To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This article argues for a metapoetic reading of the Talos episode in Apollonius of Rhodes, in which Medea symbolically annihilates Theocritus’ Polyphemus, the bucolic hero who had found a pharmakon to cure lovesickness. The distinctive phrases λεπτὸς ὑμήν ‘a thin membrane’ and σύριγξ αἱματόεσσα ‘a blood-filled vein’ are metapoetic signals: ‘a refined Callimachean marriage song’ and ‘bloody pan-pipes’, evoking Theocritus. The Cyclops’s peaceful response to romantic disappointment is well attested in other Hellenistic poems with medical overtones. The Talos episode engages these with other medical and Homeric allusions to contrast Medea’s outward destructive use of the Muses’ sciences with Polyphemus’ inward healing use.
Modern translators and commentators have uniformly taken the phrase καὶ τιμωμένων ἀντετιμᾶτο in Max. Tyr. Or. 3.2 as a reference to Socrates’ reported proposal of a counter-penalty as depicted in the second speech of Plato’s Apology. This article suggests an alternative interpretation rooted in both the surrounding context of Or. 3 and an analysis of Greek forensic vocabulary and usage. The latter analysis also serves to cast doubt on the claim, common in discussions of Athenian law, that ἀντιτιμᾶσθαι served as the technical term for making a counter-penalty proposal.
This article analyses the Niobe allusion of Iliad 24 (599–620), providing solutions to grammatical, structural, and narratological problems therein. I show how attention to an often-overlooked and universally misinterpreted occurrence of τε in line 602 paves the way to a new understanding of the passage as a whole. In addition, a supposed problem with the ring structure of the passage is resolved without the need of editorial intervention.