive apparatus of the first three chapters sometimes darkens distinctions between the narratological/linguistic contribution and ‘more literary or historical’ approaches, which A. aims to complement (p. 7). The relative absence of technical argot in the close readings, however, enhances their accessibility to the general Classicist.

The work prompts reflection on certain methodological issues. Sallust appears in the somewhat enlarged corpus treated in Chapter 2 in order to ‘cover as many representational forms of speech and thought as possible’, i.e. for taxonomic completeness (p. 6). But his absence from the rest of the book reminds readers of a certain arbitrariness to the material selected. This is troubling only in so far as A. appears to view ‘war narratives’ as a self-evident category with its own ‘ideological dimensions’. Yet we are never really told why these particular books of Caesar or Virgil – rather than other books or authors – were selected to represent these categories; nor is it clear how generic limitations might affect them.

Dense material in the initial chapters and somewhat meandering prose throughout the book afford the reader little room for distraction, and a reviewer would be negligent to ignore the many typographical errors, irregularities in formatting and style, and redundancies. (‘Caear’ for Caesar on p. 1 bodes ill.) Specialists in ancient narrative may find the book worthy of their attention; scholars of Caesar and Virgil will find insights, but not without some looking and a forbearance of the familiar.