BMCR 2008.10.15, Robert Kirstein, Junge Hirten und alte Fischer (fwd)

Robert Kirstein, Junge Hirten und alte Fischer. Die Gedichte 27, 20 und
21 des Corpus Theocriteum. Texte und Kommentare, 29.  Berlin:  de
Gruyter, 2007.  Pp. 247.  ISBN 978-3-11-019224-7.  EUR 63.55.

Reviewed by Hans Bernsdorff, Goethe-Universitaet Frankfurt am Main
([email protected])
Word count:  1840 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2008/2008-10-15.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2008/10/20081015.html
-------------------------------

This Muenster Habilitationsschrift deals with three poems of the Corpus
Theocriteum, each of which is transmitted only in a single branch of
the manuscripts traditions. The majority of interpreters regards them
as spurious: id. 27 ('Oaristys'), id. 20 ('Bukoliskos') and id. 21
('Fishermen').[[1]] The author's main purpose is neither to write a new
commentary on these pieces (which would have been welcome at least for
idd. 20 and 27, for which the last commentary is Gow's (1952), while
id. 21 has been treated quite recently by Belloni[[2]]) nor to discuss
the authorship of the poems once again in detail (this had been the
dominant aspect of research until recent decades). Kirstein rather
wants to contribute to certain problems of the texts (often concerning
the question of completeness) and to shed light on their relation to
other poetry, especially to undoubtedly genuine poems of the Corpus
Theocriteum. Since Kirstein tries to show, however, that the quality of
these poems is high, and low quality had always been an argument
against Theocritean authorship, he regards his results also as a
contribution to the question of authenticity.[[3]]

Kirstein presents a new edition for all three texts,[[4]] together with
a German translation, which is generally accurate.[[5]]

After giving a useful survey of the transmission and earlier
scholarship for each poem, Kirstein presents a section "Interpretation"
in each case, which contains the main results of his work.

Although id. 27 has a narrative ending without an equivalent in its
beginning, Kirstein thinks that the poem in its transmitted extent is
complete. According to him, this unattested form can be explained by an
aesthetic principle which he calls "retrospektive
Verstaendniserhellung" ('retrospective explanation') and detects also
elsewhere in the poem: For instance we do not learn before l. 5 that
Daphnis tried to kiss Acrotime before the poem and the dialogue start.
Accordingly, Kirstein tries to show against most of the interpreters
that id. 27 can be understood without assuming the loss of a narrative
introduction and of a beginning of the dialogue. I would agree that the
abrupt starting with the mythical exemplum of Helena (1-2) is possible
and can be understood by what follows, and Kirstein's suggestion that
the exemplum has a programmatic force for the whole poem is
worthwhile.[[6]] But what arouses suspicion is that in addition to the
abruptness of the beginning of the dialogue a counterpart of the
narrative frame at the end (67-71b) is missing, too. There is no
parallel for such a technique in Hellenistic Poetry and Vergil's
Eclogues, as Kirstein himself remarks (p. 72).[[7]] Furthermore, the
appearance of ll. 72-73 (address to a shepherd) points to the
incompleteness of the poem (the five lines in which Kirstein on p. 74
is dealing with these verses are unsatisfying). Thus we have the
combination of several anomalies which seems to be overwhelming
evidence for a lost beginning.[[8]]

Kirstein follows Sider's interpretation[[9]] that Daphnis does not
seduce Acrotime but that right from the beginning the girl clearly
tries to extract a promise of marriage from him. Unlike Sider Kirstein
stresses that Daphnis wants to marry her, too.[[10]] But his evidence
for this interpretation seems doubtful to me: Acrotime alludes to
marriage in l. 7 (calling herself <greek>a)/zuga</greek>), but Daphnis
does not take the hint before a second allusion (21-22): is this
probable if he has marriage in mind already from the beginning? His
behaviour rather suggests that he is either manipulated by the girl or
that he recognizes her wish to bemarried and chooses the promise of
marriage as a strategy to win her. The fact that he confirms his
promise after having sex (l. 62, perhaps in 66) is not inconsistent
with that assumption.[[11]] Kirstein's most important evidence,
however, are lines 71-71b, which are part of the narrative frame. Here
Kirstein translates <greek>kexarhme/nos eu)na=s</greek> with
"gluecklich ueber das Ehelager" which is misleading, since
<greek>eu)nh/</greek> should mean the same as <greek>a)ni/stato fw/rios
eu)nh/</greek> three lines before, namely "Liebeslager" (as Kirstein
translates it there). The reference to the Homeric use, given in
footnote 189, is not helpful, because in Homer <greek>eu)nh/</greek>
certainly can mean 'marriage bed', but also 'sex outside marriage'.
Kirstein should have consulted not only LSJ but also the LfgrE (2, 787,
18-20: "wo man beischlaeft..., von ehelichem und ausserehelichem
Verkehr"). To me one of the strategies of this idyll seems to be the
ambiguity of words denoting marriage, cf. l. 25 <greek>ga/moi</greek>
'marriage', taken up by Daphnis in l. 26, l. 33 'wedding', but l. 58,
where <greek>ga/mos</greek> refers to Daphnis' and Acrotime's sex the
cypresses witness (so the trees must not be called "Trauzeugen", as
Kirstein p. 66 does).[[12]] Kirstein himself (p. 65, n. 189) remarks
the ambiguity of <greek>le/ktron</greek> in 35 and 40.

In id. 20 Kirstein finds the same principle of "retrospektive
Verstaendniserhellung", since, for instance, shepherds are not
addressed before l. 19, but must be present also during lines 1-18.
Because of these and other similarities Kirstein regards idd. 27 and 20
as 'companion pieces',[[13]] with id. 20 written in conscious
opposition to id. 27. This is a bold hypothesis which should have been
proved much more in detail than Kirstein does. The evidence he adduces
(happy vs. unhappy love, the motif of kissing in the beginning, a
speaking woman in either poem) is far too vague.

On p. 102-6 Kirstein analyses the structure of id. 20. Following de
Falco,[[14]] Kirstein sees the main caesura in the address to the other
herdsmen <greek>poime/nes</greek> (l. 19). Here Kirstein offers some
elucidating observations on structure, especially on the use of ring
composition, e.g. at the beginning and at the end of Eunica's speech
(ll. 2b-10). I am not totally convinced, however, by Kirstein's
hypothesis that the herdsman's speech in ll. 19-45 picks up all
elements of Eunica's speech in 2b-10a in a reversed order. According to
Kirstein, there are the following correspondences:

Eunica criticises:

his profession l. 2b-5 = 3,5 ll.
his behavior l. 6 = 1 l.
his appearance l. 9-10a = 1,5 ll.

The oxherd defends:

his profession l. 30-2 [not 33!] = 3 ll.
his behavior l. 26b [not 25b!]-29 = 3,5 ll.
his appearance l. 19-26a [not 25a!] = 7,5 ll.

A real correspondence between the middle sections (on 'behavior') is
hardly there: apart from the difference in length, l. 6 is dealing with
the oxherd's looking, talking and sporting, while ll. 26b-9 concern his
musical abilities; only ll. 26b-7, on his voice, pick up
<greek>o(ppoi=a lalei=s</greek> in 6; cf. also <greek>lale/w</greek> in
29 (if it is right there), which is a far more evident link[[15]] than
"die gegensaetzlichen Begriffe" (p. 105) <greek>a)/grios</greek> (l. 6)
and <greek> a(palo/s</greek> (l. 26), since the former is in Eunica's
section on behavior, the latter in the oxherd's section on appearance.

Pp. 106-37 contain a detailed comparison with the undoubtedly
Theocritean poems, esp. idd. 3, 6 and 11. Id. 20 shows a smaller
interest in the world of herdsmen (despite the strong opposition
between town and country), since there is no bucolic scenery in the
beginning, and the life of herdsmen is present only in the imagery used
in the description of the oxherd's outer appearance. Whereas the
herdsman of id. 3 feels 'true love', this one shows nothing but anger
about the rejection and apparently does not wish to win Eunica back.
Kirstein interprets this as a lack of 'deeper emotion' (p. 109). In the
description of his own beauty the oxherd of id. 20 also picks up
Theocritean models, but clearly exaggerates them. Kirstein's analysis
of the mythological examples in lines 34-43 (which seems lengthy
because of a fruitless accumulation of mythological variants) shows how
the examples, although partly taken from Theocritean models, are fitted
into the context of the poem, for instance by stressing the scenery of
the mountains which appear also in l. 30 and 35, the motif of kissing
which is the starting point in l. 1, or the fact that goddesses loved
oxherds.[[16]]

Kirstein detects a similarity of structure also between id. 21 and 27,
since 21 has no narrative ending which would correspond to the
narrative introduction, whereas in 27 we find it the other way round.
At the same time, however, Kirstein tries to show that the last five
lines of id. 21, spoken by the hetairos, form a counterpart to the
first five lines of the narrative frame. It is true that this passage
has a similar moralising tone, but further formal links are not
discernible for me (according to Kirstein both parts share a technique
of putting keywords of the poem at the end of the line). And even if we
accept this observation, I cannot see how Kirstein can regard it as a
close relation in language and content and use it to reject Arland's
objection that the poem is not suitable to prove the sententia of the
first line.[[17]]

In his chapter on id. 21, Kirstein provides a detailed survey of the
motif of fishermen in Hellenistic literature and art[[18]] and stresses
the similarity between Leonidas' epigrams on fishermen and id. 21. Here
he adopts Gutzwiller's idea (developed for Leonidas) that by giving a
detailed picture of the fishermen's life the author of id. 27 does not
ridicule this profession but tries to show the value and dignity of
this craft, which had been neglected in former poetry. Part of the more
realistic representation is that common elements of Theocritean bucolic
poetry are missing, particularly song and love. Nevertheless Kirstein
finds also strong connections especially with Theocr. id. 10 (which is,
however, the most realistic poem among the doubtlessly authentic
idylls). Furthermore, Kirstein maintains (p. 177) that not only the
content of id. 21, but also its form resembles Theocr. id. 10: whereas
id. 21 starts with an auctorial introduction (ll. 1-21), which has no
direct counterpart at the end, id. 10 starts with a dialogue and ends
with three lines which Kirstein calls "auktorial". This is misleading,
because these lines of id. 10 are spoken by Milon (that is, a figure of
the dialogue, who addresses his partner Bukaios in l. 57!). The
auctorial narrator in the beginning of id. 21 addresses an
extradiegetic figure called Diophantos. One could rather say that the
exhortation of the hetairos at the end of id. 21 corresponds to Milon's
at the end of id. 10.

To sum up: no sceptic will be convinced by Kirstein's book that one of
the three poems is genuine (but that was not his primary aim, as we
remember), and many of his observations on the relation to the former
bucolic tradition are not new. The main achievement of this work,
however, is its vigorous attempt to explain the three poems as
artifacts with their own value and to try to understand the
peculiarities of their form before condemning them as inferior products
of a 'late' development. This is a step in the right direction, and
Kirstein's results in this field, although I was not always convinced
by them, are certainly a valuable  contribution to our understanding of
post-Theocritean pastoral.


------------------
Notes:


1.   Kirstein treats the poems in this order, for he regards id. 27 as
direct model of id. 20; because of its strong realism he sees a wide
gap between id. 21 and the rest of the Corpus Theocriteum, including
idd. 20 and 27, cf. p. 215.

2.   L. Belloni, (Teocrito). I Pescatori. Como 2004.

3.   On p. 215 Kirstein draws the cautious conclusion, "...dass die
untersuchten Gedichte bemerkenswerte literarische Eigenheiten
aufweisen, die eine Autorschaft Theokrits zumindest nicht
ausschliessen."

4.   The information "Codices: D C" at the top of the apparatus of id.
27 (p. 34) gives the wrong impression as if both codices were
independent witnesses, but as Kirstein himself remarks (p. 18), C
depends on D (cf. the treatment in Gow's OCT apparatus, p. 112). The
same line ("Codices: D C") by a mistake slipped into the apparatus of
id. 20 on p. 90, just before the correct information about the
manuscripts in the next line. P. 165: in id. 21. 44 <greek>kai/ tis
tw=n traferw=n w)re/cato</greek> the adjective is commonly explained as
<greek>e)utrafw=n</greek> (sc. <greek>i)xqu/wn</greek>), a meaning not
found elsewhere. This is difficult, and the transmission has rightly
been doubted (e.g. by Gow). In his edition Kirstein prints the
transmitted text, but in the interpretation (p. 165) he cautiously
conjectures <greek>trufero=n</greek>, pointing to v. 18, where Ahrens'
<greek>trafera\n</greek> instead of transmitted
<greek>trufero\n</greek> is widely accepted. Kirstein's explanation,
however, is odd: "Das Adjektiv <greek>trufero/s</greek>, 'ueppig', in
Bezug auf einen Fisch waere zwar auffaellig, passt jedoch gut zu dem im
ganzen aussergewoehnlichen Traum vom goldenen Fisch." But the problem
lies in the fact, that although <greek>trufero/s</greek> can be adapted
to a fish, as in Xenocrates of Aphrodisias ap. Oreibasius 2. 58. 6 (of
mullets and basses), in this and the other examples assembled by LSJ
for the connection of <greek>trufero/s</greek> and flesh, body or parts
of the body (s.v. Nr. I), the word means "delicate, dainty...tender,
soft-fleshed". But what we expect at this stage of the story is a
synonym of <greek>me/gan</greek> (49), not a qualification of the
flesh. Kirstein's translation "ueppig" seems to refer to LSJ, Nr. II,
where <greek>trufero/s</greek>, however, means "...luxurious,
voluptuous", of "persons, their life and habits".

5.   I would only criticize Kirstein's translation "warum greifst du
drinnen an meine Brueste" for id. 27. 49 <greek>ti/ d' e)/ndoqen a(/yao
mazw=n</greek>, because "drinnen" is no appropriate translation for
<greek>e)/ndoqen</greek> which means "within my gown" (Gow). P. 95 "und
hast du, Kronos-Sohn, dich nicht um eines jungen Rinderhirten willen in
einen Vogel verwandelt" ignores the meaning of
<greek>e)pla/gxqhs</greek> in id. 20. 41 (on <greek>e)pla/gxqhs</greek>
there is also a strange remark in n. 409 on p. 133: "Die homerischen
Gedichte kennen das Simplex nicht." But cf. only Hom. Od. 1. 2). See
also n. 17 below.

6.   As already proposed by D. Sider (Theokritos 27 Oaristys, WJb 25
[2001], 99-105), 102, whose interpretation of <greek>ta\n pinuta\n
*(Ele/nan</greek> Kirstein should have discussed in greater detail than
he does on p. 68-9.

7.   The narrative ending of Horace's second epode (Haec ubi locutus
faenerator Alfius), cautiously adduced by Kirstein (p. 72: "Zu einem
gewissen Grad vergleichbar...") is not comparable, because no similar
element of surprise is visible in id. 27.

8.   On p. 74 Kirstein points out that in the narrative frame of ll.
67-71b only such elements appear which are found in the preceding
dialogue. But this does not mean that they cannot refer to a lost
narrative introduction. On the contrary, I wonder whether there is a
hint at a lost introduction in the use of the word
<greek>yiqu/rizon</greek> (68) which would fit very well in a beginning
imitating Theocr. id. 1. 1. The title <greek>*)Oaristu/s</greek>
'chatting' (although not found before the edition of Iunta and
Callierges, cf. Kirstein p. 42-3) might reflect this use of
<greek>yiquri/zein</greek> in a lost beginning.

9.   Cf. n. 6.

10.   Although according to Kirstein (p. 63) Acrotime's and Daphnis'
wishes are not completely identical: "Daphnis ist primaer an der
sofortigen geschlechtlichen Vereinigung interessiert und erst sekundaer
an der beabsichtigten Ehe, die fuer Akrotime das Wichtigste ist."

11.   This is directed contra Kirstein p. 64: "Daphnis' Rede in v. 32,
dass Akrotime Kinder gebaeren werde, koennte dort noch als Mittel der
Verfuehrungskunst aufgefasst werden, in v. 66 bestaetigt die
Wiederholung aber wohl doch die Aufrichtigkeit seiner Absichten."

12.   For an ambiguous use of <greek>ga/mos</greek> in other bucolic
poetry cf. H. Bernsdorff, Das Fragmentum Bucolicum Vindobonense.
Goettingen 1999, p. 101.

13.   Cf. A. Koehnken, Darstellungsziele und Erzaehlstrategien in
antiken Texten. Berlin 2006, 127-141 on Theocr. Id. 6 and 11 and R.
Kirstein, Companion pieces in the Hellenistic Epigram, in: A. Harder et
al. (edd.), Hellenistic Epigrams. Leuven 2002,  113-135; in the book
under review Kirstein does not use the term 'companion piece' though.

14.   V. de Falco, Sopra alcuni idilli teocritei, Rivista
Indo-Greco-Italica di Filologia-Lingua-Antichita\ 8 (1924), 47-64.

15.   Surprisingly not noted by Kirstein.

16.   In an 'Anhang' (p. 137) Kirstein gives a list of passages in
later literature, which imitate id. 20. This is strange because there
is no equivalent for the two other poems treated in Kirstein's book,
most of the parallels were already noted by Gow or S. Posch,
Beobachtungen zur Theokritnachwirkung bei Vergil, Innsbruck 1969, and
there is no further interpretation of any of the adaptations (apart
from a short footnote on Catull. 99, p. 105, n. 303).

17.   The structure of id. 21, proposed on 155-6, is not convincing in
all aspects: ll. 19-21 are obviously still part of the exposition and
do not belong to the dialogue (on p. 155 Kirstein calls these verses an
"auktoriale Einfuehrung in den Dialog"), because the indication of time
in l. 19 clearly continues the situation described in ll. 6-8b (two
fishermen are lying in their hut). This becomes evident by the use of
the connecting <greek>kai/</greek> (in l. 19, modelled after Theocr.
id. 7. 10) which does not appear in Kirstein's translation.

18.   Of particular interest is the Vatican-Louvre type of an old
fisherman. Kirstein points to another similar realistic depiction of
old age and reports an idea of the archaeologist Dieter Salzmann, that
the statue represents not (as usually taken) an angling fisherman, but
one who makes a surprising discovery. As Kirstein remarks, this would
be an important parallel to id. 27 where Asphalion dreams of catching a
golden fish. I am not able to follow Kirstein's and Salzmann's
argument: certainly the fisherman's face shows signs of excitement, but
why does that exclude that he held a fishing rod in his right hand,
with a hooked fish at its end (this would be what happens to Asphalion
in his dream!)? The strain and posture of the right arm makes this
assumption most probable. Thus I cannot find any reason to doubt the
communis opinio about the Vatican-Louvre fisherman (the further
archaeological material adduced on p. 196 represents actions which are
very different). I would agree, however, that the statue might
illustrate an idea similar to that of the poem: the fisherman appears
as someone who is exposed to the power of Tyche more than others (a
motif which can be found also elsewhere in literature, as Kirstein on
p. 197-198 shows).