This slender book on Musaeus’ Hero and Leander (late fifth, early sixth century) is dense, rich in information and up to date. It is well edited and easy to read. In short: I like this book. It consists of a preface and acknowledgements, abbreviations, an introduction, the text and its translation, a commentary, a bibliography and a short index. M.'s goal is to address a diverse readership: ‘advanced students and scholars of Greek literature, Byzantinists and scholars of modern European literatures, especially comparativists’ (p. vi). The publishers of the series Routledge Classical Translations state that ‘[e]ach volume has accompanying notes and commentary that provide a solid framework for deeper understanding of the material’ (p. ii). Obviously, K. Kost's epic commentary on Musaios. Hero and Leander (1971) with 612 pages cannot be replaced by this book with 123 pages, quasi in epyllion-format. But ‘solid’ and a ‘deeper understanding’ are certainly true; for, as far as I can see, M. addresses every important topic related to this poem and adduces up-to-date literature for further reading.

The combination of transliterated and non-transliterated Greek is understandable due to the wide readership, and only rarely a bit irritating. Researchers in the fields of Byzantine and modern European literature will benefit the most by the informative introduction and the English translation. However, I am not sure how useful the commentary is for a scholar without any knowledge of ancient Greek.

In the introduction readers learn about the characteristics of Musaeus’ epyllion and his reworking of epic and novelistic traditions. M. covers important aspects in short sections on the myth and its tradition, on the author, and the ‘[m]eter, language and style’. I am surprised that this last section is placed rather late in the introduction. Also, I missed a more detailed description of Musaeus’ language – but I assume that this is again due to the format of the series and the intended wide readership. In more detail, M. characterises Musaeus’ adaptation of the myth: so, for example, his ‘sympathetic outlook on their tragedy’ or the different generic traditions, especially those concerning the works of Homer, Nonnus and Achilles Tatius (‘A novelistic anti-novel’; ‘Odysseus, Nausicaa, Penelope’; ‘The epic swimmer, doomed’); and she focuses on different aspects of the story, such as ‘Hero's lamp’, ‘The colorlessness of dawn’, ‘The seducer’ and ‘The obstacle’. The long section on ‘The literary fortune’ of the poem is informative and useful, especially for students and scholars of related fields. Here, also with regard to the dense format of the series, M. decides to follow ‘key developments in the history of the poem's afterlife, with an emphasis on the thematic threads that connect modern rewritings of the legend to the version of M[usaeus]’ (p. 29).

I appreciate the fact that M. edited the Greek text and does not just follow a modern text edition. While she discusses textual problems and her editorial decisions in the commentary section, and gives an outline of the main points of the transmission (pp. 28–9), I would have preferred to have a description of the manuscripts and a critical apparatus to help follow and understand her editorial choices. She frequently differs from the Teubner edition by H. Livrea and P. Eleuteri, Musaeus. Hero et Leander (1982). Several times she decides against the textual transmission and follows emendations or conjectures, often adducing Nonnian language and metrics as a reason. Here, I would be more cautious. For this approach becomes circular: the text is very Nonnian, so make it even more Nonnian. Something that always catches my attention is the printing of ἔρως / ἔρωτες with or without capital. If it is the god Eros, capital is the only choice (l. 17: Ἔρως shoots his arrow). M. decides in line 1 for Ἐρώτων (Livrea–Eleuteri: ἐρώτων; the lamp is described in M.'s translation as ‘witness to secret loves’), but ἔρωτα in line 27 (the strait ‘still laments Leander's doom and love’). I would like to know M.'s reasoning. Maybe she could have discussed this and the change in numerus in the commentary section (compare l. 1, Ἐρώτων ‘loves’; vs l. 10, ἐρώτων ‘love’).

Classical and non-classical scholars will appreciate the English translation, which gives a good impression of Musaeus’ style, of his ‘repetitiveness’ as ‘a conscious feature’, ‘the density and the audacity of many of his expressions as well as the artificiality’ (p. vi). Compare the repetition and alliteration in the description of the protagonists in line 22: ἀμφοτέρων πολίων περικαλλέες ἀστέρες ἄμφω; in M.'s translation: ‘Of both cities both most splendid stars’; or about the swimming Leander (l. 255): αὐτὸς ἐὼν ἐρέτης, αὐτόστολος, αὐτόματος νηῦς ‘Himself his own oarsman, his own conveyor, his own ship’. In line 133 M. captures the repetition in prefix εὔοδμον ἐύχροον αὐχένα by an alliteration: ‘he kissed the fragrant, fair-skinned throat of the maiden’. In some instances she could have paid even more attention to variations: in lines 27–30 we read ‘love’ (l. 27 ἔρωτα), ‘fall in love’ (l. 29 εἰς πόθον ἦλθε), ‘love’ (l. 29 πόθῳ) and ‘lovely’ (l. 30 χαρίεσσα). The difference between ἔρως (‘love’) and πόθος (‘desire’) should be taken into account; and χαρίεσσα could be varied by ‘charming’. In line 66 the medium voice εὕρατο is not unimportant: ‘Truly did Cypris find a worthy priestess for herself!’ Maybe, line 127 is meant as a general statement: ‘Barred is the way to a maidenly bed!’ (not: ‘my maidenly bed’). And in line 279 ἐν ὥραις might better be translated with a plural: ‘But in the hours that fulfilled the marriage’.

In the concise commentary M. explains difficult passages in form and content as well as textual problems; she outlines the development of the story and its characters and focuses on the poem's literary tradition, adducing ancient parallels and secondary literature for further reading. What I would like to emphasise is M.'s insightful description of Musaeus’ style, of his ‘sententiousness, repetitiveness and … striving for sound effects’ (p. 26). For me, these were some of the highlights of the introduction and commentary. For example, she describes the audible presence of the sea, which seems to grow louder and louder as the storm and the tragic ending of the protagonists draw nearer: μαινομένων ῥοθίων πολυηχέα βόμβον ἀκούων (l. 242), Leander ‘hear[s] the far-echoing roar of the raving waves’. And, she writes, ‘we hear it too, thanks to the homoteleuton in the first two words, the onomatopoeic βόμβος (‘roar’), the prevalence of -o, -ou and -u sounds, and the rolling dactylic rhythm’ (p. 28). Or compare lines 236ff.: λύχνoς is mentioned four times in only six lines and in four different cases; ‘the high concentration, even for Musaeus’ repetitive style, and the polyptoton bring the lamp stage front’ (p. 99). Or on line 237: ‘the oxymoronic proximity of κρυφίης and τηλέσκοπον captures a thematic core of the poem: the story of a hidden love protected by a far-shining light’ (p. 99).

Therefore, as a very good start for understanding this poem in the original language and for interpreting it in its context, I recommend this publication to any scholar interested in Musaeus; it is certainly worth having it in your private library.