?Günther?s short monograph, a parergon he tells us arising out of his study of the text of Propertius, is an attempt to sift out some of the solid results of the (now largely unfashionable) analytical study of the stages of composition of the Aeneid, and in so doing to give the reader a glimpse into the ?Werkstatt? of the poet, a glimpse made possible by the fact that at the poet?s death the work lacked its final revision. G.?s starting point, (like that of Thomas Berres, whose ?Die Entstehung der Aeneis (?) is the most recent major study of the topic, is the half-lines, those undoubted signs of incompletion. Like Berres, G. maintains that a large proportion of the poem?s fifty-eight half-lines are indices of later additions by Virgil to the draft of his poem (?.); unlike Berres he maintains that in almost all of these cases the half-line marks the end of the later addition, rather than the end of the original text. (?) G. extends the result of his analysis of half-lines to wider considerations. The claim that book three was composed relatively late is strongly supported by the argument that half-lines in other books in passages relating to episodes in book three are clues to reworking of those other books undertaken after the composition of three. (?) G. also ventures fascinating reconstructions both of Virgil?s own working practice and of the procedures of the posthumous editor, Varius. (?) Varius is presented as a conscientious and careful editor, whom we make thank for as clean as possible a ?Lesetext?, conforming closely to the intentions of the poet at the time of his death. At this point we enter the realms of a superior historical fiction. G. is conscious of the speculative nature of this and much else in the book. But this is highly intelligent and disciplined speculation, and G. fully makes his case that the development of the Aeneid is a topic that still deserves the attention of all Virgilians.? (PHILIP HARDIE in The Classical Review (New Series), 1999, p.49-50).