Commentaries are notoriously difficult to review, since one tends to notice most readily points on which one disagrees. I should therefore wish to emphasise that I found help from both B. and H. in a gratifyingly large number of these passages, with honors just about even, though B., with her somewhat fuller commentary, often finds slightly more space for discussion of the particular point and tone. For example, on 10, turbaque Phasiacam Graia bibistis aquam, she notes the very different use of the same phrasing in making a curse on the Argo at Am. It is a testimony to their excellent understanding of Ovidian poetics and their full grasp of the scholarly literature that so often the notes by B. and H. are so closely comparable. Nevertheless, although I should not wish to detract in any way from the solid worth of the contribution made by both commentaries, it is rather frustrating to find so many couplets on which the notes, while excellent, are so similar.
Most Classical texts are still without adequate commentaries, and Classical scholars are few.
Nowadays, when communication between scholars is so easy, reduplication of effort, at the cost of neglecting other texts, is an unfortunate luxury and one which could be avoided. The writing of commentaries and the editing of texts are precisely defined fields of study, and they are tasks which take time. It should be possible to ensure that long-term research projects are more fully advertised in the small world of Classical scholarship than they are at present. P. Ovidi Nasonis Heroides. With the Greek translation of Planudes.