The Argonautica
by Apollonius Rhodius
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.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY: ORIGINAL TEXT—
Seaton, R.C. (Ed. & Trans.): “Apollonius Rhodius: Argonautica”
(Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 1912). Original Greek text with
side-by-side English translation.
OTHER TRANSLATIONS—
Rieu, E.V. (Trans.): “Apollonius of Rhodes: The Voyage of the Argo”
(Penguin Classics, London, 1959, 1971).
RECOMMENDED READING—
Euripides: “Medea”, “Hecabe”, “Electra”,
and “Heracles”, translated by Philip Vellacott (Penguin Classics,
London, 1963). Contains four plays by Euripides, two of which concern
characters from “The Argonautica”.
Contents
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.
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_ (ll. 927-947) which is of a polemical nature and stands
out from the context, and the well-known savage epigram upon
Callimachus.[2] Various combinations have been attempted by scholars,
notably by Couat, in his _Poésie 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,[3] 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.[4] 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.
THE ARGONAUTICA
BOOK I
Beginning with thee, O Phoebus, I will recount the famous deeds of men
of old, who, at the behest of King Pelias, down through the mouth of
Pontus and between the Cyanean rocks, sped well-benched Argo in quest
of the golden fleece.
Such was the oracle that Pelias heard, that a hateful doom awaited him
to be slain at the prompting of the man whom he should see coming forth
from the people with but one sandal. And no long time after, in
accordance with that true report, Jason crossed the stream of wintry
Anaurus on foot, and saved one sandal from the mire, but the other he
left in the depths held back by the flood. And straightway he came to
Pelias to share the banquet which the king was offering to his father
Poseidon and the rest of the gods, though he paid no honour to
Pelasgian Hera. Quickly the king saw him and pondered, and devised for
him the toil of a troublous voyage, in order that on the sea or among
strangers he might lose his home-return.
The ship, as former bards relate, Argus wrought by the guidance of
Athena. But now I will tell the lineage and the names of the heroes,
and of the long sea-paths and the deeds they wrought in their
wanderings; may the Muses be the inspirers of my song!
First then let us name Orpheus whom once Calliope bare, it is said,
wedded to Thracian Oeagrus, near the Pimpleian height. Men say that he
by the music of his songs charmed the stubborn rocks upon the mountains
and the course of rivers. And the wild oak-trees to this day, tokens of