At Argonautica 4.12–13, Medea, frightened and on the point of fleeing her home, 2 is compared to a young deer.

There can be no doubt of the primacy of Andronicus in Roman literature, but there is an interesting and unorthodox ancient tradition concerning his date. Modern scholars incline to place Andronicus' birth about 285 B.C. and to postulate either that he came to Rome as a slave from Tarentum in 272 B.C., or that the story of his captivity is a fiction. His first play was produced in 240 B.C.

There can be no doubt of the primacy of Andronicus in Roman literature, but there is an interesting and unorthodox ancient tradition concerning his date. Modern scholars incline to place Andronicus' birth about 285 B.C. and to postulate either that he came to Rome as a slave from Tarentum in 272 B.C., or that the story of his captivity is a fiction. His first play was produced in 240 B.C.

As an Apollo-like Jason leaves home to start the long journey in quest of the Golden Fleece a strange incident occurs: The first thing to be said about this scene is that it is almost certainly an invention of Apollonius Rhodius.

As an Apollo-like Jason leaves home to start the long journey in quest of the Golden Fleece a strange incident occurs: The first thing to be said about this scene is that it is almost certainly an invention of Apollonius Rhodius.

In the middle of September, 47 b.c., Cicero obtained a copy of Atticus' recently published Liber Annalis, which he was consequently able to use in preparing his Brutus and his Tusculans and De Senectute . Atticus himself had consulted Varro's works on questions of literary history . Cicero, reading his friend's work, found himself in the thick of a controversy about the beginnings of Latin literature.

In making the following suggestions I have assumed the chronological possibility of allusions in the Aetia Prologue on the one hand to the quarrel with Apollonius Rhodius, and on the other to Arsinoe II. . That such a combination is possible is maintained by Rostagni in Rivista di Filologia, 1928, pp. 1 sqq. The textual supplements offered here, while intended to support the double hypothesis, differ from his in some points; notably in regard to the question of where the (...) allusion to Arsinoe is to be introduced into the text of Callimachus . It need hardly be said that the supposed allusions to the queen and to the rival poet do not necessarily stand or fall together. In the case of the former it might not be altogether incredible that such an allusion should have been made after her death; whilst the most obvious consequence in regard to Apollonius would be that, if a date before 270 B.C. be accepted for the Prologue, his birth would have to be placed as early as possible—say, 295–290 B.C. However this may be, it is here sought to complete, in the above sense, certain passages in the Prologue with the aid of the British Museum Scholiast . In regard to the latter a fresh study of the original text by the editor has been utilized, to say nothing of his valuable suggestions and criticisms; in the case of P. the facsimile in Ox. Pap. XVII. is depended upon. The silence of S. on some of the supposed points may fairly be adduced in objection to them; but it may be noted that he does not comment on Πυγμαίων , and that his exposition, where it can be checked, seems to be somewhat hasty and unbalanced. Further, we do not know what may have preceded the portion of his work which has survived. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

The difficulty of τєν at 8 is notorious, and it has never been answered. The word refers back to Apollo, who has been invoked in the first line, but ‘it is not in accord with epic convention that, after the invocation, reference should be made to it’ . I suggest that we simply should not expect Apollonius to conform to the conventions of older epic: he does not do so in a number of other important respects. One is reminded here (...) of the nervous restlessness of Callimachean poetry, particularly Cer. 25. There the goddess is addressed out of the blue with τìν δ’ αύτ, and emendation is unconvincing. Perhaps τєν in Apollonius is even more abrupt than the example in Callimachus. Yet Apollonius seems on many occasions to carry further the devices of his master. The astonishing parenthesis at 1. 623 f. is a good example , 52 f, F. Bornmann, Call. Hymnus in Dianam, 1–li). (shrink)

The difficulty of τєἠν at 8 is notorious, and it has never been answered. The word refers back to Apollo, who has been invoked in the first line, but ‘it is not in accord with epic convention that, after the invocation, reference should be made to it’. I suggest that we simply should not expect Apollonius to conform to the conventions of older epic: he does not do so in a number of other important respects. One is reminded here of (...) the nervous restlessness of Callimachean poetry, particularly Cer. 25. There the goddess is addressed out of the blue with τìν δ’ αύτᾳ, and emendation is unconvincing. Perhaps τєἠν in Apollonius is even more abrupt than the example in Callimachus. Yet Apollonius seems on many occasions to carry further the devices of his master. The astonishing parenthesis at 1. 623 f. is a good example, 52 f, F. Bornmann, Call. Hymnus in Dianam, 1–li). (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie Jahrgang: 101 Heft: 3 Seiten: 445-468.

In Apoll. Rh., Arg. IV, 477-479 Jason mutilates the corpse of Apsyrtus. To date, there has been a great deal of scholarly disagreement concerning the motive of this μασχαλισμός: either the mutilation was intended as a cathartic appeasement sacrifice, or its goal was to avert the vengeance of the victim’s ghost. This article opens up a new perspective by examining the ritual within the broader context of the fourth book of the epic. The appeasement motive is generally considered to have (...) originated with Apollonius. However, a contextual study shows that he meant to apply the vengeance motive. All the signs that indicate an appeasement sacrifice can be explained in other ways. Moreover, Apollonius more than once explicitly refers to the defilement of Medea and Jason. The conclusion is that Jason mutilated Apsyrtus in order to avert his vengeance, not to bring an offering of atonement.Dans Apoll. Rh., Arg. IV, 477-479, Jason mutile le corps d’Apsyrtos. Jusqu’à présent, le motif de ce μασχαλισμός a fait débat : ou bien la mutilation est vue comme une offrande expiatoire et cathartique, ou bien l’on considère que son objectif était d’éviter la vengeance de l’esprit de la victime. Cet article ouvre une nouvelle perspective en examinant le rite dans le contexte plus large de l’épopée d’Apollonios, qui semble être le point de départ du motif expiatoire. Néanmoins, une lecture contextuelle montre qu’il a plutôt tendu à appliquer le motif de la vengeance. Tous les signes indiquant un sacrifice expiatoire peuvent être expliqués d’une autre façon. En outre, Apollonios se réfère plusieurs fois explicitement à la souillure de Jason et Médée. Dès lors, il s’avère que Jason a mutilé Apsyrtos pour éviter sa vengeance et non pour offrir un sacrifice expiatoire. (shrink)