Like her previous commentary on Histories 2 (2007), or A.J. Woodman and C.S. Kraus's on Agricola (2014), A.’s commentary on Annals 15 is a ‘green & yellow’ that could easily have been published in the ‘orange’ series. It is a rich, well-researched and very helpful commentary by one of the leading Tacitean scholars in the English-speaking world. And it is a welcome addition; for it makes one of the most exciting books of the Annals now finally accessible to a wider audience of advanced undergraduate and graduate students alike.

As is customary with most commentaries in this series, the Latin text is not furnished with an apparatus, though the most significant textual deviations from the text of H. Heubner, which A. follows, are discussed in the notes (e.g. 61.3 redi<sse> t<ribu>num). The introduction is sensible and extremely clear, providing a general outline of Tacitus’ life, works and historical method, with individual sections devoted to the most significant episodes and/or characters that the reader will encounter in this Book: Seneca, Corbulo, the Pisonian Conspiracy, Parthia and Armenia. The section on style and language is very helpful and, despite its succinctness, points out the most characteristic features of Tacitean style.

Book 15 opens with a long section on res externae (Parthia and Armenia) that, apart from a short narrative of senatorial business, occupies more or less the first half of the entire book. The second half is monopolised by two of the most famous events of the Neronian principate: the Great Fire and the Pisonian Conspiracy. Since the commentary is too long and rich to allow for a detailed review of its entirety, I will focus on chunks of these exemplary episodes.

In the section on Parthia and Armenia, A. very skilfully leads the reader through this intricate narrative, pointing out not only the historical problems of these campaigns, but also the characterisation that Tacitus offers of the main protagonists, on both sides, but particularly Corbulo and Caesennius Paetus, who represent two opposite ideals of Roman generals. Thus it is not surprising that the former is described with language that evokes Julius Caesar, while the latter must humiliatingly surrender to the Parthians. Tacitus uses his words very carefully. If a speech has a particular Ciceronian flavour, and its larger narrative is cast in Livian language, it may mean, as A. underlines, that Tacitus wishes to recall the past of a pre-imperial period.

The Great Fire that ravaged Rome in July ad 64 is singled out by Tacitus with the longest disaster narrative in the extant Annals (38–41). Although most ancient sources blame Nero without hesitation, Tacitus is more cautious, but nothing in his narrative contributes to Nero's exoneration. The fire narrative is indebted to previous models, as A. fittingly points out (particularly the Gallic sack of 390 bc), and employs several rhetorical elements that make it very appealing and entertaining, thus contributing significantly to its literary flavour (cf. e.g. on 38.4: ‘impressionistic syntax enhances the sense of chaos’; on 38.5: ‘repetition emphasises the fire's tenacity’). A.’s comments on this section are crisp and informative. (It is surprising, however, that the phrase peruaserat rumor at 39.3 is almost passed over without more comment on Tacitus’ use of rumores, or at least a reference to another section where this topic is discussed.) A. manages the large bibliography on this subject with impressive agility, touching upon textual, literary and archaeological points. I agree with A. that 40.2, where Tacitus gives the physical description of Rome's devastation, is not a gloss. Apart from stylistic reasons (nothing in that section is ‘un-Tacitean’), this sentence contributes to Tacitus’ authorial persona: the fact that such precise indications are so rare in Tacitus only emphasises their use here. Moreover, the extent of the geographical destruction of Rome prepares for the next list of temples that were burnt during the fire. Tacitus evidently gave this episode an exemplary meaning, which recalled, tragically and ironically, both the destruction of Troy in Book 2 of the Aeneid and the Gallic sack narrated by Livy. It is in connection with this narrative that Tacitus mentions, for the first time (one must assume), the Christians and Christ (42.2–5), a passage that was crucial to the condemnation of Tacitus as ille mendaciorum loquacissimus (Tert. Ad nationes 1.11). It is Tacitus’ negative views of Jews and Christians that made him a ‘problematic’ text in the early modern period and probably contributed to his virtual disappearance during the early Middle Ages. Yet this famous passage remains highly controversial. Despite A.’s exceptionally good commentary on these chapters, I would have preferred it if A. had told us a little more why some scholars consider this section a later Christian interpolation. Students, in particular, would have benefited from it.

The most famous episode that was a consequence of the Pisonian Conspiracy is probably the description of Seneca's suicide (15.60–4). A. is very good at pointing out how much Seneca's scene owes to its predecessors, namely Socrates’ suicide in Plato's Phaedo, but also Tacitus’ own description of Otho's death in Book 2 of the Histories. It is surprising, however, that Petronius’ suicide (16.18–19) is never mentioned, despite its obvious links to Seneca's, with which it is contrasted. I find it also odd that there is no remark on the phrase constantis amicitiae (62.1), when constantia is a clear Stoic quality, and one which, as A. herself remarks (p. 225), ‘becomes a leitmotiv of the plot and its aftermath’. Likewise, one would expect a comment on the contrast between libertas and seruitium at 61.1.

Overall, the commentary provides a balanced blend of literary, linguistic and historical information, with generous translations and bibliographical references. A. is particularly sensitive to Tacitus’ word choices and his syntactical usage. Hardly any unusual construction is passed over, and Tacitus’ use of alliteration, anaphora and the many other rhetorical devices he employs are repeatedly commented upon, a feature that will benefit scholars and students alike. There are many allusions to previous writers in Tacitus’ narrative, particularly to epic poetry in highly dramatic sections. A. does not refrain from pointing out the significance of these allusions.

Beside the general, and exhaustive, bibliography, very comprehensive indexes and a list of Latin words discussed in the commentary proper conclude this edition in a fitting way. A. has evidently done a lot of work on this text, which we can now enjoy and finally employ in our teaching. Some will find her approach exceedingly literary; others will complain that linguistic comments will distract readers from enjoying the core of the narrative. I do not see these features as faults but rather as strengths of this commentary. A. deserves great praise for undertaking a commentary on such a long and challenging narrative.Footnote ¹