Epic Authority: Quintus of Smyrna’s Construction of Poetic Identity (Posthomerica 12.306-313)

E. Tomasso (Stanford University)

In the twelfth book of his Posthomerica (PH), an epic poem that deals with the events of the Trojan war spanning from the end of the Iliad to the beginning of the Odyssey, Quintus of Smyrna gives a catalog of the Achaeans who entered the Trojan horse (317-326). Before he does this, however, he calls on the Muses for the first and last time to give him this information, and he briefly relates how they inspired him to write epic while he was tending his sheep in Smyrna (306-313). This passage, more so than any other in PH, has generated intense interest from scholars principally because, as they argue, these lines are the only source of information about Quintus’ life (Combellack 1968.4). According to these same scholars, this passage also adduces further proof for the long-held view that Quintus is a bad imitator: Campbell, for instance, cites Hesiod’s Theogony 22-35 and fragment 2 of Callimachus’ Aetia as Quintus’ models (1981.101).

Both of these critical stances are flawed in that they depict Quintus as a passive recipient of tradition rather than a creative poet and innovator. In the first place the notion that Th. 22-34 is autobiographical has long been deconstructed (Martin 1992.14); why, then, should we assume that the PH passage (or the Aetia fragment for that matter) is being any more literal than its model? Secondly, Quintus’ lines are anything but blind imitation: the diction and thematics in this passage mirror those of Homer, Hesiod, and Callimachus at various points but also depart from them in subtle and surprising ways. Other imperial Greek epics contain passages that are far more obviously imitative of their models such as Dionysiaca 13.43-52 where Nonnus calls on Homer himself to inspire him and replicates the diction of Iliad 2.488-90 more or less precisely.

By starting off with the death of Hector (1.1-2), ending with the nostoi of various Achaeans (14.657-8), and using diction and formulae found in the Iliad and Odyssey throughout PH, Quintus clearly circumscribes himself in the tradition of heroic epic. Thus PH 12.306-313 is striking since extant Greek heroic epic does not contain such “autobiographical” passages (James 2004.xvii) as we find in theogonic epics such as the Theogony and the Homeric Hymn to Apollo. In this paper I argue that the details given in PH 12 should not be read as autobiography or as naive imitation but rather as complex negotiation of epic voices which ultimately serves as structuring device for Quintus’ own poetic identity within the traditional continuum of heroic epic. Quintus does this by appropriating disparate generic authorities, heroic and theogonic epic, to invest his own project with greater authority. By examining PH in this way, we gain a more critical perspective from which to analyze this programmatic passage and consequently Quintus’ poetics as a whole.

Select Bibliography

Campbell, Malcolm. 1981. “A Commentary on Quintus Smyrnaeus Posthomerica 12.”

Mnemosyne 71. Leiden.

Griffith, Mark. 1983. “Hesiod’s Personality.” La Critica d’Arte 2: 37-41.

Martin, Richard. 1992. “Hesiod’s Metanastic Poetics.” Ramus 21 (1): 11-33.

Combellack, Frederick M. 1968. The War at Troy. Norman.

James, Alan. 2004. The Trojan Epic. Baltimore.

Vian, Francis. 1969. La Suite d’Homère. Vol. 3. Paris.