This article re-examines the sole surviving fragment of Aeschylean elegy alongside the available contextual evidence in an attempt to enhance our currently very limited understanding of Aeschylus’ elegiac output. The first section explores Theophrastus’ citation of this fragment in theHistoria Plantarumto demonstrate what we can learn about the original Aeschylean poem from its use within the later writer's discussion. The second section examines how the Italian focus of the fragment fits into a wider historical and literary discourse of interactions between (...) Greeks and non-Greeks in the west. The third and concluding section builds on these findings to examine the possible Sicilian performance context of the original Aeschylean poem to which the fragment belongs. Ultimately the discussion demonstrates that the fragment is an important and hitherto underappreciated early witness of the development of influential cultural concepts regarding interactions between Greeks and non-Greeks in the west, and that the possibility that Aeschylus produced a poem relating to the victory of Hieron I of Syracuse over the Etruscans at Cumae in 474b.c.e.is worth serious consideration. (shrink)

It has usually been held, on the strength of several passages in Thucydides, that the Athenian army which was besieging Syracuse in 414–413 b.c. contained a contingent of Etruscans desirous of retaliating upon the Syracusans for losses inflicted upon them in past days—e.g., in 474 at Cumae and in 453 at Elba.

Hospitality can be considered a key institution in the social relationships in the ancient Mediterranean. To identify the people involved in a hospitality agreement, in certain contexts small objects were used in a similar way to a password, which the Greeks called symbolon and the Romans tessera hospitalis. We know how the latter were used thanks to Plautus' Poenulus. At least 64 pieces are currently known which may be identified as tesserae hospitales. All come from the Western Mediterranean. The majority (...) contain brief inscriptions, written in Etruscan, Latin, Greek, or Celtiberian. They share a series of common features, which impart a clear family resemblance beyond geographic, cultural, or linguistic borders. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Aristotle on the Etruscan Robbers:A Core Text of "Aristotelian Dualism"Abraham P. Bos (bio)1. A Non-Platonic Dualism in Aristotle's Lost WorksThe Soul of a Mortal on Earth is not "At Home," says Aristotle in his dialogue Eudemus. The story about the mantic dream of the expatriate Eudemus and his expectation that he "will return home"1 is well known. It makes clear that, in Aristotle's view, the death of the (...) human individual should be interpreted as the soul's "return to its homeland."2 This is strongly suggested by "the revelation of Silenus" which Plutarch (first century CE) passes down in a literal quotation from the Eudemus.3 It contains the theme of human life on earth as a punishment (timôria). The motif of human life as a punishment is central to two texts by Iamblichus (250-325 CE) and Augustine (354-430 CE), which are usually connected with Aristotle's Protrepticus.4 I want to examine these texts in more detail here. My intention in the following exposition is to propose a non-Platonistic explanation of these texts. In my opinion they have wrongly been read as testimonies of a "Platonistic" phase in Aristotle. The existence of such a phase in Aristotle's development has never been proved. Besides, the interpretation of these texts suffered from the fact that [End Page 289] Aristotle's De anima had also been explained in an unhistorical way since Alexander of Aphrodisias in the third century CE.2. Revising the Modern View of AristotleWe have to make a different assessment of Aristotle's contribution to the discussion on the soul compared with what was current until recently. For after W. Jaeger5 and F. Nuyens6, modern scholars became inclined to leave Aristotle's dialogues out of consideration, because they regarded them as "Platonizing." But a fundamental correction is necessary on this point.7 Jaeger led modern Aristotle studies in a wrong direction by assuming a sharp distinction between Aristotle's lost dialogue Eudemus and his surviving treatise De anima. Although nowadays Jaeger's theory for many scholars is something of a dead horse, nevertheless a real alternative has not been proposed. We still have to get rid of the consequences of the Jaegerian paradigm and develop a unitary interpretation of Aristotle's entire oeuvre. Even more consistently than O. Gigon has already done,8 we should assume that Aristotle's lost works and his surviving biological writings and De anima did not propose two (or more) different psychological theories but one and the same. Because this one Aristotelian psychology was a non-Platonistic but nevertheless dualistic psychology, we have much more reason than could be recognized in the past to assume Aristotelian influence on this discussion.On one essential issue Aristotle disagreed with his teacher Plato: the soul,9 more particularly the indissoluble bond of the soul with a body. Aristotle radically and [End Page 290] consistently argued for the distinction between nous and psychè.10 For Aristotle the nous-in-act is always wholly incorporeal. But he considered it characteristic of the soul that it cannot carry out its functions "without body."11However, the crucial question is: what body does Aristotle mean when he says that the soul cannot perform its specific activities "without body"? Jaeger and Nuyens were wholly convinced that Aristotle was referring to the visible, external body of a human being, animal, or plant. Hence they saw a yawning gap between Aristotle's views in De anima and his position in the dialogue the Eudemus. In the Eudemus Aristotle had clearly argued that the soul can perform its own functions very well, indeed better, without the galling and oppressive visible body.12 But in De anima II 1, in his famous definition of "the soul," Aristotle says that the soul is inextricably bound up with a "sôma physikon organikon."13 Jaeger and Nuyens, following an almost unanimous tradition since Alexander of Aphrodisias in the third century CE, interpreted this sentence in the sense that the soul is the formal principle or entelechy of an "organic body" or a "natural body equipped with organs," i.e., the visible body... (shrink)

Waterfowl--ducks, geese, and swans--are a pervasive, ubiquitous element in Etruscan art, just as they are in well-watered Etruria itself. From the formative Villanovan Period though the terminus of Etruscan culture, waterfowl are regularly depicted in a variety of plastic and glyphic media: pottery, painting, metalwork, and stone. Waterfowl are particularly frequent in funerary contexts. Minimal attention, however, has been accorded this unique branch of avians; waterfowl are generally assumed to have little more than decorative value in the present (...) literature, Nonetheless, it can be shown that ducks, geese, and swans were endowed with social, medicinal, magical, and religious significance in ancient culture and, indeed, in most cultures where waterfowl gather in large numbers. A goodly portion of Etruscan art, as well as comparanda from contemporaneous peoples with whom the Etruscans, directly or indirectly, enjoyed economic and cultural intercourse--the Hellenic lands, Asia Minor and Egypt, central and northern Europe--bears out the preceding statement. This study first examines the natural history of the waterfowl of Etruria, as critical an aspect in their deployment as symbols as are the natural behaviors of the snake and lion in their respective symbolisms. Next, the various roles of waterfowl in medicine, magic and mythology, as well as etymological studies of both Etruscan and Indo-European words for "waterfowl" are investigated and analyzed. Certain aspects of Etruscan conceptions of the afterlife that eventually prove germane are also discussed. Analysis of the combined data helps elucidate the meaning of a number of Etruscan monuments in which waterfowl appear, and simultaneously calls for a reassessment of others, e.g., Villanova and later armor (helmets, pectorals, shield); Orientalizing pieces such as the Regolini-Galassi fibula; Archaic and later bronze mirrors; the Aurora Krater; tomb paintings; and duck askoi. To be sure, there are representations of waterfowl in Etruscan art where the birds serve as decorative elements only -- their beauty is universally admired -- but, as have other cultures, the Etruscans saw considerably more in ducks, geese, and swans than just graceful birds gliding about the waters. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Klio Jahrgang: 98 Heft: 1 Seiten: 343-346.