Talk:Apollonius of Rhodes

Note: Since its inception, 8 September 2003, this article has used the formula BCE. Attempting changes to the BC format is a discourtesy.

Wetman

Untitled

Corrected some information, including: the placement in “Ancient Greece” (he was Hellenistic), who Apollonius succeeded as chief librarian (Zenodotus, the first to hold that position; Erastothenes was Apollonios’ successor), the names of the contemporary royalty of Alexandria, and some confused and inaccurate dates. Expanded biography using more modern sources and translations, and added brief discussion of the Argonautica itself.

What else would improve this article – more description of his non-Argonautika work, maybe? Should I split and expand the section on the Argonautika itself? I’d also like at least one other post-1900 translation or commentary, but I don’t know one that’s well-regarded. Aophite 06:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If the brief summary here of Argonautica, now given the affected-but-correct spelling Argonautika, is not a sufficient encapsulation, make it better. Does Hunter's English version supplant Rieu's? --Wetman 12:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added both Rieu and Hunter to the list of translations.

I've also changed the spelling "Argonautika" in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek). For what it's worth, I strongly disagree with the policy outlined there and would prefer "Apollonios", "Argonautika" myself; please feel free to head over there and contribute to the talk page and try to change the policy!!) Petrouchka 23:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I've put in a few "citations needed" tags as a temporary measure until I can track down the bibliographical references, which should be in the course of the next day or so. The previous version cited the Lives in the scholia and some other bits and pieces as sources, but this was inadequate: the sources give radically different information from each other and from what the article says. E.g. the Suda places Apollonius in the early 2nd century BCE, as Eratosthenes' successor rather than his predecessor. Smith's Dictionary of Mythology and Biography follows this; more recent references don't. I'll finish tidying this up in the next 24 hours. Petrouchka 23:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've put in as much about A.'s life as I can based on the evidence I have access to. Unfortunately I don't have access to the actual text of P.Oxy. 1241; it isn't in a library near me, and doesn't seem to be online anywhere.

It was published in vol. 10 of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri; maybe someone who has access to it can fill in the blanks at some point, or else get the Greek text to me to translate. It'd be good to know for example if the papyrus actually specifies a sequence of librarians in order (e.g. Zenodotus - Apollonius - Eratosthenes). I suspect not, in view of Parsons' theory that Callimachus came in between Zenodotus and Apollonius. Petrouchka 01:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

1911 EB questions, and possible birth year

With respect to the question asked by Wetman: it seems that the article in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica is the victim of some of the confusion discussed in this article. It claims floruit 222–181 B.C., and puts the date of Ptolemy Epiphanes appointing him librarian definitively as 196. Given that, and the significant subsequent research from Petrouchka, I think it's not helpful to mention the EB1911 article at all. As another reliable source, the current EB, puts his birth at 295, these second-century dates seem even less likely. And, given the EB source, is that good enough to add the birthdate to this article? David Brooks (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

ETA: The only bit of EB1911 that could be relevant is the judgment that "As to the Argonautica, Longinus’ (De Sublim. p. 54, 19) and Quintilian’s (Instit. x. 1, 54) verdict of mediocrity seems hardly deserved; although it lacks the naturalness of Homer, it possesses a certain simplicity and contains some beautiful passages." The article says this in similar words, but maybe a mention of their names would be appropriate inline (see footnote 23). David Brooks (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I am generally opposed to using the EB1911 as a source in Wikipedia articles because I have found that its is generally outdated on most topics relating to ancient history and, sometimes, its descriptions are downright inaccurate. In general, I believe that newer sources should usually be given preference over older ones. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I do agree with that, but it should be noted that EB1911 is often the only usable source, and often the best source for, say, some of the more obscure 18th century French poets. Certainly outdated biases should be suppressed, and a more modern source can be used, if people can be persuaded to cite them. In any case, my mission is to identify and tag those pieces that do still rely on EB1911, in accordance with WP:CITE, not necessarily add spurious material from it. David Brooks (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)