VOLK, Katharina, (ed.),
Oxford University Press, Oxford (...), 2008. 296p. Hard bound. Cloth wrps. Series: Oxford Readings in Classical Studies.'The primary aim of the collection, as the statement of the series' purpose on the inside cover of the volume explains, is to provide 'a representative selection of the best and most influential articles'on the 'Georgics'. Readers of this volume will find especially useful V.'s introduction and the volume's combined bibliography. The introduction, the only original piece in the volume, provides a brief but fairly comprehensive overview of scholarship on the 'Georgics' from 1970 to 2006. This overview together with the bibliography will be welcome tools for both students and scholars beginning a project or a course involving the 'Georgics'. The articles themselves provide a necessarily less comprehensive, though more detailed overview of the most debated issues in scholarship on the poem from 1970 to 1995. V. has not picked just any ten of the 'best and most influential' articles, but has chosen pieces that work together as a cohesive collection and arranged them in an order that flows nicely. The first four selections (chapters 2-5) treat the poem as a whole and are arranged chronologically. The remaining six selections (chapters 6-11) each focus on a particular passage or section, and are arranged according to the order in which the passages occur in the 'Georgics'. V.'s selections, as is typical of the series, are fairly conservative. The most recent articles in the collection are from 1995, and each one has stood the test of time. A collection focusing on the traditional core of 'Georgics' scholarship and leaving out samples of the most recent work and the fringes of the field may offer little that is new and exciting to those who are already familiar with the most important work on the poem, but it accomplishes the goal of the series in providing a reliable guide for those who are not familiar with the important scholarly debates and positions on the 'Georgics'. (...) V. often juxtaposes articles in disagreement, giving readers an impression of lively debate.' (RANDALL POGORZELSKI in Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2009.03.53).