At the outset of this volume, based on the author's dissertation, P. laments, rightly, that the Bellum Civile has received less critical attention than the Bellum Gallicum. P. sets out to correct that imbalance with a workmanlike analysis of the later work, taking a line few would challenge, that Julius Caesar sought to justify his actions during the war with Pompey through a carefully controlled presentation of himself and a manipulation of the events of history; what is new is the idea that Caesar composed a new literary reality designed to justify the new political reality in which late Republican Romans found themselves upon his victorious conclusion of this war.

The body of the book, framed by an introduction and a conclusion, is laid out in twelve chapters divided, like Gaul, into three parts, one for each book of the BC. The first part devotes five chapters to these topics: the six opening chapters of the work, Pompey and the Pompeians, the theme of the Republic, omissions and manipulation of events, and an appraisal of civil war and the ending of Book 1. In the second part, four chapters deal with the uniqueness of BC 2, Caesar's soldier (C. Scribonius Curio), the Pompeians, and civil war and the ending of BC 2. The third part contains three chapters on the triumph of Caesar, another look at Pompey and the Pompeians, and a last appraisal of civil war and the ending of BC 3. In an appendix P. reviews the ancient evidence and modern arguments for the composition and publication dates of BC, arguing for serial publication of Book 1 in 49 b.c. (p. 177), Book 2 in late 49 or early 48 b.c. (p. 178) and Book 3 in 46 b.c. (p. 179.)

The argument consists largely of stylistic and rhetorical analysis, in many instances paraphrasing Caesar's words; contemporary critical theories of reading and writing might have provided useful frameworks for P.’s analysis of Caesar's construction of a literary persona, manipulation of reader response and control of the political discourse of civil war. Instead P. favours a close reading of the text, whose strength is typically its careful attention to words; when the words are those of a master stylist, whose style is central to the argument, they beg to be read on their own terms, but P. bases the discussions on English translations, relegating Caesar's language to the footnotes.

A thematic organisation would have allowed P. to focus on topics of interest without reworking the same ground. Separate chapters could be devoted to the important question of whether Caesar considered himself a Republican (there is a short one), the role that dignitas and honour played in the ethical and political rivalry between Caesar and Pompey, the vivid vignettes of Pompey's followers (easily the best parts of the book) and the rhetorical manipulation of the discourse of war and power. Stylistic analysis of themes across the three books would trace more effectively the rhetorical shifts in Caesar's composition of his ‘new reality’, and support P.’s secondary thesis that Caesar wrote and published each book shortly after the events described therein transpired. Regardless, readers of this book will eagerly turn to Caesar himself, and in that respect P. has done the subject a service. The text would have benefited from thorough editing.