This new critical edition, commentary and translation of Statius’ Thebaid 2 can safely take its place next to the individual commentaries that have been relatively recently produced on the Flavian epic. G.'s work expands and improves on the commentary of his predecessor, H.M. Mulder (Publii Papinii Statii Thebaidos liber secundus [1954]) through added features and critical engagement with the recent and significant work on Statius’ Thebaid by J.B. Hall, A.L. Ritchie and M.J. Edwards (P. Papinius Statius. Thebaid and Achilleid, Volume I, II, and III [2007–8]), which itself owes much to H. Anderson's colossal undertakings (The Manuscripts of Statius. Revised edition. Volume I, II, III [2000]), and whose results transformed the view on the Thebaid's history of manuscript tradition.

The volume contains an introduction, a conspectus siglorum, including a very helpful table listing concordances of G.'s sigla with those of earlier editions of Thebaid 2. The Latin text along with a very developed critical apparatus follows, with a facing English translation in prose. The subsequent commentary forms the bulk of the volume (pp. 59–333), closed by a bibliography and two indexes (general index/index locorum).

The introduction begins with a cautious review of biographical details on Statius’ life, most of which are in fact autobiographical since the source often is Statius himself. This section swiftly deals with issues surrounding the composition mode and dates of the Thebaid, the obligatory starting point of many scholarly discussions on Statius’ intertextual relations with his epic contemporaries. Comparatively, the datings of the Silvae and the Achilleid seem far less disputable. G. also covers a wide range of important aspects and themes pertaining to Thebaid 2: myth, plot, structure, intratextual/intertexual links and its position within the context of its direct and indirect literary context (Homer, Virgil's Aeneid, Ovid's Metamorphoses, Lucan's De Bello Civili, Senecan tragedy, Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica and Silius’ Punica). The inner structure of Book 2 and its ramifications to the wider narrative (Theb. 1, 3, 8) are carefully studied and shrewdly discussed. Intra- and intertextual analysis paints a complex nexus of equivalences depicting Tydeus as a semi-heroic and semi-monstrous character, doomed from the outset.

The methodology behind the critical choices of the Latin text is clearly laid out. G. heavily relies on Hall's expansive work and his various apparatuses (primary, secondary, orthographic) to edit his own text, while consistently keeping a comparative eye on the work of other modern editions. Hall's secondary apparatus is a goldmine of information in reporting all scholarly conjectures known to this day, and of which G. makes extensive use. Hall et al. had shown that the concept of two family branches in the manuscript tradition of the Thebaid (π and ω) is no longer valid, since (a) the authority of the sole manuscript of the π family (also the oldest and most extant MS) is flawed in numerous places, and (b) the filiations between the various important manuscripts of the ω family cannot be traced with certainty. This is the basis for Hall's liberal editorial approach, which G. fully embraces, but, ironically, only to champion a diverging view of what Statius’ text should read.

Where Hall and his collaborators assign Statius’ popularity to the belief that Statius ‘wrote to be understood on a first hearing’ and, for this reason, strive to produce ‘a text which makes immediate sense’ (Hall et al. [2008], 3, pp. vii–viii), G., au contraire, contends that popularity ‘is not incompatible with an abstruse style’ (p. xxi). And rightly so, I may add, especially given the intimately erudite nature of Latin literature, which led to an increasingly contrived and ever more subtle poetic style, at least in epic. It is not too surprising then to see that textual differences (all conveniently listed in a comparative table, cf. pp. xxiv–xxvi) between G., Hall (2007–8), D.R. Shackleton Bailey (2003) and D.E. Hill (1983) show that G. tends to agree with Hill the most (with 34 departures) and Hall the least (95).

G.'s translation is very student-friendly as it often helps disentangle the knots of the Latin text, without sacrificing much in translation. For this reason, it may prove more popular amongst linguist students than Shackleton Bailey's (2003) in making the text even more accessible. The effort is successful overall, despite the occasional loss in style and fluidity in pace. The best text to teach Statius in translation remains J.W. Joyce (Thebaid, A Song of Thebes [2008]). A.L. Ritchie's translation is equally accessible and very thorough (2007), but it also follows Hall's text, from which G.'s edition signals many departures.

The commentary is abundant, well researched and detailed. Although it is difficult to do justice to the wealth of material that is supplied, a brief sample of G.'s textual choices deserving mention and/or further consideration is here offered with some observations.

Against recent editions (including Mulder [1954]), on 5: Styx inde nouem circumflua gyris, G. favours Anderson's emendation (‘Notes on Statius, Thebais II’, PCPhS 178 [1942], 10–12) over campis (Hill, SB) and ripis (Hall), and as such correctly restores poetic emphasis on the meanders of the infernal river, whose foul waters hamper Mercury's less than swift ascent from the Underworld. On 251ff.: innuptam †limine† adibant/Pallada, G. is well inspired to explicitly mark limine as a corruption, in accordance with the scholarship that has long singled out its severe awkwardness. P.T. Eden suggests innupto in culmine but then inelegantly repeats 257 culmine (‘Problems of Text and Interpretation in Statius, Thebaid I–IV’, CQ 48 [1998], 320–4). By default, SB's limite is most apt in describing the procession approaching Pallas’ temple ‘by the road’ – perhaps alluding to a designated path for the religious march? On 316ff.: tunc quos excedens hilares, quis regis iniqui/praecipuum cultum, et profugo quos ipse notarat/ingemuisse sibi per noctem ac luce sub omni/digerit, G. opts for an unprecedented rearrangement of words, where consulted editions invariably adopt cultus iniqui and praecipuus ducis. The change to praecipuum cultum makes for a smooth metre in suppressing the odd caesura after the second foot dactyl in praecipuus ducis, but the accusative runs the risk to restore the syntactical confusion that it stands on a par with the accusative infinitives in indirect discourse after notarat (quos … [quis] … quos …), despite it being a relative clause dependant on 316 quos excedens hilares; a construction not reflected in translation. The whole reconfiguration could only work with rēgis iniqui as a substitute for the short ducis (amply justified with similar occurrences at 3.206, 4.361). In the context of Tydeus’ embassy, whose rash exit from Eteocles’ palace lends itself to the Calydonian boar simile wreaking havoc among its hunters (here Statius seemingly follows Ovid's Met. 8), G. takes issues with stratum Ixiona at 473 and proposes natum Ixiona, unattested elsewhere. The emendation does make sense a priori, since Ixion's son, Pirithous, rather than Ixion himself, took part in the hunt and clarifies an oddity that has otherwise been tacitly endorsed (Ovid has proles Ixionis at Met. 8.843 for instance). However, for further discussion, one must revert to a previously published article by the author (‘Statius, Thebaid 2.473: iam Telamona solo, iam stratum Ixiona linquens’, Mnemosyne 66 [2013], 312–13). On 590, inpediunt numero seque ipsa uicissim, G.'s inclination for Alton's inpediunt over the accepted in/impeditant is morphologically more sensible than its alternative.

This commentary is an extremely valuable tool to teach textual criticism as it delves into deep metrical, grammatical, stylistic and literary analysis. It also offers many insights to any Statius reader, however specialised, by covering every single inch of the text, and thus offering information on places that were previously left bare. The importance of this volume cannot be stressed enough. Its breadth of material and stimulating content will certainly make it an essential resource for students and critics alike.