Pub Date : 2021-09-01DOI: 10.32880/2587-7127-2021-5-5-19-42
A. Fesenko
The article focuses on ancient astronomy as an academic dis-cipline. Antiquity created a holistic image of the world and a cul-ture of thinking, in which the natural and exact sciences and lib-eral arts were not artificially differentiated and remained in har-monious unity, becoming the basis of an interdisciplinary ap-proach in education. Therefore, even the exact sciences were studied literarily from poetic works. On the example of ancient culture, the connection between the astronomical worldview and other components of the mindset is particularly clearly traced. This is crucial in terms of technology since ancient pedagogy contained all the criteria for technological effectiveness. In the Homeric age, the basic mnemonic rules for navigating by the stars, the definition of the conditions for visibility of heavenly bodies in all seasons, the connection of celestial phenomena with the calendar, known since the Cretan-Mycenaean age, were liter-arily recorded in the epic. This trend was further developed in Hesiod’s didactic epic and took shape in the content as a para-digm of astronomical education. The appearance of Cleobulina’s astronomical riddles appeared, which are allegorical in nature and show similarities with the allegories of Homer, took place approximately at the same time. In subsequent periods (from the 5th century BC), the school study of the Homer and Hesiod’s works required writing comments on the astronomical passages of these and later other authors. With the development of natural philosophical doctrines, new methods of presenting astronomical material appeared. The original form of the philosophical epic was replaced by a prosaic form. The reaction to the natural philo-sophical revolution led to a preference for the traditional Homer and Hesiod. Special educational astronomical texts written by such authors as Aratus, Germanicus, Alexander Aetolus, etc. came to exist-ence as a separate group.
{"title":"Ancient didactic astronomical texts","authors":"A. Fesenko","doi":"10.32880/2587-7127-2021-5-5-19-42","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32880/2587-7127-2021-5-5-19-42","url":null,"abstract":"The article focuses on ancient astronomy as an academic dis-cipline. Antiquity created a holistic image of the world and a cul-ture of thinking, in which the natural and exact sciences and lib-eral arts were not artificially differentiated and remained in har-monious unity, becoming the basis of an interdisciplinary ap-proach in education. Therefore, even the exact sciences were studied literarily from poetic works. On the example of ancient culture, the connection between the astronomical worldview and other components of the mindset is particularly clearly traced. This is crucial in terms of technology since ancient pedagogy contained all the criteria for technological effectiveness. In the Homeric age, the basic mnemonic rules for navigating by the stars, the definition of the conditions for visibility of heavenly bodies in all seasons, the connection of celestial phenomena with the calendar, known since the Cretan-Mycenaean age, were liter-arily recorded in the epic. This trend was further developed in Hesiod’s didactic epic and took shape in the content as a para-digm of astronomical education. The appearance of Cleobulina’s astronomical riddles appeared, which are allegorical in nature and show similarities with the allegories of Homer, took place approximately at the same time. In subsequent periods (from the 5th century BC), the school study of the Homer and Hesiod’s works required writing comments on the astronomical passages of these and later other authors. With the development of natural philosophical doctrines, new methods of presenting astronomical material appeared. The original form of the philosophical epic was replaced by a prosaic form. The reaction to the natural philo-sophical revolution led to a preference for the traditional Homer and Hesiod. Special educational astronomical texts written by such authors as Aratus, Germanicus, Alexander Aetolus, etc. came to exist-ence as a separate group.","PeriodicalId":32993,"journal":{"name":"Hypothekai","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47462315","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-01DOI: 10.32880/2587-7127-2021-5-5-248-255
A. Bermus
The author presented a review of the Book “Adolf Trendelenburg. Outlines of Logic (Elementa Logices Aristoteleae)”.
作者对《阿道夫·特伦德伦堡逻辑学概论》一书进行了评述。
{"title":"Review of the Book “Adolf Trendelenburg. Outlines of Logic (Elementa Logices Aristoteleae)”","authors":"A. Bermus","doi":"10.32880/2587-7127-2021-5-5-248-255","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32880/2587-7127-2021-5-5-248-255","url":null,"abstract":"The author presented a review of the Book “Adolf Trendelenburg. Outlines of Logic (Elementa Logices Aristoteleae)”.","PeriodicalId":32993,"journal":{"name":"Hypothekai","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49442558","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-01DOI: 10.32880/2587-7127-2021-5-5-113-140
A. Kleymeonov
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.
{"title":"The influence of Xenophon’s didactic writings on the military leadership practice of Alexander the Great","authors":"A. Kleymeonov","doi":"10.32880/2587-7127-2021-5-5-113-140","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32880/2587-7127-2021-5-5-113-140","url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":32993,"journal":{"name":"Hypothekai","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41348024","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-01DOI: 10.32880/2587-7127-2021-5-5-191-213
V. Pichugina, E. Mettini, Y. Volkova
The heritage of the ancient Roman politician, orator and thinker Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC), is considered as a set of texts that over centuries have been included in the curricula for humanities students, significantly changing the narrative tradition and detecting a way of understanding what is related to humanities. The key questions for the authors is the following: how and for what purposes was Cicero’s heritage presented to humanities students in educational texts in the first two decades of the 20th and 21st centuries? At the beginning of last century, scholars’ attention to Cicero was largely due to Augustus Samuel Wilkins (1843–1905), Paul Monroe (1869–1947) and his disciple Ellwood Cubberley (1868-1941). Many textbooks compiled by P. Monroe, A.S. Wilkins and E. Cubberley were published one after another. Thanks to the educational books of P. Monroe, A.S. Wilkins and E. Cubberley, different approaches to presenting Cicero's works for educational purposes were developed. It is these approaches that were reflected in educational books for humanists a century later. In Russian textbooks, sourcebooks, and anthologies on history of pedagogy, Cicero was mostly a figure of omission not only in the first decades, but throughout the entire 20th century. At the beginning of the 21st century, many learning books for humanities students appeared. Their authors and compilers consider Cicero as an author who left a conceptual description of pedagogical reality (a detailed description of educational process) and chose a narrative description (description of what happened through the eyes of those who take part in it). We have to regret that the Russian domestic tradition of including Cicero's heritage in the content of humanitarian education has hardly undergone any changes over a century: fragments of his works continue to be presented on a small scale, are practically not grouped according to key issues, and rarely accompanied by pedagogical commentaries. The question of why some texts were selected while others were not, can be asked to every author and compiler who included Cicero's texts in their books for humanities students. The search for answers to this “eternal question” can be associated both with the flexibility of the humanitarian curriculum, and with the personal preferences of the authors and compilers of learning books.
{"title":"Cicero’s writings as learning texts for humanities students: from Augustus Wilkins to Cicero Digitalis","authors":"V. Pichugina, E. Mettini, Y. Volkova","doi":"10.32880/2587-7127-2021-5-5-191-213","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32880/2587-7127-2021-5-5-191-213","url":null,"abstract":"The heritage of the ancient Roman politician, orator and thinker Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC), is considered as a set of texts that over centuries have been included in the curricula for humanities students, significantly changing the narrative tradition and detecting a way of understanding what is related to humanities. The key questions for the authors is the following: how and for what purposes was Cicero’s heritage presented to humanities students in educational texts in the first two decades of the 20th and 21st centuries? At the beginning of last century, scholars’ attention to Cicero was largely due to Augustus Samuel Wilkins (1843–1905), Paul Monroe (1869–1947) and his disciple Ellwood Cubberley (1868-1941). Many textbooks compiled by P. Monroe, A.S. Wilkins and E. Cubberley were published one after another. Thanks to the educational books of P. Monroe, A.S. Wilkins and E. Cubberley, different approaches to presenting Cicero's works for educational purposes were developed. It is these approaches that were reflected in educational books for humanists a century later. In Russian textbooks, sourcebooks, and anthologies on history of pedagogy, Cicero was mostly a figure of omission not only in the first decades, but throughout the entire 20th century. At the beginning of the 21st century, many learning books for humanities students appeared. Their authors and compilers consider Cicero as an author who left a conceptual description of pedagogical reality (a detailed description of educational process) and chose a narrative description (description of what happened through the eyes of those who take part in it). We have to regret that the Russian domestic tradition of including Cicero's heritage in the content of humanitarian education has hardly undergone any changes over a century: fragments of his works continue to be presented on a small scale, are practically not grouped according to key issues, and rarely accompanied by pedagogical commentaries. The question of why some texts were selected while others were not, can be asked to every author and compiler who included Cicero's texts in their books for humanities students. The search for answers to this “eternal question” can be associated both with the flexibility of the humanitarian curriculum, and with the personal preferences of the authors and compilers of learning books.","PeriodicalId":32993,"journal":{"name":"Hypothekai","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48291723","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-01DOI: 10.32880/2587-7127-2021-5-5-64-82
Alexander Nefyodkin
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).
这篇文章是一个初步的尝试，将两个来源列表归因于拜占庭军事论文:第一个来自拜占庭皇帝明智的利奥六世(886-912)的“Taktica”，第二个来自拜占庭战略家和安提阿公爵Nicephorus Ura-nus(1000年代)的“Taktika”。这些来源中有许多是足够清楚的——它们是阿里安(“Techne Taktike”)、埃利安(“战术理论”)、奥诺山德(“战略”)、波利埃努斯(“战略”)、叙利亚总督、莫里斯(“战略”)、尼基弗罗斯二世·福卡斯(“Praecepta Militaria”)的军事论文，以及伟大的迦太基指挥官汉尼拔的未保存的作品。此外，毫无疑问，天王星使用了Chaeronea的道德家普鲁塔克的著作。在列奥的“Taktica”列表中提到的Mena，可以与对话“Menae patricii与Thoma referentiario: De scientia politica dialogus”(6世纪上半叶)的参与者进行比较。将这种“对话”与狮子座的“Taktica”进行进一步的比较，可以使这个问题更加清晰，因为天王星只对其原始来源的文本进行了微小的修改。天王星本人广泛使用了历史资料，并把它们纳入标题。一般来说，天王星使用了狄奥多鲁斯·西库鲁斯(“历史图书馆”)、狄奥·卡修斯·科西安努斯(“罗马历史”)和波利比乌斯(“历史”)的历史著作，以及亚历山大大帝的作品(信件、日记)或一本关于他的小说。另一篇文章将专门讨论阿尔塔薛西斯作品的归属。名单中的三个来源仍然不清楚:珀罗普斯、亚西比德和赫拉克利德。在尼斯弗鲁斯·乌拉努斯(Nicephorus Uranus)出版《塔克提卡》(Taktika)之后，可以对它们的归属有所了解，尽管前14章在四个世纪前(1617年)出版，但这一工作尚未完成。
{"title":"Unknown Ancient sources of Byzantine military treatises","authors":"Alexander Nefyodkin","doi":"10.32880/2587-7127-2021-5-5-64-82","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32880/2587-7127-2021-5-5-64-82","url":null,"abstract":"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).","PeriodicalId":32993,"journal":{"name":"Hypothekai","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44893848","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-01DOI: 10.32880/2587-7127-2021-5-5-100-112
R. Svetlov
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.
{"title":"Hippias’s “Collection” — a handbook for a man of wisdom","authors":"R. Svetlov","doi":"10.32880/2587-7127-2021-5-5-100-112","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32880/2587-7127-2021-5-5-100-112","url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":32993,"journal":{"name":"Hypothekai","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48484316","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-01DOI: 10.32880/2587-7127-2019-4-4-74-88
Steven Murray
The spear, or dory, was the major weapon of the ancient Greeks. The ancient Greek warrior, especially the hoplite, was known for his prowess in using the dory as a thrusting weapon in hand-to-hand combat and as part of the formidable Greek phalanx, but the dory, too, could be used as a missile weapon, when necessary. Other specialized throwing-spears were commonplace among the ancient Greeks’ arsenal of weapons. The Greeks incorporated a throwing loop, called an ankyle, that was used to maximize the distance that a spear could be thrown, enhancing the ancient Greeks’ military dominance on the battlefield. The dory, and its athletic kin, the javelin, or akon or akonition, were fixtures in ancient Greece, and often Greek soldiers would carry two spears into battle for an edge over their adversaries. The following is a description of the dory, its construction and development, and how modern-day experiments indicate how impressive the ankyle was at helping the ancient Greeks to achieve victory that was “won by the spear”.
{"title":"“Won by the Spear”: the importance of the Dory to the Ancient Greek warrior","authors":"Steven Murray","doi":"10.32880/2587-7127-2019-4-4-74-88","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32880/2587-7127-2019-4-4-74-88","url":null,"abstract":"The spear, or dory, was the major weapon of the ancient Greeks. The ancient Greek warrior, especially the hoplite, was known for his prowess in using the dory as a thrusting weapon in hand-to-hand combat and as part of the formidable Greek phalanx, but the dory, too, could be used as a missile weapon, when necessary. Other specialized throwing-spears were commonplace among the ancient Greeks’ arsenal of weapons. The Greeks incorporated a throwing loop, called an ankyle, that was used to maximize the distance that a spear could be thrown, enhancing the ancient Greeks’ military dominance on the battlefield. The dory, and its athletic kin, the javelin, or akon or akonition, were fixtures in ancient Greece, and often Greek soldiers would carry two spears into battle for an edge over their adversaries. The following is a description of the dory, its construction and development, and how modern-day experiments indicate how impressive the ankyle was at helping the ancient Greeks to achieve victory that was “won by the spear”.","PeriodicalId":32993,"journal":{"name":"Hypothekai","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43401818","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-01DOI: 10.32880/2587-7127-2019-4-4-207-223
Sophia A. Xenophontos
: In this chapter, I explore the dangers and limitations of an exclusively military education in the light of the Pyrrhus and Marius. As I shall argue below, for Plutarch the military sphere is not merely a background setting in which the characters exhibit their valour, but rather a vital environment for the construction and interpretation of the biographical account; it helps to cast light on how the hero behaves in other contexts, e.g., in the family, in politics, philosophy, and rhetoric, which in turn has implications for the hero ’ s morality and cultural identity. At the beginning of the Life of Pyrrhus Plutarch provides his readers with the mythical narrative explaining the foundation and settlement of Epirus. According to tradi-tion, Neoptolemus, son of Achilles, was the country ’ s first ruler, but the line of kings descended from him, the Pyrrhidae, soon sank into barbarism in terms both of their power and way of life ( Pyrrh 1.4). The situation was ameliorated when Tharrhypas, Pyrrhus ’ great-great-grandfather, introduced Greek customs and letters, and administered the cities with humane laws ( Pyrrh . 1.4). mythical account anticipates key theme arising subsequent narrative, namely the between and – often baby
{"title":"Military space and paideia in the Lives of Pyrrhus and Marius","authors":"Sophia A. Xenophontos","doi":"10.32880/2587-7127-2019-4-4-207-223","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32880/2587-7127-2019-4-4-207-223","url":null,"abstract":": In this chapter, I explore the dangers and limitations of an exclusively military education in the light of the Pyrrhus and Marius. As I shall argue below, for Plutarch the military sphere is not merely a background setting in which the characters exhibit their valour, but rather a vital environment for the construction and interpretation of the biographical account; it helps to cast light on how the hero behaves in other contexts, e.g., in the family, in politics, philosophy, and rhetoric, which in turn has implications for the hero ’ s morality and cultural identity. At the beginning of the Life of Pyrrhus Plutarch provides his readers with the mythical narrative explaining the foundation and settlement of Epirus. According to tradi-tion, Neoptolemus, son of Achilles, was the country ’ s first ruler, but the line of kings descended from him, the Pyrrhidae, soon sank into barbarism in terms both of their power and way of life ( Pyrrh 1.4). The situation was ameliorated when Tharrhypas, Pyrrhus ’ great-great-grandfather, introduced Greek customs and letters, and administered the cities with humane laws ( Pyrrh . 1.4). mythical account anticipates key theme arising subsequent narrative, namely the between and – often baby","PeriodicalId":32993,"journal":{"name":"Hypothekai","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44277590","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-17DOI: 10.32880/2587-7127-2018-3-3-250-277
A. Mozhajsky
{"title":"Reflection of the educational space of Early Christian Boiotian Thebes (4-6 AD) in the material culture","authors":"A. Mozhajsky","doi":"10.32880/2587-7127-2018-3-3-250-277","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32880/2587-7127-2018-3-3-250-277","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":32993,"journal":{"name":"Hypothekai","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44889386","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-17DOI: 10.32880/2587-7127-2018-3-3-87-103
V. Pichugina
{"title":"Homo Ineptus or Homo Sapiens: Joannes Stobaeus and his “universal knowledge” in the educational space of Late Antiquity","authors":"V. Pichugina","doi":"10.32880/2587-7127-2018-3-3-87-103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32880/2587-7127-2018-3-3-87-103","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":32993,"journal":{"name":"Hypothekai","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43264640","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：