Critical Notes On Apollonius Rhodius1

M. Campell

doi:10.1017/S000983880002468X

Critical Notes On Apollonius Rhodius1

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009

M. Campell

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

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.

Type: Research Article
Information: The Classical Quarterly , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , December 1969 , pp. 269 - 284

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S000983880002468X [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Classical Association 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

¹ I am indebted to Mr. J. Griffin for helpful criticism.

² This Homeric passage, concept here in Apollonius, forms the basis of the simile at 2. 1073 ff., as Mooney remarks. But Apollonius also there draws upon the variation of this simile atIl. 23. 712 Cf. also Q.S. 11. 361 ff

³ For instances see Ebeling, Lex. Homer. S.V. p. 517 (a), 21 ff., LSJ A II 9.

⁴ Whereas at, for example, Od. 5. 451 the meaning is quite clear.

¹ Mooney' list is inaccurate: 1. 645 text doubtful; 1.987 doubtful again, see Fränkel;

² 906 doubtful, though admittedly it makes very little difference here; 3. 42 better with in ‘partial’ apposition; 4. 257 as Mooney himself says.

² So in the imitation of Quintus (9. 343) .

³ There seems to be no ‘scheme’ at work here. of 614, which I discus below. can be paralleled from Il. I. I–2. For as equivalents in Apollonius see Krevelen, D. A. van, Mnemosyne s. iv, vi (1953), 53–4.Google Scholar

¹ Fränkel apparently thinks a gloss on . He refers to 621 supra, of Thoas, . The schol. on Pind. Olymp. 4. 31 (b) give . But this is hardly comparable: (a) it is a reverse corruption; (b) a scholiast in talking of ‘Thoas king of Lemnos’ might be expected to write there. At 608 supra Fränkel supposes a similar confusion to that at 621. He reads , basing this on the note of the schol. . This may be right, but the schol. could mean ‘Lemnos is called S. in terms of an epithet’—they are given to such remarks. Ardizzoni surprisingly says (in app. ad loc.) ’sed cf. 4. 1759’, where there is no schol. complication.

² Fränkel. There is perhaps no need in view of this obvious intrusion to stick so closely to the ‘cluctus litterarum’. The phrase seems unparalleled, and it would not, I think, give the meaning which Fränkel wants, ‘pari velocitate’. It would rather mean ‘pariter’, ‘abreast’, referring to the Boreads, which does not seem entirely suitable. The schol. have ‘almost equal with them’, and one might guess at, e.g., : cf. 273 with the sequel 282. For the expression cf. Il. 23. 763 ’.

¹ For a discussion of variatio in general in Apollonius see Fränkel, , T.A.P.A. lxxxiii (1952), 144 n. 2.Google Scholar

² Fränkel's at 804 is not accepted by the latest editor Ardizzoni, but it must be right. The clauses are not opposed. The clause takes up the , and the sentence corresponds to 611 ff.,

³ We may now add .from P.Oxy. 2494 B (b) [Hes.] fr. 66. i M.–W. The sense of ‘stalls‘ is clearly suggested by the context there. The supplement is recommended, as Lobel remarks, by Hes. Theog. 129 (on this see below). But is an odd epithet of , if the accusative case is correct, unless they are so because they belong to Hermes.

⁴ I have amplified the lists given in Stephanus–Dindorf and LSJ, but I am not sure that I have found every case of this word.

¹ At 2. 239 Brunck and Wellauer are certainly mistaken in reading : SG's reading is supported by 3. 38 (cited by Fränkel), but still more by 1. 977 () . (Cf. also Il. 22. 472, 16. 90, Od. 6. 159, A. Pr. 559, A.R. 4. 194.)

² Platt had already hinted at this by a reference to Od. 14. 464, but he kept .

³ LSJ s.v. group along with Il. 14. 360, where . takes the infinitive (), A.R. 2. 952, where in line break) the infinitive goes with a subtle variatio. For the infinitival use they might have quoted, e.g., Q.S. I. 645.

¹ This is a good example of conscious variatio. In Apollonius' line there is a shift from Homer's constant at the beginning of the verse (Il. 6. 64, 14. 447, 517).

² T.A.P.A. lxxxiii (1952), 148 II. 15.

³ Ardizzoni (on 1. 1359) wrongly changes () at 1. 1359 and 4. 1529. Cf. Pfeiffer on Call. fr. 1. 5, though his interpretation of the Callimachean passage seems questionable.

¹ In this simile Apollonius puts to a new use Il. 15. 381 ff.,, where the comparison is with the Trojans' climbing of the wall.

² The expression here recalls the well-known formulaic line (cf. Leaf on il. 2. 271).

³ Mr. Griffin calls to my attention Theoc. 13. 51, where, however, as he himself says, the text is doubtful. And that passage seems a good deal easier than the present one with its bare .

¹ As for the contents of the emendation proposed, it is certainly not entirely safe to introduce into Apollonius' text another example of the curious form found at .

² This may pick up the previous speech (881 ff.): ‘ They have encountered death—but there are pilots left among us.’ Jason: ‘These pilots seem more dejected than I am, hence we will meet with as great an as did the dead heroes.’ Not a very cogent link, but this set of speeches is very odd in any case.

³ Admittedly this is obscure too, but what does seem to emerge is that the schol. take as a reference to Idmon and Tiphys. It looks as if what the schol. are saying here is that just as those two foresaw , so too did Jason, whereas in fact it was only Idmon who was said to do this (1. 140).

¹ The schol. say . This use of here.

² It is conjectured by Fränkel at 1. 516 (). Of course this objection is hardly a disastrous one.

³ Quintus (9.144), who often imitates Apollonius closely. But does not strike one as Apollonian.

⁴ est impropre: it signifie normalement “déposer“: cf. Od. 21. 264' Vian; ‘exspect. Fränkel.‘Impropre’ it may be, but it is right: Q.S.6. 196 : id. 12. 303 .

¹ Fränkel: but if Apollonius here calls the ewe can he really be expected to write anything but

² For this expression cf. Il. 23. 148, Ov. Met. 7. 245, Paus. 9. 39.The libation-list in Od. ft. 27 ff. At A.R. 3. 222 ff. editors point out for Od. 5. 70. From this passage Apollonius borrows other details (Od. 69-Ap. 221, Od. 73-Ap. 222). For the fountains running with milk-wine-oil-water they instance Il. 22. 147 ff., the cold Scamander. But Apollonius is also drawing on the passage of Od. 1I. 27 ff. and putting it to a new use.

² Eustathius (1688. 22) says that the ancients took in Homer as ‘milk and honey’, but that later it was understood as ‘honey and water’. At 2. 1272 there appears to be a libation of honey and wine: . The schol. there give for , and most translators follow them (LSJ ‘sweet as dropped honey’). Linguistically this seems unlikely. Because wine is does not mean that it cannot be accompanied by honey. The phrase probably means Cf. , etc. Perhaps the schol. are here influenced by Homer', or even by a reminiscence of Od. 9. 205 .For varieties of offerings see Platnauer on Eur. IT 162, Broadhead on A. Pers. 607-10, and Od. ii. 27 mentioned above.