Any new commentary on Naevius’ Bellum Punicum must contend with scholarly giants, especially when that commentary is Italian. Enzo Marmorale, Scevola Mariotti and Marino Barchiesi all loom large in the tradition of commenting on Latin's first epic treatment of Roman affairs. Recent interest in early Latin literature, especially Ennius’ Annales and the fragments of the Roman historians, suggests that the time is ripe for a reconsideration of Naevius’ epic. A commentary in conversation with this emerging scholarship would play a significant role in bringing renewed attention to the fragments of the poem. It is unfortunate, then, that F.'s analysis leaves much to be desired.

Nearly every page of the book has already been published, most of it in F.'s introduction, critical edition and translation, to which the commentary is a pendant volume (Cn. Naeui Bellum Poenicum [2011]). Although the standards of the series, which F. edits, typically involve publication of a critical text separate from the commentary, no other poem previously treated, including Ennius’ Annales and Livius Andronicus’ Odusia, has received a commentary that is predominantly a segmented reprint of the first volume's introduction. Textual matters, apparatus criticus and Italian translation are also reprinted in full. F. is explicit about this in the ‘avvertenza’ but offers no explanation. The single-authored commentary itself is unexpected, since F.'s ‘avvertenza’ to the commentary by M. Paladini and S.M. Manzella on his text of the Odusia suggests that they intend to compose one on the Bellum Punicum together (M. Paladini and S.M. Manzella, Livio Andronico, Odissea Commentario [2014]).

F. begins with a fifteen-page introduction that explores his well-known, if idiosyncratic, views on colloquialism and orality. He focuses significantly on la lingua d'uso (J.B. Hofmann's Umgangssprache) and W.J. Ong's theories of orality. F.'s belief in the absence of intentional ‘literary’ language and features (i.e. Intellektualsprache, Kunstspache) in Livius and Naevius influences analysis throughout the volume (see discussion of these same issues in CR 62 [2012], 140–1). The polyglot cultural and linguistic origins of Rome's earliest poets are not fully considered (cf. now D.C. Feeney, Beyond Greek: the Beginnings of Latin literature [2016]). In fact, Livius’ and Naevius’ application of Greek literary forms to their Latin works is even downplayed at times, a view of the epics quite at odds with Mariotti's conception of their Hellenistic tendencies (pp. xix–xxi; S. Mariotti, Il Bellum Poenicum e l'arte di Nevio [3^rd ed. 2001]). F. is certainly right to emphasise performance and the oral reception of these early poems, but the evidence is often insufficient for his strongest claims. That Naevius’ poem might engage intertextually with the Odusia, its sole Latin epic predecessor, is never considered. While some discussion of orality is germane to depicting the linguistic landscape of late third-century Rome, F. devotes too much space to a history of continental scholarship and Homeric studies at the expense of introducing Naevius qua author (pp. xi–xvi): the other works Naevius is believed to have composed are not related in full, and dates for his life are never explicitly hazarded (inadequate discussion at pp. xvi–xviii). Many features of Naevius’ opaque biography are taken for granted when convenient (e.g. his military service in the First Punic War, Campanian origin, quarrels with elite Romans and exile). Following Marmorale, F. often applies a biographical reading to the text without due consideration of the fragments’ irrecoverable contexts within the poem (cf. e.g. pp. xvi–xvii, 5, 123–4, 126–7; E.V. Marmorale, Naevius poeta. Introduzione biobibliografica, testo dei frammenti e commento [2^nd ed. 1950]). In general, there is too little of the more transparent methodology of interpreting fragmentary works now prevalent in the field (cf. the nuanced scepticism of J. Elliott, Ennius and the Architecture of the Annales [2013]).

F. has devoted much of his scholarly effort over the years to issues of textual criticism, often with a polemical disposition (see Elementi critici di critica del testo ed epistemologia [1998] with CR 50 [2000], 315–16). The present volume, however, is unremarkable regarding such concerns. By and large, the printed Latin of the fragments and testimonia follows the scholarly consensus, with some readings changed in light of F.'s views on la lingua d'uso. For purely textual matters one might just as profitably consult the more exhaustive evidence in J. Blänsdorf's imperfect edition (Fragmenta Poetarum Latinorum [4^th ed. 2011]). Nevertheless, the affordable and compact nature of this volume does mean it may be more convenient for interested students of the fragments. F.'s reprinted translation is reasonable enough, but the reconstruction of lost Latin verses from testimonia is a flawed exercise bound to mislead the less attentive reader (cf. e.g. pp. 30 and 32). The order of the fragments is closest to Marmorale, although there are notable differences (concordances at pp. 187–9; Strzelecki 1959 remains the most conservative). F. frequently provides a brief editorial rationale for the placement of fragments, but in some significant cases it is unclear. His overall conception of the epic's structure can be found in the discussion of fr. 1 (pp. 3–4).

F. wisely respects Charisius’ attribution of a ‘historical’ fragment to Book 1 (pp. 8–9), thus supporting a widely accepted view of the epic's narrative structure that begins during the First Punic War and then transitions to the time of Aeneas through some type of analepsis. F. follows most critics in attributing the temporal pivot to an ecphrasis of the Temple of Zeus at Agrigentum (fr. 7, pp. 13–14). It is a seductive possibility, but he fails to emphasise clearly that it is only hypothesis (‘Il pretesto presumibile’); of the other reasonable options that have been proposed he makes no mention. F. prefers to home in on the genitive ending –as in the gigantomachic fragment so as to disprove the belief that it is an intentional archaism of the literary type. This is a typical example of F.'s priorities in the relative weighting of his discussion; the –as genitive is treated earlier in the commentary with nearly three pages of analysis at pp. xxiii–xxv for the same purpose, yet the impact that gigantomachic imagery might have on the war between Carthage and Rome remains largely unaddressed.

Other major desiderata of a commentary on the B.P. are a discussion of the First Punic War, its main subject, and an exploration of the Aeneas legend in Greek and Roman cultures. The Trojan journey gets some treatment passim, especially with respect to the Sibyl and Anchises (also reprints, pp. 50–65 and 72–92), but historical matters of the middle Republic are rarely included. Nevertheless, some of the most speculative and intriguing moments of the commentary concern the text's reflection of Rome and its religious landscape (p. 4 and 146–7). Carthage, as a literary and historical entity, deserves far more attention than it receives (see discussion of Poenum in fr. 48 at pp. 125–7). The presence of Dido, one of the epic's most controversial features, is assumed but receives no detailed consideration in relation to the sole testimonium that explicitly supports her appearance in the work (fr. 18, p. 32ff.). Just as glaring is the lack of attention given to prose historiography in the Republic and Naevius’ influence on that tradition (let alone his engagement with Greek sources in composing the epic's war narrative).

The bibliography has not been updated since the 2011 volume and was inadequate then. Use of important scholarship outside of Italy is rare. Indexes (rerum and verborum) would have been welcome. This volume has, perhaps inadvertently, rendered F.'s 2011 introduction, critical text and translation superfluous. Although it will likely be required reading for all who intend to work on the Bellum Punicum, the commentary little satisfies the need for a contemporary treatment of Naevius’ important epic.