Apollodorus of Athens

In P.Oxy. 2260, col. I (from Apollodorus' treatise About the Gods, 2nd c. BCE) Athena's epithet δολιχάορος is rejected, since a correct etymology of it is inconsistent with the iconography of the goddess. A new reading of the papyrus offers a more correct analysis of this very passage. The comment aims also to show how much Apollodorus ows to his teacher Aristarchus, from the antiquarian point of view (the armour of the Homeric heroes) as well as from the rhetorical one (which is confirmed by many Aristonicean scholia). Significantly, P.Oxy. 2260 attests the use of the term τρόπος in a rhetorical sense, thereby predating the hitherto first known occurrences of it (Philodemus and Cicero). The Hellenistic debate on the poetic term ἄορ (Philetas; Callimachus) is also reconstructed, as well as the ancient interpretations of Apollo's epithet χρυσάορος. Finally, some reflections on the categories used by Apollodorus in interpreting the divine epithets.

Parallels between ἱστορίαι in the Homeric D-Scholia and the mythographic handbook attributed to a certain ‘Apollodorus’ have troubled the scholarship on the MH from its very beginnings. Even before Panzer coined the term ‘Mythographus Homericus’ (1892), these parallels have influenced investigations into the authenticity and reliability of the subscriptions as Julius Schwartz (1878) and Eduard Schwartz (1881) pointed to discrepancies between ἱστορίαι linked to ‘Apollodorus’s’ Bibliotheca and their subscriptions.

While the twin matters of authenticity and reliability have now been settled for the MH corpus in general, they remain a contentious issue for the ‘Apollodorus’ ἱστορίαι. It is still open to debate whether the subscriptions to ‘Apollodorus’ are authentic (and for that matter, whether the ἱστορίαι were part of the original MH collection) and whether they are reliable witnesses to the relationship between the MH and ‘Apollodorus’.

Taken into consideration these and other ms. ἱστορίαι that to a varying extent correspond to Bibliotheca passages, this paper discusses four scholarly positions on this matter and offers some notes on the ramifications for the edition of the MH corpus.

This article proposes a reading of the relationship between Nepos and Catullus in poem 1, using fr. 7 Marshall as evidence of Nepos’ ability to interpret and evaluate in the Chronica the great poets (in this case in point Archilochus) according to the Hellenistic perspective.

Palamedes hat wie nur wenige andere mythische Figuren in Einklang mit seiner he­ roischen Vergangenheit religiöse Verehrung erfahren1 und wurde als für die allge­ meine Kulturentwicklung bedeutsame Persönlichkeit angesehen, vergleichbar ei­ nem Daidalos, Kadmos, Linos, Orpheus oder gar Prometheus. Er ist der einzige griechische Held des troischen Sagenkreises, der sich vor allen anderen Mitstreitern er stellt selbst den listenreichen Odysseus in den Schatten an Klugheit und Er­ findungsgabe, an Umsicht und sozialer Nützlichkeit auszeichnet und einen gewalt­ samen Tod durch seine Kameraden erleidet und der doch von Homer mit keinem Wort erwähnt wird. Die nachfolgende Literatur läßt ihn in den verschiedensten Far­ ben erscheinen, so daß eine kurze oder pauschale Charakterisierung ihm zwangsläu­ fig Unrecht tun würde. Warum er bei späteren griechischen und lateinischen Auto­ ren so beliebt ist, was an ihm fasziniert und welche Intentionen der jeweiligen Be­ schäftigung mit ihm zugrunde...

A new reading is offered of a passage from the Chronica of Apollodorus which is about the Academic philosopher Melanthius of Rhodes (P.Herc. 1021 col. XXXI,1–20). As well as smaller textual improvements, the new reconstruction of the text shows in particular that the Academic was able to enjoy great wealth and preferred to pursue his studies in Athens.

Μια αναψηλάφηση ενός ανάγλυφου ναΐσκου της Μητέρας των Μεγάλων Θεών από την Αμφίπολη, φιλοτεχνημένου στα χρόνια της καθίδρυσης του ιερού μνημείου του Καστά κατά τον 4ο π.Χ. αιώνα. Αναζητώντας τους Μεγάλους Θεούς, την ταυτότητα της Μητρός, την ερμηνεία του λέοντος και της μεσόμφαλου φιάλης, υπό το πρίσμα κραταιών ελληνικών παραδόσεων, ως προς την αρχαία θεολογία, κοσμογονία και ζωογονία. Τονίζοντας βασικά σημεία και παραλληλισμούς των Καβείρων και φωτίζοντας τον κομβικό ρόλο του Ερμού Καδμίλου, της Εκάτης και των Κορυβάντων.

"ENGLISH: Having been freed at the beginning of the IVth century BC, the former slave Pasion becomes a banker and gathers prestige thanks to the services he accomplishes towards the city of Athens and the relationships he manages to create with political personalities. Eventually he obtains the Athenian citizenship both for himself and his descendants. Thus, besides the great amount of money he has earned throughout his life, it is a real capital of social prestige that Pasion leaves to his son Apollodorus at his death. It seems to be easy for Apollodorus to walk further on the path of his father and conquer a place on the Athenian political scene. Nevertheless, ancient sources show us a man unable to achieve such a goal. Instead, Apollodorus looks obsessed by the need to reaffirm in public his status of citizen. By the case of Pasion and Apollodorus, this paper focuses on the way personal skills could generate prestige in classical Athens. Did the wealth brought by this prestige alone allow crossing Athenian social barriers?

FRENCH: Après son affranchissement au début du IVe siècle av. J.-C., Pasion, un ancien esclave devenu banquier, sait à la fois s’illustrer par les services qu’il rend à la cité d’Athènes et nouer des rapports avec les personnalités politiques. Cela lui vaut, vers la fin de son existence, la concession de la citoyenneté athénienne pour lui et pour ses descendants. À côté des énormes richesses accumulées, donc, c’est un capital de prestige social que Pasion lègue à son fils Apollodore au moment de sa mort. Celui-ci semblerait avoir toutes les cartes en main pour franchir la dernière étape du parcours social entamé par son père et conquérir une place sur la scène politique. Cependant, il apparaît tourmenté par le besoin de réaffirmer en public son statut de citoyen, et il ne sait pas s’imposer.
À travers le cas de Pasion et Apollodore, cette contribution analyse la façon dont les capacités personnelles pouvaient faire naître le prestige dans l’Athènes classique. Est-ce que les moyens économiques issus de ce prestige permettaient à eux seuls de franchir les barrières sociales de la cité athénienne ?"

It is well-known that C. Nepos’ Chronica strongly depended from Apollodorus of Athens’ hom¬onymous work but, though accepting the latter’s datation of many important events of Greek archaic epoch, offered a different date of Homer’s akmé – 914, against Apollodorus’ 944. Jacoby argued that Nepos confused akmé and nomoqesiva in the biography of Lycurgus, which was related to – and helped to determine – Homer’s one. This correct view can be precised : Nepos, in the passage of Apollodorus’ Chronikà dedicated to the Spartan lawgiver, read that Lycurgus lived 30 years later than Homer ; wrongly, Nepos intended that 884, when the Spartan lawgiver was 70 years old and began the renowned constitutional reforms, was the latter’s akmé – i.e. 40th year of the man. Accordingly, Nepos deduced a new Homeric acme at 914 : the Leichtigkeitsfehler Jacoby charges him with, is that Nepos did not check this datation in the previous passage, within Apollodorus’ Chronikà, dedicated to Homer’s biography. The authour of the Latina his-toria, source of Jerome’ Canons for the Alban period, put Homer at an even lower date, near to Lycurgus’ reforms : probably he relied on Nepos, but wrongly intended that the poet and the lawgiver were contemporary – a misunderstanding in addition to the previous one.

Steph. Byz, s.v. Ἀλαλκομένιον, who ascribes to Aristarchus the allegorical interpretation of Athena’s epithet Ἀλαλκομενηΐς, is not reliable; in my opinion, we are dealing with an ill-preserved passage of Apollodorus’ theological work Περὶ θεῶν. Having the Apollodorean treatment of Poseidon’s epithet Ἑλικώνιος (244 FGrHist 353) as a reference point, it is possible to reconstruct that of Ἀλαλκομενηΐς. Apollodorus gave an allegorical interpretation of it (Athena as ‘she who wards off the enemies with her fury’); he quoted also that of this teacher Aristarchus, which likely was a geographical one (Ἀλαλκομενηΐς appears two times in Homer, always beside Hera’s epithet Ἀργείη [Δ 8, Ε 908]); Apollodorus reported also Aristarchus’ objections against previous allegorical interpretations (should the epithet come from ἀλαλκεῖν, it would be ἀλαλκηΐς). This Apollodorean passage was strongly altered before coming to Stephanus, probably by the grammarian Epafroditus of Chaeronea (I AD), who introduced a new rationalistic interpretation; the Aristarchean one was cast out, the latter’s name was wrongly referred to the allegorical interpretation, and the etymological objection he raised was used against who conceived it. The case of Ἀλαλκομενηΐς, such as that of Ἑλικώνιος, shows how much the Apollodorus of Περὶ θεῶν – an old scholar – was still bound to Aristarchus’ categories, though applied to new purposes – surely not Aristarchean – the theological ones.

In the first part of this resentation, an important point is dealt with: Strabo, who held Ephorus in high esteem (after Diodorus, he is the most important source of Ephorus' fragments), made chiefly use of the first books of his "Histories" (I-III and IV-V, of mythographic and, respectively, antiquarian and geographical nature) in order to describe the ancient history of single Greek regions; an alternative source for Strabo was the "Commentary on the Homeric Catalogue of ships" by Apollodorus of Athens which, being a more recent work, enabled him to know whether the more ancient Ephorean version was outdated or not.
In the second part, Strabo's Delphic essay (IX 3, 5-12), attributable to Ephorus (quoted at the end: IX 3, 11-12), is discussed. There are several reasons for this attribution: the antiquarian nature of the section; its internal unity; its complementarity with Ephorus' narration about the ktisis of the sanctuary; the re-emergence of an episode from Diod. XVI; the compatibility of the quotation with Strabo's historical picture. In this extensive passage, some important elements of Ephorus' method are shown, such as the use of literature as a historical source (Pindar, but also Homer and Aeschylus, Eum.) and the possible use of autoptical data, such as inscriptions or signs of the recent Phocean plunder. Delphic history is viewed deterministically, with its riches being favoured by its central position, and its sanctuary suffering a succession of attempted or successful plunders.

Apollodorus’ interpretation of Hermes’ epithets ἀκάκητα, σῶκος and ἐριούνιος, from his theological treatise Περὶ θεῶν, can be reconstructed comparing the most important (and chronological near) witnesses of the work, the Homeric lexicon by Apollonius the Sophist (I sec. AD?), Cornutus’ allegorical manual (I sec. AD) and the Homeric allegories by Heraclitus (I-II AD?). Apollonius’ lexicon is fundamental, inasmuch its author is not interested in altering Apollodorus’ interpretations. According to this reconstruction, Apollodorus intented ἐριούνιος as the «helpful» (from ὀνίνημι), σῶκος as the «strong» (from the Attic verb σωκέω, «to have the strength») – in this case Cornutus is useful to integrate Apollonius’ text – ἀκάκητα as the «giver of no evil» (perfectly complementary of the Homeric epithet δώτωρ ἐάων, «giver of goods»). These epithets reflect the highly positive nature of the god, seen by Apollodorus as the «reason» (λόγος). F. 5 Bernabé from the poem Phoronis, quoted in Et.M. s.v. ἐριούνιος, probably is mediated through Apollodorus’ Περὶ θεῶν (Appendix).

Aristonico di Alessandria (I a.C.), grammatico greco operante a Roma, è più celebre come esegeta dei segni critici che il grande Aristarco di Samotracia aveva apposto ai poemi omerici; Strabone però (I 2, 31) ricorda come egli abbia affrontato un tema trascurato dell'esegesi omerica antica, cioè i viaggi di Menelao, descritti brevemente dallo stesso eroe (Odissea IV vv. 82-85: "giunsi all'ottavo anno, dopo aver vagato per Cipro, la Fenicia e gli Egizi, e raggiunsi gli Etiopi e i Sidoni e gli Erembi, e la Libia"). La monografia che Aristonico dedica alle questioni suscitate da questi versi ("Sui viaggi di Menelao"), riassunta da Strabone nei capitoli successivi (I 2, 31-35), è stata estrapolata e ampiamente commentata a livello testuale e contenutistico. L'epitome di questa monografia di tarda età ellenistica è ancora in grado di mostrarci il metodo seguito dal grammatico, guidato dalle categorie aristarchee, e alle prese con problemi letterari, ma anche storici, geografici, financo astronomici e idro-geologici. L'analisi del più ampio contesto straboniano (I 2, 1-40) ha permesso di determinare meglio la presenza delle autorità citate-Eratostene, Ipparco, Polibio, Apollodoro di Atene, Posidonio, Demetrio di Scepsi-chiarendo tanti dettagli del vigoroso dibattito di età ellenistica sulla veridicità della poesia, e anche di fare alcune ipotesi sul metodo di lavoro del Geografo, nonché sulla cronologia della composizione dei suoi Geographikà.

Apollodoro di Atene (II sec. a.C.), grande opera in dodici libri in cui veniva descritta la storia della Grecia anteriore e immediatamente successiva ai Troikà 1 , è alla base dei libri straboniani sulla Grecia e parzialmente sull'Asia minore; per quanto questa e altre opere apollodoree (ad es. il Perˆ qeîn) siano citate dai commentatori della prima età imperiale (ad es. Didimo, Teone, Epafrodito [su cui cfr. 2.2.C], il Mythographus Homericus), attraverso i quali riemergono nei corpora scoliastici a Sofocle, Apollonio Rodio, Omero 2 , tuttavia il Geografo rimane il testimone principale per ricostruire il Commento al Catalogo 3 .

Modern editions of ps. Apollodorus’s Library (L) include three fragments, transmitted by the Scholia to Lycophron, about the settlements established in Libya, Crete, Thrace, Italy and Iberia, by some heroes in their journey back from Troy. The content of these fragments is a matter that simultaneously concerns mythography, historiography and geography. They were ascribed to the lost section of L, since some of these settlements overlap the ones briefly mentioned in a passage of the Epitome Vaticana (E) and of the Fragmenta Sabbaitica (S), both of them regarded as extracts of L which partially preserve also its last chapters. The fact that the name of Apollodorus is actually mentioned by these scholia as an authority endorses their inclusion among the fragments of L. However, the analysis of the way in which E and S abridge L reveals that the changes introduced by the epitomators are not deep enough to explain all the differences between them and the Scholia. We might simply assume that the annotator of Lycophron has enriched the account of L with other materials, but normal practice in scholiastic commentaries does not support this hypothesis, rather pointing to a common source between L and the Scholia. In this sense, the Apollodorus quoted in the Scholia could be, instead of the anonymous mythographer, the authentic Apollodorus of Athens. If this interpretation is accepted, it would not only restore three new fragments of the Athenian historian and grammarian, but it also invites to reinvestigate the problem of the relationship between the Athenian and the anonymous mythographer, a topic largely neglected in last decades, and to reconsider the attribution of the mythographical scholia which mention Apollodorus as authority.

It is well-known that C. Nepos’ Chronica strongly depended from Apollodorus of Athens’ hom¬onymous work but, though accepting the latter’s datation of many important events of Greek archaic epoch, offered a different date of Homer’s akmé – 914, against Apollodorus’ 944. Jacoby argued that Nepos confused akmé and nomoqesiva in the biography of Lycurgus, which was related to – and helped to determine – Homer’s one. This correct view can be precised : Nepos, in the passage of Apollodorus’ Chronikà dedicated to the Spartan lawgiver, read that Lycurgus lived 30 years later than Homer ; wrongly, Nepos intended that 884, when the Spartan lawgiver was 70 years old and began the renowned constitutional reforms, was the latter’s akmé – i.e. 40th year of the man. Accordingly, Nepos deduced a new Homeric acme at 914 : the Leichtigkeitsfehler Jacoby charges him with, is that Nepos did not check this datation in the previous passage, within Apollodorus’ Chronikà, dedicated to Homer’s biography. The authour of the Latina his¬toria, source of Jerome’ Canons for the Alban period, put Homer at an even lower date, near to Lycurgus’ reforms : probably he relied on Nepos, but wrongly intended that the poet and the lawgiver were contemporary – a misunderstanding in addition to the previous one.

XI International Congress of the International Plutarch Society: The Dynamics of Intertextuality in Plutarch

(Université de Fribourg, May 10-13, 2017)


Abstract:
In two famous passages of the Moralia (Quaest. Conv. 725c, E ap. Delph. 393c) Plutarch states that painters and dyers say of mingled pigments that they are “destroyed” (fqeivresqai), and call the process “destruction” (fqorav). Since Plutarch uses the same word, fqorav, to define also the innovation introduced in the art of painting by the painter Apollodorus of Athens, art historians and archaeologists have read Plutarch’s words as the indication of an artistic terminology used by painters themselves to define their work. Therefore, they have tried to explain the technical meaning of this terminology by the comparison with other literary sources on painting as well as the archaeological evidence, but unfortunately without reaching a final conclusion.
This paper aims at discussing again the issue in the light of Plutarch’s literary, philosophical and cultural knowledge, that is within Plutarchean dynamics of intertextuality. In fact, the analysis of the texts shows an overlapping of literary quotations – in particular from Homer – philosophical thoughts and philological debates on the Iliad. Nonetheless, until now these aspects have been neglected in the evaluation of Plutarch’s statements, so that it has led to a misunderstanding of the texts themselves and their wrong use in the modern debate on ancient painting.
Through this case study, the paper will show how the dynamics of intertextuality, intratextuality and interdiscursivity overlap and intertwine in the same text. It also will point out their value as a research method in the understanding of Plutarch’s text and in the use of the information it transmits.

Apollodoros relied for Archilochos' date either directly upon his poems, upon Aristarchus' commentary on the poems, if this were available, upon Aristarchos' sources for his commentary (including Aristophanes of Byzantium?), if not the commentary itself, or upon a combination of these.  Fragment 216 suggests that Archilochos' date was aligned with the Greco-Karian expedition to Egypt in 664/663 BCE, a date precisely recorded in Egyptian annals and available to Aristarchos and so to Apollodoros.

Tracce di Apollodoro di Atene in Velleio Patercolo: la Tessaglia d'età eroica È noto da gran tempo (Lehrs, De Aristarchi studiis Homericis, 1833, p. 237; Sauppe, M. Velleius Paterculus, 1837, p. 145-6; Rhode, Studien zur Chronologie, 1881, p. 551) che Velleio Patercolo, quando espone la storia greca più antica, conserva, attraverso i Chronica di Nepote, molto dell'omonima opera di Apollodoro di Atene (II sec. a.C.); tra questo materiale vi è una discussione sulla Tessaglia dell'età eroica (Hist. Rom. I 3, 1-2), che non è stata mai esaminata in quanto frammento apollodoreo. Il passo riguarda il nome della Tessaglia, quando ha iniziato ad essere tale e per opera di quale eponimo. Punto del contendere è come valutare la testimonianza omerica, che non conosce il nome di Tessaglia ma l'eponimo Tessalo, padre di Fidippo che partecipa alla guerra troiana. La tesi sostenuta è che il nome di Tessaglia sia successivo ai Troikà, e che l'eponimo non sia il Tessalo omerico, ma uno successivo, nipote di Fidippo. Ciò combacia con i dati apollodorei provenienti da Strabone, per cui la Tessaglia, in età eroica, si chiamava 'Argo Pelasgico' (Hom. B 681). Inoltre in Patercolo emerge un criterio, che è la distinzione tra ciò che è detto dal narratore (ex persona poetae) e dal personaggio dell'epoca (sub eorum qui illo tempore vixerunt), che risale ad Aristarco, maestro di Apollodoro: l'uso del metodo aristarcheo è indizio della presenza del grammatico di Atene. Il frammento apollodoreo 244 FGrHist 164 (da leggere a fianco di Strab. IX 5, 23), dopo varie spiegazioni (la dossografia ampia è tipica del grammatico), alla fine vede citata quella che abbiamo letto in Patercolo, anche se in forma semplificata (il Tessalo è quello pre-troiano, ma la denominazione della regione è post-troiana): verosimilmente si tratta di una aplologia, causata dalla presenza nella stessa genealogia di due eponimi omonimi. La testimonianza di Patercolo è essenziale per ricostruire la tesi apollodorea: 1) perché la riporta in modo più ampio e corretto del fr. 164 e Strabone; 2) perché ci permette di riconoscerla come tale: in questi ultimi testimoni sono riportate numerose spiegazioni, come è tipico del Commento al Catalogo; ma Patercolo dipende dalle Cronache del grammatico: ciò significa che la tesi cui Apollodoro tiene, è quella della nascita post-troiana del nome della Tessaglia, tanto da ripeterla nella sua opera cronachistica.