and after a century of constant use in schools and universities, it has now been replaced by Kenneth Quinn’s edition. Despite the obvious virtues of Page’s commentary, it is clear that it was designed for an educational system quite different from that of the present. Its concerns are almost entirely technical: there are excellent and detailed notes on grammar, prosody, and style, but almost no literary interpretation. (…) In short, Page is excellent on grammar, and on Latin in general; but the student should not look for him for any help in understanding the poem as a whole. Q.’s commentary is totally different in emphasis; it is clear that, as in his commentary on Catullus, he has tried to cater to the tastes of modern undergraduates. His grammatical notes are very brief. (…) His main goal is perfectly reasonable, even laudable: to help students read Horace as a poet, not as a grammatical exercise. Thus, he gives a clear outline of the structure of the poem in his introduction (…). Q.’s interest, stated explicitly in the preface, in structure and dramatic setting of poems is welcome (…). But there are some serious losses, not just in the explanation of grammar. (…) Q. is remarkably insensitive to the tone of words, to party, to ambiguities, and to the importance of literary models for the interpretation of Horace. It is in this last area that Q.’s New-Critical concentration on the poem itself makes his commentary flat and unaware of literary texture. (…) Q.’s edition leaves it up to the instructor to supply a sense of where Horace is in the literary tradition. Q.’s interest in matters of literary, rather than grammatical, interpretation is certainly long overdue, and he supplies much that is not to be found in Page of Shorey and Laing. Above all, he has the advantage of modern criticism of Horace to explain many poems on which earlier editors are unsatisfactory. (…) and on almost every poem there are worthwhile observation on the development of thought, on the one, or on the style of specific passages. Just as frequently, however, Q.’s observations leave something to be desired. His literary judgements are often vague and subjective (…). His observations on structure are not always helpful. (…) The interest in interpretation is welcome, but it can serve no purpose unless there is a firm basis in humbler elements of the language and history; and until such a commentary is written, we would be better served by relying on Page.’ (JAMES E.G. ZETZEL in Classical Philology, 1983, pp.256-261).