Widely held to have been written in the third century ad, Quintus Smyrnaeus’ (of Smyrna) Posthomerica famously fills the narrative gap between the end of the Iliad, where Hector's funeral takes place, and the beginning of the Odyssey, as the hero begins his long travels home; the attentive reader soon notices the lines of epic convergence and then the engagement with Homer, including use of similes, type-scenes and characterisation. But, in Quintus’ narrative, over a millennium later, further influences are discernible as he passes through the Epic Cycle Trojan War episodes that cover the deaths of Hector's ‘replacements’ (Penthesilea, Memnon and Eurypylus) to the demise of Achilles himself, the Hoplon Crisis and the suicide of Ajax (see Ovid, Met. 13, and Sophocles’ Ajax, respectively); moving on with the recruitment of Neoptolemus (Achilles’ progeny – in many ways), Philoctetes and his Heraclean bow, Quintus also includes the Horse ruse, Troy's final fall, Priam's death at Neoptolemus’ hands and, for good measure, Polyxena's sacrifice and Cassandra's rape. In these, the reader detects interaction with not only epic and tragedy, but also other genres, including philosophy and history, that evoke a distinctly Hellenistic tone.

Quintus has attracted growing attention of late, with a significant publication of conference proceedings (M. Baumbach & S. Bär [edd.], Quintus Smyrnaeus. Transforming Homer [2007]), closely followed by a number of monographs (i.e. Bär, Quintus Smyrnaeus, Posthomerica 1 [2009]; C. Maciver, Quintus Smyrnaeus’ Posthomerica. Engaging Homer in Late Antiquity [2012] and B. Boyten, Epic Journeys, forthcoming) and, most recently, N. Hopkinson's Loeb translation of the poem (2018). S.’s work offers another opportunity to scour the classical library shelves under ‘Q’. She begins with the standard overview of things Quintian: date, methodology, Homeric considerations (see A. James's translation and notes, The Trojan Epic: Posthomerica [2004]; Baumbach & Bär [2007], ‘Introduction’). The subsequent chapters take as their starting points: Penthesilea, Memnon and their conflict with Achilles (Chapter 2); Achilles and his legacy (Chapter 3); and Neoptolemus (Chapter 4). The latter chapters (5: ‘Reconsidering Heroic Tactics’; 6: ‘Suffering Trojans, Victorious Achaeans’; 7: ‘Heroic and Divine Power’) are really more of the same, where (though not detectable in the chapter titles) Neoptolemus is the cohesive element. This could appeal to a reader who has little/no knowledge of Quintus, looking for a relatively chunky chronological summary (see James [2004], ‘Introduction’, ‘Critical Summary’ and ‘Commentary’); useful minimal accompaniments (with James's translation, and both Homeric epics) should include M. West's Greek Epic Fragments (2003), Ovid's Metamorphoses and Apollodorus’ Library.

S. has gone to great pains to show that she has engaged vociferously with the gamut of scholarship (her dissertation, Worthy of the Aeacids [2016], includes less bibliography); for instance, she cites works forthcoming (i.e. K. Carvounis, A Commentary on Quintus of Smyrna, Posthomerica 14 [2019]), the usual suspects (i.e. F. Vian, Quintus de Smyrne [1963] et al.), notes her involvement in Quintus workshops (i.e. London 2013; Cambridge 2016) and unpublished (though available online) theses (i.e. V.E. Tomasso, ‘Cast in the Later Grecian Mould’: Quintus of Smyrna's Reception of Homer [2010] and B. Boyten, Epic Journeys: Studies in the Reception of the Hero and Heroism in Quintus Smyrnaeus’ Posthomerica [2010]); indeed, her bibliography is very useful for up-to-date listings. She also has much to say on some Quintus specialists, relegated to footnotes or in the main text.

S. highlights the importance of the Zurich Quintus conference in 2006 (p. 14) and the resulting publication of its proceedings (Baumbach & Bär [2007]). S.’s linear approach is helpful for general coverage, with consideration of a number of key episodes and characters, such as Penthesilea's arrival and battle (pp. 47–64), Memnon (pp. 81–93) and, at the other end, the fall of Troy (pp. 271ff.) and the last stages of the Greek's sack of Troy and departure (pp. 315ff.). Her thoughts on Triphiodorus, for instance in relation to Priam's death at Neoptolemus’ hands in Book 13 (pp. 299–300), are interesting.

On the famous delayed invocation to the Muse (Post. 12.306–13) S. notes, ‘The tendency to understand this passage as a literal biographical claim … has given way to a more convincing focus on its rich literary references and (meta-)literary symbolism’ (p. 9). Wise words indeed, though S. largely ignores this direction throughout, focusing instead on the linear overview noted above. This raises some questions about the appropriateness of the subtitle, A Study of Heroic Characterization and Heroism, which at one level promises a detailed character study. Furthermore, as with the scholar of Virgil's Aeneid, a richer character exploration necessarily considers the hero's place not only within his epic, but also in the context of his historical time (when the piece is composed) and genre etc.

Noting that a clear definition of a hero is difficult (p. 16), S. cites Sarpedon's noblesse oblige speech (Iliad 12.310–28); perhaps Phoenix’ reminder of Peleus’ instruction to Achilles to be ‘a speaker of words and a doer of deeds’ (Il. 9.443) may have been a more helpful offering. On Penthesilea S. misses a trick by omitting deeper analysis of her arming scene (p. 53); clearly engaging with Homer's arming (Iliad 3, 11, 16, 19), her double-headed axe (βουπλῆγ᾿ ἀμφίτυπον, Post. 1.159) reveals a hero(ine) of a very different order (see Boyten [2010], pp. 45–7). S. also rejects the idea that Penthesilea's interaction with Achilles is gendered (p. 62); yet, Achilles in his initial address to her (Ὦ γύναι, Post. 1.575) and the romantic response, bemoaning the loss of a once potential (now dead) wife (Post. 1.671–4; and Thersites’ critique of him, γυναιμανὲς, 726, 723–40), suggest otherwise.

Regarding other instances that could have extended the scope, the prevalence of the un-Iliadic apotheosis of Achilles (i.e. Post. 3.770–9 and 14.186–7; note the former also includes Dionysus and Heracles), culminating in his (Achilles’) divine swan song (Post. 14.185–222), is surely ambrosia to the scholar of characterisation in all its splendour: i.e. a metapoetic reading should be part of her/his weaponry. Further, on Achilles, an analysis of Quintus’ exploration of the narratives around the prizes at his funeral games would have added more substantial heroic flesh to his giant frame (Post. 4.171ff.); so too songs selectively recounting his heroic exploits: old Nestor's (Post. 4.144–70); anonymous Bard (Post. 14.127–35). Unfortunately, S. missed these targets.

On Neoptolemus, central to much of her study (see pp. 178, 225), S. notes his heroic immaturity (i.e. p. 181), citing examples of Odysseus distracting Neoptolemus from being overcome by his father's tomb on his approach to Troy (p. 215), his rejection of the horse ruse (pp. 243–4) and his curt response to dear old Phoenix’ praise (p. 257). Yet, we have seen a fully mature Achilles devastated by Patroclus’ Iliadic death (Il. 18–24 and Post. 1.377–9), Philoctetes side with Neoptolemus on the horse ploy (Post. 12.84ff.) and Memnon's humility following Priam's flattery (Post. 2.148–55) etc.

The theme of character studies in Quintus, and a number of the arguments, had already been anticipated in Boyten's Ph.D. (UCL [2010]; published online 2011: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1310146/1/1310146.pdf). Still, S. provides a useful introduction for the student approaching Quintus; although, I was left wondering if this protean monograph was a character or a narrative study. And, it would have benefited from deeper analysis and metapoetic readings. S. notes early on, ‘Boyten proposes the first Studies in the Reception of the Hero and Heroism in Quintus. His approach, however, lacks a coherent vision on ‘Homeric heroism’ to start with [cf. S. above], and is focused mostly on character case studies that are embedded in an overarching (and – as I will argue below – in my opinion not very convincing) meta-literary interpretation of the epic. Hence, despite his suggestive title and a certain overlap in our research material, our approaches decisively differ’ (p. 16 n. 55). Yet, oddly, S. seems to warm to this approach by the end: ‘I am convinced … that Quintus’ explicit adherence to Homer … give[s] proof of a strong meta-literary reflective potential in the Posthomerica’ (p. 364).