In this lengthy volume on the dramatic fragments of Naevius that follows soon on the heels of, and is formally very similar to, his Livius Andronicus (2008), Spaltenstein gives Warmington's Loeb text, lightly adapted, with commentary. The volume lacks an introduction, but offers a brief foreword, abbreviations, indices, concordances and a bibliography. As with his commentary on Livius, S. avows that he is not an editor and prints a text only for the convenience of the reader. When a text enjoys solid modern editions, it is reasonable to separate the rôle of commentator from that of editor. In the case of fragments, particularly Republican Latin dramatic fragments where our texts are still extraordinarily uncertain, the wisdom of separating those rôles is questionable.

S.'s updating of Warmington's text is limited. No apparatus is supplied, and details about manuscript readings and conjectures only emerge tangentially in the commentary (for example, com. 10–12). A frustrating product of this approach is that S. often argues against the very text that he has printed for the reader's convenience, leaving us to piece together his preferred text, metrical setting and even interpretation of a fragment from the lengthy paragraphs that follow. The absence of a translation is felt particularly strongly in these cases. One of the great virtues of Warmington's Loebs is that the series format and especially the translation compelled him to make decisions about a fragment's interpretation. Whether or not one agrees with Warmington, his text gives something to kick against.

The bulk of S.'s commentary is given over to rehearsing and critiquing the views of earlier scholars, to discussing points of language and to considering possible dramatic scenarios. Much of this is valuable, and readers seeking an overview of interpretations of a fragment, guidance on particular problems of meaning and suggestions about the original script will find much to spur their thinking. Arbitration of the disputes is light; a recurring conclusion is that the several views are each possibly correct, and readers not expert in Republican drama, fragmentary or otherwise, might well desire firmer guidance. On points of language the TLL is often treated as an oracular source; the conclusions drawn are mixed, and sometimes shut down further discussion (§112 oratio est = loqui licet).

In other ways the commentary is regrettably deficient. Sources of information about metre, language and interpretation are often neglected. The grammarians are not always correct, but since they stand between us and the complete script, it is perilous to neglect their habits and interpretations. Understanding how Julius Romanus worked and thought would give insight, and even a few novel solutions, for fragments preserved by Charisius (for example, com. 4). Considering how Festus and Verrius Flaccus quote Republican verse would have often streamlined the discussion (§146). What is said about Nonius is inadequate (§869); some consideration of Nonius’ source for trag. 16¹⁻³ (§1029) might have shown why Warmington's setting and Klussmann's attribution to Naevius are both impossible. (S.'s policy towards uncertain attributions and titles is inclusive, but this material could have been handled more summarily.) In general, S. does not address rigorously the problems of indirect transmission, and real questions on that subject are too often dismissed by appeals to probability (for example, §36, 105 etc., on metrical transitions within fragments).

On the metres of individual fragments S. is competent in handling earlier scholars’ judgements. However, the commentary is too often insufficient on the more technical aspects of dramatic metre (for example, §52 no comment on a verse that would conclude uiceris < ̆– > ; §1131 on hiatus; §1202 on the treatment of the second A position, in Gratwick's notation) and especially on the finer points of Naevian metre in relation to other dramatists. An opportunity to understand better Naevius’ rôle in the development of Latin drama has been missed. Nor are the qualitative aspects of Latin dramatic metres given full consideration; I missed discussion of the rhythm of com. 9 (§52), for example, while the rhythms of com. 13–14 and 18–19 might have helped clarify the problems at §77 and 125.

Discussions of language in the commentary focus on syntax and meaning. Notably lacking are the kinds of semantic and stylistic distinctions that makes Jocelyn's commentary on Ennius’ tragedies such a rich source of information about dramatic Latin. S. eschews the term ‘style’ as vague (§1098), but his discussions of language too often miss metrical and linguistic signals of non-standard (whether elevated or otherwise) delivery. The significant remains of both tragic and comic drama from a single playwright presented both a general opportunity to differentiate the languages of the early Republican stage, and many specific opportunities to understand better the language of individual fragments (e.g. in com. 8, the repetition colligor … colligor is surely relevant to any discussion of tone or paratragedy).

In short, S. compiles an enormous quantity of information in this commentary, and the utility of that compilation should not be underestimated. In the service of the reader it could have been cast in a more accessible form, especially with an introduction that might have compelled treatment of some of these issues in more systematic and rigorous ways. That the reader has to work hard to find the gold and, ultimately, often has to go in search of more detailed answers will, one can only hope, spur interest in the many textual, metrical and interpretive problems that remain to be explored in Naevian drama.