155

The autobiographical tale told by the swineherd Eumaeus to the disguised Odysseus in book 15 of the Odyssey has been appreciated as a “brilliant digression” (Kirk 367), a clever meta-narrative surprise (Minchin), and an expression of the poem’s dominant slaveholding ideology (Thalmann, 84-87). What has proven difficult, however, is to identify the function of Eumaeus’ narrative at the level of plot: why should the character tell this story at this juncture?

Achilles’ dogged pursuit of Hector in the Iliad is distinguished by an uncanny fixity of purpose (Redfield 27-29, de Jong 2012: 18; Schadewaldt 262; note Apollo at 24.40-44, echoing Hector at 22.356-57), belied by his apparent madness (Bowra 199, Clark 83-84). This paper construes Achilles’ signature single-mindedness as a preternatural critical capacity (one that makes him, conversely, unreadable: a text with no way in [Redfield 28]). I approach Iliad 22.321-29 as a tour de force of close reading, where such reading is a violence enacted upon the text.

This paper offers a new answer to the question of why Odysseus’ men eat the cattle of Helios despite warnings against doing so, leading directly to their deaths. Earlier readings of this episode tend to accept Odysseus’ judgments of his companions: that they act as they do because they are foolish and gluttonous (Nagler 1990; Scodel 2002; McInerney 2010; Bakker 2013), or because they are sacrilegious (Stocking 2017), or under the malicious influence of the instigator Eurylochus (Radcliffe 2021).

I shall attend to the question of the meaning of the augment in the Iliad, whether the presence or absence of the augment on past tense forms is the result of metrical or grammatical considerations. The initial problem was one of chronology. Because the unaugmented forms are linguistically older, scholars at the turn of the twentieth century debated whether the surrounding passages in the text should also be considered to be older (Bréal 1900; Drewitt 1912a-b, 1913; Shewan 1912, 1914; Beck 1919).

This paper argues that Propertius employs the Furies as guardians of proper generic limits. This role is an intuitive extension of their religious role as defenders of natural boundaries: the Furies protect xenia, safeguard a rigid hierarchy within the family, and even keep celestial bodies in their proper orbits (Heraclitus Derveni Papyri D89). In the elegies of Propertius, we observe a unique development in which the elegist places the Erinyes front and center in passages of hypothetical or realized generic transgressions.

In describing the Quinquatrus at Fasti 3.809-48, Ovid exhorts a catalogue of celebrants—weavers, cobblers, and carpenters, among others—to worship Minerva, the patron goddess of a thousand crafts (mille dea est operum, 3.834). Scholarship on this passage typically focuses on the social history of the festival (Cinaglia, Fowler, Frazer, Pasco-Pranger). However, Ovid’s vocabulary throughout is explicitly metapoetic, thereby placing the poet among Minerva’s celebrants.

Ecohorror is in vogue and it is my contention that Propertius’ Elegies have something to contribute to this subfield of ecocriticism. Recent work by Heather Sullivan has explored questions of plant-human hybridity and horror elements thereof in several works of science fiction (2022). My own impression of ecohorror asks questions of works with a focus on the vegetal and natural landscape, and how these forces, usually perceived as inert or subject to human influence, can lash back out with terrifying effects.

‘Servitude of love’ (servitium amoris) was a popular elegiac motif that Roman poets employed to impress their beloved by portraying themselves as slaves to them (see Szelest 1988, Menefee 1981, Copley 1947). However, this game of pretense (see McKarthy 1998: 472) becomes upended when a freeborn loves a slave – a relationship that was regarded as shameful (Ov., am. 2.7; Hor., carm. 2.4; Prop. 1.9; Catull. 6).

This paper uses Sütterlin’s traumatic trope of splitting to read Propertius’ Umbrian identity in poems 1.22 and 4.1. As Barchiesi notes, although many Latin poets are identified with the label “Roman,” none aside from Caesar come from Rome itself until the late imperial period.

The analysis of modern dance is an exciting and growing new field in classical reception studies. This paper analyzes the reception of Aeschylus’ Oresteia in Martha Graham’s Clytemnestra (1958). Graham’s engagement with Greek tragedy has attracted much attention in recent years (Papathanasopoulou 2023 and 2021; Ancona 2020; Bannerman 2010; Yaari 2003). However, Clytemnestra has not been examined in close comparison to the ancient sources that formed the inspiration for her work.