Aelian and Porphyry claim that only the horns of a specific species of Scythian ass can contain the corrosive water of the Styx. They also state that Alexander the Great received one of these horns from a certain Sopater as a gift, on which he had an epigram engraved before dedicating it at Delphi. This article explores the connection between this story and the reports of Alexander’s alleged assassination by the Antipatrids. In these reports, the poison used is often said to be the water of the Styx, held in an equine hoof. The tale reported by Aelian and Porphyry can be interpreted as part of the propaganda war during the time of the Diadochi, specifically as a piece of counter-propaganda responding to the accusation of treason against Antipater and his family and aiming to exonerate them.

Several epigrams of Callimachus showcase a larger content in a smaller format: one of these is Callim. Epigr. 2 Pf. = 34 G–P.

The short treatise De mundo, transmitted with the Aristotelian corpus, has attracted scholarly attention in recent years for its linguistic, rhetorical, historical and philosophical features. This article focusses on the dialectic dimension of De mundo, which has hitherto been underexplored and restricted to its anti-Stoic aspects. The article argues that De mundo engages also with other rival visions of philosophy and conceptions of the cosmos, in some cases explicitly, in others implicitly, but always tactfully, without naming names, and in strict avoidance of open polemic. After reviewing five instances of explicit criticism in De mundo, in Sections 1 and 2 of the article, and five instances of implicit criticism in Section 3, Section 4 points to a general pattern that can be discerned in the author’s lines of criticism. Additionally, Section 4 considers why the author proceeds in the way he does and what this tells us about the author and possible dates of composition of his work.

This article is a study of Valerius Maximus’ understanding and rewriting of late republican history through his portrayal of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus in chapter 6.2 of the Facta et dicta memorabilia. In chapter 6.2, ‘on the freely spoken and freely done’, Pompeius is mentioned in six consecutive exempla as the addressee of public criticism in episodes set between the 60s and 51 b.c. By offering a close reading of this chapter and by investigating its organizational criteria and themes, particularly Pompeius’ power, his silence and libertas, this article argues that Valerius aims to display how crucial the years of the ‘first triumvirate’ were in the development towards an inevitable autocracy. It suggests, moreover, that Valerius envisions the Facta et dicta as a work closer to historiography than usually appreciated.

By accepting a later dating for the composition of the Histories, this article argues that Herodotus mirrors Athenian imperialism in his account of the First Persian War to convey a political message to contemporary recipients. In doing so, he departs from the prevailing tradition of the expedition of Datis and Artaphrenes by creating a narrative that manipulates Persian methods of conquest, presenting them in a manner that appears emblematic of Athenian imperialism. In this way, the Herodotean Persians do not adhere to their expected cultural script, but act out the Athenian script. This reading offers a new understanding of Herodotus’ account of the Persian campaign as conveying a message to the Athenians who began to recognize that their former policies toward their allies were transgressive imperialism. As a result, his account of the First Persian War is a sophisticated meditation on the effects of imperialism rather than a straightforward depiction of historical events.

By offering a fresh reading of several partially overlooked passages from Aristotle’s Metaphysics Μ and Ν, this article argues that the identification of Forms and ideal numbers in Plato is not presented as Aristotle’s own reconstruction. Instead, Aristotle sets forth what he takes to be Plato’s views. This reading enhances not only our understanding of the Academic debates with which Aristotle engaged but also his status as a historian of philosophy.

A motif in the Cypria is sometimes explained as borrowed in the seventh century from the Akkadian epic Atra-ḫasīs, sometimes as inherited from a third-millennium Indo-European poetic tradition surviving also in the Sanskrit Mahābhārata. These explanations seem incompatible, but they are not. Narrative traditions often cross linguistic boundaries through multilinguals, and linguistic and archaeological evidence suggests that some speakers of Proto-Indo-European were also speakers of Semitic languages. Indo-European and Ancient Near Eastern comparative approaches are therefore halves of a single enterprise: the Cypria, Mahābhārata and Atra-ḫasīs belong to a Eurasian-Steppe tradition, and must be read together.