CUP (2014) p/b 358pp £23.99 (ISBN 9780521700290)
The commentary of Ogilvie and Richmond (O. and R.) has been the first port of call for those navigating the Agricola since its publication in 1967. Now W. has produced a more detailed and up to date edition which should become essential reading for experienced students of Tacitus’ work. It is more scholarly in emphasis than some other ‘green and yellows’ and the blurb rightly suggests it is suitable for advanced undergraduates, graduate students and scholars.
W. presents a more sophisticated understanding of the generic elements (history, geography, encomium, biography), but the major shift in emphasis, as one would expect from W., is to see the work as a literary construct rather than a factual account. The problems of using literary texts as ‘sources’ are highlighted in the introduction, particularly through focus on topoi, commonplaces, transferable motifs or details used by earlier writers (Sallust, Livy et al.) and even the pattern of the narrative (Caesar’s BG in particular). W. bluntly states the conclusion (not quite a reductio ad inopiam) on p.29: ‘we cannot tell what is literary from what is actual.’ But W. is not polemical. Even the imaginative ‘why not suppose’ approach (p.5, that Tacitus’ military service was in a British legion) is gently dismissed with ‘however that may be.’ The introduction has a brief section on the manuscripts and a select apparatus criticus accompanies the text which contains a few emendations by W. himself, discussed in the commentary.
In the commentary major sections of the narrative have separate introductions. In keeping with the series’ style, much of Tacitus’ difficult phraseology is elucidated by translation and explanation of the grammar. W. pays constant attention to T.’s style and use of language. His brief nod towards wordplay might delight some and worry others (one man’s assonance is another man’s paronomasia), but his analysis of stylistic and linguistic features in the introduction and throughout the commentary will prove useful and often enlightening. W. offers much more on the language of T. than O&R. For example in 41 he points to the echo of offensa virtutibus tempora (1.4) in offensus virtutibus princeps (41.1) with the subtle shift to make Domitian personally responsible. He notes the use of infensus rather than infestus, discusses the use of vir, and one could add many more examples where W. offers so much richer a reading than O&R. Immensely useful.
Alan Beale