Search

Zuckerberg makes this clear, but without the emphasis that I believe it deserves (165).[14] This play is very much about the goddesses Aphrodite and Artemis, both utterly despicable, both present in person, both presented as real forces.[15] Moreover, the oath that in I Hippolytus i II Phaedra's arrogant but pious victim takes and fatally honors may be unique among the five tragedies in this thematic collection.[16] To his stepmother's Nurse when she reminds him that (off stage) he took an oath not to disclose what she was about to tell him, i.e., about her mistress's desire for him, his retort is famous. What may be lost in an approach such as Zuckerberg's to I Hippolytus i II is the drama, the tragedy among persons in what may be Euripides' finest play, but hardly his easiest. However, on the same page she explains why Phaedra's accusation in I Hippolytus i II was taken seriously: "A close reading of Phaedra's story [in I Hippolytus i II] shows that her successful false accusation depends upon the fact that she is the "right" kind of accuser with the "right" kind of alleged rapist." Zuckerberg quotes this exchange.[20] On that earlier line 497 Zuckerberg quotes Aristophanic scholar Alan Sommerstein, who suggests that "Phaedra's particular villainy (revenging herself, by a false accusation of rape, on a man who had spurned her) is not one that women now habitually practice.". [Extracted from the article]

He forcefully, yet not without placing a firm arrest on a moving target - "Middle" Plato's thought - argues for a new understanding of (a) Plato's Idealism in his day, and of (b) a defensible personal and interpersonal ethics in today's public sphere. I must admire Jonny Thakkar, too, whose intimate conversance with Plato's I Republic i puts to shame some who wish to make Plato a collaborator in their intellectual or social projects. In Chapter 5, "Historical Possibility", we first find a brief reprise of Thakkar's still unconvincing defense of Plato's "forms" during the period when he must have completed the I Republic i (what is no defense at all if we alter Plato's thinking to defend them). [Extracted from the article]

This man's role in scriptural matters and his aggressive stance regarding the "Old" Testament and its God somewhat support Rüpke's own revisionist assertion that Christianity and Judaism - that is, Christians and Jews - were not clearly distinguished in the I second i century (358). Needless to say, Augustus exploited the office of I pontifex maximus i that he held for the last quarter century of his long reign.[3] Rüpke pursues his theme (from p. 28) of (predominantly urban) concretely "lived religion." Chapter VIII, "Lived Religion: The First to Second Centuries AD": In segue from Chapter IV, this describes in fascinating detail what has been rightly called the Roman Revolution that Caesar Augustus, I Divi Filius i , "Son of the Deified", effected. All persons professionally interested in or merely curious about Rome's history, from shadowy beginnings in legend to the well-documented first centuries of Empire, should welcome this synthesis of decades of research, findings, and keen analysis by Jörg Rüpke. [Extracted from the article]

Describes special program at the University of Denver funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities to design and offer intensive interdisciplinary courses on cultures separated from our own by time and/or space. (Author/BK)