A companion to Apollonius of Rhodes

Preview

[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review.]

Seventeen years after (the second, revised edition of) the influential Brill’s Companion to Apollonius Rhodius,[1] a new companion to Apollonius has come to the market. Unlike the 2008 companion, however, whose main aim was to ‘offer a survey of some of the major issues recently discussed and currently under examination among specialists on Apollonius’ (p. xii), the one under discussion takes a decisively different approach: it is ‘aimed primarily at readers who are not specialists in Hellenistic poetry or likely to become such specialists’, namely ‘undergraduate or graduate students, scholars in other fields of ancient studies or in modern literatures, or simply readers who have chanced on this unusual epic’ (p.3).

A comprehensive introduction is followed by Part I, where Apollonius’ (intertextual) relationship with some predecessors and contemporaries is explored. James Clauss offers a useful starting point in discussing the Argonautica in relation to—what he defines as—its main subtexts, the Odyssey and Euripides’ Medea. I especially appreciated his Concluding Thoughts in which he traces returning home as a key theme of the Argonautica, reflective of the social reality at a time when many Greeks had migrated to different parts of the Mediterranean. It would be great to see the nuances of these remarks further developed. Ruth Scodel then discusses in more detail Apollonius’ engagement with tragedy. She compares the Argonautica with Euripides’ Medea and concludes that, though the Argonautica is not built as the tragedy’s prequel, Apollonius is indebted to the psychology of tragedy, which is often hinted at but never truly materialises in the poem. This is a chapter which will find its way into many university reading lists:  it will be immensely useful to students, especially those who come to the Argonautica for the first time. Adele Teresa Cozzoli’s ‘Apollonius and Thoecritus’ contains all that one would expect to find in a chapter as such (Id. 13 and 22, and the corresponding episodes with Heracles/Hylas in Argon. 1 and Amycus/Polydeuces in Argon. 2) and more. Although Cozzoli notes early on that ‘Theocritus’ dependence on Apollonius cannot be objectively demonstrated’ (p.42), the chapter’s emphasis lies, rather strangely, precisely on the matter of who wrote first: Cozzoli is a vehement supporter of Apollonius’ chronological priority (taking Theocritus Idylls 13 and 22 as evidence that some version of the Argonautica, even if not the definitive one, was available to Theocritus). Most of Cozzoli’s speculations are very sensible. For example, it is fair (though far from conclusive) to postulate that ‘the story of Hylas as part of the Argonautica myth is not attested in the first part of the Hellenistic age; therefore, a poet who was deeply interested in the Argonautica myth probably introduced it’ (p.43); but it is also risky to argue that Theocritus’ Idyll 13 introduces a series of narrative incoherencies because he aims at recalling the Argonautica. Such incoherencies might reasonably be taken to hint at a more tangled web and a back-and-forth between the poets. I have similar reservations about the relationship between Heracles and Hylas, which, argues Cozzoli, Apollonius explicitly renders as homoerotic and Theocritus later ‘indirectly praises’ (p.45). Though the erotic nature of Heracles and Hylas’ relationship is indeed hinted at in the Argonautica, it is in Theocritus that it becomes explicitly homoerotic. The argument of one’s priority over the other can thus easily be turned on its head.[2] More convincing is the argument that Simaetha’s ‘dialogue’ with the moon draws on Medea’s corresponding ‘dialogue’ in Argonautica 4. Even if one does not agree with all of Cozzoli’s conclusions, however, the chapter offers a philologically rich, nuanced and rewarding comparison. Benjamin Acosta-Hughes looks at the intertextual relationship between Apollonius and Callimachus. Beyond the shared metapoetic vocabulary which may precondition Apollonius’ readers to expect Callimachean variation, Acosta-Hughes proposes that the poets arrange the sequence of episodes or references to gods in ways which evoke the other poet’s oeuvre – e.g., the reference to Zeus, Apollo and Artemis upon the Argonauts’ departure from Iolcus (Argon. 1.507-570) may evoke, intriguingly, Callimachus’ Hymns 1 (to Zeus), 2 (to Apollo), and 3 (to Artemis) in their sequence. Finally, Selina Stewart looks at Apollonius’ astronomical (rather than meteorological) allusions to Aratus’ Phaenomena and how they can unlock the full meaning of Apollonian images (e.g., Medea’s painful night, 3.744-45).

Part II turns to aspects of the Argonautica itself. Graham Zanker looks at Apollonius and Hellenistic art. His contribution, like others in this companion (e.g., Anatole Mori, Stefanie Stürner, Annemarie Ambühl), is an accessible entry-point into matters on which he has written more extensively elsewhere.[3] The chapter offers valuable inputs on Hellenistic art’s influence on Apollonius’ depiction of divinities, old age, and physical distress. Even the depiction of colours might draw on Hellenistic art, and especially the contrast of light and darkness (chiaroscuro effects) as, e.g., when Jason’s shield’s gleam is likened to lightning against a black sky full of clouds carrying dark rain (3.1265-67). Stefanie Stürner looks at the poem through the lens of narratology, and particularly at how the narrator sets himself apart from his story. Stürner is right to suggest that the poem’s introduction and epilogue stress the distance between narrative and mythical past. I do not see, however, how it follows that the narrator’s first-person statement in the epilogue ‘should not be considered a sign of an ongoing “crisis” of the narrator’, as has been argued,[4] but rather a ‘manifestation of unabated poetic confidence’ (p.118). We can perhaps imagine a narrator who both stresses the distance between himself and his narrative and also loses confidence in his ability to narrate it.  Elsewhere Stürner observes reasonably that the combination of self-referential comments and a sped-up narration makes the narratee reflect upon the nature of the poem; but it is perhaps too restrictively binary to argue that ‘the fractured, mediated mode of narration gets all the attention while the actual story is pushed to the background’ (p.122): readers may well be able to pay attention to both simultaneously.

After a chapter by the late Adolf Köhnken on gods in the Argonautica, where the comparative remoteness of the gods is observed, as is the tension between gods that is often alluded to but never explicitly materialises into conflict, Norman Sandridge turns to Jason’s leadership, which he measures against cultural notions established in the 4^th century BCE. Sandridge concludes that Jason is a good leader and finds inclusiveness and a strong democratic strain in his leadership. Though I remain sceptical that Jason is more sincere and democratic than we credit him with (see, e.g., how Idas’ objection to a plan involving Medea is ignored at 3.558f. and Jason takes Argus’ advice ‘since everyone approves of that’, 3.568), this is probably irrelevant to Sandridge’s broader argument. There is an underlying assumption that a good leader is also one who is democratic, egalitarian, and sincere. But given the working definition of good leadership provided in the beginning of the chapter, namely that it mainly entails the responsibility for one’s followers’ well-being, presumably nothing stops us from considering Jason a good leader even if he occasionally behaves in an insincere and manipulative manner since we have no reason to doubt that he truly cares about getting his companions safely home. It would also be interesting to read Sandridge’s thoughts on how Jason’s characterisation as a democratic/egalitarian leader seeking to regain kingship would resonate with the Ptolemaic court. Though not concerned with this issue, a subsequent chapter by Anatole Mori does turn to the Ptolemies and explores how Ptolemaic ideology is foregrounded in the Argonautica, by celebrating diplomatic reconciliation, problematising the use of violence and highlighting the political agency of female characters. Additional aspects of the poem are explored in three more chapters. Alison Keith looks at the emotional anguish of lament in the poem and how it is conjoined with erotic desire. Alexander Hollmann explores magic terminology, compares Orpheus and Medea to establish the kinds of magic they perform, and examines the poem’s magic terminology against that of magical papyri. Finally, Keyne Chesire explores ritual action, deducing that the Argonauts establish themselves as cult heroes. They are all informative and thought-provoking.

Part III is concerned with Apollonius’ reception in Latin literature and beyond. Regina Höschele offers a brief but masterful journey through the complexity of the intertextual relationship between Argonautica and Catullus 64. Niklas Holzberg discerns that Virgil stands much closer to Apollonius than to Homer when it comes to his handling of the ‘heroic’ past and its relationship to the present. K.F.B. Fletcher argues that Apollonius’ treatment of Medea helped inspire Ovid’s interest in female psychology, and that Apollonius’ depiction of Eros influenced Ovid’s personification allegories. Though in the case of Catullus, Virgil and Ovid, one can assume a clear, and often strong, intertextual relationship with Apollonius, things become more complex with the later poets. Annemarie Ambühl notes that in imperial epic the Argonautic tradition is a web from which it is difficult to trace a single strand back to Apollonius, as is clear, e.g., from Lucan’s reference to the Argo as the first ship, unlike Apollonius’ version (the same is later noted by Christopher Chinn for Statius); nevertheless, Lucan clearly draws on Apollonius for his Libyan episode. Unlike the wider net cast by the previous chapters, Anja Bettenworth looks exclusively at Valerius Flaccus’ gods. She concludes that Valerius presents a more negative view of the gods than Apollonius, rife with conflict and treachery. Unlike Lucan, in whom, according to Ambühl, the Argonauts’ journey prefigures the degeneration that culminates with the Roman civil war, in Valerius Flaccus the Argonauts are representatives of progress and civilization. Finally, Chinn concludes that the invocations to Apollo and Erato, and the reference to Ariadne in an ekphrastic context in Statius’ Silvae strongly suggest that Statius uses Apollonius, filtered or not through Catullus 64, and that Statius thinks of Apollonius as an ‘exemplar of the learned Hellenistic style’. William Race concludes the volume by offering a survey of renaissance and later Latin translations of the Argonautica, followed by translations in English, German and Italian from the late 17^th century onwards. His remarks on how translations can take a life of their own and influence the tradition independently of the original text are particularly astute.

Despite the minor criticisms noted above, this book is without doubt successful in its mission.[5] It offers insightful contributions on most aspects of the poem (and its reception), enhancing its accessibility. Students, in particular, will certainly benefit from reading it.

Authors and titles

Ruth Scodel, Introduction: Why the Argonautica?

Part One: Predecessors and Contemporaries

1. James J. Clauss, “With No Direction Home”: Medea and Jason
2. Ruth Scodel, Apollonius and Tragedy
3. Adele Teresa Cozzoli, Apollonius Rhodius and Theocritus
4. Benjamin Acosta-Hughes, Poets in Dialogue
5. Selina Stewart, Apollonius and Aratus

Part Two: Aspects of the Argonautica

6. Graham Zanker, Apollonius and Hellenistic Art
7. Stefanie Stürner, Narrating Argonautic Epic
8. Adolf Köhnken, Gods in Apollonius’ Argonautica
9. Norman Sandridge, “Coming from the People”: Aspects of Jason’s Leadership
10. Alison Keith, Deceit, Desire, and Lament: In the Women’s Quarters with Apollonius
11. Alexander Hollmann, Magic in Apollonius’ Argonautica
12. Keyne Cheshire, Ritual Action in Apollonius’ Argonautica
13. Anatole Mori, Ptolemaic Ideology in the Argonautica

Part Three: Rome and Beyond 

14. Regina Höschele, Apollonius in Rome
15. Niklas Holzberg, Apollonius and Virgil
16. F.B Fletcher, Apollonius and Ovid
17. Annemarie Ambühl, Lucan and Apollonius: Parameters of a Poetic Relationship
18. Anja Bettenworth, The Gods in Valerius Flaccus
19. Christopher Chinn, Apollonius’ Argonautica in Statius’ Silvae

William H. Race, Translations

Notes

[1] T.D. Papanghelis and A. Rengakos (eds), Brill’s Companion to Apollonius Rhodius, 2008², Leiden and Boston.

[2] Some deny altogether the presence of a homoerotic relationship in Apollonius, e.g., Levin, D.N. (1971), Apollonius’ Heracles’, The Classical Journal 67.1, 22-28.

[3] E.g., Zanker, G. (2004), Modes of Viewing in Hellenistic Poetry and Art, Madison WI.

[4] E.g., and most notably, Morrison, A.D. (2007), The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry, Cambridge, 271-311.

[5] I have noticed only a few typos/errors: two incorrect superscripts (⁷, ⁸), p. 47; a rogue comma, p.59 (‘I hope, not to’); missing parenthesis, p.110 (‘see further…783-4’); women instead of woman, p.157; page numbers given as 00-00, p.186n.31; a missing ‘of’, p.191 (like that [of] her successor); rogue ‘that’ in ‘symbolically anticipates that the struggle between Hercules and Cacus…’, p.218.