A—
The Passive Heroism of Jason in Perspective (1280–1344)
Scholarly interest in the Argonautic sojourn in Mysia has focused, by and large, on the story of Heracles and Hylas, and especially on how it compares with the Theocritean version of the tale. Few critics have observed how Apollonius successfully integrated this etiological story within its larger context, appreciation of which does not depend on knowledge of the relative dating of the two third-century versions.[42] As becomes readily apparent once one perceives the balanced structure of the episode, Heracles' reaction to the loss of Hylas stands in sharp contrast to Jason's response to the loss of Heracles. In this way, Apollonius has brought the story of Hylas fully within the larger framework of his thematic contrast between the man of strength and the man of skill, and in particular between Heracles and Jason.
When the Argonauts notice that their three comrades are missing, a 
(1284) ensues. This 
, like that on the beach at Pagasae, threatens to undermine the unity of the group, an extremely dangerous situation, since unified action is even more important now that the Argonauts cannot count on the assistance of Heracles. The crisis is real, and the way in which Apollonius describes their dispute is significant:
Among them a violent disagreement ensued, an unspeakable
argument as to whether they left behind the best of their comrades
when they set off.
The question behind the dispute is worded ambiguously. Although the 
appears to arise over the reason for Heracles' abandonment—whether or not it was deliberate[43] —a second glance at the wording reveals another side to the issue at hand: Have they left behind the best of the Argonauts? This now becomes the central question of the episode, and its answer becomes the climactic finish of the book as a whole.
There is no doubt that Heracles is the strongest of the Argonauts. Apollonius has just given us a vivid portrayal of his enormous strength in the rowing contest. Elsewhere in the poem there are not only clear indications of what his contemporaries thought of him,[44] but also unambiguous indications that he could have performed the expedition by himself.[45] Strength, however, is not the sole factor to be considered in determining the nature or identity of the best of the Argonauts. At Pagasae, Jason described the best man as the one who concerns himself with all the details, especially those involving treaties ( 
) and the settlement of conflicts ( 
). As it happens, Jason was describing his own approach to leadership. Besides taking care of all the details prior to their departure, Jason also intervened successfully in the argument ( 
, 492) between Idas and Idmon at Pagasae (cf. 494). He will likewise succeed in managing the present argument ( 
, 1284), one that questions whether in leaving behind Heracles they have abandoned the best of the Argonauts.
When the Argonauts realize that Heracles is no longer among them, Jason at first finds himself at a complete loss and neither does nor says anything:[46]
Stunned and helpless,
the son of Æson spoke not a word either this way
or that, but sat, eating his heart out
because of this grievous misfortune.
Telamon reacts to the loss of his friend just as Heracles reacted to the loss of Hylas: immediately and without any reflection. Like Idas at Pagasae, he misinterprets Jason's silence and, as a result, becomes furious, believing that Jason had schemed to abandon Heracles (1290–93). The suspicion that Telamon entertains—that Jason wanted to get rid of the one whose glorious achievements would far outshine his own—is erroneous. But it is not implausible, especially given the issue of 
, which was at stake in the election (cf. 1.351). First of all, Telamon's strong feelings toward Heracles are understandable given his close association with Heracles on several expeditions, chiefly those against the Amazons and the Trojans, as Sad 1.1289–91 observed.[47] Second, the men had originally chosen Heracles as their leader, and on Lemnos Heracles had even taken Jason to task for the excessive amount of time he spent with Hypsipyle, thereby delaying their expedition. For these reasons, Jason might well have harbored bad feelings against Heracles. Moreover, Jason's inability to respond could appear to signify acceptance of Telamon's charges.[48]
At the conclusion of his brief speech, Telamon states that he will return to Mysia to find Heracles. His words recall a climactic moment in the Iliad , when Achilles realizes that although he
has everything that Zeus promised, he has lost his dear comrade Patroclus:[49]
But what profit is there in words? For I shall go even despite your
comrades who have fabricated this plot together with you.
Mother of mine, the Olympian god has fulfilled my wishes.
But what profit is there in this, since my dear comrade has died,
Patroclus, whom I honored above all comrades,
even as I do myself.
The contrast between the Argonautic passage and its model is striking. In the Homeric context, Achilles, enraged by the death of Patroclus, which took away any enjoyment he might have had of the fulfillment of Zeus's promises, chose to rejoin his compatriots and do battle with Hector, which he knew would lead to his own death. On the other hand, Telamon is about to abandon the expedition after jumping to a mistaken conclusion about the abandonment of his companion, who, at the time the Argonauts disembarked, was engaged in the futile and frantic search for his boyfriend. The imitation invests Telamon's angry reaction with epic coloration; but as we already know and the poet will have Glaucus reveal, the reasons for his anger are unsubstantiated; his Achillean wrath is empty.[50]
After blaming Jason for the abandonment of Heracles, Telamon turns against Tiphys, who ordered the sailing, and would have succeeded in having the ship return to Mysia, despite the opposition of the wind and the current, had the Boreads not prevented this through their harsh words (1300–1301). The narrator then digresses and informs us of their fate: years later they will pay for their intervention when Heracles kills them after the funeral games in honor of Pelias, and, as a memorial of this, one of their funeral markers will sway to the blasts of their father, Boreas. Although the Argonauts are now proceeding ahead as they should, nonetheless a problem remains: they still harbor the bad feelings and suspicions that the abandonment of Heracles evoked. What is needed is a remedy for the mistrust elicited by the 
, something comparable to Orpheus's song at Pagasae. The appearance of Glaucus, whose report clears Jason of all suspicion, makes this possible.
To return briefly to the structure of this section of the episode, the outbreak of the 
containing Telamon's speech (a) corresponds to the reconciliation in which Telamon apologizes for his unwarranted accusation (a ). In between these two subsections lie two corresponding interventions: that of the Boreads, who successfully contravene Telamon's plans (b), and that of Glaucus, who explains Heracles' abandonment (b ), each containing references to the future of the missing Argonauts. For Glaucus, like the Boreads, instructs the Argonauts not to return to search for Heracles; and, like the narrator, he mentions the fates of the abandoned Argonauts: Heracles must complete his labors, Polyphemus will found the city of Cius, and Hylas will become the husband of the water nymph who abducted him. These subsections in turn frame the colorful portrait of Glaucus's sudden appearance, which is situated at the center of this ring (c). This symmetrical arrangement thus focuses on the picture of Glaucus rising out of the sea with his hand on the stern post ( 
) of the ship.
Apollonius did not invent the involvement of this minor sea divinity in the Argonautic legend. According to Philostratus (Imag. 2.15) and Diodorus (4.48), there was a tradition that Glaucus appeared to the Argonauts in the Black Sea, where he gave them prophecies. Diodorus even has him predict for Heracles the completion of his labors and his future immortality. According to Possis of Magnesia (FGrHist 480 F 2), Glaucus built the
Argo and was its helmsman in a battle against the Tyrrhenians. Afterwards, in accordance with Zeus's wishes, he disappeared into the depths of the sea ( 
) and was transformed into a sea divinity. If Possis, who may have come after Apollonius (Jacoby ad loc. reluctantly dates him to around 200 B.C. ), did not invent the metamorphosis of Glaucus,[51] but instead passes on an older tradition, Apollonius may well have this in mind in his portrayal of Glaucus as he emerges from the depths of the sea ( 
, 1310) and reports to the Argonauts that they should not proceed contrary to the will of Zeus ( 
; 1315).[52] The fact that Apollonius's Glaucus holds on to the stern post to control the ship, as Apollonius recounts the story, may allude to his having been the helmsman in one version of the expedition. The central position of this image might suggest that a literary reference underlies the epiphany here. Be that as it may, a tradition that Glaucus was originally a mortal who became immortal goes back to Æschylus (Glaucus fr. 28–29 Radt). Apollonius's contemporary Alexander Ætolus also mentions this in his Halieus (121–22 Powell). In this respect, it is appropriate that Glaucus, a man become god, should intervene and announce the future apotheosis of Heracles, especially since the thrust of Glaucus's message is that Heracles does not belong among the Argonauts precisely because he is on his way to becoming a god. Gods, however, are not interdependent, and Jason stated on the beach at Pagasae that their expedition required a joint effort (336–37). Heracles, who can drive the Argo by himself, and take the golden apples of the Hesperides from a tree guarded by Ladon by himself, is out of place in such a group. His independence stands in opposition to the unity of the group; but Jason's dependence on the group and his skill in settling 
, which Apollonius evinces in this concluding episode of Book 1, draw the men closer together. In this lies the strength of Jason's weakness. The appearance of Glaucus
thus allows both heroes to pursue their goals in the ways that best suit their personalities and abilities.
After Heracles' abandonment is discovered, Jason is stricken with 
(1286). He has no idea what to do, and does nothing. In contrast, Telamon, Heracles' good friend and his counterpart in this half of the episode, as Hylas was Jason's counterpart in the first half, takes immediate action. Like Heracles on Lemnos, he usurps command momentarily, ordering a return to Mysia until the Boreads intervene. Jason has again temporarily yielded his command, and the result is chaos. Glaucus clears the air of suspicion. But the harmony that Telamon had destroyed through his most uncomplimentary accusation against Jason must be restored for the expedition to continue. It is in this context that we can perceive a crucial difference between Heracles and Jason. On the one hand, Heracles, who ultimately attains immortality by virtue of his extraordinary feats, will respond to the Boreads' intervention with unforgiving violence in a manner similar to his harsh treatment of Theiodamas and the Dryopians. In this way, Heracles stands apart from the others by virtue of his ruthless savagery and superhuman power, and acts as the foil against which we are to measure Jason, with whom he is overtly contrasted in this episode. Jason, on the other hand, is easily—and often—reduced to 
; but, like the optimal leader he described at Pagasae (339–40), he knows how to ponder details, settle conflicts, and make compacts. Without Heracles, the only means of success lies in unified action and in skillful manipulation of those who can provide assistance. It happens that Jason is fully capable of preserving harmony and attracting others to his side. As the reader will see in the course of the poem, this brand of heroism is ultimately just as effective as that shown by the great Heracles. Through the assistance of Medea, Jason will come to complete the 
that Æëtes assigns and secure the golden fleece guarded by the dragon, just as Heracles will complete the 
that Eurystheus set upon him. Apollonius includes an account of the acquisition of the golden apples of the Hesperides near the end of the poem to make the comparison with Jason's 
perfectly clear.[53] Since Heracles'
power is so massive, one never doubts his ability to succeed. That a young man of the people ( 
, 7) who is not especially powerful but rather prone to 
—yet very adept at dealing with people—should manage to perform a feat comparable to the greatest of the Greek heroes is truly astonishing.
The cosmopolitan and sophisticated audience of Apollonius's day, like the heroes of the Argonautica , must also have left behind their belief in the great Heraclean hero. The figure of a Heracles was doubtless as unreal to them as Lynceus's sighting of Heracles in the Libyan desert (4.1477–80). In an age so absorbed with realism,[54] the real-life hero does not single-handedly row ships, but rather must know how to navigate seas of conflicting interests, foreign and internal squabbles, and the many obstacles—foreign customs, places, and peoples—that beset his quest for success. It is no longer the age of the old hero who could throw a huge boulder by himself. The epic magnitude of the challenge has not changed. But when the performer of a great 
is only one of however many men it takes to lift up the huge stone that was once thrown with ease by a hero of the lost past, success entails finding the others who will assist.[55]
Who, then, is the best of the Argonauts? Apollonius colors the reader's response to this question, which is implicit in the 
, by having us see the reconciliation between Telamon and Jason against a Homeric backdrop. And the story of the reconciliation provides at least a partial answer.
In his apology to Jason, Telamon excuses his importunate words and asks Jason to cast his atrocious behavior to the winds:
Son of Æson, do not be angry with me if in my ignorance
I acted foolishly . Excessive grief led me to make
so arrogant and intolerable a speech. 
and be friendly toward each other as
before.
In the Homeric corpus, the form 
is used only three times, always by the same man and with regard to the same event. Twice within the same speech Agamemnon uses it to describe his insulting behavior toward Achilles (Il. 9.116, 119), and once again when he apologizes directly to Achilles (Il. 19.137).[56] In a completely different context Agamemnon also asks another hero whom he has insulted to overlook his ill-spoken remarks.[57] In the so-called 
, Agamemnon rebukes Mnestheus and Odysseus for holding back, saying that they are not so hesitant to be the first in line when the king gives a banquet (Il. 4.338–48). To Odysseus's furious retort (350–55), Agamemnon says:
Zeus-born son of Laërtes, clever Odysseus,
I have no intention of rebuking you excessively or ordering you
about,
for I know that the feelings you hold within
are well-meaning, since you think along the same lines as I.
But, come now, let's settle these things later 
.
Like Agamemnon, Telamon has incorrectly interpreted his comrade's inactivity and has spoken out of line; and like Agamemnon, he asks that his impertinent statement be rendered null and void.
Campbell has pointed out another parallel to Telamon's apology that merits close attention.[59] During Odysseus's brief stay on Phæacia, Euryalus insulted his anonymous guest for refusing to take part in the athletic contests:
Stranger, I do not make you out to be a man skilled in the many
athletic contests that there are in the world,
but one who travels about in a many-oared ship,
a captain of sailors who are in the business of trading merchandise;
a man who thinks only of his freight and watches out for his cargo
and eagerly sought gain. But you do not look like one who cares
for 
.
As in the Iliadic passage discussed immediately above, Odysseus's hesitation to act—in the Odyssean context, to compete—is misinterpreted. After he defeated all the athletes in the discus contest, it became clear to all the Phæacians that Odysseus did not hesitate out of inability or cowardice; and Euryalus apologizes for his foolish remark:
Hail, honored stranger. 
.
May the gods grant that you see your wife and arrive in your
fatherland, since you have suffered for a long time far away from
your loved ones.
It would seem that Apollonius also had the phrasing of Euryalus's apology in mind in his articulation of Telamon's. In addition to the similar phraseology, this Odyssean dispute in general parallels the Argonautic argument: Euryalus makes the mistaken judgment that Odysseus does not know how to succeed in 
, and Odysseus proves him wrong. To Telamon and the others, Jason did not seem to be the best of the Argonauts. In their estimation, as we have seen in the the election, Heracles, the man of strength, was the best. In the argument following Heracles' abandonment, Telamon's position reflects this opinion. Yet Apollonius underscores the empty bluster of the latter's accusation and apology by having the reader compare his words with those of three Homeric characters. His Achillean wrath is thoroughly misdirected and divisive, and his apology smacks at once of the shallowness of Agamemnon and the foolishness of Euryalus. When seen in the light of their Homeric models, Heracles and Telamon both come off badly. On the other hand, in this 
Jason resembles the Odysseus of the Homeric subtext in that he too at first remains aloof and thereby encounters Telamon's rebuff. But in his masterful handling of the situation he shows that he is the best leader for the Argonautic mission, a mission characterized as 
, and one capable after all of competing in 
.
Faced with the possible abandonment of the expedition, Jason, as we have seen, is at first incapable of action, and his temporary paralysis leads immediately to chaos and disorder. Yet, as I stated above, even after the Boreads get the Argonauts on the proper course and Glaucus clears Jason of Telamon's charge, the crisis is not yet completely resolved. Jason must find some way to restore unity and resume command of his expedition. Telamon offers that opportunity in his apology, which Jason accepts graciously, even putting Telamon in his debt:
But I shall not harbor bitter wrath against you,
despite my earlier distress, 
,
. I hope that you might
even fight
another on my behalf, should such a situation ever arise.
The heart of Jason's acceptance is modeled on a comment that the Homeric narrator made as Achilles pursued Hector around the walls of Troy:[60]
The two ran along, the one fleeing and the one behind in pursuit.
A noble man fled in front, but a much better man held him in hot
pursuit, 
,
.
Like the narrator of the Iliad , Jason stands apart as an observer of the action, and in this he differs markedly from the other Argonauts. This aloofness from action comes across at first as unheroic passivity; yet it enables him to achieve a better perspective on the relative importance of this and other events. As wrong as Telamon was, Jason acknowledges that his concerns were at least not ignoble. In a masterful stroke of diplomacy he dismisses Telamon's insulting accusation and suggests that one day Telamon might even fight as valiantly on his behalf; these are the kinds of pacts
the Jasonian hero makes best, as his dealings with Medea will demonstrate.
The crisis following the abandonment of Heracles is also enlightening on another related issue. Jason may be skilled in taking care of the details of the expedition and in settling arguments, but, as is quite evident here, he does not create the opportunities for his diplomatic successes. Rather, his passive style requires that he depend on forces and occurrences outside his making; he waits for opportunities that he can turn to the benefit of the group.[61] This approach differs from the active style of a Heracles and a Telamon, which locks them into a perversely egotistic and divisive course of action. Rather, for Jason the goal of the whole group takes precedence over the personal pique of the one: 
. When Jason finishes speaking, Apollonius confirms the success of his approach: he spoke, and, united as before, they took their seats ( 
, 1344). The group has regained its lost unity, and the expedition can continue.[62]
THROUGHOUT the rest of the poem Jason will maintain this passive style. He does not make things happen but waits for the dust to settle before taking advantage of the opportunities that others—mortal and divine—have provided. Jason's talents include the ability to attract women, to take care of the quotidian details of running an expedition, and to make the best of bad situations through skillful crisis management. These are not the qualities one normally associates with the best of the Greek heroes. In the Iliadic Catalogue of Ships, which Apollonius's Catalogue pointedly calls to mind, Homer asked who the best of the Achæans was, and gave as his answer Telamonian Ajax—that is, as long as Achilles was absent. Likewise, on several occasions in Book 1 Apollonius poses the question, Who is the best of the Argonauts? At the conclusion of this book the reader has an answer. In the
absence of Heracles—or in the absence of some one like Heracles; that is, in the absence of a totally self-sufficient man of godlike strength—Jason, a totally dependent man of limited skills, proves to be the best of the Argonauts.
At the conclusion of Book 1, we have seen the old Homeric hero redefined. Jason has emerged as a new, Alexandrian epic hero, the best among his peers at completing heroic 
. How we are to read the following three books depends very much on our understanding of this redefined hero. In calling the traditional hero into question and creating a more realistic hero, Apollonius significantly advanced the writing of epic poetry.[63] As the reader prepares to follow the Argonauts on their journey through the Symplegades and beyond, he or she can observe how this new kind of hero engages in a mission best suited for a traditional hero like Heracles. Jason will single-mindedly pursue his quest: 
with the fleece in hand. And he will succeed. Yet, we are left at the end of the book with a trenchant irony. At the climax of Book 1, Jason confirms his leadership and his status as the best of the Argonauts through his diplomatic skills, in particular his ability to solve 
. Just as Heracles' great strength both brings about and is of no avail in the loss of Hylas, so too Jason will ultimately suffer a devastating loss in the death of his sons when his "heroic" skill of making pacts and settling arguments, in particular with foreigners, fails him in his final 
with Medea.
The age demanded an image
Of its accelerated grimace,
Something for the modern stage,
Not, at any rate, an Attic grace .
EZRA POUND, HUGH SELWYN MAUBERLY II .21–24