Poetic programmes in the Orphic "corpus"

POETIC PROGRAMMES IN THE ORPHIC CORPUS Giuseppe Giang ande Un análisis his ó ico-li e a io, p ac icado den o del ma co del géne o épico, pe mi e iden i ica los ópicos que los au o es de las Lí icas y las A gonáu icas O icas u iliza on en la composición de sus espec i os p og amas poé icos. A li e a y-his o ical analysis conduc ed wi hin he epic gen e b ings o ligh he opoi which he au ho s o he O phic Li hica and A gonau ica u ilized in o de o compose hei espec i e poe ic p og ammes. The wo g oups o epic poems a ibu ed espec i ely o Home and O pheus ha e wo main cha ac e is ics in common: in bo h cases, each co pus con ains wo ks w i en by di e en au ho s, a di e en imes; wi hin each co pus, many a poem (e. g. he Iliad, he Li hica) is no one einhei lich wo k bu a conglome a e o pa s, which we e p oduced by di e en poe s and which we e cobbled oge he , in he o m in which hey ha e eached us, by one inal elabo a o . Lea ing aside he ob ious case ep esen ed by he Iliad, i is wo h emembe ing ha he Li hica a e he esul o he wo k done by an elabo a o who has s i ched oge he wo o iginally independen lapida ia: his is p o ed by he ac ha he Li hica ha e wo di e en p ooemia, and ha he e a e in he poem 147 HABIS24(1993) 147-158 POETIC PROGRAMMES IN THE ORPHIC CORPUS no one, bu «deux mai es de é éla ion» 1. As ega ds he O phic A gonau ica, nobody, I belie e, would main ain ha hey we e w i en di ge o by one poe : ce ain schola s belie e ha his wo k is he « emaniemen d'un poeme an é ieu a Apollonios» 2, whils o he s main ain ha «le poe e a di des A gonau iques O phiques» has u ilized «des A gonau iques an é ieu es a celles d' Apollonios» and poems «d'inspi a ion hellénis ique» 3• A poin e o he ac ha ou O phic A gonau ica a e a « emaniemen » o p e ious poems is ound a he e y beginning o he wo k: he O phic A gonau ica, exac ly like he O phic Li hica, ha e wo p ooemia. In he i s o hese, he au ho in okes Apollo (lines 1-6), whils in he second (7 .) he poe add esses he di ine Musaeus. The welding be ween he wo p ooemia is a om elici ous: a e in oking Apollo, in he i s pe son (O a~ ... ÉKaTT]~ÓAE ... cn1 ápETÍ)V ... a BÉ µOL K. T.A.), he poe , in lines 7 ., con inues using he oca i e and he p onoun o he second pe son singula , so ha he eade belie es, a i s sigh , ha he epi he A.upoEpyÉ is aken o e e o A pollo in B uchmann, Epi he a deo um, s. . 'A TTÓAAw , p. 27. Then, in line 9, A pollo is men ioned in he hi d pe son, so ha he eade unde s ands ha he wo ds yáp aoL , A.upoEpyÉ a e no add essed o Apollo; howe e , he eade is s ill le in he da k as o how o in e p e and unde s and hese lines, because i is only much la e («plus loin»: Do in, p. 3) ha all is e ealed: he poe , in line 308, makes i clea ha his wo ds in lines 7 . a e add essed o Musaeus. In o he wo ds: he i s p ooemium is di ec ed a Apollo, he second a Musaeus (we shall e e o his poin la e ). Howe e , he p oblem which 1 wish o illus a e consis s in explaining how he au ho s o such wo ks as he O phic Li hica and he O phic A gonau ica managed o inse hei espec i e poems in o he O phic co pus. The e is no doub ha he wo poe s, o e iden easons o p es ige, wan ed hei a is ic c ea ions o be asc ibed o no less an au ho i y han O pheus: bu how did hey con i e o achie e hei aim? O pheus was he well known au ho o poems in which he deal wi h cosmogonic, eligious and mys e ic hemes. These eligious wo ks by O pheus a e, in ac , lis ed in he O phic A gonau ica, lines 7-46. Now, nei he he au ho o he O phic Li hica, no he au ho o he O phic A gonau ica ound he eligious hemes in ques ion congenia!. The au ho o he Li hica decided o 1 C . R. Halleux-J. Schamp, Les Lapidai es G ecs (Pa is, Les Belles Le es, 1985) 29 , wi h bibliog aphy. 2 C . G. Do in, Les A gonau iques d'O phée (Pa is, Les Belles Le es, 1930) CLIV. Now ha ex ual c i icism is guided by a his o ical (and consequen ly conse a i e) app oach (c . e. g. H. an Loo y, A C 1986, 417 .) he ou s anding alue o Do in 's wo k is becoming mo e and mo e e iden . 3 C . F. Vian, Les A gonau iques d'01phée (Pa is, Les Belles Le es, 1987) 28, wi h bibliog aphy (He e , Venzke). Tha he O phic A gonau ica a e a « emaniemen » o ea lie poems is, amongs o he hings, p o ed by he ac ha hey con ain many «con adic ions» (Do in, op. c i . XCIV .) a ec ing he plo , i. e. «le dé eloppemen ». 148 GIUSEPPE GIANGRANDE de o e himsel o one pa icula b anch o epic poe y, i. e. didac ic epic4. In o de o a ain his in en , i. e. o w i e a didac ic poem and, a he same ime, o ha e i asc ibed o O pheus, he poe has wo alid excuses. His wo excuses a e alid because hey a e suppo ed by he au obiog aphical ac o . The au obiog aphical elemen p og essi ely gains impo ance, in he epic gen e, as e e ybody knows: in he /liad, Home me ely says, in his p ooemium, M l w ÜELOE, 6Eá, bu in he Odyssey we al eady ind, signi ican ly enough, he pe sonal p onoun: "A opa µOL ÉVVETTE, MoDaa. In Hellenis ic epic ( he G eeks, as is well known, assigned bo h hexame ic poems and elegy o he epic gen e 5) he au obiog aphical ac o ca ne e y much o he o eg ound: poe s like Callimachus and Apollonius Rhodius o en alk abou hei own pe son and he cause o hei poe ic mo i a ion 6. Le us examine he i s excuse employed by he au ho o he Li hica. He cle e ly uses he au obiog aphical ac o by explici ly s a ing ha he, O pheus, w o e his didac ic poem, he Li hica, because he was o de ed o do so by he god He mes (lines 58 .; no e KEAEúaas in line 59) and, o good mesu e, by he god Apollo as well ( h ough he in e media y o Theiodamas o Helenos: lines 763, 768). Apollo o de ed he poe ' s «maí es de é éla ion», Theiodamas and Hellenos, o e eal he i ues o mine alogy o he mo als, and o always ell he u h 7. The au ho bases his excuse on a uni e sally accep ed p incipie: e e y poe w i es his wo k as a esul o a «di ine o de >> (c . Se . Min. Alex. IV, 526): he mos celeb a ed example o his mo i is, o cou se, in Callimachus, who ells us ha he p oduced one pa icula ype o poe y because Apollo has o de ed him o do so. The poe , as Apollonius Rhodius ells us, is me ely he mou hpiece o he Muses (imaKouos ... IlLEpl8w : 4. 1381 .), because he Muses a e hose who p o ide his song8. P obably, he s a emen s o he e ec ha he poe was o de ed o w i e bis Li hica by He mes and by Apollo may well ha e been ca u sed by he ac ha he O phic Li hica a e he esul o he me ge o wo poems; in o he wo ds, i could well be ha in one o he poems in ques ion he au ho was o de ed o w i e his didac ic wo k by He mes, whils in he o he o he wo said poems he au ho ecei ed such an a de om Apollo. O cou se, his hypo hesis is no absolu ely ce ain, because we know ha epic poe s could be o de ed o w i e hei wo k by mo e han one god9. The impo an poin is o no e ha he i s o he 4 C . my obse a ions in «Ün he ex o he O phic Li hica», Habis 20 (1989) 39, whe e 1 quo e Giannakis. The e seems o be no doub ha he au ho o he Li hica wan ed o pass himsel o as O pheus: c . Giannakis' edi ion (loannina 1982), 9 . 5 C . E. Meillie , Callimaque e son emps (Lille 1979) 349 n. 141. 6 C . E. Eichg ün, Kallimachos und Apollonios Rhodius (Diss., Be lín 1961); on he e en s in Callimachus' li e which condi ioned his poe ic p oduc ion c . my Sc ip a Mino a Alexand ina, 1, 235 ., and IV, 526 . C . Lapp, De Callimachi opis (Diss ., Bonn 1965) 145 . : «poe a de se ipso loqui u »; R. Pe oll, Die Aeusse ungen Theok i s übe seine Pe son (Diss., Hambu g 1965). 7 On all his c . Habis 1989, a . ci . 67. On he exa a quaes io as o who speaks in lines 771 . ( he poe , Theiodamas o Helenos?) c . E. Abel, O phei Li hica 110 . 8 C . CR N.S. 21 (1971) 356, o Apollonius' ph ase -1.22- únocpTjTopES cio 8 js. 9 C . G. B. Mocke , De Musis a poe is g aecis .. . in oca is (Diss. Le ipzig 1893), and G. Engel, De an iquo . epico um .. .p ooemiis (Diss. Ma bu g 1910). On a mo e gene al le e), c . also W. F. O o, Die Musen und de go liche U sp ung des Singens und Sagens (Düsseldo 1955). 149 POETIC PROGRAMMES IN THE ORPHIC CORPUS wo excuses employed by he au ho o he Li hica is cogen : one canno di so bey an o de impa ed by a god. I He mes and Apollo had o de ed O pheus o w i e a didac ic poem ins ead o mys e ic, cosmogonic poe y, O pheus could no bu o bey such a di ine o de . I may be asked: why was he o de , as s a ed in lines 58 ., impa ed by He mes? Such o de s a e no mally, as e e ybody knows, gi en by Apollo o he Muses. The ac is ha He mes was doubly quali ied o issue his o de o he au ho o he Li hica. Fi s o all, He mes was adi ionally he «mai e de é éla ion» (Halleux-Schamp, p. 84), and he Li hica a e in ended o e eal o mankind he mi aculous p ope ies o s ones and gems. So, jus as A emis is quali ied o eques Oppian o w i e a poem on hun ing (C. 1.17), and jus as He mes, in his capaci y as «magís e pisca ionis» (Engel, op. ci ., p. 39) can be in oked by Oppian o inspi e him in H. 3. 9 ., He mes can ce ainly o de he au ho o he Li hica o e eal he p ope ies o s ones o mo als. Secondly, He mes has ce ainly no usu ped he place o he Muses o Apollo in o de ing a wo k o poe y o be w i en: He mes was ega ded in an iqui y as one o he pa ons o poe y,' EALKWVLos 10 . As is well known, He mes s a es ha Apollo, by playing he ly e, will ipso ac o bes ow on him he KD8os, he ame o being he in en o o his ins umen (c . h. Hom. Me e. 477). Mane ho in okes, in his p ooemium o Book 6, Apollo, he Muses and He mes (c . Engel,40 .). The a gumen s used by he w i e o he Li hjca no only jus i y he ac ha O pheus, he au ho o he Li hica, has u ned o mine alogy, lea ing behind cosmogonic and mys e ic poe y: hey also enable he poe o achie e one u he aim, i. e. o a ain li e a y ame and glo y. By e ealing o mankind he mi aculous p ope ies o s ones, p ope ies which a e ue and no alse 11 , he poe will o e o mo als a poem which is mo e p ecious han gold and which will be uni e sally easu ed and admi ed (lines 78-83). The p incipie whe eby poe s mus only na a e wha is ue is well es ablished in Hellenis ic and la e poe y 12: Callimachus decla ed ciµápTUpo oú8€ cid8w ( . 612 P ., whe e P ei e app op ia ely quo es schol. Dion. Pe ieg. 1: TI] (an E- áyn TO oos), and Apollonius Rhodius unde lined ha wha he na a ed was ¡µEpTÉS ( 4.555), indeed he ook he Mouam, who we e adi ionally éíywL, áy a and 8€l.m, o be he gua an o s o he e aci y o wha he w o e (4.984) 13 • He e in he Li hica, he obliga ion ha he poe has o ell he u h edounds o he poe 's ad an age, because he au ho o he Li hica, by imp essing upon his eade s ha he 10 C . H. Whi e, S udies in La e G eek Epic Poe y (Ams e dam 198 7) 74, undamen al; c . also Mocke , op . c i . 25. 11 C . Habis 1989, a . ci . 64 . (ETJÍTUµo , line 516; /JEU8Éa µ' ÍTTO TE µu0o E: w E'L , Iine 768, e c.). 12 C . Fedeli, P ope zio, 11 P imo Lib o, 468 . The opos in ques ion became equen in Hellenis ic and la e poe s, because hey o en na a ed wond ous ales which hei eade s migh ind inc edible o di icul o belie e. The e b 0a µ~ Éw is equen in Apollonius Rhodius' A gonau ica: c . e. g. 4.1363 . Vd. below oo no e 23. 13 Fu he ma e ial in Bo n nann, Ca llim. Hymn. Dian. (F i enze 1968) 88, on l. 186. 150 GIUSEPPE GIANGRANDE mi aculous p ope ies o he s ones which he will e eal a e ue, aims a a aining ame: he will, ha is, by e ealing o humans sec e s which a e inc edibly mi aculous and ye o ue e icacy, gain he admi a ion o his eade s and widesp ead glo y (lines 78-83). The au ho o he Li hica p oclaims ha his wo k is wo hy o admi a ion and glo y (loe. ci .): e e y espec able poe , o cou se, exp esses he wish ha he may gain ame and admi a ion. Apollonius Rhodius (4.1773 .) desi es ha his poem be mo e and mo e app ecia ed, in he yea s o come, by his eade s, whils Oppian hopes ha his Halieu ica will be highly es eemed by he mos noble public o all, i. e. he Royal Family (H. 1.78 .). The second au obiog aphical excuse employed by he au ho o he Li hica is ound in he second p ooemium : he poe ells us ha he, by he g ace o he gods (lines 98 .), me a my hical pe sonage, Theiodamas, who pa en ly had he ea o he gods, and who gua an eed o he poe (E-yyuaA.lcw, line 171) ha he would see o i ha he gods would g an he poe 's p aye s and e ea! o him he mi aculous p ope ies o s ones, so ha he poe migh , in his um, e ea! hem, by means o his didac ic poem, o mankind (lines 166 .). The pe sonage called Theiodamas, one o he wo «mai es de é éla ion», is o a la ge ex en mys e ious 14 , bu he e is no doub ha he was a he oic, my hical cha ac e , because he was a iend o «le de in oyen Hélénos» (Halleux-Schamp, loe. ci .). The i s p ooemium has been de ined by schola s as «publici ai e», inso a as i aims a showing «le pou oi in ini» o mine alogical science (Hallex-Schamp -p. 10-, who ollow Be nha dy). The second p ooemium has a mo e impo an unc ion: mine alogy is en isaged and p esen ed by Theiodamas ( O pheus' «mai e de é éla ion») o he eade no as an i eligious science (such was Theoph as us' iew), bu as a subjec no less mys e ic and eligious han hose deal wi h by O pheus in his eligious poems ( hose lis ed in O phic A gon. 7 .). Theiodamas e eals his «sec e », i. e. he con en s o mine alogy, o O pheus in he cou se o «l 'ini ia ion sup eme» (Halleux-Schamp, p. 19). Mine alogy, ha is o say, is e ealed by Theiodamas o O pheus, and will be e ealed hanks o he gene osi y o he gods 15 , will bene i mankind. In o he wo ds: in he second p ooemium, mine alogy is explici ly p oclaimed o be a mys e ic, eligious subjec , like ali he o he mys e ic and eligious subjec s which O pheus was known o ha e deal wi h. The au ho o he second p ooemium, hus, elegan ly succeeds in explaining why, and how, O pheus could um his hand o mine alogy: he mys e ic poems which O pheus had w i en we e ul ima ely «des é ela ions di ines» which he o e ed «aux hommes» (Vian, op. ci ., p. 6) ; in exac ly he same manne , mine alogy as p esen ed and en isaged in he second p ooemium o he Li hica (and h oughou he Li hica, o cou se) is no hing bu a se ies o di ine e ela ions which O pheus will gi e o humans. 14 Halleux-Schamp, op. ci . 30 .: «mage»? «hé os»? «homme de dieu, c . line 165? «P iamide»?. 15 C . Habis 1989, a . ci . 52. 151 POETIC PROGRAMMES IN THE ORPHIC CORPUS In sum: a momen ous encoun e be ween he poe and a he o, Theiodamas, which la e was in con ac wi h he gods, p omp ed he w i ing o he Li hica. We shall e e o he mo i o he momen ous encoun e soon. Wha abou he O phic A gonau ica? To achie e bis aims, he au ho has ·adop ed a me hod exac ly pa allel o he one chosen by he poe who w o e he Li hica. The au ho o he O phic A gonau ica does know ha O pheus had w i en cosmogonic, eligious and mys e ic poems, so much so ha hese wo ks a e o e ly lis ed in lines 7-47 o he O phic A gonau ica. How come, hen, ha O pheus has now suddenly decided o um bis back on cosmogony, eligion and mys e ies, and o de o e himsel o epic poe y in he manne o Home and Apollonius Rhodius? The con e sion o O pheus o Home ic-Apollonian epic, and bis ha ing abandoned cosmogonic, mys e ic and eligious poe y is clea ly indica ed in line 49. Once again, he au obiog aphical ac o is u ilized. In he i s p ooemium, he au ho o he A gonau ica s a es ha he composed bis poem because he was o de ed o do so by he Muse (line 6), exac ly as he au ho o he Li hica ells us, in he i s p ooemium, ha he w o e bis poem a he command o He mes. The second p ooemium o he O phic A gonau ica is, like he second p ooemium o he Li hica, a mo e a icula e and logically a gued. In he second p ooemium o he O phic A gonau ica, he poe ela es ha he had w i en all he cosmogonic, eligious and mys e ic poe y desc ibed in lines 7-46 unde he enzied inspi a ion impa ed o him by Apollo. Such a kind o inspi a ion is desc ibed by he poe by means o wo me apho s, namely KÉVTpo in lines 9 ., and olaTpos in lines 47 and 103. O pheus s a es ha he was goaded by he KÉ Tpo no only o Apollo, bu also o Bakchos in lines 9 .: his is a clea allusion o he ac ha , as e e ybody knows, Bakchos played a e y g ea ole in he mys e ic poe y p oduced by O pheus, so much so ha O pheus was iden i ied wi h Bakchos. The KÉ Tpo is wha p oduces li e a y wo ks (in his case, he mys e ic poe y p oduced by O pheus) -c . Longinus 2.2-; indeed, he KÉVTpo p oduces, as Plu a ch pu s i , inspi ed enzy, ópµT¡ € 8ouaui'.i8T]S' (Mo . 236 A), jus he kind o enzy needed o w i e mys e ic, eligious poe y. The olaTpos is ano he me apho deno ing he «déli e inspi é», as Vian (op. ci ., p. 175) no es, quo ing O . Sib. 11.323 . Tha KÉ Tpo and olaTpos a e wo synonyms, wo me apho s deno ing he inspi ed enzy which p oduces mys e ic poe y is p o ed by O ph. Hymn. 32.6 . OLCTTpouaa ~püTWV ¡J; xas µa lawL, cpplKW8T] euµo K. T. A.. (= cppLKw8 n O ph. A gon. 10), and O ph. Hymn. 71.11 . ¡J;ux ls ... olaTpo ... µúaTms (= µúaTms O ph. A gon. 11). To conclude: KÉVTpo and olaTpos a e, as all schola s ag ee, wo me apho s used by O pheus, in lines 9, 47 and 103 o bis A gonau ica, o deno e he di ine goad which p oduces en housiasmos, i. e. which p oduces mys e ic, o acula poe y 16 . Bu le us now e um o he au obiog aphical elemen as u ilized by O pheus, o bis pu poses. 16 C . Ziegle , RE. s. . «Ü pheus», XVIII 1 (1939) 1265, 9 . 152 GIUSEPPE GIANGRANDE O pheus ells us, in he second p ooemium o he A gonau ica, ha , a a la e poin o his li e, when he had al eady w i en all he eligious and mys e ic poems he lis s in lines 7-46, he was abandoned by he KÉ Tpo , he oLaTpos which had caused him o w i e all such eligious and mys e ic poe y (line 47: ch ÉTT nTo ... olaTpos ). P ecisely a ha la e poin in his li e, when he olaTpos had le him, O pheus had a momen ous encoun e wi h a he nie pe sonage, Jason, as he epo s in O phic A gon. 70 ., jus as O pheus had a momen ous encoun e wi h he he o Theiodamas in he second p ooemium o he O phic Li hica. Jason ca ne o mee O pheus, and caused him o join he expedi ion o he A gonau s. O pheus explains o his eade s ha he could no e use Jason's eques , because i was dic a ed by Fa e (lines 106 .): he e o e, jus as he encoun e he au ho o he Li hica had wi h Theiodamas caused he Li hica (a didac ic, scien i ic poem) o be w i en, so he encoun e O pheus had wi h Jason caused he O phic A gonau ica o be composed: in bo h cases, he au obiog aphical elemen (a mee ing wi h a my hical, he nie pe sonage)jus i ies he choice o gen e adop ed by O pheus ( espec i ely, didac ic epic and epic in he Home ic, Apollonian manne , ins ead o mys e ic, eligious poe y). By why did O pheus ha e o w i e he O phic A gonau ica? Jason only asked him o join he expedi ion, no o p oduce poe y. Once again, he au ho o he O phic A gonau ica a gues his case well, i. e. he explains lawlessly why he w o e an epic poem in he manne o Apollonius Rhodius. He ook pa in an epic expedi ion; now, acco ding o a li e a y con en ion 17 O pheus had he obliga ion o na a e o Museaus all ha he, O pheus, had done: e go, now O pheus will ha e o na a e his epic ad en u es o Musaeus. Le jeu es ai : O pheus could no a oid wha had been dec eed by Fa e, i.e. he could no a oid aking pa in he expedi ion o he A gonau s; O pheus was adi ionally expec ed o na a e all his ad en u es o Musaeus (as O pheus e ninds his eade s in lines 33 E-8áT]s, 40 aoL KaTÉAE~a . e c.): now, he will ha e o na a e o Musaeus hings which he, O pheus, had ne e be o e old Musaeus (lines 7 .), when O pheus was goaded by he KÉ Tpo o Apollo and Bakchos o w i e mys e ic, cosmogonic, i. e. non-epic poe y: í) yáp OOL, AUpOEpyÉ, c/>LAOV µüos á.d8o TL euµos ETTOTpÚVEL AÉ~aL TÚTTEp OÜTTOT 1TpÓa8EV €< >paa' oTa BáKXOLO Ka!. 'A TTÓAAw os c'i aKTOS KÉVTp(¡l EAau óµE os < >pLKw8 n K lA' ETTL< >auaKO . In sum: O pheus will now ha e o na a e o Musaeus his epic ale, i. e. he epic A gonau ica as opposed o cosmogonic o eligious poems. Now we can unde s and why he O phic A gonau ica ha e wo p ooemia, o , i we do no accep he heo y o he al eady men ioned « emaniemen », one p ooemium clumsily add essed o wo pe sons, ha is o say, o Apollo and o Musaeus. I was 17 C . Do in, op. ci . CLI, n. 2. 153 POETIC PROGRAMMES IN THE ORPHIC CORPUS desi able I8 ha any poe should in oke, in his p ooemium, a dei y p esiding o e poe y, and, acco dingly, he au ho o he O phic A gonau ica in okes Apollo, in lines 1-6. Bu he in oca ion o Apollo did no enable O pheus, i. e. he poe , o explain why he had dese ed cosmogonic, eligious and mys e ic poe y in o de o w i e epic in Home ic-Apollonian manne . The au ho o he O phic Li hica u ilized, as we ha e seen, wo p e ex s o jus i y his w i ing epic didac ic poe y (ins ead o mys e ic, eligious o cosmogonic poems): in he i s p ooemium, he explici ly s a es ha he has w i en his didac ic poem upon he explici o de o He mes (lines 58 .: €µ€ KTIPÚCTCTELV... 'Apy nj>ÓVTI)S' opLVE ... KEAEÚaas K. T. A..). ·In he second p ooemium, he poe na a es how his encoun e wi h Theiodamas caused him o w i e his didac ic wo k. The same p ocess is isible in he O phic A gonau ica: in he second p ooemium, we ha e jus seen ha he poe 's momen ous encoun e wi h Jason caused he O phic A gonau ica o be w i en; in he i s p ooemium, he poe , a e in oking Apollo, makes i clea ha he will w i e his poem upon he o de o he Muse (lines 5 .: Ecj>ETµa1s ). The i s p ooemium o he O phic A gonau ica does no o e come wo majo di icul ies, which a e su moun ed in he second. The wo di icul ies can be summa ized as ollows. Since Apollo and Bakchos, as e e ybody knew, andas he poe explici ly admi s in lines 9 ., had un il hen caused O pheus o w i e mys e ic, eligious and cosmogonic poe y, how could he poe now, by asking Apollo o gi e him a poe ic oice (line 4, a 8T¡ ) and by clai ning ha he was w i ing upon he o de o he Muse (lines 5 .), compose a poem which was no mys e ic o cosmogonic, bu epic in he manne o Apollonius and Home ? We ha e al eady seen how one o hese wo di icul ies is nea ly sol ed in he second p ooemium: he in oca ion o Apollo, con ained in he i s p ooemium, could no enable O pheus o explain why he w o e an epic poem in he manne o Apollonius and Home : i was necessa y, i he poe was o explain why he w o e such a poem, ha he should a) in en he eques made o him by Jason, a eques which he poe could no e use because i was dec eed by Fa e ha he should join he expedi ion o he A gonau s, and b) in oduce Musaeus, he compulso y ecipien o any poem p oduced by O pheus: i was, in sum, compulso y o O pheus o na a e o Musaeus his epic ale, i. e. he expedi ion o he A gonau s. Wha abou he second di icul y? This, oo, is no o e come in he i s p ooemium, and i is only in he second ha i is su moun ed. The di icul y boils down o his: how could O pheus um his back upon mys e ic, cosmogonic poe y? We ha e jus seen ha he succeeds, in he second p ooemium, in explaining how he ca ne o w i e epic poe y: bu how did he manage o ge id o he olaTpos which had caused him o w i e mys e ic, cosmogonic poe y? The eply o his ques ion is gi en in he second p ooemium. O pheus says, in line 4 7, 18 No , howe e , necessa y: nei he p ooemium in he O phic Li hica con ai ns an in oca ion add essed o a god. 154 GIUSEPPE GIANGRANDE ha , a he ime when Jasan ca ne o isi him, he olaTpos which had p e iously compelled him o w i e mys e ic, eligious poe y had gane away (line 47: aTTÉTTTaTo ... olaTpos). How could i ha e gane away? This is explained in lines 102 .: O pheus' mo he , he Muse o epic poe y, Calliope, had eed him o he said olaTpos (Ec o'laTpou oáwaEl. Apollo and o he gods sen he olaTpos in ques ion o goad poe s, so ha hey would compase mys e ic, eligious poe y, bu he olaTpos did no goad poe s pe manen ly: Apollo himsel is asked in O . Sib. 11.320 . o push away he olaTpos (olaTpo aTTwaáµE os) om he 8EÓAlllTTOV µá n , SO ha he poe may sing no mo e µaVLllV cpo~Epá , bu iµEpó naa aOL8l) . He e, i is Calliope, no Apollo, who has pushed he olaTpos away om O pheus, so ha he may sing no mo e mys e ic poe y, bu an epic song. Calliope is no he only dei y who could emo e he olaTpos: his ask is pe o med in O ph. Hymn. 71.10 . by he goddess Melinoe: aAA.á, 8Eá, Al Toµa GE, Kawx8o w ~aa A.na, ¡J¡ux is EKTTɵTTn olaTpo ETTL TÉpµaTa ya is. d;µEVES dúpo µúaTms cpa ouaa TTpóawTTo . In O ph. . 232 Kem, he ask o libe a ing om he olaTpos hose who pa icipa e in he opyw is ca ied ou by Dionysos-Lyseus (A.úans EK ... o'(aTpou = O ph. A gon. 103 EC o'(aTpou oáwaE), as has long been known 19 . In sum: we may conclude ha i is only in he second p ooemium ha he di icul ies e aded in he i s a e sa is ac o ily o e come. l was because O pheus had a momen ous encoun e wi h Jason, and because Calliope had libe a ed O pheus om he olaTpos, ha he O phic A gonau ica could be w i en. Be o e we p oceed o he analysis o wo u he elemen s in he O phic A gonau ica and in he Li hica, i is wo h eaching a conclusion as ega ds he mo i o he momen ous encoun e . The Hellenis ic mo i whe eby a poe is mo i a ed o w i e his e se by a dei y whom he mee s (Callimachus mee s Apollo; Apollonius con e ses wi h he Muses, because he is hei ÚTTaKouós, and hey a e he pu eyo s, ÚTTo</>l)TopEs, o his song; Oppian con e ses wi h A emis, in his p ooemium o he Cynege ica) is modi ied in la e epic, in he sense ha such mo i a ion is impa ed o la e poe s by hei mee ing a my hical, o he oic, pe sonage: O pheus mee s Theiodamas in he second p ooemium o he Li hica, and Jasan in he second p ooemium o he O phic A gonau ica; Mane ho decided o ans o m in o e se (1.11 .) he eaching o Pe osi is, a e mee ing and .be iending him (5.10) 20. I is wo h adding ha he mo i o he momen ous encoun e be ween a poe and a pe sonage who alida es he poe ' s li e a y 19 C . las ly Vian, op. ci . 175. 20 On he magician and p ies Pe osi is, who was said o mix wi h he gods and who p oduced a «gii liche O enba ung», c . RE XIX, s. u. «Pe osi is», and XVI, s. u. «Nechepso»; De Kleine Pau/y, s. u. «Nechepso»; Schmid-S lihlin, Gesch. G iech. Li e a . II 1 (six h ed ., München 1920) 310 . 155