1. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 1.27, 5.2, 6.1-6.4 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Essenes, as healers, arguments for • Spinoza, Buber’s arguments against • ethnic argumentation, stereotypes, • hermeneutical devices (midot), a fortiori argument • pre-eminence, argument from
Found in books: Bay (2022), Biblical Heroes and Classical Culture in Christian Late Antiquity: The Historiography, Exemplarity, and Anti-Judaism of Pseudo-Hegesippus, 101; Birnbaum and Dillon (2020), Philo of Alexandria: On the Life of Abraham: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, 158, 159; Kosman (2012), Gender and Dialogue in the Rabbinic Prism, 207; Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 163, 164; Taylor (2012), The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea, 305
sup>
1.27 וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם׃
5.2 וַיִּהְיוּ כָּל־יְמֵי־יֶרֶד שְׁתַּיִם וְשִׁשִּׁים שָׁנָה וּתְשַׁע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַיָּמֹת׃
5.2 זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם וַיִּקְרָא אֶת־שְׁמָם אָדָם בְּיוֹם הִבָּרְאָם׃
6.1 וַיְהִי כִּי־הֵחֵל הָאָדָם לָרֹב עַל־פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה וּבָנוֹת יֻלְּדוּ לָהֶם׃
6.1 וַיּוֹלֶד נֹחַ שְׁלֹשָׁה בָנִים אֶת־שֵׁם אֶת־חָם וְאֶת־יָפֶת׃ 6.2 וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת־בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה וַיִּקְחוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ׃ 6.2 מֵהָעוֹף לְמִינֵהוּ וּמִן־הַבְּהֵמָה לְמִינָהּ מִכֹּל רֶמֶשׂ הָאֲדָמָה לְמִינֵהוּ שְׁנַיִם מִכֹּל יָבֹאוּ אֵלֶיךָ לְהַחֲיוֹת׃ 6.3 וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה לֹא־יָדוֹן רוּחִי בָאָדָם לְעֹלָם בְּשַׁגַּם הוּא בָשָׂר וְהָיוּ יָמָיו מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה׃ 6.4 הַנְּפִלִים הָיוּ בָאָרֶץ בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וְגַם אַחֲרֵי־כֵן אֲשֶׁר יָבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים אֶל־בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם וְיָלְדוּ לָהֶם הֵמָּה הַגִּבֹּרִים אֲשֶׁר מֵעוֹלָם אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם׃'' None | sup>
1.27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
5.2 male and female created He them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
6.1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 6.2 that the sons of nobles saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives, whomsoever they chose. 6.3 And the LORD said: ‘My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for that he also is flesh; therefore shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.’ 6.4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of nobles came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.'' None |
|
2. Homer, Iliad, 5.787, 8.228 (8th cent. BCE - 7th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argus, dog
Found in books: Augoustakis (2014), Flavian Poetry and its Greek Past, 59; Verhagen (2022), Security and Credit in Roman Law: The Historical Evolution of Pignus and Hypotheca, 59
sup>
5.787 αἰδὼς Ἀργεῖοι κάκʼ ἐλέγχεα εἶδος ἀγητοί·
8.228 αἰδὼς Ἀργεῖοι, κάκʼ ἐλέγχεα, εἶδος ἀγητοί·'' None | sup>
5.787 tood and shouted in the likeness of great-hearted Stentor of the brazen voice, whose voice is as the voice of fifty other men:Fie, ye Argives, base things of shame fair in semblance only! So long as goodly Achilles was wont to fare into battle, never would the Trojans come forth even before the Dardanian gate;
8.228 and to those of Achilles; for these had drawn up their shapely ships at the furthermost ends, trusting in their valour and in the strength of their hands. There uttered he a piercing shout, calling aloud to the Danaans:Fie, ye Argives, base things of shame fair in semblance only. '' None |
|
3. Euripides, Electra, 1261-1263 (5th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argumentative orientation • arguments, religious, religious significance of
Found in books: Martin (2009), Divine Talk: Religious Argumentation in Demosthenes, 125; Peels (2016), Hosios: A Semantic Study of Greek Piety, 81
sup>
1261 μῆνιν θυγατρὸς ἀνοσίων νυμφευμάτων,'1262 πόντου κρέοντος παῖδ', ἵν' εὐσεβεστάτη" "1263 ψῆφος βεβαία τ' ἐστὶν † ἔκ τε τοῦ † θεοῖς." '" None | sup>
1261 when savage Ares killed Halirrothius, son of the ocean’s ruler, in anger for the unholy violation of his daughter, so that the tribunal is most sacred and secure in the eyes of the gods.'1262 when savage Ares killed Halirrothius, son of the ocean’s ruler, in anger for the unholy violation of his daughter, so that the tribunal is most sacred and secure in the eyes of the gods. ' None |
|
4. Plato, Laws, None (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Plato, formulation of the teleological argument • design argument from • god, teleological argument for the existence of
Found in books: Frede and Laks (2001), Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath, 90; Segev (2017), Aristotle on Religion, 39
| 886a ΑΘ. πῶς; ΚΛ. πρῶτον μὲν γῆ καὶ ἥλιος ἄστρα τε καὶ τὰ σύμπαντα, καὶ τὰ τῶν ὡρῶν διακεκοσμημένα καλῶς οὕτως, ἐνιαυτοῖς τε καὶ μησὶν διειλημμένα· καὶ ὅτι πάντες Ἕλληνές τε καὶ βάρβαροι νομίζουσιν εἶναι θεούς. ΑΘ. φοβοῦμαί γε, ὦ μακάριε, τοὺς μοχθηρούς—οὐ γὰρ δή ποτε εἴποιμʼ ἂν ὥς γε αἰδοῦμαι—μή πως ἡμῶν καταφρονήσωσιν. ὑμεῖς μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἴστε αὐτῶν πέρι τὴν τῆς διαφορᾶς αἰτίαν, ἀλλʼ ἡγεῖσθε ἀκρατείᾳ μόνον ἡδονῶν τε'' None | 886a that gods exist? Ath. How so? Clin. First, there is the evidence of the earth, the sun, the stars, and all the universe, and the beautiful ordering of the seasons, marked out by years and months; and then there is the further fact that all Greeks and barbarians believe in the existence of gods. Ath. My dear sir, these bad men cause me alarm—for I will never call it awe —lest haply they scoff at us. For the cause of the corruption in their case is one you are not aware of; since you imagine that it is solely by their incontinence in regard to pleasures and desire'' None |
|
5. Plato, Phaedo, None (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Affinity Argument • Last Argument • Philosophical reasoning/argument • Socrates, on argument and doubt in Plato’s Phaedo • affinity argument (Phaedo)
Found in books: Ebrey and Kraut (2022), The Cambridge Companion to Plato, 2nd ed, 259; Long (2019), Immortality in Ancient Philosophy, 32, 98, 99, 102, 104, 109; de Bakker, van den Berg, and Klooster (2022), Emotions and Narrative in Ancient Literature and Beyond, 429
| 81a τεθνάναι μελετῶσα ῥᾳδίως: ἢ οὐ τοῦτ’ ἂν εἴη μελέτη θανάτου; ΦΑΙΔ. παντάπασί γε. /οὐκοῦν οὕτω μὲν ἔχουσα εἰς τὸ ὅμοιον αὐτῇ τὸ ἀιδὲς ἀπέρχεται, τὸ θεῖόν τε καὶ ἀθάνατον καὶ φρόνιμον, οἷ ἀφικομένῃ ὑπάρχει αὐτῇ εὐδαίμονι εἶναι, πλάνης καὶ ἀνοίας καὶ φόβων καὶ ἀγρίων ἐρώτων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων κακῶν τῶν ἀνθρωπείων ἀπηλλαγμένῃ, ὥσπερ δὲ λέγεται κατὰ τῶν μεμυημένων, ὡς ἀληθῶς τὸν λοιπὸν χρόνον μετὰ θεῶν διάγουσα; οὕτω φῶμεν, ὦ Κέβης, ἢ ἄλλως; οὕτω νὴ Δία, ἔφη ὁ Κέβης .'82b ἀρετὴν ἐπιτετηδευκότες, ἣν δὴ καλοῦσι σωφροσύνην τε καὶ δικαιοσύνην, ἐξ ἔθους τε καὶ μελέτης γεγονυῖαν ἄνευ φιλοσοφίας τε καὶ νοῦ; 88c πάντες οὖν ἀκούσαντες εἰπόντων αὐτῶν ἀηδῶς διετέθημεν, ὡς ὕστερον ἐλέγομεν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ὅτι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἔμπροσθεν λόγου σφόδρα πεπεισμένους ἡμᾶς πάλιν ἐδόκουν ἀναταράξαι καὶ εἰς ἀπιστίαν καταβαλεῖν οὐ μόνον τοῖς προειρημένοις λόγοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰς τὰ ὕστερον μέλλοντα ῥηθήσεσθαι, μὴ οὐδενὸς ἄξιοι εἶμεν κριταὶ ἢ καὶ τὰ πράγματα αὐτὰ ἄπιστα ᾖ. ΕΧ. νὴ τοὺς θεούς, ὦ Φαίδων, συγγνώμην γε ἔχω ὑμῖν. καὶ γὰρ αὐτόν με νῦν ἀκούσαντά σου τοιοῦτόν τι λέγειν ' None | 81a really practiced being in a state of death: or is not this the practice of death? Phaedo. By all means. Then if it is in such a condition, it goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear and fierce loves and all the other human ills, and as the initiated say, lives in truth through all after time with the gods. Is this our belief, Cebes, or not? Assuredly, said Cebes. But, I think,'82b by nature and habit, without philosophy or reason, the social and civil virtues which are called moderation and justice? How are these happiest? Don’t you see? Is it not likely that they pass again into some such social and gentle species as that of bees or of wasps or ants, or into the human race again, and that worthy men spring from them? Yes. And no one who has not been a philosopher and who is not wholly pure when he departs, is allowed to enter into the communion of the gods, 88c were very uncomfortable when we heard what they said; for we had been thoroughly convinced by the previous argument, and now they seemed to be throwing us again into confusion and distrust, not only in respect to the past discussion but also with regard to any future one. They made us fear that our judgment was worthless or that no certainty could be attained in these matters. Echecrates. By the gods, Phaedo, I sympathize with you; for I myself after listening to you am inclined to ask myself: ' None |
|
6. Plato, Timaeus, None (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • arguments, by invention • arguments, steps in sceptical • order of Nature/nature (phusis, φύσις), as argument for Forms
Found in books: Hoenig (2018), Plato's Timaeus and the Latin Tradition, 73, 75; d'Hoine and Martijn (2017), All From One: A Guide to Proclus, 242
| 29d ὑμεῖς τε οἱ κριταὶ φύσιν ἀνθρωπίνην ἔχομεν, ὥστε περὶ τούτων τὸν εἰκότα μῦθον ἀποδεχομένους πρέπει τούτου μηδὲν ἔτι πέρα ζητεῖν. ΣΩ. ἄριστα, ὦ Τίμαιε, παντάπασί τε ὡς κελεύεις ἀποδεκτέον· τὸ μὲν οὖν προοίμιον θαυμασίως ἀπεδεξάμεθά σου, τὸν δὲ δὴ νόμον ἡμῖν ἐφεξῆς πέραινε. ΤΙ. λέγωμεν δὴ διʼ ἥντινα αἰτίαν γένεσιν καὶ τὸ πᾶν'' None | 29d and you who judge are but human creatures, so that it becomes us to accept the likely account of these matters and forbear to search beyond it. Soc. Excellent, Timaeus! We must by all means accept it, as you suggest; and certainly we have most cordially accepted your prelude; so now, we beg of you, proceed straight on with the main theme. Tim. Let us now state the Cause wherefore He that constructed it'' None |
|
7. None, None, nan (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Relevance, in legal argument • arguments, religious, religious significance of • eusebia (piety), as argument
Found in books: Gagarin and Cohen (2005), The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law, 115, 123; Martin (2009), Divine Talk: Religious Argumentation in Demosthenes, 25, 264, 277
|
8. None, None, nan (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argus • Philosophical reasoning/argument
Found in books: Jouanna (2012), Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen, 325; de Bakker, van den Berg, and Klooster (2022), Emotions and Narrative in Ancient Literature and Beyond, 432
|
9. None, None, nan (4th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argus, dog
Found in books: Augoustakis (2014), Flavian Poetry and its Greek Past, 60, 62, 65; Verhagen (2022), Security and Credit in Roman Law: The Historical Evolution of Pignus and Hypotheca, 60, 62, 65
|
10. None, None, nan (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argument, strategies of • Relevance, in legal argument • arguing the issue, on the basis of facts
Found in books: Fortenbaugh (2006), Aristotle's Practical Side: On his Psychology, Ethics, Politics and Rhetoric, 391; Gagarin and Cohen (2005), The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law, 113, 136
|
11. None, None, nan (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • arguing the issue, on the basis of facts • argument pro and contra
Found in books: Fortenbaugh (2006), Aristotle's Practical Side: On his Psychology, Ethics, Politics and Rhetoric, 305; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 301
|
12. None, None, nan (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • arguing the issue, on the basis of facts • argument pro and contra
Found in books: Fortenbaugh (2006), Aristotle's Practical Side: On his Psychology, Ethics, Politics and Rhetoric, 393; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 303
|
13. None, None, nan (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argumentation • arguments, religious, religious significance of
Found in books: Martin (2009), Divine Talk: Religious Argumentation in Demosthenes, 271; Michalopoulos et al. (2021), The Rhetoric of Unity and Division in Ancient Literature, 118
|
14. None, None, nan (3rd cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argus, builder of the Argo
Found in books: Augoustakis (2014), Flavian Poetry and its Greek Past, 33, 90, 114, 127, 142, 145, 147; Verhagen (2022), Security and Credit in Roman Law: The Historical Evolution of Pignus and Hypotheca, 33, 90, 114, 127, 142, 145, 147
|
15. Cicero, On Divination, 1.52, 2.18, 2.22-2.25, 2.150 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argument • Lazy Argument, the • arguing on either side, • knowledge, Lazy argument
Found in books: Atkins (2021), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero's Philosophy 27; Jedan (2009), Stoic Virtues: Chrysippus and the Religious Character of Stoic Ethics, 35; Maso (2022), CIcero's Philosophy, 38, 40, 81; Wynne (2019), Horace and the Gift Economy of Patronage, 231, 241
sup>
1.52 Sed veniamus nunc, si placet, ad somnia philosophorum. Est apud Platonem Socrates, cum esset in custodia publica, dicens Critoni, suo familiari, sibi post tertium diem esse moriendum; vidisse se in somnis pulchritudine eximia feminam, quae se nomine appellans diceret Homericum quendam eius modi versum: Tertia te Phthiae tempestas laeta locabit. Quod, ut est dictum, sic scribitur contigisse. Xenophon Socraticus (qui vir et quantus!) in ea militia, qua cum Cyro minore perfunctus est, sua scribit somnia, quorum eventus mirabiles exstiterunt.
2.18 Qui thesaurum inventum iri aut hereditatem venturam dicunt, quid sequuntur? aut in qua rerum natura inest id futurum? Quodsi haec eaque, quae sunt eiusdem generis, habent aliquam talem necessitatem, quid est tandem, quod casu fieri aut forte fortuna putemus? Nihil enim est tam contrarium rationi et constantiae quam fortuna, ut mihi ne in deum quidem cadere videatur, ut sciat, quid casu et fortuito futurum sit. Si enim scit, certe illud eveniet; sin certe eveniet, nulla fortuna est; est autem fortuna; rerum igitur fortuitarum nulla praesensio est.
2.22 Atque ego ne utilem quidem arbitror esse nobis futurarum rerum scientiam. Quae enim vita fuisset Priamo, si ab adulescentia scisset, quos eventus senectutis esset habiturus? Abeamus a fabulis, propiora videamus. Clarissimorum hominum nostrae civitatis gravissimos exitus in Consolatione collegimus. Quid igitur? ut omittamus superiores, Marcone Crasso putas utile fuisse tum, cum maxumis opibus fortunisque florebat, scire sibi interfecto Publio filio exercituque deleto trans Euphratem cum ignominia et dedecore esse pereundum? An Cn. Pompeium censes tribus suis consulatibus, tribus triumphis, maximarum rerum gloria laetaturum fuisse, si sciret se in solitudine Aegyptiorum trucidatum iri amisso exercitu, post mortem vero ea consecutura, quae sine lacrimis non possumus dicere? 2.23 Quid vero Caesarem putamus, si divinasset fore ut in eo senatu, quem maiore ex parte ipse cooptasset, in curia Pompeia ante ipsius Pompeii simulacrum tot centurionibus suis inspectantibus a nobilissumis civibus, partim etiam a se omnibus rebus ornatis, trucidatus ita iaceret, ut ad eius corpus non modo amicorum, sed ne servorum quidem quisquam accederet, quo cruciatu animi vitam acturum fuisse? Certe igitur ignoratio futurorum malorum utilior est quam scientia. 2.24 Nam illud quidem dici, praesertim a Stoicis, nullo modo potest: Non isset ad arma Pompeius, non transisset Crassus Euphratem, non suscepisset bellum civile Caesar. Non igitur fatalis exitus habuerunt; vultis autem evenire omnia fato; nihil ergo illis profuisset divinare; atque etiam omnem fructum vitae superioris perdidissent; quid enim posset iis esse laetum exitus suos cogitantibus? Ita, quoquo sese verterint Stoici, iaceat necesse est omnis eorum sollertia. Si enim id, quod eventurum est, vel hoc vel illo modo potest evenire, fortuna valet plurimum; quae autem fortuita sunt, certa esse non possunt. Sin autem certum est, quid quaque de re quoque tempore futurum sit, quid est, quod me adiuvent haruspices? qui cum res tristissimas portendi dixerunt, addunt ad extremum omnia levius casura rebus divinis procuratis; 2.25 si enim nihil fit extra fatum, nihil levari re divina potest. Hoc sentit Homerus, cum querentem Iovem inducit, quod Sarpedonem filium a morte contra fatum eripere non posset. Hoc idem significat Graecus ille in eam sententiam versus: Quod fóre paratum est, íd summum exsuperát Iovem. Totum omnino fatum etiam Atellanio versu iure mihi esse inrisum videtur; sed in rebus tam severis non est iocandi locus. Concludatur igitur ratio: Si enim provideri nihil potest futurum esse eorum, quae casu fiunt, quia esse certa non possunt, divinatio nulla est; sin autem idcirco possunt provideri, quia certa sunt et fatalia, rursus divinatio nulla est; eam enim tu fortuitarum rerum esse dicebas.' ' None | sup>
1.52 But let us come now, if you please, to the dreams of philosophers.25 We read in Plato that Socrates, while in prison, said in a conversation with his friend Crito: I am to die in three days; for in a dream I saw a woman of rare beauty, who called me by name and quoted this verse from Homer:Gladly on Phthias shore the third days dawn shall behold thee.And history informs us that his death occurred as he had foretold. That disciple of Socrates, Xenophon — and what a man he was! — records the dreams he had during his campaign with Cyrus the Younger, and their remarkable fulfilment. Shall we say that Xenophon is either a liar or a madman?
2.18 But what course of reasoning is followed by men who predict the finding of a treasure or the inheritance of an estate? On what law of nature do such prophecies depend? But, on the other hand, if the prophecies just mentioned and others of the same class are controlled by some natural and immutable law such as regulates the movements of the stars, pray, can we conceive of anything happening by accident, or chance? Surely nothing is so at variance with reason and stability as chance? Hence it seems to me that it is not in the power even of God himself to know what event is going to happen accidentally and by chance. For if He knows, then the event is certain to happen; but if it is certain to happen, chance does not exist. And yet chance does exist, therefore there is no foreknowledge of things that happen by chance.
2.22 And further, for my part, I think that a knowledge of the future would be a disadvantage. Consider, for example, what Priams life would have been if he had known from youth what dire events his old age held in store for him! But let us leave the era of myths and come to events nearer home. In my work On Consolation I have collected instances of very grievous deaths that befell some of the most illustrious men of our commonwealth. Passing by men of earlier day, let us take Marcus Crassus. What advantage, pray, do you think it would have been to him, when he was at the very summit of power and wealth, to know that he was destined to perish beyond the Euphrates in shame and dishonour, after his son had been killed and his own army had been destroyed? Or do you think that Gnaeus Pompey would have found joy in his three consulships, in his three triumphs, and in the fame of his transcendent deeds, if he had known that he would be slain in an Egyptian desert, after he had lost his army, and that following his death those grave events would occur of which I cannot speak without tears? 2.23 Or what do we think of Caesar? Had he foreseen that in the Senate, chosen in most part by himself, in Pompeys hall, aye, before Pompeys very statue, and in the presence of many of his own centurions, he would be put to death by most noble citizens, some of whom owed all that they had to him, and that he would fall to so low an estate that no friend — no, not even a slave — would approach his dead body, in what agony of soul would he have spent his life!of a surety, then, ignorance of future ills is more profitable than the knowledge of them. 2.24 For, assuming that men knew the future it cannot in any wise be said — certainly not by the Stoics — that Pompey would not have taken up arms, that Crassus would not have crossed the Euphrates, or that Caesar would not have embarked upon the civil war. If so, then, the deaths that befell these men were not determined by Fate. But you will have it that everything happens by Fate; consequently, knowledge of the future would have done these men no good. In reality it would have entirely deprived the earlier portion of their lives of enjoyment; for how could they have been happy in reflecting what their ends would be? And so, however the Stoics turn and twist, all their shrewdness must come to naught. For, if a thing that is going to happen, may happen in one way or another, indifferently, chance is predomit; but things that happen by chance cannot be certain. But if it is certain what is going to befall me in reference to any matter and on every occasion, how do the soothsayers help me by saying that the greatest misfortunes await me? 10 2.25 To the last point the Stoics make the rejoinder that every evil which is going to befall us is made lighter by means of religious rites. But if nothing happens except in accordance with Fate, no evil can be made lighter by means of religious rites. Homer shows his appreciation of this fact when he represents Jupiter as complaining because he could not snatch his son Sarpedon from death when Fate forbade. The same thought is expressed in the following verses translated from a Greek poet:That which has been decreed by Fate to beAlmighty Jove himself cannot prevent.The whole idea of Fate in every detail is justly, as I think, the subject of derision even in Atellan farces, but in a discussion as serious as ours joking is out of place. So then let us sum up our argument: If it is impossible to foresee things that happen by chance because they are uncertain, there is no such thing as divination; if, on the contrary, they can be foreseen because they are preordained by Fate, still there is no such thing as divination, which, by your definition, deals with things that happen by chance.' ' None |
|
16. Cicero, On The Ends of Good And Evil, 5.10 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argument • authority, argument from, of Plato • oikeiōsis = Lat. commendatio or conciliatio, Antiochean/Peripatetic argument from
Found in books: Maso (2022), CIcero's Philosophy, 12; Tsouni (2019), Antiochus and Peripatetic Ethics, 46, 103
sup>
5.10 persecutus est est N 2 om. BERN 1 V Non. p. 232 Aristoteles animantium omnium ortus, victus, figuras, Theophrastus autem stirpium naturas omniumque fere rerum, quae e terra gignerentur, causas atque rationes; qua ex cognitione facilior facta est investigatio rerum occultissimarum. Disserendique ab isdem non dialectice solum, sed etiam oratorie praecepta sunt tradita, ab Aristoteleque principe de singulis rebus in utramque partem dicendi exercitatio est instituta, ut non contra omnia semper, sicut Arcesilas, diceret, et tamen ut in omnibus rebus, quicquid ex utraque parte dici posset, expromeret. exprimeret R'' None | sup>
5.10 \xa0Aristotle gave a complete account of the birth, nutrition and structure of all living creatures, Theophrastus of the natural history of plants and the causes and constitution of vegetable organisms in general; and the knowledge thus attained facilitated the investigation of the most obscure questions. In Logic their teachings include the rules of rhetoric as well as of dialectic; and Aristotle their founder started the practice of arguing both pro and contra upon every topic, not like Arcesilas, always controverting every proposition, but setting out all the possible arguments on either side in every subject. <'' None |
|
17. Cicero, On The Nature of The Gods, 1.10, 1.43-1.44, 2.168 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argument • arguing on either side, • argument pro and contra • authority, argument from, of Plato • consensus, arguments from
Found in books: Atkins (2021), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero's Philosophy 29, 30; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 304; Maso (2022), CIcero's Philosophy, 12, 110, 127, 134, 139, 140, 141, 142, 148; Tsouni (2019), Antiochus and Peripatetic Ethics, 34; Wynne (2019), Horace and the Gift Economy of Patronage, 86
| sup>
1.10 Those however who seek to learn my personal opinion on the various questions show an unreasonable degree of curiosity. In discussion it is not so much weight of authority as force of argument that should be demanded. Indeed the authority of those who profess to teach is often a positive hindrance to those who desire to learn; they cease to employ their own judgement, and take what they perceive to be the verdict of their chosen master as settling the question. In fact I am not disposed to approve the practice traditionally ascribed to the Pythagoreans, who, when questioned as to the grounds of any assertion that they advanced in debate, are said to have been accustomed to reply 'He himself said so, he himself' being Pythagoras. So potent was an opinion already decided, making authority prevail unsupported by reason. " 1.43 With the errors of the poets may be classed the monstrous doctrines of the magi and the insane mythology of Egypt, and also the popular beliefs, which are a mere mass of inconsistencies sprung from ignorance. "Anyone pondering on the baseless and irrational character of these doctrines ought to regard Epicurus with reverence, and to rank him as one of the very gods about whom we are inquiring. For he alone perceived, first, that the gods exist, because nature herself has imprinted a conception of them on the minds of all mankind. For what nation or what tribe is there but possesses untaught some \'preconception\' of the gods? Such notions Epicurus designates by the word prolepsis, that is, a sort of preconceived mental picture of a thing, without which nothing can be understood or investigated or discussed. The force and value of this argument we learn in that work of genius, Epicurus\'s Rule or Standard of Judgement. ' "1.44 You see therefore that the foundation (for such it is) of our inquiry has been well and truly laid. For the belief in the gods has not been established by authority, custom or law, but rests on the uimous and abiding consensus of mankind; their existence is therefore a necessary inference, since we possess an instinctive or rather an innate concept of them; but a belief which all men by nature share must necessarily be true; therefore it must be admitted that the gods exist. And since this truth is almost universally accepted not only among philosophers but also among the unlearned, we must admit it as also being an accepted truth that we possess a 'preconception,' as I called it above, or 'prior notion,' of the gods. (For we are bound to employ novel terms to denote novel ideas, just as Epicurus himself employed the word prolepsis in a sense in which no one had ever used it before.) " 2.168 "These are more or less the things that occurred to me which I thought proper to be said upon the subject of the nature of the gods. And for your part, Cotta, would you but listen to me, you would plead the same cause, and reflect that you are a leading citizen and a pontife, and you would take advantage of the liberty enjoyed by your school of arguing both pro and contra to choose to espouse my side, and preferably to devote to this purpose those powers of eloquence which your rhetorical exercises have bestowed upon you and which the Academy has fostered. For the habit of arguing in support of atheism, whether it be done from conviction or in pretence, is a wicked and impious practice." '" None |
|
18. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argument • Lazy Argument, the • knowledge, Lazy argument • lazy Argument,
Found in books: Atkins (2021), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero's Philosophy 140; Jedan (2009), Stoic Virtues: Chrysippus and the Religious Character of Stoic Ethics, 35, 36; Maso (2022), CIcero's Philosophy, 41, 86; Wynne (2019), Horace and the Gift Economy of Patronage, 231, 241
|
19. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • arguing on either side, • argument pro and contra • arguments, steps in sceptical • five-part analysis, of deductive argument
Found in books: Atkins (2021), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero's Philosophy 80, 107, 110; Fortenbaugh (2006), Aristotle's Practical Side: On his Psychology, Ethics, Politics and Rhetoric, 417; Hoenig (2018), Plato's Timaeus and the Latin Tradition, 73; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 300, 303, 304
|
20. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argument • Argumentation • arguments, steps in sceptical
Found in books: Hoenig (2018), Plato's Timaeus and the Latin Tradition, 74; Maso (2022), CIcero's Philosophy, 12; Michalopoulos et al. (2021), The Rhetoric of Unity and Division in Ancient Literature, 408
|
21. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argument • argument pro and contra
Found in books: Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 299; Maso (2022), CIcero's Philosophy, 12
|
22. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argument • argument pro and contra
Found in books: Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 304; Maso (2022), CIcero's Philosophy, 23
|
23. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Affinity Argument • Argument • Last Argument • Socrates, on argument and doubt in Plato’s Phaedo • Symmetry Arguments • arguing on either side, • argument pro and contra • arguments, against fear of death • arguments, from design, Cicero’s • authority, argument from • authority, argument from, of Plato • authority, argument from, of the ‘ancients’ • disjunctive argument (for eternity of soul)
Found in books: Atkins (2021), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero's Philosophy 27, 33, 212; Hoenig (2018), Plato's Timaeus and the Latin Tradition, 84; Inwood and Warren (2020), Body and Soul in Hellenistic Philosophy, 205, 206, 207; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 300, 303, 304; Long (2019), Immortality in Ancient Philosophy, 101, 109, 111, 112; Maso (2022), CIcero's Philosophy, 12; Tsouni (2019), Antiochus and Peripatetic Ethics, 33, 34
|
24. Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library, 4.40.1-4.40.3, 4.40.5, 4.41.1-4.41.3, 4.42, 4.43.1-4.43.4, 4.45, 4.48.5, 4.50.1-4.50.2 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argus, builder of the Argo
Found in books: Augoustakis (2014), Flavian Poetry and its Greek Past, 114, 142, 143, 145, 146, 148; Verhagen (2022), Security and Credit in Roman Law: The Historical Evolution of Pignus and Hypotheca, 114, 142, 143, 145, 146, 148
| sup>
4.40.1 \xa0As for the Argonauts, since Heracles joined them in their campaign, it may be appropriate to speak of them in this connection. This is the account which is given: â\x80\x94 Jason was the son of Aeson and the nephew through his father of Pelias, the king of the Thessalians, and excelling as he did above those of his years in strength of body and nobility of spirit he was eager to accomplish a deed worthy of memory. 4.40.2 \xa0And since he observed that of the men of former times Perseus and certain others had gained glory which was held in everlasting remembrance from the campaigns which they had waged in foreign lands and the hazard attending the labours they had performed, he was eager to follow the examples they had set. As a consequence he revealed his undertaking to the king and quickly received his approval. It was not so much that Pelias was eager to bring distinction to the youth that he hoped that in the hazardous expeditions he would lose his life; 4.40.3 \xa0for he himself had been deprived by nature of any male children and was fearful that his brother, with his son to aid him, would make an attempt upon the kingdom. Hiding, however, this suspicion and promising to supply everything which would be needed for the expedition, he urged Jason to undertake an exploit by sailing to Colchis after the renowned golden-fleeced skin of the ram.
4.40.5 \xa0Jason, who was eager for glory, recognizing that the labour was difficult of accomplishment and yet not altogether impossible, and concluding that for this very reason the greater renown would attach to himself, made ready everything needed for the undertaking.
4.41.1 \xa0First of all, in the vicinity of Mount Pelion he built a ship which far surpassed in its size and in its equipment in general any vessel known in those days, since the men of that time put to sea on rafts or in very small boats. Consequently those who saw the ship at the time were greatly astonished, and when the report was noised about throughout Greece both of the exploit of the enterprise of building the ship, no small number of the youths of prominence were eager to take part in the expedition. 4.41.2 \xa0Jason, then, after he had launched the ship and fitted it out in brilliant fashion with everything which would astonish the mind, picked out the most renowned chieftains from those who were eager to share his plan, with the result that the whole number of those in his company amounted to fifty-four. of these the most famous were Castor and Polydeuces, Heracles and Telamon, Orpheus and Atalantê the daughter of Schoeneus, and the sons of Thespius, and the leader himself who was setting out on the voyage to Colchis. 4.41.3 \xa0The vessel was called Argo after Argus, as some writers of myths record, who was the master-builder of the ship and went along on the voyage in order to repair the parts of the vessel as they were strained from time to time, but, as some say, after its exceeding great swiftness, since the ancients called what is swift Argos. Now after the chieftains had gathered together they chose Heracles to be their general, preferring him because of his courage.' "
4.42 1. \xa0After they had sailed from Iolcus, the account continues, and had gone past Athos and Samothrace, they encountered a storm and were carried to Sigeium in the Troad. When they disembarked there, it is said, they discovered a maiden bound in chains upon the shore, the reason for it being as follows.,2. \xa0Poseidon, as the story runs, became angry with Laomedon the king of Troy in connection with the building of its walls, according to the mythical story, and sent forth from the sea a monster to ravage the land. By this monster those who made their living by the seashore and the farmers who tilled the land contiguous to the sea were being surprised and carried off. Furthermore, a pestilence fell upon the people and a total destruction of their crops, so that all the inhabitants were at their wits' end because of the magnitude of what had befallen them.,3. \xa0Consequently the common crowd gathered together into an assembly and sought for a deliverance from their misfortunes, and the king, it is said, dispatched a mission to Apollo to inquire of the god respecting what had befallen them. When the oracle, then, became known, which told that the cause was the anger of Poseidon and that only then would it cease when the Trojans should of their free will select by lot one of their children and deliver him to the monster for his food, although all the children submitted to the lot, it fell upon the king's daughter Hesionê.,4. \xa0Consequently Laomedon was constrained by necessity to deliver the maiden and to leave her, bound in chains, upon the shore.,5. \xa0Here Heracles, when he had disembarked with the Argonauts and learned from the girl of her sudden change of fortune, rent asunder the chains which were about her body and going up to the city made an offer to the king to slay the monster.,6. \xa0When Laomedon accepted the proposal and promised to give him as his reward his invincible mares, Heracles, they say, did slay the monster and Hesionê was given the choice either to leave her home with her saviour or to remain in her native land with her parents. The girl, then, chose to spend her life with the stranger, not merely because she preferred the benefaction she had received to the ties of kinship, but also because she feared that a monster might again appear and she be exposed by citizens to the same fate as that from which she had just escaped.,7. \xa0As for Heracles, after he had been splendidly honoured with gifts and the appropriate tokens of hospitality, he left Hesionê and the mares in keeping with Laomedon, having arranged that after he had returned from Colchis, he should receive them again; he then set sail with all haste in the company of the Argonauts to accomplish the labour which lay before them." 4.43.1 \xa0But there came on a great storm and the chieftains had given up hope of being saved, when Orpheus, they say, who was the only one on shipboard who had ever been initiated in the mysteries of the deities of Samothrace, offered to these deities the prayers for their salvation. 4.43.2 \xa0And immediately the wind died down and two stars fell over the heads of the Dioscori, and the whole company was amazed at the marvel which had taken place and concluded that they had been rescued from their perils by an act of Providence of the gods. For this reason, the story of this reversal of fortune for the Argonauts has been handed down to succeeding generations, and sailors when caught in storms always direct their prayers to the deities of Samothrace and attribute the appearance of the two stars to the epiphany of the Dioscori. 4.43.3 \xa0At that time, however, the tale continues, when the storm had abated, the chieftains landed in Thrace on the country which was ruled by Phineus. Here they came upon two youths who by way of punishment had been shut within a burial vault where they were being subjected to continual blows of the whip; these were sons of Phineus and Cleopatra, who men said was born of Oreithyïa, the daughter of Erechtheus, and Boreas, and had unjustly been subjected to such a punishment because of the unscrupulousness and lying accusations of their mother-inâ\x80\x91law. 4.43.4 \xa0For Phineus had married Idaea, the daughter of Dardanus the king of the Scythians, and yielding to her every desire out of his love for her he had believed her charge that his sons by an earlier marriage had insolently offered violence to their mother-inâ\x80\x91law out of a desire to please their mother.
4.45 1. \xa0Since it is the task of history to inquire into the reasons for this slaying of strangers, we must discuss these reasons briefly, especially since the digression on this subject will be appropriate in connection with the deeds of the Argonauts. We are told, that is, that Helius had two sons, Aeëtes and Perses, Aeëtes being king of Colchis and the other king of the Tauric Chersonese, and that both of them were exceedingly cruel.,2. \xa0And Perses had a daughter Hecatê, who surpassed her father in boldness and lawlessness; she was also fond of hunting, and with she had no luck she would turn her arrows upon human beings instead of the beasts.,3. \xa0Being likewise ingenious in the mixing of deadly poisons she discovered the drug called aconite and tried out the strength of each poison by mixing it in the food given to the strangers.,4. \xa0And since she possessed great experience in such matters she first of all poisoned her father and so succeeded to the throne, and then, founding a temple of Artemis and commanding that strangers who landed there should be sacrificed to the goddess, she became known far and wide for her cruelty.,5. \xa0After this she married Aeëtes and bore two daughters, Circê and Medea, and a son Aegialeus.,6. \xa0Although Circê also, it is said, devoted herself to the devising of all kinds of drugs and discovered roots of all manner of natures and potencies such as are difficult to credit, yet, notwithstanding that she was taught by her mother Hecatê about not a\xa0few drugs, she discovered by her own study a far greater number, so that she left to the other woman no superiority whatever in the matter of devising uses of drugs.,7. \xa0She was given in marriage to the king of the Sarmatians, whom some call Scythians, and first she poisoned her husband and after that, succeeding to the throne, she committed many cruel and violent acts against her subjects.,8. \xa0For this reason she was deposed from her throne and, according to some writers of myths, fled to the ocean, where she seized a desert island, and there established herself with the women who had fled with her, though according to some historians she left the Pontus and settled in Italy on a promontory which to this day bears after her the name Circaeum.
4.48.5 \xa0The moment the king fell, the Greeks took courage, and the Colchi turned in flight and the larger part of them were slain in the pursuit. There were wounded among the chieftains Jason, Laërtes, Atalantê, and the sons of Thespius, as they are called. However they were all healed in a\xa0few days, they say, by Medea by means of roots and certain herbs, and the Argonauts, after securing provisions for themselves, set out to sea, and they had already reached the middle of the Pontic sea when they ran into a storm which put them in the greatest peril.
4.50.1 \xa0While the return of the chieftains was as yet not known in Thessaly, a rumour, they say, went the rounds there that all the companions of Jason in the expedition had perished in the region of Pontus. Consequently Pelias, thinking that an occasion was now come to do away with all who were waiting for the throne, forced the father of Jason to drink the blood of a bull, and murdered his brother Promachus, who was still a mere lad in years. 4.50.2 \xa0But Amphinomê, his mother, they say, when on the point of being slain, performed a manly deed and one worthy of mention; for fleeing to the hearth of the king she pronounced a curse against him, to the effect that he might suffer the fate which his impious deeds merited, and then, striking her own breast with a sword, she ended her life heroically.'' None |
|
25. Ovid, Metamorphoses, 10.369 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argus, dog
Found in books: Augoustakis (2014), Flavian Poetry and its Greek Past, 19; Verhagen (2022), Security and Credit in Roman Law: The Historical Evolution of Pignus and Hypotheca, 19
sup>
10.369 solverat. At virgo Cinyreia pervigil igni'' None | sup>
10.369 o hard, it was no wonder they were turned'' None |
|
26. None, None, nan (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argus, builder of the Argo
Found in books: Augoustakis (2014), Flavian Poetry and its Greek Past, 114, 148; Verhagen (2022), Security and Credit in Roman Law: The Historical Evolution of Pignus and Hypotheca, 114, 148
|
27. None, None, nan (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argus, dog
Found in books: Augoustakis (2014), Flavian Poetry and its Greek Past, 19; Verhagen (2022), Security and Credit in Roman Law: The Historical Evolution of Pignus and Hypotheca, 19
|
28. None, None, nan (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argus
Found in books: Elsner (2007), Roman Eyes: Visuality and Subjectivity in Art and Text, 74, 75; Mayor (2017), Religion and Memory in Tacitus’ Annals, 284
|
29. Apollodorus, Bibliotheca, 1.9.1, 1.9.28, 2.1.3, 2.7.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argus, builder of the Argo • Argus, dog • Argus/Argos
Found in books: Augoustakis (2014), Flavian Poetry and its Greek Past, 59, 114, 146; Miller and Clay (2019), Tracking Hermes, Pursuing Mercury, 328; Verhagen (2022), Security and Credit in Roman Law: The Historical Evolution of Pignus and Hypotheca, 59, 114, 146
sup>
1.9.1 τῶν δὲ Αἰόλου παίδων Ἀθάμας, Βοιωτίας δυναστεύων, ἐκ Νεφέλης τεκνοῖ παῖδα μὲν Φρίξον θυγατέρα δὲ Ἕλλην. αὖθις δὲ Ἰνὼ γαμεῖ, ἐξ ἧς αὐτῷ Λέαρχος καὶ Μελικέρτης ἐγένοντο. ἐπιβουλεύουσα δὲ Ἰνὼ τοῖς Νεφέλης τέκνοις ἔπεισε τὰς γυναῖκας τὸν πυρὸν φρύγειν. λαμβάνουσαι δὲ κρύφα τῶν ἀνδρῶν τοῦτο ἔπρασσον. γῆ δὲ πεφρυγμένους πυροὺς δεχομένη καρποὺς ἐτησίους οὐκ ἀνεδίδου. διὸ πέμπων ὁ Ἀθάμας εἰς Δελφοὺς ἀπαλλαγὴν ἐπυνθάνετο τῆς ἀφορίας. Ἰνὼ δὲ τοὺς πεμφθέντας ἀνέπεισε λέγειν ὡς εἴη κεχρησμένον παύσεσθαι 1 -- τὴν ἀκαρπίαν, ἐὰν σφαγῇ Διὶ ὁ Φρίξος. τοῦτο ἀκούσας Ἀθάμας, συναναγκαζόμενος ὑπὸ τῶν τὴν γῆν κατοικούντων, τῷ βωμῷ παρέστησε Φρίξον. Νεφέλη δὲ μετὰ τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτὸν ἀνήρπασε, καὶ παρʼ Ἑρμοῦ λαβοῦσα χρυσόμαλλον κριὸν ἔδωκεν, ὑφʼ 2 -- οὗ φερόμενοι διʼ οὐρανοῦ γῆν ὑπερέβησαν καὶ θάλασσαν. ὡς δὲ ἐγένοντο κατὰ τὴν μεταξὺ κειμένην θάλασσαν Σιγείου καὶ Χερρονήσου, ὤλισθεν εἰς τὸν βυθὸν ἡ Ἕλλη, κἀκεῖ θανούσης αὐτῆς ἀπʼ ἐκείνης Ἑλλήσποντος ἐκλήθη τὸ πέλαγος. Φρίξος δὲ ἦλθεν εἰς Κόλχους, ὧν Αἰήτης ἐβασίλευε παῖς Ἡλίου καὶ Περσηίδος, ἀδελφὸς δὲ Κίρκης καὶ Πασιφάης, ἣν Μίνως ἔγημεν. οὗτος αὐτὸν ὑποδέχεται, καὶ μίαν τῶν θυγατέρων Χαλκιόπην δίδωσιν. ὁ δὲ τὸν χρυσόμαλλον κριὸν Διὶ θύει φυξίῳ, τὸ δὲ τούτου δέρας Αἰήτῃ δίδωσιν· ἐκεῖνος δὲ αὐτὸ περὶ δρῦν ἐν Ἄρεος ἄλσει καθήλωσεν. ἐγένοντο δὲ ἐκ Χαλκιόπης Φρίξῳ παῖδες Ἄργος Μέλας Φρόντις Κυτίσωρος.
1.9.28 οἱ δὲ ἧκον εἰς Κόρινθον, καὶ δέκα μὲν ἔτη διετέλουν εὐτυχοῦντες, αὖθις δὲ τοῦ τῆς Κορίνθου βασιλέως Κρέοντος τὴν θυγατέρα Γλαύκην Ἰάσονι ἐγγυῶντος, παραπεμψάμενος Ἰάσων Μήδειαν ἐγάμει. ἡ δέ, οὕς τε ὤμοσεν Ἰάσων θεοὺς ἐπικαλεσαμένη καὶ τὴν Ἰάσονος ἀχαριστίαν μεμψαμένη πολλάκις, τῇ μὲν γαμουμένῃ πέπλον μεμαγμένον 1 -- φαρμάκοις 2 -- ἔπεμψεν, ὃν ἀμφιεσαμένη μετὰ τοῦ βοηθοῦντος πατρὸς πυρὶ λάβρῳ κατεφλέχθη, 3 -- τοὺς δὲ παῖδας οὓς εἶχεν ἐξ Ἰάσονος, Μέρμερον καὶ Φέρητα, ἀπέκτεινε, καὶ λαβοῦσα παρὰ Ἡλίου ἅρμα πτηνῶν 4 -- δρακόντων ἐπὶ τούτου φεύγουσα ἦλθεν εἰς Ἀθήνας. λέγεται δὲ καὶ ὅτι φεύγουσα τοὺς παῖδας ἔτι νηπίους ὄντας κατέλιπεν, ἱκέτας καθίσασα ἐπὶ τὸν βωμὸν τῆς Ἥρας τῆς ἀκραίας· Κορίνθιοι δὲ αὐτοὺς ἀναστήσαντες κατετραυμάτισαν. Μήδεια δὲ ἧκεν εἰς Ἀθήνας, κἀκεῖ γαμηθεῖσα Αἰγεῖ παῖδα γεννᾷ Μῆδον. ἐπιβουλεύουσα δὲ ὕστερον Θησεῖ φυγὰς ἐξ Ἀθηνῶν μετὰ τοῦ παιδὸς ἐκβάλλεται. ἀλλʼ οὗτος μὲν πολλῶν κρατήσας βαρβάρων τὴν ὑφʼ ἑαυτὸν χώραν ἅπασαν Μηδίαν ἐκάλεσε, καὶ στρατευόμενος ἐπὶ Ἰνδοὺς ἀπέθανε· Μήδεια δὲ εἰς Κόλχους ἦλθεν ἄγνωστος, καὶ καταλαβοῦσα Αἰήτην ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ Πέρσου τῆς βασιλείας ἐστερημένον, κτείνασα τοῦτον τῷ πατρὶ τὴν βασιλείαν ἀποκατέστησεν.
2.1.3 Ἄργου δὲ καὶ Ἰσμήνης τῆς Ἀσωποῦ παῖς Ἴασος, 2 -- οὗ φασιν Ἰὼ γενέσθαι. Κάστωρ δὲ ὁ συγγράψας τὰ χρονικὰ καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν τραγικῶν Ἰνάχου τὴν Ἰὼ λέγουσιν· Ἡσίοδος δὲ καὶ Ἀκουσίλαος Πειρῆνος αὐτήν φασιν εἶναι. ταύτην ἱερωσύνην τῆς Ἥρας ἔχουσαν Ζεὺς ἔφθειρε. φωραθεὶς δὲ ὑφʼ Ἥρας τῆς μὲν κόρης ἁψάμενος εἰς βοῦν μετεμόρφωσε λευκήν, ἀπωμόσατο δὲ ταύτῃ 1 -- μὴ συνελθεῖν· διό φησιν Ἡσίοδος οὐκ ἐπισπᾶσθαι τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν θεῶν ὀργὴν τοὺς γινομένους ὅρκους ὑπὲρ ἔρωτος. Ἥρα δὲ αἰτησαμένη παρὰ Διὸς τὴν βοῦν φύλακα αὐτῆς κατέστησεν Ἄργον τὸν πανόπτην, ὃν Φερεκύδης 2 -- μὲν Ἀρέστορος λέγει, Ἀσκληπιάδης δὲ Ἰνάχου, Κέρκωψ 3 -- δὲ Ἄργου καὶ Ἰσμήνης τῆς Ἀσωποῦ θυγατρός· Ἀκουσίλαος δὲ γηγενῆ αὐτὸν λέγει. οὗτος ἐκ τῆς ἐλαίας ἐδέσμευεν αὐτὴν ἥτις ἐν τῷ Μυκηναίων ὑπῆρχεν ἄλσει. Διὸς δὲ ἐπιτάξαντος Ἑρμῇ κλέψαι τὴν βοῦν, μηνύσαντος Ἱέρακος, ἐπειδὴ λαθεῖν οὐκ ἠδύνατο, λίθῳ βαλὼν ἀπέκτεινε τὸν Ἄργον, ὅθεν ἀργειφόντης ἐκλήθη. Ἥρα δὲ τῇ βοῒ οἶστρον ἐμβάλλει ἡ δὲ πρῶτον ἧκεν εἰς τὸν ἀπʼ ἐκείνης Ἰόνιον κόλπον κληθέντα, ἔπειτα διὰ τῆς Ἰλλυρίδος πορευθεῖσα καὶ τὸν Αἷμον ὑπερβαλοῦσα διέβη τὸν τότε μὲν καλούμενον πόρον Θρᾴκιον, νῦν δὲ ἀπʼ ἐκείνης Βόσπορον. ἀπελθοῦσα 4 -- δὲ εἰς Σκυθίαν καὶ τὴν Κιμμερίδα γῆν, πολλὴν χέρσον πλανηθεῖσα καὶ πολλὴν διανηξαμένη θάλασσαν Εὐρώπης τε καὶ Ἀσίας, τελευταῖον ἧκεν 1 -- εἰς Αἴγυπτον, ὅπου τὴν ἀρχαίαν μορφὴν ἀπολαβοῦσα γεννᾷ παρὰ τῷ Νείλῳ ποταμῷ Ἔπαφον παῖδα. τοῦτον δὲ Ἥρα δεῖται Κουρήτων ἀφανῆ ποιῆσαι· οἱ δὲ ἠφάνισαν αὐτόν. καὶ Ζεὺς μὲν αἰσθόμενος κτείνει Κούρητας, Ἰὼ δὲ ἐπὶ ζήτησιν τοῦ παιδὸς ἐτράπετο. πλανωμένη δὲ κατὰ τὴν Συρίαν ἅπασαν (ἐκεῖ γὰρ ἐμηνύετο ὅτι 2 -- ἡ 3 -- τοῦ Βυβλίων βασιλέως γυνὴ 4 -- ἐτιθήνει τὸν υἱόν) καὶ τὸν Ἔπαφον εὑροῦσα, εἰς Αἴγυπτον ἐλθοῦσα ἐγαμήθη Τηλεγόνῳ τῷ βασιλεύοντι τότε Αἰγυπτίων. ἱδρύσατο δὲ ἄγαλμα Δήμητρος, ἣν ἐκάλεσαν Ἶσιν Αἰγύπτιοι, καὶ τὴν Ἰὼ Ἶσιν ὁμοίως προσηγόρευσαν.
2.7.8 ἦσαν δὲ παῖδες αὐτῷ ἐκ μὲν τῶν Θεσπίου 1 -- θυγατέρων, Πρόκριδος μὲν Ἀντιλέων καὶ Ἱππεύς (ἡ πρεσβυτάτη γὰρ διδύμους ἐγέννησε), Πανόπης δὲ Θρεψίππας, Λύσης Εὐμήδης, 2 -- Κρέων, Ἐπιλάϊδος Ἀστυάναξ, Κέρθης Ἰόβης, Εὐρυβίας Πολύλαος, Πατροῦς Ἀρχέμαχος, Μηλίνης Λαομέδων, Κλυτίππης Εὐρύκαπυς, Εὐρύπυλος Εὐβώτης, Ἀγλαΐης Ἀντιάδης, Ὀνήσιππος Χρυσηίδος, Ὀρείης Λαομένης, Τέλης Λυσιδίκης, Ἐντελίδης Μενιππίδος, 3 -- Ἀνθίππης Ἱπποδρόμος, Τελευταγόρας --Εὐρυ --, Καπύλος 4 -- Ἵππωτος, 5 -- Εὐβοίας Ὄλυμπος, Νίκης Νικόδρομος, Ἀργέλης Κλεόλαος, Ἐξόλης Ἐρύθρας, Ξανθίδος Ὁμόλιππος, Στρατονίκης Ἄτρομος, Κελευστάνωρ Ἴφιδος, 6 -- Λαοθόης Ἄντιφος, 7 -- Ἀντιόπης 8 -- Ἀλόπιος, Ἀστυβίης Καλαμήτιδος, 9 -- Φυληίδος Τίγασις, Αἰσχρηίδος Λευκώνης, Ἀνθείας , Εὐρυπύλης Ἀρχέδικος, Δυνάστης Ἐρατοῦς, 10 -- Ἀσωπίδος 11 -- Μέντωρ, Ἠώνης Ἀμήστριος, Τιφύσης Λυγκαῖος, 1 -- Ἁλοκράτης Ὀλυμπούσης, Ἑλικωνίδος Φαλίας, Ἡσυχείης Οἰστρόβλης, 2 -- Τερψικράτης Εὐρυόπης, 3 -- Ἐλαχείας 4 -- Βουλεύς, Ἀντίμαχος Νικίππης, Πάτροκλος Πυρίππης, Νῆφος Πραξιθέας, Λυσίππης Ἐράσιππος, Λυκοῦργος 5 -- Τοξικράτης, Βουκόλος Μάρσης, Λεύκιππος Εὐρυτέλης, Ἱπποκράτης Ἱππόζυγος. οὗτοι μὲν ἐκ τῶν Θεσπίου 6 -- θυγατέρων, ἐκ δὲ τῶν ἄλλων, Δηιανείρας μὲν 7 -- τῆς Οἰνέως Ὕλλος Κτήσιππος Γληνὸς Ὀνείτης, 8 -- ἐκ Μεγάρας δὲ τῆς Κρέοντος Θηρίμαχος Δηικόων Κρεοντιάδης, ἐξ Ὀμφάλης δὲ Ἀγέλαος, ὅθεν καὶ τὸ Κροίσου 9 -- γένος. Χαλκιόπης δὲ 10 -- τῆς Εὐρυπύλου 1 -- Θετταλός, Ἐπικάστης τῆς Αὐγέου 2 -- Θεστάλος, Παρθενόπης τῆς Στυμφάλου Εὐήρης, Αὔγης τῆς Ἀλεοῦ Τήλεφος, Ἀστυόχης τῆς Φύλαντος Τληπόλεμος, Ἀστυδαμείας τῆς Ἀμύντορος Κτήσιππος, Αὐτονόης τῆς Πειρέως Παλαίμων.'' None | sup>
1.9.1 of the sons of Aeolus, Athamas ruled over Boeotia and begat a son Phrixus and a daughter Helle by Nephele. And he married a second wife, Ino, by whom he had Learchus and Melicertes. But Ino plotted against the children of Nephele and persuaded the women to parch the wheat; and having got the wheat they did so without the knowledge of the men. But the earth, being sown with parched wheat, did not yield its annual crops; so Athamas sent to Delphi to inquire how he might be delivered from the dearth. Now Ino persuaded the messengers to say it was foretold that the infertility would cease if Phrixus were sacrificed to Zeus. When Athamas heard that, he was forced by the inhabitants of the land to bring Phrixus to the altar. But Nephele caught him and her daughter up and gave them a ram with a golden fleece, which she had received from Hermes, and borne through the sky by the ram they crossed land and sea. But when they were over the sea which lies betwixt Sigeum and the Chersonese, Helle slipped into the deep and was drowned, and the sea was called Hellespont after her. But Phrixus came to the Colchians, whose king was Aeetes, son of the Sun and of Perseis, and brother of Circe and Pasiphae, whom Minos married. He received Phrixus and gave him one of his daughters, Chalciope. And Phrixus sacrificed the ram with the golden fleece to Zeus the god of Escape, and the fleece he gave to Aeetes, who nailed it to an oak in a grove of Ares. And Phrixus had children by Chalciope, to wit, Argus, Melas, Phrontis, and Cytisorus.
1.9.28 They went to Corinth, and lived there happily for ten years, till Creon, king of Corinth, betrothed his daughter Glauce to Jason, who married her and divorced Medea. But she invoked the gods by whom Jason had sworn, and after often upbraiding him with his ingratitude she sent the bride a robe steeped in poison, which when Glauce had put on, she was consumed with fierce fire along with her father, who went to her rescue. But Mermerus and Pheres, the children whom Medea had by Jason, she killed, and having got from the Sun a car drawn by winged dragons she fled on it to Athens . Another tradition is that on her flight she left behind her children, who were still infants, setting them as suppliants on the altar of Hera of the Height; but the Corinthians removed them and wounded them to death. Medea came to Athens, and being there married to Aegeus bore him a son Medus. Afterwards, however, plotting against Theseus, she was driven a fugitive from Athens with her son. But he conquered many barbarians and called the whole country under him Media, and marching against the Indians he met his death. And Medea came unknown to Colchis, and finding that Aeetes had been deposed by his brother Perses, she killed Perses and restored the kingdom to her father.' "
2.1.3 Argus and Ismene, daughter of Asopus, had a son Iasus, who is said to have been the father of Io. But the annalist Castor and many of the tragedians allege that Io was a daughter of Inachus; and Hesiod and Acusilaus say that she was a daughter of Piren. Zeus seduced her while she held the priesthood of Hera, but being detected by Hera he by a touch turned Io into a white cow and swore that he had not known her; wherefore Hesiod remarks that lover's oaths do not draw down the anger of the gods. But Hera requested the cow from Zeus for herself and set Argus the All-seeing to guard it. Pherecydes says that this Argus was a son of Arestor; but Asclepiades says that he was a son of Inachus, and Cercops says that he was a son of Argus and Ismene, daughter of Asopus; but Acusilaus says that he was earth-born. He tethered her to the olive tree which was in the grove of the Mycenaeans. But Zeus ordered Hermes to steal the cow, and as Hermes could not do it secretly because Hierax had blabbed, he killed Argus by the cast of a stone; whence he was called Argiphontes. Hera next sent a gadfly to infest the cow, and the animal came first to what is called after her the Ionian gulf. Then she journeyed through Illyria and having traversed Mount Haemus she crossed what was then called the Thracian Straits but is now called after her the Bosphorus. And having gone away to Scythia and the Cimmerian land she wandered over great tracts of land and swam wide stretches of sea both in Europe and Asia until at last she came to Egypt, where she recovered her original form and gave birth to a son Epaphus beside the river Nile . Him Hera besought the Curetes to make away with, and make away with him they did. When Zeus learned of it, he slew the Curetes; but Io set out in search of the child. She roamed all over Syria, because there it was revealed to her that the wife of the king of Byblus was nursing her son; and having found Epaphus she came to Egypt and was married to Telegonus, who then reigned over the Egyptians. And she set up an image of Demeter, whom the Egyptians called Isis, and Io likewise they called by the name of Isis." 2.7.8 And he had sons by the daughters of Thespius, to wit: by Procris he had Antileon and Hippeus( for the eldest daughter bore twins); by Panope he had Threpsippas; by Lyse he had Eumedes; |
|
30. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 20.34-20.35 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • missionary religions, Judaism, argument based on size of Jewish population, evidence for • non-Judean women, adopting Judean practices, Matthews arguments
Found in books: Cohen (2010), The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism, 304; Kraemer (2010), Unreliable Witnesses: Religion, Gender, and History in the Greco-Roman Mediterranean, 226
sup>
20.34 Καθ' ὃν δὲ χρόνον ὁ ̓Ιζάτης ἐν τῷ Σπασίνου χάρακι διέτριβεν ̓Ιουδαῖός τις ἔμπορος ̓Ανανίας ὄνομα πρὸς τὰς γυναῖκας εἰσιὼν τοῦ βασιλέως ἐδίδασκεν αὐτὰς τὸν θεὸν σέβειν, ὡς ̓Ιουδαίοις πάτριον ἦν," "20.35 καὶ δὴ δι' αὐτῶν εἰς γνῶσιν ἀφικόμενος τῷ ̓Ιζάτῃ κἀκεῖνον ὁμοίως συνανέπεισεν μετακληθέντι τε ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς εἰς τὴν ̓Αδιαβηνὴν συνεξῆλθεν κατὰ πολλὴν ὑπακούσας δέησιν: συνεβεβήκει δὲ καὶ τὴν ̔Ελένην ὁμοίως ὑφ' ἑτέρου τινὸς ̓Ιουδαίου διδαχθεῖσαν εἰς τοὺς ἐκείνων μετακεκομίσθαι νόμους."" None | sup>
20.34 3. Now, during the time Izates abode at Charax-Spasini, a certain Jewish merchant, whose name was Aias, got among the women that belonged to the king, and taught them to worship God according to the Jewish religion. 20.35 He, moreover, by their means, became known to Izates, and persuaded him, in like manner, to embrace that religion; he also, at the earnest entreaty of Izates, accompanied him when he was sent for by his father to come to Adiabene; it also happened that Helena, about the same time, was instructed by a certain other Jew and went over to them.'' None |
|
31. Lucan, Pharsalia, 4.7 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argus, dog
Found in books: Augoustakis (2014), Flavian Poetry and its Greek Past, 19; Verhagen (2022), Security and Credit in Roman Law: The Historical Evolution of Pignus and Hypotheca, 19
| sup>
4.7 Book 4 But in the distant regions of the earth Fierce Caesar warring, though in fight he dealt No baneful slaughter, hastened on the doom To swift fulfillment. There on Magnus' side Afranius and Petreius held command, Who ruled alternate, and the rampart guard Obeyed the standard of each chief in turn. There with the Romans in the camp were joined Asturians swift, and Vettons lightly armed, "" None |
|
32. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 4.1, 5.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Arguments to acquit • Reptile purity argument
Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 230; Rosen-Zvi (2012), The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash, 59
sup>
4.1 אֶחָד דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֶחָד דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כד) מִשְׁפַּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם. מַה בֵּין דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת לְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת פּוֹתְחִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת פּוֹתְחִין לִזְכוּת וְאֵין פּוֹתְחִין לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי אֶחָד בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי אֶחָד לִזְכוּת וְעַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַחֲזִירִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַחֲזִירִין לִזְכוּת וְאֵין מַחֲזִירִין לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת וְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת וְאֵין הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין חוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת וְהַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת מְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת, אֲבָל הַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת אֵין יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וּלְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת דָּנִין בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּלַּיְלָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת דָּנִין בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּיּוֹם. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם לִזְכוּת וּבְיוֹם שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו לְחוֹבָה, לְפִיכָךְ אֵין דָּנִין לֹא בְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְלֹא בְעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב:
5.4 וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַכְנִיסִין אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וּבוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. אִם נִמְצְאוּ דִבְרֵיהֶם מְכֻוָּנִין, פּוֹתְחִין בִּזְכוּת. אָמַר אֶחָד מִן הָעֵדִים יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת, אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו חוֹבָה, מְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ. אָמַר אֶחָד מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת, מַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ וּמוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ בֵינֵיהֶן, וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹרֵד מִשָּׁם כָּל הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ. אִם יֵשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו, שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הוּא אוֹמֵר יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמִי זְכוּת, שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו:'' None | sup>
4.1 Both non-capital and capital cases require examination and inquiry of the witnesses, as it says, “You shall have one manner of law” (Lev. 24:22). How do non-capital cases differ from capital cases? Non-capital cases are decided by three and capital cases by twenty three. Non-capital cases may begin either with reasons for acquittal or for conviction; capital cases begin with reasons for acquittal and do not begin with reasons for conviction. In non-capital cases they may reach a verdict of either acquittal or conviction by the decision of a majority of one; in capital cases they may reach an acquittal by the majority of one but a verdict of conviction only by the decision of a majority of two. In non-capital cases they may reverse a verdict either from conviction to acquittal or from acquittal to conviction; in capital cases they may reverse a verdict from conviction to acquittal but not from acquittal to conviction. In non-capital cases all may argue either in favor of conviction or of acquittal; in capital cases all may argue in favor of acquittal but not all may argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal, or he that had argued in favor of acquittal may afterward argue in favor of conviction; in capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal but he that had argued in favor of acquittal cannot afterward argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict may be reached during the night; in capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict also must be reached during the daytime. In non-capital cases the verdict, whether of acquittal or of conviction, may be reached the same day; in capital cases a verdict of acquittal may be reached on the same day, but a verdict of conviction not until the following day. Therefore trials may not be held on the eve of a Sabbath or on the eve of a Festival.
5.4 They afterward bring in the second witness and examine him. If their words were found to agree together they begin to examine the evidence in favor of acquittal. If one of the witnesses said, “I have something to argue in favor of his acquittal”, or if one of the disciples said, “I have something to argue in favor of his conviction”, they silence him. If one of the disciples said, “I have something to argue in favor of his acquittal”, they bring him up and set him among them and he does not come down from there all day. If there is anything of substance in his words they listen to him. Even if the accused said, “I have something to argue in favor of my acquittal”, they listen to him, provided that there is substance to his words.'' None |
|
33. New Testament, Galatians, 1.16 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Paul, argument for apostolic authority • argument
Found in books: Malherbe et al. (2014), Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J, 300; Visnjic (2021), The Invention of Duty: Stoicism as Deontology, 352
sup>
1.16 ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἵνα εὐαγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, εὐθέως οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι,'' None | sup>
1.16 to reveal his Son in me,that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I didn't immediately conferwith flesh and blood, "" None |
|
34. New Testament, Romans, 1.19-1.20, 1.23, 1.25, 2.1 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argumentation • God, Stoic argument for • Rhetoric, Argument for unity of 1 Corinthians • argument
Found in books: Engberg-Pedersen (2010), Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit, 60, 61; Hellholm et al. (2010), Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, 442; Malherbe et al. (2014), Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J, 872; Rogers (2016), God and the Idols: Representations of God in 1 Corinthians 8-10. 6, 15, 16, 17
sup>
1.19 διότι τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ φανερόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς, ὁ θεὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσεν. 1.20 τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου τοῖς ποιήμασιν νοούμενα καθορᾶται, ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογήτους,
1.23 καὶἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαντοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦἐν ὁμοιώματιεἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν.
1.25 οἵτινες μετήλλαξαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ ψεύδει, καὶ ἐσεβάσθησαν καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα, ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· ἀμήν.
2.1 Διὸ ἀναπολόγητος εἶ, ὦ ἄνθρωπε πᾶς ὁ κρίνων· ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίνεις τὸν ἕτερον, σεαυτὸν κατακρίνεις, τὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ πράσσεις ὁ κρίνων·' ' None | sup>
1.19 because that which is known of God is revealed in them, for God revealed it to them. 1.20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse.
1.23 and traded the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things.
1.25 who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
2.1 Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judge. For in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself. For you who judge practice the same things. ' ' None |
|
35. Seneca The Younger, Letters, 54.4, 65.22, 77.11, 77.18, 102.2, 102.20, 102.30 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Symmetry Arguments • Symmetry arguments
Found in books: Gazis and Hooper (2021), Aspects of Death and the Afterlife in Greek Literature, 176, 178, 179, 181; Long (2019), Immortality in Ancient Philosophy, 158, 159, 160, 163
| sup>
54.4 What? I say to myself; "does death so often test me? Let it do so; I myself have for a long time tested death." "When?" you ask. Before I was born. Death is non-existence, and I know already what that means. What was before me will happen again after me. If there is any suffering in this state, there must have been such suffering also in the past, before we entered the light of day. As a matter of fact, however, we felt no discomfort then.
65.22 Never shall this flesh drive me to feel fear, or to assume any pretence that is unworthy of a good man. Never shall I lie in order to honour this petty body. When it seems proper, I shall sever my connexion with it. And at present, while we are bound together, our alliance shall nevertheless not be one of equality; the soul shall bring all quarrels before its own tribunal. To despise our bodies is sure freedom.
77.11 But it is a hardship, men say, "to do without our customary pleasures, – to fast, to feel thirst and hunger." These are indeed serious when one first abstains from them. Later the desire dies down, because the appetites themselves which lead to desire are wearied and forsake us; then the stomach becomes petulant, then the food which we craved before becomes hateful. Our very wants die away. But there is no bitterness in doing without that which you have ceased to desire.
77.11 No one is so ignorant as not to know that we must at some time die; nevertheless, when one draws near death, one turns to flight, trembles, and laments. Would you not think him an utter fool who wept because he was not alive a thousand years ago? And is he not just as much of a fool who weeps because he will not be alive a thousand years from now? It is all the same; you will not be, and you were not. Neither of these periods of time belongs to you.
77.18 This, too, will help – to turn the mind aside to thoughts of other things and thus to depart from pain. Call to mind what honourable or brave deeds you have done; consider the good side of your own life.8 Run over in your memory those things which you have particularly admired. Then think of all the brave men who have conquered pain: of him who continued to read his book as he allowed the cutting out of varicose veins; of him who did not cease to smile, though that very smile so enraged his torturers that they tried upon him every instrument of their cruelty. If pain can be conquered by a smile, will it not be conquered by reason?
77.18 You are afraid of death; but how can you scorn it in the midst of a mushroom supper?15 You wish to live; well, do you know how to live? You are afraid to die. But come now: is this life of yours anything but death? Gaius Caesar was passing along the Via Latina, when a man stepped out from the ranks of the prisoners, his grey beard hanging down even to his breast, and begged to be put to death. "What!" said Caesar, "are you alive now?" That is the answer which should be given to men to whom death would come as a relief. "You are afraid to die; what! are you alive now?"
102.2 Even the storm, before it gathers, gives a warning; houses crack before they crash; and smoke is the forerunner of fire. But damage from man is instantaneous, and the nearer it comes the more carefully it is concealed. You are wrong to trust the counteces of those you meet. They have the aspect of men, but the souls of brutes; the difference is that only beasts damage you at the first encounter; those whom they have passed by they do not pursue. For nothing ever goads them to do harm except when need compels them: it is hunger or fear that forces them into a fight. But man delights to ruin man.
102.2 I was taking pleasure in investigating the immortality of souls, nay, in believing that doctrine. For I was lending a ready ear to the opinions of the great authors, who not only approve but promise this most pleasing condition. I was giving myself over to such a noble hope; for I was already weary of myself, beginning already to despise the fragments of my shattered existence,1 and feeling that I was destined to pass over into that infinity of time and the heritage of eternity, when I was suddenly awakened by the receipt of your letter, and lost my lovely dream. But, if I can once dispose of you, I shall reseek and rescue it.
102.20 This will be a sufficient answer to such dealers in subtleties. But it should not be our purpose to discuss things cleverly and to drag Philosophy down from her majesty to such petty quibbles. How much better it is to follow the open and direct road, rather than to map out for yourself a circuitous route which you must retrace with infinite trouble! For such argumentation is nothing else than the sport of men who are skilfully juggling with each other. ' "
102.30 How should it not be that a man feels no fear, if he looks forward to death? He also who believes that the soul abides only as long as it is fettered in the body, scatters it abroad forthwith when dissolved, so that it may be useful even after death. For though he is taken from men's sight, still often our thoughts run back to the hero, and often the glory Won by his race recurs to the mind.11 Consider how much we are helped by good example; you will thus understand that the presence of a noble man is of no less service than his memory. Farewell. laudari me abs te, pater, laudato viro.' CIII. On the Dangers of Association with our Fellow-Men1 "' None |
|
36. Tacitus, Histories, 4.52 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argus, dog
Found in books: Augoustakis (2014), Flavian Poetry and its Greek Past, 61; Verhagen (2022), Security and Credit in Roman Law: The Historical Evolution of Pignus and Hypotheca, 61
| sup>
4.52 \xa0It is said that Titus, before leaving, in a long interview with his father begged him not to be easily excited by the reports of those who calumniated Domitian, and urged him to show himself impartial and forgiving toward his son. "Neither armies nor fleets," he argued, "are so strong a defence of the imperial power as a\xa0number of children; for friends are chilled, changed, and lost by time, fortune, and sometimes by inordinate desires or by mistakes: the ties of blood cannot be severed by any man, least of all by princes, whose success others also enjoy, but whose misfortunes touch only their nearest kin. Not even brothers will always agree unless the father sets the example." Not so much reconciled toward Domitian as delighted with Titus\'s show of brotherly affection, Vespasian bade him be of good cheer and to magnify the state by war and arms; he would himself care for peace and his house. Then he had some of the swiftest ships laden with grain and entrusted to the sea, although it was still dangerous: for, in fact, Rome was in such a critical condition that she did not have more than ten days\' supplies in her granaries when the supplies from Vespasian came to her relief.'' None |
|
37. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argus, dog
Found in books: Augoustakis (2014), Flavian Poetry and its Greek Past, 19, 59; Verhagen (2022), Security and Credit in Roman Law: The Historical Evolution of Pignus and Hypotheca, 19, 59
|
38. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argus, dog
Found in books: Augoustakis (2014), Flavian Poetry and its Greek Past, 19, 59, 66; Verhagen (2022), Security and Credit in Roman Law: The Historical Evolution of Pignus and Hypotheca, 19, 59, 66
|
39. Lucian, Athletics, 19 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Lucian, “nomadic” argumentation in • Relevance, in legal argument
Found in books: Gagarin and Cohen (2005), The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law, 124; Kirkland (2022), Herodotus and Imperial Greek Literature: Criticism, Imitation, Reception, 257
| sup>
19 So. Why, you had better work the sluice yourself, whenever the word stream is either turbid or diverging into a wrong channel. As for mere continuance, you can cut that up by questions. However, so long as what I have to say is not irrelevant, I do not know that length matters. There is an ancient procedure in the Areopagus, our murder court. When the members have ascended the hill, and taken their seats to decide a case of murder or deliberate maiming or arson, each side is allowed to address the court in turn, prosecution and defence being conducted either by the principals or by counsel. As long as they speak to the matter in hand, the court listens silently and patiently. But if either prefaces his speech with an appeal to its benevolence, or attempts to stir its compassion or indignation by irrelevant considerations — and the legal profession have numberless ways of playing upon juries —, the usher at once comes up and silences him. The court is not to be trifled with or have its food disguised with condiments, but to be shown the bare facts. Now, Anacharsis, I hereby create you a temporary Areopagite; you shall hear me according to that court’s practice, and silence me if you find me cajoling you; but as long as I keep to the point, I may speak at large. For there is no sun here to make length a burden to you; we have plenty of shade and plenty of time.An. That sounds reasonable. And I take it very kindly that you should have given me this incidental view of the proceedings on the Areopagus; they are very remarkable, quite a pattern of the way a judicial decision should be arrived at. Let your speech be regulated accordingly, and the Areopagite of your appointment shall listen as his office requires. |
|
40. Pausanias, Description of Greece, 9.32.4 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Argus, builder of the Argo
Found in books: Augoustakis (2014), Flavian Poetry and its Greek Past, 147; Verhagen (2022), Security and Credit in Roman Law: The Historical Evolution of Pignus and Hypotheca, 147
sup>
9.32.4 παραπλέοντι δὲ αὐτόθεν πόλισμά ἐστιν οὐ μέγα ἐπὶ θαλάσσῃ Τίφα· Ἡρακλεῖόν τε Τιφαιεῦσίν ἐστι καὶ ἑορτὴν ἄγουσιν ἐπέτειον. οὗτοι Βοιωτῶν μάλιστα ἐκ παλαιοῦ τὰ θαλάσσια ἐθέλουσιν εἶναι σοφοί, Τῖφυν ἄνδρα μνημονεύοντες ἐπιχώριον ὡς προκριθείη γενέσθαι τῆς Ἀργοῦς κυβερνήτης· ἀποφαίνουσι δὲ καὶ πρὸ τῆς πόλεως ἔνθα ἐκ Κόλχων ὀπίσω κομιζομένην ὁρμίσασθαι τὴν Ἀργὼ λέγουσιν.'' None | sup>
9.32.4 Sailing from here you come to Tipha, a small town by the sea. The townsfolk have a sanctuary of Heracles and hold an annual festival. They claim to have been from of old the best sailors in Boeotia, and remind you that Tiphys, who was chosen to steer the Argo, was a fellow-townsman. They point out also the place before the city where they say Argo anchored on her return from Colchis .'' None |
|
41. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Reptile purity argument • Stammaim, and dialectical argumentation • argumentation, dialectical • argumentation, dialectical, proficiency in • sages, dialectical argumentation of
Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 1, 198, 233, 236, 278; Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 46
|
42. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Amoraim, and argumentation • Babylonia, argumentation in • Palestinian sources, argumentation in • Reptile purity argument • Stammaim, and dialectical argumentation • Yerushalmi (Palestinian Talmud), argumentation in • academies, rabbinic, argumentation in • argumentation, dialectical • argumentation, dialectical, and Amoraim • argumentation, dialectical, as Babylonian theme • argumentation, dialectical, in Bavli vs. Yerushalmi • argumentation, dialectical, in academies • argumentation, dialectical, proficiency in • sages, dialectical argumentation of
Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 1, 198; Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 47
13b ונמלך ומצאו בן עירו ואמר שמך כשמי ושם אשתך כשם אשתי פסול לגרש בו,הכי השתא התם (דברים כד, א) וכתב לה כתיב בעינן כתיבה לשמה הכא ועשה לה כתיב בעינן עשייה לשמה עשייה דידה מחיקה היא,א"ר אחא בר חנינא גלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם שאין בדורו של רבי מאיר כמותו ומפני מה לא קבעו הלכה כמותו שלא יכלו חביריו לעמוד על סוף דעתו שהוא אומר על טמא טהור ומראה לו פנים על טהור טמא ומראה לו פנים,תנא לא ר"מ שמו אלא רבי נהוראי שמו ולמה נקרא שמו ר"מ שהוא מאיר עיני חכמים בהלכה ולא נהוראי שמו אלא רבי נחמיה שמו ואמרי לה רבי אלעזר בן ערך שמו ולמה נקרא שמו נהוראי שמנהיר עיני חכמים בהלכה,אמר רבי האי דמחדדנא מחבראי דחזיתיה לר\' מאיר מאחוריה ואילו חזיתיה מקמיה הוה מחדדנא טפי דכתיב (ישעיהו ל, כ) והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך,א"ר אבהו א"ר יוחנן תלמיד היה לו לר"מ וסומכוס שמו שהיה אומר על כל דבר ודבר של טומאה ארבעים ושמונה טעמי טומאה ועל כל דבר ודבר של טהרה ארבעים ושמונה טעמי טהרה,תנא תלמיד ותיק היה ביבנה שהיה מטהר את השרץ במאה וחמשים טעמים,אמר רבינא אני אדון ואטהרנו ומה נחש שממית ומרבה טומאה טהור שרץ שאין ממית ומרבה טומאה לא כ"ש,ולא היא מעשה קוץ בעלמא קעביד,א"ר אבא אמר שמואל שלש שנים נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו והללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו יצאה בת קול ואמרה אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים הן והלכה כב"ה,וכי מאחר שאלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים מפני מה זכו ב"ה לקבוע הלכה כמותן מפני שנוחין ועלובין היו ושונין דבריהן ודברי ב"ש ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי ב"ש לדבריהן,כאותה ששנינו מי שהיה ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושלחנו בתוך הבית בית שמאי פוסלין וב"ה מכשירין אמרו ב"ה לב"ש לא כך היה מעשה שהלכו זקני ב"ש וזקני ב"ה לבקר את ר\' יוחנן בן החורנית ומצאוהו יושב ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושלחנו בתוך הבית אמרו להן בית שמאי (אי) משם ראיה אף הן אמרו לו אם כך היית נוהג לא קיימת מצות סוכה מימיך,ללמדך שכל המשפיל עצמו הקב"ה מגביהו וכל המגביה עצמו הקב"ה משפילו כל המחזר על הגדולה גדולה בורחת ממנו וכל הבורח מן הגדולה גדולה מחזרת אחריו וכל הדוחק את השעה שעה דוחקתו וכל הנדחה מפני שעה שעה עומדת לו,ת"ר שתי שנים ומחצה נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא והללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שנברא יותר משלא נברא נמנו וגמרו נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא עכשיו שנברא יפשפש במעשיו ואמרי לה ימשמש במעשיו,| 13b but later reconsidered and did not divorce her, and a resident of his city found him and said: Your name is the same as my name, and your wife’s name is the same as my wife’s name, and we reside in the same town; give me the bill of divorce, and I will use it to divorce my wife, then this document is invalid to divorce with it? Apparently, a man may not divorce his wife with a bill of divorce written for another woman, and the same should apply to the scroll of a sota.,The Gemara rejects this argument: How can you compare the two cases? There, with regard to a bill of divorce, it is written: “And he shall write for her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and therefore we require writing it in her name, specifically for her; whereas here, with regard to a sota, it is written: “And he shall perform with her all this ritual” (Numbers 5:30), and therefore we require performance in her name. In her case, the performance is erasure; however, writing of the scroll need not be performed specifically for her.,On the topic of Rabbi Meir and his Torah study, the Gemara cites an additional statement. Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that in the generation of Rabbi Meir there was no one of the Sages who is his equal. Why then didn’t the Sages establish the halakha in accordance with his opinion? It is because his colleagues were unable to ascertain the profundity of his opinion. He was so brilliant that he could present a cogent argument for any position, even if it was not consistent with the prevalent halakha. As he would state with regard to a ritually impure item that it is pure, and display justification for that ruling, and likewise he would state with regard to a ritually pure item that it is impure, and display justification for that ruling. The Sages were unable to distinguish between the statements that were halakha and those that were not.,It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir was not his name; rather, Rabbi Nehorai was his name. And why was he called by the name Rabbi Meir? It was because he illuminates meir the eyes of the Sages in matters of the halakha. And Rabbi Nehorai was not the name of the tanna known by that name; rather, Rabbi Neḥemya was his name, and some say: Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh was his name. And why was he called by the name Rabbi Nehorai? It is because he enlightens manhir the eyes of the Sages in matters of the halakha.,The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The fact that I am more incisive than my colleagues is due to the fact that I saw Rabbi Meir from behind, i.e., I sat behind him when I was his student. Had I seen him from the front, I would be even more incisive, as it is written: “And your eyes shall see your teacher” (Isaiah 30:20). Seeing the face of one’s teacher increases one’s understanding and sharpens one’s mind.,And the Gemara stated that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: Rabbi Meir had a disciple, and his name was Sumakhus, who would state with regard to each and every matter of ritual impurity forty-eight reasons in support of the ruling of impurity, and with regard to each and every matter of ritual purity forty-eight reasons in support of the ruling of purity.,It was taught in a baraita: There was a distinguished disciple at Yavne who could with his incisive intellect purify the creeping animal, explicitly deemed ritually impure by the Torah, adducing one hundred and fifty reasons in support of his argument.,Ravina said: I too will deliberate and purify it employing the following reasoning: And just as a snake that kills people and animals and thereby increases ritual impurity in the world, as a corpse imparts impurity through contact, through being carried, and by means of a tent, is ritually pure and transmits no impurity, a creeping animal that does not kill and does not increase impurity in the world, all the more so should it be pure.,The Gemara rejects this: And it is not so; that is not a valid a fortiori argument, as it can be refuted. A snake is performing a mere act of a thorn. A thorn causes injury and even death; nevertheless, it is not ritually impure. The same applies to a snake, and therefore this a fortiori argument is rejected.,Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.,The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai.,As in the mishna that we learned: In the case of one whose head and most of his body were in the sukka, but his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem this sukka invalid; and Beit Hillel deem it valid. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Wasn’t there an incident in which the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yoḥa ben HaḤoranit, and they found him sitting with his head and most of his body in the sukka, but his table was in the house? Beit Shammai said to them: From there do you seek to adduce a proof? Those visitors, too, said to him: If that was the manner in which you were accustomed to perform the mitzva, you have never fulfilled the mitzva of sukka in all your days. It is apparent from the phrasing of the mishna that when the Sages of Beit Hillel related that the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel visited Rabbi Yoḥa ben HaḤoranit, they mentioned the Elders of Beit Shammai before their own Elders.,This is to teach you that anyone who humbles himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, exalts him, and anyone who exalts himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, humbles him. Anyone who seeks greatness, greatness flees from him, and, conversely, anyone who flees from greatness, greatness seeks him. And anyone who attempts to force the moment and expends great effort to achieve an objective precisely when he desires to do so, the moment forces him too, and he is unsuccessful. And conversely, anyone who is patient and yields to the moment, the moment stands by his side, and he will ultimately be successful.,The Sages taught the following baraita: For two and a half years, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These say: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. And those said: It is preferable for man to have been created than had he not been created. Ultimately, they were counted and concluded: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. However, now that he has been created, he should examine his actions that he has performed and seek to correct them. And some say: He should scrutinize his planned actions and evaluate whether or not and in what manner those actions should be performed, so that he will not sin.,The cross beam, which the Sages stated may be used to render an alleyway fit for one to carry within it, must be wide enough to receive and hold a small brick. And this small brick is half a large brick, which measures three handbreadths, i.e., a handbreadth and a half. It is sufficient that the cross beam will be a handbreadth in width, not a handbreadth and a half, enough to hold a small brick across its width.,And the cross beam must be wide enough to hold a small brick and also sturdy enough to hold a small brick and not collapse. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it is wide enough to hold the brick, even though it is not sturdy enough to actually support it, it is sufficient. Therefore, even if the cross beam is made of straw or reeds, one considers it as though it were made of metal.,If the cross beam is curved, so that a small brick cannot rest on it, one considers it as though it were straight; if it is round, one considers it as though it were square. The following principle was stated with regard to a round cross beam: Any beam with a circumference of three handbreadths is a handbreadth in width, i.e., in diameter.'' None | |
|
43. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • argumentation, dialectical, and disciple circles • heretic arguments, answered by, minim
Found in books: Nikolsky and Ilan (2014), Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia, 66; Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 19
| 29b had the leg of the letter heh in the term: “The nation ha’am” (Exodus 13:3), written in his phylacteries, severed by a perforation. He came before his son-in-law Rabbi Abba to clarify the halakha. Rabbi Abba said to him: If there remains in the leg that is attached to the roof of the letter the equivalent of the measure of a small letter, i.e., the letter yod, it is fit. But if not, it is unfit.,The Gemara relates: Rami bar Tamrei, who was the father-in-law of Rami bar Dikkulei, had the leg of the letter vav in the term: “And the Lord slew vayaharog all the firstborn” (Exodus 13:15), written in his phylacteries, severed by a perforation. He came before Rabbi Zeira to clarify the halakha. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Go bring a child who is neither wise nor stupid, but of average intelligence; if he reads the term as “And the Lord slew vayaharog” then it is fit, as despite the perforation the letter is still seen as a vav. But if not, then it is as though the term were: Will be slain yehareg, written without the letter vav, and it is unfit.,§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: When Moses ascended on High, he found the Holy One, Blessed be He, sitting and tying crowns on the letters of the Torah. Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, who is preventing You from giving the Torah without these additions? God said to him: There is a man who is destined to be born after several generations, and Akiva ben Yosef is his name; he is destined to derive from each and every thorn of these crowns mounds upon mounds of halakhot. It is for his sake that the crowns must be added to the letters of the Torah.,Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, show him to me. God said to him: Return behind you. Moses went and sat at the end of the eighth row in Rabbi Akiva’s study hall and did not understand what they were saying. Moses’ strength waned, as he thought his Torah knowledge was deficient. When Rabbi Akiva arrived at the discussion of one matter, his students said to him: My teacher, from where do you derive this? Rabbi Akiva said to them: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. When Moses heard this, his mind was put at ease, as this too was part of the Torah that he was to receive.,Moses returned and came before the Holy One, Blessed be He, and said before Him: Master of the Universe, You have a man as great as this and yet You still choose to give the Torah through me. Why? God said to him: Be silent; this intention arose before Me. Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, You have shown me Rabbi Akiva’s Torah, now show me his reward. God said to him: Return to where you were. Moses went back and saw that they were weighing Rabbi Akiva’s flesh in a butcher shop bemakkulin, as Rabbi Akiva was tortured to death by the Romans. Moses said before Him: Master of the Universe, this is Torah and this is its reward? God said to him: Be silent; this intention arose before Me.,§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the crowns on letters of the Torah: Rava says: Seven letters require three crowns ziyyunin, and they are the letters shin, ayin, tet, nun, zayin; gimmel and tzadi. Rav Ashi says: I have seen that the exacting scribes of the study hall of Rav would put a hump-like stroke on the roof of the letter ḥet and they would suspend the left leg of the letter heh, i.e., they would ensure that it is not joined to the roof of the letter.,Rava explains: They would put a hump-like stroke on the roof of the letter ḥet as if to thereby say: The Holy One, Blessed be He, lives ḥai in the heights of the universe. And they would suspend the left leg of the letter heh, as Rabbi Yehuda Nesia asked Rabbi Ami: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Trust in the Lord forever, for in the Lord beYah is God, an everlasting olamim Rock” (Isaiah 26:4)? Rabbi Ami said to him: Anyone who puts their trust in the Holy One, Blessed be He, will have Him as his refuge in this world and in the World-to-Come. This is alluded to in the word “olamim,” which can also mean: Worlds.,Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to Rabbi Ami: I was not asking about the literal meaning of the verse; this is what poses a difficulty for me: What is different about that which is written: “For in the Lord beYah,” and it is not written: For the Lord Yah?,Rav Ashi responded: It is as Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Elai taught: The verse “For in the Lord beYah is God, an everlasting Rock Tzur olamim” is understood as follows: The term “Tzur olamim” can also mean Creator of worlds. These letters yod and heh that constitute the word yah are referring to the two worlds that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created; one with be the letter heh and one with be the letter yod. And I do not know whether the World-to-Come was created with the letter yod and this world was created with the letter heh, or whether this world was created with the letter yod and the World-to-Come was created with the letter heh.,When the verse states: “These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created behibare’am” (Genesis 2:4), do not read it as behibare’am, meaning: When they were created; rather, read it as beheh bera’am, meaning: He created them with the letter heh. This verse demonstrates that the heaven and the earth, i.e., this world, were created with the letter heh, and therefore the World-to-Come must have been created with the letter yod.,And for what reason was this world created specifically with the letter heh? It is because the letter heh, which is open on its bottom, has a similar appearance to a portico, which is open on one side. And it alludes to this world, where anyone who wishes to leave may leave, i.e., every person has the ability to choose to do evil. And what is the reason that the left leg of the letter heh is suspended, i.e., is not joined to the roof of the letter? It is because if one repents, he is brought back in through the opening at the top.,The Gemara asks: But why not let him enter through that same way that he left? The Gemara answers: That would not be effective, since one requires assistance from Heaven in order to repent, in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “If it concerns the scorners, He scorns them, but to the humble He gives grace” (Proverbs 3:34)? Concerning one who comes in order to become pure, he is assisted from Heaven, as it is written: “But to the humble He gives grace.” Concerning one who comes to become impure, he is provided with an opening to do so. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the letter heh has a crown on its roof? The Gemara answers: The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: If a sinner returns, repenting for his sin, I tie a crown for him from above.,The Gemara asks: For what reason was the World-to-Come created specifically with the letter yod, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet? The Gemara answers: It is because the righteous of the world are so few. And for what reason is the left side of the top of the letter yod bent downward? It is because the righteous who are in the World-to-Come hang their heads in shame, since the actions of one are not similar to those of another. In the World-to-Come some of the righteous will be shown to be of greater stature than others.,§ Rav Yosef says: Rav states these two matters with regard to scrolls, and in each case a statement is taught in a baraita that constitutes a refutation of his ruling. One is that which Rav says: A Torah scroll that contains two errors on each and every column may be corrected, but if there are three errors on each and every column then it shall be interred.,And a statement is taught in a baraita that constitutes a refutation of his ruling: A Torah scroll that contains three errors on every column may be corrected, but if there are four errors on every column then it shall be interred. A tanna taught in a baraita: If the Torah scroll contains one complete column with no errors, it saves the entire Torah scroll, and it is permitted to correct the scroll rather than interring it. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: And this is the halakha only when the majority of the scroll is written properly and is not full of errors.,Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If that column contained three errors, what is the halakha? Rav Yosef said to him: Since the column itself may be corrected, it enables the correction of the entire scroll. The Gemara adds: And with regard to the halakha that a Torah scroll may not be fixed if it is full of errors, this statement applies when letters are missing and must be added in the space between the lines. But if there were extraneous letters, we have no problem with it, since they can easily be erased. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that a scroll with letters missing may not be corrected? Rav Kahana said: Because it would look speckled if one adds all of the missing letters in the spaces between the lines.,The Gemara relates: Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, had many extraneous letters in his scroll. He came before Rabbi Abba to clarify the halakha. Rabbi Abba said to him: We said that one may not correct the scroll only in a case where the letters are missing.'' None |
|
44. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Arguments to acquit • Reptile purity argument • rabbis, methods of argumentation
Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 1, 198, 233, 236; Janowitz (2002), Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews and Christians, 90; Rosen-Zvi (2012), The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash, 57
| 17a עמך עמך ואת בהדייהו ורבי יהודה עמך משום שכינה,ורבנן אמר קרא (במדבר יא, יז) ונשאו אתך במשא העם אתך ואת בהדייהו ורבי יהודה אתך בדומין לך,ורבנן (שמות יח, כב) מוהקל מעליך ונשאו אתך נפקא וילפא סנהדרי גדולה מסנהדרי קטנה,ת"ר (במדבר יא, כו) וישארו שני אנשים במחנה יש אומרים בקלפי נשתיירו,שבשעה שאמר לו הקב"ה למשה אספה לי שבעים איש מזקני ישראל אמר משה כיצד אעשה אברור ששה מכל שבט ושבט נמצאו שנים יתירים אברור חמשה חמשה מכל שבט ושבט נמצאו עשרה חסרים אברור ששה משבט זה וחמשה משבט זה הריני מטיל קנאה בין השבטים,מה עשה בירר ששה ששה והביא שבעים ושנים פיתקין על שבעים כתב זקן ושנים הניח חלק בללן ונתנן בקלפי אמר להם בואו וטלו פיתקיכם כל מי שעלה בידו זקן אמר כבר קידשך שמים מי שעלה בידו חלק אמר המקום לא חפץ בך אני מה אעשה לך,כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (במדבר ג, מז) ולקחת חמשת חמשת שקלים לגולגולת אמר משה כיצד אעשה להן לישראל אם אומר לו תן לי פדיונך וצא יאמר לי כבר פדאני בן לוי,מה עשה הביא עשרים ושנים אלפים פיתקין וכתב עליהן בן לוי ועל שלשה ושבעים ומאתים כתב עליהן חמשה שקלים בללן ונתנן בקלפי אמר להן טלו פיתקיכם מי שעלה בידו בן לוי אמר לו כבר פדאך בן לוי מי שעלה בידו חמשת שקלים אמר לו תן פדיונך וצא,רבי שמעון אומר במחנה נשתיירו בשעה שאמר לו הקב"ה למשה אספה לי שבעים איש אמרו אלדד ומידד אין אנו ראויין לאותה גדולה אמר הקב"ה הואיל ומיעטתם עצמכם הריני מוסיף גדולה על גדולתכם ומה גדולה הוסיף להם שהנביאים כולן נתנבאו ופסקו והם נתנבאו ולא פסקו,ומה נבואה נתנבאו אמרו משה מת יהושע מכניס את ישראל לארץ אבא חנין אומר משום רבי אליעזר על עסקי שליו הן מתנבאים עלי שליו עלי שליו,רב נחמן אמר על עסקי גוג ומגוג היו מתנבאין שנאמר (יחזקאל לח, ג) כה אמר ה\' אלהים האתה הוא אשר דברתי בימים קדמונים ביד עבדי נביאי ישראל הנבאים בימים ההם שנים להביא אותך עליהם וגו\' אל תיקרי שנים אלא שנים ואיזו הן שנים נביאים שנתנבאו בפרק אחד נבואה אחת הוי אומר אלדד ומידד,אמר מר כל הנביאים כולן נתנבאו ופסקו והן נתנבאו ולא פסקו מנא לן דפסקו אילימא מדכתיב (במדבר יא, כה) ויתנבאו ולא יספו אלא מעתה (דברים ה, יח) קול גדול ולא יסף ה"נ דלא אוסיף הוא אלא דלא פסק הוא,אלא הכא כתיב ויתנבאו התם כתיב (במדבר יא, כז) מתנבאים עדיין מתנבאים והולכים,בשלמא למ"ד משה מת היינו דכתיב (במדבר יא, כח) אדוני משה כלאם אלא למ"ד הנך תרתי מאי אדני משה כלאם דלאו אורח ארעא דהוה ליה כתלמיד המורה הלכה לפני רבו,בשלמא למ"ד הנך תרתי היינו דכתיב מי יתן אלא למ"ד משה מת מינח הוה ניחא ליה לא סיימוה קמיה,מאי כלאם א"ל הטל עליהן צרכי ציבור והן כלין מאיליהן:,מניין להביא עוד שלשה:,סוף סוף לרעה ע"פ שנים לא משכחת לה אי אחד עשר מזכין ושנים עשר מחייבין אכתי חד הוא אי עשרה מזכין ושלשה עשר מחייבין תלתא הוו א"ר אבהו אי אתה מוצא אלא במוסיפין ודברי הכל ובסנהדרי גדולה ואליבא דרבי יהודה דאמר שבעים,וא"ר אבהו במוסיפין עושין ב"ד שקול לכתחילה פשיטא מהו דתימא האי דקאמר איני יודע כמאן דאיתיה דמי ואי אמר מילתא שמעינן ליה קמ"ל דהאי דקאמר איני יודע כמאן דליתיה דמי ואי אמר טעמא לא שמעינן ליה,אמר רב כהנא סנהדרי שראו כולן לחובה פוטרין אותו מ"ט כיון דגמירי הלנת דין למעבד ליה זכותא והני תו לא חזו ליה,א"ר יוחנן אין מושיבין בסנהדרי אלא בעלי קומה ובעלי חכמה ובעלי מראה ובעלי זקנה ובעלי כשפים ויודעים בע\' לשון שלא תהא סנהדרי שומעת מפי המתורגמן,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אין מושיבין בסנהדרין אלא מי שיודע לטהר את השרץ מה"ת אמר רב אני אדון ואטהרנו'32b טעו לא ישלמו כל שכן שתנעול דלת בפני לווין,רבא אמר מתניתין דהכא בדיני קנסות ואידך בהודאות והלואות,רב פפא אמר אידי ואידי בהודאה והלואה כאן בדין מרומה כאן בדין שאינו מרומה,כדריש לקיש דריש לקיש רמי כתיב (ויקרא יט, טו) בצדק תשפוט עמיתך וכתיב (דברים טז, כ) צדק צדק תרדף הא כיצד כאן בדין מרומה כאן בדין שאין מרומה,רב אשי אמר מתני׳ כדשנין קראי אחד לדין וא\' לפשרה,כדתניא צדק צדק תרדף אחד לדין ואחד לפשרה כיצד שתי ספינות עוברות בנהר ופגעו זה בזה אם עוברות שתיהן שתיהן טובעות בזה אחר זה שתיהן עוברות וכן שני גמלים שהיו עולים במעלות בית חורון ופגעו זה בזה אם עלו שניהן שניהן נופלין בזה אחר זה שניהן עולין,הא כיצד טעונה ושאינה טעונה תידחה שאינה טעונה מפני טעונה קרובה ושאינה קרובה תידחה קרובה מפני שאינה קרובה היו שתיהן קרובות שתיהן רחוקות הטל פשרה ביניהן ומעלות שכר זו לזו,ת"ר צדק צדק תרדף הלך אחר ב"ד יפה אחר רבי אליעזר ללוד אחר רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לברור חיל,תנא קול ריחים בבורני שבוע הבן שבוע הבן אור הנר בברור חיל משתה שם משתה שם,ת"ר צדק צדק תרדף הלך אחר חכמים לישיבה אחר ר\' אליעזר ללוד אחר רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לברור חיל אחר רבי יהושע לפקיעין אחר רבן גמליאל ליבנא אחר רבי עקיבא לבני ברק אחר רבי מתיא לרומי אחר רבי חנניא בן תרדיון לסיכני אחר ר\' יוסי לציפורי אחר רבי יהודה בן בתירה לנציבין אחר רבי יהושע לגולה אחר רבי לבית שערים אחר חכמים ללשכת הגזית:,דיני ממונות פותחין כו\': היכי אמרינן אמר רב יהודה הכי אמרינן להו מי יימר כדקאמריתו,א"ל עולא והא חסמינן להו וליחסמו מי לא תניא רבי שמעון בן אליעזר אומר מסיעין את העדים ממקום למקום כדי שתיטרף דעתן ויחזרו בהן,מי דמי התם ממילא קא מידחו הכא קא דחינן להו בידים,אלא אמר עולא הכי אמרינן יש לך עדים להזימם א"ל רבה וכי פותחין בזכותו של זה שהיא חובתו של זה,ומי הויא חובתו והתנן אין עדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיגמר הדין,הכי אמינא אילו שתיק האי עד דמיגמר דיניה ומייתי עדים ומזים להו הויא ליה חובתו של זה אלא אמר רבה אמרינן ליה יש לך עדים להכחישן,רב כהנא אמר מדבריכם נזדכה פלוני אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו אמרי\' ליה אי לא קטלת לא תדחל רב אשי אמר כל מי שיודע לו זכות יבא וילמד עליו,תניא כוותיה דאביי ורבא רבי אומר (במדבר ה, יט) אם לא שכב איש אותך ואם לא שטית וגו\' ' None | 17a with you” (Numbers 11:16), i.e., they will stand “with you,” and you are to be counted with them, leading to a total number of seventy-one. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that the term “with you” is mentioned due to the Divine Presence that rested on Moses. According to Rabbi Yehuda, Moses was instructed to remain with the seventy Elders in order for the Divine Presence to rest upon them as well. He was not formally part of their court and therefore the number of Sages on the Great Sanhedrin is seventy.,The Gemara asks: And how would the Rabbis respond to this line of reasoning? The Gemara answers: The verse states: “And they shall bear the burden of the people with you” (Numbers 11:17), which indicates: “With you,” and you are to be counted with them. And how would Rabbi Yehuda respond to that? He would explain that the term “with you” means similar to you, meaning, that the Elders appointed to the court had to be of fit lineage and free of blemish, like Moses.,And from where do the Rabbis derive that halakha? They derive it from what was stated with regard to the appointment of the ministers of thousands and the ministers of hundreds: “And they shall make it easier for you, and bear the burden with you” (Exodus 18:22), understanding the term “with you” to mean: Similar to you. And the halakha of the judges of the Great Sanhedrin of seventy is derived from the halakha of the judges of the lesser Sanhedrin, i.e., those ministers, that Moses appointed.,§ Apropos the appointment of the Elders by Moses, the Gemara discusses additional aspects of that event. There were seventy-two candidates for Elder but only seventy were needed. They were chosen by lots with their names put into a box. The Sages taught: The verse states: “And there remained two men in the camp; the name of one was Eldad and the name of the other Medad, and the spirit rested upon them, and they were among those who were written but who did not go out to the tent, and they prophesied in the camp” (Numbers 11:26). Where did they remain? Some say this means they, i.e., their names, remained excluded from those selected from the lots in the box.,The baraita explains: At the time that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: “Gather for Me seventy men of the Elders of Israel” (Numbers 11:16), Moses said: How shall I do it? If I select six from each and every tribe, there will be a total of seventy-two, which will be two extra. But if I select five from each and every tribe, there will be a total of sixty, lacking ten. And if I select six from this tribe and five from that tribe, I will bring about envy between the tribes, as those with fewer representatives will resent the others.,What did he do? He selected six from every tribe and he brought seventy-two slips pitakin. On seventy of them he wrote: Elder, and he left two of them blank. He mixed them and placed them in the box. He then said to the seventy-two chosen candidates: Come and draw your slips. Everyone whose hand drew up a slip that said: Elder, he said to him: Heaven has already sanctified you. And everyone whose hand drew up a blank slip, he said to him: The Omnipresent does not desire you; what can I do for you?,The Gemara comments: You can say something similar to this to explain the verse about the redemption of the firstborn by the Levites: “Take the Levites in place of all of the firstborn of the children of Israel…and as for the redemption of the 273 of the firstborn of the children of Israel who are in excess over the number of the Levites…you shall take five shekels per head” (Numbers 3:45–47). It can be explained that Moses said: How shall I do this for the Jews? If I say to one of the firstborns: Give me money for your redemption and you may leave, as you are among the 273 extra firstborns, he will say to me: A Levite already redeemed me; what is the reason you think that I am among those who were not redeemed?,What did he do? He brought 22,000 slips (see Numbers 3:39), and he wrote on them: Levite, and on 273 additional ones he wrote: Five shekels. He mixed them up and placed them in a box. He said to them: Draw your slips. Everyone whose hand drew up a slip that said: Levite, he said to him: A Levite already redeemed you. Everyone whose hand drew up a slip that said: Five shekels, he said to him: Pay your redemption money and you may leave.,Rabbi Shimon says: Eldad and Medad remained in the camp, as they did not want to come to the lottery for the Elders. At the time that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: Gather for me seventy Elders, Eldad and Medad said: We are not fitting for that level of greatness; we are not worthy of being appointed among the Elders. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Since you have made yourselves humble, I will add greatness to your greatness. And what is the greatness that he added to them? It was that all of the prophets, meaning the other Elders, who were given prophecy, prophesied for a time and then stopped prophesying, but they prophesied and did not stop.,Apropos Eldad and Medad being prophets, the Gemara asks: And what prophecy did they prophesy? They said: Moses will die, and Joshua will bring the Jewish people into Eretz Yisrael. Abba Ḥanin says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: They prophesied about the matter of the quail that came afterward (Numbers 11:31–33), saying: Arise quail, arise quail, and then the quail came.,Rav Naḥman says: They were prophesying about the matter of Gog and Magog, as it is stated with regard to Gog and Magog: “So says the Lord God: Are you the one of whom I spoke in ancient days, through my servants, the prophets of Israel, who prophesied in those days for many years shanim that I would bring you against them?” (Ezekiel 38:17). Do not read it as: “Years shanim”; rather, read it as: Two shenayim. And who are the two prophets who prophesied the same prophecy at the same time? You must say: Eldad and Medad.,The Master says: The baraita said: All of the prophets prophesied and then stopped, but Eldad and Medad prophesied and did not stop. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the other prophets stopped prophesying? If we say it is from that which is written about them: “And they prophesied but they did so no more velo yasafu” (Numbers 11:25), that is difficult: But if that is so, then concerning that which is stated in relation to the giving of the Torah: “These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly…with a great voice, and it went on no more velo yasaf” (Deuteronomy 5:19), so too shall it be understood that the great voice did not continue? Rather, the intention there is that it did not stop, interpreting the word yasafu as related to sof, meaning: End. Consequently, with regard to the seventy Elders as well, the word can be interpreted to mean that they did not stop prophesying.,Rather, the proof is as follows: It is written here with regard to the seventy Elders: “They prophesied” (Numbers 11:25), and it is written there: “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp” (Numbers 11:27), from which it can be derived that they were continuously prophesying.,With regard to the content of Eldad and Medad’s prophecy, the Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says their prophecy was that Moses will die, this is the reason for that which is written there: “And Joshua, son of Nun, the servant of Moses from his youth, answered and said: My master Moses, imprison them” (Numbers 11:28), as their prophecy appeared to be a rebellion against Moses. But according to the one who says those other two opinions with regard to the content of the prophecy, according to which their prophecy had no connection to Moses, what is the reason that Joshua said: “My master Moses, imprison them”? The Gemara answers: He said this because it is not proper conduct for them to prophesy publicly in close proximity to Moses, as by doing so they are like a student who teaches a halakha in his teacher’s presence, which is inappropriate.,The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says those other two opinions, this is the reason for that which is written: “And Moses said to him: Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all of the Lord’s people were prophets” (Numbers 11:29). But according to the one who says that Eldad and Medad prophesied that Moses will die and Joshua will bring Israel into the land, would it have been satisfactory to Moses that all of the people of God would utter similar prophecies? The Gemara answers: They did not conclude it before him. Moses was not aware of what they had said, but only that they were prophesying.,The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: “Imprison them kela’em”? The Gemara answers: Joshua said to him: Place responsibility for the needs of the public upon them, so that they will be occupied like the other Elders of Israel and they will cease kalin prophesying, on their own. Due to the burden of public responsibility they would not be able to be prophets.,§ The mishna derives the halakha that there are twenty-three judges on a lesser Sanhedrin from the verses: “And the congregation shall judge,” and: “And the congregation shall save” (Numbers 35:24–25). The mishna understands that the term “congregation” is referring to ten judges, so that the two congregations, one in each verse, total twenty judges. The mishna then asks: From where is it derived to bring three more judges to the court? The mishna answers: The implication of the verse: “You shall not follow a multitude to convict” (Exodus 23:2), is that your inclination after a majority to exonerate is not like your inclination after a majority to convict, and a conviction must be by a majority of two.,The Gemara objects: Ultimately, you do not find an occurrence of the inclination for evil according to a majority of two judges. If eleven judges vote to acquit the defendant and twelve vote to convict, this is still only a majority of one, and if ten vote to acquit and thirteen vote to convict, they are a majority of three. With a court of twenty-three judges, there is no possible way to convict with a majority of two. Rabbi Abbahu says: You do not find such a scenario except in a case where they add two additional judges because one of the judges abstained from the deliberation, the other judges are split in their decisions, and the two added judges both vote to convict. And this is a possibility according to all tanna’im, and in a case tried by the Great Sanhedrin according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says there are seventy judges on the Great Sanhedrin. With an even number, it is possible to have a majority of two.,And Rabbi Abbahu says: When they add additional judges, they create a court consisting of an even number of judges ab initio. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? What is the novelty in Rabbi Abbahu’s statement? The Gemara answers: Lest you say: This judge who says: I do not know, is viewed as one who is still there, and if he says something afterward, we listen to him and include him in the count, so there are actually an odd number of judges on the court; therefore, Rabbi Abbahu teaches us that this judge who says: I do not know, is viewed as one who is not still there, and if he says a reason to rule in a certain manner afterward, we do not listen to him. Consequently, the court consists of an even number of judges.,§ Rav Kahana says: In a Sanhedrin where all the judges saw fit to convict the defendant in a case of capital law, they acquit him. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning for this halakha? It is since it is learned as a tradition that suspension of the trial overnight is necessary in order to create a possibility of acquittal. The halakha is that they may not issue the guilty verdict on the same day the evidence was heard, as perhaps over the course of the night one of the judges will think of a reason to acquit the defendant. And as those judges all saw fit to convict him they will not see any further possibility to acquit him, because there will not be anyone arguing for such a verdict. Consequently, he cannot be convicted.,§ Rabbi Yoḥa says: They place on the Great Sanhedrin only men of high stature, and of wisdom, and of pleasant appearance, and of suitable age so that they will be respected. And they must also be masters of sorcery, i.e., they know the nature of sorcery, so that they can judge sorcerers, and they must know all seventy languages in order that the Sanhedrin will not need to hear testimony from the mouth of a translator in a case where a witness speaks a different language.,Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: They place on the Sanhedrin only one who knows how to render a carcass of a creeping animal pure by Torah law. The judges on the Sanhedrin must be so skilled at logical reasoning that they could even produce a convincing argument that creeping animals, which the Torah states explicitly are ritually impure, are actually pure. Rav said: I will discuss the halakha of the creeping animal and render it pure, i.e., I am able to demonstrate how it is possible to construct such a proof:'32b then if the judges erred they should not need to pay the party they wronged, as they can claim that they were prevented from examining the witnesses effectively. The Gemara answers: If that were to be the halakha, all the more so that this would lock the door in the face of potential borrowers. If people know that the courts are not responsible for an error in judgment, they will not be willing to lend money.,Rava says: The ruling of the mishna here, that cases of monetary law require inquiry and interrogation, is stated with regard to laws of fines, not standard cases of monetary law. And the other sources, i.e., the mishna in tractate Shevi’it and the baraita, which do not require inquiry and interrogation, are stated with regard to cases of admissions and loans, in which there is cause to relax the procedures of deliberation, as explained.,Rav Pappa says: This and that, i.e., both the mishna here and the other sources, are stated with regard to cases of an admission and a loan. The distinction between them is that the mishna here, which rules that cases of monetary law require inquiry and interrogation, is stated with regard to a possibly fraudulent trial, where the court suspects that one party is attempting to defraud the other party and have witnesses offer false testimony on his own behalf. There, in the baraita and in the mishna in tractate Shevi’it, which do not require inquiry and interrogation, the ruling is stated with regard to a trial that does not appear fraudulent.,This distinction is in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish raises a contradiction between two verses: It is written in one verse: “In justice shall you judge your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:15), and it is written in another verse: “Justice, justice, shall you follow” (Deuteronomy 16:21), with the repetition indicating that it is not enough to merely judge with justice. He continues: How can these texts be reconciled? Here, this latter verse is stated with regard to a possibly fraudulent trial, where the court must take extra care to judge with justice; and there, that former verse is stated with regard to a trial that does not appear fraudulent.,Rav Ashi says: The ruling of the mishna here, that cases of monetary law require inquiry and interrogation, is as we answered, i.e., in accordance with any one of the answers offered by the other amora’im. And those verses were not stated with regard to fraudulent trials; rather, one is stated with regard to judgment, in which the court must pursue justice extensively, and one is stated with regard to compromise.,As it is taught in a baraita: When the verse states: “Justice, justice, shall you follow,” one mention of “justice” is stated with regard to judgment and one is stated with regard to compromise. How so? Where there are two boats traveling on the river and they encounter each other, if both of them attempt to pass, both of them sink, as the river is not wide enough for both to pass. If they pass one after the other, both of them pass. And similarly, where there are two camels who were ascending the ascent of Beit Ḥoron, where there is a narrow steep path, and they encounter each other, if both of them attempt to ascend, both of them fall. If they ascend one after the other, both of them ascend.,How does one decide which of them should go first? If there is one boat that is laden and one boat that is not laden, the needs of the one that is not laden should be overridden due to the needs of the one that is laden. If there is one boat that is close to its destination and one boat that is not close to its destination, the needs of the one that is close should be overridden due to the needs of the one that is not close. If both of them were close to their destinations, or both of them were far from their destinations, impose a compromise between them to decide which goes first, and the owners of the boats pay a fee to one other, i.e., the owners of the first boat compensate the owner of the boat that waits, for any loss incurred.,§ The Sages taught: The verse states: “Justice, justice, shall you follow.” This teaches that one should follow the best, most prestigious, court of the generation. For example, follow after Rabbi Eliezer to Lod, after Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai to Beror Ḥayil.,The Sages taught: When the gentile authorities issued decrees outlawing observance of the mitzvot, members of Jewish communities devised clandestine ways of indicating observance of mitzvot to each other. For example: If one produces the sound of a millstone in the city called Burni, this is tantamount to announcing: Week of the son, week of the son, i.e., there will be a circumcision. If one displays the light of a lamp in the city called Beror Ḥayil, this is tantamount to announcing: There is a wedding feast there, there is a wedding feast there.,The Sages taught: The verse states: “Justice, justice, shall you follow.” This teaches that one should follow the Sages to the academy where they are found. For example, follow after Rabbi Eliezer to Lod, after Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai to Beror Ḥayil, after Rabbi Yehoshua to Peki’in, after Rabban Gamliel to Yavne, after Rabbi Akiva to Bnei Brak, after Rabbi Matya to Rome Romi, after Rabbi Ḥaya ben Teradyon to Sikhnei, after Rabbi Yosei to Tzippori, after Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira to Netzivin, after Rabbi Yehoshua to the exile gola, i.e., Babylonia, after Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to Beit She’arim, and after the Sages in the time of the Temple to the Chamber of Hewn Stone.,§ The mishna teaches that in cases of monetary law, the court opens the deliberations either with a claim to exempt the accused, or with a claim to find him liable. In cases of capital law, the court opens the deliberations with a claim to acquit the accused, but does not open the deliberations with a claim to find him liable. The Gemara asks: How do we say this opening stage of the deliberations? In other words, with what claim does the court begin deliberating? Rav Yehuda said: We say this to the witnesses: Who says that the event occurred as you said? Perhaps you erred?,Ulla said to him: But by confronting the witnesses in this manner, we silence them. The witnesses will think that the court suspects them of lying, and they will not testify. Rav Yehuda said to him: And let them be silenced. Isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:1): Rabbi Shimon ben Eliezer says: In cases of capital law, the court brings the witnesses from one place to another place in order to confuse them so that they will retract their testimony if they are lying.,The Gemara rejects this argument: Are the halakhot comparable? There, where Rabbi Shimon ben Eliezer says to bring the witnesses from place to place, the witnesses are repressed by themselves, whereas here, we repress them by direct action, and that the court should not do.,Rather, Ulla says: We say this to the accused: Do you have witnesses to determine that the witnesses who testified against you are conspiring witnesses? Rabba said to him: But do we open the deliberations with a claim to acquit the accused that is to the liability of this one, i.e., the witnesses? This claim can lead to the witnesses incurring liability for their testimony.,The Gemara questions Rabba’s assumption: But is this to the liability of the witnesses? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Makkot 5b): Conspiring witnesses are not killed for their testimony until the verdict of the one concerning whom they testified is issued? Therefore, if they will be shown to be conspiring witnesses at this early stage of the proceedings, they will not be liable.,The Gemara restates Rabba’s objection: This is what I say: If the accused would be silent until his verdict is issued and then brings witnesses and the court determines them to be conspiring witnesses, it will be found that the statement of the court is to the liability of this one, i.e., the witnesses. Rather, Rabba says: We say to the accused: Do you have witnesses to contradict them? If the first witnesses are contradicted as to the facts of the case, no one is liable.,Rav Kahana said: We say to the witnesses: Based on your statements, so-and-so is acquitted. The court issues a pro forma declaration that it is possible to find a reason to acquit based on the testimony of the witnesses, and then they begin the deliberations. Abaye and Rava both say: We say to the accused: For example, if you did not kill anyone, do not fear the consequences of these proceedings, as you will be acquitted. Rav Ashi says: The court announces: Whoever knows of a reason to acquit the accused should come and teach this reason concerning him.,The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the explanation of Abaye and Rava. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The priest administering the sota rite to the sota says to her: “If no man has lain with you and if you have not gone astray to impurity while under your husband, you shall be free from this water of bitterness that causes the curse. But if you have gone astray while under your husband…” (Numbers 5:19–20). The priest first states the scenario in which the woman is innocent of adultery. ' None |
|
45. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of The Philosophers, 9.45, 9.61 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • argument pro and contra • arguments (λóγοι) • οὐ μᾶλλον arguments
Found in books: Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 109; Schibli (2002), Hierocles of Alexandria, 244; Wolfsdorf (2020), Early Greek Ethics, 682, 683, 684
| sup>
9.45 All things happen by virtue of necessity, the vortex being the cause of the creation of all things, and this he calls necessity. The end of action is tranquillity, which is not identical with pleasure, as some by a false interpretation have understood, but a state in which the soul continues calm and strong, undisturbed by any fear or superstition or any other emotion. This he calls well-being and many other names. The qualities of things exist merely by convention; in nature there is nothing but atoms and void space. These, then, are his opinions.of his works Thrasylus has made an ordered catalogue, arranging them in fours, as he also arranged Plato's works." "
9.61 11. PYRRHOPyrrho of Elis was the son of Pleistarchus, as Diocles relates. According to Apollodorus in his Chronology, he was first a painter; then he studied under Stilpo's son Bryson: thus Alexander in his Successions of Philosophers. Afterwards he joined Anaxarchus, whom he accompanied on his travels everywhere so that he even forgathered with the Indian Gymnosophists and with the Magi. This led him to adopt a most noble philosophy, to quote Ascanius of Abdera, taking the form of agnosticism and suspension of judgement. He denied that anything was honourable or dishonourable, just or unjust. And so, universally, he held that there is nothing really existent, but custom and convention govern human action; for no single thing is in itself any more this than that."" None |
|
46. Origen, Against Celsus, 1.24 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Democritus, arguments against linguistic naturalism • argument • homonymy, as argument against naturalness of names
Found in books: James (2021), Learning the Language of Scripture: Origen, Wisdom, and the Logic of Interpretation, 41; Malherbe et al. (2014), Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J, 816
| sup>
1.24 After this he continues: These herdsmen and shepherds concluded that there was but one God, named either the Highest, or Adonai, or the Heavenly, or Sabaoth, or called by some other of those names which they delight to give this world; and they knew nothing beyond that. And in a subsequent part of his work he says, that It makes no difference whether the God who is over all things be called by the name of Zeus, which is current among the Greeks, or by that, e.g., which is in use among the Indians or Egyptians. Now, in answer to this, we have to remark that this involves a deep and mysterious subject - that, viz., respecting the nature of names: it being a question whether, as Aristotle thinks, names were bestowed by arrangement, or, as the Stoics hold, by nature; the first words being imitations of things, agreeably to which the names were formed, and in conformity with which they introduce certain principles of etymology; or whether, as Epicurus teaches (differing in this from the Stoics), names were given by nature, - the first men having uttered certain words varying with the circumstances in which they found themselves. If, then, we shall be able to establish, in reference to the preceding statement, the nature of powerful names, some of which are used by the learned among the Egyptians, or by the Magi among the Persians, and by the Indian philosophers called Brahmans, or by the Saman ans, and others in different countries; and shall be able to make out that the so-called magic is not, as the followers of Epicurus and Aristotle suppose, an altogether uncertain thing, but is, as those skilled in it prove, a consistent system, having words which are known to exceedingly few; then we say that the name Sabaoth, and Adonai, and the other names treated with so much reverence among the Hebrews, are not applicable to any ordinary created things, but belong to a secret theology which refers to the Framer of all things. These names, accordingly, when pronounced with that attendant train of circumstances which is appropriate to their nature, are possessed of great power; and other names, again, current in the Egyptian tongue, are efficacious against certain demons who can only do certain things; and other names in the Persian language have corresponding power over other spirits; and so on in every individual nation, for different purposes. And thus it will be found that, of the various demons upon the earth, to whom different localities have been assigned, each one bears a name appropriate to the several dialects of place and country. He, therefore, who has a nobler idea, however small, of these matters, will be careful not to apply differing names to different things; lest he should resemble those who mistakenly apply the name of God to lifeless matter, or who drag down the title of the Good from the First Cause, or from virtue and excellence, and apply it to blind Plutus, and to a healthy and well-proportioned mixture of flesh and blood and bones, or to what is considered to be noble birth. '' None |
|
47. None, None, nan (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Alexinus, his parallel argument against Zeno • Father/offspring argument • parallel argument, formulated by Alexinus against Zeno
Found in books: Brouwer (2013), The Stoic Sage: The Early Stoics on Wisdom, Sagehood and Socrates, 124; Inwood and Warren (2020), Body and Soul in Hellenistic Philosophy, 140
|
48. None, None, nan (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Augustine, Uses arguments adapted by Descartes (cogito) • even if (etiamsi) arguments
Found in books: Harrison (2006), Augustine's Way into the Will: The Theological and Philosophical Significance of De libero, 124; Sorabji (2000), Emotion and Peace of Mind: From Stoic Agitation to Christian Temptation, 270
|
49. Demosthenes, Orations, 21.26, 21.227, 30.2, 57.59, 57.63, 57.70, 59.126
Tagged with subjects: • Argument, strategies of • Relevance, in legal argument • arguments, religious, religious significance of • arguments, religious, retorsion of • asebia (impiety), of argumentation • politics, in arguments
Found in books: Gagarin and Cohen (2005), The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law, 113, 115, 118, 121, 127, 129, 138; Martin (2009), Divine Talk: Religious Argumentation in Demosthenes, 18, 21, 44, 77, 81, 210, 245, 246, 247, 248, 282, 287, 288
| sup>
21.26 But of one thing I am perfectly certain, and you should be equally so-that if I had not lodged the public plaint but had brought a civil action, the opposite argument would have been used against me, that if there was any truth in my statements, I ought to have lodged a public plaint and claimed redress at the time when the offences were committed; for the chorus was a state-chorus, the apparel was being prepared entirely for a public festival, and I, the aggrieved party, was official chorus-master. Who then would dream of any other form of redress than that which the law provides against those who profane a festival?
21.227 And yet now, when his guilt has been established, when the people, sitting in a sacred building, have anticipated his condemnation, when all the other crimes of this miscreant have been sifted, when it has fallen to your lot to be his judges and it lies in your power to conclude the whole affair by a single vote—now, I say, will you hesitate to succor me, to gratify the people, to give all a lesson in sobriety, and to enjoy perfect safety for the rest of your lives, by making an example of the defendant for the instruction of others? Therefore for all the reasons that I have urged, and above all for the honor of the god whose festival he has been convicted of profaning, punish this man by casting the vote which piety and justice alike demand.
30.2 In the case of Aphobus, I held that his controversy with me should be settled among our friends, and not come to trial before you, but I could not persuade him. But this man, when I bade him act as judge in his own case, that he might not risk a trial before you, treated me with such contempt, that not only did he not think fit to give me a hearing, but I was even in the most outrageous manner driven off the land, which belonged to Aphobus, when he lost his suit to me.
57.59 But you must hear the most outrageous thing which these conspirators have done (and I beg you in the name of Zeus and the gods, let no one of you be offended if I show the rascality of these men who have wronged me. For I hold that in showing what scoundrels they are I am speaking with precise reference to the experience which has befallen me). For, you must know, men of Athens, that when certain aliens, Anaximenes and Nicostratus, wished to become citizens, these scoundrels admitted them for a sum of money, which they divided among themselves, receiving five drachmae apiece. Eubulides and his clique will not deny on oath that they have knowledge of this; and now in this last revision they did not expel these men. Do you think, then, that there is anything that they would not do in private, seeing that in a public matter they dared this?
57.63 If it be right for me to speak of my administration as prefect, because of which I incurred the anger of many, and in the course of which I became involved in quarrels because I required some of the demesmen to pay the rents which they owed for sacred lands and to refund other sums which they had embezzled from the public moneys, I should be very glad to have you listen to me; but perhaps you will hold that these matters are foreign to the subject before us. However, I am able to point to this as a positive proof of their conspiracy. For they struck out of the oath the clause that they would vote according to their unbiassed judgement and without favor or malice.
57.70 Furthermore, men of the jury, when you question the nine archons, you ask whether they act dutifully toward their parents. I for my part am left without a father, but for my mother’s sake I beg and beseech you so to settle this trial as to restore to me the right to bury her in our ancestral tomb. Do not deny me this; do not make me a man without a country; do not cut me off from such a host of relatives, and bring me to utter ruin. Rather than abandon them, if it prove impossible for them to save me, I will kill myself, that at least I may be buried by them in my country.
59.126 I therefore, men of the jury, as an avenger of the gods against whom these people have committed sacrilege, and as an avenger of myself, have brought them to trial and submitted them to be judged by you. It is now your duty to render the verdict which justice demands, knowing well that the gods, against whom these people have acted lawlessly, will not be unaware of the vote each one of you shall cast. It is your duty to be avengers in the first place of the gods, but also of your own selves. If you do this, you will be held by all men to have given an honorable and just decision on this indictment which I have preferred against Neaera, charging that she, being an alien, lives as his wife with an Athenian citizen. ' ' None |
|
50. Vergil, Aeneis, 1.1-1.4, 1.8-1.11, 1.446-1.459, 1.461-1.493, 7.446-7.466, 7.781-7.792, 10.270-10.277, 12.3-12.9, 12.951
Tagged with subjects: • Argus (guardian of Io) • Argus, builder of the Argo • Argus, dog • argumentum • argumentum, intended for writing • argumentum, truth-content
Found in books: Augoustakis (2014), Flavian Poetry and its Greek Past, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 143; Fletcher (2023), The Ass of the Gods: Apuleius' Golden Ass, the Onos Attributed to Lucian, and Graeco-Roman Metamorphosis Literature, 201; Oksanish (2019), Benedikt Eckhardt, and Meret Strothmann, Law in the Roman Provinces, 79, 80; Verhagen (2022), Security and Credit in Roman Law: The Historical Evolution of Pignus and Hypotheca, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 143
sup>
1.1 Arma virumque cano, Troiae qui primus ab oris 1.2 Italiam, fato profugus, Laviniaque venit 1.3 litora, multum ille et terris iactatus et alto 1.4 vi superum saevae memorem Iunonis ob iram;
1.8 Musa, mihi causas memora, quo numine laeso, 1.9 quidve dolens, regina deum tot volvere casus
1.10 insignem pietate virum, tot adire labores
1.446 Hic templum Iunoni ingens Sidonia Dido 1.448 aerea cui gradibus surgebant limina, nexaeque 1.449 aere trabes, foribus cardo stridebat aenis. 1.450 Hoc primum in luco nova res oblata timorem 1.451 leniit, hic primum Aeneas sperare salutem 1.452 ausus, et adflictis melius confidere rebus. 1.453 Namque sub ingenti lustrat dum singula templo, 1.454 reginam opperiens, dum, quae fortuna sit urbi, 1.455 artificumque manus inter se operumque laborem 1.456 miratur, videt Iliacas ex ordine pugnas, 1.457 bellaque iam fama totum volgata per orbem, 1.458 Atridas, Priamumque, et saevum ambobus Achillem. 1.459 Constitit, et lacrimans, Quis iam locus inquit Achate,
1.461 En Priamus! Sunt hic etiam sua praemia laudi; 1.462 sunt lacrimae rerum et mentem mortalia tangunt. 1.463 Solve metus; feret haec aliquam tibi fama salutem. 1.464 Sic ait, atque animum pictura pascit ii, 1.465 multa gemens, largoque umectat flumine voltum. 1.466 Namque videbat, uti bellantes Pergama circum 1.467 hac fugerent Graii, premeret Troiana iuventus, 1.468 hac Phryges, instaret curru cristatus Achilles. 1.469 Nec procul hinc Rhesi niveis tentoria velis 1.470 adgnoscit lacrimans, primo quae prodita somno 1.471 Tydides multa vastabat caede cruentus, 1.472 ardentisque avertit equos in castra, prius quam 1.473 pabula gustassent Troiae Xanthumque bibissent. 1.474 Parte alia fugiens amissis Troilus armis, 1.475 infelix puer atque impar congressus Achilli, 1.476 fertur equis, curruque haeret resupinus ii, 1.477 lora tenens tamen; huic cervixque comaeque trahuntur 1.478 per terram, et versa pulvis inscribitur hasta. 1.479 Interea ad templum non aequae Palladis ibant 1.480 crinibus Iliades passis peplumque ferebant, 1.481 suppliciter tristes et tunsae pectora palmis; 1.482 diva solo fixos oculos aversa tenebat. 1.483 Ter circum Iliacos raptaverat Hectora muros, 1.484 exanimumque auro corpus vendebat Achilles. 1.485 Tum vero ingentem gemitum dat pectore ab imo, 1.486 ut spolia, ut currus, utque ipsum corpus amici, 1.487 tendentemque manus Priamum conspexit inermis. 1.488 Se quoque principibus permixtum adgnovit Achivis, 1.489 Eoasque acies et nigri Memnonis arma. 1.490 Ducit Amazonidum lunatis agmina peltis 1.491 Penthesilea furens, mediisque in milibus ardet, 1.492 aurea subnectens exsertae cingula mammae, 1.493 bellatrix, audetque viris concurrere virgo.
7.446 at iuveni oranti subitus tremor occupat artus, 7.447 deriguere oculi: tot Erinys sibilat hydris 7.448 tantaque se facies aperit; tum flammea torquens 7.449 lumina cunctantem et quaerentem dicere plura 7.450 reppulit et geminos erexit crinibus anguis 7.451 verberaque insonuit rabidoque haec addidit ore: 7.452 En ego victa situ, quam veri effeta senectus' '7.456 Sic effata facem iuveni coniecit et atro 7.457 lumine fumantis fixit sub pectore taedas. 7.458 Olli somnum ingens rumpit pavor, ossaque et artus 7.459 perfundit toto proruptus corpore sudor; 7.460 arma amens fremit, arma toro tectisque requirit; 7.461 saevit amor ferri et scelerata insania belli, 7.462 ira super: magno veluti cum flamma sonore 7.463 virgea suggeritur costis undantis aëni 7.464 exsultantque aestu latices, furit intus aquaï 7.465 fumidus atque alte spumis exuberat amnis, 7.466 nec iam se capit unda, volat vapor ater ad auras.
7.781 Filius ardentis haud setius aequore campi 7.782 exercebat equos curruque in bella ruebat. 7.783 Ipse inter primos praestanti corpore Turnus 7.784 vertitur arma tenens et toto vertice supra est. 7.785 Cui triplici crinita iuba galea alta Chimaeram 7.786 sustinet, Aetnaeos efflantem faucibus ignis: 7.787 tam magis illa fremens et tristibus effera flammis, 7.788 quam magis effuso crudescunt sanguine pugnae. 7.789 At levem clipeum sublatis cornibus Io 7.790 auro insignibat, iam saetis obsita, iam bos 7.791 (argumentum ingens), et custos virginis Argus 7.792 caelataque amnem fundens pater Inachus urna.
10.270 Ardet apex capiti cristisque a vertice flamma 10.271 funditur et vastos umbo vomit aureus ignes: 10.272 non secus ac liquida siquando nocte cometae 10.273 sanguinei lugubre rubent aut Sirius ardor, 10.274 ille sitim morbosque ferens mortalibus aegris, 10.275 nascitur et laevo contristat lumine caelum. 10.276 Haud tamen audaci Turno fiducia cessit 10.277 litora praecipere et venientis pellere terra.
12.3 se signari oculis, ultro implacabilis ardet 12.4 attollitque animos. Poenorum qualis in arvis 12.5 saucius ille gravi vetum vulnere pectus 12.6 tum demum movet arma leo gaudetque comantis 12.7 excutiens cervice toros fixumque latronis 12.8 inpavidus frangit telum et fremit ore cruento: 12.9 haud secus adcenso gliscit violentia Turno.
12.951 fervidus. Ast illi solvuntur frigore membra'' None | sup>
1.1 Arms and the man I sing, who first made way, 1.2 predestined exile, from the Trojan shore 1.3 to Italy, the blest Lavinian strand. 1.4 Smitten of storms he was on land and sea ' "
1.8 the city, and bring o'er his fathers' gods " '1.9 to safe abode in Latium ; whence arose ' "
1.10 the Latin race, old Alba's reverend lords, " 1.446 her spotted mantle was; perchance she roused ' "1.448 So Venus spoke, and Venus' son replied: " '1.449 “No voice or vision of thy sister fair 1.450 has crossed my path, thou maid without a name! 1.451 Thy beauty seems not of terrestrial mould, 1.452 nor is thy music mortal! Tell me, goddess, ' "1.453 art thou bright Phoebus' sister? Or some nymph, " "1.454 the daughter of a god? Whate'er thou art, " '1.455 thy favor we implore, and potent aid 1.456 in our vast toil. Instruct us of what skies, ' "1.457 or what world's end, our storm-swept lives have found! " '1.458 Strange are these lands and people where we rove, 1.459 compelled by wind and wave. Lo, this right hand
1.461 Then Venus: “Nay, I boast not to receive 1.462 honors divine. We Tyrian virgins oft 1.463 bear bow and quiver, and our ankles white 1.464 lace up in purple buskin. Yonder lies 1.465 the Punic power, where Tyrian masters hold ' "1.466 Agenor's town; but on its borders dwell " '1.467 the Libyans, by battles unsubdued. 1.468 Upon the throne is Dido, exiled there ' "1.469 from Tyre, to flee th' unnatural enmity " "1.470 of her own brother. 'T was an ancient wrong; " '1.471 too Iong the dark and tangled tale would be; 1.472 I trace the larger outline of her story: 1.473 Sichreus was her spouse, whose acres broad 1.474 no Tyrian lord could match, and he was-blessed ' "1.475 by his ill-fated lady's fondest love, " '1.476 whose father gave him her first virgin bloom 1.477 in youthful marriage. But the kingly power 1.478 among the Tyrians to her brother came, 1.479 Pygmalion, none deeper dyed in crime 1.480 in all that land. Betwixt these twain there rose 1.481 a deadly hatred,—and the impious wretch, 1.482 blinded by greed, and reckless utterly ' "1.483 of his fond sister's joy, did murder foul " '1.484 upon defenceless and unarmed Sichaeus, 1.485 and at the very altar hewed him down. 1.486 Long did he hide the deed, and guilefully 1.487 deceived with false hopes, and empty words, 1.488 her grief and stricken love. But as she slept, ' "1.489 her husband's tombless ghost before her came, " '1.490 with face all wondrous pale, and he laid bare 1.491 his heart with dagger pierced, disclosing so 1.492 the blood-stained altar and the infamy 1.493 that darkened now their house. His counsel was
7.446 the Gorgon poison, took her viewless way 7.447 to Latium and the lofty walls and towers 7.448 of the Laurentian King. Crouching she sate 7.449 in silence on the threshold of the bower 7.450 where Queen Amata in her fevered soul ' "7.451 pondered, with all a woman's wrath and fear, " '7.452 upon the Trojans and the marriage-suit 7.453 of Turnus. From her Stygian hair the fiend 7.454 a single serpent flung, which stole its way ' "7.455 to the Queen's very heart, that, frenzy-driven, " '7.456 he might on her whole house confusion pour. 7.457 Betwixt her smooth breast and her robe it wound 7.458 unfelt, unseen, and in her wrathful mind 7.459 instilled its viper soul. Like golden chain 7.460 around her neck it twined, or stretched along 7.461 the fillets on her brow, or with her hair 7.462 enwrithing coiled; then on from limb to limb 7.463 lipped tortuous. Yet though the venom strong 7.464 thrilled with its first infection every vein, 7.465 and touched her bones with fire, she knew it not, 7.466 nor yielded all her soul, but made her plea ' "
7.781 dread Juno's will, then with complaining prayer " '7.782 the aged sire cried loud upon his gods ' "7.783 and on th' unheeding air: “Alas,” said he, " '7.784 “My doom is shipwreck, and the tempest bears 7.785 my bark away! O wretches, your own blood 7.786 hall pay the forfeit for your impious crime. 7.787 O Turnus! O abominable deed! 7.788 Avenging woes pursue thee; to deaf gods 7.789 thy late and unavailing prayer shall rise. 7.790 Now was my time to rest. But as I come ' "7.791 close to my journey's end, thou spoilest me " '7.792 of comfort in my death.” With this the King
10.270 oft snow-white plumes, and spurning earth he soared 10.271 on high, and sped in music through the stars. 10.272 His son with bands of youthful peers urged on 10.273 a galley with a Centaur for its prow, ' "10.274 which loomed high o'er the waves, and seemed to hurl " '10.275 a huge stone at the water, as the keel 10.276 ploughed through the deep. Next Ocnus summoned forth 10.277 a war-host from his native shores, the son
12.3 to keep his pledge, and with indigt eyes 12.4 gaze all his way, fierce rage implacable 12.5 wells his high heart. As when on Libyan plain 12.6 a lion, gashed along his tawny breast ' "12.7 by the huntsman's grievous thrust, awakens him " '12.8 unto his last grim fight, and gloriously 12.9 haking the great thews of his maned neck,
12.951 on lofty rampart, or in siege below ' ' None |
|
51. None, None, nan
Tagged with subjects: • Argus, builder of the Argo • Argus, dog
Found in books: Augoustakis (2014), Flavian Poetry and its Greek Past, 19, 33, 34, 35, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 90, 114, 127, 142, 143, 145, 147, 148; Verhagen (2022), Security and Credit in Roman Law: The Historical Evolution of Pignus and Hypotheca, 19, 33, 34, 35, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 90, 114, 127, 142, 143, 145, 147, 148
|
52. None, None, nan
Tagged with subjects: • Argus, builder of the Argo
Found in books: Augoustakis (2014), Flavian Poetry and its Greek Past, 114; Verhagen (2022), Security and Credit in Roman Law: The Historical Evolution of Pignus and Hypotheca, 114
|
53. None, None, nan
Tagged with subjects: • Argument, strategies of • arguments, religious, religious significance of
Found in books: Gagarin and Cohen (2005), The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law, 138; Martin (2009), Divine Talk: Religious Argumentation in Demosthenes, 142
|
54. None, None, nan
Tagged with subjects: • Argus, builder of the Argo
Found in books: Augoustakis (2014), Flavian Poetry and its Greek Past, 147; Verhagen (2022), Security and Credit in Roman Law: The Historical Evolution of Pignus and Hypotheca, 147
|
