This extensive and outstanding work is the result of collaboration. D. and F. engage in a meticulous effort aimed at disentangling the multiple complexities that surround Stesichorus, a lyric poet shrouded in the mist of time and myth.

In the introduction, F. explores Stesichorus’ Date, Life, Works, Performance, Myth, Language, Metre, Style, Transmission and Text. He conducts a methodical and well-documented study, surveying a vast amount of internal and external evidence. In §§1. Date and 2. Life, F. delves into the vita, ethnicity and poetic career of the poet, viewing with scepticism the double names attributed to him (pp. 15–17; 30–1). The original name T(e)isias (Suda) may have Oscan associations and is a common Greek name, but unattested before the tenth century as an alternative name for Stesichorus (first apud Simonides); hence ‘any hypothetical connexion is far from certain’; besides ‘it seems quite a coincidence that someone who achieved fame as a choral poet was given at birth a name so prophetic of his then unrecognized talent: “he who sets up the chorus”’. F. concludes, ‘The Suda's name might be a fabrication by a scholar offended by this coincidence, but it more probably preserves a genuine tradition, since it seems too unremarkable to be a fiction’. We may note here that double names – renaming or metonomasia – constitute an integral part of ancient poetic onomastics. This practice is well attested and signals coming-of-age, change of vocation or status (e.g. Eido-Theonoe: Eur. Hel. 10–14). Names whose qualities are verified in the future are also observed in ancient poetry (e.g. Helen: Aesch. Ag. 681–90).Footnote ¹

In §3. Works, F. compares Stesichorus with his poetic predecessors, epic and lyric, and acknowledges ‘the difficulties of fitting Stesichorus’ poems into any generic category’ (p. 21). On account of their monumental character and the judgement of antiquity, his poems are more properly grouped with epic than lyric poems (pp. 21–2).

In §4. Performance, F. takes a fresh look at the performance of Stesichorus’ poetry: his ties with a specific locale are defied by his linguistic amalgam, the absence of local information and the wide range of his themes. All this reinforces the idea of a Panhellenic audience and a poet travelling around the Greek world. His mythical tales constitute a common and widespread Greek heritage, and his conflicting compositions were not politically motivated or commissioned by patrons (pp. 27–9; 39, 343). They were performed at civic festivals perhaps involving competition (pp. 26–30), and in a variety of ways, depending on the occasion; yet ‘the case as a whole appears insufficient to challenge the choral hypothesis’ (pp. 30–2).

In §5. Myth, F. outlines the content of Stesichorus’ mythological cycles, insisting on his innovative, psychological and humanising aptitude; women enjoy an exalted role in his poetry; so do unconventional or beastly creatures. The poet asserts his originality, reshaping epic poetry and even recomposing conflicting versions (pp. 36–9).

In §6. Language, F. correlates the ethnic origins of the poet with his literary idiom: epic or spoken Euboean Ionic and Doric constitute his linguistic amalgam. The linguistic examples garnered from the lyric corpus persuade F. that Stesichorus’ interaction with epic myth and language gave him the opportunity ‘to demonstrate his originality’ (p. 45). F. approves Willi's remark (p. 46 n. 268) that Stesichorus’ language is ‘a generic hybrid’ that responds to the needs of choral lyric and epic in a new colonial environment.

In §7. Metre, F. is content to note the essential features of the Stesichorean dactylo-anapaestic and dactylo-epitrite metres, for example period-end, function, development and integration of anceps, and Stesichorus’ early position in the metrical tradition. D. and F. defer their detailed metrical analyses for subsequent treatments of the poems.

§8. Style comprises a selection of multilayered and sensitive literary interpretations under three aspects of style: imagery, redundancy and narrative. F. seeks imagery (pp. 53–5) in noun-epithet nexuses or in broader, nuanced passages (e.g. Geryon's death). Under redundancy (pp. 55–8), F. discusses the emphasis of ideas by means of accumulation of themes and repetition (e.g. Oresteia, Palinode(s)). In spite of the episodic and digressive character of his narrative, Stesichorus targets the acquisition of unity and focus. F. detects the deliberate creation of the unexpected and surprising (pp. 58–9), and re-evaluates Quintilian's redundant atque effunditur: we need neither adopt his literary preferences nor his authorial voice among the ancients, he says. We should allow our minds, unprejudiced, to appreciate Stesichorus’ poetry, his aims and means (p. 60).

In §9. Transmission, F. correlates Stesichorus’ worldwide performances and the circulation of his poems. The poet's reputation grew apace: lyric poets and Athenian dramatists were familiar with his work in written form as this was re-performed at symposia. With the Peripatetics begins an era of scholarship centring on the poet's life and work, which was preserved in the Library of Alexandria. Scholars produced commentaries of his poems. Fragments of his work survive via numerous quotations of later authors, and on papyri from Oxyrhynchus (Π²–Π⁸) or Fayum (Π¹, Thebais?).

§10. Text elaborates on the above: in Part A, Sources, F. focuses first on the manuscripts, the physical appearance of the extant papyri fragments and their editions, and second on the secondary tradition, tracing the quotations in ancient and medieval authors, and providing details about their content, date, etc. In Part B, Presentation, F. justifies the need for renumbering the fragments: the ‘confusing amalgam’ created by the insertion of recently discovered papyri into the old material is thus eliminated, yielding an orderly, manageable and continuous text.

Following the introduction, F. supplies a conspectus of useful lectional aids (Index Siglorum, Codices Antiqui, Canticorum Sigla, Sigla Cetera), before launching into the Stesichorean corpus. The fragments, renumbered, display the evolution of the stories in sequential order. The ancient quotations take the lead, followed by the recent papyri findings, apparatus criticus being the sine qua non.

The commentary is a sophisticated section, distinguished for its critical aptitude, sensitive interpretations and scholarly thoroughness. D. and F. evaluate a rich gamut of bibliographical sources in a sound and competent manner. The poems, by and large fragmentary and obscure, are classified in mythical cycles, and studied by both D. and F., with the exception of Thebais? (F.). They engage in a systematic investigation, adopting a consistent pattern, which includes the examination of tradition, the mythical and artistic background, Stesichorus’ version, the physical description and texture of the papyri, and metrical analyses. The study of each mythical cycle culminates with an itemised commentary, marked by deep and extensive scrutiny on a lexical, literary and bibliographical level. D. and F. are committed to surveying and critically assessing an impressive array of ancient and contemporary evidence, before they submit their own imaginative and well-argued interpretations. Even the shortest fragments are infused with meaning and coherence within the corpus itself and the mythical tradition.

This book closes with a number of poems of uncertain attribution, spurious, or of conjectural ascription. There follows an extensive bibliography, abbreviations of works and names, editions and commentaries. The comparison of numbers and the two indexes of subjects and Greek words are especially helpful to readers.

D. and F. offer an elegant and panoramic view of Stesichorus’ poetry in time and space, justifying his fame and merit. This work is of a high calibre, and deserves warm commendation.