PL EN. Search Browse About. Article details. Link to site.
|Published (Last):||5 December 2006|
|PDF File Size:||13.45 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.4 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Descubra todo lo que Scribd tiene para ofrecer, incluyendo libros y audiolibros de importantes editoriales. Apollodorus Bibliotheca is often used, though little studied. Like any author, however, Apollodorus has his own aims. As scholars have noticed, he does not include any discussion of Rome and rarely mentions Italy, an absence they link to tendencies of the Second Sophistic, during which period he was writing.
I rene this view by exploring the nature of Apollodorus project as a whole, showing that he creates a system of genealogies that connects Greece with other places and peoples of the ancient world, specically the Near East. The nature of the Bibliotheca allows us to see these myths as a closed system, in which these genealogical connections depend upon the perceived importance of these peoples; e.
It is from this system that Apollodorus excludes Rome, thereby denying the Romans any genealogical connections with the Greeks and thus marking them as being of little importance. The consciousness of Apollodorus decisions is clear from the many opportunities he had to include Rome and the fact that his sources contained myths about Rome or Italy. The Bibliotheca is a tendentious account of Greek myth with its own goals, and our knowledge of Apollodorus aims must condition any use of this text.
Because we know so little about it, Apollodorus Bibliotheca often seems to take on a timeless, canonical quality, as if it were something not to be questioned, and scholars often use it accordingly. The texts most famous student, Sir James Frazer, exemplies this attitude: [Apollodorus] book possesses documentary value as an accurate record of what the Greeks in general believed about the origin and early history of the world and of their race. I also owe a debt of gratitude to Mark Grith, not only for his editorial acumen, but also for nding two anonymous readers who could contribute so much on the subject of Apollodorus; to them, too, I give my thanks.
All mistakes are, of course, my own. Frazer xvii. Classical Antiquity. ISSN p ; e. Copyright by The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. That the Bibliotheca is useful is beyond question; that it is a complete account of Greek myth is not. Despite the seeming dogmatism of his statement, Frazer also noted that Apollodorus curiously omits the Romans and the West more generally in his collection.
It supports rather than conicts with a second-century date. Like many other cultured Greeks of his time the writer liked to forget from time to time the ubiquitous dominance of Rome, and where better to exercise that amnesia than in a work devoted to the safely antique and established Greek myths?
Conceived of in this way, Apollodorus is indulging an escapist fantasy, treating a subject that would require him to stay away from Rome.
But the issue is not so simple and my intent here is to show that the omission of the Romans is not a given as Bowie seems to suggest but a conscious decision on the part of the Bibliothecas author and only a part of his systematic approach to writing myth, which involves the creation of a series of genealogies connecting Greeks with their Mediterranean neighbors, with more important peoples meriting more connections.
Cameron Frazer xii-xiii. Bowie Veyne who argues that many of the trends of the Second Sophistic are actually much older, and so not specic to this period. Like Bowie, however, he does see a nostalgia for independence in authors like Apollodorus For a more nuanced view of Greek identity in this period, see Jones On the unied nature of the Bibliotheca, see Jacob and Scarpi 23, , Drager esp.
Kylintirea non vidi. While other Greek mythographers writing in the Roman period, like Parthenius or Antoninus Liberalis, also include very little Italian or Roman material though even they oer much more than Apollodorus , there is no attempt by such authors to create a narrative account of Greek myth from creation to the death of Odysseus, as in the Bibliotheca.
Parthenius and Antoninus both oer thematic collections, whereas Apollodorus focuses on genealogies and thus casts his net more widely, so we should have dierent expectations of these dierent types of work. For various 7. Cameron x-xi: The Bibliotheca is the only comprehensive mythographic work of its age. Most other mythographers of the Hellenistic and Roman period either have a specialized purpose of one sort or another genealogical lists, love stories, stories of metamorphosis or catasterism ; or else they provide mythographic companions to specic texts.
The closest in terms of general coverage is the Latin Fabulae of Hyginus, though in its present form that work serves more as a chrestomathy and is not organized as a narrative. I qualify this claim by referring to the epigram that Photius Bibl. The epigram suggests completion and the use of the text as a reference, obviating the need to consult individual texts directly.
On this epigram, see now Cameron and On the way genealogical organization marks the Bibliotheca as dierent from other extant works of mythography, see Jacob , who also notes that this choice of organization allows Apollodorus great control over his material and its presentation. Scarpi On Apollodorus sources, see Jourdain-Annequin , Kylintirea , Cameron , and Drager , who separates his discussion into scheinbaren and wirklichen sources of the Bibliotheca.
For a useful table of his source citations, see Scarpi : Smith and Trzaskoma xxxvi-vii neatly present the range of possibilities for Apollodorus relation to his sources. I will return to the issue of Apollodorus sources when discussing his exclusion of Italy and Rome.
Thus, even in the scant fragments of the Catalogue, we have references to women who do not appear in the Bibliotheca. For the present argument, however, a full knowledge of the relationship of the Bibliotheca to earlier works is not essential. My assumption is that unless we hypothesize a work that covered all the material the Bibliotheca covers, Apollodorus undertook a not inconsiderable amount of collection, compression, and organization of the material available to him.
Further support for this argument will come in the section on Rome and Apollodorus possible sources for those sections, below. As Brunt notes: Fragments and even epitomes reect the interests of the authors who cite or summarize lost works as much as or more than the characteristics of the works concerned. On the Bibliotheca and Apollodorus of Athens, see Robert Schwartz , argues against using the Bibliotheca to restore the Catalogue; West , argues that they are close enough that the Bibliotheca can help restore the basic outline and sections of the Catalogue; Drager , agrees; cf.
Drager On the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, see now the papers in Hunter , almost all of which, following West, operate under the assumption that Apollodorus followed the basic outline of the Catalogue. A welcome exception is Fletcher , who questions the circular logic of using the Bibliotheca to restore the Catalogue. Cameron rightly observes that Apollodorus must have been following multiple sources. The most obvious omission from the Bibliotheca is Mestra, daughter of Erysichthon, the subject of one of the longest extant fragments of the Catalogue fr.
If Apollodorus was using the Catalogue, then, he clearly adapted the material to t his patrilineal focus, and also excluded other myths. On patterns in the Catalogue of Women, see Osborne , who focuses on the role of women in the poem, outlining a general plot that stresses the physical beauty and fertility of the women involved. This focus on women is remarkably dierent from the male-driven plot of the Bibliotheca.
Brunt His remarks throughout on the degree to which epitomes can vary from their source are salutary. Erskine 30, who makes the point that citations are never neutral.
Smith and Trzaskoma xvi: We have much to learn by looking at the mythographers explicit and implicit criteria of inclusion, what they nd most important when summarizing, how they attempt to reconcile variants or relate two dierent myths, and their place in transmitting myth in the wider culture. They also note that the degree of organization in the Bibliotheca suggests that Apollodorus brought a clear idea of what he was doing to whatever he found in his sources xxxv.
It is also necessary to move past the old view that the Bibliotheca was simply a school text Robert 35; Wagner xxxiii; van der Valk esp.
It may seem to some that we are foundering on the rocks with the phrase at this time, since we cannot say for sure when Apollodorus was writing. Otherwise, we must rely on Apollodorus Greek, which seems to belong to the second or third century CE. We need not rely on such an articial term, however, or think too much about periodization, since it is the general characteristics of this time that are signicant here: the Roman Empire had solid control over the Mediterranean world, and there was a certain though perhaps overstated revival of Greek culture.
Broadly speaking, this is the milieu in which Apollodorus was writing, and it is within this context that we must try to place the Bibliotheca and its system of genealogies. Genealogy is a powerful tool in the Bibliotheca as elsewhere, because genealogies oer a picture of perceived connections between peoples and places and times; they are, in short, a reection of a perceived reality: Genealogies put things in their place. On the level of the individual, as exemplied by heroes genealogical recitations in oers a more nuanced view on such a works purpose, observing that students would need the same mythological information that any ancient reader would.
I continue to use the name Apollodorus for the sake of convenience, and do not place as much stock in the supposed anonymity of this author as others do cf. Scarpi 5, For references to the Bibliotheca, I give rst the three numbers as used in Frazers Loeb edition, and then the numbers used in Wagners Teubner.
Scarpi conveniently uses both numbers in his edition. Cameron rightly observes that a reference like that to Castor could come from Apollodorus own reading. Even such a brief reference helps remind us that there is an author behind the Bibliotheca. Some, however, have athetized this reference; cf. I am content to use their range of dates: West 8.
Asquith This type of thinking underlies the approach of Fowler and, in many ways, Jones and Hall And West could just as easily be talking about the Bibliotheca when he says of the Catalogue that: It did not consist merely of a congeries of traditional data about remote periods which the poet happened to have acquired.
It consisted of traditional material shaped, adjusted, combined, augmented, recomposed by him in accordance with his own conceptions. It reected the view-point of his own time and place. This is one important reason why dierent poets and logographers frequently gave divergent accounts. Each had his own perspective and was supplied with dierent material by his cultural environment. This dierence between accounts is what requires us to talk about a specic Homeric or Hesiodic or Apollodoran view of Greek myth as opposed to Greek myth as some unied whole.
Thus, Apollodorus account is useful on two levels: the general and the specic, or the broader Greek level and his individual view which reects on his own times and the circumstances under which he was writing. The Bibliotheca is a synthesis of Greek mythic material gleaned from the earliest sources available to Apollodorus, directly or indirectly, linked together by an extended series of systematic genealogies.
It is a work of individual scholarship for Greeks written by a Greek living under the Roman Empire, who expresses his worldview through a genealogical mapping of the world around him, a conceptual map with mainland Greece at the center. For the latter example, see West More generally, see Jones , who traces the political importance of kinshipoften established though such genealogiesfrom the Archaic period to late antiquity.
West For a brief discussion of such Greek genealogies as Hellenocentric, see Hall For genealogy as a conceptual map, see Fowler 1 and Erskine
This theme must have been particularly significant for Polybius. For him, Rome was the most perfect example of a mixed government system, and the aim of describing its history was to show the development of this perfect system. The article presents the mutual relation of theory and history, starting with the period of kingship, up to the emergence of the democratic element, i. Both the political and social contexts of the changes are outlined. The analysis suggests that Polybius related his political theory to the history of the state he admired, thus providing the theory with actual foundations. Reconstructing his analysis makes it possible to see the history of Rome in a different light, and to ponder the system itself and its decline, even though the main objective of both Polybius and this article is to present its development. Polibiusz, Dzieje , t.
Oh no, there's been an error
In ancient Rome, the hearth and the state were protected by the goddess Vesta. Inside her temple, an eternal flame was burning. The flame of Vesta was guarded by virgin priestesses in Rome called Vestal Virgins. According to Horace, they were perceived as one of the symbols of everlasting Rome, next to the Pontifex Maximus and the Capitoline Hill. Virgines Vestales guarded the eternal flame in Rome for over a thousand years.