Despite its brilliance and magnitude, Pindar's Olympian 13 has been the subject of comparatively little modern exegesis. P.'s book-length commentary, intended firstly for scholars, is an important contribution: it contains much of value that is not to be found in available shorter commentaries.

In the introduction P. moves briskly into a literature review, commenting on the relatively disparaging tone that many nineteenth- and early twentieth-century scholars brought to bear on the ode, as well as on the more sanguine tone of recent scholars. P. cites greater appreciation for form and for genre as being the chief cause of the evaluative turn. The literature review is a useful point of departure. Thereafter, P. details five topics that will be of special concern in the commentary: the encomiastic function of the ode, the victory catalogue within the ode, the social contexts of the ode, the ode's ‘authorial’ voice, and the ode's aesthetic and political significance, particularly in relation to its original Corinthian context. Hereafter P. discusses the evidence that dates the song as well as what is known (and what may be inferred) regarding the Oligaithidai (the family of the laudandus); her inferences on the social standing of the Oligaithidai are commendable (pp. 15–17). P. closes with a brief section on aspects of the poem that, in relation to the epinician genre, are usual (e.g. Abbruchsformel) and unusual (e.g. transition from aeolic to dactyl-epitritic rhythm mid stanza). All these materials are handled deftly. The introduction is brief, though (about ten pages), and more topics of relevance could have been addressed. For example, Pindar's use of myth (see e.g. P.J. Finglass [2007] on P. 11, pp. 34–47) and the ode's form and structure (see. e.g. D. Cairns [2010] on Bacchylides 11, pp. 101–6).

P.'s text is that of Snell/Maehler, excepting four readings addressed in the commentary. Given the quality of Snell/Maehler's Teubner, the absence of a new text for Olympian 13 is not surprising. (A new OCT is being prepared by Finglass to replace that of C. Bowra.) P. does not offer a complete translation of the ode in one place, but offers one scattered in the commentary, before the respective lemmata. This method points to the scholarly nature of the work, as the translation is intended to clarify P.'s interpretations.

The commentary is well done. It is rich in comparanda, both Pindaric and other. P. is insightful when commenting on various matters of language, such as on compound adjectives (pp. 22–3) and on Pindar's use of the article and αὐτός to mean ‘same’ (p. 57). P. is rightly critical of scholarly suggestions that she does not find compelling (pp. 24–5), and her textual criticism is sound (pp. 28–9). Admirably, she does not try to argue for the ‘right’ interpretation when the grammar is notably ambiguous (pp. 39–40), and her grammatical analysis is admirable; P. cites, for example, the σχῆμα Κολοφώνιον (p. 24) and ‘interposition anastrophique’ (p. 50), constructions regularly left unaddressed in Pindaric commentaries. She exhibits an exemplary range of control over relevant bibliography, from the early modern commentaries to contemporary studies on Pindar. P. is well familiar with rhetorical theory, and her engagement with rhetoric (p. 70) goes beyond what one generally finds in Pindaric commentaries. So, too, P. appositely integrates references to the scholia throughout, discussing them (and the interpretations found within them) adroitly (pp. 80, 91, 98, 105–6). Furthermore, P. engages the archaeological realia thoughtfully (p. 96), displaying competence beyond philology.

After the lemmatic commentary, a line-by-line analysis of stichometry and colometry follows. In the section on stichometry P. discusses phenomena, such as hiatus, brevis in longo and ruptures of synapheia, that are relevant to the recognition of individual verses. P. addresses proposed versifications of previous scholars in an exemplary fashion, considering, even-handedly, pros and cons for interpretations regarding disputed verse breaks. In the section on colometry P. provides nomenclature for the individual cola inherent in the verses and undertakes dynamic analysis, noting how the ode's rhythms develop in relation to what precedes (pp. 136–7). A section on freedom of responsion follows; P. could have done more to note motivation for Pindar's ‘freedoms’: the first element of verse 71 (κνώσσοντί), for example, is heavy in order to emulate the depth of Bellerophon's slumber, and the irregularity in ἀναρύῃ (p. 81) emphasises the violence inherent in the verb: such features are not so much metrical licences as artful choices. A section on remarkable prosodic features closes the ‘Analisi metrica’. The Italians have an estimable history of work on Greek metre, and P.'s work on the metre of Olympian 13 places her within that tradition.

P. closes the study with a ‘coda’ on the aesthetics of power and the power of poetry. Herein P. builds on the theoretical work, generally not applied in Pindaric studies, of the political scientist Charles Merriam. Her focus is on Pindaric poetry in general, but I would have appreciated an application to Olympian 13 specifically, perhaps as a means for P. to develop her own interpretative essay on Olympian 13, which remains wanting in the volume. I imagine that an old hobbyhorse of Pindaric criticism, unity, for example, could be valuably queried in relation to P.'s theoretical interests in aesthetics and power.

Finally, I offer some disagreements. With regard to the proem, I have recently proposed a novel interpretation (Mnemosyne 74 [2021]). Herein I differ from P. (and others), especially in the interpretation of ἀγλαόκουρον (l. 5), γάρ (l. 6) and δέ (l. 9); P. did not have the opportunity to take the paper's argument into consideration. I also disagree with P.'s interpretation of κῶμος (p. 51) in Pindar's odes (for my thoughts, see CQ 60 [2010]). We cannot conclude (pace Peri, p. 9) that Pindar had no familiarity with Corinth before the commission of Olympian 13; this supposition is largely based on a contestable interpretation of grammar in the ode (see Eckerman 2021, op. cit.).