Sentencia Proceso No 29118

Asper opens his article about Callimachus’ use of scientific ideas by stating that, “third century Alexandria saw not only the emergence of new styles of art and poetry but also

major innovations and achievements in both pure and applied science.”180 The idea of the

Hellenistic period as a distinct era has recently come into question, however, with respect                                                                                                                        

to the developments in poetry and to the political changes after Alexander.181 In the

sciences, the importance of Aristotle for the work done in the 3rd century has long been

realized.182 Asper’s statement still remains true, however, and even the greater emphasis

on continuity with the past does not belie the exciting changes taking place in the third century. In some ways, my time frame has been chosen for me by the surviving

evidence, but that does not make it arbitrary. The creation of institutions in which poets and scientists were both essential participants, such as the Mouseion at Alexandria, created a culture that fostered cross-pollination. In the ordering of my chapters, I have followed the chronology of the poets, and I have avoided the temptation to overlay a strong narrative onto the dissertation, but both Apollonius and Nicander are clearly

influenced, in their own ways, by Aratus.183 There are quite important differences

between each of these poets, and their different subjects, generic aims, and even

geographical (and chronological) locations contribute to make their work very dissimilar in some ways. Nevertheless, they do belong in the same conversation, and I will draw connections between their works.

In my first chapter, I consider the Phaenomena as an important breakthrough in

scientific poetry. I first show the interrelation of Aratus’ poetry and the subject matter, and that his interest in signs permeates every aspect of the poem. Aratus has a coherent theory of signs, one that can be situated within contemporary intellectual currents and that extends to his own metapoetics. Signs in poetry allow him to discuss the

181 _{On the subject of poetry, and continuity in the Hellenistic period with what came before, Acosta-Hughes} (2010). As for political continuity, see Shipley (2000), pp.1-3.

182 _{See Lloyd (1973).}

183 _{The dating of each of these poets will be discussed in their respective chapters, but I have not strayed} from the standard chronology.

accessibility of his work and its value as a teaching text. The success of Aratus’ poem then creates a framework for scientific poetry that the later poems connect themselves to and deviate from.

I next explore Apollonius’ position within third century geographical debates. I argue that the nature of geography as a discipline is a problem throughout the Hellenistic period, and that Apollonius and Eratosthenes are, in their own ways, attempting to define it. At stake in this discussion is the role of poetry within the discipline, and especially of

Homer. Apollonius’ Argonautica offers a picture of the oikoumene that is carefully

constructed and consistent with both current knowledge and Homeric precedent,

providing an argument that Homer and poetry have a place in geographical discourse. In it, he uses the signs left by the experiences of the Argonauts to show his own authority on the subject, and the role of archaic poetry in the study of geography.

I conclude with the two surviving poems of Nicander, the Theriaca and the

Alexipharmaca. Whereas sufficient other works survive to discuss the previous two poets within the context of their respective disciplines, Nicander is our only window onto the state of medicine in the late Hellenistic period, and he is the earliest source of

toxicological information at all. Nicander’s relationship to the study of toxicology at the time can only be seen in glimpses, but his relationship to earlier Hellenistic poetry is much clearer. In this chapter I consider how Nicander connects his own poetry to Aratus through the use of signs, explores the ambiguity of biological diversity, and ultimately shows the life-saving power of scientific poetry.

These are three different poets, operating in different fields of science, and writing with different generic aims. Apollonius’ difference from Aratus and Nicander is clearest, but Aratus and Nicander, although composing in the same genre, do not share the same goals. Aratus sincerely desires to teach something he thinks can be understood with some certainty, whereas Nicander explores ambiguity and uncertainty. Nevertheless, there are important themes that run through all of these texts. The first is the

commitment to the role of poetry in the transmission of knowledge and the authority inherent in archaic epic. All three of these poets create a strong connection between their own compositions and Hesiod and Homer. The role that archaic poetry played in the gathering of information in the Hellenistic Period, shaped by the scholarship on those works, is essential to the presentation of scientific information within these works. Second is their complicated relationship with their prose sources. Each author interacts with prose authors differently, offering alternative models of how authority can be transferred between prose and verse. Thirdly, there is a strong emphasis on the organization of content as an important step in understanding it. Each poet finds a different answer to the question of how one systematizes a large and unwieldy body of information, but it is a central focus for each of the poems under consideration in this dissertation. Finally, and most importantly, is the thread of signs that runs from poet to poet. Aratus’ theory of signs is the most developed and it is a central feature of his work, but signs recur in the work of Apollonius and Nicander, as well. Their signs represent a

connection of their own work to the Phaenomena, and a proof of their truth-value that is

CHAPTER 1: ARATUS, THE POET OF SIGNS