Juvenal's third Satire is one of the most often read, at University and in those schools where Latin literature is studied and the language taught. M.'s very useful commentary should satisfy the requirements of readers who need to have the text construed, the syntax analysed, the background filled in. In addition, M. prints a text, translation, bibliography and an analytical index. The text is Clausen's OCT, and textual questions are dealt with fairly competently in the commentary. The bibliography is full, but one misses a reference to T.J. Cadoux' article on the Roman carcer in Greece & Rome 55 (2008), 202–21, which probably appeared too late for M. The manner of citing articles by giving only the initial page followed by ‘ss.’ is not helpful. I am not competent to comment on the Italian translation.

M. has a particular interest in the way Juvenal uses the position of words in the verse in relation to the incidence of the caesura(s) in order to give them emphasis. She often comments on words used en rejet and on the use of hyperbaton. ‘Golden lines’ are noticed and the use of singular for plural. She is aware of the different registers of vocabulary which Juvenal uses. M. has done her homework thoroughly and, when dealing with controversial points, often traces the differences of opinion back to the earliest commentators. She shows acquaintance with a wide range of relevant books and articles.

To give an impression of the commentary, I mention a sample from its earliest pages. On line 1, M. has an instructive note on the development of the use of quamuis. On the combination saeuae|urbis, M. points to the original and striking use by Juvenal of the adjective saeuus and to the additional force given by the enjambement. On line 10, M. comments on the use of sed to resume a narrative after a parenthesis; and there is an instructive note on the origin and meaning of the word raeda. The words recitantes … poetas (line 9) give rise to an extensive note on poetry recitations; the story of Numa and Egeria, and the grove of the Camenae, are explicated. The difficulties of exposition in lines 10–20 are set out. At line 21 M. annotates the name Umbricius, encouraging the reader to decide whether to treat it historically or as a poetic symbol. On uerso pollice (line 36) there is a full note on the different opinions held on the gesture of the thumb that signified life or death for the defeated gladiator. M.'s summary of lines 41–8 brings out the effect of Juvenal's rhetoric. On quid Romae faciam (line 41), M. refers to Martial 3.38; she often illustrates Juvenal by reference to Martial's epigrams, usually mentioning the work of Colton on the subject. On ranarum uiscera … inspexi M. gives a fair account of the two-sided debate on the significance of frogs' uiscera (poison or extispicium?), taking her account back to the early editors.

M. is independent in her choice of lemmata. She treats the poem under eight main divisions, and within these primary divisions nest smaller groups of verses. Each of the groups is given an introduction which takes the form of a précis of its contents. But these are not neutral summaries; it is here that M. puts across her general view of the nature of Juvenal's Satire. The précis with intent is the equivalent for her of the summary introduction or concluding essay which Courtney and Braund provide. M.'s view of Juvenal is stated initially in her introduction. As far as she is concerned ‘Umbricius’ is Juvenal: ‘Ad Umbricio, eteronimo di Giovenale, frutto della sua fantasia creatrice, il poeta presta la sua più autentica voce, e con essa i suoi più sinceri sentimenti, concedendogli di condividere molti aspetti della sua reale personalità …’. M. consigns to a footnote the question of whether the ‘speaking I’ is Juvenal the poet, or an invented character. In that respect she ignores a given of the interpretation of literature, that the ‘I’ in a work of literature is a character like other characters, and that the identity of this ‘I’ with the author must be probed constantly. M. never does. Nor does she give an adequate voice to the growing number of readers who detect a lack of earnestness and seriousness in the Juvenalian discourse. Being a meticulous scholar, she often mentions articles and books which espouse that view, but she never uses those readings to challenge her own view of the sincerity and pathos of the speaker's experience. Her own secret doubts emerge at occasional points, for example when commenting on the meeting in the streets, at night, between a thug and a poor Roman. M. notes that we have here something that reads like a Plautine comic scene. But those glimpses, the bare reference to authors who read Juvenal ‘otherwise’, and mention of the work of scholars like Powell and Urech, who point to the parodistic effect of the Juvenalian juxtaposition of stylistic registers, do not deflect M. from her view that Juvenalian Satire is earnest, moral, socially serious and sincerely felt.

But how can such a view of Juvenalian Satire hold? I could give innumerable examples of Juvenal's essential playfulness that systematically sabotages his serious purpose, but word-limits constrain me to three:

[1] Juvenal writes (6–9): nam quid tam miserum, tam solum uidimus, ut non|deterius credas horrere incendia, lapsus| tectorum adsiduos ac mille pericula saeuae|urbis et Augusto recitantes mense poetas? The rhetorical inflation of the first 3+ verses is exploded by the pinprick of Augusto … poetas. M. does not make it clear that the grand rhetoric and the high register are there to emphasise the humorous concluding bathos. Rhetorical effect is complemented by literary allusion. M. rightly refers to Horace, Epistles 1.7: Horace has taken refuge in the country from the inconveniences and dangers of Rome and writes to Maecenas Sextilem totum desideror. Sextilem Juvenal transforms into Augusto mense. We catch a glimpse of Horace in Rome reciting his poetry, with Augustus now become a month. [2] At line 272 Juvenal tells us that if you do not make your will before going out to dinner you are ignoring fate: tiles or broken pots will fall on your head from the open windows (274–5): adeo tot fata, quot illa|nocte patent uigiles te praetereunte fenestrae. The verb patent is to be taken apo koinou with fata and with fenestrae as subjects. The open windows are as many omens, which the improvident traveller ignores. So too Adrastus and the Argives ignore the omen of the returning arrow, leading the poet to exclaim (Statius, Thebaid 6.934–7): quis fluere occultis rerum neget omina causis?|fata patent homini, piget inseruare, peritque|uenturi praemissa fides: sic omina casum|fecimus, et uires hausit Fortuna nocendi. Fata patent marks the parody. The dinner guest, like Adrastus, fails to read the omens of the open windows – and gets his casus, a pot on his head. [3] The man who goes to dinner without giving thought to fate receives a spondaic line–ending (273): et subiti casus inprouidus, ad cenam si, ‘a very unusual concluding rhythm, unique in Juvenal’, as Courtney says. M. notes the peculiarity, and refers to an Ennian precedent, imitated twice by Virgil in the Aeneid, cum sociis natoque Penatibus et magnis dis (3.12), of Aeneas setting off on his journey to Italy and, with appropriate alteration, at 8.679, of Augustus leading the Italians into battle at Actium, crisis-points for the Urbs. M. does not comment on the appropriateness of this parody for Umbricius' purpose.

But I reiterate that readers will find M.'s commentary learned, useful and informative. Should M., however, write a further Juvenalian commentary, and it is to be hoped that she will, she should add a dimension to her interpretation by explaining, for example, how, in an account of a fire in a residential block of flats, which should be traumatic, the highlights can be a parody of Virgil's halosis Troiae being played out on the third floor; on the roof, the gentle doves laying their eggs on the tiles; and, on the top floor, some ignorant Oscan-speaking mice nibbling the letters of the Greek alphabet from a divine poem.