G.'s excellent contribution to Quintus Smyrnaeus’ imperial Greek epic, Posthomerica, begins with Quintus’ beginning, Εὗθ’ (‘when’; Post. 1.1; p. 1), immediately suggesting Iliadic continuation. A more warmly received Quintus now requires briefer precis: the Posthomerica fills the narrative between the Iliad's end and the Odyssey's opening. Quintus’ 14 books cover the last days of the Trojan War (a glorious treat for the ancient epic fan). We see narratives otherwise only alluded to: i.e. Achilles’ duel with Penthesileia, his death, Troy's fall. In a nutshell, Quintus’ Trojan stage ‘resurrects’ our Iliadic friends and new characters, who are guided by their cyclic narratives. More is spotlighted by the growing number of scholars who, up to and including G., continue to exploit this space.
In Chapter 1, ‘Beginning Again (Introduction): The Poetics of Impersonation’, G. notes: ‘In a move that renders it unique among surving imperial Greek epics, its relationship to Homeric epic is one of impersonation, not just imitation’ (p. 6); this is a challenging definition. ‘It is my central contention that Quintus’ response to Homer represents a new formative poetics … To be characterised neither by “second sophistic” epigonality, nor by Hellenistic allusiveness’ (ibid.). G. diverges from the earlier thinking of M. Baumbach and S. Bär (Quintus Smyrnaeus [2007], pp. 8–15), C. Maciver (Engaging Homer [2012]) and others. Skirting over Quintus’ apologists (p. 21), G. states: ‘Quintus’ new poetics does not fit the paradigm of Alexandrian-derived contrast imitation … The poet reveals himself to be highly alert to the techniques and “tropes” associated with these traditions. But he employs them deviantly, to affirm rather than reject continuity with his Homeric source’ (p. 22). I liked G.'s consideration of visual culture, regarding Quintus, i.e. the Iliac Tablets (pp. 29–31), with useful references, i.e. M. Squire (The Iliad in a Nutshell [2011]). G. warns against metapoetic readings (p. 44), now out of fashion, but engages with them later.
In Chapter 2, ‘Enlarging the Space – Imperial Doubleness, Fixity, Expansion’, G. maps her points on ‘doubleness’ (pp. 34–6) onto Quintus: ‘We have begun to consider the heightened interest in play-acting in the Greek culture of the early empire, and seen how the concepts of “doubleness” were crucial to such acts: being and not being the subject impersonated’ (pp. 49–50). Quintus needed resurrecting, virtually absent on pp. 50–60, but G. concludes this chapter viewing Quintus’ songs/performance (pp. 81–91): ‘On three occasions, Quintus describes a performance in which Homeric scenes and material are turned into a spectacle or song’ (p. 81): Achilles’ funeral games (Post. 4.128–80); celebrations following Troy's fall (Post. 14.121–42); and Aias’/Odysseus’ hoplon krisis (Post. 5.180–316). G. considers reported speech, competitive declamation and Homerising styles, with a metapoetic nod to Quintus: ‘Quintus capitalises on this collusive potential to present the type of poet that he aims to be’ (p. 81); she cites A. Carvounis’ forthcoming chapter (in Bär et al. [edd.], Writing Home Under Rome), and Maciver (in Brill's Companion to Prequels, Sequels, and Retellings of Classical Epic [2018]). I would also refer her to B. Boyten (Epic Journeys [2010]), Chapters 2 and 3 for songs, memories and the narratives of the prizes in Achilles’ funeral games (helpful, too, for G., Chapter 5).
In Chapter 3, ‘Writing Homer: Language Composition and Style’, asking what is imperial epic (p. 93), G. ingeniously reads Hekabe's lament for Polyxena (Post. 14.271–330; pp. 105–6) with Euripides’ Troades and Hekabe, and explores Quintus’ use of neologisms (᾿Επίολπα): ‘The most crucial point … is that Hecuba expresses the unanticipated traumas which her family have suffered using a word which morphologically distinguishes itself from the normal Homeric and conventional tragic expressions of emotions of this kind’ (p. 106). I am not entirely convinced by G.'s spotlighting of gnomai and similes (pp. 125–52); the trend (at least for now) seems to be Quintus’ poetics. Once ridiculed for this excess, the last decade, culminating in G., reads them as a poetic virtue: ‘In characterising these effects, the most crucial conclusion for now is that, in the attempt to place the Posthomerica on a spectrum of imperial Greek stylistics, the poem has been identified with characteristics which it does not share’ (p. 153).
In Chapter 4, ‘When Homer Quotes Callimachus: The Proem (not) in the Middle’, G. re-evaluates Quintus’ reading of Callimachus, instead asking how Quintus ‘engage(s) with such various engagement’ (p. 164). Post. 12's autobiographical ‘proem’, read intertextually, provides her solution (pp. 165ff.): in contrast to Triphiodorus and Nonnus, ‘the metaphorical “assault” in the Posthomerica is not on Homer via Callimachus, but on Callimachus via the re-animated Homer’ (p. 167). In conclusion, G. reflects that the ‘polarising statements of the Aetia become the new Telechines, against whose charges the voices of Homer, and Hesiod, and Callimachus can chime in the polyphony of the Quintan song’ (p. 188). Thus, also showing how modern academic readings evolve, creating amalgams and new conclusions – on the shoulders of previous shoulders.
In Chapter 5, ‘Selective Memory and Iliadic Revision’, G. notes that Quintus uses reported memories of Iliadic events to justify notions of poetic selectivity; for example, Achilles expresses the most Homeric memories of all of Quintus’ characters. Yet, G. argues, as Quintus’ poem progresses, he ‘begins to wane’ (p. 210), becoming a ‘spectral half-presence’, a (selective) memory (ibid.). However, one could also apply aspects of this reading to the Iliad, where Achilles is both absent in battle until Il. 20, ‘recalled’ through himself (reminding Agamemnon of his exploits, Il. 1) and others (i.e. Andromache, Il. 6); and influential, i.e. Quintus’ Neoptolemos evoking Achilles (see Boyten, Chapter 4; G., Chapter 6). Furthermore, Achilles continues to kill not only when dying (Post. 3), but also when dead (Post. 14): G. notes that his menis is even greater (p. 268; Post. 14.216). This shows how reading Quintus encourages us to both reassess our Homer and consider ‘selective memories for whom?’
In Chapter 6, ‘Prodigal Poetics: Filiation and Succession’, we reach the metapoetic crux: ‘the Posthomerica's self-articulated position alongside and against its primary source and model … is key to unlocking the poetics of interval’ (p. 226). G. defined ‘interval’ earlier as ‘simply a text to “pass through” to fill in the gaps in the cyclic story between Homer's masterpieces – and turns the idea of liminality and transition into an active, culturally relevant, temporal statement’ (p. 7 n. 9). Naturally, Quintus’ Neoptolemos, Achilles’ son and multiple heir, is cited as an example of ‘succession through impersonation’ (pp. 256–73; again, for whom?). This chapter argues that Quintus portrays a ‘sterile’ world (p. 235), where all newcomers fail (i.e. Penthesileia); cf. Neoptolemos’ heroic impact from Post. 7; Posthomerica deaths of Achilles etc.; also, Iliadic Hektor ‘fails’ (Il. 22). G. acknowledeges cyclic parameters to narrative freedom. But, the thrust of this discussion, G. concludes, is ‘not a tale of filial struggle against dyanstic or literary lineage, but a world narrative in which the relationship between old and new is more profoundly entangled’ (p. 279), though this touches upon ideas of Greece under Rome (p. 239) and (great) grandfather Homer (p. 232).
Chapter 7, ‘Temporality and the Homeric Not Yet’, is an interesting study on ‘time’ (cf. Boyten, Chapter 3). G. explores ‘counterfactuals’ – the ‘if’ of narrative (pp. 308–24): ‘inter-Homeric connotations of the counterfactual (most) clearly on display … (are) during the return of Philoctetes’ (pp. 317–24): Philoctetes’ complex recruitment from Lemnos (Dio, Or. 52) and anger are speedily resolved in Quintus (Post. 9.422–5). In Quintus Philoctetes becomes ‘a figure of urgency rather than deliberation’ (p. 320). This counterfactual speeds the narrative to Troy's fall; cf. Achilles’ swift response to Antilochos’ death (Post. 2), as narrative compression to accelerate the plot endgame. With a nice touch of ring composition, G. concludes with Quintus’ telos. Troy's fires (Post. 13.464–77; G., pp. 337ff.) evoke Hektor's (Post. 1.1–17; G., p. 1). But Quintus’ uses of the ‘external viewer motif only make more emphatic the “surprise” that this is not his end … this poem, and, this vision of empire, is far from over’ (p. 337).
G. adds further to our appreciation of Quintus, exploring new areas and re-examining old issues. Her chapter introductions and conclusions are very helpful, and her extensive use of ancient and modern texts and authors enlighten and update Quintus scholarship. Typos are minimal. I eagerly await her forthcoming contributions (i.e. in Bär et al.). Whilst the poet-kings and queens warm the throne, we await the hero's resurrection (forthcoming, too).
