This is the first edition of all three books of the pseudo-Aristotelian Oeconomicus to appear for over 45 years. The Greek text of Books 1–2 and the surviving medieval Latin version of the lost Book 3 are accompanied by facing Italian translations, followed by a commentary on each book. The appendices include Durand's alternative medieval version of Book 3 as well as the text of Philodemus' peri oikonomias with a facing Italian translation. The edition is prefaced by an introduction on the historical transmission of the texts, concluding with an up-to-date bibliography and indexes.

In reviewing the Budé edition (B.A. van Groningen and A. Wartelle [1968]), M.I. Finley was critical of its interpretation of oikonomia in Book 1 as that of ‘un traité d’économique' rather than that of home management (CR 20 [1970], 315–19). In this edition, V. has elegantly side-stepped this issue by simply transliterating the word (and similar roots) as oikonomia/oikonomiai rather than by attempting to employ an Italian equivalent. In his introduction, he explains that the discussion in the first book is in relation ‘to the administration of the oikos’ in both a political and civic sense while it is only in the second book that oikonomia refers to ‘financial administration’ (p. 5). The third book on the relationship between husband and wife is thus shown to have much more in common with the first than the second (p. 267). As other editors, V. considers that the first book was written by an early Peripatetic if not by Theophrastus himself as was once claimed by Philodemus (p. 15). It is suggested that its reference to the Pythagoreans and a moral ideal of marital conjugality could have been influenced by Neo-Pythagorean thought (p. 32), dating it to the Hellenistic age. The second book is almost Machiavellian in approach to politics and refers to post-Aristotelian events. It is suggested that it began as a combination of a fragment of a fourth-century b.c. work with a third-century epitome of an earlier composition (p. 23). It is still unclear from V.'s discussion how all these separate sections were combined to form one pseudo-Aristotelian work even though detailed parallels are drawn between other examples of logoi oikonomikoi (e.g. Xen. Oec. and sections of Aristot. Pol.). Although V. enlarges on the peripatetic origins of the work, there are other possibilities. Surmising from other examples of spuria, we need not conclude that it was composed within a school body, or that even its popular ascription to Aristotle arose within it. A number of ancient works survive that rehash Xenophon for the popular market. The Aristotelian ascription could easily have been made at any ancient library, as for instance at Alexandria, which was particularly known for its Aristotelian interests.

Although V. has done an excellent job in his examination of the historical, philosophical and cultural background of this work, it should be stated from the start that its value is sadly not as a new edition of the Oeconomicus. The text of all three books is reproduced without an apparatus criticus and although the more important textual points are discussed in the commentaries, many of the more problematic ones are not. Furthermore, additions and deletions to the readings of the text are often not indicated even where previous editions cite other readings of the manuscripts. Thus for example, V.'s long commentary (pp. 106–7) is an excellent discussion of the social background of Oec. 1.4.2, but does not clarify how this particular reading of the text was chosen. Another example is the fragmentary sentence on conjugal fidelity (4.1) which many editors indicate as uncertain and impossible to reconstruct (e.g. U. Victor [Aristoteles] Oikonomikos [1983], p. 93). For the most part, the readings of Books 1–2 follow that of the Budé edition (ibid.). The latter, however, was widely condemned both for its handling of the text (e.g. H. Goldbrunner, Gnomon 42.4 [1970], 336–9) as well as for misrepresenting its historical transmission (e.g. Finley, loc. cit.). In other places, V. follows Susemihl's Teubner or some of the modern editions of Books 1–2. His discussion of the manuscript tradition is interesting, even pointing out a new manuscript addition (pp. 33–8), but his Stemma Codicum (p. 40) is still that of the Teubner and does not include it. On the other hand, V. has shown independence in many readings and has taken into account the more problematic of the textual points raised by reviewers of the Budé – for example 1346a 13, V.'s κτημάτων vs van Groningen's impossible ἐγκυκλημάτων (V. pp. 53, 142, 170) and Susemihl's conservative ἐγκλημάτων. Most problematic not only for textual but also interpretative reasons is the corrupt sentence at 1346a30, where the author concludes a list of financial swindles with the remark that his memorable account of them is possibly suited for whenever anyone may wish to practise such things himself (ὅτε τούτων ἐϕαρμόσει τοῖς οἷα ἂν αὐτὸς πραγματεύηται). Despite Finley's criticism of van Groningen's emendation τούτων ἐϕαρμόσει τι οἷς …, V. reproduces it, translating and commentating on the sentence in the same spirit (pp. 55, 144) as if the original author seriously intended his work to be a useful manual on cheating written for future readers (‘un modello per posteri’) to be employed in their enterprises. Not only does the text's list of swindles suit very little what is expected of Aristotelian and peripatetic moral standards as Finley noted, but the commentary overlooks the irony and humour of the paragraph.

To his credit, V. has adopted a new approach in Book 3 whose original Greek is lost, but whose substance survives in three medieval Latin versions. Of these, the Teubner, Loeb and Budé editions preferred Durand's (thirteenth–fourteenth century) version, but this edition is based on the tradition of manuscript Γ (= Loeb ‘c’; Budé ‘P’) reproducing Rose's version of Durand in Appendix 3. We may recall that a previous reviewer of the Budé edition complained that both Latin versions ‘are of value in projecting the original’ (J. Day, CW 62.2 [1969], 51). Since the tradition of Γ is widely held to be a mixed version of Durand and some earlier version, V. has extracted from them sufficient material for reinstating its value as a primary source for the lost original. It is thus a shame that the Latin text is produced without an apparatus criticus where a comparison with the Durand version could be clearly set out beneath the text. Even with the more important textual variations of the Latin tradition discussed in Commentary 3, we are still not presented with sufficient evidence in order to restore the lost Greek original.

Despite this criticism, I do not underestimate the usefulness of this edition at least in making all three books available in the original and offering philosophical and historical insights into the meaning of the text.