This article examines the way Cyril of Alexandria interprets the Passion narrative in his commentary on the Gospel of John. It argues that besides the doctrinal, christological focus of his exegesis Cyril is concerned with a second issue: the contested masculinity of Jesus and his followers during the events of the Passion. This concern becomes clear when Cyril designates the cross-bearing Jesus as “the type of manly courage” (typos andreías). Following a survey of the current historical masculinity studies, the article examines Cyril’s interpretation of such scenes of the Johannine Passion account where Jesus is depicted as being arrested, beaten and flogged, humiliated and finally crucified – i.e., depicted in a way that might seem to contradict antique ideals of manliness. It finally analyzes Cyril’s explanations as to various “unmanly” or “manly” traits of Jesus’ adversaries, especially of the Jews, and of his followers: Peter, his beloved disciple and his Mother.
This article defends Aristotle’s core argument for the naturalness of the city by offering a reconstruction of the connection and a demonstration of the consistency between this argument and its metaphysical foundation. The author argues that the city is natural in a strictly Aristotelian sense since its moving and final causes are intertwined in man’s evolving desire for good life and its historical satisfaction.
In this paper the author deals with Sophocles’ Antigone 2-6 suggesting two slight changes in Ant. 3 (ὁµοῖον pro ὁποῖον) and Ant. 4 (οὖσ᾽ ἄτης ἄτερ pro οὔτ᾽ ἄτης ἄτερ) and he argues in defence of the transmitted words ἄτης ἄτερ. He also discusses Earle’s interpretation of τῶν ἀπ᾽ Οἰδίπου (l. 2) and the translation of νῷν ἔτι ζώσαιν τελεῖ (l. 3).
In addition, he points out the exact attribution of some conjectures.
The story of the astrologer Ascletario is introduced by Suetonius as the last item in a series of portents and predictions presaging Domitian’s violent death. This paper gives an analysis of this episode, discussed in the wider context of the catalogue of portents in Dom. 15.2-3 and, indeed, of the whole death narrative of the biography. A comparison to the parallel story in Cassius Dio (67.16.3) reveals important differences between the two authors; it is argued that Suetonius is closer to the original version of the anecdote and that Dio may have been influenced by Herodotus’ story of Croesus on the pyre. It is also argued that Suetonius expects his readers to connect the Ascletario episode with another Flavian portent, reported at Ves. 7.4 (dogs are prominent in both). Two other ‘canine’ passages of the Domitian, 10.1 and 23.1, are briefly discussed. The proposed analysis supports the view of Suetonius as an author who carefully structured his biographical rubrics and invited his readers to make connections within both a single biography and wider textual units.
That the great cultures of the Near East influenced Mycenaean and Archaic Greek culture has been amply demonstrated by the archaeological record. But did this influence extend to Greek literature? And was it recognized by the ancient Greeks themselves? In this paper I answer these two questions in the affirmative after examining two passages from Homer’s Iliad: Hera’s identification of Oceanus and Tethys as the parents of the gods (14.201) and Poseidon’s account of the division of the world through lot (15.189-193).The analysis of these passages is preceded by a methodological section on how literary parallels between these cultures can be evaluated.