Explore the vast range of titles available.

The prescriptions on how to eulogize the city, provided in 3rd century by Menander Rhetor in his treatise On Epideictic, reflect the encomiastic convention according to which Pindar composed his poetic encomia urbis. Among the topoi that the poet applies to praise Athens one can list the ancient origin of the city, including the identification of its founder, the practiced habits concerning the form of politeia as well as those concerning the professional skills and abilities of the inhabitants, their virtues and deeds in war and in peace. In Pindar’s victory odes, the praise of the city is always subordinated to the praise of an individual victor. Therefore, the poet praises the outstanding individuals, members of aristocratic families, whose values and achievements adorn their city, and who inherited their excellence from heroic ancestors, mythical founders of Athens. In dithyrambic poems, composed for Athenian festivals and performed by kyklioi choroi of men and boys representing the communities of phylai, polis-encomium is a form of self-praise, an expression of 5th century Athenian ideology, which makes citizens proud of their city’s power. Consequently, Pindar focuses on praising Athens’ military prowess and the dominant position which the city achieved in the Greek world, its institutions, its beauty and public buildings.

In this article, I would like to provide a reappraisal of sophistic activities during the Hellenistic period. An analysis of passages in Philodemus, Posidonius, and several more fragmentary sources can show that there is a continuous and lively tradition of sophistic teaching and rhetoric from the Classical period until Imperial times. The texts give the impression that characteristic features of Hellenistic sophists point towards the generation of Gorgias and his colleagues as well as towards the star speakers of the Second Sophistic. The traditional but outworn negative image of the Hellenistic sophists and Hellenistic rhetoric in general can be explained as a result of the source situation, the decentralisation of schools and performance spaces, and a Classicistic bias of ancient and modern authors. In the end, the testimonies allow for more conclusions than generally thought. A selection of related sources is provided in an appendix.

This paper examines certain history-making and memory-making practices that allow us to see how the past may be animated. These practices are: first, the Ancient Greek sophistic arts, as exemplified by Gorgias’s Encomium of Helen, and as revived, in dialogue form, in Renaissance humanism; and second, Ancient Greek, Ancient Roman, and medieval memory arts, with particular attention to the composite generative imagery of those arts. Animating the past – as these practices of history-making and memory-making do – is of great epistemic and political value to communities: it enables acts of argument and judgement, and, more generally, it is vital for vibrant democracies. The paper signals, albeit only briefly, how these practices are also intertwined with legal history, and in particular the history of legal reasoning, suggesting some ways forward, in future work, for investigating the entangled histories of history-making, memory-making, and law-making.

In Gorgias’s Encomium of Helen and Defense of Palamedes, the orator draws attention to two important limitations of speech’s power that concern its different relationships to belief vs. knowledge. First, logos has the capacity to affect and change a person’s beliefs, but it is powerless to change or undermine a person’s knowledge. Second, speech has the power to produce a new belief, but it is powerless to produce knowledge itself where knowledge is lacking. My primary aim in this essay is to examine Gorgias’s epistemology of persuasive logos with a view to illuminating these two limitations. I suggest that Gorgias’s claims in the Helen and Palamedes make the most sense when considered in the forensic and deliberative contexts in which the art of rhetoric thrived in ancient Greece. In such contexts the prevailing epistemology that contemporary orators take for granted is a kind of folk empiricism that privileges sense-perception as a source of knowledge, and I argue that Gorgias’s ideas about logos and its limitations are best understood in terms of that epistemological framework. Speech cannot make people “unknow” what they have seen with their own eyes, nor can it act as a surrogate or replacement for sense-perception itself.

This HRQ encomium is in honor of the scholarly contributions of Reza Afshari and their relevance to the contemporary challenges facing human rights in an era of rising global xenophobia. Contributions are not intended to be commentaries on Afshari's work as such; rather the idea is for each scholar to reflect on the relevance of issues that have particularly informed his work over the years to contemporary human rights challenges. Afshari has been a brave, innovative thinker with a willingness to challenge political and academic shibboleths of all sorts. Reflecting on themes that have informed his work brings up much of what is most essential and most challenging in human rights scholarship and its ability or inability to make an impact. This encomium, thus, is more than just a passing comment on Afshari's work; it is meant to give participants a chance to engage on key recurring issues in human rights during these particularly dark times.

Examining the figure of Aesop and the traditions surrounding him, Aesopic Conversations offers a portrait of what Greek popular culture might have looked like in the ancient world. What has survived from the literary record of antiquity is almost entirely the product of an elite of birth, wealth, and education, limiting our access to a fuller range of voices from the ancient past. This book, however, explores the anonymous Life of Aesop and offers a different set of perspectives. Leslie Kurke argues that the traditions surrounding this strange text, when read with and against the works of Greek high culture, allow us to reconstruct an ongoing conversation of \"great\" and \"little\" traditions spanning centuries.

The article analyses the struggle of Anglo-American relations connected to slaves and maritime rights on the sea from 1831 to 1842. The study is based on monographs, reports, treaties and correspondences between the two countries from the explosion of the Comet case in 1831 to the signing of the Webster–Ashburton treaty in 1842. This study focuses on three fundamental issues: the appearance of Comet, Encomium, Enterprise, Hermosa and Creole as international incidents with regards to British-American relations; the view of both countries on the abolition of slavery, maritime rights as well as the dispute over issues to resolve arising from these incidents; the results of British-American diplomacy to release slaves and maritime rights after the signing of the Webster–Ashburton treaty. The study found that the American slave ships were special cases in comparison with the previous controversies in bilateral relations. The American slave vessels sailed to the British colonies due to bad weather conditions and a slave rebellion on board. In fact, Great Britain and the United States had never dealt with a similar case, so both sides failed to find a unified view regarding the differences in the laws and policies of the two countries on slavery. The history of British-American relations demonstrated that under the pressures of the border dispute in Maine and New Brunswick, the affairs were not resolved. In addition, it could have had more of an impact on the relationship between the two countries, eventually p the two countries into a war. In that situation, the diplomatic and economic solutions given to the abolition of slavery and maritime rights were only temporary. However, the international affairs related to the American slave vessels paved the way for the settlement of maritime rights for British-American relations in the second half of 19th century.