The Archaeological Museum of Dion showcases a statue of a Muse with a lyre. Her left leg rests on a kind of rock. This detail escapes notice in most reproductions, but can be clearly seen if the statue is viewed from behind. The representation implies a connection between the Muses and the peaks of mountains; in the case of the Muse from the Macedonian town, undoubtedly with Olympus. In European culture, the relationship between the Muses and the mountains has a prominent place – the Parisian district of Montparnasse or ‘Parnassianism’ as a literary style in nineteenth-century France are just two instances. In ancient times it was not the now widely-known Parnassus, but Olympus/Pieria and Helicon that were the favourite mountains of the Muses. R. focuses on the Boeotian mountain and gives an overview of Mount Helicon as a mountain of the Muses.

The book consists of two parts divided into five chapters. A somewhat unusual and lengthy introduction is devoted to the state of research on the Muses and outlines the relationship between the Muses and mountains, springs and water in ancient culture. Finally, we learn that the work will focus exclusively on Helicon rather than providing a comprehensive account of the relationship between the Muses and the landscape. Chapter 2 (A.II) is devoted to the topographical, literary and cultural associations between this mountain and the Muses. R. attempts, following the works of B. Robinson, to portray Helicon and the sanctuary in the Valley of the Muses as a place evolving into a ‘charismatic landscape’. Part 2 (B.I–III) features three separate case studies focusing on the relationship between the Heliconian landscape and the Muses. Chapter 1 of this Part discusses in detail the classical image of Hesiod's Dichterweihe, Chapter 2 focuses on the role of Helicon in Euripides’ Heracles, and Chapter 3 deals with the contest between Cithaeron and Helicon in Corinna's fr. 654. The last two analyses result from an original and comprehensive reading of the literary testimonies. However, R. fails to explain why she chose these three examples and to what extent they matter for the image of the Muses and Helicon.

The structure of the book and the distribution of the material leaves a little to be desired. For example, in the chapter on Corinna (B.III) only about 20% of the analysis is dedicated to issues central to the book, the remainder being the state of research, dating and parallels. Undoubtedly, the material is valuable, and R.'s wide reading is impressive. Yet, what could have been an advantage in a Ph.D. thesis becomes a burden in a monograph, which prevents R. from spreading her wings.

The missing general introduction is noticeable; the work's aims are explained only on pp. 77–80. A section indicating, for example, the multifaceted development of Helicon as the mountain of the Muses in Greek culture would be useful. These aspects fade away, overwhelmed by a detailed analysis.

R.'s book attempts to summarise the state of research on the Muses and their relationship to Helicon. This is the result of recent studies on the Boeotian cults, archaeological material and epigraphic testimonies from Thespia and the Valley of the Muses as well as the development of research on the cult of the Muses in antiquity. The book goes a step further and is the first attempt of its kind to address the relationship between the Muses and the natural landscape. Unfortunately, this attempt is only partly successful: firstly, the book lacks a theoretical dimension. This can be regarded as R.'s conscious decision, yet an approach typical of spatial studies would have enabled a more adequate description of the relationship of the Muses to the mountains and springs. Secondly, an assessment of the relationship between the Muses and the nymphs, crucial to the relationship of the Muses to the natural landscape, leaves us with questions rather than answers. R. does not explain why there are no nymphs in the places of worship of the Muses, and there are essentially no Muses in the place of worship of the nymphs. Where such a relationship appears (Syracuse), there is hardly any evidence of integration and identification.

A certain flippancy can be seen in describing the chronology of the discussed phenomena. If a diachronic perspective is taken and conclusions are transferred from the late period to earlier times, detailed conclusions tend to be overly optimistic. The Muses do not exclusively belong to Helicon, which is best demonstrated by the career of Parnassus in Roman poetry and by local traditions linking the Muses to Pimpleia, Megara, Epidauros, Athens or Lesbos. Nor are the Muses the only deity worshipped in the Helicon range.

The omission of the broader cultural context affects the final assessment of the relationship between the Muses and the landscape. In Hesiod's Dichterweihe the mountain cannot be perceived solely through the presence of the Muses as nymphs and ‘Naturgottheiten’, but should be seen more broadly as a liminal place for the epiphany of deity and poetic initiation. The evaluation from a diachronic perspective of Apollo's role as Musagetes in Delphi and dating the presence of the Muses there are also debatable. This is what we know: (a) there are no Muses at the Pythia, the major musical contest in the Greek world; (b) there are no invocations before Roman times to the Muses as Parnassides; (c) there is no clear relationship between the Muses and Parnassus and Castalia before the first century bce, in view of the well-attested relationship of goddesses with other places (Olympus/Pieria, Helicon); (d) Apollo is not attested at Delphi as Musagetes before the second century. This last aspect is of particular importance, since the epiclesis Musagetes is attested well and early elsewhere (Larissa, Epidauros, Paros). Also missing from the analysis is the key question: why is Apollo absent from the Valley of the Muses? If the Muses look after music there, and Apollo is widely regarded as their guide, we would expect him to be worshipped there too. His absence from this most important shrine of the Muses demonstrates that the relationship between the goddesses and Apollo is more complex than generally imagined.

Let us conclude with a remark on the analysis of the musical contest between Cithaeron and Helicon (Corinna, fr. 654). First, there is testimony indicating the worship of the Muses at Cithaeron (Schol. Eur. Phoin. 801: λέγονται γὰρ ἐν αὐτῷ [sc. on Cithaeron] ἱδρῦσθαι αἱ Μοῦσαι καὶ δένδροις διαφόροις κεκοσμῆσθαι), whose existence was once postulated by M.L. West. However, a lack of context and the inability to date the information makes us realise that drawing conclusions from late sources is extremely difficult. Second, metapoetic mountains are not a closed set and do not have a permanent symbolic value in ancient literature. The change in the evaluation and selection of toponyms can be seen in the new terms for the Muses, for example Thespiades, Libethrides, Pimpleides (Varro, Ling. 7.20). Also noticeable is the sudden popularity in Roman poetry of Parnassus and the tendency to apply less frequent and unusual metapoetic toponyms (Callim. Hymn 4.7; Catull. 105).

The study of the Muses undoubtedly requires a broad view. It comprises religious worship, education, art, collecting, musical agons, mousikē, philosophical schools or the institution of the mouseion. R.'s book goes in yet another, but also very interesting direction, focusing on the relationship of the Muses with the natural landscape. Several subsections and footnotes are gems with plenty of source information. Nevertheless, this is not the last word on the matter, but rather an inspiring opening in the study of the role of the mountains and sources in metapoetic language and of the Muses as ‘Naturgottheiten’. Last but not least, a book about landscape would benefit from a geographical index.