Over ten years after its original publication in Italian, Andrea Cucchiarelli has updated, augmented, and translated into English his commentary on Virgil’s Eclogues. Like the original, this is a commentary of exceptional learnedness and scope. The abundance of detail is often staggering, and one readily perceives the decades of thought, research, and affection that Cucchiarelli has given to Virgil’s first work. The commentary’s translation into English ensures a wider readership for its important thoughts, and even those able to read the Italian version will benefit from the revision of content and incorporation of more recent scholarship.
A brief foreword precedes the introduction, in which Cucchiarelli writes generally on some of the major themes of the Eclogues book: 1) the echo, as seen in the poem’s recursive names, evocations of previous literature, and self-referentiality; 2) the city, mentioned only once in Theocritus (Idyll 7) but in the Eclogues a multivalent symbol of both redemption and oppression; 3) the fusion of the divine and the political, informed by the practice of both Hellenistic kings and Roman politicians to model themselves after divine figures but in Virgil free from any specific allegory. This foreword repays rereading, as it feels like the means of best understanding Cucchiarelli’s interpretation of the Eclogues as a whole. One occasionally loses sight of his collective reading in the vast and various sea of notes.
The introduction proper first treats the composition and publication of the Eclogues book, matters of dating, and the poet’s biography. Cucchiarelli spends time on the lingering influence of Philippi and Pollio’s consulship. Perhaps more centrally than other commentaries on the Eclogues, Cucchiarelli grounds Virgil’s work in a specific Republican literary context: it is a book supported by Pollio whose literary and artistic tastes can be found alluded to throughout, and whose consulship represented to the poet a great hope for peace. Throughout the commentary, Cucchiarelli describes the young Virgil moving around in a circle of peers, detractors (Maevius and Bavius), alter egos (Gallus), consuls (Pollio), and future emperors (Octavian). These analyses often make for colorful reading and bring to life the world and poet that produced the Eclogues. Cucchiarelli also covers in the introduction the literary and philosophical background of the book, patterns of organization in its structure, and more.
Cucchiarelli also treats the poem’s title here, and one may take some issue with his some of his decisions on this matter. Although he admits that the original title of the collection is likely Bucolica, he refers to Virgil’s book as the Eclogues and his commentary is titled A Commentary on Virgil’s Eclogues. To such a choice one may attribute different degrees of interpretive consequence. Other English language commentaries on the poem are split on this matter: Robert Coleman (1977) and Wendell Clausen (1994) refer to the collection as the Eclogues, John Van Sickle (2011) calls it the Bucolics. For comparison, Cucchiarelli’s 2012 Italian commentary is titled Le Bucoliche, and the individual poems and book are referred to by that name throughout. On similar grounds, one might criticize Cucchiarelli’s use of the adjective “pastoral” to describe the subject matter of the Eclogues, as the adjective “pastoral” was not known to Virgil as a codified generic designation.
In the 2012 commentary, Alfonso Traina’s Italian translation faces the Latin text, but in 2023, there is no equivalent English translation. Cucchiarelli’s text preserves Mynors (1969) other than in four instances that he lists before the start of the Latin text. Cucchiarelli says, however, that he often differs from both Mynors and Ottaviano (2013) in punctuation. Most of the time, these changes have small effects on meaning or pacing. For example, both Mynors and Ottaviano print a period after Thalea at Ecl. 6.2. Cucchiarelli prints a semicolon, which, as I read it, emphasizes a connection and sequence between Tityrus’s generic choices. Other changes have greater interpretive significance. For example, Mynors and Ottaviano place Ecl. 8.105-106 in quotation marks, attributing the lines to Amaryllis, the attendant of the Alphesiboeus’s magical persona. In his 2012 commentary, Cucchiarelli does the same. In 2023 however, Cucchiarelli removes the quotation marks and attributes the lines to the magical persona in which Alphesiboeus sings. This decision is well justified on literary grounds in the commentary.
One textual difference deserves a brief discussion. Cucchiarelli seems to have changed his opinion on the text of Ecl. 6.33-34, a section of poetry he refers to in both 2012 and 2023 as containing one of the most difficult textual and interpretive issues in the Eclogues. For comparison, here is Mynors, Ottaviano, Cucchiarelli in 2012, and Cucchiarelli in 2023.
Mynors and Ottaviano
ut his ex omnia primis
omnia et ipse tener mundi concreuerit orbis;
Cucchiarelli (2012)
ut his exordia primis
omnia et ipse tener mundi concreuerit orbis;
Cucchiarelli (2023)
ut his ex omnia primis,
omnis et ipse tener mundi concreuerit orbis
Traina’s translation may have caused Cucchiarelli to make this choice for the 2012 edition. Cucchiarelli (2012) says of the text at Ecl. 6.33: “recepito da Albini, ad esso si adegua la traduzione di Traina.” Regardless of motivation, he incorporates ex omnia in the 2023 text, which he sees as the lectio dificilior. Then, he prints omnis in the following line at Ecl. 6.34, as he understands it to be a necessary concomitant change. Mynors and Ottaviano accept the repetition of omnia.
The commentary section for each Eclogue begins with an introductory essay on its contents. Here, Cucchiarelli focuses on larger interpretive matters such as dramatic action, narratology (dialogic-mimetic or narrative structure; the inclusion of a prologue), major Theocritean parallels, historical contextualization, and divine models. Two bibliographies follow these introductory essays: the first cites general treatments of the Eclogue in question, the second is a bibliography of specific issues. Generously, Cucchiarelli annotates the entries in this bibliography; for example: Kowara (1995) (elision in the songs of Mopsus and Menalcas). All bibliographies have been updated since the 2012 edition, and cite material published as recently as 2022.
Cucchiarelli’s 2012 commentary is compendious; his 2023 version even more so. At times, it feels like reading a Virgil Encyclopedia or Oxford Classical Dictionary in miniature. One could extract and rearrange his notes in the commentary to produce discrete volumes on several topics: Virgil’s sources in both Greek and Latin literature, later poetry influenced by Virgil, Latin usage, mythological references, and more. There is so much to learn in this commentary. It rewards both intense study and casual flipping through its pages.
Cucchiarelli’s command of the literary tradition is astounding. The commentary abounds in citations of other works of classical literature both well-known and obscure. For example, Cucchiarelli offers for comparison seven citations of Greek and Latin literature in his note on Ecl. 9.13: Chaonias dicunt aquila ueniente columbas. In this note one also sees his unwavering attention to detail: Cucchiarelli separates the citations into two lists: 1) texts where the sudden appearance of an eagle frightens other birds; 2) texts when the bird that frightens the others is not an eagle. Throughout the commentary, Cucchiarelli does not let pass a Theocritean allusion or echo. For those unable to read Greek, he follows almost all Greek quotations with an English translation or close paraphrase. On some occasions, he provides only the English.
This book will prove useful for anyone studying Virgil’s entire poetic output, not just the Eclogues. At G. 4.563-66, Virgil invites his readers to consider his later works alongside the Eclogues, and Cucchiarelli never loses sight of this. Much of Cucchiarelli’s discussion of Eclogue 10 concerns the way it anticipates Georgics. Every book of the Aeneid is cited with at least fifteen references in a selective index.
The mythological entries in the commentary are comprehensive. Cucchiarelli’s note on Scylla at Ecl. 6.74 is nearly two pages long. He treats here the complicated development of the myth in which two originally distinct figures became conflated, the appearances of the two Scyllae in literature and the visual arts, as well as a brief overview of the pseudo-Virgilian Ciris, which is centered around Scylla. The Eclogues are full of complicated questions of geography and mythology, and on this front, Cucchiarelli’s commentary is exemplary for its expansiveness and clarity. For example, in his note on the Sicilian spring Arethusa at Ecl. 10.5, Cucchiarelli first identifies the figure of Doris (used in Eclogue 10 as a metonym for the salty sea), citing both Greek and Latin sources of the myth. Then, he provides an interesting scientific detail, that contrary to the wishes of the narrator, the spring referred to as Arethusa in Sicily has in fact been infiltrated by sea water. Finally, he speaks on the Theocritean suggestions of the name Doris, as Sicily was colonized by Doric populations.
Occasionally, the abundance of detail in these notes can feel overwhelming, but I believe that they are justified in their scope. One sees how each classical citation, however obscure, can inform our understanding of the Eclogues or prompt further investigation. Most of the time, Cucchiarelli’s thoroughness clarifies rather than confuses. A highlight in this regard: I believe that Cucchiarelli’s is the clearest explication of the magic ritual described in Eclogue 8. His notes ground the arcane language and imagery in its historical and magical context. The high level of detail made me feel as if I were a witness to the ritual, watching step by step as the speaker tries to bring Daphnis back from the city.
Cucchiarelli also excels in his incorporation of historical information. As mentioned, one of this commentary’s unique strengths is its insistence on grounding the production and content of the Eclogues in a specific historical moment. For example, Cucchiarelli (149) describes Asinius Pollio as an “art aficionado.” Thus, in his note to Ecl. 3.40-42, he argues that Virgil tunes his ekphrasis of Menalcas’s beechwood cup with its imagery of scientific thinkers to Pollio’s tastes, as Pollio was reported to have imagines of scientific and literary writers in his library. When Gallus appears at Ecl. 6.64, Cucchiarelli writes of Gallus’s friendship with Pollio, their common interests, and the possibility Gallus may have used his connection to Pollio to aid Virgil during the dispossessions.
On a superficial note, the book is handsome. The Cumaean Sibyl from the floor of the Duomo di Siena adorns the glossy dust jacket, a decision Cucchiarelli attributes to Alfonso Traina in the acknowledgments. Inside, the text reads nicely on the page. There are no line breaks between commentary entries as there are in Coleman or Clausen, but this did not pose any readability issues. On occasion, a long series of classical text citations might make it harder to follow a thought. Left on a table, the book stays open to the page that one is reading. This is an important quality of a book that will be so often consulted by those working on the poem. This is a premium item and priced accordingly: the book carries an MSRP of $245.00. I hope that a more affordable paperback version can be published in the future.
In his review of Cucchiarelli’s Italian commentary, Fiachra Mac Góráin (2015, 130) calls for the translation of the commentary into other languages. As a graduate student crawling my way through an imported copy of the Italian version, I agreed. This is an essential book for anyone studying the Eclogues and Virgil. In a podcast interview with the New Books Network, Cucchiarelli leaves open the possibility for further revision and expansion, citing for comparison Eduard Frankel’s Agamemnon and R.G.M. Nisbet and Margaret Hubbard’s commentaries on Horace’s Odes. Regardless of any future revision, Cucchiarelli’s work feels right at home alongside these monumental works of scholarship. It is fascinating, meticulous, and learned, much like Virgil’s book itself.
Works Cited
Clausen, Wendell, ed. 1994. Virgil: Eclogues. Oxford.
Coleman, Robert, ed. 1977. Vergil: Eclogues. Cambridge.
Cucchiarelli, Andrea and Alfonso Traina, eds. and trans. 2012. Le Bucoliche. Rome.
Frankel, Eduard, ed. 1950. Agamemnon. 3 vols. Oxford.
Mac Góráin, Fiachra. 2015. Review of Le Bucoliche by Andrea Cucchiarelli and Alfonso Traina. The Classical Review 65: 129-30.
Mynors, R.A.B., ed. 1969. P. Vergili Maronis Opera. Oxford:
Nisbet, R.G.M. and Margaret Hubbard, eds. 1989. A Commentary on Horace: Odes, Book 1. Oxford.
Ottaviano, Silvia and Gian Biagio Conte, ed. 2013. Bucolica et Georgica. Berlin.
Philipps, Benjamin, host. 2024. “Andrea Cuccchiarelli, A Commentary on Virgil’s Eclogues (Oxford UP, 2023).” New Book Network (podcast). Accessed June 17, 2024.
Van Sickle, John. 2011. Virgil’s Book of Bucolics, the Ten Eclogues Translated into English Verse: Framed by Cues for Reading Aloud and Clues for Threading Texts and Themes. Baltimore.