Explore the vast range of titles available.

This paper raises objections to the constitution of these lines in the OCT. The lines are gnomic but they generalize based on an actual sequence of events just described and should contain an allusion to the offence that will cause the Greeks to perish, the outrage against Athena's temple. This, it is argued, stood in a lacuna best marked after 95. The article has three theses: (1) sacking ‘cities, temples, and tombs’ is implausible because the latter two are parts of the first; (2) plundering tombs refers to nothing in the play, nor was this thought of as an offence against the gods; (3) 96–7 do not refer to the offence that causes the fool's death but are a description of his success, the destruction of the hated enemy population. That success stands in ironic contrast with his subsequent death.

Is cleanliness next to godliness? What does such a concept really mean? Why does it recur as a universal theme across all societies? And what are the implications for the unclean? In Purity and Danger Mary Douglas identifies the concern for purity as a key theme at the heart of every society. In lively and lucid prose she explains its relevance for every reader by revealing its wide-ranging impact on our attitudes to society, values, cosmology and knowledge. This book has been hugely influential in many areas of debate - from religion to social theory. With a specially commissioned preface by the author which assesses the continuing significance of the work, this Routledge Classics edition will ensure that Purity and Danger continues to challenge, question and inspire for many years to come.

This article offers a new interpretation of the wave which, in the finale of Euripides’ Iphigenia Taurica, prevents the Greek ship from leaving the Taurian land, thus making it necessary for the goddess Athena to intervene. My contention is that the wave is the predictable consequence of the sacrilege which the Greeks are committing by stealing Artemis’ cult statue from the Taurian temple. Therefore, we can detect in IT the same religious offence–punishment–compensation structure that can be found in Aeschylus’ Eumenides. However, unlike in Aeschylus’ tragedy, in IT Athena's final decrees compensate only the goddess Artemis and not the human characters: after deeply suffering as instruments of the divine will, not even in the future will they be allowed to fulfil their desires. Thus, we may say that a supernatural ‘wave’ prevents humans from leaving in accordance with their will.

Focused on Nikolai Gogol’s absurdist tale, “The Nose” (1835), this article is an investigation into the concealed representation of suppressed and marginalized libertine and anti-religious discourses in nineteenth-century Russian literature. The author identifies overlooked idiomatic phraseology, forgotten specificities of the Imperial hierarchy (the Table of Ranks), and allusions to religious customs and Christian rituals that would have been apparent to Gogol’s readers and shows how some were camouflaged to escape censorship in successive drafts of the work. The research builds on the approaches to Gogol’s language, imagery and plot developed earlier by the Russian Formalists, Tartu-Moscow semioticians, and a few other scholars, who revealed the latent obscenity of Gogol’s “rhinology” and the sacrilegious meaning of the tale’s very specific chronotope. The previous scholars’ observations are substantially supplemented by original findings. An integrated analysis of these aspects in their mutual relationship is required to understand what the telling details of the story reveal about Gogol’s religious and psychological crisis of the mid-1830s and to demonstrate how he aggregated indecent Shandyism, social satire, and religious blasphemy into a single quasi-oneiric narrative.

The Talmud Bavli presents in Tractate Eruvin (104a) a controversy between two Amoraim, Ulla and Rabbah. This controversy on the topic of producing a sound on the Sabbath is the context of the present study. According to Ulla, any production of sound on the Sabbath is forbidden, and according to Rabbah, producing a musical sound is prohibited on the Sabbath but producing a sound that is not musical is permitted. The purpose of the study is to present the two approaches to solving the controversy, where the dilemma is which of them should the halakha follow. The setting of the study is a comparative analysis of two different halakhic approaches. Accordingly, this controversy created two different fundamental halakhic approaches that have implications for the authority of the Talmud Bavli compared to the Talmud Yerushalmi, that is, which of these Talmuds has more authority than the other. The research methods of this article portray the various outlooks of the poskim and commentators, from amongst the first representatives to relate to this problem, where the results show that a relative majority of the commentators follow the approach of the Rif. The article’s conclusion is that the authority of the Talmud Bavli is greater than that of the Talmud Yerushalmi.Contribution: The contribution of the article is in showing the fundamental arguments that the poskim and commentators raised to solve this dilemma, which serve as a basic foundation for all the poskim and commentators who followed them and who advocated either the one approach or the other. Furthermore, the article also contributes by providing a source interpretation of the Hebrew and Aramaic text and rabbinic literature, which fits the scope of the journal.

Heresy studies is a new interdisciplinary, supra-religious, and humanist field of study that focuses on borderlands of dogma, probes the intersections between orthodoxy and heterodoxy, and explores the realms of dissent in religion, art, and literature.

Public discussions no less than philosophical debates about violence, about its essence and justification, often discuss violence against inanimate objects such as buildings or statues. This concept of „violence against things“ is, however, contested, not least because other than humans or other animals, things do not suffer violence. This article discusses various approaches that make sense of and attempt to justify talking of „violence against things“. These various attempts are, however, all found wanting. „Violence against things“ can, the conclusion runs, at best be used as a shortcut for psychological violence that uses the destruction of highly valued objects as a means to seriously harm a person or group of persons.