The book under review is a balanced and comprehensive critical edition, commentary and translation of the surviving fragments of Livius Andronicus’ Odusia and Gnaeus Naevius’ Bellum Punicum. Revised from a dissertation completed at the Université de Lausanne in 2017, V.'s volume is a timely publication. Republican Latin literature has received significant attention in recent years, with new editions and studies of the fragments of Roman Republican historiography, oratory, satire, drama and epic recentring the skeletal remains of these corpora. This volume is a welcome addition to the scholarly landscape. The present review can hardly do justice to a book of this scale, but it is safe to say that any reader of these poems will want V.'s work within reach.

V.'s primary concerns are the tumults of transmission and the linguistic stratigraphy of Latin's first two works of epic verse.Footnote ¹ He sets out to establish a text of the fragments that differs from those of recent editions. His target is not the ‘original’ words composed by Andronicus or Naevius. Rather, V. works to print an accurate text of the authors who have transmitted the fragments: ‘Il s'agit plutôt d’établir le texte des fragments tels que les ont cités les auteurs qui les transmettent’ (p. 19). That said, in the notes V. does discuss the leading conjectures for the language likely to have appeared in the third-century autographs (whatever form they actually took). Perhaps surprising for an edition of Saturnian poetry, V. does not tackle the metre. Is the so-called Saturnian a quantitative or accentual system? Neither? Both? After some discussion, V. declines to use an unknown to elucidate additional unknowns, although he expresses hope that his text will help future scholars to reassess the topic. Many will surely consider this decision to be justified, whilst some may be disappointed that V. does not adjudicate the matter; the occasional considerations of metri causa issues in the introduction (esp. pp. 86–91) and notes will have to suffice.

The book is informed by a reasoned scepticism concerning implausible variants, wild conjectures and faulty editorial practice. The attention given to transmission and quoting contexts often elevates the transparency and usefulness of V.'s printed text above earlier editions. Respecting the highly problematic nature of the material, V. also allows intractable disputes to remain unresolved after thorough discussion (e.g. p. 170 and p. 289). Although the book has its sights trained principally upon matters of textual criticism and linguistics, V. has many things to say about the literary and cultural historical topics at the heart of these revolutionary works. At times, V. even engages with more speculative proposals concerning plot and technique (see for example his comments on Atlas and Africa at pp. 245–6).

In a review of the last commentary to be published on Naevius’ Bellum Punicum (CR 68 [2016], 400–2) I lamented that that edition fell short of satisfying contemporary desiderata for a major reassessment of the poem (E. Flores, Commentario a Cn. Naeui Bellum Poenicum [2014]). Flores's commentary admittedly offers several good readings and worthy remarks, but it is an often-idiosyncratic volume, with many of its lemmata marked by brevity or complete silence (the app. crit. does the heavy lifting in a rather slim tome). In contrast, V.'s edition is far from laconic, a feature I believe will appeal especially to new readers of these poems. The summation of earlier arguments is detailed and regularly presented in each note. Several centuries worth of scholarly conversation and contestation reported through the apparatus criticus also receive clear and full discussion. V. regularly engages with readings as far back as P. Merula's 1595 edition of Ennius’ Annales and catalogues plausible suggestions even when he disagrees with them, thereby allowing readers to draw their own conclusions. Users may find consideration of certain conjectures unworthy of extended comment, but V. is usually sensible in choosing where to elaborate. The drive towards totality, probably an aspect of the volume's doctoral origins, does not drown out V.'s own opinion: he often scrutinises a litany of influential conjectures, but ultimately adheres to the manuscript reading. V.'s notes contain many salutary correctives to some of the more fanciful explanations found in recent commentaries (see e.g. discussion of the praetor at pp. 286–7). By and large, the volume's scope is significantly wider than Flores's commentary. It shares a closer kinship with recent commentaries on Andronicus’ Odusia, especially concerning the utilisation of historical linguistics (cf. M. Paladini and S.M. Manzella, Livio Andronico, Odissea, Commentario [2014]).

The lengthy introduction to the volume is an asset in itself. The sections devoted to authorial biographies and individual works are sufficiently thorough (pp. 25–59), supplying the general treatment missing from recent editions (one has been forced to turn to separate literary histories, e.g. those of M. von Albrecht or W. Suerbaum et al.). In ‘La langue de l’épopée saturnienne’ (pp. 61–91) V. gives a nuanced exploration of the linguistic landscape of the two poems, a veritable potted primer of the morphological, syntactical and stylistic aspects of Saturnian verse. I am sure historical linguists will find things to quibble over, but my sense is that V. presents matters fairly and without risk of losing the uninitiated. For a reader interested in the poetics of these works, V.'s technical survey will certainly be a springboard for new interpretative insights in the appreciation of early Latin verbal artistry. On these same pages V. justifies the spellings and conventions he later adopts in the text; notes ad locc. refer users back to the introduction, hence avoiding excessive repetition (see e.g. p. 170 on dextrabus, which sends the reader to § 67 [pp. 76–7] for discussion of the rare variant ‘du datif-ablatif pluriel des thèmes en -a’).

The critical text and individual notes are largely uniform in structure and quality. After printing the text with quoting context, apparatus criticus, (for the Odusia) parallel verses in the Homeric poems and French translation, V. discusses the identification and placement of a fragment within the narrative. Next comes a history of readings and editorial conjectures, followed by notes and discussion. V. places authentic fragments by book number and, where possible, by order within each book. Completely unplaceable fragments, testimonia and lines that could appear in multiple scenes are noted as such. The dubia and spurious verses come last. V.'s lemmatic notes typically include elaboration of textual and linguistic matters as well as treatment of content. The latter is more extensive for substantial fragments (those with multiple preserved lines) or those that refer to an identifiable event, institution or character. V. adduces numerous parallels for linguistic features (drawing upon Ennius, Plautus, Lucilius and others) and makes use of Virgil and the Virgilian tradition in order to explore Naevius’ treatment of Trojan material (wisely not allowing it to shape reconstruction of lost scenes). There are some missed opportunities to cite illuminating later intertexts, and one might also wish for a more thorough consideration of potential dialogue between Naevius and Andronicus on referential terms. These, however, are minor complaints about matters that fall at the margins of V.'s self-declared focus. The book comes to an end with two appendices of abbreviations, which include discussion of all transmitting authors and their manuscript traditions; a respectable bibliography; indexes (of Latin words explicitly addressed in the notes and of passages cited); and concordances of this volume and other critical editions. In short, this is a learned book with much to offer readers of early Latin verse.