A New Interpretation of the Grid System Reform in the Late Period

This paper offers a new art-historical interpretation of the grid reform of anthropomorphic representations in Egypt around the mid-seventh century BC. The objective of this paper is two-fold. First, it will demonstrate the problems with previous interpretations, which depended, on the one hand, upon the written record of Diodorus Siculus regarding the Egyptian method of statue production, and upon comparative analyses of the two-dimensional representation of human figures on the other. Secondly, this paper is devoted to providing a new understanding of the art-historical context of the grid reform. This reform – in which Late Period Egyptians abandoned the tradition that had been utilised for nearly 1,800 years and created a completely new system by uniting the Egyptian metrological system and the traditional method of grid projection – less reflects improvement in the appearance of the image, and rather demonstrates a metaphysical development that had never been seen or experienced before.

Was Diodorus right?

In the article, an attempt to find archaeological confirmation of the information of Agatharhides Cnides information in Diodorus Siculus regarding the election of a king has been undertaken. In particular it concerns the election of king in Meroe, whom the priests circle around, and people choose as king, the one whom god touches. The article examines the recent findings of the Italian-Russian joint archaeological mission in Abu Erteila, where a new structure of unusual orientation was discovered, located on the same axis with the Lion Temple, which was found earlier. Fragments of the steles of the kings of ancient Sudan are also analyzed, which give evidences on the election of a new king and participation of the people, historical reasons and factors influencing this process. Much still remains unclear, namely the participants and composition of the procession, the moment when God chose the king in the procession. Thus, the considered material of finds from Abu Erteila suggests that nevertheless Diodorus Siculus was right and the discovered material confirms the information of Agatharhides Cnides about the election of a king in Meroe. The priests were the protagonists of the procession, they selected the best candidates and choose as king whom the god seized while being carried about in a procession. As from which only the legs of the figures have survived in Abu Erteila, it is not possible to restore the appearance of the participants, as well as whether the applicant/s were in this procession for the throne. As far as only the legs of the figures have survived in Abu Erteila, it is not possible to restore the appearance of the participants, as well as whether the applicant/s were in this procession for the throne.

Unknown Ancient sources of Byzantine military treatises

The article is a preliminary attempt to attribute two lists of sources from Byzantine military treatises: the first one comes from the “Taktica” by the Byzantine emperor Leo VI the Wise (886-912), and the second — from “Taktika” by Nicephorus Ura-nus, the Byzantine strategist and dux of Antioch (1000s). A num-ber of these sources are clear enough — they are the military treatises of Arrian (“Techne Taktike”), Aelian (“The Tactical Theory”), Onosander (“Strategikos”), Polyaenus (“Strategems”), Syrianus Magister, Maurice (“The Strategikon”), Nikephoros II Phokas (“The Praecepta Militaria”), as well as the unpreserved work of the great Carthaginian commander Hannibal. Also, there is no particular doubt about Uranus's use of the writings of the moralist Plutarch of Chaeronea. Mena, mentioned in the list of Leo's “Taktica”, can be compared with a participant of the dia-logue “Menae patricii cum Thoma referendario: De scientia po-litica dialogus” (first half of the 6th century). A further compari-son of this “Dialogue” with Leo’s “Taktica” can bring some clar-ity to this issue, because Uranus made only minor changes to the text of its original source. Uranus himself made extensive use of historical sources, and brought them into the title. In general, Uranus used the historical works of Diodorus Siculus (“Histori-cal Library”), Dio Cassius Cocceianus (“Roman History”) and Polybius (“The Histories”), as well as the works (letters, diaries) of Alexander the Great or a novel about him. A separate article will be devoted to the attribution of the work of Artaxerxes. Three sources from the lists are still unclear: Pelops, Alcibiades, and Heraclides. Some light on their attribution can be cast after the publication of the “Taktika” by Nicephorus Uranus, which is yet to be done, although the first 14 chapters were published four centuries ago (in 1617).

The Madness and the Labors

This chapter explores the varying mythological traditions that recount Heracles’ madness and murder of his children and their significance in framing the Labors for Eurystheus. After a brief survey of the mythographers, three close readings are undertaken. (1) The account in Apollodorus’ Bibliotheca reveals the complex dynamics of this episode: while the madness and killing of his children require that he serve Eurystheus as atonement, his trials and victories nevertheless justify his apotheosis. (2) The Iliad’s account of Heracles’ Labors emphasizes the role of Atē and fate and excludes the madness entirely. (3) Diodorus Siculus’ version demonstrates an attempt to bring the preceding two variants together. The remainder of the chapter is devoted to an analysis of Euripides’ Heracles and Seneca’s Hercules Furens, tragedies which depict the madness occurring after the Labors, and the implications of this reversal of the order of events.

Thomas Hobbes, Diodorus Siculus, and Early Humanity

This article offers a study of Thomas Hobbes’s reading of Diodorus Siculus, a Greek historiographer of the 1st century bc whom Hobbes called “the greatest antiquary perhaps that ever was.” After offering a comparison of the works of Thucydides (often regarded as Hobbes’s greatest classical model) and Diodorus, the article traces the reception of Diodorus’ work in early modern England and examines Diodorus’ strong influence on two principal works, De Homine and Behemoth. Early human histories in the first books of Diodorus’ Bibliotheke Historike (‘Historical Library), including anthropological and cosmological narratives, are a recurrent feature of Hobbes’s focus, and a certain subversiveness animates Hobbes’s use of Diodorus and underpins his critique of contemporary theological and political structures. One result of this research is to suggest a greater place for Diodorus in Hobbes’s intellectual world than previously realised, alongside a strong appreciation for Diodorus across multiple learned discourses in the pre-modern period.

«Мертвые Цари всегда должны по смерти своей быть судимы»: Посмертная судьба одного древнеегипетского обычая в русской и европейской словесности XVI – XIX вв. [“Dead Kings Must Always be Judged after Their Demise”: The Afterlife of an Ancient Egyptian Custom in the Russian and European Literature of the 16th to 19th Centuries]

In his Bibliotheca historica, Diodorus Siculus described a peculiar Egyptian custom of judging all the dead (including the pharaohs) before their burial. The Greek historian saw it as a guarantee of Egypt’s prosperity, since the fear of being deprived of the right to burial served as a moral imperative. This story of an Egyptian custom fascinated the early modern authors, from lawyers to novelists, who often retold it in their own manner. Their interpretations varied depending on the political context: from the traditional “lesson to sovereigns” to a reassessment of the role of the subject and the duties of the orator. This article traces several intellectual trajectories that show the use and misuse of this Egyptian custom from Montaigne to Bossuet and then to Rousseau—and finally its adaptation by Pushkin and Vyazemsky, who most likely became acquainted with it through the mediation of French literature. The article was written in the framework (and with the generous support) of the RANEPA (ШАГИ РАНХиГС) state assignment research program. KEYWORDS: 16th to 19th-Century European and Russian Literature, Diodorus Siculus (1st century BC), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712—1778), Alexander Pushkin (1799—1837), Prince Pyotr Vyazemsky (1792—1878), Egyptian Сourt, Locus communis, Political Rhetoric, Literary Criticism, Pantheonization, History of Ideas.

Epikrateia, Eparchia and a Description of the Carthaginian Presence in Sicily

Ἐπικράτεια and ἐπαρχία are two terms used by the ancient sources to describe the Carthaginian presence in Western Sicily. Due to a lack of information about the character and details of this presence, it is crucial to precisely understand the terminology employed by our sources and all its nuances. The article challenges the widely accepted opinion that the nouns ἐπικράτεια and ἐπαρχία can be treated as synonyms. To verify whether this assumption is correct or not, a careful analysis of how the ancient authors (Polybius, Diodorus Siculus and Plutarch) used both nouns, as well as other related forms, is conducted. To make up for the limited number of occurrences of ἐπικράτεια in the analysed corpus, the relevant part of the examination also includes the use of this noun in Strabo’s Geography. The analysis allows us to highlight a significant change in the meaning of the two terms between the 2nd century (Polybius) and the mid-1st century BC (Diodorus). This change reflects a development in the Greek political and administrative vocabulary, which was adjusting to a new reality of the Mediterranean world being organised into Roman provinces. The conducted analysis also allows us to better understand the complexity of the Carthaginian position in Western Sicily.