Thebes, Amphiaraus and Alcmaeon in Pindar’s Pythian 8: instruction to the winner

The article examines the didactical component of Pindar’s Pythian 8, which includes the Theban mythohistorical line — the plot of “Seven against Thebes” and the Epigoni’s march on Thebes. In this ode, Pindar instructs Aeginet Aristomenes, the winner of the Pythian Games, through Amphiaraus’ prophecy. Glorifying Aristomenes, Pindar instructs him not to become proud beyond measure, not to overstep the bounds, because Hes-ychia can destroy anyone who lets “merciless malice” into his heart, as it happened with Adrastus and his son. At the same time, Pindar compares Aristomenes with the hero Alcmaeon, the son of Amphiaraus, emphasizing that the glorious blood of their fathers flows in the veins of both. This interpretation of the fragment from Pind. Pyth. 8.56-60 differs from the traditional one since here Pindar meets not Alcmaeon, but Amphiaraus, receiving a prophecy from the latter. It is Amphiaraus who is called Pindar’s "neighbor" and the “guardian” of the Thebans’ possessions. In our opinion, Amphiaraus appears to Pindar in Delphi or on the way to Delphi. This interpretation is based on a comparison of Pindar’s text with a fragment from Herodotus (Hdt. 8.134.1-2), as well as on paleotopographic, archaeological and epigraphic studies. Considering that there is no information about the cult of Alcmaeon in Thebes and in Aegina at the moment, it seems like-ly that Pindar implies his meeting with Amphiaraus, whose sanc-tuary was located, according to a number of scholars, including the author of the article, near Thebes. However, according to He-rodotus who stated that the Thebans could not inquire the oracle of Amphiaraus in this sanctuary, and also on the basis of the pos-sible location of this sanctuary off the road to Delphi, it is sug-gested that Amphiaraus appeared to Pindar not at Amphiareum.

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).

Social upbringing and an example of Antiquity in the writings of J.J. Rousseau

The article analyses the influence of Antiquity on J.-J. Rousseau’s ideas of social education. It is noted that Rousseau's interest in Antiquity emerged in childhood and was stimulated by Plutarch's works. In later years, he studied Latin and elements of the ancient Greek language, and translated the works of Tacitus and Seneca into French. Modern scholars place an emphasis on Rousseau's direct acquaintance with the works of ancient authors, in particular, under the influence of the home education that he received from his father, a Geneva watchmaker. At the same time, the article draws attention to the fact that Rousseau's interest in Antiquity coincided with his life choice: he decided to make a career as a writer and composer, and therefore focused on popular examples of creative writing. Montesquieu, Fenelon, Marquis d'Argens introduced ancient themes into the context of literary and academic polemics. Their example was followed by Rousseau, which is convincingly illustrated by the comparative analysis of Fenelon’s Dialogues of the Dead and Prosopopoeia of Fabricius in Rousseau's first Discourse. While retaining the main intention of the great moralist, namely the moral education of society by the writer on the examples of Antiquity, Rousseau rethinks it in the context of his own social anthropology. Antiquity is not an example to follow, but a starting point for a person of his time to think about their own social and cultural identity that is different from the past. Being a writer-moralist and political thinker, Rousseau essentially solved the problem of moral education regarding the perception and assessment of the ancient culture by his contemporaries and society.

Juan Luis Vives on the use of Ancient literature in education

The work “On Education” (De tradendis disciplinis) by the Spanish humanist Juan Luis Vives (1492/3–1540) is considered from the perspective of the use of ancient literature during the in-itial period of child school training (from 7 to 15 years). Vives’ appreciation of the Latin language, a positive attitude towards teaching Greek at school, and the influence of ancient languages on modern European languages — Italian, Spanish, and French are discussed. The article draws attention to some features in teaching the Latin language that are not characteristic of the hu-manists who preceded Vives and also wrote about school. They are as follows: using the native language as an instrument for mastering Latin at the initial stage of learning, and using modern literature - writers, grammarians, humanists, which helps to learn ancient languages in the subsequent period. These features can be explained by Vives’ epoch when national states were being estab-lished, national languages were strengthening, and pedagogical thinking was developing. The article also examines the issue brought up by Vives himself about the attitude to pagan literature and to some, in Vives’ opinion, morally questionable poets. With all the inconsistency of Vives and the low persuasiveness of his self-censorship, the solution to this problem comes down to se-lecting such authors the study of whose works will protect school students from vices. The article shows that both Latin and Greek literature (works on oratory, poetry, comedy, history, my-thology, etc.) are widely used in teaching. Ancient writings not only form and enrich the language, but also provide versatile knowledge, mainly of humanitarian kind, help to bring up an ed-ucated and cultured person. This is supported by a large survey of over 100 ancient authors, modern writers, scientists, humanists, early medieval writers, “church fathers”, publishers, translators, and commentators provided at the very end of Vives' discussion on education, with brief characteristics of many of them.

Review of the Book “Adolf Trendelenburg. Outlines of Logic (Elementa Logices Aristoteleae)”

The author presented a review of the Book “Adolf Trendelenburg. Outlines of Logic (Elementa Logices Aristoteleae)”.

Galen. On bones for beginners

The author provides a commented translation of Galen's "On bones for beginners".

Refiguring Odysseus’ Apologue in Plato’s Protagoras

The common 4th century B.C. view according to which Homer was regarded as a poet and a wise man, the leading and most honorable, to the point of being considered “the educator of Greece” (Pl. Resp. 606e-607a), is strongly supported by the Pla-tonic dialogues. The works of Plato are the main available source to get to know not only the great pedagogical esteem for Homer, but also the several educational traditions that used or relied on Homeric poetry in Classical Athens. We are certainly used to thinking of Socrates as standing out for contesting or blaming such customs and methods provided by rhapsodes, sophists and common people (Pl. Resp.; Ion; Hp. mi.). But conversely, he is also often depicted quoting, alluding to or remaking on Homeric passages when presenting his own views. Socrates even claims to feel a certain friendship or reverence for the poet and declares to be charmed by contemplating things through him, whom he con-siders to be amongst the few deserving to be called “philosophers” (Pl. Resp. 595b; 607c-d; Phdr. 278b-279b). The puzzling twofold nature of the Socratic attitude towards Homer, coupled with the fact that Plato would become a figure as honored as the poet was, led ancient literary criticism to focus on the Platonic use and sharing of material and techniques proper to Homeric poetry. Works like those of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Maximus of Tyre, Longinus and above all Proclus, not only pointed out the philosopher’s debt to the poet, but even consid-ered him to be an admirer of the Homeric genius unlike anyone else, and whose emulation basically attempted to reach and out-perform the pedagogical power that the legendary poet had (Dion. Hal. Pomp. I, 13; Max. Tyr. Or. 26; [Longinus]; Subl. XIII, 2-3; Procl., In R. VI, 163.13-164.7; 202.7-205.23). With an analogous spirit, studies of contemporary Platonists suggest that the dialogues were shaped using the Homeric text, especially the Odyssey, as a template, and making Socrates ap-pear as going through equivalent experiences to those of Odys-seus’ “νόστος”. With respect to Protagoras, previous attempts focused on explicit references to books X and XI, placing the dispute with the sophist and the events at Callias’ house in the symbolic context of Odysseus’ encounter with Circe and the fol-lowing journey into the underworld. I attempt to bring that read-ing one step further, paying special attention to the narrated character and the dramatic context for the singing of those epi-sodes and the parallel ones in Protagoras. In first place, I consider the whole dialogue refiguring the epi-sode in the Odyssey that works as a dramatic frame for the sing-ing of Odysseus’ past adventures, the arrival at Phaeacia and the reception at Alcinous’ court. I regard Odysseus’ need to sing the Apologue as a call for hospitality to secure a safe passage home, working as a pattern for Socrates’ need of a tale at his own ap-pearance in Athens to fulfill and secure a philosophical education in the city. In second place, I take into consideration the metanar-rative dimension of such remaking. Since Socrates’ narration comes in response to a certain “Ὁμήρου ἐπαινέτης”, a “praiser of Homer” (Pl. Prt. 309b1), as Odysseus’ Apologue is to Demo-docus the “ἀοιδὸς”, I examine how the dialogue could evince a dispute for pedagogical primacy amongst the different narratives and uses of poetry in Athens, a dispute that the Platonic narrative would attempt to surpass precisely by imitating Homer.

On the translation of Donatus' Ars Grammatica (I.1-6)

The author provides a commented translation of Donatus' Ars Grammatica (I.1-6).

Hippias’s “Collection” — a handbook for a man of wisdom

Despite the obvious revival of interest in the First Sophistry in recent decades, Hippias of Elis is poorly considered in the con-text of the history of ancient education. Evidences about his phil-osophical views are not investigated as something significant in the development of ancient philosophy. Usually Hippias is inter-preted as a representative of the nascent genre of doxography. Meanwhile, there is an opportunity to consider evidence of his work, teaching, genre of his texts as an element of the history of the “higher” levels of ancient education, intended for successful and self-sufficient members of ancient society. This social type was formed precisely in the era of the First Sophistry. The cen-tral subject of this paper is the «Collection» of Hippias. Despite the minimum of information about this text available to a mod-ern scholar, there is a steady tendency to associate a number of evidences about the work of Hippias with this text. I will try to show that the hypothetical content of the “Collection” is in good agreement with the available information about the wisdom of Hippias. First of all, it corresponds to his belief in the diversity and plurality of being. This is the origin of the sophist's multi-scholarship — the multiplicity of being (the bodies of beings) forces us to develop a variety of knowledge concerning the most diverse aspects of life, its various manifestations. The methodol-ogy of his work was connected with this: Hippias singled out the most important and “homogeneous”. It allowed him to classify the material in full accordance with the tasks facing him. As a re-sult, firstly, this text was an attempt to systematize human knowledge about existence in its most important sections (the beginning of everything, the gods, history, the experience of re-markable people). Secondly, it was a teaching guide that allowed not only to learn various facts, but also helped to formulate judgments about the past so that it became a source of experience for the present. And thirdly, it was an auxiliary mnemonic tool, important for the process of writing speeches or rhetorical im-provisation.

The influence of Xenophon’s didactic writings on the military leadership practice of Alexander the Great

The article examines the influence of Xenophon’s didactic works on the military activities of Alexander the Great. It is re-vealed that messages from ancient sources containing direct in-dications of the fact that Alexander was familiar with Xeno-phon’s works are either fundamentally unreliable or subject to different interpretations. Nevertheless, a comparison of the rec-ommendations proposed in “Kyropedia” and other Athenian au-thor’s writings the with Alexander’s practical activities reveals obvious similarities in their views on training military personnel, organizing competitions in military skill, providing soldiers with richly decorated weapons, and caring for the sick and wounded. A set of coincidences is associated with the political and admin-istrative activities of Alexander, who, like Cyrus the Elder in Xenophon’s writings, demonstratively showed mercy towards the vanquished, attracted representatives of the local elite to the ser-vice, wore clothes traditional for a conquered country. A large number of similarities, good education of Alexander and the popularity of Xenophon’s writings in the second half of the 4th century BCE allow us to conclude that the Macedonian king was familiar with the works of the Athenian author. However, the components of Xenophon's didactic legacy associated with the methods of warfare do not correlate well with Alexander's mili-tary leadership practice. The fundamental differences are re-vealed in the armament of the cavalry and their tactics, the depth of the infantry formation, the role of army branches on the battle-field. They were caused by a significant breakthrough in the art of war that took place in Macedonia during the time of Philip II. This breakthrough also led to the emergence of new tactics that provided for crushing the enemy not with a frontal attack of heavy infantry, but through the combined use of various types of troops. Alexander as a military leader was raised under the con-ditions of a new, more developed military art. Thus, the over-whelming majority of Xenophon's recommendations, which de-scribed the cavalry as a purely auxiliary branch of the army and considered the classical hoplite phalanx a decisive force in battle, were clearly irrelevant for him and therefore ignored.