THE DATE OF
THE ORPHIC ARGONAUTICA
1. Discuss the question of the age of the Orphic Argonautica, considering (a) the language, (b) the versification, and (c) the geographical ideas of the writer. What external evidence have we on the subject, and what appears to be the value of it?
Dr. Ingram, Examination for the undergraduate Berkeley Medals
Dublin University, Spring 1877
Dr. Ingram, Examination for the undergraduate Berkeley Medals
Dublin University, Spring 1877
The date of the Orphic Argonautica (which can be read in full English translation here) has historically been the subject of controversy, as seen from the above Dublin University question. Until the mid-nineteenth century, it was believed that the poem was the among the oldest in Greek literature, coeval with Homer. This was because the author of the epic intentionally wrote it in an archaic, Homeric style with old-fashioned vocabulary and diction. The painstaking work of scholars to identify the linguistic, literary, and geographic evidence against this early date firmly established that the poem could have been written no earlier than the fourth century CE, though possibly drawing on an older Orphic work. The excerpts below describe this slow evolution of scholarly beliefs about the Orphic Argonautica.
On the Argonautic Expedition
W. Preston
The Argonautics of Apollonius Rhodius, vol. III (Dublin, 1803), 64.
It is highly probable, that the legendary relations,handed down by Orpheus, and other older bards, of the perils, and wonderful adventures, of these first of navigators, filled and enlarged the imagination of Homer, and, exciting his emulation, led him to produce his immortal poems.
W. Preston
The Argonautics of Apollonius Rhodius, vol. III (Dublin, 1803), 64.
It is highly probable, that the legendary relations,handed down by Orpheus, and other older bards, of the perils, and wonderful adventures, of these first of navigators, filled and enlarged the imagination of Homer, and, exciting his emulation, led him to produce his immortal poems.
On the Age of the Orphic Poems
Review of Orpheus Poetarum Graecorum Antiquissimus by Giorgio Henrico Bode, The North American Review (October 1825): 389-390, 391.
With respect to the Poems, under the name of Orpheus, the Argonautica, the Hymns, the Lithira, and several of the fragments, critics, second to none of the last generation, are inclined to ascribe them to a very early period. We need name only such scholars as Gessner and Ruhnken. On the other hand, Mr Tyrwhit, one of the most learned and sagacious of the English Hellenists, Schneider, and Hermann, the latest and acutest editor of these Orphic Poems, bring them down even to the third or fourth century of the Christian era. In conducting the inquiry into the age of these remains, the preceding critics had generally confined themselves to external probabilities, to geographical and historical tests, to the style and language as matters of taste, from which an indication of the period when they were produced might be drawn. Thus Gessner, in the prolegomena to his edition, which at the time it was published (1764) was the best, argues from the geographical details in the Argonautica, that the author of that poem must have lived at a very early period; while (so precarious are these speculations) Schneider, by a far more accurate and masterly examination of the same geographical hints, draws the opposite inference. Ruhnken says, that, on a careful perusal of these poems, he is struck with nothing, which betrays the taste of a modern age. […]
With respect to the Argonautica, the oldest period, which has been assigned to this poem, is that of Onomacritus, under the princes of the house of Pisistratus. This priest had been appointed conservator of the oracles of Orpheus and Musaeus, relics of the ancient national religion, which were preserved with superstitious veneration at Athens. Having been detected by Lasus, a lyric poet, (Herodot. VII, 6,) in interpolating these oracles, he was displaced and banished by Hipparchus, and took refuge at the Persian court. To this person, Tatian (adv. Graecos. p. 138,) ascribes the composition of the Argonautica and other poems bearing the name of Orpheus; and in this he has been followed by a multitude of ancient and modern writers. It is the opinion of Gessner, borrowed from some of the ancient grammarians, that Onomacritus did not write these poems, but that he transfused them, out of the ancient form and dialect, in which they previously existed, into a more modern dress, with additions and refinements of his own. This opinion is treated with great but not undeserved severity by Mr Bode, (Dissertat. p. 92,) and the probable origin of it suggested. Ruhnken is willing to ascribe the Argonautica and other Orphic poems to a person as old at least as Onomacritus; and Wolf (Prolegomena, p. 247) uses the expression, de vetusto auctore Argonatiticorum Orphicorum. But the result of the examination made by Hermann of the structure of the verse, brings down the poem too decisively to the late period already mentioned, to admit a longer doubt. We will only add, that it is quoted or referred to by no ancient author, not even those in pari materia, as Apollonius Rhodius.
Review of Orpheus Poetarum Graecorum Antiquissimus by Giorgio Henrico Bode, The North American Review (October 1825): 389-390, 391.
With respect to the Poems, under the name of Orpheus, the Argonautica, the Hymns, the Lithira, and several of the fragments, critics, second to none of the last generation, are inclined to ascribe them to a very early period. We need name only such scholars as Gessner and Ruhnken. On the other hand, Mr Tyrwhit, one of the most learned and sagacious of the English Hellenists, Schneider, and Hermann, the latest and acutest editor of these Orphic Poems, bring them down even to the third or fourth century of the Christian era. In conducting the inquiry into the age of these remains, the preceding critics had generally confined themselves to external probabilities, to geographical and historical tests, to the style and language as matters of taste, from which an indication of the period when they were produced might be drawn. Thus Gessner, in the prolegomena to his edition, which at the time it was published (1764) was the best, argues from the geographical details in the Argonautica, that the author of that poem must have lived at a very early period; while (so precarious are these speculations) Schneider, by a far more accurate and masterly examination of the same geographical hints, draws the opposite inference. Ruhnken says, that, on a careful perusal of these poems, he is struck with nothing, which betrays the taste of a modern age. […]
With respect to the Argonautica, the oldest period, which has been assigned to this poem, is that of Onomacritus, under the princes of the house of Pisistratus. This priest had been appointed conservator of the oracles of Orpheus and Musaeus, relics of the ancient national religion, which were preserved with superstitious veneration at Athens. Having been detected by Lasus, a lyric poet, (Herodot. VII, 6,) in interpolating these oracles, he was displaced and banished by Hipparchus, and took refuge at the Persian court. To this person, Tatian (adv. Graecos. p. 138,) ascribes the composition of the Argonautica and other poems bearing the name of Orpheus; and in this he has been followed by a multitude of ancient and modern writers. It is the opinion of Gessner, borrowed from some of the ancient grammarians, that Onomacritus did not write these poems, but that he transfused them, out of the ancient form and dialect, in which they previously existed, into a more modern dress, with additions and refinements of his own. This opinion is treated with great but not undeserved severity by Mr Bode, (Dissertat. p. 92,) and the probable origin of it suggested. Ruhnken is willing to ascribe the Argonautica and other Orphic poems to a person as old at least as Onomacritus; and Wolf (Prolegomena, p. 247) uses the expression, de vetusto auctore Argonatiticorum Orphicorum. But the result of the examination made by Hermann of the structure of the verse, brings down the poem too decisively to the late period already mentioned, to admit a longer doubt. We will only add, that it is quoted or referred to by no ancient author, not even those in pari materia, as Apollonius Rhodius.
On the Age of the Orphic Poems
Encyclopaedia Metropolitana, 1845, vol. IX, s.v. "Homer and Hesiod"
The Orphic verses were collected and published by Eschenbach, at Nuremberg, A. D. 1702, and were reprinted at Leipsie [...] in 1764. The antiquity of the Orphic poems was called in question by Valckenaer and Schneider, and maintained by Ruhnken, Heyne, and Wolf. Hermann thinks the Hymns more ancient than the Argonautica and Lithica, which last he refers to the age of Domitian. Beck's opinion is, that the Argonautics belong to an age posterior to Alexander the Great They have seldom been the objects of much attention except to philosophical enquirers into the religion and history of the earliest periods of Greece.
Encyclopaedia Metropolitana, 1845, vol. IX, s.v. "Homer and Hesiod"
The Orphic verses were collected and published by Eschenbach, at Nuremberg, A. D. 1702, and were reprinted at Leipsie [...] in 1764. The antiquity of the Orphic poems was called in question by Valckenaer and Schneider, and maintained by Ruhnken, Heyne, and Wolf. Hermann thinks the Hymns more ancient than the Argonautica and Lithica, which last he refers to the age of Domitian. Beck's opinion is, that the Argonautics belong to an age posterior to Alexander the Great They have seldom been the objects of much attention except to philosophical enquirers into the religion and history of the earliest periods of Greece.
On the Argonautica and the Lithica
Charles William King
The Natural History of Precious Stones and the Precious Gems (London: Bell & Daldy, 1867), 6-7.
But if any competent scholar will take the trouble to compare this poem [the 'Lithica'] with the 'Argonautica,' which also goes under the name of Orpheus (but is generally attributed to Onomacritus the Athenian, who flourished as early as B.C. 516), he will not, in my opinion, fail to perceive that both are works by the same hand. The close resemblance in the versification, in the fondness for spondaic endings, in the diction, in the reduplication of epithets; and as regards the spirit, the peculiar form, marking a purely Grecian epoch, under which the tender passion is pictured in both, clearly indicate their common origin. Now to establish their common antiquity. The 'Argonautica,' being comparatively a mere sketch, must have necessarily preceded the elaborate composition by Apollonius Ehodius upon the same theme. The story as told by Orpheus differs from the latter in many important particulars, besides being narrated with much more of primitive simplicity: indeed it is hardly conceivable that any one coming after Apollonius should have attempted to compete with an epic of such established reputation; or that, having such audacity, he should have deviated so far from his prototype. But, on the grounds above stated, if Onomacritus is the author of the 'Argonautica,' he must also be considered the author of the 'Lithica.' Indeed the question of the high antiquity of the latter is set at rest, if we accept the statement of the scholiast "Demetrius, son of Moschus," that it gave Meander the idea of his 'Theriaca.' Now as Nicander flourished at the court of Attalas III., about B.C. 135, this circumstance presupposes a much earlier date in a work selected for his model by a writer of no mean order.
Charles William King
The Natural History of Precious Stones and the Precious Gems (London: Bell & Daldy, 1867), 6-7.
But if any competent scholar will take the trouble to compare this poem [the 'Lithica'] with the 'Argonautica,' which also goes under the name of Orpheus (but is generally attributed to Onomacritus the Athenian, who flourished as early as B.C. 516), he will not, in my opinion, fail to perceive that both are works by the same hand. The close resemblance in the versification, in the fondness for spondaic endings, in the diction, in the reduplication of epithets; and as regards the spirit, the peculiar form, marking a purely Grecian epoch, under which the tender passion is pictured in both, clearly indicate their common origin. Now to establish their common antiquity. The 'Argonautica,' being comparatively a mere sketch, must have necessarily preceded the elaborate composition by Apollonius Ehodius upon the same theme. The story as told by Orpheus differs from the latter in many important particulars, besides being narrated with much more of primitive simplicity: indeed it is hardly conceivable that any one coming after Apollonius should have attempted to compete with an epic of such established reputation; or that, having such audacity, he should have deviated so far from his prototype. But, on the grounds above stated, if Onomacritus is the author of the 'Argonautica,' he must also be considered the author of the 'Lithica.' Indeed the question of the high antiquity of the latter is set at rest, if we accept the statement of the scholiast "Demetrius, son of Moschus," that it gave Meander the idea of his 'Theriaca.' Now as Nicander flourished at the court of Attalas III., about B.C. 135, this circumstance presupposes a much earlier date in a work selected for his model by a writer of no mean order.
The Argonautica of Orpheus
E. H. Bunbury
A History of Ancient Geography among the Greeks and Romans from the Earliest Ages to the Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 1 (London: John Murray, 1879).
I should have been content to leave the consideration of the supposed antiquity of the Argonautica, as was done by K. O. Müller and Mr. Grote, as a question that had been decided beyond appeal by the successive investigations of Schneider, Hermann, and Ukert: had it not been for its having been brought forward afresh by M. Vivien de St. Martin in his recent work on the historical progress of Geography. Admitting that the arguments of the German critics, derived from grammatical and metrical details, may be conclusive against assigning an early date to the poem in its present shape, he still maintains that it may be merely a rifacciamento of an earlier work, and that the poem now extant is in substance the same as that of which he ascribes the composition to Onomacritus. Two arguments appear to me conclusive against this hypothesis: the one, that, as stated in the text, this supposed redaction by Onomacritus of a poem on the Argonautic voyage is a pure fiction: that is to say, a mere arbitrary hypothesis, assumed without a particle of evidence. There is some ancient authority, though very vague and indefinite, for Onomacritus having composed hymns in the name of Orpheus, or worked up previously existing poems of a religious character into a more definite shape; and it is not improbable that the poems current under the name of Orpheus in the time of Aristophanes belonged to this class. But there is absolutely none for Onomacritus having handled the subject of the Argonautics, a poem of a totally different character. Nor, in the second place, is there any mention of the existence of any such poem before the Alexandrian period, or indeed till long after; and the existing Scholia on Apollonius, which are of unusual fulness and value, while repeatedly referring to the different versions of the tale found in different authors, never allude to the existence of a poem on the subject under the imposing name of Orpheus. This consideration alone appears to me conclusive against its being of older date than the late Alexandrian period.
The internal evidence appears to me equally decisive. M. de St. Martin finds in it the primitive simplicity and didactic character of the earliest poets. To me it appears, in common with several distinguished critics, to have the jejune and prosaic tameness so characteristic of the declining Greek poetry of the second and third century after the Christian era. And this character is as strongly marked in the conception and mode of treatment of the subject as in the details of style and diction. For these last I must refer my readers to Hermann's elaborate dissertation, appended to his edition of the Orphica; an excellent summary of the whole subject, from the critical point of view, is given by Bernhardy in his Ghrundriss der Griechischen Literatur (2nd edition, Halle, 1856, vol. iL pp. 347-353).
From the geographical point of view it matters little whether the poem is to be ascribed to the Alexandrian or to the Christian period. In either case it is equally worthless, and unworthy of careful examination. But the evidence that it is not (as M. de St. Martin maintains) "certainly anterior to Herodotus," appears to me overwhelming. The confusion of the writer's geography, which is regarded by M. de St. Martin as arising from his great antiquity, bears a striking resemblance to that found in several of the later geographers. It is not merely that he has erroneous ideas, even in regard to regions like the north coasts of the Aegean; that he represents the Araxes, Thermodon, Phasis, and Tanais, as all having a common origin; and that in describing the voyage from the Maeotis to the Northern Ocean, he jumbles together the names of Scythian tribes derived from all kinds of sources, and enumerates the Geloni, Sauromatae, Getae, and Arimaspians, among the nations dwelling around the Palus Maaotis, while he transfers the Tauri, noted for their human sacrifices, to the shores of the channel leading into the Northern Ocean. But he describes the Argonauts as passing through a narrow channel into the Ocean, "which is called by the Hyperborean tribes the Cronian Sea and the Dead Sea." Both these names were familiar to the geographers and poets of later, times; but no trace of them is found before the Alexandrian period. Here they visit in succession the Macrobians. Cimmerians, and the land" of Hermionia, where is the mouth of Acheron and the descent into the infernal regions: but they are especially warned to avoid the island of Ierne, in order to do which they by great exertions double the Sacred Cape, and after twelve days' voyage reach the fir-clad island, sacred to Demeter, where the poet places the fable of the Rape of Persephone. Thence in three days they come to the island of Circe, after which they pass by the Columns of Hercules into the Sardinian Sea. Here we find mentioned the customary legends of the Sirens, Charybdis, &c, but mixed up with the names of the Latins, Ausonians, and Tyrrhenians, as inhabitants of its shores: and the mention of Lilybaeum in Sicily is associated with the burning Aetna, and the fable of Enceladus. It is remarkable that the "far-stretching Alps" are mentioned among the ranges of mountains—associated with the Rhipeean mountains and the Calpian ridge—that overshadowed the land of the Cimmerians, and helped to shut out from it the light of the sun. Absurd as is this statement, it shows a familiarity with the name of the Alps as a great mountain chain, though it was certainly unknown as such to the Greeks in the days of Herodotus. The mention of Ierne (or, as it is called in one passage, the lernian Islands) is still more decisive. There is no evidence of any knowledge of the British Islands among the Greeks before the time of Pytheas, while the name of Ierne (Ireland) is not mentioned till a considerably later period.
Confused and extravagant as are the geographical notions contained in the above narrative, it does not appear to me possible to pronounce upon their evidence alone, that the poem cannot belong to the Alexandrian period instead of the Roman Empire. Its assignment to the later age must rest upon considerations of style and language, as well as upon the all-important fact that no allusion to its existence is found in any ancient author, or even in any of the scholiasts or grammarians down to a very late date.
Read more of this article here.
E. H. Bunbury
A History of Ancient Geography among the Greeks and Romans from the Earliest Ages to the Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 1 (London: John Murray, 1879).
I should have been content to leave the consideration of the supposed antiquity of the Argonautica, as was done by K. O. Müller and Mr. Grote, as a question that had been decided beyond appeal by the successive investigations of Schneider, Hermann, and Ukert: had it not been for its having been brought forward afresh by M. Vivien de St. Martin in his recent work on the historical progress of Geography. Admitting that the arguments of the German critics, derived from grammatical and metrical details, may be conclusive against assigning an early date to the poem in its present shape, he still maintains that it may be merely a rifacciamento of an earlier work, and that the poem now extant is in substance the same as that of which he ascribes the composition to Onomacritus. Two arguments appear to me conclusive against this hypothesis: the one, that, as stated in the text, this supposed redaction by Onomacritus of a poem on the Argonautic voyage is a pure fiction: that is to say, a mere arbitrary hypothesis, assumed without a particle of evidence. There is some ancient authority, though very vague and indefinite, for Onomacritus having composed hymns in the name of Orpheus, or worked up previously existing poems of a religious character into a more definite shape; and it is not improbable that the poems current under the name of Orpheus in the time of Aristophanes belonged to this class. But there is absolutely none for Onomacritus having handled the subject of the Argonautics, a poem of a totally different character. Nor, in the second place, is there any mention of the existence of any such poem before the Alexandrian period, or indeed till long after; and the existing Scholia on Apollonius, which are of unusual fulness and value, while repeatedly referring to the different versions of the tale found in different authors, never allude to the existence of a poem on the subject under the imposing name of Orpheus. This consideration alone appears to me conclusive against its being of older date than the late Alexandrian period.
The internal evidence appears to me equally decisive. M. de St. Martin finds in it the primitive simplicity and didactic character of the earliest poets. To me it appears, in common with several distinguished critics, to have the jejune and prosaic tameness so characteristic of the declining Greek poetry of the second and third century after the Christian era. And this character is as strongly marked in the conception and mode of treatment of the subject as in the details of style and diction. For these last I must refer my readers to Hermann's elaborate dissertation, appended to his edition of the Orphica; an excellent summary of the whole subject, from the critical point of view, is given by Bernhardy in his Ghrundriss der Griechischen Literatur (2nd edition, Halle, 1856, vol. iL pp. 347-353).
From the geographical point of view it matters little whether the poem is to be ascribed to the Alexandrian or to the Christian period. In either case it is equally worthless, and unworthy of careful examination. But the evidence that it is not (as M. de St. Martin maintains) "certainly anterior to Herodotus," appears to me overwhelming. The confusion of the writer's geography, which is regarded by M. de St. Martin as arising from his great antiquity, bears a striking resemblance to that found in several of the later geographers. It is not merely that he has erroneous ideas, even in regard to regions like the north coasts of the Aegean; that he represents the Araxes, Thermodon, Phasis, and Tanais, as all having a common origin; and that in describing the voyage from the Maeotis to the Northern Ocean, he jumbles together the names of Scythian tribes derived from all kinds of sources, and enumerates the Geloni, Sauromatae, Getae, and Arimaspians, among the nations dwelling around the Palus Maaotis, while he transfers the Tauri, noted for their human sacrifices, to the shores of the channel leading into the Northern Ocean. But he describes the Argonauts as passing through a narrow channel into the Ocean, "which is called by the Hyperborean tribes the Cronian Sea and the Dead Sea." Both these names were familiar to the geographers and poets of later, times; but no trace of them is found before the Alexandrian period. Here they visit in succession the Macrobians. Cimmerians, and the land" of Hermionia, where is the mouth of Acheron and the descent into the infernal regions: but they are especially warned to avoid the island of Ierne, in order to do which they by great exertions double the Sacred Cape, and after twelve days' voyage reach the fir-clad island, sacred to Demeter, where the poet places the fable of the Rape of Persephone. Thence in three days they come to the island of Circe, after which they pass by the Columns of Hercules into the Sardinian Sea. Here we find mentioned the customary legends of the Sirens, Charybdis, &c, but mixed up with the names of the Latins, Ausonians, and Tyrrhenians, as inhabitants of its shores: and the mention of Lilybaeum in Sicily is associated with the burning Aetna, and the fable of Enceladus. It is remarkable that the "far-stretching Alps" are mentioned among the ranges of mountains—associated with the Rhipeean mountains and the Calpian ridge—that overshadowed the land of the Cimmerians, and helped to shut out from it the light of the sun. Absurd as is this statement, it shows a familiarity with the name of the Alps as a great mountain chain, though it was certainly unknown as such to the Greeks in the days of Herodotus. The mention of Ierne (or, as it is called in one passage, the lernian Islands) is still more decisive. There is no evidence of any knowledge of the British Islands among the Greeks before the time of Pytheas, while the name of Ierne (Ireland) is not mentioned till a considerably later period.
Confused and extravagant as are the geographical notions contained in the above narrative, it does not appear to me possible to pronounce upon their evidence alone, that the poem cannot belong to the Alexandrian period instead of the Roman Empire. Its assignment to the later age must rest upon considerations of style and language, as well as upon the all-important fact that no allusion to its existence is found in any ancient author, or even in any of the scholiasts or grammarians down to a very late date.
Read more of this article here.
On the Orphic Argonautica and Later Greek Verse
R. C. Jebb
Greek Literature (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1889)
Poetry of a mystic character forms a special province of the later Greek verse. The Argonautica (which must be distinguished from the poem of Apollonius Rhodius) is an epic in 1384 lines, written probably in Egypt before 400 A.D., and treating select incidents in the voyage of Jason. Orpheus, bard, prophet and enchanter, is the central figure: his mysterious power over the world of gods, spirits and men is the central motive of the whole.
R. C. Jebb
Greek Literature (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1889)
Poetry of a mystic character forms a special province of the later Greek verse. The Argonautica (which must be distinguished from the poem of Apollonius Rhodius) is an epic in 1384 lines, written probably in Egypt before 400 A.D., and treating select incidents in the voyage of Jason. Orpheus, bard, prophet and enchanter, is the central figure: his mysterious power over the world of gods, spirits and men is the central motive of the whole.
On Valerius Flaccus and the Orphic Argonautica
Walter Coventry Summers
A Study of the Argonautica of Valerius Flaccus (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, & Co., 1894)
There is, however, a Greek poem, written probably before 400 A.D. on the same subject as that of our author, and I am inclined to believe that we can find some traces of his poem here. I refer of course to the so-called Orphic Argonautica, the relation of which to the Latin work has not so far as I know been previously examined. The resemblances are (a) partly in the matter, and (b) partly in the language. As regards class (a), they are found mostly at the beginning of the poem. As in Valerius, Pelias fears an oracle definitely naming Jason (whereas in Apollonius and Pindar an aeopedilos is mentioned only) so in the Orphic work (55 sqq.). In both poems Jason prays to his guardian goddess, Juno or Hera (see Orph. 61 sqq.). The episode of Chiron and Achilles (394 sqq.) is different from the same in both Apollonius and Valerius, but resembles the latter more than the former. The Actorides of Orpheus (136) seems due to a misconception of the Actorides of Val. i 407, as Menoitios is named separately. In Orpheus, Aeetes has an evil dream, goes with Medea to avert its consequences by bathing in the Phasis, and there sees the Argo—all very like Val. v 217 sqq., 330 sqq. Another point worth noting is that the form Erythia, used by Valerius (v 106) for Erythini, appears in Orph. 1051 also as the name of a place in the Euxine, though it probably is not there intended to represent Erythini. The mention of Iernis in the latter part of the poem may, if my view be correct as regards the scope of the Latin poem, be due to some plan of it left behind by Valerius.