In this paper I try to establish and channel a Pindaric undercurrent in Propertius’ Apollo-elegy which hitherto escaped the notice of literary critics. The lynchpin of the argument are the verses 4. 6. 57 f. of Propertius and Pyth. 4. 244–250 of Pindar. In these passages both poets practice radical shortening of narration in order to avoid epic eccentricity. Some elements of Pindar’s imagery and metapoetic stance seemingly absent in Propertius are detected in other parts of the elegy. If the allusion is accepted, the intriguing parallel between the historical Cleopatra and the mythical Medea emerges, the former being destroyed by the Romans, the latter afflicting vengeance upon Pelias. This can be related to the same constellation in 3. 11, where Cleopatra appears as the personified perversion of the political and erotic sway of mythical and historical queens.

In this paper I try to establish and channel a Pindaric undercurrent in Propertius’ Apollo-elegy which hitherto escaped the notice of literary critics. The lynchpin of the argument are the verses 4. 6. 57 f. of Propertius and Pyth. 4. 244–250 of Pindar. In these passages both poets practice radical shortening of narration in order to avoid epic eccentricity. Some elements of Pindar’s imagery and metapoetic stance seemingly absent in Propertius are detected in other parts of the elegy. If the allusion is accepted, the intriguing parallel between the historical Cleopatra and the mythical Medea emerges, the former being destroyed by the Romans, the latter afflicting vengeance upon Pelias. This can be related to the same constellation in 3. 11, where Cleopatra appears as the personified perversion of the political and erotic sway of mythical and historical queens.