Funerary Epigrams of Ancient Greece: Reflections on Literature, Society and Religion by Marta González González

Abstract

396 PHOENIX of style—have a different status in relation to the inconspicuous and often probably unconsciously used metaphors discussed by Lakoff and Johnson. The appendix on the semantics of Änyow and únyŽv (249–255) is indicative of the book’s methodological soundness: Brockliss argues on the basis of etymology as well as occurrences in Homeric epic that the root únyo/e- originally referred to “flowers” (rather than “surface” or “bursting forth” in general) and that the use of these terms consequently constitutes vegetal imagery. Yet the instances covered here all refer to actual flowers in the narrative, and this section also does not include and discuss metaphorical applications. Ludwig-Maximilians-UniversitÈ at MÈ unchen Fabian Horn Funerary Epigrams of Ancient Greece: Reflections on Literature, Society and Religion. By Marta Gonz alez Gonz alez. London and New York: Bloomsbury. 2019. Pp. ix, 213, 11 figs. This monograph offers a fresh introduction to private funerary verse inscriptions from archaic and classical Greece, making Hansen’s corpus accessible to a wider public.1 The book consists of an introduction and eight chapters, with notes placed after the conclusion, followed by a bibliography and two indices (the first lists the 161 inscriptions quoted and gives a table of concordances between IG or GVI and CEG, while the second is a five-page general index). Chapter One offers a chronological survey of the typologies of funerary monuments. González follows Clairmont’s method of studying gravestone and epigram together, which suits the material perfectly.2 Chapter Two in turn deals with literary aspects of verse inscriptions. Here González’s analysis of the origin of the elegiac couplet not only omits the longest archaic epigrams, but also ignores some important studies on the subject;3 as a result one should not accept without question her observations on the alleged evolution of their length. González also posits a gap in private epigrams between 510 and 440 b.c. due to the preponderance of public monuments commemorating the Persian Wars. This conclusion, however, presupposes that all epigrams for fallen warriors are public and, vice versa, that all public epigrams are for fallen warriors. Yet in that period war seems to be the predominant subject even in private epigrams, while only four, all public, refer to the Persian Wars.4 1 P. A. Hansen, Carmina Epigraphica Graeca (2 vols.; Berlin and New York 1983–89). 2 C. W. Clairmont, Gravestone and Epigram: Greek Memorials from the Archaic and Classical Period (Mainz 1970). 3 Cf. SEG 41.540 (Ambrakia, 530–500 b.c.) and BÉ 2015, n. 306 (Thebes, 530–500 b.c.), respectively five and four elegiac couplets. Recently, another long epigram in distichs, SEG 64.851 (Kaulonia, 480–470 b.c.), was discovered. González does not quote A. Aloni and A. Iannucci, L’elegia greca e l’epigramma: dalle origini al V sec. Con un’appendice sul nuovo Archiloco (Florence 2007). For further bibliography, see M. Tentori Montalto, “Some Notes on Croesus’ Dedication to Amphiaraos at Thebes (BÉ, 2015, n. 306),” ZPE 204 (2017) 1–9, at 2, n. 7. 4 See M. Tentori Montalto, Essere primi per il valore: Gli epigrammi funerari greci su pietra per i caduti in guerra (VII–V sec. a.C.) (Pisa and Rome 2017) for the following epigrams: CEG 79, 107, 112, 114, 118, 142, 170, 637 = 118a (private epigrams); CEG 2, 3, 131 and SEG 56.430 (epigrams on the Persian Wars). GVI 33 may have been composed later. BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 397 Chapter Three starts by considering two epigrams and their statues. While the connection between statue and base is certain in the case of Phrasikleia’s epigram (CEG 24), the same is not true for the epigram on Kroisos (CEG 27), and yet González accepts it as a given throughout the book.5 She compares Phrasikleia’s epigram with SEG 57.799 (Kos, late sixth century b.c.), which offers the oldest testimony for the expression “bride of Hades.” González prudently rejects the idea that Kroisos belongs to the Alcmaeonid family. Her characterization of the epigram for Kroisos as a “dialogue” with the passerby , is, however, inaccurate, since the latter does...