Intacti saltus is a collection of five essays. The first three were published previously but revised for inclusion in this volume; the fourth is a reworking of two previously published studies; and the fifth appears here for the first time. The common thread is the third book of Virgil's Georgics: P. notes that the essays grew out of a projected commentary on Georgics 3, on which she has been working for some time. The book received the 2011–2012 Premio Internazionale Virgilio, sezione Mantua, awarded by the Accademia Nazionale Virgiliana in Mantua.

In the first essay, ‘Le Olimpiadi della poesia: il proemio al mezzo delle Georgiche e un locus vexatus properziano’, P. examines the likening of poetic achievement to athletic victory in Georgics 3.10ff. and an apparent allusion in Propertius 3.9.7–8, Propertius' recusatio from writing epic poetry. After persuasively defending the readings palma and una in Prop. 3.9.8 – found in most though not all modern editions – she examines the close verbal parallels of the Virgilian and Propertian passages, in particular the shared use of palma and (de)ducere, and the image of bringing the victory palm down from a mountain peak. She points out, however, that while Virgil is projecting the successful writing of an epic about Augustus, Propertius is explicitly declining this task and asserting instead that renown can also be won through elegiac. Furthermore, while Virgil connects his poetic victory to Augustus' military one (G. 3.16ff.), Propertius in 3.9 likens himself to Maecenas, who acknowledged Augustus' precedence and willingly sought a humbler role. So too, Propertius asserts, poetic glory can be his even when pursuing the more modest genre of elegiac. P. points out a number of other verbal echoes between the two passages, some convincing, others seeming a bit more forced; but in the end her case that Propertius is here deliberately echoing and repurposing Virgil's image is persuasive.

‘L'epica in fieri e due esegesi vulgate (Verg. Georg. III 26s.; 46s.)’, the second essay, briefly examines the interpretation of these two lines. P. begins by reviewing the various explanations suggested for pugna … Gangaridum (3.26–7). While acknowledging that Gangaridum can have a number of associations (‘la menzione dei Gangaridi possiede un surplus di significazione’, p. 38), P. argues against two earlier interpretations of the passage: the notion floated by some previous commentators that pugnam … Gangaridum refers to a real or symbolic conquest of India by Augustus; and the linking of the genitive Gangaridum with solidoque elephanto (3.26) – rather than pugnam – as merely an indication of the Asiatic source of the ivory used to decorate the temple doors. In teasing out the various associations of Gangaridum, P. points, for example, to Virgil's use of Britanni in 3.25, and links these reference to India and Britain with Catullus' inclusion of extremos Indos (11.2) and ulti-/mosque Britannos (11.11–12) among the exotic destinations for the hypothetical journey of Furius and Aurelius, as symbols of the geographic ends of the Empire. Virgil's pugnam … Gangaridum (3.25–6) thus does not refer to a specific battle with inhabitants of India, but rather is part of Virgil's praise of the physical extent of Augustus' power after Actium. She further suggests that Virgil's use of the singular pugnam in 3.26 – as opposed to the plural pugnas in 3.46 – indicates that in 3.26–7 Virgil refers to a single, specific battle: Actium. Gangaridum can thus refer also to the Asiatic troops allied with Antony. P. argues further than while the scenes on the temple doors (3.25ff.) refer specifically to the battle of Actium – likewise depicted on the shield in Aen. 8 – Virgil in 3.46ff. is clearly laying out his more general epic programme that will come to fruition in the Aeneid.

The third essay, ‘Agricolas docere, legentes delectare: Note a margine di un recento commento alle Georgiche’ is a reflection on the commentary to the Georgics published in 2003 by M. Erren, eighteen years after he published his text edition and German translation. P. begins by pointing out gaps in Erren's bibliography and its lack of up-to-date scholarship while remarking on some general questions, including Erren's apparently idiosyncratic suggestions about the Aristaeus episode in Georgics 4 (p. 61). In particular she takes issue with the way Erren, in a work ostensibly ‘dedicata a lingua e stile’ (p. 67), elucidates the use of particular words merely by listing, chronologically, their appearance in earlier Latin authors, without examining in further detail the context in which those words are used and why that context might have led Virgil to choose that particular word in this particular passage. She finds that in this regard, Erren's entries ‘finiscono per non offrire molto’ (p. 67). P. then examines Erren's notes on specific lines from Georgics 3 as a way of considering the strengths and weakness of Erren's work, which she seems to find too superficial in places.

In ‘Stimuli amoris: Le metafore virgiliane dell'eros animale (e la lezione di Lucrezio)’ P. again examines Georgics 3 in light of the work of another Latin poet, in this case Lucretius. In particular she examines the excursus on the passion of animals (G. 3.242–83), which, she asserts, ‘stabilisce un dialogo decisamente complesso con Lucrezio’ (p. 89), in particular with the end of De rerum natura 4. She examines Lucretius' use of various metaphors, such as that of being ‘wounded’ by love (pp. 94ff.), of love as a net or snare (pp. 98–9) and of fear as a stimulus (pp. 99ff.). She traces these and other metaphors through Lucretius' Greek and Latin sources, and then shows how Virgil transforms and applies them in Georgics 3. For example, Lucretius strictly distinguishes Venus from amor (e.g. 4.1058, 1073), whereas Virgil makes a point of linking them (3.209–10) She also explores the idea that while Lucretius ‘demythologizes’, Virgil ‘remythologizes’ (pp. 88, 124–5). As in her other essays, P. is less interested in Virgil's images and overall ideas than in his specific word choices and what they say about his relationship to the texts with which he is interacting (pp. 107ff.).

The final essay, ‘Intacti saltus: Virgilio e la bucolica didascalica’, the only one not previously published in any form, examines metapoetics in the first and second proems of Georgics 3 (1–48, 284–94). In particular P. looks closely at the intertexuality in these passages with Lucretius and with Virgil's own Eclogues to show how Virgil incorporates elements of both didactic and bucolic poetic sensibility into the Georgics and into his projections for an Augustan epic. She sees in Georgics 3 a ‘dialogo con Lucrezio’ and ‘una reflessione che torna a occuparsi della poetica didascalica e del suo distacco rispetto all'esperienza bucolica’ (p. 153) in which Virgil transforms bucolic into didactic.

P.'s work is directed towards a scholarly audience with an extensive knowledge of not only the Georgics but also the secondary literature. Since the studies previously published have been thoroughly revised and updated for this volume, it is not merely a repackaging of work available elsewhere. The essays are very dense in detail, packed with citations, references and footnotes, and P. occasionally veers into minutiae. However, her deep familiarity with the poem, Latin literature in general and the scholarship – the bibliography and citation index comprise about 20% of the volume – combined with her perceptive, detailed, close reading of the text make this a valuable work for anyone engaged in serious study of Georgics 3 and its relationship to the Latin literary tradition.