A commentary devoted to Eclogue 10, G. rightly notes, has its challenges. There is the risk, particularly acute for a concluding poem, of losing sight of its links with the rest of the collection. Our fragmentary knowledge of the central figure of Gallus, moreover, prohibits many firm conclusions. But G. overcomes these obstacles and provides a thorough study that elucidates well aspects of style, structure and metre expected in a commentary. But more prominent in G.'s work is literary analysis, and what distinguishes it from the commentaries of Clausen and Coleman, for example, is its more sustained exploration of Virgil's relationship with both earlier and later authors. The unifying focus of this discussion is genre, especially the interplay between pastoral and elegy.

The book contains a lengthy introduction (pp. 7–78) in which G. outlines her argument for how the poem manifests a type of dialogue between pastoral and elegy that works not towards the dominance of either, but rather the exploration of their respective boundaries. This includes discussions of the impact of Theocritus (with a particular focus on Idylls 1 and 7, and the topics of Arcadia and Daphnis) and Gallus, in addition to analysis of the numerous points of intersection with texts and authors both Greek (e.g. Epitaph of Adonis) and Latin (e.g. Catullus, Lucretius). There is also treatment of how the tenth Eclogue anticipates elements of both the Georgics and Aeneid, followed by the text of Mynors, the commentary itself, a bibliography and an extensive and useful index locorum.

The main strength of the commentary is G.'s focus on the literary dimensions of the poem and Virgil's construction of a relationship with his predecessors and his impact on later authors. Throughout there are good discussions of Theocritus, Propertius, Callimachus, Ovid and many others. G. excels in detailing the vast network of literary intersections Eclogue 10 offers, and also in her analysis of how these allusions and intertexts generate meaning. Most attention is given to Theocritus and, especially, Gallus. This stems from G.'s emphasis on the many points of contact between pastoral and elegy. Indeed, perhaps G.'s key achievement is her provision of a more complete understanding and appreciation of the integration of elegy within the Eclogues. The most fruitful discussion on this topic focuses on how the poem, and frequently the entire collection, incorporates elements drawn from elegy, especially that of Gallus (often speculative, but always admitted as such), such as expressions of love, dealing with grief and the inefficacy of song (e.g. pp. 12–17; pp. 246–8 ad 70–7). There is also solid treatment of possible textual parallels with the Gallus papyrus (e.g. pp. 249–50 ad 70–2). The presence of these features, G. argues, results in a sort of confrontation between Theocritean pastoral and Gallan elegy, explored through such focal points as the relative power or weakness of poetry, particularly its ability or inability to overcome grief, and the articulation of emotional sentiment in the poem and its presentation through a detached versus subjective style (e.g. pp. 103–5 ad 9–30; pp. 144–7 ad 26–7; pp. 249–51 ad 70–2). These different features, G. argues, are prominent in Eclogue 10 (e.g. narrator embodies Theocritean elements while the character of Gallus incorporates those from elegy), but also exist elsewhere in the collection (e.g. Tityrus and Meliboeus in 1). While not always successful, this idea of a dialogue between genres, attributed to both an overlap of literary concerns and to a personal relationship between Virgil and Gallus, holds much appeal and remains the distinguishing feature of G.'s commentary. An important component of this discussion is how later authors participated in this dynamic relationship between pastoral and elegy. To this end there is good discussion especially of Propertius' first poem and how it picks up on elements in both Gallus and Virgil (e.g. pp. 28–35; pp. 243–5 ad 69). It is clear, therefore, that G. offers much more than the citation of possible parallels and accompanying brief discussion found in comparable works. Of course, a commentary on a single poem that is the same length as most on the entire collection allows this.

Extended literary analysis is, therefore, a cornerstone of G.'s contribution, and as a result it often straddles the boundaries of what is expected in a commentary versus a monograph. This has its benefits, but it can lead to criticisms when the reader begins to assume that issues will be addressed in the same detail as perhaps they would be in a monograph. This shortcoming arises when, for example, G. connects her interpretation to contemporary political developments. Discussion of politics in this commentary is rare, but the topic is important, especially given the question of the power of song raised throughout. But attempts to link the literary with the political, with a focus on Octavian or the role of the vates, are disappointingly brief and reliant upon generalisations about the upheaval of the late Republic (e.g. pp. 21, 26). A further criticism, more related to the topic of politics rather than the brevity of their analysis, is G.'s conceptualisation of Virgil's forthcoming shift from the Eclogues to Georgics. G. envisions what seems at times like a relatively stark transition from the metapoetic concerns of the Eclogues to the more moral and civil preoccupations of the Georgics (e.g. p. 35). To this reader this seems to underplay the political dimensions of Virgil's pastoral collection and its similarities in this regard to both the Georgics and the Aeneid. Thus G.'s emphasis on the literary nature of the Eclogues, while no doubt warranted, does at times short change the collection's entanglement in contemporary social and political events.

These criticisms aside, G.'s commentary is a welcome addition to studies on the Eclogues and Virgilian poetry in general. It excels in clarifying the complex literary roots of Virgilian pastoral, particularly the important engagement with elegy and the significance of Gallus both for Eclogue 10 and the entire collection. As such it significantly enriches one's reading of the collection, the hallmark of any good commentary.