Hulse, Peter (2015) The Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius, Book 4, 1-481. PhD thesis, University ...

348 Pages·2016·16.18 MB·English

by  Christine Middleton

Abstract

Before the publication of Professor Richard Hunter’s Cambridge Classics edition in
August 2015, the last large-scale commentary on Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica
Book 4 was that of Enrico Livrea in Italian in 1973, though mention should be made
of the Budé volumes edited by Vian (1974–81). During this period the literary study
of the poem has undergone a virtual revolution. The present thesis is an attempt to
update and advance the work of the poem’s previous editors. It is intended as a
prolegomenon to a commentary on the whole Book.
Apollonius’ epic is an outstanding example of Hellenistic poetic practice,
embodying all of its allusive qualities. It draws on the entire tradition of previous
Greek literature, while maintaining an innovative point-of-view. This commentary
tries to elucidate Apollonius’ experiments with respect to all aspects of style and
narration, viewing him both as an important literary critic, closely involved in
maintaining the inheritance of Classical Greece, and as a creative artist intent on
developing an individual voice.
The section chosen for commentary exhibits many aspects of Apollonius’
artistry: passages of atmospheric description, action sequences which speed the
narrative, speeches, in some of which irony predominates while in others rhetoric
prevails, similes which often contain fine images and a macabre climax of chilling
power which achieves its effects through a number of striking and original details.
There are, therefore, many reasons why the poem as a whole was enormously
influential on Latin epic, especially on Virgil’s Aeneid, and why the story and
Apollonius’ methods of retelling it enjoyed such an important reception in the
European tradition.
i
PREFACE

Opusculum dilectissimae uxori Rosemariae filioque Alexandro
dedicatum

This commentary’s first manifestation was a handwritten manuscript completed at
University College London during the period 1972–4. It then tracked the path of the
technological revolution from typewriter to first PC until the beginning of the 1980’s,
when it was laid aside, almost completely, under the exigencies of career and family.
Apollonius Rhodius, however, has always been with me and so when I retired
in 2009, he was first on the list of unfinished business. I was lucky to find at the
University of Nottingham, two very patient and talented supervisors, Patrick Finglass
and Helen Lovatt, who first gently made me aware of all the new developments in
Classical research that I had missed in the interim and then did their best to
disentangle my first convoluted attempts to update my original commentary. Helen
helped me to understand something of the methodologies and critical language that
Classical scholars now use when discussing ancient literature and in Patrick, I was
fortunate to have as a guide and mentor someone quo non praestantior alter in the
elucidation of and commentary on ancient Greek texts.
In some ways, technology has greatly aided the work of commentators. The
parallels are easier to find (Thesaurus Linguae Graecae), much secondary literature
can be checked online and classical researchers are blessed by the existence of a range
of essential databases. However, the work of interpretation is still difficult and
especially so in the case of a poet as quicksilver and enigmatic as Apollonius. His
ii
poem which can be read primarily as a quest or adventure story – at least that is how it
seemed to me, when I first found E. V. Rieu’s translation a very long time ago – raises
a whole series of questions about its characters, its content and the style and nature of
the Greek in which it is written. What, for instance, are we to make of Jason, the hero
of the poem, who in terms of superficial appearance seems to be the equal of the
Hellenistic princes who came after Alexander and yet is constantly afflicted by self-
doubt? There is also the matter of a dominant female character such as Medea who,
while often seeming at conflict with herself, might be based both on Euripides’
heroine and the powerful women that Apollonius would have encountered at the
Ptolemaic court. Finally, how are we to understand and interpret the written language
of a poet whose knowledge of his native literature would have been deep, critical and
profound, while having at his command the resources of one the first great libraries?
The Argonautica raises many such issues and the commentary attempts to
answer some of them, as this part of the poem is read as a continuous entity. The
introduction which follows might have had many sections but it seemed better to try
to explain the text as the reader progresses through it, fully in a tradition that
Apollonius might have recognised.
If such an attempt is, in any way, successful, it owes a great debt to people
already mentioned, but in a special way to Rosemary, docta utriusque linguae, who
retyped the original UCL manuscript and then had the indescribable patience to wait
outside various learned doors at Nottingham while matters were under discussion, to
Alexander our son, doctus in an entirely different sphere, who at a vital moment wrote
a computer program that changed Times New Roman into New Athena Unicode, and
to our granddaughter (and her mother) who even at the age of fourteen months was
able to lay a finger (mirabile dictu) on an overlooked typo!
iii
Scribebam in urbe Escafeldensi et in insula Rhodia
AD MMXV
iv
ABSTRACT I

PREFACE II

INTRODUCTION 3

COMMENTARY 21

1
2
Introduction
1. The Ancient Transmission
The story of the Argonautica’s survival, appreciation and exegesis can be traced over
more than two thousand years. Placing the dates of its author’s life and the publication
of his poem at the start in this continuum is more difficult. There are four pieces of
evidence: the list of the heads of the Alexandrian library in P.Oxy. 1241 (second
century AD),1 the article about Apollonius in the Suda2 and two short biographies
attached to the scholia (Vitae).3 P.Oxy. 1241 has long been considered an important
source for the chronology of the heads of the library. However, a recent discussion
has cast doubt on its contents and their validity.4 The papyrus says that Apollonius
was διδάσκαλος τοῦ πρώτου βασιλέως, ‘tutor of the first king’. This must be
Ptolemy I Soter (304–283 BC). The Suda and the Vitae, on the other hand, associate
him with the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes (246–21 BC), based on which the editors
emended the papyrus text to τρίτου βασιλέως. The belief5 that Apollonius held the
posts of both tutor and librarian seems to be based on the lacunose opening of the
papyrus that apparently mentions grammatikoi in connection with Ptolemy
Philadelphus.6 The papyrus then says that Eratosthenes (276–195 BC) succeeded

1 Grenfell and Hunt (1914) 99–100.
2 Suda s.v. Ἀπολλώνιος α 3419 (I 307 6–10 Adler) µαθητὴς Καλλιµάχου, σύγχρονος Ἐρατοσθένους καὶ Εὐφορίωνος καὶ
Τιµάρχου, ἐπὶ Πτολεµαίου τοῦ Εὐεργέτου ἐπικληθέντος, καὶ διάδοχος Ἐρατοσθένους γενόµενος ἐν τῇ προστασίᾳ τῆς ἐν

Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ βιβλιοθήκης.
3 Wendel (1935) 1–2.
4 Murray (2012).
5 Grenfell and Hunt (1914) 100 say the list of grammarians ‘at last determines the order of the holders of the office under the

earlier Ptolemies, and supplies fresh evidence for the much-discussed chronology of Apollonius Rhodius.’
6 ]ν̣[ο]ς̣ γ̣ρ̣αµ / µατικο…………..] φιλος Ϊ‐ /γρα]µµατι‐ / Φιλα]δ̣έλ̣ ̣φου (Col. I). Forward slashes denote line end in the
column.
3
Apollonius,7 without specifically mentioning the post of librarian. Even if the
reference is only to the post of Royal Tutor and there is no evidence, apart from the
assumptions based on P.Oxy. 1241, that the two posts were dependent on each other,8
it would place Apollonius’ activity earlier than that indicated by the information given
in the Suda and Vitae, who see him as belonging to the generation after Callimachus.9
Finally, the nature of the papyrus as a whole tells against its worth as credible
evidence for Apollonius’ dates, consisting as it does of lists of ancient figures
supposedly famous in a particular sphere, the authenticity of which seem dubious10
and are perhaps meant to satirise contemporary second century scholarly catalogues
or compendia. Therefore, it seems preferable to use the information provided by the
Suda,11 supported by the Vitae, to postulate a poetic floruit stretching over the two
reigns of Ptolemy Philadelphus and Ptolemy Euergetes, with the final publication of
the poem occurring sometime during the reign of the latter. Eratosthenes and
Apollonius seem to have been active in Alexandria at roughly the same time,
Apollonius being spoken of as his comtemporary (σύγχρονος Ἐρατοσθένους).12
Although Eratosthenes was specially summoned by Ptolemy Euergetes,13 we might

7 τοῦτον δ[ι]εδέξατο ʼΕρατοσθένης (Col. II 14-15).
8 Murray (2012) 9 n. 12.
9 Callimachus perhaps began to write the Aetia in the 270s with a terminus post quem of 246/5 BC for the poems for Berenice;
see Harder (2012) I 21–4, Stephens (2015) 4–5.
10 For example, Col. VI: σ[άλπιγγας δὲ / πρώτους φησὶ[ν κατασκευά / σασθαι Τυρρην[ούς discusses the Tyrrhenian
invention of the war trumpet.
11 ‘In the reign of Ptolemy known as the Benefactor and Eratosthenes’ successor in the Directorship of the Library in
Alexandria’; see above n. 2.
12 See n. 2.
13 Suda s.v. Ἐρατοσθένης ε 2898 (ΙΙ 403 6–18 Adler) µετεπέµφθη δὲ ἐξ Ἀθηνῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ τρίτου Πτολεµαίου καὶ διέτριψε
µέχρι τοῦ πέµπτου, Fraser (1972) II 330–32.
4
perhaps envisage Apollonius taking over the role of librarian, from the older man,14
when his poem was finally published. Indeed, the process of composition may have
been a complex one involving interaction with Callimachus’ Aetia. Annette Harder
suggests that at some stage the four books of the Aetia were arranged in response to
the Argonautica.15 It may, however, be possible to pinpoint a more particular final
publication date.16 Using the systematic way in which Apollonius marks the passage
of time throughout the Argonautica,17 together with the methods that modern
astronomy now provides for the calculation of the position of the constellations in
ancient times,18 Jackie Murray has made a plausible case for dating the poem to 238, a
year in which Euergetes, as part of his birthday, instituted celebrations, including the
introduction of a new calendar, which seemed to mark the beginning of a new era in
his reign.
Almost as soon as the first copies of the poem were made, scholarly comment
began: a friend of Apollonius, Chares,19 wrote about the sources of his poem and
began a tradition of expounding the text which continued throughout antiquity. The
names of commentators such as Theon of Alexandria (first century BC), Lucillus of
Tarrha (mid-first century AD) and Sophocles (second century AD) are mentioned at

14 The Suda entry about Eratosthenes’ life (see above) details a considerable amount of activity before he came to Alexandria.
However see Pfeiffer (1968) 153–4, Geus (2002) 26-30, Matthaios (2011) 56 on some of the anomalies involved.
15 Harder (2012) I 4.
16 Murray (2014).
17 Ibid. 260–7.
18 Ibid. 263 n. 45.
19 See Fränkel (1964) 92 Χάρης αὐτοῦ τοῦ Ἀπολλωίου γνώριµος . . . περὶ ἱστοριῶν τοῦ Ἀπολλωίου (Σ 2.1052). None of
the existing scholia contain any of Chares’ comments.
5
the end of Book 4 of the mediaeval scholia. There is evidence that ancient texts of the
Argonautica were annotated with variant readings, glosses and marginal notes.20
Forty-nine Apollonian papyri survive.21 Most date from between the first and
the fourth centuries AD and come from Oxyrhynchus, although some take the
evidence for texts of Apollonius up to the end of the seventh or eighth century AD,22
bridging the gap between antiquity and the early middle ages.23 Book 1 has the largest
number of fragments by a long way, twenty-four, Book 2 has nine, Book 3 ten and
Book 4 six. In antiquity, as now, readers who started long works did not always get to
the end,24 or possibly they skipped to, or had copied out, their favourite passages.
Among the texts from Book 1, seven are from the episode of the Lemnian Women
and five are concerned with some aspect of the Argonauts’ departure.25 The fragments
from Book 2 include one mention of the appearance of the ghost of Sthenelos, two
from the description of the battle between the Argonauts and the Bebryces, and one
from the meeting with the sons of Phrixos. The surprisingly small number from Book
3 cover Jason’s encounter with the bulls (3), scenes with Medea and Chalciope (2),

20 For Theon, Lucillus and Sophocles see Vian (1974) XLI, Dickey (2007) 62, Finglass (2014) 69 n. 379. For evidence of textual
scholarship on the part of ancient readers, see Haslam (2004) 3 discussing, P.Oxy. 2694.
21 Figures taken from the Leuven database (LDAB); see also http://promethee.philo.ulg.ac.be/cedopal/ which lists all the items
mentioned below with bibliography and Schade and Eleuteri (2008) 29–50 which, as well as the papyrological evidence,
discusses the surviving Mediaeval manuscripts.
22 AD01: 4; AD01/2: 3; AD2: 11; AD2/3: 8; AD3: 10; AD3/4: 2; AD4: 1; AD4/5: 2; AD6: 1; AD6/7: 2; AD7/8: 1; cf. for the
same period Callimachus: 31 and Euripides: 76. For Euripides as one of the most popular authors represented in the papyri, see
Morgan (1998) 313, 316, Finglass (2016) [In press].
23 A small piece of an uncial parchment codex at Strasbourg (of unknown provenance) has a reading at 3.158, not found in the
mediaeval manuscripts; see Haslam (1978) 68 n. 50, reading διὲκ µεγάλοιο θεοῦ with the codex. Wilson (1983) 251 comments
‘The discovery of a few more scraps of this kind would force us to revise drastically our reconstruction of the intellectual world
of the ninth century’, arguing that the number of literary texts in uncial lettering surviving into the ninth century, and continuing
to be read, was larger than is sometimes assumed.
24 Thus S. West (2011) 71, noting that there are more surviving papyri for Herodotus book 1 than for any other.
25 Other parts of the story covered are the Catalogue (4), general descriptions of sailing (3), and the episode of the Doliones (2).
6