Camilla Basile, University of Virginia
Apollonius’ relationship with the Muses ὑποφήτορες (1.22) has often been read in terms of the poet’s experimentation between tradition and innovation in the Argonautica. Starting with Gercke (1889), some scholars argued for translating the Apollonian hapax as “interpreters” and advanced the idea of the Muse’s subordination to the poet (Paduano-Faedo 1970; Feeney 1991; Goldhill 1991). The opposite view conceives the Muses in more traditional terms as “inspirers” of the poet (Ardizzoni 1967; Vian 1974; Campbell 1994; Green 2007). Finally, a third school of thought suggests that, as “interpreters”, the Muses fulfill a more collaborative role by helping the poet produce his work or convey clearer messages to the audience (Fusillo 1985; Clauss 1993; DeForest 1994; Morrison 2007).
The idea of the Argonautic Muses as the poet’s “research assistants” (Clauss 1993) is convincing, but I believe that more could be said regarding the scope of Apollonius’ research interests and the Muses’ new role in the creation of his poetry. Following recent studies on Greco-Egyptian biculturalism in the Argonautica (Stephens 2000, 2003, 2008), I argue that the Muses are invoked as “interpreters” in order to assist the poet in both understanding and representing Egyptian traditional material in the poem. I will support my theory by showing how Apollonius’ literary model, the priests and interpreters of the oracle of Zeus at Dodona (Σελλοὶ… ὑποφῆται, Il. 16.234-5), are characterized in Herodotus 2.54-7 as having genealogical ties to Egypt. Their literary association with the Argonautic Muses might therefore suggest that Apollonius imagined his Muses as having equal expertise in two cultural discourses, namely Greek and Egyptian ones, which are both highly significant for the identity formation and cultural development of Ptolemaic Alexandria.