Book 10 of Silius Italicus’ Punica deals with a historical moment that forged a great part of the Roman ethnic identity − not a glorious victory, but the crushing defeat at Cannae. The Romans boasted that they had recovered from a disaster that would have been the end of any other nation. This is one of the most fascinating books of a work that has lately been attracting the attention it deserves from Latinists. L.’s commentary on Punica 10 is part of this reappraisal of Flavian epic and provides an essential tool for studying, appreciating and enjoying Silius’ Punica. The book will serve scholars and postgraduate students well. I would use it as a textbook in an MA Latin Text Seminar, had its price not put it beyond what a student can reasonably spend on textbooks.

A thorough and excellent introduction prepares the reader for a fascinating commentary. One of the highlights of the introduction is the section on Silius’ adaptation of Livy in the closing scenes of his part on Cannae. There is a fine discussion of the ways in which Silius dramatises Livy's narrative. The poet manipulates historical facts in order to promote the historical protagonists to the status of epic heroes. The section on metre and prosody is also excellent. The commentary contains a plethora of fine observations on Silius’ metrical uarietas and the ways in which the rhythm of the hexameter interacts with the narrative pace. The part on the transmission of the text includes a short history of Silius’ reception. Less successful is the discussion of Silius’ similes. The discussion on the luxury of empire in the epilogue could have been shortened. I felt the lack of a section on the crucial role of mythical gods in Silius’ historical epic. Gender and ethnic identity are two sides of the same coin in the poetics of the Punica. While there are plenty of perceptive notes on this topic in the commentary, it probably deserved a separate part in the introduction. Although the importance of Stoicism in the characterisation of epic heroes is mentioned, an introductory section on philosophy in the Punica would also have been welcome.

There is a lot to commend in the commentary. Discussions on textual issues are brief, but always to the point. Whenever I had difficulties with the Latin, I found the answer in the notes. L.’s comments on stylistic features and intertextual allusions would convince even the most sceptical reader that the Punica is worth reading. The centrality of Lucan (in my view more important than Virgil) in Silius as well as an attention to puns and humour are some of the book's highlights. It is a mark of a thought-provoking commentary that I frequently felt inclined to take the discussion further. Note, for instance, the pun on aequantem / … equum, quinam (472–3), that assimilates Cloelius with his horse. Or the metapoetic facta uirum sileo (496) that may pun on Silius’ name. Silius’ golden line (carmina pulsata fundentem barbara caetra, 230) contrasts with the barbaric chants it describes. When Hannibal sets Paulus’ pyre on fire (555–9), the syntax momentarily makes the Carthaginian and the flames indistinguishable. After feruidus ignis (555) and actus apex (557), citus (558) seems to be referring to the fire until we realise in the next line that it describes Hannibal's swift moves; the victor of Cannae is a force of nature that burns his enemies. The futility of Metellus’ attempt to escape is intertextually suggested as trans aequor Tyrios enses … parabant / … mutato euadere caelo (418–19) alludes to caelum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt (Horace, Epistle 1.11.27).

The book includes a Latin text with apparatus and facing prose translation. Latin and translation, however, do not match very well on the page; the beginning of page 39, for instance, translates the Latin towards the end of page 38. This lack of sync makes it difficult to check the Latin and the translation without constantly flipping pages. Overall, I think the translation works better if read independently of the Latin. Challenging passages are translated differently (more literally) in the commentary. This leads to some inconsistencies. The difficult line dux erat exilio collectis Marte Metellus (420 ‘Those gathered for exile from the fighting had Metellus as their leader’), for instance, is translated as ‘The leader of the exiles was Metellus, an unwarlike man’, but this seems to translate Shackleton Bailey's contemptus Marte Metellus or Summers’ non laetus Marte, conjectures that are considered unconvincing in the commentary.

Silius’ Latin is not easy, and the translation often glosses over the difficulties in the original. While this practice certainly makes the English more idiomatic and readable, it often strips Silius’ poetry of its powerful strangeness. Silius describes the effect of Scipio's penetrating gaze as follows: flagrabant lumina miti / aspectu, gratusque inerat uisentibus horror (8.560–1), and L. translates ‘While he seemed approachable, his eyes shone, impressing those who saw him with a sense of pleasure and awe’. The translation kills the uncanny oxymora of Silius’ poetry. Scipio's eyes did not shine, they were on fire (flagrabant), a verb that contrasts with miti aspectu (‘mild gaze’). The hyperbaton gratus … horror emphasises the incongruity of a ‘pleasant horror’. The Latin says, ‘His eyes were blazing with a mild gaze, and a pleasant horror entered those looking at him’. L. chooses to smooth the rough edges of Silius’ style. Thus, we gain in clarity and readability, but, in my view, miss a great deal of Silius’ art. Still, this criticism may not be entirely fair, if the translation is meant to be read in conjunction with the notes, which certainly do justice to Silius’ style.

The choice of words in the translation that seem to me peculiar may also be motivated by an attempt at clarity. For instance, hostem (3) is translated as ‘the hunters’, a choice that does not maintain the effect of the lion's embedded focalisation. Some minor quibbles: Line 90 or part of 146 is not translated. The Latin is mostly free of errors (but read patet for pater at 412; the correct patet is printed in the notes). On p. 225, the reader is referred to Intro. V.3 for Fabius’ rhetoric, but I could not find anything about it in this section. Fabius’ rhetoric is discussed in Intro. III.2.ii. There are some signs of hastiness in the introduction. Some sections end abruptly without a concluding paragraph. Some Latin quotations are translated, others not. The capitalisation at the beginning of Latin hexameters is inconsistent.

This is a scholarly work of the highest quality. L.’s command of primary sources and secondary literature is astounding. Unlike some other commentators, L. does not offer overwhelming lists of parallels, but a wealth of critical insights. Her book is reader-friendly, extremely learned and original. The book also contains a number of nicely produced plans of the battlefield that help the reader visualise different phases of the battle of Cannae. Silius’ vivid narrative and L.’s lucid commentary bring Roman history to life.