Cicero delivered his speech De provinciis consularibus (Prov.) in 56 b.c., arguing before the Senate both that Caesar's proconsulship in the Gallic provinces should be extended, and that Piso and Gabinius should be immediately recalled from Macedonia and Syria respectively. In Prov. Cicero must balance his post reditum arguments of self-redefinition with a host of ever-shifting political allegiances. He must navigate between his sympathy for the Senate, his antipathy toward Clodius, his debt to Pompey and his general suspicions of Caesar — all against a backdrop of the rising spectre of autocracy. Grillo's commentary succeeds well in introducing the reader to the speech's complexity and providing particular insight into Cicero's rhetorical style in handling a difficult argument and historical moment.

It is hard to argue against the need for this volume. Despite the pivotal significance of Prov. in the complicated development of the relationship between Cicero and Caesar, G.’s commentary is the first significant commentary in English since that of Butler and Cary in 1924. As part of the Society for Classical Studies’ ‘Texts and Commentaries’ series, G.’s volume offers an introduction with commentary, but has not provided a new version of the text itself (rather following Peterson's 1911 OCT).

In keeping with the series guidelines, G.’s commentary is specifically tailored to ‘students in intermediate and upper-level reading courses’ (per the SCS website). Accordingly, the introduction starts with a general survey of Cicero's life and career, framing it very much against the foil of Clodius in a way that subtly, but usefully, contextualizes Cicero's general approach to self-fashioning in the years immediately before and after his exile. The introduction is peppered with some scholarly references, but by and large, as befits the audience, G. offers general summaries: of the historical setting, of the relevant laws, of the dramatis personae.

The most compelling parts of the introduction deal with the precise date of the speech and the mistaken (according to G.) connection of Prov. with the palinodia, the recantation of Cicero's opposition to Caesar that he mentions in a letter to Atticus in 56 b.c. (4.5.1). G. successfully argues for a date in late June, and also convinces that no compelling evidence requires the identification of the speech with the palinodia. In fact much of G.’s perspective on the speech is informed by his opinion that the text is not a simple encomium of Caesar, but instead balances consideration for Caesar and the Senate. G. thus portrays Cicero, rightly, as someone who, aside from the personal hostility he harbours towards figures like Clodius and Piso, is generally trying to trace a middle ground that will, in his opinion, be most beneficial to the Republic.

The introduction also features a conventional discussion of the five components of rhetoric (inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria and actio). It is here where the unique value of the commentary lies, for G. spends a considerable amount of space discussing elocutio, paying particular attention to Cicero's prose rhythm. G. describes in detail Cicero's favoured clausulae and invites the reader to scan and identify Cicero's preferred rhythms in the text. Seldom do commentaries, particularly for students, foreground the oral component of the speech so much.

And indeed G. continues this emphasis in the commentary proper. Having identified four types of clausulae in the introduction, G. repeatedly calls attention to, for example, a ‘Type 1 clausula’ or a ‘Type 3 clausula’ in his notes. (In just the first four sections of the speech he notes Cicero's favoured clausulae ad 1.5, 2.21, 3.8, 3.11, 3.12, 3.14, 4.21, 4.25, 4.26, 4.27, 4.1; all instances are included in the general index.) The attentive student should have a deep understanding of Cicero's rhythm after reading the speech in the company of G.’s commentary.

Other notes regularly call attention to rhetorical figures and terms, all helpfully starred and then defined in a glossary at the end of the commentary. G.’s emphasis on stylistic elements is in keeping with the aim of the series in general. These notes could perhaps have benefited from reference to Cicero's own rhetorical theory, which is largely absent. (G. does make occasional use of the Rhetorica ad Herennium.)

In addition to identifying the clausulae and rhetorical devices, G. also uses the notes to provide valuable historical commentary, sometimes revisiting and reinforcing the narrative set out in the introduction. G.’s historical comments are thorough and clear, so that students need not consult outside references to have a broad historical context. Here students are introduced not only to the speech at hand, but also to topics like liberalitas (ad 12.5), Tiberius Gracchus (ad 18.27), Marius (ad 19.3), Cicero's exile (ad 45.10), a lex sacrata (ad 46.24), etc.

Aside from a few typographical miscues, my one reservation — and perhaps it is simply a matter of personal preference — is G.’s tendency to comment so thoroughly on phrases or words that do not seem to require explanation. So, for example, ad 2.15, ‘paulo ante indicates closer vicinity than nuper’. I certainly find no fault with the veracity of the comment, but, as nuper does not appear nearby in the text, I wonder if such a comment might confuse more than elucidate. I noticed a few more examples of this type (as did my students), but of course, when it comes to commentaries, ‘too much information’ is not necessarily a bad thing.

I am pleased to report that I used this commentary very successfully in a Latin course, and the students emerged from the term fascinated by the many-sided machinations of Cicero and his rivals — thanks in large part to the clarity and comprehensiveness of this volume.