1The volume under review contains 12 contributions (8 in Portuguese and 4 in English) which were originally presented in the international conference Quinta Semana de Estudos sobre o Período Helenístico: a Poética Calimaquiana e sua Influência na Poesia Epigramática (São Paulo, Brazil) in September 2017. It aims at discussing several aspects of Callimachean poetics in Callimachus’ own epigrams and their reception in later Greek and Latin poetry. The collection ranges from the 3rd century BC to the 4th century AD and moves between the Greek and the Roman world. The work appears in the wake of an intense scholarly interest in epigram, which has witnessed the appearance of a significant number of new editions, edited volumes, and companions over the past couple of decades. Going beyond the well-explored theme of the influence of Callimachus on Latin poetry, the book argues for a very pervasive and nuanced influence of Callimachean poetics in several authors and contexts.

2In the first contribution (“Os epigramas de Calímaco e a poesia inscrita”, p. 11), R. Hunter explores some inscribed funerary epigrams along with some epigrams by Callimachus, focussing on their mutual relationship as well as the one they entertain with the Homeric model. The contribution ultimately aims at stimulating a reflection on the relationship between inscribed poetry and ‘literary’ epigrams, challenging rigid divisions between these two categories in a line of investigation which has been quite productive in the past few years.

3In the second contribution (“A recepção de Calímaco em Meleagro”, p. 33), K. Gutzwiller, focusses on the reception of Callimachus in Meleager’s poetry. Callimachus influenced has been explored in depth in relation to Latin poetry, whereas the intermediary step of Meleager’s garland has been comparatively underestimated. The author sets to outline how this influence is visible after sufficient effort, in what she compares to ‘palimpsest’ text hidden beneath the surface. This is accomplished through extensive examples from both authors: proem sections (namely textual parallels between Call. Ait. F 1.1–6 and Meleager’s Garland proem = AP 4.1.1–4), the metapoetic images of the garlands (Call. Ait. F 43.12–17 ~ Meleager’s garland imagery and the myrtus associated with Callimachus in AP 4.1.21–22), erotic themes, and the imagery of epitaphs for animals.

4The third contribution (“Pequena poética dos ‘autoepitáfios’ e dos epitáfios para poetas”, p. 59), by F. Vasconcellos Amaral, draws on the vast amount of ‘poems on poets’ from book 7 of the Greek Anthology, which the author effectively defines as a consolation on a human loss combined with a reflection on a poetic loss (‘perda poetica’). Within this context, the paper aims at sketching the relationship between the self-epitaphs composed by a group of epigrammatists (Nossis, Leonidas of Tarentum, Callimachus, and Meleager) and epitaphs for other poets (e.g. Rhinton, Erinna, Hipponax) composed by the same authors. These poems are a very tangible example of the Hellenistic poetics of ‘tradition and innovation’ and the constant negotiation between the heritage of the poetic past and self-awareness of Hellenistic poets.

5The contribution by A. Sens (“Ocasião, gênero e a recepção de Calímaco em alguns poemas da Guirlanda de Filipe”, p. 79) deals with some epigrams from the Garland of Philip which have been often seen as a criticism of Callimachean poetics, arguing for a more nuanced view of the matter. The ultimate argument of his paper is that these epigrams actually much resemble Callimachus’ position towards the poetic past: in the same way as Callimachus criticised poets who imitate Homer too closely rather than Homer himself, so some of these authors are more critical of Callimachean imitators than of Callimachus himself. This argumentation weakens the more traditional reading of poems from the Garland of Philip as ‘callimacheans’ vs ‘anticallimacheans’.

6The contribution by E. Ferriol (“How to defend Callimachean poetics with one lawyer and three nanny-goats”, p. 97) offers a reading of Martial, 6.19, a critique on the excess of Callimachean aesthetics, arguing for a more nuanced reading of the author’s stance on poetics; the relationship with Lucillius AP 11.141, a very similar epigram, is also addressed. The result is a discussion on literary aesthetics that also involves metapoetic imagery such as that of animals.

7The article by F. Paifer Cairolli (“O lugar de Calímaco na poética de Marcial”, p. 115) focusses on a case of Roman reception of Callimachus, i.e. the case of Martial’s epigrams. This is a particularly useful author to study the topic, since its oeuvre remarkably preserves traits of its original editorial structure. Despite mentioning explicitly Callimachus only twice (4.23, 10.4), Martial’s epigrams show a deep influence of the poet of Cyrene, though in a mediated form: that is to say, Martial is often influenced by poets (such as Catullus) who are already much influenced by Callimachus.

8The chapter by N.E. Manriquez Lozano (“The influence of Callimachean epigram on the topics and internal structure of some Horace’s Odes”, p. 125) builds on previous scholarship on the influence of Callimachus on Horace’s poetry and proceeds to further explore links between the two poets visible in through topics, allusions, and structural elements. The author argues that this influence goes beyond intertextual allusions but actually also involve the way in which Horace read poetry.

9The contribution by A. Agnolon (“Pet Sematary: reverberações de Calímaco em alguns epigramas funerários da Antologia Palatina”, p. 141) focusses on some of the epigrams on dead pets and insects contained in the Greek Anthology, arguing that they act as pretexts for discussions of poetics by their authors: this is highlighted through some parallelism between terms used for refined poetry and small insects, which overlap in the Callimachean passage of the Prologue to the Telchins (ll. 21–30); the author also argues that this attitude carries on in Roman poetry, such as in the famous example of Catullus 3 (the poem for Lesbia’s passer).

10The chapter by A. Poulos (“Gregory of Nazianzus and the epigrammatic tradition”, p. 155) is devoted to the epigrammatic production of Gregory of Nazianzus (4th century AD), a poet known to us through an incredibly high number of epigrams (more than 300), mostly handed down through book 8 of the Greek Anthology. The author focuses on some distinctive characteristics of Gregory’s epitaphs, namely some ‘thematic cycles’ of epigrams on the same theme and the mixture of scriptural and Homeric reminiscences. The conclusion is that much of his poetic features are to be placed both in the Callimachean tradition and in the wake of Meleager’s collection with variations on specific themes.

11E. Rapella’s contribution (“The Callimachean legacy in the poetry of Mnasalces of Sicyon”, p. 167) deals with the Hellenistic poet Mnasalces of Sicyion and the way in which this author combines Callimachean inspiration with a personal touch and some experimentation. The author argues for a varied and original engagement with Callimachean poems.

12The contribution by D. Silva (“Outras metas: os poetas nos epigramas de Calímaco”, p. 183) is centred around those epigrams by Callimachus which refer to contemporary poets of his time. These are all the more remarkable given that praises contained in such poems are relatively rare, as Hellenistic poetry usually engages either in a praise of poets of the past or in a criticism of contemporary authors. Even though we often do not possess much from the works by these poets (e.g. Heraclitus of Halicarnassus), we do get the sense that Callimachus and these authors must have shared a poetic common ground.

13The last contribution (“Discussões Poéticas nos Epigramas de Calímaco”, p. 197), by F. Rodrigues Jr., is devoted to Callimachus’ metapoetic epigrams (which amount to 9 out of his 63 surviving epigrams). A brief reading of all these poems if offered in order to show points of contacts with other Callimachean passages.

14There is (understandably) a great deal of overlap in the themes and texts treated in the different contributions (for example, the Heraclitus-poem by Callimachus is discussed in many a chapter) and some of the contributions are indeed complementary, which is certainly an added value to the book: for example, the chapters by Silva, Rodrigues Junior and Vasconcellos Amaral all discuss epigrams on poets/poems, especially by Callimachus, from different points of view, and the discussion on (meta‑)poetic garlands features both in Gutzwiller’s and Manriquez Lozano’s articles. The only pity with regards to this is that the reader is left to explore this on their own, as the book generally lacks cross-references between different chapters and there are no indexes accompanying the volume, and one cannot work out quickly which chapters discuss e.g. a specific epigram. Another merit of the volume which should not be underestimated is that of providing contributions in Portuguese language, which will certainly prove useful for the growing Lusophone classicist community and is a commendable effort to preserve the multilingual nature of our discipline. On the whole, Callimachean Poetics and its Influence on Epigrammatic Poetry is a wide ranging, stimulating book which explores a fascinating topic from different angles. It will lead scholars of Hellenistic poetry and Callimachus both into well-known passages and more unusual avenues.