Article #830-2 | Gutenberg Articles

Excerpt

Excerpt from The Argonautica, by Rhodius Apollonius

INTRODUCTION
THE ARGONAUTICA
BOOK I
BOOK II
BOOK III
BOOK IV
ENDNOTES

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,[1] 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.

Explanation

**Detailed Explanation of the Excerpt from The Argonautica (Introduction by Apollonius Rhodius)**

This passage is the introduction to Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica, a Hellenistic epic poem (3rd century BCE) that recounts the myth of Jason and the Argonauts’ quest for the Golden Fleece. While the excerpt itself is not part of the poem’s narrative, it provides crucial biographical, historical, and scholarly context about the author and his work. Below is a breakdown of its key elements, focusing on the text’s content, themes, and significance.

1. Context & Purpose of the Introduction

The introduction serves several functions:

Biographical Sketch: It outlines what little is known about Apollonius Rhodius, a shadowy figure from the Hellenistic period.
Scholarly Debate: It engages with uncertainties about his life, particularly his role as the head of the Library of Alexandria and his relationship with other poets (e.g., Callimachus).
Literary Reception: It hints at the Argonautica’s initial rejection and later success, framing the poem as a work that evolved through revision and public performance.

This introduction is likely derived from ancient scholia (commentaries) and later compiled by editors (possibly Byzantine scholars). It reflects the fragmentary nature of ancient biographical sources, where details are often contradictory or speculative.

2. Key Themes in the Introduction

A. The Uncertainty of Ancient Biography

The text emphasizes how little is definitively known about Apollonius:

His birthdate is debated (296–260 BCE).
His death is unknown.
Even his name ("Rhodius") is ambiguous—was he truly from Rhodes, or did he adopt the name after his exile?

This uncertainty is typical of Hellenistic scholars, whose lives are often reconstructed from scattered references, lost works, and later summaries. The introduction highlights the challenges of historical reconstruction, a theme that resonates with modern classical scholarship.

B. The Role of the Library of Alexandria

The passage discusses Apollonius’ possible tenure as the head librarian (bibliothecariate) of the Great Library of Alexandria, a center of Hellenistic learning. Key points:

Suidas (a 10th-century Byzantine lexicographer) claims Apollonius succeeded Eratosthenes, a famous geographer and scholar.
Modern scholars debate this due to chronological inconsistencies (e.g., Eratosthenes’ death vs. Apollonius’ likely lifespan).
The text suggests a compromise: Eratosthenes may have resigned before dying, allowing Apollonius to hold the position in old age.

This debate reflects the prestige of the Library—being its head was a mark of intellectual authority. The introduction implies that Apollonius’ later success (including his burial near Callimachus, his mentor) may have been tied to this role.

C. Literary Rivalry & Revision

The most dramatic part of the introduction is the story of the Argonautica’s initial failure and later triumph:

First Recitation (Alexandria): The poem was criticized, possibly for being too innovative or not conforming to epic traditions (e.g., Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey).
Exile to Rhodes: Apollonius revised the work, perhaps adopting a more Callimachean style (shorter, more refined, learned).
Second Recitation (Rhodian or Alexandrian): The revised version was praised, earning him the epithet "Rhodius."

This narrative suggests:

Hellenistic poetic competition—Alexandria was a hub of literary criticism, and poets like Callimachus (who favored concise, erudite poetry) may have influenced Apollonius’ revisions.
The importance of performance—epic poetry was meant to be recited aloud, and public reception shaped its legacy.
The theme of exile and return, which mirrors Jason’s own journey in the Argonautica.

D. The Relationship with Callimachus

The introduction mentions that Apollonius was a pupil of Callimachus, a leading poet of the time. This is significant because:

Callimachus rejected long, Homeric-style epics, preferring short, polished works (e.g., his Aitia).
The Argonautica is an epic, but it is shorter than Homer’s works and includes learned digressions, psychological depth, and erotic elements—traits that may reflect Callimachean influence.
The burial near Callimachus suggests a posthumous reconciliation or shared legacy, despite their possible artistic differences.

3. Literary Devices & Style in the Introduction

While this is a prose introduction (not poetry), it employs techniques common in ancient biographical writing:

Anecdotal Narrative: The story of Apollonius’ exile and return is dramatic, almost like a mini-biography.
Scholarly Hedging: Phrases like "some say," "it is more probable," and "there is considerable difficulty" reflect the tentative nature of ancient sources.
Chronological Debate: The discussion of dates (e.g., Eratosthenes’ death, Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo) shows how biography was intertwined with textual criticism.
Allusion to Lost Works: The mention of a "lost" early life of Apollonius reminds readers that much of ancient literature survives only in fragments.

4. Significance of the Introduction

A. For Understanding the Argonautica

The introduction frames the poem as a product of revision and competition, which may explain its unconventional epic style (e.g., focus on Medea’s psychology, erotic themes, and geographical digressions).
It suggests that Apollonius was responding to critics, possibly making the poem more Callimachean in its second version.

B. For Hellenistic Literature & Culture

The Library of Alexandria symbolizes the shift from oral to written culture—Apollonius’ poem was performed, revised, and preserved in a scholarly environment.
The rivalry with Callimachus represents the tension between epic and non-epic poetry in the Hellenistic period.
The theme of exile and return mirrors the cosmopolitan nature of Hellenistic Greece, where scholars moved between cities (Alexandria, Rhodes, Athens).

C. For Classical Scholarship

The introduction demonstrates how ancient biographies were constructed—often from secondhand accounts, inferences, and debates.
It shows the importance of Suidas and scholia (ancient commentaries) in preserving authorial details.
The chronological debates highlight how modern scholarship still grapples with incomplete evidence.

**5. Connection to the Argonautica Itself**

While the introduction is not part of the epic, it foreshadows themes in the poem:

Journey & Return: Just as Apollonius goes into exile and returns triumphant, Jason’s quest is a voyage with a problematic homecoming.
Revision & Adaptation: The Argonautica itself reworks older myths (e.g., Homeric and Hesiodic versions of the Argonaut story).
Intellectual & Artistic Struggle: The poem’s complexity (e.g., Medea’s conflicted emotions, the Argonauts’ moral ambiguities) may reflect Apollonius’ own artistic struggles as described in the introduction.

6. Conclusion: Why This Introduction Matters

This excerpt is more than just a dry biographical note—it is a window into Hellenistic literary culture:

It reveals the competitive, performative nature of poetry in Alexandria.
It shows how epic poetry was evolving in a world dominated by scholarship and libraries.
It underscores the fragility of ancient biographical knowledge, reminding us that even major authors like Apollonius remain partially obscured by time.

For readers of the Argonautica, this introduction sets the stage for a poem that is both traditional and innovative, shaped by exile, rivalry, and the intellectual ferment of Alexandria.