C.’s book is a product of robust scholarship and a welcome contribution to the flourishing research on ancient epigram. C. explores within particular ‘contexts’ an admirable number of Hellenistic epigrams and some later first-century ce poems, almost all composed by well-known representatives of the genre. His book covers a wide range of themes. C. discusses, for instance, the exploitation of philosophy and medicine in his selected examples (Chapters 2, 3 and 8) and interprets three epigrams as originally inscriptional with the function, as he argues, of advertising shrines and contributing to the ‘fund-raising process’ (p. 95, Chapter 4). He studies others within the framework of literary polemics (Chapters 5, 6 and 7) and analyses a cluster of epigrams based on the use of local dialects, poetic allusions and the epichoric ‘context’ (Chapter 10) as well as generic innovations (mainly Chapters 12 and 13).
It is not possible to comment here on every aspect of this book, rich in thought-provoking ideas, but a few words should be said about C.’s endeavour to detect an original epigraphic context for a large number of Hellenistic epigrams, a topic that has already triggered reactions (see the reviews by A. Sens, BMCR 2017.06.21 and D. Sider, CW [2018], 280–1). The issue has been discussed in relation to specific epigrams: well-known examples are Posidippus 11 HE celebrating the Pharos of Alexandria (pp. 15–16), Posidippus 74 A–B on Callicrates’ dedication for his chariot victory (pp. 21–2) and the poet's three epigrams about the temple of Arsinoe-Aphrodite (p. 96). Since, however, no stones with the epigrams on them survive, an original epigraphic context should remain a possibility, indeed a very plausible one.
The issue is far from simple, especially if we take into consideration the cross-fertilisation between the two forms from the Hellenistic era onwards: an epigram interpreted as originally inscribed may excellently imitate inscriptional practices with its composer giving it the verisimilitude of an inscription, while the survival on stone of some epigrams preserved also on papyrus (with altered readings), for example the first distich of ‘Anacreon’ AP 6.144 (= CEG 312, p. 337) and ‘Anacreon’ AP 6.138 (= CEG 313, pp. 16–17) (cf. ‘Aeschines’ AP 6.330 below), establishes beyond doubt that other ‘literary’ epigrams, or even parts of them, as AP 6.144 shows, started their life as inscriptions. The accumulation and study of poems preserved on both papyri and stone (or claimed to have been inscriptional in ancient sources) might stimulate research in this field. C. opens up new perspectives when, for instance, he brings to our attention two unquestionably epigraphic epitaphs for victims of wine and rightly argues that such circumstances of death should not instantly lead one to the conclusion that an epigram on this topic is fictitious (pp. 244–7). However, the status of the two related epigrams in Ath. 10.436d–e is controversial (pp. 254–6), and if they were composed for a readership, then the date of the two inscriptions on deaths as a result of drinking (second century bce and early second century ce?) could suggest that what enabled and influenced the transfer of such material on inscriptions was the use of drunkards, binge-drinking deaths and similar motifs in bookish epigrams (e.g. the fictitious epitaphs on the ‘drunkard’ Anacreon, with some of these epigrams possibly originating in a sympotic ‘context’). While I agree that Hellenistic poets were not ‘averse to writing for inscription’ (p. 18), I would argue that the line between an epigram being inscriptional or successfully pretending to be inscriptional is too thin for firm conclusions to be reached: no rigid rules exist to prove unequivocally the original epigraphic context of a Hellenistic epigram that survives on papyrus.
A characteristic case study that reflects these reservations is Callimachus AP 6.147, categorised as inscriptional already by F. Chamoux ([1967], cited by C., pp. 22–4). Aceson offers Asclepius a tablet as proof that the debt for his wife's recovery was paid. C. informs us that the names ‘Aceson’ and ‘Demodice’ are attested epigraphically. But can we be sure that this poem was ‘plainly written to be inscribed on a real πίναξ’ (p. 22)? Tablets in Asclepius’ sanctuaries traditionally commemorated his miraculous cures while we never learn from which illness Demodice suffered (compare, for instance, ‘Aeschines’ AP 6.330, a dedication to Asclepius, which is partly preserved epigraphically [ = CEG 776] and clearly specifies the health problem and its healing). In AP 6.147, however, emphasis is placed on the ‘payment’ and the gentle mockery of Asclepius’ financial ‘concerns’ (see χρέος, ἀπέχεις with A.S.F. Gow and D.L. Page [1965], vol. 2, p. 180, ὤϕελεν, ἀπαιτῇς and the forensic μαρτυρίην).
Here, Callimachus could actually gently make fun of the way in which healing inscriptions (at least) in the Asclepieion at Epidaurus treated thanks-offerings. They acknowledged Asclepius’ healing power (as our epigram does), but also advertised that offerings to the god and his temple were expected: for example in IG IV2, 1.121.68–71 Asclepius wants to know what a boy will give him in order to cure him; in IG IV2, 1.122.26–35 he orders Sostrata to send offerings to Epidaurus after curing her; in IG IV2, 1.122.7–9 Hermon is made blind by the god because he did not bring an offering after his healing (cf. IG IV2, 1.121.41–8 and 54–68). I believe that AP 6.147 mocks this feature of inscriptions by presenting Aceson as ‘(over-)suspicious’ (to use C.’s accurate term, p. 24) lest the god, who expects a thanks-offering and punishes one if he does not get it, forgets about it (on purpose?) and demands more than he is supposed to get. This indirect portrayal of Asclepius as forgetful of thanks-offerings and the subtle humour resembles the god's treatment in Posidippus’ Iamatika (e.g., as scholars note, in 97 A–B, which may or may not be ‘real’, Soses is saved by Asclepius only to be found dead in 103 A–B – an ironic turn of events for a man whose name implies safety). Aceson, a real name, could have been selected because of its healing associations to create an implied comparison between the suppliant and the deity: if Aceson ‘share[s] with the god the credit for his wife's recovery’ (p. 23), then, in my opinion, there is mild irony directed at the deity, perhaps accentuated by the acoustic similarity between Aceson and Aceso, Asclepius’ daughter (mentioned by Gow and Page, op. cit., p. 180; interestingly, Pausanias 2.11.7 tells us that Euamerion, a later healing god, was called Acesis in Epidaurus). The man's name, with its intrinsic connotations of cure, has an impact on the tone of the poem, and this does not seem to be a coincidence. To conclude, we cannot be certain that this epigram was inscriptional.
Similar considerations apply to epigrams that are interpreted as performing other ‘real’ functions. For instance, C. brings to our attention Leonidas AP 6.13, found under a picture at the ‘House of Epigrams’ at Pompeii, and rightly argues that Hellenistic epigrams (but how many we cannot know) could have been initially composed to accompany mosaics/paintings (pp. 19–20, 417–18). But here things, as above, are not clear-cut. While, for example, C. compellingly argues that AP 6.13 could have originally served such a purpose for a Hellenistic patron, it is equally plausible that the poem started its life cycle as a fictitious one and then performed another function for an appropriate picture (cf. K. Gutzwiller, Poetic Garlands [1998], p. 230). In the same vein, no indisputable proof exists that Anyte AP 7.190 on Myro who buries two insects was ‘more plausibly’ commissioned as a picture label – as C. tells us, it ‘could easily be judged purely literary’ (p. 420) (e.g. Gutzwiller, op. cit., p. 66, suggests that Anyte may vary a lost poem by Erinna). Though C.’s argument is in essence valid (some Hellenistic epigrams could have had an original ‘real’ function), no ‘blueprint’ exists to help us come to irrefutable conclusions.
Irrespective of some reservations, this is a book full of original interpretations and ideas that reflect C.’s committed interaction with texts. It is not only experts in the field of Hellenistic and Latin poetry who will profit from it, but also graduate students (translations accompany Greek and Latin texts).
