Apollonius Rhodius

(fl. 3rd Century B.C.)

THE ARGONAUTICA

Originally written in Ancient Greek sometime in the 3rd Century B.C. by the
Alexandrian poet Apollonius Rhodius (“Apollonius the Rhodian”).

Translation by R.C. Seaton, 1912.

The text of this edition is based on that published as “Apollonius Rhodius:
Argonautica”, edited and translated by R.C. Seaton (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge MA, 1912)

INTRODUCTION

Much has been written about the chronology of Alexandrian literature and the
famous Library, founded by Ptolemy Soter, but the dates of the chief writers are
still matters of conjecture. The birth of Apollonius Rhodius is placed by scholars
at various times between 296 and 260 B.C., while the year of his death is equally
uncertain. In fact, we have very little information on the subject. There are
two “lives” of Apollonius in the Scholia, both derived from an earlier one which
is lost. From these we learn that he was of Alexandria by birth, that he lived
in the time of the Ptolemies, and was a pupil of Callimachus; that while still
a youth he composed and recited in public his “Argonautica”, and that the poem
was condemned, in consequence of which he retired to Rhodes; that there he revised
his poem, recited it with great applause, and hence called himself a Rhodian.

The second “life” adds: “Some say that he returned to Alexandria and again
recited his poem with the utmost success, so that he was honoured with the libraries
of the Museum and was buried with Callimachus.” The last sentence may be interpreted
by the notice of Suidas, who informs us that Apollonius was a contemporary of
Eratosthenes, Euphorion and Timarchus, in the time of Ptolemy Euergetes, and that
he succeeded Eratosthenes in the headship of the Alexandrian Library. Suidas also
informs us elsewhere that Aristophanes at the age of sixty-two succeeded Apollonius
in this office. Many modern scholars deny the “bibliothecariate” of Apollonius
for chronological reasons, and there is considerable difficulty about it.

The date of Callimachus’ “Hymn to Apollo”, which closes with some lines (105-113)
that are admittedly an allusion to Apollonius, may be put with much probability
at 248 or 247 B.C. Apollonius must at that date have been at least twenty years
old. Eratosthenes died 196-193 B.C. This would make Apollonius seventy-two to
seventy-five when he succeeded Eratosthenes. This is not impossible, it is true,
but it is difficult. But the difficulty is taken away if we assume with Ritschl
that Eratosthenes resigned his office some years before his death, which allows
us to put the birth of Apollonius at about 280, and would solve other difficulties.
For instance, if the Librarians were buried within the precincts, it would account
for the burial of Apollonius next to Callimachus — Eratosthenes being still alive.
However that may be, it is rather arbitrary to take away the “bibliothecariate”
of Apollonius, which is clearly asserted by Suidas, on account of chronological
calculations which are themselves uncertain. Moreover, it is more probable that
the words following “some say” in the second “life” are a remnant of the original
life than a conjectural addition, because the first “life” is evidently incomplete,
nothing being said about the end of Apollonius’ career.

The principal event in his life, so far as we know, was the quarrel with his
master Callimachus, which was most probably the cause of his condemnation at Alexandria
and departure to Rhodes. This quarrel appears to have arisen from differences
of literary aims and taste, but, as literary differences often do, degenerated
into the bitterest personal strife. There are references to the quarrel in the
writings of both. Callimachus attacks Apollonius in the passage at the end of
the “Hymn to Apollo”, already mentioned, also probably in some epigrams, but most
of all in his “Ibis”, of which we have an imitation, or perhaps nearly a translation,
in Ovid’s poem of the same name. On the part of Apollonius there is a passage
in the third book of the “Argonautica” (11. 927-947) which is of a polemical nature
and stands out from the context, and the well-known savage epigram upon Callimachus.

Various combinations have been attempted by scholars, notably by Couat, in
his “Poesie Alexandrine”, to give a connected account of the quarrel, but we have
not data sufficient to determine the order of the attacks, and replies, and counter-attacks.
The “Ibis” has been thought to mark the termination of the feud on the curious
ground that it was impossible for abuse to go further. It was an age when literary
men were more inclined to comment on writings of the past than to produce original
work. Literature was engaged in taking stock of itself. Homer was, of course,
professedly admired by all, but more admired than imitated. Epic poetry was out
of fashion and we find many epigrams of this period — some by Callimachus —
directed against the “cyclic” poets, by whom were meant at that time those who
were always dragging in conventional and commonplace epithets and phrases peculiar
to epic poetry. Callimachus was in accordance with the spirit of the age when
he proclaimed “a great book” to be “a great evil”, and sought to confine poetical
activity within the narrowest limits both of subject and space. Theocritus agreed
with him, both in principle and practice.

The chief characteristics of Alexandrianism are well summarized by Professor
Robinson Ellis as follows: “Precision in form and metre, refinement in diction,
a learning often degenerating into pedantry and obscurity, a resolute avoidance
of everything commonplace in subject, sentiment or allusion.” These traits are
more prominent in Callimachus than in Apollonius, but they are certainly to be
seen in the latter. He seems to have written the “Argonautica” out of bravado,
to show that he could write an epic poem. But the influence of the age was too
strong. Instead of the unity of an Epic we have merely a series of episodes, and
it is the great beauty and power of one of these episodes that gives the poem
its permanent value — the episode of the love of Jason and Medea. This occupies
the greater part of the third book.

The first and second books are taken up with the history of the voyage to Colchis,
while the fourth book describes the return voyage. These portions constitute a
metrical guide book, filled no doubt with many pleasing episodes, such as the
rape of Hylas, the boxing match between Pollux and Amyeus, the account of Cyzicus,
the account of the Amazons, the legend of Talos, but there is no unity running
through the poem beyond that of the voyage itself.

The Tale of the Argonauts had been told often before in verse and prose, and
many authors’ names are given in the Scholia to Apollonius, but their works have
perished. The best known earlier account that we have is that in Pindar’s fourth
Pythian ode, from which Apollonius has taken many details. The subject was one
for an epic poem, for its unity might have been found in the working out of the
expiation due for the crime of Athamas; but this motive is barely mentioned by
our author.

As we have it, the motive of the voyage is the command of Pelias to bring back
the golden fleece, and this command is based on Pelias’ desire to destroy Jason,
while the divine aid given to Jason results from the intention of Hera to punish
Pelias for his neglect of the honour due to her.

The learning of Apollonius is not deep but it is curious; his general sentiments
are not according to the Alexandrian standard, for they are simple and obvious.
In the mass of material from which he had to choose the difficulty was to know
what to omit, and much skill is shown in fusing into a tolerably harmonious whole
conflicting mythological and historical details. He interweaves with his narrative
local legends and the founding of cities, accounts of strange customs, descriptions
of works of art, such as that of Ganymede and Eros playing with knucklebones,
but prosaically calls himself back to the point from these pleasing digressions
by such an expression as “but this would take me too far from my song.” His business
is the straightforward tale and nothing else. The astonishing geography of the
fourth book reminds us of the interest of the age in that subject, stimulated
no doubt by the researches of Eratosthenes and others.

The language is that of the conventional epic. Apollonius seems to have carefully
studied Homeric glosses, and gives many examples of isolated uses, but his choice
of words is by no means limited to Homer. He freely avails himself of Alexandrian
words and late uses of Homeric words. Among his contemporaries Apollonius suffers
from a comparison with Theocritus, who was a little his senior, but he was much
admired by Roman writers who derived inspiration from the great classical writers
of Greece by way of Alexandria. In fact Alexandria was a useful bridge between
Athens and Rome. The “Argonautica” was translated by Varro Atacinus, copied by
Ovid and Virgil, and minutely studied by Valerius Flaccus in his poem of the same
name. Some of his finest passages have been appropriated and improved upon by
Virgil by the divine right of superior genius.

The subject of love had been treated in the romantic spirit before the time
of Apollonius in writings that have perished, for instance, in those of Antimachus
of Colophon, but the “Argonautica” is perhaps the first poem still extant in which
the expression of this spirit is developed with elaboration. The Medea of Apollonius
is the direct precursor of the Dido of Virgil, and it is the pathos and passion
of the fourth book of the “Aeneid” that keep alive many a passage of Apollonius.