The collection contains editions with introduction, critical text, translation and explanatory notes of all Hellenistic elegists except Callimachus. It is divided into three parts. The first contains testimonia and fragments of those judged to be, with reason, the five most important Hellenistic elegists, namely Philitas, Hermesianax, Alexander of Aetolia, Phanocles and Parthenius. The second includes testimonia and fragments of seventeen further authors, including poets known to have written in a variety of genres such as Eratosthenes, Posidippus and Simias. The third is devoted to elegiac adespota of varying size and interest, some known for some time to Classicists, such as the so-called Tattoo elegy (Hermesianax fr. 13 Lightfoot) and the Pride of Halicarnassus (SGO 01/12/02), others likely to be familiar only to the smaller community of papyrologists.

G.C. acknowledges in the introduction that the collection does not include astronomical poems or works of scientific character. But philosophy is also tacitly excluded; consequently, Crates of Thebes, who employed elegiacs for hymns (SH 359–61) shortly before Callimachus (and possibly Philitas), is, justifiably, albeit regrettably, left out. The same goes for Timon of Phlius’ Indalmoi (SH 841–4), a philosophical poem on illusions by a poet whose major work, the Silloi, exercised a significant influence on the early Hellenistic triad.

Readers of Spanish scholarship will be familiar with J.A. Martín García's excellent selection of Poesía helenística menor, translated with short notes in the ‘Biblioteca Clásica Gredos’ series (1994). G.C.'s work, although confined to the boundaries of a single genre, is an incomparably more ambitious enterprise. We have here not only the first ever translation into any modern language of Hellenistic elegiac adespota, but also the first ever collection of testimonia of ‘minor’ elegiac poets such as Phanocles, Moero and Nicaenetus. The use of such an extensive corpus has allowed G.C. to offer a fresh assessment of a genre that has pivoted for so long around Callimachus and his Aetia alone.

In the introduction, after a brief account of relevant scholarship from the past two centuries, G.C. offers interesting methodological considerations on the difficulties posed by texts of limited size in determining the content of fragments, even when the authors and titles of poems are known. The introduction also contains a helpful discussion of the origin of the genre, with special attention given to the establishment of the catalogic framework in the archaic age and its employment in later erotic poetry. G.C. skilfully traces the gradual development across the centuries of narrative or digressive elements within the genre (which he calls microgéneros), from foundation episodes to bucolic themes. There are also chapters dedicated to the paradigmatic value of myth in elegy; the emergence of aetiology as a trademark of Hellenistic sensitivity; the politics of systematic divergence from Homer (branded «periferia» homérica) pursued by elegists in the treatment of myth in general and love in particular.

Every poet or work in the collection is introduced by an informative state-of-the-art discussion of key aspects of content and textual transmission. The introduction to Philitas is particularly rich in detail, with ample discussion of notoriously thorny issues, from the genre of his Demeter (including the possible relation of some of the dubia with the goddess’ cult at Cos) to the content of more elusive compositions attributed to the Coan, such as the elegies for Bittis and the paignia. The longest fragments in the first part of the collection, Hermesianax fr. 3, from the Leontion, and Alexander of Aeolia fr. 3, from the Apollo, are given further consideration in separate critical appendices, where the editor's approach to the text is explained in more detail, though not always persuasively. Indeed, editorial choices appear to me to be often marred by an excess of conservatism, which becomes particularly evident in the text of Hermesianax’ Leontion, where G.C. reproduces many of the unfortunate textual choices made by P. Kobiliri in her much-criticised edition of the poet. (Here, G.C.'s text differs from Lightfoot's in as many as 55 of the 98 complete verses.)

Some detailed comments on individual poets:

Philitas: in fr. 6.4 ἔμπεδα καὶ τοῖσιν the brevis at the end of the hemistich is hard to justify.

Hermesianax: in place of the ametrical περὶ πικρά in l. 81, admitted by G.C., but generally emended by editors, one could suggest περὶ νύκτα in relation to Philitas’ proverbial nocturnal elucubrations, cf. σκοτίην in 80 and Spanoudakis, Philitas of Cos, 69 on T 21.

Alexander of Aetolia: in T 6 Ritschl's συνήκμασε … Νικάνδρῳ is unlikely to be correct: see E. Magnelli, in: M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit and G.C. Wakker, Beyond the Canon (2006), pp. 201–2 for the chronology of the latter. Fr. 3.9 θελήσει at the beginning of a verse is hardly defensible. For καὶ ἅμα, proposed by G.C. in lieu of the transmitted ἅλα at 3.15, read instead ἅμα καί?

Phanocles: at fr. 1.11 the transmitted αὐτίκα δ’ ὑπῆν, which scans as an unlikely meiouros, is probably corrupted (pace Alexander), given the absence of a connective particle at 12. Note that the scholar emending τῖε to ἤ in fr. 5 is not Giacomo Leopardi, but Paul Leopardus.

Simias: the poet did not lead a campaign for the colonisation of Amorgos from Samos and did not participate in the foundation of any cities; the Suda entry for T 1 contains information on Semonides of Amorgos wrongly attributed to Simias: see Adler ad σ 431.

Simylus: at fr. 1.5 read ἂρ for ἄρ’.

Sostratus/Sosicrates: in T 1, for Ἡρόδοτος πρώτῃ ‘por primera vez’, read πρώτῳ (scil. βυβλίῳ), i.e. at 1.148.1: see Billerbeck ad St.Byz. μ 229.

Adespota papyracea: in SH 964, whilst the content of ‘poem 2’ remains wholly obscure, I wonder, after a glance at the online picture of the papyrus, whether its title could not have been ὁ δα̣ί̣μ[ων (rather than ὀδυρμ[ or Ὀδομ[), given that δαίμονος occurs later in l. 41 with reference to either Heracles or ‘the demon of Mt. Oeta’ and that daimones like the Trophoniades appear elsewhere in the papyrus. At SH 966.7 ἐν τεμέ[νει hardly works at the end of a hexameter: write ἐν τεμέ[νεσσι?

I noticed some typos, mostly clustered in the bibliography and generally unobtrusive, with the exception of 3.7.9–10, where a verse was erroneously printed twice. Minor shortcomings and disagreements are inevitable in a work of such remarkable scope and erudition. There are in fact many instances, in which G.C. suggests sensible improvements to the given text, for example in Parthen. fr. 2 ii 19, where ἐρυσάρματο̣ι̣ is put forward in lieu of χρυσάρματοι as metaplasm of ἐρυσάρματες.

This book has many virtues. The explanatory notes are clear, detailed and to the point. The apparatus criticus is extremely generous, and there is ample evidence of laborious philological work conducted on the original manuscripts. Translations have the merit of clarity and elegance. The bibliography is extensive and up to date. The volume, beautifully produced and inexpensively priced for a book of over 800 pages, is certainly destined to become a major reference work in the field of Hellenistic poetry.