At Argonautica 4.12–13, Medea, frightened and on the point of fleeing her home, 2 is compared to a young deer.

As an Apollo-like Jason leaves home to start the long journey in quest of the Golden Fleece a strange incident occurs: The first thing to be said about this scene is that it is almost certainly an invention of Apollonius Rhodius.

There can be no doubt of the primacy of Andronicus in Roman literature, but there is an interesting and unorthodox ancient tradition concerning his date. Modern scholars incline to place Andronicus' birth about 285 B.C. and to postulate either that he came to Rome as a slave from Tarentum in 272 B.C., or that the story of his captivity is a fiction. His first play was produced in 240 B.C.

In the middle of September, 47 b.c., Cicero obtained a copy of Atticus' recently published Liber Annalis, which he was consequently able to use in preparing his Brutus and his Tusculans and De Senectute . Atticus himself had consulted Varro's works on questions of literary history . Cicero, reading his friend's work, found himself in the thick of a controversy about the beginnings of Latin literature.

Ardizzoni retains, but gives no reasons for doing so. Platt's correctionis technically easy, but the difficulty is, I feel, imaginary. I take. as asabsolute, = ‘joined the expedition’: so at 1. 90, 139—not, as LSJgive, ‘come next‘—and is dative of interest or advantage, as, for example, Od. 24. 400, 21 209, 12.438, A.R. 2. 1092, Q,.S. 6. 119, 10. 24. here does not ‘govern‘ a dative any more than does, for examplel, at Od. 24. 400.And seems to me to be (...) rather oddly placed. (shrink)

The difficulty of τєἠν at 8 is notorious, and it has never been answered. The word refers back to Apollo, who has been invoked in the first line, but ‘it is not in accord with epic convention that, after the invocation, reference should be made to it’. I suggest that we simply should not expect Apollonius to conform to the conventions of older epic: he does not do so in a number of other important respects. One is reminded here of (...) the nervous restlessness of Callimachean poetry, particularly Cer. 25. There the goddess is addressed out of the blue with τìν δ’ αύτᾳ, and emendation is unconvincing. Perhaps τєἠν in Apollonius is even more abrupt than the example in Callimachus. Yet Apollonius seems on many occasions to carry further the devices of his master. The astonishing parenthesis at 1. 623 f. is a good example, 52 f, F. Bornmann, Call. Hymnus in Dianam, 1–li). (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Distant Encounters:The Prometheus and Phaethon Episodes in the Argonautica of Apollonius RhodiusCalvin S. ByreOn several occasions in Apollonius Rhodius' Argonautica, the Argonauts casually encounter figures from other myths or from the divine world. These incidents do not affect the further development of the plot, and there is typically no communication or interaction between the two parties of the encounter.1 Thematic and structural parallels suggest that two of these (...) encounters form a pair. Both concern the punishments inflicted upon a mythological figure by Zeus, and by their placement they serve as a sort of frame around the Colchian portion of the poem. The first occurs in 2.124659, when the Argonauts sail within view of the crags of the Caucasus as they draw near to Colchis. There, they catch sight of the eagle that torments Prometheus, and they hear the Titan's cries of agony. The second occurs in 4.596626, shortly after Jason and Medea, in possession of the Golden Fleece, have killed her brother Apsyrtus in order to free the Argonauts from pursuit by him. Sailing on the river Eridanus, the Argonauts come near the place where nauseous vapors emanate from the smoldering body of Phaethon, who had been blasted from the chariot of Helios by a thunderbolt and had fallen into the outfall of a nearby lake.Guido Paduano has recently sought to explain the rather haunting effect of the Prometheus and Phaethon episodes as the result of the suspension of the fixed regularity of the temporal framework within which most of the events of the Argonautic expedition take place: the Argonauts confront a distant, mythic past that impinges upon the present, and experience something of the perdurability of the mythic figures' pain and suffering ("Apparenze" 166-69). But Paduano does not take into account the poet's handling of point of view in these episodes: the systematic contrasts between the information that the narrator gives his audience about the scenes and what the Argonauts themselves perceive and know about them. These contrasts, I believe, are central to our understanding of the effect of the two episodes. [End Page 275]The Prometheus episode, as Hermann Fränkel observed (Noten 318), is presented from two alternating points of view. In the more precise terms of contemporary narratology, there are alternating "focalizers" in the episode.2 Lines 124647 are a case of what de Jong (Narrators 102-18) would call "explicit embedded focalization": the narrator tells us that the Argonauts themselves see the inmost part of the Black Sea and the steep crags of the Caucasus come into view. Lines 124850 are focalized by the narrator: in an authorial comment apropos of the Caucasus, he tells how Prometheus, bound there with bronze fetters, feeds an eagle with his liver. Lines 125153 are again focalized by the Argonauts, telling how they see () the eagle flying above the ship, near the clouds, making the sails flap by its passage. Lines 125455 are, in Fränkel's analysis, focalized by the narrator, who attempts to explain the fact that the eagle, high aloft, is able to move the sails of the ship; while lines 125659 return to focalization by the Argonauts, telling how they soon afterwards hear () the groans and lamentations of Prometheus as his liver is plucked, until they again perceive () the eagle returning from the mountain by the same way.There is nothing in the text to suggest that the Argonauts see Prometheus himself, nor that they can connect the cries and the eagle with him. Of the reactions of the Argonauts to what they see and hear we are told nothing. It may be, however, that lines 125455 do contain a hint of the thoughts and feelings aroused in the Argonauts: "for it did not have the nature of a bird of the air, but it moved the quillfeathers of its wings like wellpolished oars" ( [End Page 276] ).3 In the immediate context of the narrator's explicit report of the Argonauts' visual perceptions of the eagle in 125153, the comparison of the bird to a ship may be read as a case of what de Jong calls "assimilated" focalization; that is, the narrator may be... (shrink)

In making the following suggestions I have assumed the chronological possibility of allusions in the Aetia Prologue on the one hand to the quarrel with Apollonius Rhodius, and on the other to Arsinoe II. . That such a combination is possible is maintained by Rostagni in Rivista di Filologia, 1928, pp. 1 sqq. The textual supplements offered here, while intended to support the double hypothesis, differ from his in some points; notably in regard to the question of where the (...) allusion to Arsinoe is to be introduced into the text of Callimachus . It need hardly be said that the supposed allusions to the queen and to the rival poet do not necessarily stand or fall together. In the case of the former it might not be altogether incredible that such an allusion should have been made after her death; whilst the most obvious consequence in regard to Apollonius would be that, if a date before 270 B.C. be accepted for the Prologue, his birth would have to be placed as early as possible—say, 295–290 B.C. However this may be, it is here sought to complete, in the above sense, certain passages in the Prologue with the aid of the British Museum Scholiast . In regard to the latter a fresh study of the original text by the editor has been utilized, to say nothing of his valuable suggestions and criticisms; in the case of P. the facsimile in Ox. Pap. XVII. is depended upon. The silence of S. on some of the supposed points may fairly be adduced in objection to them; but it may be noted that he does not comment on Πυγμαίων , and that his exposition, where it can be checked, seems to be somewhat hasty and unbalanced. Further, we do not know what may have preceded the portion of his work which has survived. (shrink)

In Apoll. Rh., Arg. IV, 477-479 Jason mutilates the corpse of Apsyrtus. To date, there has been a great deal of scholarly disagreement concerning the motive of this μασχαλισμός: either the mutilation was intended as a cathartic appeasement sacrifice, or its goal was to avert the vengeance of the victim’s ghost. This article opens up a new perspective by examining the ritual within the broader context of the fourth book of the epic. The appeasement motive is generally considered to have (...) originated with Apollonius. However, a contextual study shows that he meant to apply the vengeance motive. All the signs that indicate an appeasement sacrifice can be explained in other ways. Moreover, Apollonius more than once explicitly refers to the defilement of Medea and Jason. The conclusion is that Jason mutilated Apsyrtus in order to avert his vengeance, not to bring an offering of atonement.Dans Apoll. Rh., Arg. IV, 477-479, Jason mutile le corps d’Apsyrtos. Jusqu’à présent, le motif de ce μασχαλισμός a fait débat : ou bien la mutilation est vue comme une offrande expiatoire et cathartique, ou bien l’on considère que son objectif était d’éviter la vengeance de l’esprit de la victime. Cet article ouvre une nouvelle perspective en examinant le rite dans le contexte plus large de l’épopée d’Apollonios, qui semble être le point de départ du motif expiatoire. Néanmoins, une lecture contextuelle montre qu’il a plutôt tendu à appliquer le motif de la vengeance. Tous les signes indiquant un sacrifice expiatoire peuvent être expliqués d’une autre façon. En outre, Apollonios se réfère plusieurs fois explicitement à la souillure de Jason et Médée. Dès lors, il s’avère que Jason a mutilé Apsyrtos pour éviter sa vengeance et non pour offrir un sacrifice expiatoire. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie Jahrgang: 101 Heft: 3 Seiten: 445-468.

AtArgon.4.1653–88, Medea steps forward among the Argonauts and asserts that their harbourage on Crete will not be blocked by the bronze giant Talos, who stands menacingly throwing rocks at their ship. She claims that she alone can subdue him, and then steps forward and proceeds to do so. Using a sequence of ‘magical’ ritualistic acts, she causes Talos to scrape his vulnerable heel on a rock and fall down dead, as the ichor pours from his wound. This scene is the (...) last in which Medea appears in the epic, and accordingly it forms the final opportunity to bridge the gap between the Medea of theArgonauticaand the future Medea, one whose actions are already well known from such works as Pindar's fourthPythian Odeand Euripides’Medea. The importance for Apollonius to create a plausible transition between the Medea of earlier myth and the Argonautic Medea is evident. A clear-cut break from tradition would allow Medea to become an alternative Medea, perhaps akin to the alternative portrayal of Helen by Euripides; a continuation would allow corroboration with earlier sources, which would lend authority and validation to Apollonius’ version. It is now the common consensus that Apollonius tried, however successfully, to bridge the gap between a young and an adult Medea and between tradition and innovation in her character. (shrink)