Doctoral theses at NTNU, 2021:35 Peter Astrup Sundt Peter Astrup Sundt Looking backwards and forwards: Orpheus in love and metapoetical complexities Doctoral thesis Doctoral ISBN 978-82-471-4981-2 (printed ver.) ISBN 978-82-471-4992-8 (electronic ver.) ISSN 1503-8181 (printed ver.) ISSN 2703-8084 (online ver.) Doctoral theses at NTNU, 2021:35 theses at NTNU, Doctoral NTNU and Classical Studies Philosophiae Doctor Faculty of Humanities Thesis for the Degree of Thesis for the Degree Department of Historical Norwegian University of Science and Technology Peter Astrup Sundt Looking backwards and forwards: Orpheus in love and metapoetical complexities Thesis for the Degree of Philosophiae Doctor Trondheim, February 2021 Norwegian University of Science and Technology Faculty of Humanities Department of Historical and Classical Studies NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology Thesis for the Degree of Philosophiae Doctor Faculty of Humanities Department of Historical and Classical Studies © Peter Astrup Sundt ISBN 978-82-471-4981-2 (printed ver.) ISBN 978-82-471-4992-8 (electronic ver.) ISSN 1503-8181 (printed ver.) ISSN 2703-8084 (online ver.) Doctoral theses at NTNU, 2021:35 Printed by NTNU Grafisk senter τὸν πέρι μοῦσ᾽ ἐφίλησε, δίδου δ᾽ἀγαθόν τε κακόν τε: (Od. 8.63) … whom the Muse loved above [all other men], and gave him both good and evil (trans. Murray) 1 Contents Preface 5 Abbreviations 7 Editions of ancient sources 8 Translations of ancient sources 10 Thesis statement 15 Introduction I General introduction 17 II Finch’s Orpheus – poetic exemplar or cautionary tale? 22 III Orpheus – a poet in many parts 27 IV Looking away from Orpheus as ‘romantic hero’ 33 V Building a simpler Orpheus 34 VI Orpheus and metapoetical complexity – a new typology of Orpheus’ mythological functions 39 VII Orpheus as the poetic tradition 39 VIII Orpheus as the poet’s mirror 39 IX Tilting the mirror – the love story and connections beyond the author 40 X A note on the overall structure 40 Chapter 1: Starting from the top – Orpheus in Hellenistic poetic catalogues 1.1 Three catalogues – two distinct modes of Orpheus 43 1.2 Reconsidering Orpheus in Hermesianax’ Leontion 44 1.3 The puzzling Agriope 48 1.4 Queen Eurydice 1 of Egypt 48 1.5 Leontion and the ‘proto-puellae’ of Hermesianax’ catalogues 52 1.6 Orpheus and the ambiguity of the poets’ catalogue 59 1.7 Orpheus as ideal poet in Apollonius’ Argonautica 62 1.8 Hints at Orpheus’ love story in the Argonautica 72 1.9 The failures of Orpheus in Phanocles’ Loves or Beautiful Boys 76 1.10 Artistic prowess in Phanocles’ catalogue 79 1.11 Martial failure in Phanocles 82 2 1.12 Erotic failures in Phanocles 82 1.13 Conclusion 86 Chapter 2: Orpheus in the Dead Poets’ Society – Orpheus in poetic laments 2.1 Playing with the myth’s complexity 87 2.2 Orpheus and agonism in the Lament for Bion 88 2.3 Pederasty and bucolic agonism 91 2.4 Outdoing the master 94 2.5 Orpheus as bucolic model – Bion ‘Orphicised’? 96 2.6 Orpheus as limiting poetic exemplar 101 2.7 Siluae 2.7: Lucan as Calliope’s adopted son and Polla as Laodamia 105 2.8 Carm. 1.24: Virgil as Orpheus – Quintilius as Eurydice 109 2.9 Conclusion 114 Chapter 3: Virgil’s Metamorpheus – looking backwards and forwards with Orpheus 3.1 A recurring Virgilian character 115 3.2 A framework for Orpheus’ generic associations 115 3.3. Orpheus in siluis: Orpheus ‘bucolicised’ in the Eclogues 118 3.4 Orpheus in Eclogue 10 126 3.5 Orpheus in the Eclogue book 132 3.6 Orpheus’ complex generic associations in the Georgics 133 3.7 Contextualising Orpheus within the Georgics 133 3.8 Orpheus and Aristaeus – symbolic pair 136 3.9 Love-elegy and the ‘Georgic Orpheus’ 138 3.10 Orpheus’ pastoral associations in the Georgics 143 3.11 Orpheus’ associations with neoteric epyllia 147 3.12 Looking back at Orpheus in the Georgics 150 3.13 Orpheus in the Aeneid – a return of Apollonius’ Orpheus 151 3.14 Conclusion 155 3 Chapter 4: Orpheus and marriage criticism – from parody to politics 4.1 Introduction 157 4.2 Ovid’s Orpheus – a parody? 158 4.3 Virgil’s Orpheus in Ovid’s 159 4.4 Ovid’s Orpheus as Phanocles 169 4.5 Ovid and Orpheus – looking back from exile 175 4.6 Ovid and Orpheus – when poets fail 177 4.7 Orpheus’ Ars Amatoria and marriage criticism 182 4.8 Married couples and the heterosexual Orpheus 185 4.9 Myrrha and Augustan marriage legislation 188 4.10 ‘Orphic’ Sabine women and ‘Augustan’ maenads 190 4.11 Fielding’s Eurydice: Or the Devil Henpeck’d – a political play? 195 4.12 Fielding’s Orpheus – parodying the classical Orpheus 198 4.13 Fielding’s Orpheus and operatic parody 201 4.14 Fielding’s Orpheus – soft marriage criticism 205 4.15 Offenbach’s Orpheus – a multifarious parody 207 4.16 Offenbach’s Orpheus – marriage parody as social criticism 208 4.17 Eh bien! on la refera, la mythologie – Offenbach’s Orpheus and Ovidian parody 211 4.18 Conclusion 214 Conclusions 217 Works cited 227 4 Preface This study would never have been possible without the ceaseless help, advice, and encouragement of a considerable number of more experienced scholars, friends, family and loved ones, and I will try to leave no one without a small token of my appreciation. The brevity of the following list of my indebtedness is ultimately a product of my own peculiar inclination of always trying to solve issues myself and only after failing to do so, to ask for support. Among the greatest lessons I have learnt from the process of writing this thesis is the realisation of the often glaring limitations of my own knowledge, and the importance of anticipating my need to ask for support. I am very thankful to my main supervisor at NTNU, Professor Dr Thea Selliaas Thorsen for all her insightful comments and advice on the thesis, and above all for altering her plans in order to give me the opportunity to take part in the research project The Heterosexual Tradition of Homoerotic Poetics (HetHomPo) as a doctoral student in the first place, which has proved the most momentous event of my life to this date. I am also grateful to Thea for having steered me through the vagaries and challenges of academic life more generally, and for bringing with her the practices of The University of Bergen, Oxbridge, Sorbonne, and the Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa to enrich Trondheim’s classics community, which would have been unimaginably less vibrant without her Psyche-like labores, and her Ovidian enthusiasm and emotional insight. In particular, I have benefited tremendously from her introduction of a regular research seminar as a part of the larger research group, The Classical Ages, which provided me with key insights into both the ancient and modern aspects of my research. I am likewise highly indebted to my co-supervisor Professor Dr Stephen Harrison at Corpus Christi College, University of Oxford. Stephen was the perfect host in the world of Oxford at an early stage of my research and provided invaluable suggestions and advice, which in particular have been crucial to the quality of the classical reception in my study. Stephen has not least generously provided me with key insights into the background of several of the scholars cited in my thesis, which only a lifetime of academic service of a true citizen of the world could have provided. I am also thankful to Professor Dr Pauline A. LeVen at Yale University for having agreed to act as an external reader of an early draft of the complete thesis. Her advice and comments went above and beyond what I could have asked for and will be especially welcome with regard to the future permutations of my research. 5 I have also benefited from the comments of Professor Dr Roy Gibson (University of Durham) and Professor Dr Stephen Heyworth (University of Oxford) who commented upon an early draft chapter which provided sound foundations for when I later reworked this text into a separate publication. I have likewise benefited from discussing my research with Professor Dr Jennifer Ingleheart (University of Durham), Dr Tristran Franklinos (University of Oxford), Dr Daniel Orrells (King’s College London, University of London), and with Professor Dr William Fitzgerald (King’s College London, University of London) – who also graciously agreed to sponsor my application for a PhD-scholarship. I am equally indebted to my colleagues and friends at the Department of Historical and Classical Studies, especially to Professor Dr Marek Thue Kretschmer for his magnanimity and for helping prepare me for the next step through his supervision of my MA thesis, to Dr Aslak Rostad for his wit and invaluable advice on teaching, and to Professor Dr Staffan Wahlgren for his comments on a seminar paper. I must also extend a large thank you to all the administrative staff members and librarians without whom my work would have been impossible, especially to my friends Else Melvær Falkenstein, Alexander Haraldsvik-Lyngsnes and Birgitta Wentzel, and to Magne Rabben for personally delivering library books during lockdown. I am also grateful to Professor Dr Tor Einar Fagerland, for his integrity and for letting me extend my stay abroad, and to Professor Dr Erik Opsahl, for granting me access to my office during lockdown. A special thanks goes out to my fellow academic travelers on the road towards a doctoral degree. In particular to my friend Iris Aasen Brecke who has listened patiently to my rambling musings in both Oxford and at our shared office in Trondheim, as well as to my friends Robert Emil Berge and Antonio De Nizza.