A study devoted to direct speech in Nonnus’ Dionysiaca has long been overdue. V. has carefully catalogued the various types of speech in Nonnian epic, specifying statistical percentages and comparing these with the leading poets of the epic tradition. From the first pages of the book, the preponderance of monologues in the Dionysiaca over dialogues clearly emerges, with the result that they resemble many circumscribed entities dominated by the laws of ancient rhetoric. In the first chapter the complex interplay between imitation and transformation is studied in relation to the rewriting of the Homeric Διὸς ἀπάτη, in which we can observe the tendency of the poet – in comparison with Homer – to introduce fewer but longer speeches. The prevalent tone is that of a caricaturing rhetoric, of a type of argumentation that goes far beyond the pure scope of persuasion to achieve the paradox and the absurd. V. rightly poses the problem of the performance context of these speeches (p. 62), of the ways of acting them out on the stage. The question is remarkable if we consider that episodes of the poem were destined for late-antique auditoria, implying a length suitable for the duration of a performance. This was the reason why after Nonnus the epic production restored the more appropriate format of the epyllion.

Therefore, in the chapter dedicated to the Nonnian ‘Speeches within speeches’, which are studied here for the first time, more weight had to be given to the presence of such a typology in Classical tragedy (p. 141), while V.’s conclusion rather points exclusively to the revitalisation of a Homeric device (p. 177). A great deal of space is dedicated to the analysis of the potential τις-speech in its various manifestations, which is a characteristic of Nonnus’ style, unprecedented and not imitated by his followers. Original considerations are advanced by V. about the meta-literality that is sometimes perceivable in this type of speech, where potential, not always identified speakers seem to assume the role of a grammaticus, changing traditional epithets of gods according to a particular development of the story. In these cases the potential speaker behaves like ‘a poet as well or a student of poetry, who is reacting and commenting on the poetical description of the situation’ (p. 162). It often happens that such speeches within speech have the form of epigrams (especially epitaphs) whose function is to conclude a longer speech: a very interesting section is dedicated to procatalepsis, characterised by the recurrent formula ἀλλ’ ἐρέεις. Ultimately, in these hypothetical speeches, what moves the reader is a tone of unreality that pervades the convoluted loneliness of the speaker (p. 177).

The second chapter is dedicated to the theme of the battle exhortation: V. begins by outlining the epic tradition prior to Nonnus and, in particular, Homer and his model speeches codified in rhetorical manuals. Equally important is the historiographical tradition and, above all, Thucydides, who was a central figure in the schools of rhetoric. The occurrences of war speeches in the Dionysiaca are carefully catalogued, described for each subtype and commented: they are longer than other speeches in Nonnus, their important function being the characterisation of the speaker and, unlike the Homeric use, they are positioned at the beginning of the battle and not in the course of it. There are some cases of adaptation of the traditional scheme to atypical situations, such as the case of Typhon, who exhorts his limbs and heads in battle (D. 2.258–355), or the case of the discourse of the lonely Lycurgus (D. 21.135–46), examples that confirm the poet's passion for the paradox. In my opinion, the two speeches of Pentheus (pp. 119–25) that V. inserts among the untraditional exhortations are not in alignment with this broad typology: Pentheus in 44.134–83 and 45.220–7 is represented as a general who addresses his troops on the battlefield, unlike his behaviour in Euripides’ Bacchae. However, in this case Nonnus is referring to another story of Pentheus, the one staged by Aeschylus in his Pentheus, where the conflict is not verbal, like in Euripides’ Bacchae, but armed, according to the reconstruction of Vincenzo di Benedetto, Euripide, Le Baccanti (2004). At this point it is very tempting to ascribe the version in which Pentheus was not the legitimate king of Thebes, but a usurper to the detriment of Polydorus, to the same Aeschylean tragedy (for Pentheus as a usurper, see Diodorus 19.53.3 and Nonnus, D. 5.209–10, 44.50 and 46.259ff.).

The recurring motifs and the exhortative topoi are then analysed; of great interest is the absence of the theme of military honour, which is typical of the heroic code. The presence of this theme would in fact be redundant, because of the biased perspectives of the narrator and of the reader, who both stand on the side of the ‘Good’ represented by Dionysus.

The second part of the book is devoted to ‘Rhetoric and Narrative’ and to the persuasive strategies linked to the idea of deception. The deceptive speeches are classified on the basis of the opening formulae, which inform the reader of the manipulative purposes of the speakers, who in most cases are gods in disguise. V. chooses the episode of Hera's deception of Semele (D. 8.38–263) as a case study in which we may find some interesting considerations on the characters of Phtonos and Apate. The presence of these two figures has to be traced back to the late-antique trend of personifications in poetry, visual art and theatre.

Chapter 5 is devoted to the ecphrastic ethopoeae, i.e. the ability of the poet to attribute the right words to each of the characters he introduces. Nonnus is particularly well able to characterise a named speaker or simply an observer in a monologue, where ἦθος and πάθος are equally in action. V. analyses the narrative function of these speeches, whose number in the Dionysiaca is unprecedented. They may create suspense or merely a pause in the main action, in order to underline the emotional reactions of the observer in accord or in contrast with the narrative context. They essentially have a double function: ‘They are part of the mythological world described in the poem, but simultaneously they are also first-hand recipients of the events in the poem’ (p. 273).

The last chapter is devoted to the rhetoric of seduction in the Beroe episode (Books 41–3), in which the amorous approaches of Dionysus and Poseidon are expressed in five elaborate speeches. I do not agree with the presentation of this long episode as having no consequences in the plot of the poem. It has indeed great importance on the political side, linking Dionysus to the idea of justice in the Roman empire and representing a milestone in the escalation ending with the assumption of the god among the Olympians alongside his father Zeus (see also my Nonno di Panopoli, Le Dionisiache [2003], pp. 35–8).

V.'s book provides the first detailed and exhaustive study of the speeches in the Dionysiaca and is an essential tool for those scholars who intend to penetrate the multifaceted world of the rhetoric of Nonnus. However, it can be observed that the numerical approach to the subject is often redundant and risks being too self-referential. These quantitative procedures may inhibit a more in-depth understanding of the studied phenomena, which could be achieved through a structuring of the research by means of more varied methodologies.