P. has produced a new edition of the Aristophanic fragments accompanied by a translation and commentary. Unlike other comic playwrights of antiquity, with Aristophanes we find ourselves in the fortunate state of having 11 extant plays out of 40 attributed to him, with 976 fragments, 589 of which have been attributed to specific plays. Nevertheless, most of the fragmentary plays by Aristophanes remain underexplored, in spite of the substantial progress made in research regarding the work of other comic playwrights during the last decade (cf. the critical commentaries of E. Bakola, Cratinus and the Art of Comedy [2010], D. Olson, Broken Laughter [2007] and A. Papachrysostomou, Six Comic Poets [2008], to mention but a few). This volume marks a step of significant progress in the realm of the Aristophanic fragments, the presentation of which has never been as well informed and illuminating as in the present work. As stated in the introduction (p. 9), P. adopts the edition by R. Kassel and C. Austin (PCG 3.2 [1984]), while also considering other editions, which he lists on p. 13.

Study of the fragments is facilitated by the structure of the book, with a brief introduction describing the state of the survival, transmission and the amount of comedies from all three ancient comic eras (Old, Middle and New), with particular reference to Aristophanes. The book presents the fragments in the following structural outline: after the introduction comes a bibliographical note, which is quite extensive, reinforcing the usefulness of the book as a bibliographical guide to not only the legacy of Aristophanes but the genre of Comedy in general. Next come the edited fragmentary plays in alphabetical order (according to the Greek titles) with the translation accompanied by a commentary with notes on various aspects of the text, (con)textual, linguistic and historical. After the fragments that have been assigned to specific plays, we find the unattributed fragments and, finally, the dubiously attributed fragments. A list of abbreviations at the beginning and an index of proper names at the end complete the volume.

Of the aforementioned critical aspects, particularly interesting are those of a non-linguistic nature, where P. discusses the content of the fragments and offers a potential plot reconstruction (e.g. the attempt to interpret the connotations of the name in the title of the first fragmentary play in the book, Aeolosicon, implying a disguise, Aeolus as Sicon or vice versa and the allusion to the apparent tragic model of the comedy, Euripides’ Aeolus, the content of which Aristophanes wishes to ridicule [p. 39–40]; or in Daedalus, where we read the suggestion that ‘the father of gods was assisted by Daedalus in his amorous adventures’ [p. 130]), assigning lines to specific characters (e.g. fr. 361, where Kock [CAF I, p. 484] argues that one of the two speakers here is king Cocalus), and presenting the discussion and debate that have arisen due to the ambiguous nature of some fragments (e.g. the discussion and disagreement on the exact meaning of ἰπνός in fr. 369 or κἀνεκάς in fr. 192; the debatable dating of the plays is another such example, as we see in the case of Thesmophoriazusae II [p. 205]). Intertextuality, along with the detailed layout of sources, is perhaps the prevalent feature of P.'s approach. For example, in the comment on fr. 360 (‘But it is, sir, exactly noon,/the time when the younger it is necessary to dine’), P. identifies an allusion to Plato (Letter 7 [326b]) regarding the way of living of the Sicilians and simultaneously he sends the reader to Wilkins (2000) for further information on the same topic. P.'s attempt to create a whole image and give context to certain very brief fragments is remarkable. For example, although fr. 10 gives no information regarding the situation behind these words (‘through the hole and on the roof’), P. manages to reconstruct the context through allusions and references to texts that contain similar phrasing and are related to adultery.

The translation is also worthy of praise as it is as close to the original Greek as possible, unlike many English translations, perhaps because of the fact that the Italian language is closer to the Greek structurally. That said, it should be noted that what the Aristophanic researcher will not find in this volume is the edition and translation of the ancient testimonia, which are included in the Loeb edition of the fragments (J. Henderson [2007]) and are of crucial importance. For example, in the introductory comment on Aeolosicon, P. mentions that ‘according to the ancient tradition, Aristophanes was the author of two dramas titled Aeolosicon, but we do not know the date of the first performance’; as a source of authority for this assertion he references K-A, however, it would be quite useful at this point to include a discussion on a testimonium that points towards the existence of two plays (Choeroboscus in Hephaestion, Handbook 9.235).

The majority of the fragments are embedded, however, the volume does not always discuss the sources nor does it include the context of the fragments in them (e.g. the few words on Pollux's intentions in fr. 41, where he refers to the specific segments from the Aristophanic corpus, are essential for the better understanding of the meaning of the fragment). However, this is not the case when a fragment comes directly from a papyrus, where the nature and content of the papyrus is commented upon (e.g. at the beginning of each commentary on the unattributed fragments transmitted through papyri). The reason why this volume is an essential tool for philologists and a significant contribution to Aristophanic studies is the fact that it digs deeper into the world of Aristophanic fragments, revealing information which sheds remarkable light on the content and context, and pointing to details and putting the pieces together in an unprecedented way.