The last four idylls in the corpus of Theocritus’ poetry form a self-contained unit of so-called Aeolic poems. This appellation reflects their metre and dialectical features, which bespeak Theocritus’ systematic engagement with the poetic tradition of Sappho and Alcaeus. Of the four, Idyll 31 survives in a hopelessly fragmentary state that prevents its proper appreciation. Idyll 28 has featured in the anthologies of K.J. Dover (Theocritus [1971]) and N. Hopkinson (Hellenistic Anthology [20202]), but little attention has been paid to the other two poems. As such, P.'s new Italian edition with introduction, translation and commentary offers a welcome addition to the growing bibliography on Theocritus.
The introduction sets out the cultural context in which Theocritus composed his Aeolic idylls. P. points towards the scholarly work carried out in the Museum on the poems of Sappho and Alcaeus and to the vibrant cultural centres that encouraged literary dissemination and performance (p. 4). It is not clear whether this suggests performance (probably recitation, p. 5) of these idylls. Following B. Acosta-Hughes, P. sees these poems as forming a coherent group that might have circulated independently, with Idyll 28 serving as a proem to the collection (pp. 8–9): the genre of propemptikon signals a journey not only through space but also through time, preparing readers for the reuse of archaic lyric (i.e. sympotic and homoerotic) discourse. Sceptical readers may counter that the formal links that P. points out might reflect the common subject matter these poems share. However this may be, no arguments are offered about how this hypothesis might work or square with the creation of the entire Theocritean corpus. P. seems to favour the interpretation that the current arrangement goes back to Theocritus himself (pp. 129–30).
Both the blurb on the back cover and the introduction (p. 1) suggest that this is a ‘new critical edition’. P. has collated all manuscripts and early editions (p. 1), but, as she also admits (pp. 35–6), her text is essentially that of A.S.F. Gow. Even when she disagrees with or doubts Gow's OCT, P. defers to his text. For instance, at line 29.16, she argues in favour of καὶ κέν, but prints καὶ μέν, nonetheless. At 29.19, P. would prefer C. Gallavotti's δοκίμῳς (second person singular, present subjunctive) but retains Gow's δοκέης in the text. The apparatus is considerably more detailed than Gow's, commendably placing particular emphasis on attributing conjectures and supplements to the right scholar. For instance, I count at least seven cases in Idyll 29 where P. corrects Gow. There are several mistakes in Theocritus’ manuscripts, which reflect scribes’ limited exposure to Lesbian dialectical features and which Gow omitted (e.g. γυναιξί instead of γύναιξιν at 28.2 or ἕρπετον instead of ὄρπετον at 29.13). P.'s decision to record these is indicative of a wider tendency towards exhaustive treatment. As far as my Italian allows me to tell, P. offers a serviceable translation that elucidates the Greek text. The only case where her translation possibly disagrees with the printed text is 30.3, which is fraught with problems, for which I refer to her note ad loc.
Intriguingly, P. sees Theocritus’ wider engagement with Sappho as an attempt to develop a discourse appropriate for the praise of Ptolemaic queens (p. 12). Thus, she tentatively correlates the praise of Miletus in Idyll 28 with Ptolemaic interest in the area (see also on pp. 65–6, 88–9). This attractive interpretation is not set out in detail – the address to Aphrodite at 28.4 is hardly sufficient evidence in this direction. One would welcome here a mention of Idylls 14 and 15 as examples of the inclusion of Ptolemaic material in a ‘private’ poem or of Idyll 18, which not only lies very close to Sappho's poetic profile but also probably reflects Ptolemaic appropriation of traditional mythology. But, as throughout her commentary, P. tends to see Idylls 28–30 isolated rather than in the context of Theocritus’ oeuvre. The lack of a wholistic perspective is a more general problem regarding P.'s work. Lyric poetry, and particularly Sappho, is present throughout Theocritus’ corpus, and several of the features P. identifies in the Aeolic poems (e.g. gnomic openings [p. 129]) appear in other poems as well (e.g. Idyll 13). Furthermore, a section on Theocritus’ career would have allowed P. to contextualise better the possible Ptolemaic implications of Idyll 28 or the connection with contemporary poets (e.g. the reception of Callimachus’ Acontius and Cydippe elegy in Idyll 30 [pp. 131–2]).
In the commentary P. offers generous quotations of other texts, particularly of ancient grammarians discussing features of the Lesbian dialect. This will prove a great help for readers who do not have the relevant editions close at hand. Translations would have assisted readers not familiar enough with the technical language of such texts, but such an editorial choice would have increased the length of the book exponentially. There is also a remarkable number of footnotes, several of which contain useful material (e.g. about the temple of Aphrodite at Miletus [n. 48]; connections with other Hellenistic poets [e.g. n. 23 on Leonidas of Tarentum] etc.). Discussion of linguistic matters is one of the commentary's strongest points. Access to better editions of Sappho's and Alcaeus’ fragments (E.-M. Voigt, C. Neri and G. Liberman) and to a slightly larger body of fragments have allowed P. to build upon Gow's textual notes and expand his arguments. Similarly, P. can improve on Gow's notes by taking into account the recent excavations of Aphrodite's temple at Miletus (pp. 65–6).
The area in which P.'s work makes the most significant improvement over Gow is the discussion of the cultural and literary aspects of these poems, especially matters of intertextual connection for which she relies on the works of R.L. Hunter (Theocritus and the Archaeology of Greek Poetry [1996]), B. Acosta-Hughes (Arion's Lyre [2010]) and P. Kyriakou (Theocritus and his Native Muse [2018]). I found particularly rewarding P.'s discussion of the various Platonic echoes in the pederastic discourse of Idylls 29 and 30, a useful reminder of Plato's importance for Theocritus’ poetry. In some cases, P.'s notes take the form of authoritative mini-surveys, which will prove helpful for the comprehension of Theocritus’ discourse, including lyric topics such as the address to one's thumos and the complaints of the old poet. Of particular interest is her discussion of homoerotic relationships and how their Hellenistic depiction differs from that in archaic and classical sources.
P. has offered us an erudite piece of scholarship that will prove indispensable for the study of Theocritus’ Aeolic poems both in Italy and beyond.
