S. has approached the writing of Lucretian commentaries in a piecemeal fashion that may please the publisher more than the scholar, producing small but elegant studies upon select portions of De rerum natura that have piqued his interest. Having provided in 2009 a successful treatment for Loffredo's Studi Latini series of DRN 6.96–534, on thunder, lightning and precipitation, and of 5.1308–49 on animals in ancient warfare for Invigilata Lucernis, S. has turned to tackle Lucretius' account of the world's formation in Book 5 (416–508) and, less awkwardly, that of infinity at the close of Book 1 (951–1117). Both of these works follow the same general format as most titles in this fertile series: the Latin text with facing Italian prose translation opens the work; an Italian commentary proceeding by Lucretian paragraphs (and, where appropriate, sentences and/or verses) follows; two essays on the formation of the world (pp. 39–78) and a ‘cosmogonic model’ (pp. 79–86) develop themes of the commentary in Book 5, whereas a brief introduction on ancient approaches to infinity and on Lucretius' own structure of argument (pp. 7–14) leads us into the text of Book 1; a well-stocked ‘Nota bibliografica’ closes these slim volumes.
Both of these unassuming works provide a useful and engaging contribution to Lucretian studies: the close of Book 1 has not been tackled in detail since Bailey's 1947 commentary, beyond M. Brown's school edition of 1984 and the recent work of L. Piazzi (also 2011, and thus not utilised), nor has the first half of Book 5 been studied more closely in Bailey's wake than in the general commentaries of D. Costa (1986) and M. Gale (2008). Further advances, therefore, in the detailed analysis of Lucretius' philosophical argument have been rare in the sphere of commentaries since the triple foundation of Giussani (1896–8), Ernout and Robin (1926) and Bailey. It is therefore to S.'s advantage that his particular interests as a commentator lie so evidently in the field of ancient philosophy.
The commentary, which is intended primarily for an Italian audience (as evidenced by its translating quotations from works in other languages), evidently takes Giussani and Bailey as its primary platform. Throughout his methodical argumentation S. displays broad reading, particularly of recent Lucretian scholarship, good awareness of Lucretius' (and Epicurus') philosophical context and a clear-headed sense of the text's development. In particular, he exhibits rich and circumspect use of a wide range of Greek philosophical texts, which are cited in detail, especially in the case of Book 1. As an excellent example of S.'s detailed engagement with the philosophical heritage of Lucretius' text, one may consult his very long treatment of 1.1083–8, where the poet turns to attack those centripetalists who allege that certain elements move outwards rather than inwards: after careful analysis, S. rejects the commonly held notion that the argument refutes Stoic doctrine (stolidis at 1068 cloaking Stoicis) and suggests that, since Lucretius is treading dutifully in the footsteps of Epicurus, the Peripatetics may rather lie behind this salvo.
S.'s persistent focus on philosophical matters must occasion casualties in a poem as complex and multifarious as DRN, and both commentaries give little attention to literary and linguistic points. When the former are raised, one typically finds just the statement of an intertextual parallel without further discussion (e.g., in Book 5, ‘v. 482: Lucil. 40 … e gurgite salso’); when the latter occur, the point tends to be intimately linked with the philosophical exegesis of the text. S.'s studies are therefore of much more immediate value to the elucidation of Lucretius qua philosopher than qua poet, metrician, linguist or man; almost no comment concerns the post-Lucretian world. It is therefore to be expected that in Book 1, to select lines at random, S. does not discuss the ambiguous case of summai at 953, the rare elision of alterum at 1012, the question of whether omnigenus (or similar) can stand at 1026 (and 5.428, 440 et alias), the Ennian heritage of, for example, 1.1014 and 1090, and the sudden reappearance of Memmius at 1052. In addition, his coverage does not seek to be comprehensive or evenly spread: the problems raised by 1.1083–93 occasion twenty pages of comment, whereas, for example, only two single-paragraph notes occur between 1.1033 and 1052.
The text itself does not differ greatly from the vulgate in both editions, although S.'s precise critical stance is hard to pin-down. For instance, in the case of Book 5, we find an interesting mix of judicious conservatism (e.g. obelising the ungainly saepsit at 468, drawn from 470, and the impossible partem at 485) and interventionism (most obvious in his deletion, after Forbiger, of 419–31 as an interpolated passage, owing to the appearance of all but one verse elsewhere in the poem). In the case of this latter provocative claim, if such a hexametric cento of Lucretian disiecta membra is to be embraced as an interpolation incorrectly incorporated into the tradition, further discussion of the possible motivations for its strange ‘composition’ and the mechanisms behind its eventual inclusion would be very welcome indeed.
Still, on a number of textual points S. shows clear judgement and sound logic. For example, his scepticism about the alleged discovery of Lucretius in Herculaneum (ad 1.1091–3) is prudent, as is his adoption of Marcello Virgilio Adriani's marginal suggestion (in Cod. Laur. 35.32) of positing a lacuna after 1.1013. His commentary supporting this intervention serves as a fine example of the thorough and lucid treatment of the complex arguments that have been adduced to support this idea. By contrast, further circumspection and discussion could have been offered on the defective verses 1.1068–75, where damage to the corner of the archetype deprived, to differing degrees, the verses of their closes. S. does not offer any emendations of his own but does suggest, on the basis of an off-hand suggestion of Ernout in his commentary ad loc., that 1.1086 (umorem ponti magnasque e montibus undas) could be an interpolated intrusion, thereby rejecting the traditional transposition of 1085–6: the result is the removal of sea and river water from the picture, an ill-placed verse that can do nothing more than gloss corpora … liquoris of 1083–4.
The bibliography that closes each book proves S.'s eclectic reading from the early nineteenth century onwards, although Lambinus and Creech perhaps find fewer citations in the commentary than their merits deserve. In addition, it is an admirable gesture to convenience, and a counterpoint to the vice of spatial stinginess that afflicts many publishers, to provide each bibliographical reference in full whenever such regularly occur within the commentary itself, often covering five or six lines of printed text.
Faced with such positive glimpses into S.'s Lucretian labours, the reader would welcome further clarity about his purpose(s) in producing commentaries such as these. Perhaps a fourth volume and more are yet to come? If so, maybe a suggestive word could be put in for Lucretius' treatment of sleep (4.907–1029) or of disease and the Athenian plague (6.1090–1287)? At any rate, although S.'s treatment of 5.416–508 (whose commentary covers only pp. 17–37) could have appeared instead as an effective article in a well-circulated journal, both volumes bring profit from consultation, and that on the close of Book 1 should leave its imprint on Lucretians.
