Despite a tradition of silence about them, anthologies have played an important part in twentieth-century Portuguese poetry. Most consecrated authors organized their own perspectives of Portuguese poetry or of the production of their time. In my view, anthologies have been a tool for authors to deal with the intrinsic necessity of organizing the literary field, by assigning value to their own work and the work of their peers.

The notion of fear implied in the title of this study is used here as a metaphor for the different position-takings associated with anthologies of poetry, which mostly owe to the fact these are typically seen as representations or attempts at defining a literary canon. These position-takings include organizing compilations in order to affirm generations of authors shadowed by previous groups; refusing to be part of anthologies; publicly denouncing them as opportunistic; or refusing to share a space with other authors. More strikingly poet-anthologists often deride the characteristics of anthologies in the very prefaces of their own compilations, resorting to a rhetorical strategy of disinterestedness which tries to downplay their own investment in this format.

I start by identifying a shift in the use of anthologies to represent present poets of very recent publication and illustrate how the turn of the millennium has seen a proliferation of volumes claiming to present a “new Portuguese poetry.” I focus on Líricas Portuguesas – Terceira Série, organized by Jorge de Sena; Edoi Lelia Doura, organized by Herberto Helder; and Século de Ouro, organized by Osvaldo Manuel Silvestre and Pedro Serra. I discuss these volumes’ unorthodox characteristics and document their highly controversial reception. I also pay special attention to how homoeroticism (and consequentially eroticism) has been represented in the Portuguese context. Finally I identify the compilations that have divulged Brazilian poetry in Portugal and how they have shifted from a paradigm of volumes that highlighted an autonomous literature to newer collections that no longer feel the need to emphasize that autonomy. Moreover, I analyze how they articulate the sharing of a common language and literary canon with the traditional vision of separate national literatures.