Building a Masters Programme: Difficulties and Challenges

(continues from June, 11)

1. Prevented all the optional disciplines. The student hasn’t to opt for anything because this could lead him/her only to mistakes, and could also create the feeling that the collegium is not certain what precisely is to be studied by someone, in order to acquire learning in the given field.
2. Special priority received the practical work with the language. In this work the superiority of the professor is out of doubt, because no one, who has studied a language for 2-4 years could compare with somebody, who had taught it for 10-30 years, especially if the language is a dead one. (That’s why the first methodological crisis in the specialty classical philology broke in the year, when the first graduates of the gymnasium were enrolled in the specialty; some of them dealt with the languages quite decently, and the professors so far had experience only with beginners).
3. The non-linguistic disciplines, such as history of literature, had to be presented in very general courses, in order to create the feeling for entirety and thoroughness (it must be so, when an authority is teaching), and the successful passing of the exam had to make him/her sure in the knowledge of “these things”.
4. The syllabuses and the curriculum in general were meant to remain untouched. Besides the evident convenience for the teaching person, this created the impression that there isn’t anything else to be fancied in the given field.
5. Not to encourage elder students – say, no older than 30 years. (For the regular doctoral study, the so-called aspirantura, it was explicitly legislatively forbidden students older than 30 years to be given scholarships). Students, who have studied something different earlier or studied something else at the moment, were not to be encouraged. The real reason was that the greater life experience could create questions, which might burden the professor. The mere opportunity to compare the specialties and the professors was already something undesirable. This embarrassment caused by the older students and the students with different background was explained in the following manner: we don’t need such people, because they do not have the chance to become good specialists, since they haven’t started on time. They have wasted their time or they are wasting their time now.
6. Not to invite professors from other specialties. That is intrinsically connected with the lack of optional classes and is engendered by the principle of the authority; the authority does not tolerate either addition or comparison. No need to mention about foreign lecturers. In short, the contacts between the separated specialties and the universities, even within Bulgaria, had to be kept to a minimum. However, if some professor went for a while in a foreign university, it didn’t damage his/her authority, because usually no one was informed what (s)he has done there.
I am convinced, that these claims of mine would be confirmed by almost 100% of the students, who have studied classical philology in the past 20 years, and maybe by the older ones. At the same time many of them would say that the education they have received is not bad. And this is really so. Because, besides the fact that the mere object of the classical education is the common cultural heritage of the West (and thence of the world), the concrete teaching in the SU possessed its own character and style, due to its decades-long tradition. However, it was evident that the interest towards it is vanishing, and it was not only the collegium’s fault, but it is also a consequence of the greater change, which affected all the assets of our live – in Bulgaria and in the rest of the East European countries.
The task of the people, who had to design the future master’s programmes, was to change the mere character of the academic work. Let’s see what they have undertaken.


2. Two unsuccessful attempts

A. The Master’s programme in Classical languages

Prior to the discussion of the programme, which is the topic of this presentation, I am going to narrate (in brief) about two attempts, which preceded its creation. That will help me to draw your attention to some difficulties, which are accompanying the fulfillment of such an educational project. If not surmounted on time, most certainly they lead to its failure.
As I have mentioned above, one of the first reformative initiatives of the specialty was the elaboration of the Master’s programme, called Classical languages. The contents of this programme corresponded well to the name. It included three semesters of practical work on Greek and Latin. There were additional disciplines as epigraphic, paleography, historical grammar, morphology and syntax of each of them, comparative linguistics of the roman languages and some more specialized courses. The ratio between the obligatory and the optional courses was 50:50. The reasons for all that are still evident. The specialty had at its disposal the necessary teaching staff, in order to secure the launching of the programme and of each discipline. There wasn’t any need of change in the way of working. The programme was meant to offer to the students the study of texts, not read during the bachelor’s (that’s easy because the classical literature is quantitatively inexhaustible) and new contents of the theoretic courses. This certainly meant that the professors would be given the opportunity to make presentations of parts of their writings (which will be a prove that thus the education really turns out to be “for more advanced”.)
The idea for such a project was grounded on the already mentioned prejudice that the higher education exists in order to produce specialists. A specialist is the one, who knows something exhaustively: say, the one, who knows the names of all authors, who have written on a certain topic and is familiar with all their publications. At the same time he has to master perfectly some skill (for example, to be able to read without difficulty and dictionary ancient texts from all genres, because (s)he has read already everything and knows all Greek and Latin words). In short, the notion of a specialist in these academic spheres coincided with the notion of an authority.
No candidates appeared for this programme either in the first, or in the following years. It is not difficult to explain this lack of interest: in order to participate, they should have become bachelors in the same faculty (because there is no other place in Bulgaria, where such an education is offered). But these students were reluctant to study classical philology any more. Moreover, there were between 1 and 4 students who graduated from the department yearly (exactly as nowadays). At the same time only Master’s programmes, which have enrolled at least six candidates (exceptionally five) were permitted to start.

B. The Master’s programme in Byzantine studies

(Sofia University central building. North entrance to the courtyard)

Demosthenes and the Unity of the Greeks II

Philip II

(continues from Friday, April 27)

III. The failure of Athens

Demosthenes himself seems to hold the opinion that Athens is already decaying as political and military force and therefore doesn't possess good potential for struggle against Macedonia. Besides, the mood in the different speeches is different: prior to the entrance of Philip in Phocis and even before the capture of Olynthus, Philip seems threatening, but still fightable. But after his march to the south of Thermopylae it becomes clear, that the capacities of Athenians to confront him are suspicious, and, what is worse, that the peace seems hardly negotiable.
It already clear that Philip doesn't want a lasting peace with anybody, whereas the Greek states, including the Athenians, have deluded themselves that he is offering them peace. That’s why the mood from the First Philippics onwards becomes more pessimistic, although Demosthenes keeps on speaking about the necessity of resistance and points to the proper measures to be undertaken. However, his attention splits: on the one side he speaks about the coordinate actions between the cities and the organization of the resistance, but on the other he is more frequently ruminating on the topic: “Why this happened?”
A step aside. Today Europe is not threatened either by an over-ambitious conqueror as Philip, or even by the Islamist terrorism, but rather by the fear, that “the things are not going as earlier”. Indeed, it is slightly believable that peoples will become richer and richer, and this will go on endlessly. Always comes a moment, when their wealth and even their culture begin to raise the interest of the neighbors. Then comes the time to act. And Europe really acts through its present day leaders, but some of the effects lead to undesirable changes (people do not merely get richer; sometimes other things happen) and the discontent appears. It is this discontent, caused by the fear, that is the real enemy of Europe today. And due to the fact that today it seems quite strong, the politicians and the troubled citizens, just like Demosthenes, ask themselves both the questions: not only “What is to be done?” but also “Why it happened like that?” And if the asking of the latter question becomes more and more frequent, this will be a sign that the situation worsens.
Demosthenes sees the following causes for the weakness of Athens. First of all, paradoxically, the democracy with its procedures impedes the necessary reaction of the state in critical circumstances. Unlike the Athenian politicians, Philip of Macedon takes all the decisions by himself: he commands the army, he presides the negotiations (if not he in person, the messengers lead them instead of him; these people would never dare to work in favour of another Macedonian, opponent to Philip); he allocates the money and is unaccountable to anyone. No one can sue against him; no one can interrupt him after speaking for a certain time at the assembly; his proposals are not subjected to a vote, because he is not making proposals, he just commands. All this still does not mean that Demosthenes is complaining of the democracy. But he says, that there are moments, when the city should behave as one, and not only the city, but also all Greeks. If this does not happen, the democracy the independence itself, which cause such delays in the communal decision-making, will be destroyed.
The second problem is the corruption. There are Athenian politicians, Demosthenes says, who are simply working for Philip; the are paid, or at least something is promised to them, or they are just hoping to gain power over the city, after the loss of its independence. However, no one can prove their guiltiness indisputably and condemn them. And the people do not worry about their deeds, because they, unlike Demosthenes, assure the citizens, that everything is in order, that the city is powerful enough, and Philip is harmless; or even that he is already an ally.
And finally, the mere laziness of the Athenians is a problem and it is caused by the irresponsible redistribution of the money of the state. The Athenians are accustomed to many feasts, and moreover they are visited by many foreigners. The mere presence of the Athenian people as audience at these feasts is paid by the state treasury and no one can offer these money to be spent on something else – for example on shipbuilding. Shortly, the Athenians are convinced that they live better than the rest of the Greeks and they are reluctant to be deprived from this social acquisition. That’s why they think the situation is not that serious, as described by Demosthenes. Such a city seems sentenced to loose its political significance and precisely this had happened. In the centuries that followed the polises had made several attempts to gain independence – either from Macedonia, or from Rome – but Athens didn’t take part in these developments, and the center of resistance had moved to the south - to Corinth and the Peloponnesian cities.

IV. The unity of the Greeks

/follows/

(Philip II of Macedon: victory medal (niketerion) struck in Tarsus, c. 2nd BCE. Cabinet des Médailles, Paris. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, English - "Demosthenes")

The Historical Novel III

Apollonius Rhodius in Modern Literature: the Interpretation of Robert Graves


1. The unsuccessful First Version

In the postscript to his novel “The Golden Fleece” Graves tells us the following:

“When he recited the poem or a part of it in the Muses` Hall, he was met with a storm of hissing, caterwauling and a storm of plates for writing. He went away relatively safe and sound, but was afraid of a public persecution, because his rival, the court poet Callimachus declared him a “abominable ibis”; and he decided to leave Alexandria for a time. After several years he returned and recited publicly the revised version which got ovations even from his former enemies; so that after the position of a curator of the Library was vacated, king Ptolemy naturally appointed him as the next curator (1).
The original version is not preserved, but its defect hardly was a lack of sonority and fascination. More probably, relying on the support of the Alexandrian women, Apollonius revealed in his epic too honestly the humiliations of Zeus by the Moon Goddess: what provoked the anger of their husbands.”

And a little after:

“The mysteries that were added to the ordinary Greek rites from the classical epoch, were nothing other than revelation of ancient religious secrets to people, who weren’t expected to divulge them in order to cause a public scandal; and in these mysteries the object of worship was the Goddess Mother… I believe, that the chief error of Apollonius was that he recited in a public hall a version of the Golden Fleece’s tale, based upon ancient sources; and that this version sounded to the initiated as a desecration of their most deeply cherished religious beliefs”(2).


2. The version of Graves

The novel of Graves, although captivating and written with a good sense of humour, contains at some places his view on the “real history” of the Greek Gods, expressed in a simple, straightforward and rather too prosaic way. These passages do not look like parts of a book of fiction. In them he declares, that the old, non-Achaean (and moreover non-Indo-European) population of Thessaly, and even of all Greece, named “pelasgoi” worshiped one supreme female deity – the “Triple Goddess” (or the “White Goddess”) – in different persons and named her with different names. The first (and the more peaceful) Greeks, coming from North – the Ionians and the Aeolians (called Minyans as well) – joined this matriarchal cult.
But the Achaeans, who invaded the peninsula several centuries later, imposed by force the cult to the God - Father and Warrior. They reformed (in a council at Olympia, convoked especially for this purpose) the local religion, created the classic pantheon with six gods and six goddesses, proclaimed the Goddess sister and obedient wife of Zeus and began to pursue the people who persisted in their adherence to the old religion.

Otherwise the novel gives us a detailed account of the expedition, where virtually all sources for the Argonauts have been taken into consideration. Graves mentions them in the postscript. Except Apollonius, we have the versions of Pindar, Apollodorus, Diodorus of Sicily and Valerius Flaccus - all of whom, although in different style and length, present the full story. Some separate episodes are poetically adapted by Euripides in the famous tragedy; there are Theocritus and Ovid too; lastly, the scarce (but important, regarding its early age) information, given by Herodotus. Of course, there are a number of sources of minor importance.
There is a passage in the postscript, concerning the temporal standpoint of the teller, on which I would like to draw your attention. On the p. 511 Graves says:

“I render the story of Argonauts in the form of a historical tale; and every author of history must clearly express his point of view in the time. In this case it would be inappropriate to tell it in the style of the XIII cent. B.C – this would mean to write using poetic pictograms. It would be equally inadequate to write it from a present day position, because then I would have been compelled to render the dialogues in an unsuitably contemporary style; besides, that would have hindered me to believe sincerely the story.
The only plausible decision was to depict the events from the viewpoint of an epoch, when the faith in the legend was still alive, but preserving the necessary critical objectivity; and with a clear, but, on the same time, serious literary expression. This is the reason for using in some places phrases like “till the present day”, and ”today”. The last page will suggest to the historians, that “today” means “no later than 146 B.C.”, when Lucius Mummius sacks Corinthos. This is the year, when Argo, put in the temple of Poseidon, disappears for ever – maybe reduced to a heap of splinters by the drunken Roman soldiers.”

What the Graves’ reader could add, is that the story seems to be told by somebody, who knows who are the “real” ones among the Greek Gods, although prefers to represent priests, clairvoyants and believing-in-gods heroes rather than the gods themselves. And their “real” relations are the ones Graves sees as a historian of mythology, a poet and perhaps a psychologist. The main point is the superiority of the female Goddess, whose power over the mankind is usurped by her rebellious son; but usurped not without her condescending consent.


3. “The White Goddess” as aesthetic and history-of-culture manifesto

The information I got about Graves when working on this paper, made me suppose that the “The White Goddess” is his most popular non-poetic and non-fictional text.
I’ll say several words about this book not only because the theory, presented in it, practically coincides with the views of the teller in the “Golden Fleece”, but also because - as Graves himself tells us - the very idea of this long essay was born in the process of the work on the novel. This explains why the two books appear in a relatively short time: the first edition of the “Fleece” is in 1944, and this of the “Goddess” – in1948. In a concluding note, written for the edition from 1960 he tells the following:

“I am often asked how I took to write the "White Goddess". The history is as follows.
In 1944 in a village in Devonshire, when I fled from the present day by working on a historical novel of the Argonauts, my work suddenly was interrupted. An obsessing idea forced me to get involved in the study of a subject I still didn’t know and didn’t understand. I stopped to trace on the vast military map of the Black Sea (and with the help of mythographs) the course of the Argonauts ship, who sailed from the Bosporus to Baku and back. Instead, I was thinking about the mysterious Battle of the Trees, which occurred in ancient Britain, and all night I couldn’t find peace; and the next day too, so that my pen barely followed my thoughts. For three weeks I wrote a book in 70 thousand words...
I’m not a mystic and I always avoided involvement in witchcraft, spiritualistic séances and yoga exercises; I never listened to predictions, didn’t believe in automatic writing and so on. I live a simple peasant kind of life in the circle of my family and of a large number of mentally healthy and intelligent friends. I do not belong to any religious cult or secret society or philosophical sect, and I also don’t trust my historic intuition, if it couldn’t be verified by the facts.
But working on the book on the Argonauts, I discovered that the White Goddess of mount Pelion becomes more and more important for my narrative... I, who suddenly fell under the power of the European White Goddess, wrote about her totems in the context of the Argonauts’ story and plunged in the ancient secrets of her cult Wales, Ireland and all over the world.
When, immediately after the war, I returned to Majorca, I started working again on the book which I already called "The White Goddess ", and wrote in more details about the Holy King as a divine victim of the Moon Goddess, keeping in mind that every poet, who honours his Muse, should somehow die for his Goddess whom he worships - just like the King died...” (3)


4. Graves and the new Western spirituality

These facts I drew your attention on, give us reason to admit, that the story of the Golden Fleece whose largest version we owe to Apollonius, influenced the views of R. Graves as a poet and as a historian, and at the same time was artistically worked out by him on the ground of these same views. It seems, that the Graves’ “Fleece” is expected to be read as the “real story” of the Argonauts, told from the viewpoint of an enlightened but at the same time initiated Greek author from the last centuries B.C.
Besides, “The Golden Fleece” is produced according to a conception for the ancient mythology and the western religion, which, as Graves suggests, is founded largely on the mythological researches of J.G. Frazer. They both belong to a tradition in the European humanities, whose representatives do not regard themselves as Christians, reject the Eurocentrism and work for the cultural emancipation of the East and in general of the non-Western world from the European (or Euro-American) domination. Lastly, they are people who oppose the spirit of the classical European academism and try to reconsider the role of the university in the Western societies and its claim to dominate the education and even the spiritual life of the West.
This tradition include and is supported by many influential non-academic intellectuals, among whom I would prefer to mention the English and American followers of Mme H. Blavatsky; a little earlier, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche in Germany; and from the XVIII century – Voltaire.

The new that Graves is offering us, is that he writes a lot of poetry and thinks about himself mainly as a poet; that, secondly, in difference to Blavatsky, he doesn’t pretend for possessing any exceptional spiritual abilities; and thirdly, what seems to me very important, he lived two terrible wars. Maybe exactly this experience gave him strong reason to doubt the alleged superiority of Western civilization and the truth of its main religion. But nevertheless he expresses a kind of religious hope. At the end of his conclusion to the “White Goddess” from 1960 he writes:

“The idea of a Creating Goddess was rejected by the Christian theologians almost two thousand years ago, and by the Jewish theologians even earlier. Most scientists, caring for their social comfort, worship God; but nevertheless I do not understand why a belief in the creation of the universe by a God-Father seems to them more scientific than the belief in the creation of this artificial system by a Goddess-Mother...
Since the source of creative power in poetry is not the scientific education, but the inspiration (no matter what the scientists would say), then why not name as its source the Lunar Muse, since in Europe this is the oldest and most common term defining the source of inspiration? According to the ancient tradition, the White Goddess appears through human beings – that could be a priestess, a prophetess, a queen mother. No poet, dedicated to the Muse, thinks about the Muse herself, but always thinks about the woman, in whom the Goddess at least partially is incarnated; just like an Apollonian poet is unable to perform properly his function, if he doesn’t live under the power of a monarchy or quasi-monarchy. But the poet, who really worships the Muse, is capable to distinguish between the Goddess as the supreme incarnation of power, glory, wisdom and female love from one hand, and the ordinary woman, whom the Goddess makes Her representative for a month, a year, seven years or perhaps more – from another hand. The Goddess is eternal, and perhaps he will know Her again through another woman.
Prophets like Moses, John the Baptist or Mohammed, speaking in the name of the male deity, say: "So said God!" I am not a prophet of the White Goddess and I’ll never venture to utter: "So said Goddess!" But since poetry came to the world, the poets, who worship the Muse, usually speak with love: "In all the universe there is nobody above the Triple Goddess!"”


5. A reader’s impression

At a certain place Graves says, that a poet might be evaluated as such, taking into consideration the degree in which he is familiar with the Goddess and is able to depict “Her and Her island”. And adds: “Shakespeare had known her and had been afraid of her”. As a reader of Graves I would dare to share, that even before the acquaintance with this book, I already was convinced that he is obsessed by a painful fear of the presence of a kind of woman. She is a woman, longing for power, who establishes a relationship with an influential man, dominates him and weaves intrigues against everybody else, hoping to rule through him. She does not love him, but uses him and is always ready to sacrifice him and to look for another, who would fit for the same purpose. Livia in “I, Claudius” is like that, Theodora and Antonina in “Count Velisarius” are like that, Ino, in the very beginning of the “Fleece” is like that. They are images of a woman, who exerts over the man the power, given to her from the Goddess and thus revenges for the subjugation, imposed on her by force and counter-naturally in the epoch of the old Achaeans. She is not a personification of the Muse, but of Hecate. Graves was afraid of this woman.

(1) Graves freely retells the two short Vitae Apollonii, published in the edition of the Scholia (C. Wendel, Berlin, 1935). There we find no mention about hissing, caterwauling or plate throwing, but the rest is exact – the anonymous authors indeed say, that the Apollonius work at first was met negatively, but the second version was applauded. (Zlatnoto runo. Pohodat na argonavtite, p. 504-505. See note 2)

(2) During the work on this paper I was using the Bulgarian translation of the “Fleece” – Robert Greivs. Zlatnoto runo. Pohodat na argonavtite. Translation Irina Vaseva. Fakel, 1993. The reverse translation to English is mine, N.G.

(3) This text, together with the full Russian translation of the “White Goddess” is available at http://www.druids.celtica.ru/page.php?pagename=greivs. Russian translation by L. Volodarskaja. The reverse English translation is mine.

*this paper was read at the International Conference "The Argonautica and World Culture" - Tbilisi, Georgia, 1-5 October 2007). I would like to express my gratitude to professor Irine Darchia from the Institute of Classical, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies at the the Tbilisi State University, for inviting me to this conference.

The Historical Novel II

Feuchtwanger`s “The Jewish War”
(handout)


I. Josephus Flavius and the Jewish War

1.

He was born Joseph ben Mattathias in Jerusalem in 37 CE, a few years after the time of Jesus, during the time of the Roman occupation of the Jewish homeland. In his early twenties he was sent to Rome to negotiate the release of several priests held hostage by Emperor Nero. When he returned home after completing his mission he found the nation beginning a revolution against the Romans.
Despite his foreboding that the cause was hopeless, he was drafted into becoming commander of the revolutionary forces in Galilee, where he spent more time controlling internal factions than fighting the Roman army. When the city of Jotapata he was defending fell to the Roman general Vespasian, Joseph and his supporters hid in a cave and entered into a suicide pact, which Joseph oddly survived.
Taken prisoner by Vespasian, Joseph presented himself as a prophet. Noting that the war had been propelled by an ancient oracle that foretold a world ruler would arise from Judaea, Joseph asserted that this referred to Vespasian, who was destined to become Emperor of Rome. Intrigued, Vespasian spared his life. When this prophecy came true, and Vespasian became Emperor, he rewarded Joseph handsomely, freeing him from his chains and eventually adopting him into his family, the Flavians. Joseph thus became Flavius Joseph.
During the remainder of the war, Joseph assisted the Roman commander Titus, Vespasian's son, with understanding the Jewish nation and in negotiating with the revolutionaries. Called a traitor, he was unable to persuade the defenders of Jerusalem to surrender to the Roman siege, and instead became a witness to the destruction of the city and the Holy Temple.
Living at the Flavian court in Rome, Josephus undertook to write a history of the war he had witnessed. He first wrote in his native language of Aramaic, then with assistance translated it into Greek (the most-used language of the Empire). It was published a few years after the end of the war, in about 78 CE.

2.

6 CE Archalaeus, Ethnarch of Judea, is deposed. Judea ceases to be governed by Jews and becomes a Roman province under Procurator Coponius. Census and taxes imposed.
41 Caligula assassinated. Claudius becomes emperor with the aid of Agrippa, grandson of Herod. Claudius bestows kingship of Judea and other lands on Agrippa.
44 Agrippa I dies. Judea again comes under the rule of a Roman procurator (Fadus).
50 Some Jewish lands assigned to kingship of Agrippa II.
54 and after. Jewish revolutionary activity heats up. "Sicarii" terrorists kill High Priest Jonathan. Felix uses force and executions to suppress revolt. Would-be prophets stir up the people; the "Egyptian," a Messianic figure, gains followers, many of whom are killed by Felix's army.
59 Festus becomes Procurator. Paul presents his case to Festus and Agrippa II, then is sent to Rome to appeal to the Emperor.
59-62 Festus continues to battle Sicarii. Clashes between Jews and Greeks in Caesarea.
65 Florus becomes Procurator. HIs abuses of power cause the sedition to gain followers. Violence breaks out in Caesarea and spreads to Jerusalem.
66, Summer. Jewish War begins. Sacrifices for the Emperor are halted in the Temple. Masada is seized by the Zealots. The Roman garrison at the Antonia Fortress is captured. The High Priest is slain by the rebels.
July 67 Jotapata falls after a six-week siege. Joseph captured. Claims that the Messianic prophecies that began the war actually applied to Vespasian, who therefore was destined to become Emperor. Vespasian, charmed, retains Joseph as hostage and interpreter.
July 69 Vespasian's legions proclaim him Emperor. Joseph`s prophecy having come true, he is freed. He takes Vespasian's family name of Flavius and marries a captive.
70, May 1. Titus encamps outside Jerusalem, beginning the siege. Joseph attempts to persuade the leaders of the revolt to surrender, but fails.
70, Tenth of Av (August 30). The Temple of Jerusalem is destroyed. Jerusalem is taken by Titus. The War effectively ends.

(Josephus Flavius Home Page)


II. Feuchtwanger, his Literary Work and his Views on the Historical Novel

1.

Lion Feuchtwanger (pseudonym: J.L. Wetcheek) (7 July 1884 - 21 December 1958) was a German-Jewish novelist who was imprisoned in a French internment camp in Les Milles and later escaped to Los Angeles with the help of his wife, Marta.
Background
Feuchtwanger was born in Munich in 1884, and raised in a Jewish household. He studied literature and philosophy in the universities in Munich and Berlin.
Early career and persecution
Lion served in the Germany Army during World War I. He soon became a figure in the literary world and was already well-known in 1925 when his first popular novel, Jud Süß, appeared. He also published Erfolg (m. "Success"), which was a thinly veiled criticism at the Nazi Party and Hitler. While he was on a speaking tour of America, in Washington, D.C., he was a guest of honor at a dinner hosted by then German ambassador Friedrich Wilhelm von Prittwitz und Gaffron. That same day (January 30, 1933) Hitler was appointed Chancellor, and the next day, Prittwitz resigned from the diplomatic corps and called Feuchtwanger and recommended not to return home.
Feuchtwanger and his wife did not return to Germany, moving instead to Southern France, settling in Sanary sur Mer. His works were included among those burned during the May 10, 1933 book burnings held across Germany.
In 1936, still in Sanary, he wrote The Pretender (Der falsche Nero), in which he compared the Roman upstart Terentius Maximus, who had claimed to be Nero, with Hitler.
Imprisonment and escape
When the Germans invaded France in 1940, Feuchtwanger was captured and imprisoned in an internment camp, Les Milles (Camp des Milles). He escaped Les Milles with the help of his wife Marta,Varian Fry, an American journalist who helped refugees escape from occupied France, and Hiram (Harry) Bingham IV, US Vice Consul in Marseilles. Feuchtwanger eventually received asylum in the United States, settled in Pacific Palisades, California in 1941, and continued to write there until his death in 1958.

· The Josephus Trilogy -- about Flavius Josephus beginning in the year 60 in Rome
o Der jüdische Krieg (Josephus), 1932
o Die Söhne (The Jews of Rome), 1935
o Der Tag wird kommen (Das gelobte Land, The day will come, Josephus and the Emperor), 1942

(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

In Germany, paperback editions of Feuchtwanger's novels have sold close to a million copies from the late seventies to the present day. His Frankfurt publisher asserts that "In my thirty years of experience as an editor, I have never seen a renaissance comparable to that of Feuchtwanger."
No such popularity has attended Feuchtwanger in the United States, where he remains largely unknown, except among cognoscenti of modern German literature. This reader unfamiliarity most likely stems from the fact that Feuchtwanger was anathema to American Cold Warriors of the late 1940s and the 1950s. In 1937, in the midst of the vicious "show trials" of falsely accused army officers, Feuchtwanger had made a visit to Moscow, in which he was granted an interview with Stalin, based upon Feuchtwanger’s already apparent sympathy with socialism. His report on the experience warmly praised Stalin and his program. He never formally recanted that naïve attitude... Feuchtwanger believed in egalitarianism, and hated the fascism that had done so much evil to him and his people. But he was hardly a cheerleader of the Communist cause.
(from Jim Bloom`s “Lion Feuchtwanger and his Josephus Trilogy”)

2.

One topic that has deeply moved me as long as I can remember is the conflict between nationalism and internationalism in the heart of a single individual. If I were to tackle this theme in the form of a contemporary novel, I fear my presentation might be overshadowed and contaminated by personal grudges and resentment. I chose therefore to transplant this conflict into the soul of a man, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who, it appeared to me, had experienced it in the same way as so many do today, with the difference that he did so 1860 years ago.
I hope I have retained the peace of mind to judge things fairly; still I believe I can do a convincing job of depicting the persons who - 1870 years ago - put the torch to various central buildings in Nero's Rome, poor, foolish implements of the feudalists and militarists of their day that they were, and indeed do a more convincing job of it than I could of describing the people who two years ago set fire to the Reichstag in Berlin - poor, foolish tools that they were of the feudalists and militarists of our own era.
I have written both contemporary novels and historical ones. After closely examining my conscience, I venture to state that in my historical novels I intended the content to be just as modern and up-to-date as in the contemporary ones. It never occurred to me to write about history for its own sake... Other writers may place their conceptions at a greater spatial distance, perhaps in some exotic locale, in order to set them off with greater clarity; I for the same purpose have removed mine to a certain distance in time: that is the only difference.
I have always made an effort to render every detail of my reality with the greatest accuracy; but I have never paid attention to whether my presentation of historical facts was an exact one. Indeed, I have often altered evidence which I knew to be documented if it appeared to interfere with my intended effect. Contrary to the scientist, the author of historical novels has the right to choose a lie that enhances illusion over a reality that distracts from it.
I cannot imagine that a serious novelist, when working with historical subject matter, could ever regard historical facts as anything other than a means of achieving distance, as a metaphor, in order to render his own feelings, his own era, his own philosophy, and himself as accurately as possible.
(L. Feuchtwanger, "Vom Sinn des historischen Romans," 1935, Das Neue Tage-Buch.
Translated by John Ahouse)


III. The Feuchtwanger `s “Jewish War”, the Jews and the “Who-is-a-Human-Being” Question

1. Vespasian and Johanan ben Zakkai. Do the non-Jews possess a soul?

Marshall came very close to the tiny theologian, touched his shoulder and asked :
- But this does not contradict the fact that you do not feel us to be true people?
Iohanan still not opening his eyes, argued quietly, as if from afar :
- On the Feast of the Tabernacles, we do sacrificed 70 bulls for non-Jews.
…
- What are the seven precepts? – asked the Roman.
Yohanan raised his eyebrows, his blue eyes clear and very young, and looked directly into the grey eyes of Vespasian.
- One is positive and six are negative - he said. - Individuals must do justice, not deny God, not worship idols, not kill, not steal, not betray his husband/wife and not abuse animals.
Vespasian thought a little and said with regret :
- Well, then I have little chance to receive the holy spirit

2. The Actor Demetrius and his people

- Oh, my very good Jews - he [Demetrius] continued. - They shout against me where they can. In the synagogue they are cursing me just for the fact that I do not disregard a gift given me by God, and scare their children with me. But when they have some problem, then they come to me and they fill my ears with their requests. Then Demetrius Libanius is good enough.
- Lord, - said the young Antony Marull – yes, the Jews always complain, as everyone knows.
- I ask! - suddenly stood up and screamed the actor. - I ask you not to offend the Jews in my house! I am a Jew.

3. Joseph – experienced but impure
a.
I am priest from the first sequence - said Joseph.
- Damn these Jewish people, they are too pretentious, appealed to Caenis Vespasian. - Some of us may be touched her, this doesn`t mean that she is losing her taste. And yet, Emperor Nero and I myself, we married divorced women, isn`t so, Caenis?
- I come from rabbis - said Joseph very slowly. - My family goes back to King David ..

b.
When Joseph Ben Mattathias, according to the will of Berenike, went to her, she made a defending gesture of the hand and exclaimed :
- Do not come closer! Stand there! Between you and me there must be seven steps.
Joseph became pale when she stepped back as if he was leprous.

(Translation Google)

* this is a handout for a lecture, held at the Third Contact Session (August 2007) of the three-year "Contextualizing Classics" project of the Sofia University and the HESP Regional Seminar for Excellence in Teaching (Open Society Institute, Budapest).

The Historical Novel I

Gustave Flaubert's 'The Temptation of St. Anthony'
(Contents)


I. St. Anthony and the Vita Antonii by St. Athanasius of Alexandria

1. The “Life of Anthony”

The chief source of information on St. Anthony is a Greek Life attributed to St. Athanasius, to be found in any edition of his works… here it will suffice to say that now it is received with practical unanimity by scholars as a substantially historical record, and as a probably authentic work of St. Athanasius.

(Catholic Encyclopedia - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01553d.htm)


Introduction to “Vita S. Antoni”

(Written between 356 and 362)
The Life of St. Antony is included in the present collection partly on account of the important influence it has exercised upon the development of the ascetic life in the Church, partly and more especially on the ground of its strong claim to rank as a work of Athanasius… As it is, the question being still in dispute, although the balance of qualified opinion is on the side of the Athanasian authorship, it is well that the reader should have the work before him and judge for himself... Monasticism, with all its good and evil, is a great outgrowth of human life and instinct, a great fact in the history of the Christian religion…

(Philip Schaff,
New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xvi.ii.ii.html)

2. Contents of the “Life”

§§5, 6. Early conflicts with the devil. §7. Details of his life at this time (271–285?)
§§8–10. His life in the tombs, and combats with demons there. §11. He goes to the desert and overcomes temptations on the way.
§46. How he sought martyrdom at Alexandria during the Persecution (311).
§§70, 71. How he visited Alexandria, and healed and converted many, and how Athanasius escorted him from the city.
§§72–79. How he reasoned with divers Greeks and philosophers at the ‘outer’ mountain.
§80. How he confuted the philosophers by healing certain vexed with demons. §81. How the Emperors wrote to Antony, and of his answer.
§§89, 90. How, when now 105 years old, he counselled the monks, and gave advice concerning burial.
(by Ph. Shaff, ibidem)



II. Flaubert and his 'Temptation of St Anthony'

1. About Flaubert
Life
The disease of Flaubert
Voyages
In Egypt
(Gustave Flaubert: Plan of the Site - http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jb.guinot/pages/A7401.html)

2. “The Temptation”- general information
The Temptation of Saint Anthony (French La Tentation de Saint Antoine) is a book which Gustave Flaubert spent practically his whole life fitfully working on, in three versions he completed in 1849, 1856 (extracts published at the same time) and 1872 before publishing the final version in 1874. It is written in the form of a play script. It details one night in the life of Anthony the Great where Anthony is faced with great temptations, and it was inspired by the painting, which he saw at the Balbi Palace in Genoa.

Characters
The following is a list of major characters and does not include characters such as the gods or the prophets. A complete list of characters can be found in the glossary of the Random House edition (Olds, 195-233).
· Saint Anthony: The protagonist. He is tempted by many characters and objects to stray from his belief that isolation is the truest form of worship.
· Ammonaria: One of his sister's friends, Anthony is drawn into a battle between his desire for her and his desire to remain holy before God in his isolation. He is distraught that he cannot control his body.
· King Nebuchadnezzar
· The Queen of Sheba: Tempts Anthony with riches, trying to evoke lust.
· Hilarion: Also known as Lucifer. Once Anthony's student, now he tries to tempt him away from his chosen lifestyle by creating doubt and eventually morphs into Science.
· Lust and Death: Lust appears as a young woman; Death, an old woman. They try to convince Anthony to give in to his desires and commit suicide.
References
· Flaubert, Gustave, and Michael Foucault (introduction), Lafcadio Hearn (tr), and Marshall Olds (glossary). The Temptation of Saint Anthony. New York: Random House, 1992.
Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Temptation_of_Saint_Anthony

2. Contents of the play
Contents II
8. A Holy Saint
9. The Temptation of Love and Power
10. The Disciple Hilarion
11. The Fiery Trial
12. All Gods, All Religions
13. The Mystery of Space
14. The Himera and the Sphynx
(Simon P. Magee publ., Chicago, Ill. Copyright 1904 by M. Walter Dunn
http://www.archive.org/details/TheTemptationOfStAntonyOrARevelationOfTheSoul
ftp://ia300207.us.archive.org/2/items/TheTemptationOfStAntonyOrARevelationOfTheSoul/OTIFF/)


III. Flaubert`s interpretation of some places from the “Life”

1. The devil
But the devil, who hates and envies what is good, could not endure to see such a resolution in a youth, but endeavoured to carry out against him what he had been wont to effect against others. First of all he tried to lead him away from the discipline, whispering to him the remembrance of his wealth, care for his sister, claims of kindred, love of money, love of glory, the various pleasures of the table and the other relaxations of life, and at last the difficulty of virtue and the labour of it; he suggested also the infirmity of the body and the length of the time. In a word he raised in his mind a great dust of debate, wishing to debar him from his settled purpose.
(Vita, 5 - English translation by Ph. Shaff, ibidem )


2. The chief temptations

A. Diversity of the world. Curiosity

And the devil, unhappy wight, one night even took upon him the shape of a woman and imitated all her acts simply to beguile Antony.

(Vita, 5)


- travels (monologue)
And this turning back is nought else but to feel regret, and to be once more worldly-minded. But fear not to hear of virtue, nor be astonished at the name. For it is not far from us, nor is it without ourselves, but it is within us, and is easy if only we are willing. That they may get knowledge, the Greeks live abroad and cross the sea, but we have no need to depart from home for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, nor to cross the sea for the sake of virtue. For the Lord aforetime hath said, “The kingdom of heaven is within you.”
(Vita, 20)

- reasoning (vision, dialogue)
In a word he (the devil) raised in his mind a great dust of debate, wishing to debar him from his settled purpose.

(Vita, 5)

…But see! you still do not believe and are seeking for arguments. We however make our proof “not in the persuasive words of Greek wisdom as our teacher has it, but we persuade by the faith which manifestly precedes argumentative proof…

(Vita, 80)

B. Vanity (vision, description of Anthony`s meeting with the Emperor)

And the fame of Antony came even unto kings. For Constantine Augustus, and his sons Constantius and Constans the Augusti wrote letters to him… And so he was unwilling to receive the letters, saying that he did not know how to write an answer to such things. But being urged by the monks because the emperors were Christians, and lest they should take offence on the ground that they had been spurned, he consented that they should be read, and wrote an answer approving them because they worshipped Christ…

(Vita, 81)

3. The face of devil (description of the devil, dialogue in vision)
Once some one knocked at the door of my cell, and going forth I saw one who seemed of great size and tall. Then when I enquired, “Who art thou?” he said, “I am Satan.” Then when I said, “Why art thou here?”…
But he having heard the Saviour’s name, and not being able to bear the burning from it, vanished.’

(Vita, 41)

Alors une grande ombre, plus subtile qu'une ombre naturelle, et que d'autres ombres festonnent le long de ses bords, se marque sur la terre.
C'est le Diable, accoudé contre le toit de la cabane et portant sous ses deux ailes, comme une chauve-souris gigantesque qui allaiterait ses petits, - les sept Péchés capitaux, dont les têtes grimaçantes se laissent entrevoir confusément.
Antoine, les yeux toujours fermés, jouit de son inaction ; et il étale ses membres sur la natte.

“The Temptation”, ch. II


(Historical annotations to Flaubert's 'Temptation of St Anthony')
c360: Athanasius writes Life of Antony
335: Athanasius banished ; 332: Athanasius charged with murdering Arsenius ; 326: Athanasius elected bishop
c312-356: Anthony lives in cave on Al-Qalzam/Kolzim/Colzim mountain ;
c310-c395: Didymus
c307: inspired by Anthony, Hilarion retreats to Gaza for 50 years ;
c295-373: Athanasius of Alexandria ; c291-c371: Hilarion
285-337: Constantine
c285-c305: Anthony lives alone on Mount Pispir ; c270: Anthony gives away wealth, lives in tomb for 15 years
c234-347? Paul the Hermit
(Jorn Barger August 2002)
http://www.robotwisdom.com/flaubert/antoine/history.html

* this is a handout for a lecture, held at the Third Contact Session (August 2007) of the three-year "Contextualizing Classics" project of the Sofia University and the HESP Regional Seminar for Excellence in Teaching (Open Society Institute, Budapest).

Building a Masters Programme: Difficulties and Challenges

(continues from May, 21)


The department could include a new member in the staff once in three years at the maximum (and it is the same at the moment). Then, what were meant to do for example the 15 students, who have meanwhile graduated? The number of the enrolled students fluctuated between 30 and 50. In short, could anyone see much sense in the study of classical philology, provided that the education, offered in it, is essentially addressed to one student out of 40?
These problems looked precisely like that in the year, when the first project for a master’s programme was elaborated. It was called “Classical languages”. Obviously, the intention was to continue the perfection of the young people, who have started to learn these languages 9 years ago. Let’s say that meanwhile they haven’t noticed any significant change neither in the methods, nor in the proposed material. They knew, that in the master’s programme they are going to meet the same professors, whom they have already met in the bachelor’s. Then why continue this activity for three more semesters? It is pointless to mention the professional and the financial difficulties, which would inevitably impede even the one out of the forty, who finally might become a member of the regular teaching academics.
It’s no wonder, that during the 90-ies the students were reluctant to enter even in the bachelor’s; and if by chance they entered it, subsequently they were not very eager to remain. Thus the specialty survived several years of crisis, and in order to find at least some students, additional exams have been provided for the candidates, who have failed on the regular exam. As if they have become more suitable within the week between the regular and additional exam! Of course, the crisis was explained predominantly with the societal transition in general: the time will pass and, let’s hope, the things will be settled, and then we are going to have students again.
At the same time in the specialty a new understanding began to shape out. This was a new vision of the classical and humanitarian education in general. Although on the cost of the insufficient familiarity with the interpretations, it should be propagated for a majority of learners, instead of the previous limitation to the minority of specialists. Here it should be pointed out, that since lot’s of time the University and the Department were unable to provide for the academic staff the access to these interpretations: it was considered that it is their own business how to find it – comparable to, say, whence they should buy a washing machine.
The classical philologists should seek candidates for the master’s and even for the bachelor’s in other places, and not only in the specialty or in the Gymnasium for ancient languages and cultures. This opinion led to a result in 2000, when, for the first time since 1982, students were enrolled in the Department, who had passed exams in languages different from Greek and Latin. Surprisingly for the colleagues, some of the beginners quickly left behind the rest of the students, who had whole 5 years of study in the classical Gymnasium. It turned out, that the desire to be well educated could lead to greater achievements, than simply the passive presence at school and in the university, regardless of their duration. This could serve as an argument for the fulfillment of another idea for the master’s studies.

C. Some words about the humanitarian education in Bulgaria

It is worth seeing how it happens so, that a small quantity of inexplicit, but firm convictions may shape an educational programme, including its details. Here are two such convictions, which had great force for the period I’m talking about.
1. The professor is an unquestionable authority, because (s)he knows thoroughly all the things that the student is supposed to know.
2. In order to be well educated the student has to reproduce simply what the professor had said and to acquire his/her level of technical skills (if the character of the specialty presupposes them). In order to achieve these aims what matters is not the interest in the studied matter, but rather the discipline.

These explain why the curricula (I have in mind here mainly the philological ones, but what I am going to say pertains to a great degree to others, as well) were composed in a way, that:

(to be continued)

POIЕSIS

POIЕSIS.
Classical and contemporary attempts at
the theory of ancient Greek literature

Vol. І.
Aristotle and Hegel


Preface .......................7
Preface to volume І............8


Aristotle’s literary theory...15

І. Aristotle’s idea of literature
1. The question of terms
2. Distinctions between literature and other activities
3. The aim of the literary work

ІІ. The tasks of literary theory
1. The idea of literary science
2. The structure of Aristotle’s “Poetics"
3. The tasks of the literary theory

ІІІ. Classification of literary types
1. Means of imitation
2. Quality of the imitated
3. Way of imitation

ІV. Aesthetic categories
1. The tragic and its discrimination from other aesthetic categories
2. The comic and the ugly
3. The beautiful

V. Rules for composing a literary work
1. Plot
2. Characters
3. Thought and speech
4. Musical and visible part
5. Drawing up the rules for composing a tragedy out of its definition

VІ. Aristotle’s view of the history of literature
1. Literature and human nature
2. The history of literature as a process of distinguishing between types
3. The documented history of literature: the role of poetic talent
4. The aim of the history of literature

VІІ. “Poetics” and the principles of Aristotle’s philosophy
1. The question of definition
2. The literary work as an outcome of the four causae
3. Literature as an instrument of cognition
4. Literature and the development of virtues


The view of literature in Hegel’s “Aesthetics”... 63

І. The structure of “Aesthetics”
1. Artistically beautiful or the ideal
2. Specific forms of the artistically beautiful
A. Symbolic artistic form
B. Classical artistic form
C. Romantic artistic form
3. The arts
A. Architecture
B. Sculpture
C. Romantic arts

ІІ. Greek art and the concept of the classical
1. Greek art and the classic ideal
A. Correspondence between content and form
B. Self-contained form and repose
C. Degree of individualization
2. The classical temple
3. Sculpture
A. Sculpture between architecture and romantic arts
B. Universality and individuality in sculpture
4. The classic in Greek poetry
A. Epic narrative
B. Lyric poetry
C. Drama

ІІІ. Hegel’s understanding of literature
1. The meaning of the term “poetry”
A. Poetry and the other arts
B. Devices in poetry
2. Poetry and prose
A. Poetic and prosaic world view
B. Poetry and the prosaic types
3. Concept, notion, literary work
A. Concept
B. Notion
C. Literary work
4. The poet’s involvement
A. Imagination, objectiveness, originality
B. The classical artist
C. The poet in lyric poetry

ІV. Literary types
1. Epic narrative
A. Epic types and the genuine epopee
B. Characteristics of the genuine epopee
C. The Greek epic narrative juxtaposed with that of other nationalities
2. Lyric poetry
A. Lyric content and form
B. Degree of spiritual development presupposing the development of lyric poetry
C. Types of lyric poetry
D. Historical development of poetry
3. Drama
A. The principle of dramatic poetry
B. The principle of tragedy and comedy
C. The relation of a dramatic work to its audience
D. Ancient and modern dramatic poetry

V. Literature in the history of the spirit
1. Hegel’s philosophy of history
A. The principle of development
B. The geographical factor
C. Subdivision of world history. The East and Europe
2. Literature and history
A. Art in the history of the spirit
B. Literature in the history of art
3. The history of literature
A. Epic narrative
B. Lyric poetry
C. Drama

VІ. Hegel’s contribution to Aristotle’s literary theory
1. The idea of history
A. Terminology
B. Literature and other activities
C. Aim in the literary work
2. Tasks of literary theory
A. The idea of literary science
B. The structure of the literary treatise
C. Tasks of literary theory
3. Classification of literary types
A. Hegel’s criterion for identifying the basic types
B. Classification of subtypes
4. Aesthetic categories
A. The beautiful
B. Specific forms of the beautiful
C. The tragic and the comic
5. Rules for composing a literary work
A. Foundations of a work of art
B. Action
C. Characters
D. Linguistic expression
E. Staging
6. The question of the history of literature
A. Literature and human nature
B. Discriminating the types and the aim of literature
C. Poetic gift


After Hegel. The potential of Marxist cultural studies. A. F. Lossev...219

І. From the history of the concept of culture
1. The necessity for clarifying the concept of culture
A. The point of view of the present research
B. The concept of culture
2. A few words on the ancient and Christian counterparts of the contemporary view of culture
A. “The contemporary view”
B. Antiquity
C. Culture from the Christian point of view
3. Culture as a stage of man’s perfection
A. Attempts at overcoming the dualism between the “spiritual” and the “secular” concept of man
B. The progressist and the essentialist view of culture in Hegel
4. Culture as a specific feature of human existence
A. The anthropological view of culture
B. Hegel and the anthropological view
5. Culture and literature
A. Literature as a product, sign or element of culture
B. Literature – an exponent of Weltanschauung and a performer of functions

ІІ. “The History of Ancient Aesthetics” as Marxist research……236
1. A. F. Lossev and the Marxist philosophy of history
A. A. F. Lossev’s influence in Bulgaria
B. Lossev as a Marxist
2. Culture from the point of view of the general principles of Marxism
A. The Marxist principle
B. The Marxist view of culture
3. Primitive and slave-owning formations. The question of ancient slavery
A. Primitive formation
B. Slave-owning formation
4. Lossev’s theses on ancient culture
A. Lossev’s understanding of “culture”
B. Antiquity as cosmologism
C. Antiquity as fatalism
5. Literature within the framework of ancient culture
A. Ancient literature as an outcome of the meeting of tribal heritage and the slave-owning principle
B. Ancient literature and Lossev’s “Theses”
C. Homer’s theses
6. Lossev and Hegel
A. The historical concept and the idea of culture
B. Culture as Weltsanschauung
C. Culture and literature



Excursus

How to polemize with the classics. “The open society” of Karl Popper...263

I.Criticism of Platonism
1. Historicism and the fight against change. Plato’s predecessors
2. Socratism and Platonism
3. Thucydides` typology

II. Aristotle as Hegel’s predecessor
1. Anti-equalitarianism and racialism
2. The mean as an “extreme in virtue”
3. Essentialism

II. Criticism of Hegelianism
1. The biological metaphor and the philosophy of identity
2. The nationalistic ideology and the principle of leadership
3. The historical factor in the formation of culture

III. Criticism of Marxism
1. Hegel’s heredity
2. Economic determinism
3. “The better, the worse”, or on the activities of the Communist party
4. The advantages of democratic interventionism
5. Marxism and culture

IV. The open society as a project for social activity
1. The idea of an open society
2. The fight against the open society
3. Rationalism as a moral choice


Al. Nichev on Aristotle’s literary theory...317

І. The mystery of the tragic catharsis
1. Plato and Aristotle
2. The burden of compassion

ІІ. The classical philologist as a literary scholar
1. The function of literature
2. Interpreting the ancient literary text
3. Interpreting the ancient philosophical text

ІІІ. “The mystery” as a moral allegory and an esoteric treatise
1. The problem of religion
2. Science and esoterics


What is ancient Greek literature..........339

І. The idea of literature
1. On definition
2. Criteria for distinguishing between the types of literature
3. Theoretical literature
4. “Historical” literature
5. Rhetorical literature
6. Fiction…

ІІ. Ancient Greek literature
1. The language
2. The culture
3. Two views on ancient Greek literature


Bibliography and abbreviations............357