As a lover of Martianus and a respecter of those who have worked on the volume in question, I began to read it with the utmost interest and great expectations, since it presents itself as the first of a series devoted to providing a new edition, translation and commentary of Martianus' masterpiece. This ambitious endeavour is definitely worthwhile. My enthusiasm declined a little, however, as I realised that the edition is not quite a new critical edition that can replace those by Dick and Willis, being not based on a new collatio – although there are improvements to which I would subscribe – and the commentary, albeit rich, is not satisfactory, especially from the philosophical viewpoint. The translation is not the first Italian integral one, being preceded by two recent full translations. Moreover, new editions and commentaries are being provided in the Budé series (see at least BMCR 2008.09.07 and 2008.06.03). Therefore, one might wonder after all whether and in what respects this volume makes a remarkable scholarly contribution, although it is surely helpful in some ways to readers of Martianus.

The translation is generally accurate, though it does not attempt to render Martianus' striking and elaborated style. No effort is apparently made to render poetically the verse sections of Martianus' prosimetrum; no attempt to reproduce Martianus' Greek insertions in some distinctive way, at least from time to time. The result might sound rather flat prose, far from Martianus' flamboyant style. The introduction is clear and useful; besides issues related to the identity of the author and the genre, it also tackles, briefly, the issue of the date of composition (pp. lviii–lix). Against D. Shanzer's late dating of 470 or 480, C. sticks to the traditional dating of about 450.

In the commentary, and in the book as a whole, there is helpful material for the clarification of Martianus' intricate text and, as already noted, some textual suggestions have merit. In the introduction and the commentary I found a few interesting and even novel points. One of the most noteworthy is the parallel drawn between Martianus' expansion of the competence of Grammar and Crates of Mallus' proud self-designation as κριτικός as opposed and superior to a mere γραμματικός (p. lxxvi). I would add – and this would reinforce the parallel itself – that in Crates the self-styling as κριτικός also entailed philosophical allegoresis (as demonstrated in my Allegoria [2004], Chapter 3). This is a prominent feature in Martianus too, which did not escape his commentators.

In this connection, it must be observed that in the commentary no medieval commentator on Martianus is normally taken into account though their existence is acknowledged in two lines in the introduction (p. xlix). This is a pity since, albeit with their limits (fiercely but understandably emphasised by Willis especially in the case of Remigius), these commentaries, from Eriugena's to those related to the school of Chartres, are veritable exegetical mines. It may be questionable to state that commentaries on De nuptiis were composed ‘a partire dalla terza generazione carolingia (Giovanni Scoto Eriugena)’ (ibid.), as there is an impressive amount of glosses, including extensive ones, that are very probably anterior to Eriugena, albeit not anterior – as it seems – to the beginning of the Carolingian age. See I. Ramelli, Tutti i commenti a Marziano Capella, with essays, improved editions, translations, commentaries, appendixes, bibliography [2006], and now S. O'Sullivan (ed.), Glossae aevi carolini in libros I–II Martiani Capellae De Nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii (2010), with the edition of the ‘Old Glosses’; also M. Teeuwen, Harmony and the Music of the Spheres: the ‘Ars musica’ in Ninth-Century Commentaries on Martianus Capella (2002), which focusses on the earliest commentaries on Book 9, and S. O'Sullivan and M. Teeuwen (edd.) Carolingian Scholarship and Martianus Capella (2012), which provides an excellent cultural contextualisation. Oddly enough, none of these is cited in the volume under review; of course the most recent volume could not have been consulted, but Teeuwen's, Ramelli's and even perhaps O'Sullivan's works could have been.

These, however, are quibbles. The most serious deficiencies lie elsewhere, and in particular on the philosophical plane. Something on philosophy does emerge in the Appendix, a 1968 very interesting inedito by Ferrarino on the history of philology, but even here the little there is on philosophy is more about Seneca than about Martianus (eight pages almost exclusively dealing with philology and the arts). One has still to resort to my essays and commentaries from 2001 (Marziano Capella: Nozze di Filologia e di Mercurio, with essay, translation, commentary, appendixes and bibliography) and 2006. While Martianus is one of the main Latin Neoplatonists, and among the few ‘pagan’ ones along with Macrobius, little or no perception of Neoplatonic or other philosophical elements in Martianus transpires from the commentary, which is rich and useful in other respects.

The very interpretation of Philologia as Philology qua ‘love of the word’ (in that ‘la parola … è lo strumento fondamentale della conoscenza’, p. lxxxii) appears to be somewhat restrictive vis-à-vis an understanding of Philologia as ‘love of the logos’ in the sense of reason. The latter exegesis, which is also supported by John the Scot, is consistent with Martianus' Neoplatonic frame of thought and with his formal, programmatic invocation to Pallas Athena as the goddess of philosophy. Indeed, it is significant that among the competencies listed by C. in his introduction (p. l) as being necessary for a serious study of Martianus philosophy does not even appear (‘competenze multiple, storico-letterarie, storico-religiose, artigrafico-disciplinari, storico-filologiche’). The fact that at the beginning Martianus is declared incapable of recognising philosophy (which is noted on p. liv) is not a sign of Martianus' lack of interest or competence in philosophy, but is part and parcel of the satirical upturning. Indeed, Martianus is likewise accused of incapacity to recognise Paedia (sc. Paideia) either, but his whole encyclopedic endeavour is there to demonstrate exactly the opposite.

The question of Martianus' religious views and his attitude towards Christianity is engaging, even though it is not faced in the volume. Martianus never mentions Christianity and his prosimetrum bristles with traditional deities. One can certainly think of a Nonnus who was a Christian and yet wrote a Dionysian poem that teems with ‘pagan’ mythology, without references to Christianity (or better without overt references, since there might be allusions; see R. Shorrock, The Myth of Paganism: Nonnus, Dionysus and the World of Late Antiquity [2011]). However, in De nuptiis 6.637 Martianus declares with nostalgia that earlier Rome uiguit armis, uiris sacrisque, where sacra indicates ‘pagan’ religion. In general, neither the introduction nor the commentary nor the appendix seem adequately to investigate the religious elements that are so prominent especially in the first two books. Martianus is one of the most important sources on Roman religion.Footnote ¹ This rich volume would have been much richer by engaging with religion and, even more, with philosophy in depth, with the medieval commentators, and with recent scholarship.

A great deal in this book presents previously published material, and this helps to explain the surprising scarcity of dialogue with recent scholarship. For instance, L.'s commentary on Book 2 was published in 1975; the introduction largely depends on past essays by C. This is obviously legitimate; only, in the light of this and of what I have observed beforehand, one might wonder whether this book was really needed at this stage. The new critical edition, here announced as still far removed in time, will certainly be very welcome. Hopefully the future volumes of the commentary will also be better than the one under review, since the books after Book 2 in De nuptiis are more technical, with more of encyclopedic lore and less of philosophy and religion. This will probably help to avoid the main shortcomings of the present volume, which in other respects contains much work that can be helpful to students, scholars and learned readers in general.