Apollonio Rodio Le Argonautiche Pdf
This paper suggests that the cultural influence of the Ptolemaic queen likely contributed to the Hellenistic formulation of a new female “voice” even in male-authored Alexandrian poetry. Self-control, cooperation, and other “Argonautic virtues” are thus displayed both by female and male authority figures. In Hera’s case, her intercession on behalf of favorites recalls the agency of her Homeric counterpart, but with the marginalization of Zeus, Hera’s role as (maternal) intercessor is not only placed in higher relief but also celebrated. Moreover, Hera’s exercise of authority through a mediated chain of command contrasts favorably with the self-reliant, forceful power of Medea, Heracles, and other heroic figures. 1 On my view this identification does much to account for the difference between the negative f1This paper explores two modes of female agency in the Argonautica. I argue that in this epic mediation and maternity typically serve as markers of legitimate authority, such as that of Hera and the Phaeacian queen Arete, both of whom are symbolically identified with Arsinoe II, the sister-wife of Ptolemy II Philadelphus.
My claim is that Apollonius’ revision of the Homeric Hera owes much to the presence of Arsinoe in his intended audience. The greater portion of my analysis accordingly considers the Hellenistic context of the poem before looking more closely at developments in Hera’s characterization. I then conclude with a brief analysis of Apollonius’ Medea, whose self-interested and unmediated agency strongly contrasts with that of Hera and other dominant female characters in the poem. 2 Argos has requested aid from Chalciope, but the scene is not narrated.
Descargar fl studio 11 por mediafire. See M. G. Planti. 3 R. Parker, Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion, Oxford, 1983, p. 181;. 4 A few lines later Medea manipulates the Argonauts by mentioning this supplication (4.10.
5 Cf. R. V. Albis, Poet and Audience in the Argonautica of Apollonius, Lanham, MD, 1996, p. 1122A few qualifications and definitions are in order. In discussing mediation I use the terms “intervention” and “intercession” more or less synonymously. In the Iliad, Thetis, for example, intercedes on Achilles’ behalf by requesting that Zeus grant the Trojans temporary success in battle ( Il.
1.500-530), a portrait of maternal protectiveness that is recalled in the Argonautica when Chalciope supplicates Medea, asking her to protect her sons from Aeetes (3.706-7). While intercession may well take the form of supplication, supplication is more often self-interested, whether it is an entreaty to “spare me” (a common event in Homer but entirely absent from battle scenes in the Argonautica) or a request for various types of aid. Such requests are often (but need not be) associated with specific physical gestures, as for example when Medea supplicates Arete, repeatedly touching her knees as she begs her not to send her back to Colchis (4.1011-1014). My concern here, however, is with the mechanism of intercession, the predominant mode of female agency in the later poem. There are some notable exceptions to which we will return, but in keeping with communal Argonautic virtues, goddesses and women tend to act cooperatively, to dilute their agency, their dynamis, by enlisting allies. 6 In Homer dynamis is used of strength in combat ( Il.
8.294; 13.786, 22.20; Od. 20.237; 2. 7 The association is not always consistent: Hypsipyle is unmarried but politically adept;. 8 It is also true that the solar gaze of Helios’ descendants is hard to return: 4.683-84, 727-23I also further distinguish authority from power, both of which may serve as rough translations of dynamis, but whose differences generate much of the dramatic tension of the Argonautica and the Iliad. In both of these epics, physically powerful and individually heroic characters like Achilles and Heracles are distinguished from leaders whose political authority is exercised by and mediated through the community, like Agamemnon, Hypsipyle, or Jason. These two aspects of dynamis may overlap, of course, and such notional boundaries are necessarily flexible: the powerful Heracles is the Argonauts’ first choice as leader, while Jason enjoys an aristeia at the end of Book 3, but for the most part power and political authority are inversely proportionate in the Argonautica.
This is particularly true of female characters, which tend to be authoritative rather than physically dominant. Those who are politically influential also tend to be married (and mothers) (like Hera and Aphrodite); even the virgin warrior Athena has been re-imagined in procreative terms: her main contribution to the voyage concerns the Argo, which she builds and then subsequently shoves through the Clashing Rocks – a supernatural act of naval midwifery. By contrast, Medea, the daughter of the king and a priestess, apparently wields little in the way of political authority; she inclines toward apolitical isolation like her aunt the sorceress Circe. Medea is dangerously powerful, feared rather than celebrated by her own community. The Colchians, who are compared to woodland creatures terrified by Artemis, avoid making eye contact with her as she rides through the town (3.883-6).
9 M. B. Skinner, “Woman and Language in Archaic Greece, or, Why is Sappho a Woman?”, in N. 10 See Goldhill (1995), p. 137-142. 11 J. Redfield, The Locrian Maidens. Love and Death in Greek Italy, Princeton, 2003, p. 264Mythic and poetic narratives generally do characterize the agency of female characters (whether mortal or immortal) as threatening or disruptive. In historical, medical, and philosophical texts a woman’s exercise of “manly agency” ( andreia) in political or military endeavors is unsurprisingly presented as an unusual and transgressive state.
Such views encouraged restrictions on women’s activity in most public spheres, and if it is true that some cult rituals capitalized on what was seen as women’s innate instability by allowing them to serve as “patrons of transformation”, it is also evident that the embodiment of women – their physical nature as it differs from that of men – precluded confidence in their rational (hence authoritative) agency, particularly in areas regarded as masculine.5Antiquity is by no means unique, of course, in its restrictive formulation of female agency. 20 K. J. Gutzwiller, “Genre Development and Gendered Voices in Erinna and Nossis”, op.
Cit. 21 A. Lardinois, “Keening Sappho.
Female Speech Genres in Sappho’s Poetry”, in A. Lardinois and. 22 On the range of Helen’s characterization, see N. Worman, “This Voice Which is Not One: Helen’. 23 J. S. Clay, op.
Cit.; L. M. Slatkin, The Power of Thetis. Allusion and Interpretation in the. 24 Characterized by A. Adkins, Merit and Responsibility, Oxford, 1960, as the “quiet” or “weaker7Unfortunately, as Gutzwiller observes, the achievements of Nossis and other female poets have all but disappeared from the western tradition, “because they were taken up by male poets and incorporated into poetry that was written once again from a masculine perspective”. Apollonius’ adaptation of heroic epic can be understood as a harbinger of this kind of stylistic incorporation, although it appears that he and the other (male) Alexandrian poets have been comparatively underserved when it comes to feminist criticism. While the examination of female agency in male-authored poems – even those that that flatter the interests of a queen – is not the same as interpreting poetry written by women or belonging to a traditionally female speech genre, it is nonetheless helpful to question how Apollonius adapted narrative agency to suit (as well as challenge) the expectations of his audience. Even the most casual reader of the Argonautica quickly appreciates the differences between its prominent female figures ( e.g., Medea, Hypsipyle, Circe, Arete, Hera, Aphrodite, Athena, and Thetis) and the male-oriented action of Homeric epic, as Apollonius ventriloquizes female thoughts and ideas and maps a more female perspective onto a traditionally patriarchal genre.
On the other hand, it would be a mistake to argue that female characters in Homeric epic have no power and no agency; the contrast between, for example, the authoritative Helen of the Odyssey and her unhappy Iliadic counterpart suggests that the epic representation of women was never limited to one perspective or mode. Homeric portrayals of goddesses are similarly flexible for any number of reasons, but as several foundational studies of Homeric characterization have demonstrated, narratives about the agency of goddesses are typically adumbrated by those of male heroes: Athena’s wrath at Odysseus is crucial to the structure of the Odyssey, and yet the impetus for it remains obscure; the story of Thetis’ procreative power to unseat Zeus’ rule and her wrath at her unfavorable marriage are both subsumed in the tragic narrative of Achilles. The Argonautica’s problematic restructuring of the Homeric heroic ethos is thus complemented by an equally problematic enunciation of female agency. In addition, the later epic supplants the Homeric glorification of martial combat with, among other things, a celebration of fairness, moderation, and self-control in scenes of (mostly) successful negotiation, cooperation, and diplomacy. Rhetorical displays are crucial in Apollonius’ formulation of authority: both narrator and characters are preoccupied with the art of communication, with knowing when to speak and how much to say. 31 For an overview of the debate see R. A. Hazzard, op.
Cit., p. 82-100, esp. 96-99.
32 The strongest proponent of the “weak Arsinoe” thesis is S. M Burstein ( op.cit.). S. Pomeroy,.
33 “In the 260s, the Greeks attributed to her a strong influence on Ptolemaic foreign policy whi. 34 S. M. Burstein, op.
Cit., p 208. 35 R. A. Hazzard, op. Cit., p. 95-96; S. Pomeroy, op. Cit., p. 17-20; J. Rowlandson (ed.), Women. 36 “The Foreign Policy of Ptolemy II”, in P. McKechnie and P. Guillaume (eds.), Ptolemy II Phila. 37 Op.
Cit. 38 “The Languages of Praise: 3: Posidippus and the Ideology of Kingship”, in M. Fantuzzi and R.9Arsinoe’s political influence has also been the subject of scholarly debate. The exact nature and extent of her involvement in both internal affairs and international negotiations is unclear, but there is very little evidence, at least on the Greek side, to prove that Philadelphus shared power with her. Any official power she had was probably limited, although this need not necessarily have curtailed her unofficial influence, particularly with respect to foreign policy. Numerous port settlements were named for her, and the iconic image of the deified Arsinoe may have held more sway than she herself did. The Chremonidean decree, recorded in 268 after Arsinoe’s death, probably in 270, states that Philadelphus continued to favor the common freedom of the Greeks “in accordance with the policy of his ancestors and his sister” (ἀκολούθως τεῖ τῶν προγόνων καὶ τεῖ τῆς ἀδελφῆς προαιρέσει, Syll.
3.434-5 = IG II 687). S. M. Burstein argues that the reference to Arsinoe’s “policy” was purely honorific and cannot be seen as evidence for a real role in foreign diplomacy. But some weigh the Egyptian material more heavily, questioning the limited and largely hostile Greek evidence on the ground that it was prejudiced against female rule. Whatever Arsinoe’s political role in life may have been it is clear that both her marriage to her brother and her widespread personal cult were ideologically significant.
Votives dedicated to Arsinoe Philadelphus have been found in ports that served the Ptolemaic fleet all over the Mediterranean, and in the words of C. Marquaille: “Ptolemy used the name of Arsinoe to give an identity, a color to the representation of his empire as a sea power” (p. 58-59). Ptolemy’s admiral Callicrates of Samos dedicated a temple to Arsinoe-Aphrodite-Zephyritis on the coast not far from Alexandria, where Arsinoe was worshipped as a protector of sea travelers (as Euploia) and of the Greek maidens preparing for marriage (as Ourania). The Macedonian poet Posidippus celebrated the dedication of this temple (116, 39, and 119 Austin-Bastianini). As these epigrams show, the goddess Arsinoe was dedicated to the protection of ships and virgins (116.8-9), and with respect to Arsinoe’s “foreign policy,” it is tempting to conclude with Hauben that the “ proairesis of Arsinoe for the freedom of the Greeks could then be considered as a manifestation of her preoccupation with the maintenance of the Ptolemaic naval empire.
The Arsinoe of the decree of Chremonides is no one other than Arsinoe-Aphrodite” (p. 119). As M. Fantuzzi observes, Callicrates and Posidippus were particularly interested in these two manifestations of Arsinoe, and so it is not surprising to find that a poem by another member of Posidippus’ literary set would focus on a group of sea travelers who benefit from the intervention of goddesses of marriage and love.10With Arsinoe in mind both as a member of the audience and as a contemporary analogue for Apollonius’ depiction of authoritative females, I’d like to look more closely at the characterization of Hera. In the Iliad the goddess regularly intercedes on behalf of her favorites, namely the people of Argos and Sparta and Mycenae ( Il. 4.52), and in particular the heroes Achilles and Agamemnon, whom, as we are told, “she loved and cared for equally” ( Il. Their quarrel puts her in a difficult position: to honor Achilles is to destroy the Achaeans (1.558-9), but she acts whenever the battle favors Hector and the Trojans and even goes so far as to assault other gods: sending Athena to attack Aphrodite (21.419-425), and personally striking Artemis with her own bow (21.490-92). For the most part, however, Hera enlists the aid of the other gods (e.g., Athena 5.711-18; Zeus 5.755-6; Poseidon 8. 350-56, 8.198-207) to defend the Achaeans and Achilles (20.112-31), calling on Hephaestus to help Achilles against the river Xanthus (21.328-41), and secretly sending Iris to rouse Achilles for battle while Thetis asks Hephaestus for new armor (18.167-69).
Pdf Le Petit Prince
Zeus confronts Hera for doing this, mocking her for acting as though she were the “mother” of the Achaeans: ἦ ῥά νυ σεῖο / ἐξ αὐτῆς ἐγένοντο κάρη κομόωντες Ἀχαιοί ( Il. The implication is that while Thetis is justified for protecting Achilles, Hera’s maternal interest is only a foil for her hatred of the Trojans, and indeed she herself professes her hatred of them only a few lines later (18.367). Undaunted and perhaps even in response to this criticism, Hera is later shown to emphasize her motherly attachment to Thetis (and therefore Achilles by extension) when she argues with Apollo about the mistreatment of Hector’s corpse (24.55-63). 39 This is truer of male gods than female. D. C. Feeney, The Gods in Epic.
Poets and Criti11Descriptions of divine machinery are reduced in the Argonautica, but Hera still continues to operate in much the same way as she does in Homer: she calls on other gods for aid as she is once again driven to intervene by vengeance that is once again framed as maternal protectiveness – although I think the effect in the later poem is much more favorable. In two lengthy and important scenes she takes action to ensure that Medea will be brought back to punish Pelias: the interview with Aphrodite at the beginning of Book 3 – and here her pseudo-maternal fondness for Jason contrasts with Aphrodite’s vexed relations with her real son Eros – and the audience with Thetis whom, as she tells the goddess, she has raised from infancy (4.790-92). Thus, in both poems claims of motherhood underscore and help to legitimate female intercession and authority. Noticeably absent is Hera’s verbal jousting with Zeus, so prominent throughout the Iliad, although the Ptolemaic association of Hera and Zeus with Arsinoe and Ptolemy makes Apollonius’ choice in this matter easy enough to understand. We never see Hera bickering or cowering in fear before her husband, nor do we see her arming for war or engaging in physical violence: her actions with respect to the gods are limited to acts of persuasion, and the overall effect, in terms of tone, is to elevate her.12Mortal characters, as it happens, do not see Hera at all (cf. Jason does not know the identity of the old woman he carries over the Anaurus; Hera’s agency is mostly hidden from the Argonauts; and it is left to the prophet Phineus to explain that of all the gods the most concerned with Argo’s voyage is Hera (2.216-17). At one point the Argonauts do hear her terrifying, aether-shaking cry of warning about Ocean (4.640-42) – an action that recalls the Homeric Hera who gives voice to the natural world: honoring Agamemnon with portentous thunder during his arming scene at Iliad 11.45-46 and granting speech to Achilles’ horse Xanthus at 19.407.
There is a greater divide between the mortal and divine worlds in Apollonius than there is in Homer, but this division serves to highlight the activity of Hera, who enlists many allies and modes of expression in order to bridge that gulf. As Hunter observes. 41 Hera puts courage into Ancaeus 2.865; fear into Medea 4.11.13The reach of Hera’s hidden agency extends to mind control as well (as is of course true of many gods). In the Iliad the best-known example is Hera’s sexual beguiling of Zeus (14.160), but she also has a habit of putting ideas in the phrenes of her mortal favorites (ἐπὶ φρεσὶ θῆκε). In Book 1 she prompts Achilles to call an assembly and to discover the cause of Apollo’s anger (1.55), and later in Book 8 she prompts Agamemnon to rouse the Achaeans and to prevent the Trojans from burning their ships (8.218). Athena does this kind of thing in the Odyssey, affecting both Odysseus (5.427) and Penelope (18.158, 21.1), but in the Argonautica, interestingly, only Hera and the erotic deities are represented as acting this way: Aphrodite wreaks havoc on Lemnos (1.609-19), Eros is said to affect Medea when she first sees Jason and then later when she plots to kill Apsyrtus (3.275-90; 4.449), and on two occasions Hera prevents Medea from killing herself (3.818, 4.20-23).
Apollonio Rodio Le Argonautiche Pdf 2017
44 On the Egyptian king as intermediary, see further A. Mori, The Politics of Apollonius Rhodius. 45 The Transformation of Hera. A Study of Ritual, Hero, and the Goddess in the Iliad, Lanham,15It is not clear how the chorus know that Hera influenced Arete, or whether we are to reduce “Hera” here to the psychological impulse to get married or to arrange marriages, but by breaking the narrative the vocative reinforces the impression that the intercession of Apollonius’ Hera is to be admired, making it clear that she is not the same as Homer’s rebellious deceiver. In truth it is rather difficult to distinguish the agency of Arete from the agency of Hera in this episode, and the blurring of the two suggests the cultic blurring of the Olympians with their Ptolemaic avatars.
It is tempting, moreover, to connect this scene with the agency of the Ptolemies themselves, whose intercession between gods and men is responsible for the stability and prosperity of the world, but even apart from such speculation it is apparent that Hera’s agency here is presented more favorably than that of her Homeric machinations. The reference to praise in lines 4.1199-1200 is telling, as is the shift of the beguiling (if that is what is really going on) from Hera to Arete. More importantly, where the deceptiveness of the Homeric Hera is regularly stressed, particularly in connection with the Book 14 Dios apate ( Il. 1.545; 14.160, 197, 300, 329, 360; 15.14; 19.97), this emphasis is missing – together with Zeus himself – from the Argonautica. J. O’Brien has suggested that the Panhellenic ideology of the Iliad favored Zeus and transformed Hera into a scheming wife (see p. 206), and it seems that the demands of Ptolemaic ideology called in turn for a different transformation, from a scheming wife to an authoritative maternal figure. 46 Phineus (3.555), Jason (3.575), Circe (4.688), and Apollo (2.519) each are said to make a com16One final point: the supplanting of Zeus’s authority is underscored by Apollonius’ use of the term ἐφετμή (“command”). In Homer we hear of the commands of Zeus ( Il.
15.593; 24.570; 24.586), Apollo (5.508), and Thetis (18.216). In the Argonautica, commands are most often said to be issued by kings like Pelias or Aeetes (1.279, 918; 2.210, 615, 763, 1152; 3.390) or, once again, by Hera (4.757, 845, 858-59). 1.242 “Ζεῦ ἄνα, τίς Πελίαο νόος;” (“King Zeus, what does Pelias intend?”). 48 R. Hunter, The Argonautica of Apollonius: literary studies, op. Cit., p. 87-88: “Hera dominates the18This address to Zeus at the end of the voyage recalls one that takes place at its outset, and links the fate of Talus with that of Pelias, as both of them are killed by Medea’s far-reaching power. Talus is felled by a barrage of curses much as a pine tree, abandoned in the forest, half cut by woodsmen, is felled by night breezes (4.1680-88), a simile that in turn recalls the corresponding description of the strength of Heracles, who is said – in a simile that could be taken to suggest that Heracles outsized strength threatens the Argo – to rip a tree from the ground as a wintry wind destroys the mast of a ship (1.1201-1205). Yet unlike Pelias, Talus’ fate is not tied to Argo’s successful voyage: Talus has not offended Hera or any of the other gods, and the Argonauts were already prepared to search for another harbor, although the narrator notes that they were weary and that the detour would have taken them far from Crete and much prolonged their suffering (4.1649-52).
The lack of a pressing reason to kill Talus makes Medea’s single-handed (μούνη 4.1654) assault, her final act in the epic, appear as extreme and unmotivated as Heracles’ self-willed attempt to row the Argo (4.1168-70), and yet it is as beneficial as his killing of the dragon Ladon, an act that similarly saves the Argonauts from further hardship (4.1436-60). Here and elsewhere in the poem Apollonius distinguishes the extremes of power held by autocratic individuals from the benefits of civilized authority that is socially diffused and hierarchically mediated. What is important to note here is that andreia can be transgressive (and/or beneficial) whether a man or a woman exercises it: gender is not the primary determinant for the quality of agency and political authority in the Argonautica. What Apollonius is questioning, it seems to me, is the cost of heroism regardless of who displays it. At the same time, Medea’s reckless self-reliance is contrasted with the representation of Hera as a composite authority figure (let’s call her Arsinoe-Hera-Arete), for with respect to the dynamics of the epic tradition, the querulous, accusatory Medea has effectively supplanted the querulous, accusatory Hera. Hera’s problematic violence in Iliad Book 21 has thus become Medea’s rather more problematic violence in Book 4 (in this episode and against Apsyrtus).
Hera disappears from the narrative once Medea is married, perhaps, as Hunter has suggested, because the Argonauts’ nostos is now assured, but also, if this reading holds, because the poet wishes to distance this new Hera from her powerful instrument. Medea, like Achilles, her better half in the afterlife (4.814-14), is both mortal and mighty, and her destruction of Talus is a simulacrum of an Iliadic duel, as she uses force, βρίμη (4.1674: “le terrible pouvoir” tr. Vian), to ambush a man of bronze just as she ambushes her own family: her half-brother, her children. Like Heracles Medea is ill suited for married life: she shares in the guilt of the Euripidean tragedy that lies before her, but has no part of the diplomatic authority that is exercised in the Argonautica by men and women, gods and goddesses alike.