One could reasonably divide studies of Cicero's De divinatione into pre- and post-1986 eras. A pair of seminal articles in 1986 in this journal by Mary Beard (JRS 76, 33–46) and Malcolm Schofield (JRS 76, 47–65) triggered a series of debates about Div. by questioning the long-prevailing tendency to understand Cicero's text as the author's own pointed attack on divination. Beard and Schofield read Div. as a balanced critical analysis of the titular issue, an exploratory project produced in a phase of innovative appraisals of religious traditions. Since the last English-language commentary on Cicero's Latin text was Pease (1920–1923), Div. has been overdue for this reassessment by Celia Schultz. The need for new commentaries has been nicely met thus far by Timpanaro (1999, Italian) and Wardle (2006, commentary on English translation). S. complements these works by sustaining a productive dialogue with them while breaking important new ground. A thorough English-language commentary on the Latin text so well attuned to recent fundamental realignments in the study of both Roman religion and Ciceronian dialogues is a most welcome arrival.

The introduction frontloads discussion of the ‘Marcus question’ by setting out the author's own perspective: ‘this commentary departs from the orthodox understanding of Div. that sees Book 1 as a straw argument constructed in order to be knocked by Book 2, which is taken to be Cicero's personal opinion’ (1). Thus aligning her interpretation with those of Beard, Schofield and subsequent scholars (for example, Scheid) who take Marcus of Book 2 to be the critical counterweight to Quintus in Book 1 rather than a conduit for Cicero's own personal beliefs. This interpretation has been quite influential, so S. observing that it ‘has been advocated by a smaller group of scholars’ (1) seems to understate its sway. As Wardle notes while assessing this very debate, ‘the general acceptance of this “Cambridge” approach is clear’ (8 n. 34). S. later advances this vital conversation with some keen observations: she notes that when Quintus offers the specific evidence of Cicero's own prophetic dream in exile, pains have been taken to make it particularly compelling: ‘Q. cites C.’s own words to round off this final, most authoritative exemplum. This quotation may be a further indication that C. was not as hostile to divination as M. appears in Book 2’ (135). Likewise, she notes that in Book 2 Marcus can only counter this vivid example ‘at the theoretical level’ (133).

Since S. is duly mindful of distinctions between author and interlocutor in Div., it is surprising to find her elsewhere offering an interlocutor's ideas as the author's own, especially in dialogues where Cicero so studiously sets himself outside the debate. For example, she notes that ‘Epicurus … was often, and unfairly, accused of atheism by C.’ (61) and cites ND 1.85, 121–4 in support of this claim. The speaker in these passages is the Academic interlocutor Cotta, who is tasked with critiques of both Epicurean and Stoic theologies. S. similarly uses ND to back the assertion that ‘belittling his opponents’ religious beliefs is one of C.’s preferred rhetorical tactics’ (67), here citing ND 2.5, 2.7, 2.70, 3.12, 3.92. ND is a probing theological debate between an Academic, an Epicurean and a Stoic. Subjecting rival theologies to incisive critique is the brief given to the interlocutors. And all the passages cited here are, again, from interlocutors speaking in character as representatives of their respective philosophical schools: Balbus the Stoic in Book 2 (often adapting arguments from Posidonius) and Cotta the Academic in Book 3 (with Carneades in his arsenal). Isolating these passages from ND as indicative of Cicero's own attitudes or practice disregards the nature and structure of ND.

S. has a holistic approach that integrates attention to historical detail, explication of religious terms and practices and also thorough analysis of Latin stylistics and poetics. A particularly rich example of this inclusive methodology is the section where Quintus cites Cicero's Consulatus Suus at length (79–89). Along with detailed grammatical and metrical analysis, we see how Cicero adapts and transforms Ennian poetics, and also get ample parallel citations from the Catilinarian orations as well as apt scrutiny of historical particulars and pertinent scholarship. And here and throughout the commentary, S.’s twenty-first-century expertise on Roman religion sets this work apart: from exploring the ‘elasticity’ of the term religio (66) to challenging Timpanaro and Wardle on the nature of Roman priesthoods (165). On divination itself, S. offers an essential discussion of the relationships between auguria and auspicia (95) but does leave coniectura (90) unexamined. As Wardle notes on this same passage (Div. 1.24), ‘conjecture’ here has a technical sense referring to a process of rational extrapolation in divination.

As S. acknowledges in the preface, Federico Santangelo's Divination, Prediction and the End of the Roman Republic (2013) would have proved useful for this commentary. But otherwise S. productively incorporates an impressive array of current scholarship. A recent horticultural study of Venezuelan aristolochia informs description of this plant (77) while new genetic research aligns with evidence from Herodotus in a discussion of connections between Etruscan and Mesopotamian divination (78). S.’s multifaceted approach gives us an especially versatile tool for working with Cicero's Latin text. It is advanced but accessible: a commentary indispensable for readers new to Div., and also for scholars returning to Cicero's rich and complex dialogue.