1. The passages adduced to point to a Roman context are a simile likening the Atreidae surrounded by enemies to boars or lions enclosed in what is described like an amphitheatre (Q.S. 6.531–36) and Calchas’ prediction of the universal supremacy of Rome from Aeneas’ descendants (13.334–41). See Gärtner (2005) 23–26 and Baumbach and Bär (2007a) 1–8 for two recent discussions on Quintus’ dates; cf. Vian (1963) xix for earlier attempts to assign a date to the Posthomerica.

2. See the Introduction to the present collection (p.2 above).

3. Cf. Q.S. 7.569–75 ∼ Hal. 4.640–46; Q.S. 9.172–77 ∼ Hal. 3.567–75; Q.S. 11.62–65 ∼ Hal. 4. 637. It is more likely that Quintus is drawing on Oppian’s Halieutica for the similes in the Posthomerica that are relevant to fishing than the other way round: see James and Lee (2000) 6 n.24 and Vian (1954) 50f.

4. For Oppian’s dates see Fajen (1999) viii–ix.

5. See Rea (1972) 10 for assigning P.Oxy. 2946, which contains 491–502 of Triphiodorus’ poem, to the third century without excluding, however, a date in the fourth century.

6. Doubts are raised in, e.g., Dubielzig (1996) 11 and Gärtner (2005) 25; cf. also Ypsilanti (2007)93n.1 and 111–14.

7. Gärtner (2005) 26 tentatively favours the late third century. Vian (1963) xxii had suggested for the Posthomerica a time after the rule of Alexander Severus (225–35 CE) on the basis of Philostratus’ silence on Quintus in his Lives of Sophists. Other attempts to establish a date for the epic have relied on a possible direct relationship between Quintus and the author of the Vision of Dorotheus or between the composition of the Posthomerica and the disappearance of the Epic Cycle, but the evidence is not sufficiently strong to support them. Quintus’ dates and context are discussed in greater detail in my forthcoming commentary on Posthomerica 14.

8. For the early reception of Quintus see Carvounis (2005) 1–3.

9. See Baumbach and Bär (2007a) 17–23 for an overview of scholarship on Quintus’ work.

10. See, for example, the collection of essays in Baumbach and Bär (2007b).

11. The fragmentary Blemyomachia, which relates the battle of the general Germanos against the Blemyes in Homeric diction and style, provides one such example: cf. Wifstrand (1933) 183. See the Introduction to this volume (p.4 above).

12. The case of Nonnus’ theomachia in Dion. 36.1–133 is particularly instructive: see Hopkinson (1994b) 24f. and Vian (1988).

13. Vian (1988) 275–92 (esp. 289f.).

14. Campbell (1981).

15. Wenglinsky (2002). I would like to thank Dr Wenglinsky for permission to refer to her unpublished dissertation.

16. Vian (1963) xiv: ‘Dans l’ensemble cependant, le monde des dieux est plus distinct, plus éloigné de celui des hommes.’

17. A comparison with the representation of the gods in Apollonius’ Argonautica may be relevant here; cf. Feeney (1991) 57–98 and Hunter (1993) 77ff. A discussion of gods in an epic composed in the third century CE inevitably raises questions relating to contemporary religious and philosophical currents—most importantly, in Quintus’ case, Christianity and Stoicism—which do not, however, fall within the scope of this paper. The text used here for Quintus’ Posthomerica is Vian’s 3-volume Budé edition (1963–69) and for quotations from the Iliad I cite from West’s Teubner edition (1998–2000). Translations in this paper are my own unless otherwise acknowledged.

18. See, for example, Schenk (1997) for another study of Quintus’ larger-scale narrative techniques.

19. See n.35 below.

20. Cf. Wenglinsky (2002) 199 (with n.97).

21. As James (2004) 329f. puts it (n. on 162–218), Quintus’ battle between the Olympians ‘is an obvious counterpart of the one at Iliad 20.4–74 and 21.385–520…. However, their differences are more notable than their similarities. The one in the Iliad begins with the deities actually intervening on both sides of the human battle at the instigation of Zeus, and it is resumed as a series of undignified brawls between pairs of deities with Zeus as an amused onlooker. Here, in Zeus’ absence, the deities are deterred by Fate from their threatened intervention in the human battle and then turn to a wholly serious fight between themselves, of which humans are unaware. They finally desist when Zeus shows his anger and Themis warns them of its dire consequences.’

22. See, e.g., Vian (1969b) 215 n.5 and Wenglinsky (2002) 195f.

23. Acts of past violence between Zeus and the other Olympians mentioned in the Iliad include the incidents recalled in Il. 1.399–406, 1.590–94, 14.256–61, 15.18–24.

24. For Zeus’ punishment involving the thunderbolt see the scholia (bTⁱ¹) on Il. 8.12 (Erbse [1971] 300): (Θ 455) (‘it is better to punctuate at “having been struck” (πληγείς), and this is [said] instead of “having been struck by thunderbolts”; and [compare] “struck by a thunderbolt you two would not [return] on your chariots’”).

25. On the relationship between Zeus and the gods in Iliad 8 see now Kelly (2007).

26. See Janko (1992) 168f. for Zeus’ relationship with Hera from Iliad 1 onwards.

27. Pointing to Reinhardt (1960) 24ff., Griffin (1980) 184f. draws attention to the contrast between the past punishments inflicted on the gods and their present relationship, noting Zeus’ smile at Hera’s apology at the beginning of Iliad 15 after he reminds her of her earlier punishment. Griffin (op. cit.) also contrasts the wars in the Theogony with Zeus’ secure reign on Olympus in the Iliad.

28. This form of Hera’s punishment by Zeus has attracted the attention of ancient and modern scholars alike; cf. (for example) the different explanations of Whitman (1970) 37–42 and Beckwith (1998) 91–102 on the meaning of ἄκμωv; see Janko (1992) 229–31 (on Il. 15.18–31) for an overview of modern scholarship on this episode.

29. See Eustathius ad loc. (van der Valk [1979] 709): (‘Hera still urges Ares to strife with the mention of Ascalaphus’). As Janko (1992) 240 notes on Il. 15.104–12, Hera ‘overtly advises submission, but covertly stirs up revolt. Eustathius (1008.34–40) ably analyses her stinging rhetoric…. Rather than acknowledge Zeus’s superiority, she says that he asserts it; by announcing Askalaphos’ death, ostensibly as a warning, she purposely provokes Ares, as his reaction shows.’

30. See section 2 of this paper.

31. See Edwards (1991) 188.

32. See Erbse (1986) 209–18 on Zeus and the other gods in the Iliad.

33. Campbell (1981) 73f. on parallels for movement ‘like a thought’ in early hexameter poetry; see also n.35 below. For Themis’ intervention Campbell (1981) 60 offers the following parallels from the Homeric epics: Athena getting up to stop Ares (Il. 15.123f.); Zeus sending Iris to stop Athena and Hera (Il. 8.397f.) and Poseidon (Il. 15.168f.); and Athena urging Odysseus to stop after Zeus’ thunderbolt falls before her (Od. 24.540f.).

34. Mondino (1956) 117. I have not been able to see Mondino, , Su alcune fonti di Quinto Smirneo (Turin 1958 Google Scholar).

35. The abbreviated comparison of a speedy action to thought is not rare in early hexameter poetry: Od. 7.36; [Hes.] Sc. 222; h. Horn. 3.186f. and 448; h. Horn. 4.43f.; Theogn. 985. In his note on Od. 7.36 Hainsworth in Heubeck, West and Hainsworth (1988) 322 cites Thales’ saying () to indicate that the comparison was proverbial (cf. DK⁶J 1.35). See Campbell (1981) 73f. and Allen, Halliday and Sikes (1936) 285 on h. Horn. 4.43 for examples in later hexameter poetry and later prose respectively. The simile in Il. 15.80–83 goes beyond the simple form and it was famously adapted in A.R. 2.538–48, where Athena’s descent to help the Argonauts pass through the Clashing Rocks was compared to the thoughts of a man wandering from his own land (see the scholia on A.R. 2.541–48a). Campbell (1981) 62 notes that the gods’ means of transportation in Q.S. 12.163f. ( , ‘and riding on blasts of winds they were carried from the sky to the earth’) is reminiscent of Athena’s ‘riding on a cloud’ (, A.R. 2.538) in that descent.

36. As noted in Vian (1969b) 215 n.5, Wenglinsky (2002) 196 n.85 and James (2004) 329 (n. on 160f.). Note also that ἄιστoς, which is used in Themis’ warning to the gods in Posthomerica 12 to describe the effect of Zeus’ wrath upon them (ἄιστoι: 12.208), occurs in the Iliad only in the ‘Deception of Zeus’, as Hypnos tells Hera what almost happened to him when he last helped her trick Zeus: ‘and he would have hurled me from the heaven in the sea to be unseen (ἄιστov) if Night, who subdues gods and men, had not saved me’, Il. 14.258f. Campbell (1981) 75 on Q.S. 12.208 also compares the Hesiodic fragments 30.21 M-W [= 20.21 Hirschberger] (ἀίστως: of the punishment of Salmoneus) and 204.99 M-W [= 110.99 Hirschberger] (: of Zeus destroying the race of men).

37. For an overview of some difficulties arising in Iliad 8 see Kirk (1990) 293f.

38. Wenglinsky (2002) 200.

39. The meaning of these lines is not altogether clear; see Wenglinsky (2002) 171f. for a discussion of the difficulties involved here. Vian (1963) 62 n.2 understands the imperative to imply that none of the gods should intervene in the battle, whereas Wenglinsky argues that Zeus simply forbids the gods to supplicate and that Dawn’s subsequent intervention in Q.S. 2.289f. is not an act of disobedience to Zeus’ earlier order, as Vian (1963) 167 n.7 suggests, but rather an attempt to save Memnon before his appointed time.

40. Zeus does not, however, intervene on every occasion; see, for example, the encounter between Apollo and Poseidon in Q.S. 9.304–23.

41. Vian (1988) 290: ‘Après cet épisode où dominent d’une façon significative les puissances cosmiques, Aiôn, Thémis et la Raison de Zeus, tout heurt entre les dieux cesse.’ Instances of divine intervention after this episode include, as Vian (op. tit.) notes, Hera fortifying Sinon (12.373); Athena punishing Laocoon (12.395–415, 447ff.); Thetis sending a favourable wind to the Achaeans (13.62f.); Aphrodite guiding Aeneas (13.326–53) and protecting Helen (13.389f.; cf. 374–84).

42. Kakridis (1962) 166 (with n.2); Wenglinsky (2002) 200.

43. For the interrelationship among these three scenes see Wenglinsky (2002) 201–24.

44. Vian (1963) 39 n.6; James (2004) 274 (n. on 675–715).

45. is applied to Ares 11 times in the Iliad. Ancient authorities link this epithet to forms of θρᾠσκω: cf. Hesych. θ 665: [Iliad 4.234], [Iliad 5.507].

46. For successive similes and the integration of simile and narrative in the Iliad see Moulton (1977) 27–33 and 51–67.

47. See Janko (1992) ad loc.

48. For Quintus’ practice of distributing different elements of a Homeric simile in the Post-homerica see Vian (1954) 37–40.

49. Q.S. 1.152–56: (‘thus she put her well-wrought arms about her body; and she seemed like lightning, which the strength of untiring Zeus hurls forward from Olympus on the earth, when he shows to men the strength of a loud-sounding storm and the unceasing blast of boisterous winds’).

50. The shaking of Olympus (, Q.S. 1.680) is described in terms that echo two instances underlining Zeus’ power in the early hexameter tradition: Il. 8.443 (Zeus on his golden throne on Olympus); Hes. Th. 842f. (Zeus rising against Typhoeus).

51. As Vian (1963) 164 n.5 and Taccone (1910–11) 13f. point out, Ares’ descent in Q.S. 1.686–88 may be compared with that of Poseidon in Il. 13.17–19.

52. As Richardson (1980) 279 points out, the Homeric scholia often —but not always (see also Heath (1989) 107)—approve of a simile’s close correspondence with the narrative (ἀκρίβεια).

53. (Q.S. 1.698f.) ∼ (Il 13.140f.); (Q.S. 1.700.) ∼ (Il. 13.140); (Q.S. 1.700f.) ∼ (Il. 13. 141f.); (Q.S. 1.701) ∼ (Il. 13.142).

54. Vian (1954) 381’.; Wenglinsky (2002) 108f.

55. Porphyry notes that in the Homeric simile the language appropriate to Ares is applied to a rolling stone; cf. Lyne (1989) 92–99 on the ‘trespass’ of simile and narrative in Virgil and Homer.

56. This aspect of the simile was adopted by Virgil in his depiction of Turnus’ attack in Aen. 12.684–91, which is likened to the rolling trajectory of a boulder destroying everything in its path; see Schlunk (1974) 40–43 and 95–98.

57. Cf. Calliope’s consolation to Thetis in Q.S. 3.635f. following the death of Achilles.

58. For this topic in the Iliad see Janko (1992) 225, where he refers to his commentary on Il. 15.18–31, 87f. and 185–93.

59. Campbell (1981) 57. He also offers (56–59) an outline of fheomachic and gigantomachic elements in this episode and draws attention to the fact that Silius’ theomachia in Punica 9 ‘had already incorporated a number of Gigantomachy elements’. Correspondences between Punica 9.287–303 and Quintus’ theomachia are noteworthy: although Silius’ gods take sides and the mortals become aware of the divine presence as the gods descend from Olympus and the earth shakes, only the fight between Pallas and Mars is described, with Pallas tearing away part of a mountain and hurling the rock on Mars. The battle ends when Jupiter sends Iris to warn Pallas that she cannot reverse Fate and that she will learn the power of the thunderbolt if she does not stop.

60. This scene is further discussed in Carvounis (2007) 241–57 and in my forthcoming commentary on Posthomerica 14.

61. Note that in the simile in Q.S. 14.582–87 it is Athena rather than Zeus (as in the simile in 5.641–44) who is responsible for subduing Enceladus.

62. For Zeus sitting apart from the gods see also Il. 5.753 (, ‘and they found the son of Cronus sitting apart from the other gods’) and Il. 11.80f. (, ‘but having gone away from the others, he was sitting far away exulting in his glory’).

63. See Σ^bT on Il. 5.722–31 for an allegorical explanation of the materials of Hera’s chariot. Campbell (1981) 70 compares Il. 5.731f. (, ‘under the yoke Hera led swift-footed horses’) for Quintus’ description of Zeus’ chariot in Q.S. 12.191–95 (note especially Q.S. 12.193: , ‘Iris led them [sc. the Winds] under a marvellous yoke’). On the association of Iris with the Winds in Greek poetry, Hunter (1993) 81 (with n.31) points to Il. 15.170–72 and Il. 23.198–211, and to Roscher (1890–94) II.1 323–25 (s.v. Iris) and West (1966) 242 on Th. 266. Cf. also Iris’ epithet πoδήvεμoς (‘wind-swift’) in the Iliad (e.g. , Il 2.786).

64. Il. 8.41^b-4 (Zeus’ chariot) = Il. 13.23^b-6 (Poseidon’s chariot).

65. Tychsen ap. Mondino (1956) 117. Cf. also Vian (1969b) 215f. n.5: ‘v.l91^b–195 ∼ Θ 41ss. (?)’.

66. Campbell (1981) 59. A scholion to A.R. 3.26 may be relevant for the connection between Time and the Winds: (‘but Time [Cronus codd] begat Eros and all Winds too’, 216, 11 Wendel). See Levi (1944) 296 for the tradition in Philo Herennius that Aion himself was son of the wind god Kolpias (Jacoby 3c, 790F) and that Aion is invoked as god of the four winds in magical texts.

67. See Vian (1976) 182 (n. on 423).

68. Kakridis (1962) 169 n.4.

69. See Bresson (1990) 2886 for the composition of these works in the late first or early second century CE.

70. Foucher (1996) 6–10. See Degani (2001) 45–49 for the divinisation of Aion, and esp. 47 on the Eleusis inscription (SIG ³ 1125) describing a statue of Aion from the first century BCE.

71. E.g. (‘immortal life abandoned him’, Q.S. 6.586). For Quintus’ use of the epithet ἄμβρoτoς to describe Aion see Bertone (2000) 69. For a discussion of αἰώv in the Homeric poems see Degani (2001) 11–19; cf. also LfgrE s.v. αἰώv for a distinction in Homer between ‘Lebenskraft, Jugendblüte des Mannes’ and ‘Dauer der Lebenskraft, Lebensdauer, Lebenszeit’.

72. See Vian and Battegay (1984) s.v. αἰώv. Note Q.S. 14.256 in Vian’s edition: (‘for immortal Aion does not destroy the race of the blessed ones’).

73. For Aion in Nonnus’ Dionysiaca see Chuvin (1992) 67–71.

74. Vian (1963) xvii.

75. See LIMC I.400ff. I mention here iconographic representations from the Roman period containing Aion’s name (‘gültigen Zeugnissen’, as Zuntz [1991] 20 puts it).

76. See Alan Cameron (1993) 348–51 for a date before 526 CE.

77. Foucher (1996). See Charbonneaux (1960) 252–72 for the identification of Aion on the Philippopolis mosaic with Philip the Arab on the celebration of Rome’s millennium in 248 CE; contra Baity (1982) 425, who argues that this date is early for this kind of allegorical tableau, and suggests a date towards the end of the third century.

78. See Vian (1988) 289f.

79. For Nonnus’ similar technique in imitating Homer see Hopkinson (1994b). Cf. Knauer (1964) 66f. on Virgil’s imitation of Homer through Leitzitate and structural correspondence.

80. On Quintus’ description of the shield of Achilles see James and Lee (2000) 33–38 and 39–63 passim (with bibliography). See now also Baumbach (2007) 107–42 and Maciver (2007) 259–84.

81. Quintus begins with the cosmic elements (5.6–16 ∼ Il. 18.483–89) and closes with the Ocean around the rim (5.97–106 ∼ Il. 18.607f.).

82. See Hardie (1985) 17.

83. James and Lee (2000) on Q.S. 5.49–56.

84. See Vian (1963) 203–05 for parallels of the mountain of Virtue and Near Eastern influences for the palm-tree, and James and Lee (2000) on Q.S. 5.49–56 for a summary of earlier views; cf. also Kakridis (1962) 55. For the figure of Arete in Posthomerica 5 and 14 see also Carvounis (2005) 196–201.

85. This paper was written in the course of a British Academy Postdoctoral Research Fellowship, and I would like to thank the British Academy for financial support. I would also like to thank Professor Richard Hunter for helpful advice on this paper and for co-organising the conference from which this collection arose; Professor Philip Hardie for kindly reading an earlier draft; and Dr Calum Maciver for comments on a later draft. I am alone responsible for all remaining shortcomings.