W.'s groundbreaking articles on Palladas caused a stir among scholars with any knowledge of or interest in Palladas and his poetry.Footnote ¹ The very foundations on which they had based their approach to and interpretations of the epigrams were shaken: perhaps Palladas did not live and write around 319–390 or 400, as Bowra had argued,Footnote ² but 60–50 years earlier, from c. 259 to c. 340. W. based his arguments on the Epigrammata Bobiensia, which he dated before 350, and on the ‘Yale papyrus’, which was provisionally dated to 295–325.Footnote ³ The curiosity of scholars was immediately aroused, but had to await the publication of the editio princeps in 2012. Soon after its appearance, the intense interest and the intrinsic importance of the discovery led to an international conference, held at University College London, on 4–5 September 2014.Footnote ⁴ The handsomely produced volume of the editio princeps contains contributions by W. and his co-workers on the project, who are not named on the title pages, but who are acknowledged in the preface for their individual and combined contributions.

The introduction consists of seven sections. Section A, ‘Codicological Reconstruction’, by R.G. Babcock, explains the provenance of the ‘Yale epigram codex’. It was purchased from the Gallerie Nefer in Zurich in February 1996, where it came in a box containing scraps of papyrus, which had belonged to a recently deceased Egyptian collector, who had made the collection in the 1950s or 60s (p. 1 with n. 1). Unfortunately, this does not help to date the papyrus; one would have liked to know the archaeological details in order to establish or confirm the dating. The initial sorting and reconstruction into sheets (or bifolia) were done by R. Duttenhöffer, who was subsequently joined by Babcock and W. The result was 5 bifolia (= 10 leaves, 20 pages), mounted back-to-back in 5 frames, with text visible in front and back; a sixth frame held smaller fragments regarded as belonging to the same codex. The rest of the chapter deals with the order of the leaves, the dimensions of the codex, Hermopolis as a possible origin, the smaller fragments and the original number of pages in the codex.

Section B, ‘Paleography’, is by Duttenhöffer, who makes a detailed analysis of the handwriting and date, concluding that the codex is written in a documentary script influenced by the chancery style of the third and fourth centuries c.e.; she also analyses the ink and number of hands (one) and provides examples of the script. The codex is a practical one, with no pretence at elegant calligraphy; it was for private use. Section C, ‘Orthography and other Scribal Characteristics’, is by W., who briefly discusses the orthography, punctuation, abbreviations, corrections and sigla. In Section D, ‘Contents of the Codex’, W. covers the layout and titles, length of the epigrams, content and type, and the relationship to the Greek Anthology. A. Watanabe contributes a short study of the metres of the fragments (Section E ‘Metrics’), and concludes that the less rigid metrics suggest a date between the mid-second and fifth centuries.

The rest is by W. In Section F, ‘Authorship and Date’, he discusses the two epigrams known from the Greek Anthology, the subgenres, themes and style compared with Palladan epigrams in the Anthology, and dating (c. 280–340). Section G, ‘Historical Notes’, is concerned with the possible historical context of the epigrams: ‘Tetrarchic campaigns in Egypt’, ‘Tetrarchic campaigns against the Sarmatians’, ‘Destruction of Alexandria’ and ‘Destruction of the Alexandrian Museum’ during the years 272–311.

A brief ‘Note on Editorial Procedure’ is followed by the ‘Diplomatic Transcription, Paleographical Notes, and Text’. The 24 pages of the codex are printed with the transcription on the left and edited text on the right, with an extended apparatus. This is followed by the commentary, which offers a synopsis, translation and analysis of the readable parts of the fragments. A list of references, indexes and the twelve photographic plates of the bifolia are at the end (a list of figures and plates is provided on p. xi).

The sheer mass of descriptive detail and scholarly discussion is impossible to reflect adequately in this review, which will instead concentrate on the two major matters of relevance to Palladan scholarship: the ascription of the new fragments to Palladas and the dating of the codex, both argued persuasively and in great detail. The main connection to Palladan authorship is the occurrence in the codex (p. 21, 5–8) of the quatrain already known as AG 9.379, attributed to Palladas. Another four lines from a larger fragment (p. 12, 28–31) appear in the Anthology as the anonymous 9.127, but attributed to Palladas by Jacobs (1803), whom W. supports (pp. 41–2, 167–8). For the rest, thematic, linguistic and stylistic elements are correlated with those found in Palladas’ epigrams in the Anthology. A sceptic may object that the accumulation of thematic, linguistic and stylistic similarities may suggest influence or imitation by another poet, but not prove identity of authorship. One would instead expect an Alexandrian poet to vary the content and language of his own epigrams rather than repeat them.

The dating of the codex on palaeographical, metrical, thematic and stylistic analyses is narrowed down to c. 280–340 on the basis of the historical context that W. proposed and reconstructed in his earlier articles. Added now are the references to Hermopolis which, it is suggested, place the poet of the codex in the years post-267 to post-306 (pp. 54–5, 136–7), and to the imperial titulature of Diocletian and Galerius in the years 293 to 300 (pp. 55–6, 162–6). Palladas’ dating is brought into line with this, situating his lifetime in Constantine's period as sole ruler (324–337). However, even in the case of the complete epigrams of Palladas in the Anthology, scholars cannot be sure of the historical references and context. This is much more difficult in the case of the codex epigrams, where there is simply not enough secure text on which to base findings and arguments.Footnote ⁵ And even if we had a better-preserved codex, tying a poet's utterances to specific historical events and persons would still have been problematical.

The book is a bit awkward to handle: the text and commentary are far apart, the apparatus criticus runs over into later pages, and page numbers and plate numbers differ; but it is difficult to imagine an alternative formatting. Typographical and other errors are few: ‘Lidell’ for ‘Liddell’ (p. ix); ‘epic vocabulary and phrasing occur’ (p. 53); ‘Silentarius’ for ‘Silentiarius’ (pp. 122 bis, 143, 164, 175, 180); adulterii for adulteriis (p. 136); ‘during the’ repeated (p. 158); ‘povinces’ for ‘provinces’ (p. 186); Alexiou's work should be referenced as 1999, and the bibliographical details of the review provided.

This publication is the product of careful and meticulous scholarship. Despite the bad condition of the papyrus and the state of the fragmented text, W. and his team have produced an admirable first edition. Clearly much has been achieved, and much still remains to be done. The work is certainly destined to be the basis of much new research.