Volume 3, Issue 1

In book 5 of the Iliad Sarpedon suffers so greatly from a wound that his ‘ψυχή leaves him’. Rather than dying, however, Sarpedon lives to fight another day. This paper investigates the phrase τὸν δὲ λίπε ψυχή in extant archaic Greek poetry to gain a sense of its traditional referentiality and better assess the meaning of Sarpedon's swoon. Finding that all other instances of the ψυχή leaving the body signify death, it suggests that the Iliad exploits a traditional unit of utterance to flag up the importance of Sarpedon to this version of the Troy story.

The first part of this article considers whether, under the aegis of Nietzsche's distinction between the ‘Apolline’ and the ‘Dionysiac’, there is anything to be gained by examining the Ion as a specifically ‘Apolline’ play. Secondly, I consider the ancient view, endorsed by Nietzsche, that plays such as the Ion were the forerunners of New Comedy, with particular attention to the structure of plot and the role of chance. A final section considers the play's presentation of how the Pythia actually received the word of the god.

When Rhesus' charioteer sees two suspicious shadows around the horses of Rhesus just before the slaughter of his prince, he concludes that they must be friendly soldiers with thievish intentions (777). The two men were actually Odysseus and Diomedes, but the charioteer could not have suspected that Greeks had infiltrated the core of the Trojan camp. The waking vision of the two Greek commandos is followed by a dream in which the charioteer sees wolves attacking Rhesus' horses – in the meantime the horses are actually being robbed and Rhesus is being killed by Odysseus and Diomedes. The dream is concluded with the charioteer's reaffirmation that this action must have been accomplished by “friends” (802f.). The dramatic action requires that this assumption of the charioteer was or seemed particularly sound (at least to him), because it is the only argument upon which he relies in his later formal accusation of Hector (833–889). In fact, the presentation of the dream emphasizes its quasi-perceptional nature, which is in tune with the widespread idea that dreaming is mainly the work of perception or of δόξα. The motif of the premonitory dream, which is customary in tragedy, seems to be split into concrete eyesight where the charioteer physically sees Odysseus and Diomedes (although they are not yet in action and he does not correctly identify them) and a dream which builds upon what he sees and explains it (in fact, it perfectly parallels the concrete actions taken by Odysseus and Diomedes). The result is that the charioteer's dream becomes almost as probative as his eyesight, and both the perceptual and oneiric experiences contribute to strengthening his interpretation of the facts and establishing his apparent reliability. Rhesus ' idea of paralleling the concrete aggression of Odysseus and Diomedes with a concurrent dream may have followed the model of Iliad 10.494–497. This intertextual relationship enables us to speculate that the author of the tragedy read line 10.497 in his Iliad , which was questioned by Hellenistic philologists.

Cassandra's prophecy in Lycophron's Alexandra consists of two main sections: an account of the Trojan War and its aftermath, and a broader explanation of the conflict between East and West. Both sections conclude by celebrating Roman power. These “Roman” passages have been considered intrusive, but we argue that they form part of the broader strategy of Cassandra's prophecy. The first belongs to a series of thematically connected narratives in which Cassandra awards glory, kleos , to Trojans or their descendants in the West while systematically denying it to the Greeks, a phenomenon evident in her treatment of the events covered in the Iliad and Odyssey . The prediction that Cassandra's descendants will restore Trojan glory evokes Iliad 20.302–308, and may serve as a lens through which Vergil's Aeneid reconsiders that Iliadic prophecy.

Although part of it is set in Egypt, the Tale of Ahiqar makes little mention of specific Egyptian realia . In adapting Ahiqar for his own narrative, the author of the Vita Aesopi added many details of Egyptian local colour. The priests of Heliopolis, invited by the Pharaoh to challenge Aesop with the “riddle of the year” (chapters 119–120), are such an addition. The Pharaoh's consultation with this group of counsellors in face of a critical situation imitates a well-known motif of ancient Egyptian narratives. Heliopolis was selected as the priests' city of provenance because it was renowned for the erudition of its priesthood. There are also subtle correspondences between the religious life or theology of Heliopolis and the riddle propounded by its priests. This wealth of Egyptian topical elements indicates that the author of the Vita had close familiarity with Egyptian culture and presumably a special relationship with Egypt.

The paper argues for the development of the character of Lucius in Apuleius' Metamorphoses from initial rashness to a more mature and restrained stance. This change is evident from the differing attitudes he adopts towards two structurally parallel events – the wine-skin episode in Hypata and the encounter with the upper-class matron at Corinth – both of which precede Lucius' participation in public spectacles. In the latter case, Lucius' hesitation to copulate with the rich matron marks the adoption of a new attitude, whereby he is seen to consider the possible consequences of his actions rather than rush headlong into the fray. Such a behavioral transformation anticipates Lucius' physical re-transformation into human form in book eleven and stands as evidence that at least he has learnt something from his wanderings. The article concludes with the observation that had Lucius not somehow changed as a character and sought the intervention of Isis, he would have remained an ass forever.

Re-examination of the fragment P.Berol. inv. 13927 (V/VI Cent. A.D.) as an example of the contribution of papyrus documentation to our knowledge on the practical aspects of dramatic performances and stage sets in antiquity.

In line with the increasing research on reception of Classical works, this article discusses a new rendition in painting, by the emerging artist M. Merck, of the famous episode of the encounter between Oedipus and the Sphinx. The discussion is conducted though a comparative analysis with the artifacts of those painters that worked as a model, namely: Ingres, Moreau, and Bacon. The general interpretation of the episode in art as representation of the superiority and victory of Oedipus' intelligence over a brutal monster is the one that usually applies to the paintings of Merck's predecessors. This interpretation has generally overshadowed the essential feature of the episode, the one that contributes to the tragic of Oedipus' story: the irony. Appropriating and re-elaborating motifs of his predecessors, by visualizing the English colloquialism “to shoot oneself in the foot”, Merck has been able to summarize, and grasp, the essential traits of the entire tragic life of Oedipus as centering on his encounter with the Sphinx.