Greek metrical inscriptions are receiving intense scholarly attention thanks to a burgeoning interest in literary epigram and P. Hansen's Carmina Epigraphica Graeca (CEG; 1983, 1989), which made inscribed texts to 300 b.c.e. widely accessible. No recent comprehensive corpus exists for later verse inscriptions, but regional collections are filling the gaps. Most extensive is R. Merkelbach and J. Stauber, Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten (SGO; 1998–2004). Closer to C.'s volume in limiting its chronological and geographical (not generic) scope is Á. Martínez Fernández, Epigramas helenísticos de Creta (2006).
C. provides a welcome corpus of 101 Hellenistic verse epitaphs from mainland Greece in this revision of her 2005 Sorbonne dissertation (under S. Follet). Few candidates for entry are omitted, some probably by choice: Agora 17, 1030a = CEG 598 (Hellenistic, SEG 53.255); SEG 37.198 (?from Greece, ?Hellenistic); SEG 45.631 (‘partly metrical’, I.ThessEnipeus 12). Finds that might belong here have not been securely dated or fully published (SEG 48.414, 50.366, 51.673 = 57.501, 52.420); but SEG 30.244 and 277 (Agora 17, 1032 and 1033) are overlooked. Naturally, new work on included texts continues to appear, for example, no. 52 is I.Thespiai (SEG 57.478) 1245.
C.'s excellent introduction synthesises broad historical and literary features of the corpus. Concerning provenance, Attica does not dominate as previously, a result of the legislation of Demetrius of Phaleron and changing Athenian attitudes to commemoration. As against earlier epigram, there appears a wider range of deceased persons (sex, age, occupation) with differing thematics of praise and greater attention to family attachments, specific circumstances, and emotional and religious responses to death. In articulating continuity and change in the motifs of inscribed epigram, C. demonstrates an impressive command of W. Peek's Griechische Vers-Inschriften I (1955); but GVI entries might have been accompanied by references to newer collections, for example, GVI 1512 at p. 292 n. 775 is I.Smyrna 520 = SGO 05/01/52. Equally important for this period of literary epigram's first efflorescence, C. compares the poetry of the Anthology and discusses the mutual impact of book and inscription, citing recent work such as P. Bing and J. Bruss, Brill's Companion to Hellenistic Epigram (2007), J. Bruss, Hidden Presences (2005), M. Tueller, Look Who's Talking (2008). In an analysis of the collection's 194 hexameters, patterns of dactyls and spondees (Table 1) are shown to correspond to those for Egypt and the east compiled by M. Fantuzzi and A. Sens in M. Harder et al., Beyond the Canon (2006), pp. 105–22; but the percentage of verses violating Callimachean ‘laws’ (Table 2) reflects fourth-century rather than other regions' Hellenistic practice.
The corpus is organised by region with chronologically arranged subcategories (men, women, young men, young women, children, fragmentary texts). Entries supply much more information than CEG: fuller physical descriptions and treatments of provenance, translations and very informative commentaries encompassing onomastics, linguistics, prosopography, history, eschatology, verbal parallels and literary qualities. C. and Martínez Fernández both help us to envisage an ideal contemporary corpus; but while the latter provides many illustrations and has typically examined the stones, C. illustrates only two inscriptions and gives little evidence of autopsy of stones or consultation of squeezes. She notes (pp. 31–2) that 22 inscriptions are lost and another 40 could not be examined; but among the rest, only two fresh readings are reported (in nos 12 [from a photograph] and 16). C. sometimes relies on the autopsy of others (e.g. P. Funke for Thyrreium); and for Thessaly, she consulted the Lyon archive of V. von Graeve, B. Helly and C. Wolters. Epigrams are laid out philologically (by verse), not epigraphically (though line divisions are usually indicated [absent at no. 94] except where lines and verses correspond). Concordances for GVI and IG are supplied, but a fuller set would have been welcome, including Agora 17, SEG and museums. There are indexes of proper nouns (three categories), notable Greek words and incipits.
No. 38 (Gytheium, first century b.c.e.) illustrates the collection's strengths and weaknesses. The commentary is excellent, including a discussion of intertextuality with AP 7.671 by Bianor, which later influenced GVI 1588 (= SGO 13/07/04). C., showing how the four separate poems treat the youthfulness of the deceased differently, briefly surveys variatio in verse inscriptions (cf. nos 56, 62); see now M. Fantuzzi in M. Baumbach, A. Petrovic and I. Petrovic, Archaic and Classical Greek Epigram (2010), pp. 289–310. Epigraphically, the text accurately reflects published accounts, and C. is sensibly conservative in restoring this lost stone. There are problems, however: the Leiden convention for a corrected letter as in verse 1 is angle brackets, not parentheses (but cf. p. 31); no space should separate 3 and 4; in 10, the subscript should not be printed (cf. 21); paragraphoi should appear between 6–7, 10–11 and (in brackets) 16–17; in the apparatus, the restoration of 5 attributed to Loefstedt is Wilamowitz's (IG V.1 1186, Addendum, p. 308), following Loefstedt; some account should be given of letter traces reported in IG for 15–19.
C.'s literary interests shine in commentaries on the surprising poems from Thyrreium (nos 63–6, 68). She catalogues epigraphic and literary parallels, and highlights striking phraseology such as the violence of a bear attack in 66 (ἄρκου … ἅ με βιαίως | ὤλεσε, σαρκὸς ἐμᾶς δραξαμένα γένυσιν) and the victim's eternal separation from his wife (… ἔνθα μοι οὔτ’ ἄλοχος παρακλείνεται). Concerning 63, C. discusses proposed attributions to Damagêtos or Posidippus (cf. 59). Epigraphically, the texts are accurate, but read κυδιάνειρα at 63.2 and Ἅδης at 68.3.
Thessaly (nos 69–101) also produced fine poems. Among epitaphs on painted stelai from Demetrias are Hêdistê's (85) and Archidikê's (86); see now C. Salowey in S. James and S. Dillon, A Companion to Women (2012), pp. 251–7. C. comments that Hêdistê's image and poem correspond in communicating the pathos of death in childbirth. Archidikê's stele and epitaph (pictured on the frontispiece) express hope for immortality; here and at 70, 73 and 77, C. discusses an eschatology that echoes ‘Dionysiac-Orphic’ texts (cf. SEG 50.1750 and related lemmata). Some issues: Arvanitopoulos dated Archidikê late (not early) third century; no. 83, second quarter (not half) of the second century, and persons and epigraphic references are confused at p. 257, top; for the text of 94, see A. Avagianou, Epigraphica 64 (2002), 229–32 (SEG 54.551). At 87–8, add SEG 57.495.
Attic epitaphs (nos 1–29) exhibit an interesting range of recipients: battle casualties (1–2); a doctor (3; cf. 30, 41, 55, 80, 94); actors (4, 5, 9); a man and his son lost in a fire (6); an Academic (7); a slave (8); a spinner (14); a pankratist (17); a new baby (19); young children (20–1). More systematic scouring of SEG would have been welcome: for example, add 55.2034 to no. 4; 57.259 to 7; 46.2330 to 12; 53.249 to 13; 30.298 to 22. Some errors: at 9, app. crit., verse 1, read ἐδέχθη; at 13, app. crit., verse 3, Mastrokostas read ἑοῖσ[ιν ἐδέξατο; at 18, add paragraphoi after verses 2, 4, 6, and in the app. crit., verse 9, read κα]θέχεις; at 24, verse 3 read ἔχρην. In no. 21, my autopsy (photo at Agathe.gr) confirms that in verse 3 gamma is as likely as in 2 and there is no room for a letter between eta and mu, and at 7, app. crit., read ΞΙΣ.
The remaining entries (nos 30–7, 39–62) tell a similar story: sound collation of published texts; a number of minor errors; excellent historical, philological and literary commentaries. One might have wished for more intense epigraphical investigation, more illustrations and better reference-checking. However, C. has provided what is, in the absence of a comprehensive Hellenistic corpus, one of several essential tools for students of both inscribed and literary epigram.
