In this monograph K. takes up the ambitious task of seeking consistency within the corpus Theocriteum. Specifically, she proposes that, broadly speaking, Theocritean characters and narrators shun any sort of competitive or antagonistic attitude towards other poets, whether they are masters from the past or contemporaries (p. 3). K. explores this thesis through analyses of almost all the genuine and spurious Idylls as well as some of Theocritus’ epigrams.
The book is divided into five chapters, each of which consists of several discussions of individual poems. The groupings of poems assigned to each chapter are often surprising in that they eschew some expected pairings. Chapter 1, for example, entitled ‘Lovers and Friends: Lovesickness, Advice and Illusion’, which features twice as many poems as any other chapter, takes as its general focus the issue of the quality of advice characters receive and the outcome that results from accepting or rejecting that advice. Under this heading one will find discussions of Idylls 14, 4, 5, 10, 21, 12, 29, 30, 3, 11 and 6 (in that order). K.'s blending of genres is somewhat varied and sui generis but, at the same time, refreshing, as she helps the reader consider how certain bucolic poems take up themes found in the lyric poems. Moreover, K.'s approach reminds us, too, that the consistency of the bucolic world does not mean that the bucolic poems are alike in all respects.
That said, K.'s organisational choices might have been presented more clearly. The mix of genuine Idylls in Chapter 1 includes the spurious Idyll 21 without a clear indication of how the spurious poem relates to those that are genuine. Conversely, Chapter 2 consists entirely of discussions of spurious poems (23, 20, 27, 8 and 9), but even here a clear connection to the genuine poems would have proved elucidating. K. omits Idylls 2 and 15 in her analyses, a curious choice in light of the number of spurious poems and non-Theocritean epigrams she includes. Such quibbling aside, however, K.'s analysis of individual poems is thorough and often provides illuminating insights, even if she sometimes strays a bit from Theocritus’ stance towards his fellow poets.
In her introduction K. sets out to demonstrate the absence of an agonistic or antagonistic attitude on Theocritus’ part towards any poetic model or rival. The primary problem, though, is that the many pesky questions that arise are set aside. For example, one might wonder whether Theocritus’ modesty represents a strategic pretence or simply a sincere, sober assessment of his own abilities. These are very different possibilities, and K. advocates for both on different occasions; to take but two examples, of Idyll 22 she asserts that ‘the originality of Theocritus’ non-bucolic poetry is due in large part to … a narrator … presenting his own poetic offering with a consistent even if ironic modesty’ (p. 218) while in Idyll 16 modesty appears as sober honesty: ‘[he] casts himself as a confident prospective singer of the praises of the worthy, although not the only competent one’ (p. 278). The question of sincerity is never clearly addressed, and the presumed sincerity is undermined by the occasional spectre of irony.
That said, K. is at her best when her poetic analysis follows its own course, leading to a variety of interesting arguments and perspectives. Her analysis of Idyll 12, for example, makes a significant contribution to studies of the poem. Her interpretation of the touchstone as an indicator of the narrator's loyalty to his beloved convincingly provides the narrator with a consistency of character that helps make sense of the poem as a whole (p. 67). Similarly, the discussion of Idyll 26 stands out as a highlight as K. offers a thorough analysis of the poem, which she places in stark relief against its Euripidean counterpart.
Though K. is extensive in all her analyses, the topics under discussion can vary widely; consideration of Idyll 5, for example, seems a bit out of place in regard to the book's stated thesis. It should be noted, too, that a characteristic feature of many of the analyses undertaken is the tendency to base interpretations on speculative or subjective characterisations. K. seems well aware of this, but believes that ‘references to past events and histories do open a small window for the construction of characters’ histories’ (p. 20). The extent to which these events and histories are supplemented at times exceeds what the average reader might allow. For instance, in her discussion of Idyll 4 K. proposes that Milon ‘may be thought to have encouraged Aegon to compete by, perhaps among other things, offering him his services as a trainer or some kind of agent’ (p. 21) and that ‘If Milon had sought no benefit, his dealings with Aegon are virtually impossible to make sense of, as there is no indication that he wished to harm Aegon’ (p. 21). The assumption that Milon had some selfish ulterior motive in encouraging Aegon to leave the countryside is largely based on Battus’ disappointment that he left. K.'s interpretation is not impossible, but it is far from necessary since alternative theories are equally plausible (could Battus simply resent a friendship between Milon and Aegon that led the latter away from the countryside?).
Similarly, the presentation of Amycus as a victim (albeit a rude one) feels selective in its interpretation of the passage. For example, K. asserts that ‘[Amycus’] “cauliflower” ears (45) suggest that he had already taken part in several fights, but these are not said to be, and were not necessarily, the result of challenges he had issued, especially impious challenges to foreigners’ (p. 219). True, but given his size and natural disposition, one might be reluctant to assume with K. that Amycus’ ears have become cauliflowered primarily from the many fights others have picked with him. Theocritus is notorious for withholding details about his characters, and thus scholars must at times attempt to fill in some gaps. Does K. occasionally fill in a touch too much? Perhaps, but readers can decide for themselves.
It is easy to criticise a book and much harder to write one, and the minor criticisms offered here in no way should detract from the many strengths of this volume. K.'s research is thorough, her analyses thoughtful and her presentation well done throughout the book, which is certainly a solid contribution to Theocritean studies.
