Heracles is a mythical character that has enjoyed many literary lives: a formidable warrior, who could successfully perform twelve highly challenging labours, a hero with a mission to civilise the world, but also a tragic character on stage, who, driven mad by the gods, murders his wife and children, and a comic one, as he plays a glutton and drunkard. Despite his role of protagonist within the epic world and the wide range of mythical plots in which he was actively involved – not only the twelve labours, but also the first sacking of Troy and so forth –, we are doomed not to know much about the epic Heracles of the early times. Even if the Homeric poems reference him and his deeds on more than one occasion, so that some scholars have hypothesised the existence of a now lost ‘Heraclean Cycle’, which matched the ‘Epic Cycle’, none of the epic works about him is fully preserved, with the (partial) exception of the pseudo-Hesiodic Shield of Heracles. Traces of the epic Heracles, however, survive in fragmentary hexameter poems, such as the pseudo-Homeric Cercopes, in the Aegimius and The Wedding of Ceyx, usually ascribed to Hesiod, and in the Capture of Oechalia by Chreophylus of Samos and the Heracleia by Pisander of Camirus. After these, one has to wait until the fifth century to see a new Heraclean poem in hexameter verse, by Panyassis of Halicarnassus, which, however, does not survive in full either.

The scarcity of textual evidence has not prevented scholars from collecting and investigating evidence about the archaic epics on Heracles. The nineteenth-century edition by G. Kinkel (1877) has been replaced by three important critical editions, prepared by three of the most influential scholars in the field: A. Bernabé (1987), M. Davies (1988) and M.L. West (2003), whose contribution to the topic of fragmentary early epic poetry also includes several articles and commentaries on the Cyclic epics. Yet, the burgeoning interest in this topic seems not to have touched the Heraclean poems, perhaps for the scarcity of material in our possession; as a result, the reference book for those interested in their narratives was still G.L. Huxley's Greek Epic Poetry: from Panyassis to Eumelus (pp. 99–112), which appeared in 1969. A running commentary on Chreophylus’ and Pisander's poems was a long-time desideratum in Classical studies and now T.'s scholarly collection Early Greek Epic Fragments (henceforth: EGEF), published in the series Trends in Classics, finally sheds some light on the gloomy fate that has befallen these poems. The volume under review is the second of the collection: whereas the first volume (2017) collected fragments of antiquarian epics, this one is about Chreophylus’ and Pisander's poems. In the preface T. illustrates for the first time the publication plan for EGEF, which will comprise two other volumes: one devoted to Panyassis and a final one on Choerilus of Samos.

The internal organisation of the volume is the same as EGEF I: after a slim introduction about the epics dealing with Heracles and the relevant modern bibliography, T. lists the sources of the indirect tradition – there are no cases of fragments known via the direct tradition –, citing the critical texts used, and then unfolds the organisation of the material. The texts of the testimonia (on the author's life, works and legacy) and of the fragments come with an apparatus and an English translation. Correspondences with the numbering of other editions are given only for the fragments – despite the fact that the differences are more numerous in the testimonia section. Under the fragments, T. includes both quotations and paraphrases (in the majority of cases he keeps the numeration by the previous editions mentioned above). The commentary is structured as follows: testimonia are discussed in groups in sections about the ‘life’ and the ‘works’ of the author, which are followed by discussions of ‘sources’, ‘plot’, ‘style of the poem’ and ‘date’, before the commentary on the fragments. In particular, in the sub-section ‘style of the poem’ T. discusses ‘the overall conception and presentation of the main theme … [and] issues pertaining to the way the central topic of the epic is carried out and, if possible, to the literary qualities the poem displays’ (p. 9). In the case of both Chreophylus’ and Pisander's poems, we have one and two lines preserved respectively. The traps lying in the way to guessing what the structure of the poem, the length of its episodes and the narrative style were like are many, but T. treats the matter with sensible caution and does not present conclusive reconstructions. Especially in the case of Chreophylus’ poem, where T. analyses the literary and artistic treatments of the subject extensively, I wonder whether these considerations would have found a better place in an introduction broadly devoted to the treatment of Heracles’ myths.

As far as the critical text is concerned, T.'s edition differs only slightly from others, and the most relevant innovation lies in the inclusion of new material and in a sometimes different evaluation of the authenticity (dubia/spuria). The commentary, which discusses each fragment separately, is without doubt the major scholarly achievement of the volume. This long-awaited work now makes available what remains of the archaic epics on Heracles to a broader academic readership than before. T. shares his outstanding erudition on the mythical plots involved, with numerous references to other literary texts and also to artistic representations, lucidly discussing all the issues raised by the fragments. As the tradition of these fragments is indirect, T. also has to take into careful consideration the agenda of each ‘cover text’, spanning from Pausanias to Tzetzes, and to weigh their trustworthiness and accuracy. The attention to the field of arts as a vehicle of myths is especially noticeable in this commentary and constitutes one of the most welcome aspects of the volume. For example, the extensive discussion of the Lernaian Hydra episode (pp. 145–50) and of Heracles and the Sun Bowl (pp. 160–6) are only selected examples of how T.'s commentary is rich and thoroughly planned. (By contrast, linguistic problems, such as the problematic and allegedly Doric form ἀέ in Pisander [fr. 10 EGEF], are treated more concisely.) Thus, EGEF II will be of use not only to scholars dealing with early epics, but also to those interested in mythical narratives more generally. The bibliography is rich, but not unjustifiably overwhelming, as sometimes happens with commentaries.

T. is undoubtedly one of the most prolific scholars in the field of early Greek epics, and the EGEF enterprise will prove indispensable for scholars of Greek literature for a long time to come. The publication of this volume makes us long for the next instalment.