155

Achilles’ recounting of the Niobe myth in Iliad 24 (599–620) contains a number of oft noted oddities, particularly in lines 614–17. These were athetized in antiquity, as they seem to interrupt the ring structure of the passage. Various ad hoc explanations have been put forth to explain this apparent intrusion (cf. Leaf, Richardson), but I argue that the key to understanding it lies in another oddity—this time a grammatical one—in line 602: καὶ γάρ τ᾽ ἠΰκομος Νιόβη ἐμνήσατο σίτου, typically rendered ‘For even fair-haired Niobe thought of food’.

This paper surveys two of Athena’s line-end epithet phrases, Pallas and glaukwpis Athene (86% and 80% line-end usage), and the related phrase, bowpis potnia Here (100% line-end). It demonstrates the greater predictability of glaukwpis and bowpis relative to Pallas, and shows how animal-eyed epithets associate Athena and Hera according to their common aim of Troy’s destruction.

My paper examines repetition in Odyssey 4 as evidence for a retroactive reading of Helen’s fidelity. As Froma Zeitlin (1995) notes, only obliquely in Book 4 does the epic approach the conundrum of Helen’s adultery. In the banquet speeches, the conflict between Helen’s self-characterization as an ally (4.240-64) and Menelaos’ characterization of her as a traitor (4.266-89) presents readers with an interpretive deadlock. Scholars resolve the gap by reading liability of character (West in Heubeck 1988) and falsehood (Alden 2017) into Helen’s speech.

This paper uses research in trauma studies to offer a new analysis of Helen in the Iliad. Psychological studies in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), continuous traumatic stress (CTS), and trauma following a sexual assault point to social isolation, suicidal tendencies, and self-blame as elements of trauma. Studies on sexual assault differentiate between two types of self-blame: characterological (blaming deficits within oneself) and behavioral (blaming one’s own actions). This research encourages a new understanding of the Iliad’s Helen.

Demosthenes' speech On the Crown is by far the most famous and widely studied Athenian court speech. But its counterpart, Aeschines' prosecution speech Against Ctesiphon has received much less attention. A detailed English commentary was last written by Richardson in 1889. Modern volumes often discuss Against Ctesiphon only as a necessary but brief introductory chapter to the study of Demosthenes' On the Crown (e.g. Ochs 2016).

Uncertainty is one of the greatest methodological challenges facing scholars of the ancient world. Despite this undeniable fact, however, efforts to address the challenge systematically have been rare (Jew and Lavan). To the extent that ancient historians have focused on the problem of uncertainty, they have tended to operate on a macro scale and have overwhelmingly considered quantitative questions (Garnsey; Hopkins; Scheidel and Friesen; Lavan; Lavan, Jew, and Danon).

Josephus describes how Milonia Caesonia was assassinated along with her daughter and on the same day as her husband, Caligula (Jos. AJ 19.190-200, cf. Dio 59.29.7; Suet. Cal. 59). This paper refines our understanding of Josephus’ technique and the interregnum he describes by reading his description of Caesonia’s death as an allusion to Calpurnia’s reaction to the death of her husband, Caesar.

Plutarch twice (Pomp. §22 & Mor. 204A) mentions Pompey’s participation in the recognitio equitum (review of cavalry) in 70 BCE; he calls it the “most pleasing” spectacle of Pompey’s first consulship. His vivid account has been important for scholars interested in Pompey’s career and self-presentation, and – since Plutarch’s mention is one of only a few references to the recognitio in our surviving sources – it has been influential for understandings of the ritual and its functioning more broadly (e.g., Seager 2002[1979]; Scullard 1981; Luke 2014).

Innuendo in Tacitus (Ryberg 1942) is often conveyed in pairs of alternative interpretations or explanations offered by the author about the events in the narrative. Previous studies have argued that Tacitus creates "weighted" (Sullivan 1976) or "loaded" alternatives (Whitehead 1979), in which Tacitus tends either to remain neutral between two options or, when indicating preference, leans towards the second.

I argue that in Tacitus’s historical works, the False Nero and the emperor Nero form an oppositional pair that destabilizes the distinction between a legitimate successor and a successful imposter. The order in which Tacitus wrote his historical works—Agricola, Histories, Annals—notably reverses the chronological priority of Nero to his imposters. A Nero-pretender (a preview of a figure we never meet in the narrative) makes an appearance in the first preface of the Histories (falsi Neronis ludibrio, Hist.