B.'s monograph on Telamonian Ajax is a timely contribution to the unparalleled fortune the eterno secondo among heroes has been enjoying in recent years. A brand-new commentary of Sophocles’ Ajax just appeared for Les Belles Lettres, and another one is forthcoming by S. Murnaghan for the ‘Green and Yellow’ series. The Ajax myth in all its possible implications is investigated in the rich collective volume Looking at Ajax edited by D. Stuttard (2019). B.'s contribution also focuses on a wide-ranging account of polytropos Ajax, to adopt the provocative title of a recent conference, and it represents the most comprehensive overview of the myth of Ajax in archaic and classical Greece to date.

After a brief introduction, the book is divided into three main chapters, followed by a bibliography, index of Greek words, inscriptionum, locorum and a very useful and ample general index. In the introduction B. explains her methodology, a blend of H.R. Jauss's ‘Reception Aesthetics’ and F. de Saussure's principles of synchronie and diachronie. Accordingly, after establishing Ajax's peculiar attributes in early mythical traditions, the study surveys his reception in all kinds of cultural media.

Chapter 1, ‘Ajax from Salamis’, deals with the hero's representation in early pre-Homeric hexameter poetry and in archaic art. B. reconstructs two of Ur-Ajax's unique features, which – she convincingly argues – constitute obliterated pre-Homeric motifs: invulnerability and a hostile relationship with Athena. The first is clearly attested in ancient sources (Hesiod, Pindar, iconography). However, B. argues that Homer indirectly preserves traces of this. Thus, Ajax is the only major hero in the Iliad never wounded, and two similes (14.402–20; 13.321–5) covertly allude to his invulnerability. Also, there is his defensive role of ἕρκος Ἀχαιῶν and his high-risk task of rescuing the bodies of Patroclus and Achilles. Athena's enmity is also implied in the Iliad: Ajax, who is never directly assisted by a god, never prays to Athena. B. argues that Ajax's unique overconfidence in his own strength and suicide in the pre-Homeric account stem from his original invulnerability.

B.'s reconstruction of Ur-Ajax, although not completely original, is the most persuasive attempt. With respect to Homeric suppression of wondrous elements (invulnerability and immortality), she rightly refers to J. Griffin's contributions. However, she could have also dealt with M. Davies's studies on the adaptation of folk-tale elements in Homer (e.g. ‘The Folk-tale Origins’, WS 115 [2002]) and explored in greater depth the bearing of Homer's recasting of Ajax in order to exploit his world view of human frailty and mortality in the Iliad.

Chapter 2, ‘Ajax in Aegina’, convincingly demonstrates that Ajax was imbued with strong political significance throughout the first half of the fifth century, especially during the rivalry between Aegina and Athens. With this aim, it investigates the use made of Ajax by Pindar and Bacchylides in Epinikia for Aeginetan patrons. The analysis follows the downward trend of Aegina's power from the Persian Wars until its subjugation by Athens in 457 bce. Bacchylides’ Ode 13 and Pindar's Isthmian 6 strongly emphasise Ajax's Aeginetic lineage to oppose the recent Athenian claim over the hero after Marathon. In Isthmian 4, 5 and Nemean 7 B. detects the Aeginetans’ design to promote their role at Salamis as the true saviours of Greece through the parallel with the Aeacidae. Moreover, the omission of the award of the arms to Ajax in Nemean 7 seems to allude to the omission of the award of the ἀριστεῖα to Aegina after the battle. Consequently, B. persuasively proposes a new date of c. 479 bce for the ode.

During the Pentecontaetia Ajax's prominence progressively decreases (Nemean 4) until the point that he is not mentioned at all among the Aeacidae (Nemean 3, 6, Olympian 8, Pythian 8). Nemean 8 finally reflects Aegina's subjugation: here Pindar's stress on the ingratitude of the army towards Ajax symbolises the Greeks’ ungratefulness towards Aegina in the Persian Wars. In general, Pindar follows the traditional pre-Homeric myth of Ajax except that he completely silences the hero's ἀσέβεια towards Athena, thus making him a totally blameless victim.

Chapter 3, ‘Ajax in Athens’, investigates Ajax's presence in the culture of archaic and fifth-century Athens. The pruning and interpolation of Ajax's traditional catalogic entry in the Iliad is due to Athens’ political agenda to hide his Aeginetic lineage. A historical section follows (tribe Aiantis, the Philaidae, Miltiades) showing how Ajax is not fully integrated in Athens until the Persian Wars. The last two sections are devoted to Greek drama. The first deals with Aeschylus’ Ajax tetralogy and is a particularly fine piece. The most convincing part focuses on the Thracian Women, which B. proposes to consider as the concluding satyr play. She bases her argument on the play's numerous odd elements with comic undertones: the unconventional female chorus from Thrace, Aeschylus’ innovation of locating Ajax's vulnerable spot in the armpit, the suicide scene featuring the bending sword and a female δαίμων. In sum, the play revolves on a parody of Ajax's traditional invulnerability. This interpretation of Aeschylus’ tetralogy will certainly provide food for thought: (1) the first drama unknown (Achilles’ death?); (2) The Award of the Arms (featuring Ajax's suicide); (3) Women of Salamis (Teucer); (4) Thracian Women (satyr play). However, the absence of the satyrs (B. finds a parallel in the Nurses of Dionysus) might be problematic.

The concluding section concerns Sophocles’ Ajax. B. argues that Sophocles exploits all the hero's various paradigms, concomitantly surfacing in the play through the characters’ discordant voices: (a) the self-sufficient hero: invulnerability, hybris, Athena's revenge; (b) the blameless hero: unrecognised honour, the vote-rigging of the Greeks (Ajax and Teucer); (c) the failed hero: Ajax as a sore loser (Menelaus, Agamemnon, partially Odysseus). According to B., the Ajax – to which she interestingly applies P. Ricœur's notion of conflit des interprétations – is inextricably ambiguous and centres on the problem of judging others in situations for which we do not possess full knowledge of the events.

B.'s exposition is clear and lucid, and her scholarship covering such different fields is impressive; the notes are particularly rich. However, a few historical digressions are not very digestible and distract from the main argument, for example on pp. 140ff. and pp. 160ff. Some points of detail: p. 8. n. 3: it is not always best to be ‘in line with recent developments in Homeric scholarship’, cf. M.L. West's typically wry remark: ‘many contemporary writers on Homer seem to cite nearly everything they have read, but to have read little that is more than thirty or forty years old’ (The Making of the Odyssey [2014], p. vii), B. refers mainly to oralists and Neo-Analysts (with a penchant for J.S. Burgess), but should have mentioned other unitarians to give a more balanced view on controversial topics; p. 192: translating τήκω as ‘suffer’ is too vague and misses the Homeric undertone of ‘melting in tears’; p. 193: I cannot see how the attribution of the fragment to the Women of Salamis and the comparison with Teucer (who does not commit suicide) are ‘irrefutable’, cf. H. Lloyd-Jones's persuasive objections (‘Appendix’ to vol. 2 of Aeschylus in the Loeb series) and S. Radt ad loc.; p. 205 n. 321: omits a reference to P.E. Easterling, ‘The Tragic Homer’, BICS 31 (1984). The treatment of Ajax, especially B.'s insightful discussion of the concepts of τιμή and recognition, would have benefited from P. Woodruff, The Ajax Dilemma (2014). On Ajax's ambiguity B. refers to an article by L. Swift (p. 209); on this cf. also G. Scavello, ‘Tre riprese nell’Aiace’, in: Dialogo con Omero (2018), especially on the ambiguous Homeric subtext; on the hyper-Achillean dimension (p. 205), in addition to fundamental pages by R.P. Winnington-Ingram, see also G. Paduano, ‘Aiace: l'io come assoluto’, Dioniso 6 (2016), and J. Gregory, ‘Sophocles’ Ajax and his Homeric Prototypes’, in: A. Fountoulakis et al. [edd.], Theatre World (2017).

The book is a pleasure to read, and one always has the feeling that B. writes both as a meticulous academic and as a true enthusiast of ancient Greece (translations of passages are her own). The major strength of the book lies in its multidisciplinary approach: its promenade in Ajax's company is investigated in the true spirit of lebendiges Ganzes philology. Therefore, it will constitute the new reference work on the hero, and thanks to the many and various topics addressed it will interest scholars of ancient history, religion, art and literature.Footnote ¹