Talk:Apollonius of Rhodes

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. Egypt Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Libraries Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Greece Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles B This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]