The volumes of Steinepigramme (1–5, 1998–2004) were intended to collect all the metrical inscriptions from the Greek East (abbreviations of epigraphic corpora follow SEG). While R. Merkelbach and J. Stauber succeeded in this commendable endeavour, the immense number of inscriptions inevitably led to shortcomings. These include the absence of a proper critical apparatus, comprehensive bibliographical information, precise descriptions of the monuments and analytical commentary. Furthermore, the publication of new inscriptions has made it necessary to update the regional corpora (see G. Staab, Gebrochener Glanz [2018]). All these needs are addressed by M.'s book, which provides a new edition, translation and commentary of the Greek metrical inscriptions from eastern Phrygia. The book develops a new approach to the analysis of the literariness of the inscriptions, focusing on the spread of Greek culture through classical paideia at different socio-cultural levels (cf. e.g. G. Agosti, Antiquité Tardive 18 [2010], 163–80).

The detailed introduction defines the geographical and dating criteria, and provides an overview of the linguistic, metrical and literary characteristics of the inscriptions, developing innovative approaches. Following M. (pp. 18–19), it is important not to regard as ‘errors’ linguistic phenomena that can be attributed to the spoken language, limited knowledge of Greek and influences from the local substrate language. Instead, these features should be valued as an integral part of the linguistic fabric. The metrical analysis highlights significant aspects that have not yet been fully explored: the relationship between layout and metre (pp. 31–3), the interaction between rhythmic sections and prose (pp. 30–1) and the identification of cola (pp. 28–9 [e.g. 4.1.5, pp. 134–5]). M. is to be commended for analysing not only the metrical features, but also how they might have been perceived by readers of the inscription. M.'s approach to the study of literariness is innovative. The analysis goes beyond the description of poetic diction and literary models. Indeed, it is contextualised within the socio-cultural setting in which the inscriptions were produced and read. This leads to the identification of the social function of epigraphic poetry in Phrygia (pp. 44–9). The literariness of the inscriptions serves as a means of expressing the knowledge of Greek culture, acquired through paideia, which also functions as a marker of social distinction.

The edition includes 97 inscriptions from eastern Phrygia. Five of the thirteen inscriptions not included in Steinepigramme (16/4x–5x) have already been edited in Staab (2018). The inscriptions can be dated to the period from the second century ce onwards, except for 5.2.2 and 5.5.3 (Hellenistic period). This reflects the spread of the Graeco-Roman epigraphic habit in the inland regions of the Anatolian Peninsula, along with the diffusion of Greek literary culture. The most frequently attested type is epitaphs, followed by honorific inscriptions and dedications. Noteworthy is the fragment containing the solemn incipit (a tetracolon hexameter) of a celebratory poem for the city of Dokimeion (5.3.1; alongside the ‘Pride of Halicarnassus’ [Steinepigramme 01/12/02], cf. Steinepigramme 16/01/01, Phrygia, Sebaste, 200–60 ce. Of the (typically Phrygian) sepulchral curse formulae edited in J.H.M. Strubbe, Arai Epitymbioi (1997), only those published in Steinepigramme are included (except for 4.2.4, 5.1.11).

The edition is accompanied by an Italian translation, bibliographical information, a description of the monument and an analytical commentary. A shortcoming is the lack of images; however, bibliographical references to images and copies are provided. It is not explicitly stated whether the edition is based on autopsy. For the sake of clarity, it would have been preferable to specify the sources used in editing the inscriptions. Nevertheless, the edition reveals a thorough study of the inscriptions, leading to new readings, for example 4.5.2.2 κεῖ|\με /, which allows the first-person singular (κεῖμαι) to be read instead of the third-person singular suggested by previous editors. Among the new proposed supplements for the lacunae, one should mention [γήραϊ] τ̣ειρομένῳ (4.3.1.12), which adds another Homeric tessera to this kind of ‘Homeric cento’; the expression recalls Od. 24.233, γήραϊ τειρόμενον, μέγα δὲ φρεσὶ πένθος ἔχοντα, which describes Laertes’ grief, analogous to that of the father of the deceased (cf. É. Bernand, I.Égypte métriques [1969] 22.III.5 and Od. 1.193). In establishing the text, M. deserves credit for considering the diatopic, diastratic and diaphasic variations that characterise the language of metrical inscriptions; regarding phonetics, see, for example, ἀναγνώτης (l. 2) and ἀνέτησ[εν] (l. 4) in 4.5.6, corrected to ἀναγνώ‹σ›της and ἀνέ‹σ›τησ[α]/[-εν] by previous editors. M. also accounts for potential meanings not fully aligned with those attested in ‘standard’ Greek, reflecting the usage by individuals with an imperfect command of Greek (e.g. the interpretation of χρόνιον δρόμον, p. 389, 5.3.3.7). A similar approach is appropriately extended to syntactic issues (e.g. pp. 443–4, 5.5.2.1).

Compared to Steinepigramme, M.'s edition has the merit of providing a critical apparatus, although it sometimes includes superfluous information (e.g. the record of [only certain] signs [e.g. points in 4.1.8, but not hederae in 5.1.4]; phonetic phenomena [e.g. 4.3.12]; readings that appear to be editorial errors [e.g. 4.5.8.1 Αἵδης : Ἅιδης]; not strictly relevant differences between uppercase and lowercase letters [e.g. 5.2.3.2 Μοῖρ’ : μοῖρ’]).

The bibliographical section is followed by a detailed description of the monument, the circumstances of its discovery, palaeographical features of the inscription and a discussion of the dating. A drawback is the limited care taken to indicate the place of conservation and the inventory number. A significant innovation is the close analysis of the layout, which attempts to explain its role in the perception of the metrical structure (e.g. p. 105, 4.1.9; p. 434, 5.4.2; p. 468, 5.7.1). This is reflected in the attention paid to informing readers about the layout when presenting the text in the edition (e.g. by indicating the eisthesis of pentameters [p. 54]). When neither prosody nor layout identifies rhythmic sequences as ‘verses’, the text should be printed as it appears on the stone. In cases such as 4.5.7 (except for ll. 6–7, 7–9?, 12–13) there seems to be insufficient basis for dividing the text into verses (see also, e.g., 4.5.12, where the end of the ‘hexameters’ could be marked by the adonic cola).

The commentary begins with an introductory section on the type of inscription, clients, recipients and significant linguistic and metrical features. This is followed by a detailed analytical commentary. As mentioned above, the approach to linguistic and metrical analysis is commendable. Also noteworthy is the analysis of focalisation (e.g. 5.1.3.3, printing the transmitted ἀκούεις instead of ἀκούσας by Perrot), sound patterns (e.g. p. 404, 5.3.6.1, the identification of the internal rhyme) and the development of epigrammatic topoi (e.g. p. 302, 4.6.2.1–2). The commentary contextualises the inscriptions within their socio-historical framework, analysing the role of the clients/recipients in society alongside institutions, cults and festivals (e.g. pp. 338–9, 5.1.7.1, the detailed analysis of the Ἁδριάνια Παναθήναια at Synnada). Attention is also given to the study of the emotions and moral qualities of the individuals mentioned in the inscriptions (e.g. p. 192, 4.3.4.3). There are noteworthy balanced considerations on authorship (e.g. p. 396, 5.3.5) and the dialogue with the visual arts (e.g. p. 405, 5.3.6.2, the iconography of φθόνος to explain τήκι). As for literary models, the Homeric epic (the milestone of paideia) is predominant. Particularly in late antique inscriptions (fourth–sixth centuries ce) traces emerge of a new poetic language characterised by different literary authorities, such as Gregory of Nazianzus, Nonnus of Panopolis or the Metaphrasis Psalmorum (pp. 35–6 [e.g. p. 489, 5.8.1]).

In conclusion, M.'s volume is an extremely valuable tool both for a better understanding of the edited inscriptions and for the application of significant new approaches to the study of metrical inscriptions. It is to be hoped that similar volumes will be published, not only on the corpus from Phrygia, but also on the corpora from the other regions of the Anatolian peninsula.