Based on M.’s Trinity College Dublin Ph.D. thesis, the book under review constitutes the first English-language monograph on the recherché Orphic Argonautica (AO), a late antique Greek epic in 1,376 verses that narrates the myth of Jason and the Golden Fleece from the first-person perspective of the legendary bard Orpheus. It is a major contribution that promises to put the study of a badly underestimated epic on a whole new footing.
M.’s chief contribution, and the premise that explains her paradoxical subtitle, is the paradigm of ‘double vision’ through which she approaches the AO. This poem is, in fact, a late antique composition deeply indebted to the Greek epic tradition, especially Homer and Apollonius Rhodius. Simultaneously, the pretence of Orphic authorship, which would make the AO the ‘first epic poem ever written down’ (p. 11), recasts that tradition as though derivative from ‘Orpheus’. Many of the poem’s most unassuming or, indeed, baffling aspects take on a new life when examined from one or both of these perspectives.
M. acknowledges the affinity between her approach and E. Greensmith’s (The Resurrection of Homer in Imperial Greek Epic [2020]) vis-à-vis Quintus Smyrnaeus’ Posthomerica, which poses as Homer’s direct continuation of the Iliad even as its style and allusivity signal its Alexandrian influences. But what is particularly daring about Pseudo-Orpheus’ gambit is its concomitant appropriation of Homer’s position as ‘the fountainhead of all Greek (and Latin) epic, literature, and culture’, which arguably makes the AO ‘the most radical piece of literature surviving from antiquity’ (p. 13) – it turns out the divine bard was just cribbing from the AO. Likewise (if rather less radically), Pseudo-Orpheus presents his narrative as the blueprint followed by Apollonius, whose Hellenistic Argonautica had become the authoritative rendition of the myth.
The substance of this argument begins in Part 1, which shows that the AO’s ‘double vision’ embraces its brand of formulaic language, which is meant to be archaising enough to have predated Homer even as it betrays its author’s artful inventiveness. Chapter 1 examines the epithets applied to two principal characters: Jason’s typically Homeric epithets cast him as a more conventional hero than his notorious Apollonian counterpart, while Medea’s pseudo-formulaic epithets insistently foreshadow her tragic destiny. Chapter 2 shows that Pseudo-Orpheus’ deployment of ship-epithets combines a largely faithful (if less repetitive) replication of Archaic phrasing with allusive conjurations of further ‘hidden meanings’ (p. 121), especially etymological wordplay. Chapter 3 is devoted to the AO’s speech-introductions, which turn out to be more Apollonian than Homeric: Pseudo-Orpheus eschews the commonest Archaic formulas in favour of devising his own set of pseudo-formulas, which often serve inter-/intra-textual purposes. These case studies effectively reveal how Pseudo-Orpheus splits the difference between Homeric and Apollonian formularity, thus producing a singular epic style that could plausibly have inspired both of these ‘later’ authors’ divergent poetics.
Part 2 explores the metapoetic strategies with which Pseudo-Orpheus stages his own superiority and priority vis-à-vis Homer and Apollonius. Chapter 4 convincingly argues that a proemial allusion to the Certamen encourages readers to interpret Orpheus’ singing matches with Chiron and the Sirens in a metapoetic key, as Pseudo-Orpheus’ challenges to Homer’s literary pre-eminence. Even so, our anonymous author also casts the Iliad and the Odyssey as derivative ‘sequels’ to his own originary epic; and much like Dares or Dictys, he positions his narrator as a direct eyewitness to the mythological events he recounts, and therefore as more reliable than Homeric hearsay. This chapter ably illustrates how Pseudo-Orpheus can ‘have his cake and eat it, too’ (p. 237), as these metapoetic manoeuvres presuppose opposite relative chronologies for the AO and Homer’s epics.
Chapter 5’s approach is different, as M. focuses on a single episode – the stop at Cyzicus – to gauge the AO’s rewriting of Apollonius. She contends that Pseudo-Orpheus ‘re-archaises’ the Hellenistic model by adapting it to Homeric linguistic and narrative patterns (e.g. simplifying syntax, enlarging the ξενία-theme, treating Cyzicus’ funeral games more fully etc.). Concurrently, Pseudo-Orpheus effectively pens a commentary on Apollonius’ narrative that elucidates ambiguities therein (e.g. why exactly did the Argonauts need to propitiate Rhea-Cybele?) and underlines its poetic models via ‘window allusions’. These sensitive close readings offer new insights into Pseudo-Orpheus’ compositional techniques, often beyond previous studies like H. Venzke’s (Die orphischen Argonautika in ihrem Verhältnis zu Apollonios Rhodios [1941]).
Overall, it is impressive how much meaning M. is able to glean from Pseudo-Orpheus’ ‘deceptively simple’ (p. 162) verse. For instance, the ‘strategic repetition’ (p. 144) of (pseudo-)formulas can forge thought-provoking intratextual connections; inconspicuous lexical variatio in Homeric or Apollonian adaptations can disguise learned commentary on these models; apparent errors or contradictions conceal deeper poetic intentions. Another of the study’s strengths is its consistent effort to contextualise Pseudo-Orpheus’ usages in light of ancient grammatical scholarship, especially in the realms of Homeric philology and the etymological tradition. Chapter 2’s survey of etymological wordplays on Ἀργώ is a particular tour de force.
Besides opening new interpretative vistas onto the AO, M.’s monograph includes the first (scholarly, published) translation of the epic into English, provided together with facing Greek text based on F. Vian’s 1987 Budé edition. (M.’s text appears to have been copied from the TLG and edited manually, which occasionally leads to minor discrepancies with Vian, e.g. punctuation and also some variant readings and typos. Otherwise, M.’s handful of editorial departures from Vian generally seem sensible, but I prefer his readings at 149 and 1358.) M. opts for a smooth rendering in a contemporary, at times even colloquial register (e.g. 820–1), often supplementing the literal sense with logical connectors and similar expansions (e.g. on p. 23: ‘in return’, ‘down’, ‘at last’, ‘however’, ‘of all’, ‘Then, there was’, ‘I related’). Excepting minor quibbles (e.g. πάλι [834] likely goes primarily with λαζομένους [cf. Hom. Il. 4.357, Od. 13.254] to denote taking the Fleece ‘back’ to Greece [cf., e.g., AR 3.2, 29; 4.1035]), I noted only a few issues: πάλης (579) is ‘wrestling’. M.’s understanding of 724–5 is possible but contradicts the mythological tradition (cf., e.g., AR 2.815–57). For ὁ μέν … ὁ δέ as ‘the latter … the former’, see LSJ s.v. ὁ, ἡ, τό, A.VI. Taken together, κασιγνήτην καὶ ὄπατρον (1025) may amount to ‘full sister’ (É. Benveniste, Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes [1969], 1.220), but more likely the phrase specifies that Medea and Apsyrtus are paternal half-siblings, as in Apollonius (3.241–4); cf. Hom. Il. 12.371. μηνὸς τὸ πεπρωμένον (1110) should mean ‘le mois assigné par le destin’ (Vian). The volume is well-produced, with few significant typos, and the cover features a charming piece of original art.
Just twenty years ago, R. Hunter could entitle a paper ‘Generic Consciousness in the Orphic Argonautica?’, quipping that this ‘title may surprise’, as so many ‘have wondered whether [the AO’s] author was conscious at all’ (in: M. Paschalis [ed.], Roman and Greek Imperial Epic [2005], p. 149). In light of the work under review, it is clear that the critical attitudes to which Hunter alludes are no longer tenable. Over the course of her monograph M. paints a portrait of a self-conscious poeta doctus very much in ‘the spirit of Apollonios’ (p. 234), combining a keen awareness of his place in the epic tradition with an impressive command of philological scholarship and a decidedly playful streak. Indeed, the very conceit of writing ‘pre-Homeric’ poetry in late antiquity is deliciously Alexandrian, amounting to a projection of A. Barchiesi’s (HSCPh 95 [1993]) ‘future reflexive’ onto the literary canon. M.’s case studies promise to stimulate an exciting new wave of scholarship on this intriguing poem, and her translation will further increase its accessibility to specialist and lay Anglophone readers alike.
