?B. and W., at te end of a substantial introduction which well emphasises the varied influences, Greek and Roman, on the earliest Roman historians, (?) say that their work is not a collection of fragments in a philological sense (?). They offer no apparatus or textual discussions of their own, and state that they write as historians and merely refer to others? linguistic and stylistic analyses of the few longer fragments. (?) But the verbatim fragments (not just the longer ones) of the historians who wrote in Latin are of great importance for our understanding of the development of historical style, and the text of the writers who cite them - mainly grammarians - is often very uncertain. (?) The commentary contains much useful information and up-to-date bibliography, but is too often a comment round rather than on the fragment concerned.? (JOHN BRISCOE in The Journal of Roman Studies, 2003, p.355). ?This volume concludes H.B. and U.W.?s edition of the Roman republican historians whose work survive only in fragments. The fragments are translated into German and provided with individual commentaries, and each author receives a general introduction. (?) The positive start is undermined by features of the fragment collection itself. This is most obviously the case where the fragments are citations by ancient grammarians.?(S.J. NORTHWOOD in The Journal of Roman Studies, 2006, p.243).