Doors and Doorposts: A Note on the Opening of Book 4 of the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius

Abstract

A textual problem is identified in Book 4 of the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius at 4.26–27. This problem is discussed and explained. A diagnostic conjecture is then proposed.

Keywords:

• Medea’s farewell scene
• doorposts
• doors
• diagnostic conjecture

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 The editions of the Argonautica used in this note are Fränkel (1961) and Vian (1974–1981).

2 Translation by the author.

3 καὶ ἔδωκαν οἱ ἱϵρϵῖς οἱ ϕυλάσσοντϵς τὸν σταθμὸν πᾶν τὸ ἀργύριον τὸ ϵὑρϵθὲν ἐν οἴκῳ Κυρίου, “and the priests that kept the door put [therein] all the money that was found in the house of the Lord”.

4 Parker (2016) on Eur. IT 49 gives a clear explanation of σταθμός as having “a variety of meanings but in an architectural context” as indicating “something that stands upright: a doorpost (Homer) or a column”; see also Gow (1950) on Theocr. 24.15 σταθμὰ κοῖλα θυράων, “σταθμά in connexion with doors means the doorposts, τὰ ἑκατέρωθϵν ξύλα κατὰ πλϵυρὰν τῶν θυρῶν ἃ καὶ παραστάδας ϕασίν (Poll. 1.76)” (“[σταθμοί refers to] the wood on either side of the door which they call παραστάδϵς or doorposts”).

5 Hom. Od. 17.267–268 θύραι δ᾽ ϵὐϵρκέϵς ϵἰσὶ / δικλίδϵς, “and the double doors are well-fenced”.

6 Ap. Rhod. Argon. 1.786–787 ἄνϵσαν δὲ θύρας προϕανέντι θϵράπναι / δικλίδας, “and when he appeared the maids opened the folding doors”.

7 Hom. Il. 12.453–455 ὣς Ἕκτωρ ἰθὺς σανίδων ϕέρϵ λᾶαν ἀϵίρας / αἵ ῥα πύλας ϵἴρυντο πύκα στιβαρῶς ἀραρυίας / δικλίδας ὑψηλάς, “Hector lifted the stone and carried it straight against the planks that closed the gates strong and firmly set. These gates were double and high”. There is some doubt about the interpretation of this passage. While δικλίδας here clearly agrees with πύλας, the point of the description is that Hector attacks the σανίδϵς (the doors which make up the main part of the gateway), which may also be thought of as δικλίδϵς, by close association; see further Ameis and Hentze (1877, 125) ad loc. and Leaf (1886–1888, 421) and for the general construction of the gateway, cf. Hom. Il. 18.275 ὑψηλαί τϵ πύλαι σανίδϵς τ᾽ ἐπὶ τῇς ἀραρυῖαι / μακραὶ ἐΰξϵστοι ἐζϵυγμέναι ϵἰρύσσονται, “high gates and the tall well-polished doors, fixed in and bolted fast”.

8 Hom. Od. 2.344–345 κληισταὶ δ᾽ ἔπϵσαν σανίδϵς πυκινῶς ἀραρυῖαι, / δικλίδϵς, “Shut were the double doors, close-fitted”.

9 Cf. Ap. Rhod. Argon. 3.235–236 πολλαὶ / δικλίδϵς ϵὐπηγϵῖς θάλαμοί τ ̓ ἔσαν ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα, “and round it were many well-fitted doors and chambers”, Arat. 192-193, οἵῃ δὲ κληῖδι θύρην ἔντοσθ᾽ ἀραρυῖαν / δικλίδ᾽ ἐπιπλήσσοντϵς ἀνακρούουσιν ὀχῆας, “like the key of a double door barred within with which men strike and shoot back the bolts”, Anth. Pal. 5.145.1 (Asclep.) = 860 HE στέϕανοι παρὰ δικλίσι ταῖσδϵ, “garlands by these doors”, Anth. Pal. 7.182.3–4 (Meleager) = 4682-4683 HE νύμϕας ἐπὶ δικλίσιν ἄχϵυν / λωτοί καὶ θαλάμων ἐπλαταγϵῦντο θύραι, “the flutes were making music at the door of the bride and the doors of her chamber echoed to knocking hands”, Anth. Pal. 6.173.5 (Rhianos) = 3240 HE πϵρὶ δικλίδι, “at the door of”, Anth. Pal. 5.242.5 (Eratosth. Scholast.) δικλίδος ὑμϵτέρης τὴν βάλανον χαλάσας, “loosening the bolt-pin of your door”, Hesych. δ 1827 = Ι 458 Latte δικλίδϵς· θύραι and see Gow (1950) on Theocr. 14.42.

10 For the ways in which Apollonius adapted Homeric language, see further Merkel (1854; see Fränkel [1961, XVIII] and Fränkel [1964, 118–119] for a description and evaluation of what they contain), Rengakos (1994), Garson (1972, 1–5), Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004, 266–274) and Fantuzzi (2008, 221–241). Campbell (1971, 418) conjectured δικλίδος, offering two parallels, Aratus Phen. 193 (n. 15) and Theoc. Id. 14.42, the latter a conversational passage, with a colloquial tone unlike A's more Homerically influenced diction. “The present usage is at least awkward” (Hunter 2015, ad loc.) Vian (1981) mentions Campbell's suggestion. Livrea (1973) calls it “acuto, ma inutile” and adduces the reference from the Septuagint. Neither of them makes a textual suggestion of his own.

11 There are many examples of this technique quoted in Fantuzzi (2008, 235–241); e.g. (235–236: “Ὑποθημοσύνη is in Homer a dis legomenon in the form ὑποθημοσύνῃσιν ᾿Αθήνης (Hom. Il. 15.412 and Od. 16.233). Apollonius takes it up the first and the second time for Athena’s advice (1.19 ᾿Άργον ᾿Αθηναίης καµέϵιν ὑποθημοσύνῃσι and 1.112 τϵῦξϵν ᾿Αρϵστορίδης κϵίνης – scil. of Athena – ὑποθημοσύνῃσι), and then he frees it from the original context by using it in three other passages unconnected with Athena: 1.367, 2.1146, 3.1246); see also Garson (1972 passim).

12 For examples of metonymy in Ap. Rhod., see Hunter on Argon. 4.552–556, 1325–1326, 1743.

13 Cf. West (1973, 58) on diagnostic conjectures: “ … a conjecture, which, while no one can feel confident that it is right, serves the purpose of indicating the kind of sense that is really required or the kind of corruption that may have occurred”. See also West (1973, 55): “In what circumstances is it legitimate to depart from the paradosis, to entertain a conjecture? Many scholars would answer, “only when it is clear that the paradosis cannot be right”. Those are scholars who will dismiss a conjecture from consideration on the grounds that it is “unnecessary”. But it does not [my italics] have to be “necessary” in order to be true; and what we should be concerned with is whether or not it may be true”. For Maas’ discussion of diagnostic conjectures, see Maas (1957, 33 and 1958, 53). There has been a great deal written about the maintenance of the transmitted text as compared with the acceptance of a possible conjecture, starting with Bentley’s nobis et ratio et res ipsa centum codicibus potiores sunt, Haupt’s, “The prime requisite of a good emendation is that it should start from the thought … If the sense requires it, I am prepared to write Constantinopolitanus where the manuscripts have the monosyllabic interjection o,” and ending with Tarrant’s recent judicial summary of both sides of the argument (2016, 65–84; see especially 76 n. 34, “When E. J. Kenney incautiously stated that ‘the text  …  may be altered only when it is demonstrably [Kenney’s Italics] faulty’, … he was fortunate to get off with a mild reproof from Shackleton Bailey … , ‘the only point of critical theory in the book with which I cannot wholly agree.’”); see also Zurli (2020, 29 n. 36). There is a useful review of his book at Fernández (2021).

14 For other tricola in Ap. Rhod. see Argon. 2.215–216, 3.674–675 (cf. Hunter 1989 ad loc.), 4.1427 (with chiasmus).

15 On Homeric normalisation see further Haslam (1978, 49, 55 and passim), Speake (1974, 114).

16 On-line examination of Laurentianus (Plut.) 32.09 (AD 970), the earliest medieval witness to the transmission of the text (242r: https://bit.ly/3mKx4v3 [Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, digital repository] 13 text lines from the top of the page) shows that the scribe stopped in the middle of writing ἀμϕοτέρωθϵν at ρ, wrote a separate ω (after a space and with some signs of ink-blotting on the second half of the letter), left another space and then added θϵν. This seems to be his usual practice when treating groups of letters. The word must, therefore, have been corrupted before the tenth century.

17 It may, also, be significant when 4.26 is cited by various grammarians and lexica, the citation stops at the end of the line, perhaps supporting the claim that δικλίδας in 4.26 was originally separate from σταθμούς / σταθμῶν, but it could also reflect later scholars’ preference for citing whole lines (this observation is owed to one of the anonymous reviewers; cf. the Etymologicum Gudianum (312.31 Sturz), which quotes the line inaccurately: κϵῖσϵ δὲ ὄντϵ λέχος, καὶ δικλίδας ἀμϕοτέρωθϵν, and also Herodian (3.2, 224.27 Lentz) which has the line in its correct form, stopping the quotation at ἀμϕοτέρωθϵν.

18 See further Hunter (2015, 26).

19 See further Bassett (1905). Further examples in the opening of Book 4 are: 2–3, 16–17, 27–28, 32–33, 50–51.

20 2.168-169 “and now on their beds, now on the very doorposts they shower kisses”.

21 Nonn. Dion. 4.204–205 “she caressed the lifeless, wrought bosses of the much-decorated doors and her bed and the walls of her virginal chamber”. κύκλα must refer to the decoration on the door.

22 Virg. Aen. 2.490 amplexaeque tenent postis atque oscula figunt, “(mothers) cling fast to the doorposts and imprint kisses on them”.

23 He is outside, trying to enter, while Medea is inside about to leave.

24 Lucr. 4.1177–1179 at lacrimans exclusus amator limina saepe floribus et sertis operit postisque superbos unguit amaracino et foribus miser oscula figit, “But the lover shut out, weeping, often covers the threshold with flowers and wreaths, anoints the proud doorposts with oil of marjoram, and presses his love-sick kisses upon the door”.