The fact that three years have passed since publication of the first systematic study of the Orphic Argonautica (in German) and that no review has appeared may be interpreted as an index of the bafflement and disenchantment with which the poem has been received. Hermann called ps.-Orpheus a malum scriptorem; Fraenkel judged him ‘irrational and capricious’. Such verdicts ensured the poem's marginalisation. A few scholars, however, have toiled on its behalf: S.'s first chapter surveys the scholarship. The most pertinent question for his study concerns the poem's relationship to Orphica. Recent scholars have taken ps.-Orpheus' recusatio of his previous ‘œuvre’ at face value and have seen the poem's purposes as literary rather than religious. S., by contrast, re-introduces ‘Orphism’ to the OA by way of an innovative thesis that it should be read as a Neoplatonic allegory: the journey charts the Argonauts' progress towards knowledge and salvation, mirroring the eschatological journey in the so-called ‘Orphic’ gold leaves. This is S.'s central claim and is integrated with his approach to the poem's principal questions.
The monograph takes the form of a text (basically Vian's), translation and commentary, preceded by four essays. These are broken down into many sub-chapters, whose brevity and loose interrelationship sometimes gives the impression of introductory tasters rather than comprehensive studies. Much groundwork was needed, however, and S.'s themes are explored further in the commentary.
Chapter 2 begins with a helpful, though brief, narratological analysis in Genette's terms. The possibility that Orpheus' head may be dictating to Musaeus (see Burges Watson, GRBS [2013]) is not considered. S. notes that the OA's ‘real’ author is completely hidden behind the mask of Orpheus and situates the poem in relation to religious/dogmatic pseudepigrapha such as the Orphic, Hermetic and Pythagorean writings. Literary ‘fakes’ of the kind discussed by Peirano (2012) are not mentioned. This has major interpretative implications: the possibility of a ludic element is foreclosed; Orphic authorship is a means of securing authority. The recusatio is really a praeteritio; the old Orpheus will be integrated with the new, despite his protestations. S. plausibly argues that the poem's hymnic beginning is modelled on hymns of Orpheus and Proclus, but does not explain why ps.-Orpheus equivocates about its addressee. Ps.-Orpheus' reliability is never questioned: he embodies truthful song; a reading which matches Apollonius, but overlooks the oddities of ps.-Orpheus' narrative and Orpheus' ambivalent reception history – not least in Plato (see Burges Watson, BICS [2014]).
Chapter 3 focuses on intertextuality. The commentary gives detailed attention to Valerius Flaccus, Homer and Orphic poetry. Pride of place goes to Apollonius, knowledge of whom, as S. shows here, is presumed to such an extent that parts of the OA are unintelligible without reference to the principal model. S. pinpoints three strategies with regard to the Hellenistic Argonautica: expansion, modification and abbreviation/omission. Orpheus' importance in Apollonius, S. argues, surpassed anything in previous Argonautic accounts; in the OA, this tendency is extended. But Venzke's analysis (1941) that the OA aims to glorify Orpheus is rejected in favour of aemulatio. This straight reading, necessitated by S.'s alignment of the reader with the addressee of a serious didactic poem, underestimates the tensions and playfulness inherent in a re-writing which ostensibly claims to pre-date and supersede its model.
S. next explains three themes from the recusatio – mysteries, Orpheus' biography and theogonies – in terms of ‘encyclopedic technique’ (~Alexandrian learning), arguing that the OA seeks to unite the activities and texts with which Orpheus is associated. 3.4 focuses on the Argonauts' journey into Oceanus – ps.-Orpheus' most significant deviation from his predecessors. S. sees the journey as a surrogate katabasis, linked with what he plausibly considers the OA's second telos – purification from blood-guilt incurred by Apsyrtus' murder following the Argo's and Circe's revelations. He reads the Exokeanismos in terms of the travelling philosopher's acquisition of knowledge, of which Orpheus becomes the prototype. This is interesting, but difficult to map onto the poem, since the singer has already travelled extensively – not least to Hades – before he undertakes the voyage and Circe indicates that the Argonauts will be purified thanks to ritual knowledge that Orpheus already has (l. 1233).
Chapter 4 addresses what S. calls ‘the poem's greatest hermeneutic hurdle’, viz., the extent to which it can be read as philosophical/religious literature. S. cites Burkert's seminal model of Orphism (1977) as the basis for his argument that it represents a concrete religious phenomenon, best represented by the hymns and gold leaves. S.'s exclusion of theogonies is problematic, given their importance in recent discussions of Orphism (including Burkert's) and, more fundamentally, since both Neoplatonists and ps.-Orpheus refer to them frequently. As for the leaves, S. considers three motifs relevant: (1) purification from sin (by initiation), (2) knowledge concerning the afterlife and (3) the (underworld) journey. In the OA, too, S. argues, the Argonauts' journey takes them to a kind of Hades (ll. 1128–44), in which he finds (interesting but not overwhelming) connections with the leaves. The Argonauts are purified from blood-guilt and guided on their journey thanks to Orpheus' expertise; he is plausibly characterised as a proto-Orphic-initiator.
Proclus draws a direct line from Orpheus to Plato, via Pythagoras. As a pre-Homeric poet, the Neoplatonists found the singer an ideal vehicle for harmonising Greek literary, religious and philosophical traditions. This project also informed Neoplatonist allegories of Homer and their own literary compositions, notably hymns. In 4.2, S. suggests that the OA be interpreted as a Neoplatonic production with in-built allegory. Orpheus, he argues, is presented as a universal hierophant, as in Neoplatonist biographies. The OA also shows interesting parallels with Proclus' Hymns, but S. sets too much store by an intertext that he finds at the moment when Orpheus crosses the threshold to steal the golden fleece, which he sees as marking the transition to the homeward journey and, allegorically, the Neoplatonist shift from proodos to epistrophê (with Orpheus' condition of rest in his cave prior to the journey as monê). The case for seeing these Neoplatonic stages in the OA is far from overwhelming; one needs to look very hard, with a very specific disposition, and without seeking any precise correlation between allegory and narrative. The structure of the Argonauts' journey can (and has) been explained in other ways; for example, in terms of initiation patterns, which also underlie the gold leaves. As Meuli (1921) argued, katabatic elements are intertwined with the Argonautic story from its earliest beginnings.
S. concludes by exploring the themes of inspiration and the cave, perceptively reading Orpheus' programmatic statement that the gadfly has left him (l. 47) in terms of Platonic inspiration. This poses a problem for his broader argument, which he attempts to forestall by arguing that the gadfly refers to lower desires, not philosophical and poetic mania. This is implausible. The same may be said about the cave from which Orpheus' journey begins and ends. The poem gives no reason for supposing that Orpheus undergoes any transformation. One could argue that a wry point is being made about (Plato's verdict on) Orpheus' state of knowledge – something the Neoplatonists might prefer to forget, but which might have been seized on by Christians, who were also preoccupied with Orpheus (see Herrero de Jáuregui 2006/2010 and Jourdan 2010–11), but are scarcely mentioned by S.
It is not possible to do justice here to S.'s thorough commentary, which will provide a valuable basis for future study. The organisation reflects his careful analysis of the poem's structure, with major episodes preceded by helpful introductions. Discussion of textual problems is level-headed and S. has a keen eye for the poem's peculiarities, even if his interpretation causes him to downplay these or to offer explanations whose ingenuity exceeds their plausibility. The commentary is rich in cultural and intertextual material.
This is an innovative study of a neglected poem. Although S.'s argument that the poem is a Neoplatonist epic requires airbrushing its complexities, the evidence adduced certainly supports the weaker thesis that the OA should be read in relation to Neoplatonist/Orphic contexts. Given the importance of allegorical readings in Orphic contexts, S.'s is a legitimate experiment which testifies to the merits of ‘extreme interpretation’ for which Culler has argued (in Eco 1992); above all, ‘bringing to light connections or implications not previously noticed or reflected on’.
