Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:05:54.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ASPECTS OF LOVE IN ARCHAIC GREEK LITERATURE - (S.) Caciagli (ed.) Eros e genere in Grecia arcaica. (Eikasmos. Studi 28.) Pp. x + 228, map. Bologna: Pàtron Editore, 2017. Paper, €26. ISBN: 978-88-555-3379-9.

Review products

(S.) Caciagli (ed.) Eros e genere in Grecia arcaica. (Eikasmos. Studi 28.) Pp. x + 228, map. Bologna: Pàtron Editore, 2017. Paper, €26. ISBN: 978-88-555-3379-9.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2018

Felix J. Meister
Felix J. Meister*
Affiliation:
Universität zu Köln
*
felix.meister@uni-koeln.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , October 2018 , pp. 319 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 As Ferrari points out, ἀλλά in apodosi is common in poetry, especially after a negative protasis. Ferrari objects that such ἀλλά tends to convey, outside of Homeric epic, an inferior substitute to the protasis (pis aller). Since, on his interpretation, Aphrodite offers no immediate help to Sappho but rather a remote disadvantage for the girl, this sense of pis aller works well (‘if she does not accept gifts now, well, at least she will give them herself in the future’). In contrast, ἄλλα (with Hdt. 3.39.2) would seem preferable, if not necessary, for the traditional interpretation.

2 For the first contribution, the treatment of ϕιλότης in LfgrE s.v. is absent as is e.g. Landfester, M., Das griechische Nomen “philos” und seine Ableitungen (1966)Google Scholar; Karavites, P., Promise-Giving and Treaty-Making (1992), esp. pp. 48–58Google Scholar; G. Kloss, Untersuchungen zum Wortfeld “Verlangen/Begehren” im frühgriechischen Epos (1994). For the second contribution, ‘reciprocity’ is treated as a pervasive cultural phenomenon in Archaic Greece (pp. 58–9), but no recent literature is mentioned. At p. 78, consultation of F.S. Naiden, Ancient Supplication (2006), esp. p. 7, might have prevented the wrong statement that supplication is primarily a relationship between humans and gods.