Podcasts about Antinous

Scientists from around the world gathered in Rome on 2nd May 1922 to agree on a definitive list of 88 constellations, which up until then had been an astronomical free-for-all. The collection of eminent astronomers eventually settled on 42 animals, 29 inanimate objects and 17 humans or mythological characters, which, taken together, offered a complete map of the skies for the very first time. In this episode, Arion, Rebecca and Olly explain how different ancient civilisations around the world understood the heavens differently; marvel at the immense contribution of Ancient Greeks to contemporary astronomy; and discuss why Antinous, the boy lover of the Roman emperor Hadrian, is the greatest constellation no longer in use…  Further Reading: • ‘10 Constellations that Never Caught On' (Mental Floss, 2010): https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/49454/10-constellations-never-caught  • ‘The Constellations' (IAU, 2001): https://www.iau.org/public/themes/constellations/  • ‘Pictures in the sky: the origin and history of the constellations' (The Royal Society, 2014): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZm-QaKqS-Y&t=271s  #1920s #Space #Europe #Science This episode first aired in 2023 Love the show? Support us!  Join 

In this throwback episode Sebastian takes you back to the start of Season 4 to explore the historical reputation of the Roman Emperor Hadrian. Hadrian has been celebrated as one of Rome's “five good emperors”, but is that reputation actually deserved? Hadrian's reputation is complicated by the mysterious death of his teenage lover, Antinous. What should we believe about this strange chapter in the life of one of Rome's most celebrated emperors? Tune-in and find out how radical beards, fantastical walls, and ancient man-love all play a role in the story.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Understanding the deities requires us to move beyond inherited preconceptions and prejudices. Fortunately, there are many gods worthy of the effort. From the deified Sphinx Horemakhet, to the meme-lord Medjed, to the deified lover-boy Antinous, the pantheon is rich in variety and personalities. It is a subject that today's guest, Dr. Tamara L. Siuda, has devoted a great deal of time. Her new book, The Complete Encyclopedia of Egyptian Deities (2024) is a comprehensive guide to many of these figures… Dr. Tamara Siuda's website: https://tamarasiuda.com/  For a limited time, 20% off the purchase of The Complete Encyclopedia of Egyptian Deities at Llewellyn.com. Code: CEED20. Valid: 1/23/25 – 2/28/25. Offer cannot be combined with other discounts. Must be logged in to your Llewellyn.com account for coupon to apply to cart. Dr. Siuda has generously offered a permanent discount code on any item in her bookstore. Visit http://tamarasiuda.com/shop and use the coupon code historical to receive 20% off any order. Valid for one order per customer. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

THE FINAL BOOK! Dcn. Garlick is joined by Adam Minihan, David Niles, Thomas Lackey, and Dr. Frank Grabowski to discuss Book 24 of the Odyssey: Peace. Check out thegreatbookspodcast.com for more information.From our guide:111. What happens in book twenty-four? Hermes leads the souls of the suitors to Hades, to the fields of asphodel, where they meet Achilles and Agamemnon (24.130). One of the suitors tells Agamemnon their story, and Agamemnon praises Odysseus calling him “happy” and praises his wife Penelope in contrast to his wife, Clytemnestra (24.210). Meanwhile, Odysseus and his men arrive at his country estate, and he elects to test his father, Laertes (24.238). Laertes passes the test, and Odysseus reveals himself to his father by showing him the scar (24.368). Elsewhere on Ithaca, the families of the suitors have discovered their deaths and cries arise in the city (24.457). Eupithes, father of Antinous, rallies the kinsmen of the suitors to take revenge upon King Odysseus (24.471). Medon, the bard, warns the mob that the deathless gods helped Odysseus (24.485), and Halitherses, a seer, tells them it was due to their own “craven hearts” that the massacred occurred (24.501).Athena intercedes on Odysseus' behalf, and Zeus declares there should be peace in Ithaca (24.534). The mob arrives outside the country estate, and Odysseus, Laertes, Telemachus, and others prepare for combat (24.552). Athena strengthens Laertes to spear Eupithes in the head (24.576), and then she brokers peace between the two factions (24.584) 112. Who gained the most glory: Achilles, Agamemnon, or Odysseus?The opening passage on the plains of asphodel serves to compare the lives of Achilles, Agamemnon, and Odysseus. Agamemnon recounts the funeral of Achilles and the glory he achieved there, e.g., the Muses sang, he's buried in a golden urn made by Hephaestus, etc. (24.64). Agamemnon explicitly states Achilles has achieved immortal glory (24.100), and Achilles' death and burial serves as a comparison to the ignoble death of Agamemnon (24.30). If Agamemnon would have died in glory at Troy, he too could have had immortal glory—but instead, he was betrayed and slaughtered by his own wife. Despite Achilles having the better of the glory, we have already seen that he would trade it all in to be alive again—even if only to be a dirt farmer. Thus, when Agamemnon calls Odysseus “happy,” this seems to be a final judgment that Odysseus has found the best path: he has the glory (kleos) of both fighting in Troy and returning home—but he also now has political and familial peace. In a certain way, whereas Achilles had to choose between two fates (glory or peace), Odysseus has been given both.Good work everyone!

Slaughter in the hall! This week Dcn. Harrison Garlick is joined by Dr. Adam Cooper of Wyoming Catholic College to discuss Odysseus' revenge upon the suitors in Book 24. Check out thegreatbookspodcast.com for more information!103. What happens in book twenty-two?The time has come. Odysseus stands at the threshold of his home, cries out to Apollo, and lets loose an arrow straight through the neck of Antinous (22.15). It is chaos in the hall, as the “bread and meats [were] soaked in a swirl of bloody filth” (22.21). Eurymachus attempts to broker a true between Odysseus and the suitors—but it is rejected (22.57). Eurymachus then calls the suitors to arms and is subsequently slaughtered by Odysseus (22.73). Telemachus brings armor and weapons to his father, the swineherd, and the cowherd (22.121), but the goatherd, however, is able to sneak weapons and armor to the suitors as well (22.151). On his second run for weapons, the cowherd and swineherd intercept the goatherd and tie him up and hang him from the rafters (22.196).Athena first arrives in the guise of Mentor (22.217) and then becomes like a sparrow perched on the rafters assisting Odysseus in his slaughter (22.250). She reveals her “man-destroying shield of thunder” and the suitors fall into a panicked madness; as Odysseus and his men went “wheeling into the slaughter, slashing left and right, and grisly screams broke from skulls cracked open—the whole floor awash with blood” (22.311). With only a few suitors left in the hall, Odysseus has no mercy on their prophet but spares the bard and the herald (22.327).The slaughter of the suitors is complete. Odysseus has the old maid, Eurycleia, send in the female servants who were disloyal (22.458), and these women help to carry out the corpses and clean the home of gore (22.471). Telemachus then oversees the disloyal women being slowly hanged in the courtyard—a “pitiful, ghastly death” (22.487). The goatherd is retrieved and mutilated to death by the swineherd and cowherd (22.500). Odysseus purifies his home with fire and brimstone (22.518). The book ends with the loyal maid servants of the house surrounding Odysseus, and the king breaks down and weeps (22.528). 104. What should be noted in how the suitors are slaughteredOdysseus invokes Apollo, the god of archery, on his feast day to help him with his slaughter (22.07). Notice that Homer makes it explicit that the suitors are killed while feasting (22.09). Homer writes, “food showered across the hall, the bread and meats soaked in a swirl of bloody filth” (22.21). It recalls Odysseus' statement that he is going to give them the feast they deserve (21.477). The mixed imagery of food and slaughter gives credence to seeing Odysseus as the cyclops consuming his guests. One wonders whether Antinous being shot in the throat is symbolic of his constant vile rhetoric throughout the narrative (22.15).Consistent with what we have previously observed, Eurymachus attempts to talk his way out of the situation, which includes an appeal for the king to spare his own people (22.57). Notice Odysseus says they can fight or flee, but it is not apparent that they can actually flee the situation nor that Athena would permit it (22.69).Arguably, Odysseus kills Antinous and Eurymachus first to deprive the suitors of their leadership—a fact he would have observed as the beggar. The suitors, which greatly outnumber Odysseus and his men, could overwhelm Odysseus, but instead their cowardice allows them to be picked off individually.

Dcn. Harrison Garlick is joined by another Catholic deacon, Dcn. Adam Conque to discuss Book 21 of the Odyssey: Odysseus Strings His Bow.Check out more at thegreatbookspodcast.comHelp support the podcast and get access to guides!From the guide:100. What happens in book twenty-one?The time has come for Penelope's test and the slaughter the suitors (21.05). Penelope brings out Odysseus' bow, one he received as a gift of friendship (21.40), and Telemachus sets out a line of ax heads the suitors must shoot through (21.140). Telemachus gives the first attempt and fails to even bend the bow (21.143). Leodes, a suitor, attempts and fails to even bend the bow as well (21.170). Antinous, who has been mocking everyone, has the goatherd attempt to limber the bow with fire and grease (21.198). Meanwhile, Odysseus takes the cowherd and swineherd out and reveals himself as their king—the three then plot the death of the suitors and return to hall. Eurymachus tries and cannot even bend the bow (21.274). Antinous, noting that Penelope has given them a test of archery on the feast day of Apollo, leads the suitors in a libation to the Archer God (21.289).Odysseus the beggar asks to try and is mocked by the suitors—but with the help of Penelope, Telemachus, and the swineherd, he is given his bow (21.314). The suitors look on with horror as he plucks the string with ease like a musical virtuoso (21.456). Odysseus lets an arrow fly, and the arrow passes through the ax heads perfectly (21.469). The book ends with Odysseus calling his son to arms, as it is time to provide the suitors their supper (21.473). 101. What should be noted about Odysseus' bow?First, note that the bow was given to Odysseus as a gift, and one given in friendship (21.40). Second, it is a foreign bow (21.15). One wonders whether Odysseus' ability to use the bow is not simply a test of strength but a test of techne, i.e., there is a cleverness needed to understand how to use the bow. Note that he seems to use a stool (21.467). Such a test would be more aligned with Odysseus as coupling of both cunning and strength. Third, it is notable that he did not take the bow to Troy with him.Moreover, one may question the veracity of Telemachus' attempt (21.149). To wit, his failure and his commentary on it seems so dramatic that one wonders whether he is presenting himself as weak, as non-threatening to mislead the suitors right before the trap is sprung. Notice his language: “must I be a weakling, a failure all my life,” and “come, my betters” speaking of the suitors (21.150, 53). He speaks like the old Telemachus before his maturation, but the new Telemachus is confident and knows his father has come home. Is Telemachus channeling the rhetoric of his father and presenting a falsehood?Penelope running interference for Odysseus the beggar to attempt the test to become her suitor lends again to her knowing or having a suspicion of who he truly is (21.350). Moreover, pay attention to how she speaks of the beggar fondly (21.373).We are in the final stretch of our Year with Homer!

Dr. Jared Zimmerer of Benedictine College returns to the podcast to discuss Book 18 of the Odyssey with Dcn. Garlick and Adam Minihan. Check out thegreatbookspodcast.com for more.From our written guide:90. What happens in book eighteen?Another beggar, a man nicknamed Irus, arrives at Odysseus' palace and begins to harass Odysseus, the beggar in disguise (18.13). Antinous, the suitor, elects to host a battle between Odysseus the beggar and Irus—the winner will dine with the suitors and loser will be cast out (18.56). Odysseus soundly beats the would-be beggar king (18.121) and is rewarded with a meal from the suitors (18.136). Penelope comes forth, blessed by Athena, and the “suitors' knees went slack, their hearts dissolved in lust” (18.241). The suitors bring Penelope gifts, and Odysseus sees his wife's actions for what they are—a plot to lure gifts from the suitors (18.316). The suitor Eurymachus offers Odysseus the beggar work, but Odysseus' response causes him to throw a stool at him (18.437). The book ends with Amphinomus calling for peace and leading the suitors in a libation to the gods (18.463).91. Could a suitor repent?It appears the fate of the suitors is already locked in fate. Notice that despite Amphinomus' forebodings that something is wrong, Athena has already bound him to the fate of death (18.178). Similarly, Athena goads the suitors into acting worse (18.391). In fact, Telemachus appears to intuit this fact (18.459). To wit, it appears that the suitors no longer have the capacity to repent. Athena is holding them to their violent fate and even festering the problem. One may recall that Odysseus' coming home was compared to the “shadow of death,” and it appears after that moment the fate of the suitors was sealed.92. What else should be observed in book eighteen?The mockery of guest-friendship continues, as the suitors have the beggars fight each other for food (18.56). It is important to note that Penelope critiques the suitors for their violation of guest-friendship on the grounds they have deviated from the “time-honored way” and should have been bringing animals to her house “to feast the friends of the bride-to-be” (18.309). Assuming we take this assertion to be true, it is an important insight into how the suitors are violating the norms of guest-friendship. Regardless, we see that Odysseus delights in his wife's wit, the matchless queen of cunning, as he recognizes her ploy to receive gifts from the suitors in recompense for their violations (18.316).Notice that Eurymachus is sleeping with the servant girl, Melantho (18.368). The disloyalty of the servant women to the house of their master, Odysseus, should be noted. Moreover, the polished rhetorical mask of Eurymachus slips at Odysseus' quips (18.437). It is a notable scene as both rhetoricians are wearing a mask, so to speak, and Odysseus proves himself the better rhetorician. The fact that neither Telemachus or Odysseus will act until Athena gives them approval may be read that it is ultimately Zeus that oversees and judging guest-friendship; thus, it is not until the divine is ready to pass judgment that the mortals can act. Our Year with Homer continues next week!

Dcn. Harrison Garlick is joined by Dr. Jared Zimmerer to discuss Book 17 of the Odyssey: The Stranger at the Gates. Dr. Jared Zimmerer is the Content Marketing Director and Great Books adjunct professor for Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas. The former Senior Director of the Word on Fire Institute and the Dean of Pastoral Fellows. He holds a PhD in Humanities from Faulkner University and a master's degree in Theology from Holy Apostles College. He and his wife Jessica live in Atchison, Kansas, with their six children.Check out more resources at thegreatbookspodcast.com. From the guide:86. What happens in book seventeen?Telemachus returns home and presents himself to his mother (17.36). He tells of his journey to Pylos and Sparta, and how Menelaus told him that Odysseus was being held captive on the island of Calypso (17.45). The prophet, Theoclymenus, declares that Odysseus is already on Ithaca (17.168). Meanwhile, the Swineherd and Odysseus—in the guise of a beggar—start to make their way to the palace and are mocked by the goatherd, Melanthius (17.231). As they approached the palace, Odyssey sees the dog he trained as a puppy, Argo, “invested with ticks, half dead from neglect” laying on a pile of dung (17.319). Argo recognizes his master and Odysseus hides his tears (17.330). As Odysseus enters his home, “the dark shadow of death closed down on Argo's eyes” (17.359).Odysseus, as the beggar, tests the suitors by asking each one for a scrap to eat (17.398). The suitor Antinous mocks him and throws a stool at Odysseus (17.492). Odysseus is “unstaggered” by the blow, silent, “his mind churning with thoughts of bloody work” (17.513). The book ends with Penelope inviting Odysseus the beggar to come and tell her his story face to face (17.588). 87. How does the theme of guest-friendship (xenia) inform book seventeen? The predominant theme in book seventeen is that Odysseus returns home and does so as a guest in his own house. Homer is arguably drawing a parallel between Odysseus' return home and cyclops narrative. As Odysseus raided the cyclops' cave and intended to pervert guest-friendship to receive gifts, so too does he now find guests in his own home devouring his goods. Moreover, as the cyclops consumed his ill-intentioned guests, so too will Odysseus consume his. The two narratives are linked explicitly by the curse the cyclops asks of Poseidon after Odysseus escapes and reveals his name.Other aspects of xenia to observe include the prophet, Theoclymenus, making an oath according to the table of hospitality (17.169). Moreover, we see that xenia is not only something upon which an oath may be made but also a standard of judgment—as it is for the suitors and their treatment of Odysseus the beggar (17.397). We also see guest-friendship expose the irony that the suitors—who are devouring the house of their host—mock Odysseus the beggar as bleeding the house dry (17.425, 492). Notably, the suitors are aware, in part, of Antinous' violation of guest-friendship, as they condemn him hitting Odysseus the beggar with the stool (17.531).Much more in our written guide!

Dcn. Harrison Garlick is joined by independent scholar and friend of the podcast Mr. Thomas Lackey to discuss book 16 of the Odyssey: Father and Son.Check out thegreatbookspodcast.com for our written guide!From the guide:83. What happens in book sixteen?Telemachus arrives at the home of the Swineherd and, the Swineherd greets him like a father welcoming “home his darling only son” (16.19). Telemachus meets Odysseus disguised as a beggar, and the three men discuss the problem of the suitors (16.100). Telemachus tells the Swineherd to tell Queen Penelope he is back in Ithaca (16.148), and to have one of her servants tell Laertes the same (16.172). After the departure of the swineherd, Odysseus sees Athena outside the house under the guise of a woman “beautiful, tall and skilled at weaving things” (16.179). Odysseus goes to meet her, and she says now is the time to reveal himself to his son, Telemachus (16.189). She transforms him back into Odysseus the hero, and Telemachus is “wonderstruck” and believes some god has entered the house of the Swineherd (16.194). Odysseus tells Telemachus he is his father (16.212) and, after some disbelief, the father and son embrace and weep together (16.243). The two then discuss the slaughter of the suitors and form a plan in which Odysseus, disguised again as a beggar, will go into his own home with the suitors until Athena tells him the time is right (16.298). Meanwhile, the suitors are told that Telemachus escaped their ambush and is back in Ithaca (16.382). Antinous, one of the suitors, calls for the murder of Telemachus (16.401), and Penelope overhears the plot and chastises Antinous (16.453). The book ends with the Swineherd returning home and feasting with Telemachus and Odysseus—who is once again disguised as a beggar by Athena (16.505). 84. What do we see in the reunion of Odysseus and Telemachus?It seems fitting that Odysseus, who has been testing everyone, would in turn be tested by his son upon his grand reveal (16.220). Notably, the concern that a spirit or god would attempt to trick Telemachus with an imposter Odysseus (16.220) is a concern that Penelope shares and will later voice—but it is only the latter who has devised a test to avoid that fate. Telemachus seems to eventually simply trust Odysseus' testimony (16.243). Telemachus still appears unexperienced with the gods, as he confuses his father for one (16.202) and doubts Athena's plan (16.273). It is hard not to read Odysseus' response about whether Athena and Zeus will be adequate as sarcasm (16.291). Telemachus, however, has grown into his own wit as shown by his retort: “off in the clouds they sit” (16.299). He has also grown in confidence of his own strategic thinking (16.342).Odysseus shares with Telemachus he'll return to his home in disguise and bear whatever he must until Athena says it is time (16.303). The strategy behind Odysseus' return seems patterned off the Agamemnon narrative, but the problem itself seems patterned off his episode with the cyclops. He will come home to find guests of malintent within his home and then consume them.The YEAR WITH HOMER continues!

Is it toxic for a Roman emperor to steal a child from his home, give him all the riches of the world, groom him, and then maybe ask him to kill himself so that he can live?That is what we seek to uncover.The Emperor Hadrian (AD 76 - 138) was one of the not-too-f*cked-up emperors. He liked soldiering but not war, astrology, being gay, hunting, and doing architecture. Trust me, there were a lot worse before him.But how are we to understand the notorious tale of his beloved Antinous, whom he whisked away from home at the age of 12 to become Premier Boytoy in his imperial retinue?When Antinous died, Hadrian "wept like a woman." He also started a religion and founded a city in his honor, which means we have hundreds of Antinouses that survive today in marble and stone, from Spain to Syria and beyond.Join me and my hilarious guest Neil D'Astolfo as we separate the fact from the fiction, and overlay a healthy veneer of frocciagine to the whole thing (not that it needed much seasoning!).If you want more Historical Homos, you can join our cult at www.historicalhomos.com and follow us on Instagram and TikTok.Like what you hear? Please leave us a five star rating on Apple or Spotify. Do it. Yeahhhhhh just like that.Written and hosted by Bash. Edited by Alex Toskas. Guest host: Neil D'Astolfo. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Adam Minihan returns to discuss Book Four of the Odyssey with Father Bonaventure, OP - a Dominican Friar of the Province of St. Joseph. The out our website for a 50+ page guide to the Odyssey.23. What happens in book four?Telemachus arrives in Sparta to find King Menelaus hosting a “double-wedding feast;” as Menelaus' daughter is marrying the son of Achilles, and Menelaus' son is marrying a girl from Sparta (4.04). Telemachus and Nestor's son, Pisistratus, are received warmly (4.68). Though a gracious host, Menelaus still mourns for his brother, Agamemnon (4.103), and for all the men lost in the Trojan war, especially Odysseus (4.120). Menelaus and Helen recognize Telemachus by his likeness to his father (4.131, 158).The next day, Menelaus tells Telemachus of his journey home from Troy (4.391). He and his men were stuck on the island of Pharos (4.396). After wrestling Proteus, the Old Man of the Sea, he is told he failed to offer sacrifices to the deathless gods before leaving Troy (4.530); and now for penance, he must return to Egypt and make a “splendid sacrifice” (4.535). Menelaus asks about the fate of his comrades, and Proteus tells him the stories of little Ajax, Agamemnon, and Odysseus—the last of which is held captive by the sea nymph Calypso (4.627). Menelaus did as the Old Man of the Sea said, and he then returned home to Sparta (4.657). The narrative shifts to Queen Penelope in Ithaca (4.703). The suitors, led by Antinous, discover Telemachus has taken a ship to Pylos (4.711), and they elect to send out their own ship to ambush him (4.753). Penelope is told Telemachus is gone and that the suitors plan to murder him (4.784). Eurycleia, the old nurse, tells Penelope she helped Telemachus prepare for his departure, and advises the queen to pray to Athena (4.836). Penelope prays to Athena, and Athena sends a phantom of Penelope's sister to reassure the queen Telemachus is safe (4.930). The book ends with the suitors setting sail to ambush Telemachus (4.947). 24. What do we observe about the character of Menelaus?Notice that Menelaus agrees to welcome Telemachus and Pisistratus by first recalling all the hospitality he received on his journey home (4.38). He displays a certain gratitude and dare we say humility in passing on what he has received. A similar disposition is found in his piety of not wanting to be compared to Zeus (4.87). The pious but somber Menelaus declares: “So I rule all this wealth with no great joy,” as he recalls the death of his brother, Agamemnon (4.103). Moreover, he seems to lament the entire Trojan war, stating he would have rather stayed home with the wealth he had and the friends he lost at Troy—note, however, the implications of this statement regarding his wife, Helen (4.108).Check out the rest of the guide at thegreatbookspodcast.com.

Dcn. Garlick, Dr. Frank Grabowski, and Mr. Thomas Lackey come together to discuss Book Two of the Odyssey: Telemachus sets sail.Summary of the bookDiscussion on key themesAristotle's MetaphysicsJohn Wayne referencesAnd more!Check out our website for 60+ page reader's guide to the Odyssey.What happens in book two?Inspired by Athena, Telemachus addresses the assembly of Ithaca (2.25) and condemns the suitors and invokes the gods against them (2.70). In response, Antinous, a suitor, blames Telemachus' mother, Penelope, the “matchless queen of cunning” (2.95) for refusing to return to her father's house and letting him choose for her a new husband (2.125). Thus, the suitors will “devour” Telemachus' house until a new husband for Penelope is chosen (2.136). Telemachus refuses to tell his mother to return to her father's house (5.154) and announces he is leaving for Sparta and Pylos to seek news of his father (2.238). Athena, takes on the guise of Mentor—the man Odysseus left in charge of his affairs (2.250)—and reassures him in his mission (2.302). Telemachus has his nurse prepare provisions for his journey and swears her to secrecy (2.384). The book ends with Telemachus setting sail with his crew and pouring out libations to Athena, the goddess with the “flashing sea-gray eyes” (2.472).Click HERE for more resources.

Julia Balbilla is an accomplished poet and close friend of the wife of one of Rome's mightiest emperors. Hadrian loves to travel and takes Julia and an entourage of thousands on the ultimate elite tourist trip- a leisurely Nile cruise to the Great Pyramid of Giza and the Colossus of Memnon, a statue that will sing for anyone blessed by the gods. Julia inscribes her poems on the giant foot of the statue, praising the power of Hadrian and the beauty of his wife, Sabina. It's a charming scene, darkened only by the fact that Hadrian's male lover, Antinous has only just drowned in the Nile. Was he murdered by jealous rivals, killed in a lover's tiff or did he drunkenly slip from the deck? Hadrian is publicly bereft, founding a new city in the name of Antinous, but seems happy to continue his luxury cruise. Mary Beard hops aboard Ancient Rome's most intriguing cruise with historian T. Corey Brennan and archaeologist Elizabeth Fentress. Producer: Alasdair CrossExpert Contributors: Corey Brennan, Rutgers University and Lisa Fentress Cast: Julia Balbilla played by Juliana LiskSpecial thanks to Andrea Bruciati, Villa Adriana

Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts Let's face it the New Testament probably calls Jesus God (or god) a couple of times and so do early Christian authors in the second century. However, no one offers much of an explanation for what they mean by the title. Did early Christians think Jesus was God because he represented Yahweh? Did they think he was God because he shared the same eternal being as the Father? Did they think he was a god because that's just what they would call any immortalized human who lived in heaven? In this presentation I focus on the question from the perspective of Greco-Roman theology. Drawing on the work of David Litwa, Andrew Perriman, Barry Blackburn, and tons of ancient sources I seek to show how Mediterranean converts to Christianity would have perceived Jesus based on their cultural and religious assumptions. This presentation is from the 3rd Unitarian Christian Alliance Conference on October 20, 2023 in Springfield, OH. Here is the original pdf of this paper. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Z3QbQ7dHc —— Links —— See more scholarly articles by Sean Finnegan Get the transcript of this episode Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here Introduction When early Christian authors called Jesus “god” (or “God”) what did they mean?[1] Modern apologists routinely point to pre-Nicene quotations in order to prove that early Christians always believed in the deity of Christ, by which they mean that he is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father. However, most historians agree that Christians before the fourth century simply didn't have the cognitive categories available yet to think of Christ in Nicene or Chalcedonian ways. If this consensus is correct, it behooves us to consider other options for defining what early Christian authors meant. The obvious place to go to get an answer to our initial question is the New Testament. However, as is well known, the handful of instances in which authors unambiguously applied god (θεός) to Christ are fraught with textual uncertainty, grammatical ambiguity, and hermeneutical elasticity.[2]  What's more, granting that these contested texts[3] all call Jesus “god” provides little insight into what they might mean by that phrase. Turning to the second century, the earliest handful of texts that say Jesus is god are likewise textually uncertain or terse.[4] We must wait until the second half of the second century and beyond to have more helpful material to examine. We know that in the meanwhile some Christians were saying Jesus was god. What did they mean? One promising approach is to analyze biblical texts that call others gods. We find helpful parallels with the word god (אֱלֹהִים) applied to Moses (Exod 7.1; 4.16), judges (Exod 21.6; 22.8-9), kings (Is 9.6; Ps 45.6), the divine council (Ps 82.1, 6), and angels (Ps 8.6). These are texts in which God imbues his agents with his authority to represent him in some way. This rare though significant way of calling a representative “god,” continues in the NT with Jesus' clever defense to his accusers in John 10.34-36. Lexicons[5] have long recognized this “Hebraistic” usage and recent study tools such as the New English Translation (NET)[6] and the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary[7] also note this phenomenon. But, even if this agency perspective is the most natural reading of texts like Heb 1.8, later Christians, apart from one or two exceptions appear to be ignorant of this usage.[8] This interpretation was likely a casualty of the so-called parting of the ways whereby Christianity transitioned from a second-temple-Jewish movement to a Gentile-majority religion. As such, to grasp what early postapostolic Christians believed, we must turn our attention elsewhere. Michael Bird is right when he says, “Christian discourses about deity belong incontrovertibly in the Greco-Roman context because it provided the cultural encyclopedia that, in diverse ways, shaped the early church's Christological conceptuality and vocabulary.”[9] Learning Greco-Roman theology is not only important because that was the context in which early Christians wrote, but also because from the late first century onward, most of our Christian authors converted from that worldview. Rather than talking about the Hellenization of Christianity, we should begin by asking how Hellenists experienced Christianization. In other words, Greco-Roman beliefs about the gods were the default lens through which converts first saw Christ. In order to explore how Greco-Roman theology shaped what people believed about Jesus as god, we do well to begin by asking how they defined a god. Andrew Perriman offers a helpful starting point. “The gods,” he writes, “are mostly understood as corporeal beings, blessed with immortality, larger, more beautiful, and more powerful than their mortal analogues.”[10] Furthermore, there were lots of them! The sublunar realm was, in the words of Paula Fredriksen, “a god-congested place.”[11] What's more, “[S]harp lines and clearly demarcated boundaries between divinity and humanity were lacking."[12] Gods could appear as people and people could ascend to become gods. Comprehending what Greco-Roman people believed about gods coming down and humans going up will occupy the first part of this paper. Only once we've adjusted our thinking to their culture, will we walk through key moments in the life of Jesus of Nazareth to hear the story with ancient Mediterranean ears. Lastly, we'll consider the evidence from sources that think of Jesus in Greco-Roman categories. Bringing this all together we'll enumerate the primary ways to interpret the phrase “Jesus is god” available to Christians in the pre-Nicene period. Gods Coming Down and Humans Going Up The idea that a god would visit someone is not as unusual as it first sounds. We find plenty of examples of Yahweh himself or non-human representatives visiting people in the Hebrew Bible.[13] One psalmist even referred to angels or “heavenly beings” (ESV) as אֱלֹהִים (gods).[14] The Greco-Roman world too told stories about divine entities coming down to interact with people. Euripides tells about the time Zeus forced the god Apollo to become a human servant in the house of Admetus, performing menial labor as punishment for killing the Cyclopes (Alcestis 1). Baucis and Philemon offered hospitality to Jupiter and Mercury when they appeared in human form (Ovid, Metamorphoses 8.26-34). In Homer's Odyssey onlookers warn Antinous for flinging a stool against a stranger since “the gods do take on the look of strangers dropping in from abroad”[15] (17.534-9). Because they believed the boundary between the divine realm and the Earth was so permeable, Mediterranean people were always on guard for an encounter with a god in disguise. In addition to gods coming down, in special circumstances, humans could ascend and become gods too. Diodorus of Sicily demarcated two types of gods: those who are “eternal and imperishable, such as the sun and the moon” and “the other gods…terrestrial beings who attained to immortal honour”[16] (The Historical Library of Diodorus the Sicilian 6.1). By some accounts, even the Olympian gods, including Kronos and Uranus were once mortal men.[17] Among humans who could become divine, we find several distinguishable categories, including heroes, miracle workers, and rulers. We'll look at each briefly before considering how the story of Jesus would resonate with those holding a Greco-Roman worldview. Deified Heroes Cornutus the Stoic said, “[T]he ancients called heroes those who were so strong in body and soul that they seemed to be part of a divine race.” (Greek Theology 31)[18] At first this statement appears to be a mere simile, but he goes on to say of Heracles (Hercules), the Greek hero par excellence, “his services had earned him apotheosis” (ibid.). Apotheosis (or deification) is the process by which a human ascends into the divine realm. Beyond Heracles and his feats of strength, other exceptional individuals became deified for various reasons. Amphiarus was a seer who died in the battle at Thebes. After opening a chasm in the earth to swallow him in battle, “Zeus made him immortal”[19] (Apollodorus, Library of Greek Mythology 3.6). Pausanias says the custom of the inhabitants of Oropos was to drop coins into Amphiarus' spring “because this is where they say Amphiarus rose up as a god”[20] (Guide to Greece 1.34). Likewise, Strabo speaks about a shrine for Calchas, a deceased diviner from the Trojan war (Homer, Illiad 1.79-84), “where those consulting the oracle sacrifice a black ram to the dead and sleep in its hide”[21] (Strabo, Geography 6.3.9). Though the great majority of the dead were locked away in the lower world of Hades, leading a shadowy pitiful existence, the exceptional few could visit or speak from beyond the grave. Lastly, there was Zoroaster the Persian prophet who, according to Dio Chrysostom, was enveloped by fire while he meditated upon a mountain. He was unharmed and gave advice on how to properly make offerings to the gods (Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 36.40). The Psuedo-Clementine Homilies include a story about a lightning bolt striking and killing Zoroaster. After his devotees buried his body, they built a temple on the site, thinking that “his soul had been sent for by lightning” and they “worshipped him as a god”[22] (Homily 9.5.2). Thus, a hero could have extraordinary strength, foresight, or closeness to the gods resulting in apotheosis and ongoing worship and communication. Deified Miracle Workers Beyond heroes, Greco-Roman people loved to tell stories about deified miracle workers. Twice Orpheus rescued a ship from a storm by praying to the gods (Diodorus of Sicily 4.43.1f; 48.5f). After his death, surviving inscriptions indicate that he both received worship and was regarded as a god in several cities.[23] Epimenides “fell asleep in a cave for fifty-seven years”[24] (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 1.109). He also predicted a ten-year period of reprieve from Persian attack in Athens (Plato Laws 1.642D-E). Plato called him a divine man (θεῖος ἀνήρ) (ibid.) and Diogenes talked of Cretans sacrificing to him as a god (Diogenes, Lives 1.114). Iamblichus said Pythagoras was the son of Apollo and a mortal woman (Life of Pythagoras 2). Nonetheless, the soul of Pythagoras enjoyed multiple lives, having originally been “sent to mankind from the empire of Apollo”[25] (Life 2). Diogenes and Lucian enumerate the lives the pre-existent Pythagoras led, including Aethalides, Euphorbus, Hermotimus, and Pyrrhus (Diogenes, Life of Pythagoras 4; Lucian, The Cock 16-20). Hermes had granted Pythagoras the gift of “perpetual transmigration of his soul”[26] so he could remember his lives while living or dead (Diogenes, Life 4). Ancient sources are replete with Pythagorean miracle stories.[27] Porphyry mentions several, including taming a bear, persuading an ox to stop eating beans, and accurately predicting a catch of fish (Life of Pythagoras 23-25). Porphyry said Pythagoras accurately predicted earthquakes and “chased away a pestilence, suppressed violent winds and hail, [and] calmed storms on rivers and on seas” (Life 29).[28] Such miracles, argued the Pythagoreans made Pythagoras “a being superior to man, and not to a mere man” (Iamblichus, Life 28).[29] Iamblichus lays out the views of Pythagoras' followers, including that he was a god, a philanthropic daemon, the Pythian, the Hyperborean Apollo, a Paeon, a daemon inhabiting the moon, or an Olympian god (Life 6). Another pre-Socratic philosopher was Empedocles who studied under Pythagoras. To him sources attribute several miracles, including stopping a damaging wind, restoring the wind, bringing dry weather, causing it to rain, and even bringing someone back from Hades (Diogenes, Lives 8.59).[30] Diogenes records an incident in which Empedocles put a woman into a trance for thirty days before sending her away alive (8.61). He also includes a poem in which Empedocles says, “I am a deathless god, no longer mortal, I go among you honored by all, as is right”[31] (8.62). Asclepius was a son of the god Apollo and a human woman (Cornutus, Greek Theology 33). He was known for healing people from diseases and injuries (Pindar, Pythian 3.47-50). “[H]e invented any medicine he wished for the sick, and raised up the dead”[32] (Pausanias, Guide to Greece 2.26.4). However, as Diodorus relates, Hades complained to Zeus on account of Asclepius' diminishing his realm, which resulted in Zeus zapping Asclepius with a thunderbolt, killing him (4.71.2-3). Nevertheless, Asclepius later ascended into heaven to become a god (Hyginus, Fables 224; Cicero, Nature of the Gods 2.62).[33] Apollonius of Tyana was a famous first century miracle worker. According to Philostratus' account, the locals of Tyana regard Apollonius to be the son of Zeus (Life 1.6). Apollonius predicted many events, interpreted dreams, and knew private facts about people. He rebuked and ridiculed a demon, causing it to flee, shrieking as it went (Life 2.4).[34] He even once stopped a funeral procession and raised the deceased to life (Life 4.45). What's more he knew every human language (Life 1.19) and could understand what sparrows chirped to each other (Life 4.3). Once he instantaneously transported himself from Smyrna to Ephesus (Life 4.10). He claimed knowledge of his previous incarnation as the captain of an Egyptian ship (Life 3.23) and, in the end, Apollonius entered the temple of Athena and vanished, ascending from earth into heaven to the sound of a choir singing (Life 8.30). We have plenty of literary evidence that contemporaries and those who lived later regarded him as a divine man (Letters 48.3)[35] or godlike (ἰσόθεος) (Letters 44.1) or even just a god (θεός) (Life 5.24). Deified Rulers Our last category of deified humans to consider before seeing how this all relates to Jesus is rulers. Egyptians, as indicated from the hieroglyphs left in the pyramids, believed their deceased kings to enjoy afterlives as gods. They could become star gods or even hunt and consume other gods to absorb their powers.[36] The famous Macedonian conqueror, Alexander the Great, carried himself as a god towards the Persians though Plutarch opines, “[he] was not at all vain or deluded but rather used belief in his divinity to enslave others”[37] (Life of Alexander 28). This worship continued after his death, especially in Alexandria where Ptolemy built a tomb and established a priesthood to conduct religious honors to the deified ruler. Even the emperor Trajan offered a sacrifice to the spirit of Alexander (Cassius Dio, Roman History 68.30). Another interesting example is Antiochus I of Comagene who called himself “Antiochus the just [and] manifest god, friend of the Romans [and] friend of the Greeks.”[38] His tomb boasted four colossal figures seated on thrones: Zeus, Heracles, Apollo, and himself. The message was clear: Antiochus I wanted his subjects to recognize his place among the gods after death. Of course, the most relevant rulers for the Christian era were the Roman emperors. The first official Roman emperor Augustus deified his predecessor, Julius Caesar, celebrating his apotheosis with games (Suetonius, Life of Julius Caesar 88). Only five years after Augustus died, eastern inhabitants of the Roman Empire at Priene happily declared “the birthday of the god Augustus” (ἡ γενέθλιος ἡμέρα τοῦ θεοῦ)[39] to be the start of their provincial year. By the time of Tacitus, a century after Augustus died, the wealthy in Rome had statues of the first emperor in their gardens for worship (Annals 1.73). The Roman historian Appian explained that the Romans regularly deify emperors at death “provided he has not been a despot or a disgrace”[40] (The Civil Wars 2.148).  In other words, deification was the default setting for deceased emperors. Pliny the Younger lays it on pretty thick when he describes the process. He says Nero deified Claudius to expose him; Titus deified Vespasian and Domitian so he could be the son and brother of gods. However, Trajan deified Nerva because he genuinely believed him to be more than a human (Panegyric 11). In our little survey, we've seen three main categories of deified humans: heroes, miracle workers, and good rulers. These “conceptions of deity,” writes David Litwa, “were part of the “preunderstanding” of Hellenistic culture.”[41] He continues: If actual cases of deification were rare, traditions of deification were not. They were the stuff of heroic epic, lyric song, ancient mythology, cultic hymns, Hellenistic novels, and popular plays all over the first-century Mediterranean world. Such discourses were part of mainstream, urban culture to which most early Christians belonged. If Christians were socialized in predominantly Greco-Roman environments, it is no surprise that they employed and adapted common traits of deities and deified men to exalt their lord to divine status.[42] Now that we've attuned our thinking to Mediterranean sensibilities about gods coming down in the shape of humans and humans experiencing apotheosis to permanently dwell as gods in the divine realm, our ears are attuned to hear the story of Jesus with Greco-Roman ears. Hearing the Story of Jesus with Greco-Roman Ears How would second or third century inhabitants of the Roman empire have categorized Jesus? Taking my cue from Litwa's treatment in Iesus Deus, I'll briefly work through Jesus' conception, transfiguration, miracles, resurrection, and ascension. Miraculous Conception Although set within the context of Jewish messianism, Christ's miraculous birth would have resonated differently with Greco-Roman people. Stories of gods coming down and having intercourse with women are common in classical literature. That these stories made sense of why certain individuals were so exceptional is obvious. For example, Origen related a story about Apollo impregnating Amphictione who then gave birth to Plato (Against Celsus 1.37). Though Mary's conception did not come about through intercourse with a divine visitor, the fact that Jesus had no human father would call to mind divine sonship like Pythagoras or Asclepius. Celsus pointed out that the ancients “attributed a divine origin to Perseus, and Amphion, and Aeacus, and Minos” (Origen, Against Celsus 1.67). Philostratus records a story of the Egyptian god Proteus saying to Apollonius' mother that she would give birth to himself (Life of Apollonius of Tyana 1.4). Since people were primed to connect miraculous origins with divinity, typical hearers of the birth narratives of Matthew or Luke would likely think that this baby might be either be a descended god or a man destined to ascend to become a god. Miracles and Healing As we've seen, Jesus' miracles would not have sounded unbelievable or even unprecedent to Mediterranean people. Like Jesus, Orpheus and Empedocles calmed storms, rescuing ships. Though Jesus provided miraculous guidance on how to catch fish, Pythagoras foretold the number of fish in a great catch. After the fishermen painstakingly counted them all, they were astounded that when they threw them back in, they were still alive (Porphyry, Life 23-25). Jesus' ability to foretell the future, know people's thoughts, and cast out demons all find parallels in Apollonius of Tyana. As for resurrecting the dead, we have the stories of Empedocles, Asclepius, and Apollonius. The last of which even stopped a funeral procession to raise the dead, calling to mind Jesus' deeds in Luke 7.11-17. When Lycaonians witnessed Paul's healing of a man crippled from birth, they cried out, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men” (Acts 14.11). Another time when no harm befell Paul after a poisonous snake bit him on Malta, Gentile onlookers concluded “he was a god” (Acts 28.6). Barry Blackburn makes the following observation: [I]n view of the tendency, most clearly seen in the Epimenidean, Pythagorean, and Apollonian traditions, to correlate impressive miracle-working with divine status, one may justifiably conclude that the evangelical miracle traditions would have helped numerous gentile Christians to arrive at and maintain belief in Jesus' divine status.[43] Transfiguration Ancient Mediterranean inhabitants believed that the gods occasionally came down disguised as people. Only when gods revealed their inner brilliant natures could people know that they weren't mere humans. After his ship grounded on the sands of Krisa, Apollo leaped from the ship emitting flashes of fire “like a star in the middle of day…his radiance shot to heaven”[44] (Homeric Hymns, Hymn to Apollo 440). Likewise, Aphrodite appeared in shining garments, brighter than a fire and shimmering like the moon (Hymn to Aphrodite 85-89). When Demeter appeared to Metaneira, she initially looked like an old woman, but she transformed herself before her. “Casting old age away…a delightful perfume spread…a radiance shone out far from the goddess' immortal flesh…and the solid-made house was filled with a light like the lightning-flash”[45] (Hymn to Demeter 275-280). Homer wrote about Odysseus' transformation at the golden wand of Athena in which his clothes became clean, he became taller, and his skin looked younger. His son, Telemachus cried out, “Surely you are some god who rules the vaulting skies”[46] (Odyssey 16.206). Each time the observers conclude the transfigured person is a god. Resurrection & Ascension In defending the resurrection of Jesus, Theophilus of Antioch said, “[Y]ou believe that Hercules, who burned himself, lives; and that Aesculapius [Asclepius], who was struck with lightning, was raised”[47] (Autolycus 1.13). Although Hercules' physical body burnt, his transformed pneumatic body continued on as the poet Callimachus said, “under a Phrygian oak his limbs had been deified”[48] (Callimachus, Hymn to Artemis 159). Others thought Hercules ascended to heaven in his burnt body, which Asclepius subsequently healed (Lucian, Dialogue of the Gods 13). After his ascent, Diodorus relates how the people first sacrificed to him “as to a hero” then in Athens they began to honor him “with sacrifices like as to a god”[49] (The Historical Library 4.39). As for Asclepius, his ascension resulted in his deification as Cyprian said, “Aesculapius is struck by lightning, that he may rise into a god”[50] (On the Vanity of Idols 2). Romulus too “was torn to pieces by the hands of a hundred senators”[51] and after death ascended into heaven and received worship (Arnobius, Against the Heathen 1.41). Livy tells of how Romulus was “carried up on high by a whirlwind” and that immediately afterward “every man present hailed him as a god and son of a god”[52] (The Early History of Rome 1.16). As we can see from these three cases—Hercules, Asclepius, and Romulus—ascent into heaven was a common way of talking about deification. For Cicero, this was an obvious fact. People “who conferred outstanding benefits were translated to heaven through their fame and our gratitude”[53] (Nature 2.62). Consequently, Jesus' own resurrection and ascension would have triggered Gentiles to intuit his divinity. Commenting on the appearance of the immortalized Christ to the eleven in Galilee, Wendy Cotter said, “It is fair to say that the scene found in [Mat] 28:16-20 would be understood by a Greco-Roman audience, Jew or Gentile, as an apotheosis of Jesus.”[54] Although I beg to differ with Cotter's whole cloth inclusion of Jews here, it's hard to see how else non-Jews would have regarded the risen Christ. Litwa adds Rev 1.13-16 “[W]here he [Jesus] appears with all the accoutrements of the divine: a shining face, an overwhelming voice, luminescent clothing, and so on.”[55] In this brief survey we've seen that several key events in the story of Jesus told in the Gospels would have caused Greco-Roman hearers to intuit deity, including his divine conception, miracles, healing ministry, transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension. In their original context of second temple Judaism, these very same incidents would have resonated quite differently. His divine conception authenticated Jesus as the second Adam (Luke 3.38; Rom 5.14; 1 Cor 15.45) and God's Davidic son (2 Sam 7.14; Ps 2.7; Lk 1.32, 35). If Matthew or Luke wanted readers to understand that Jesus was divine based on his conception and birth, they failed to make such intentions explicit in the text. Rather, the birth narratives appear to have a much more modest aim—to persuade readers that Jesus had a credible claim to be Israel's messiah. His miracles show that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power…for God was with him” (Acts 10.38; cf. Jn 3.2; 10.32, 38). Rather than concluding Jesus to be a god, Jewish witnesses to his healing of a paralyzed man “glorified God, who had given such authority to men” (Mat 9.8). Over and over, especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus directs people's attention to his Father who was doing the works in and through him (Jn 5.19, 30; 8.28; 12.49; 14.10). Seeing Jesus raise someone from the dead suggested to his original Jewish audience that “a great prophet has arisen among us” (Lk 7.16). The transfiguration, in its original setting, is an eschatological vision not a divine epiphany. Placement in the synoptic Gospels just after Jesus' promise that some there would not die before seeing the kingdom come sets the hermeneutical frame. “The transfiguration,” says William Lane, “was a momentary, but real (and witnessed) manifestation of Jesus' sovereign power which pointed beyond itself to the Parousia, when he will come ‘with power and glory.'”[56] If eschatology is the foreground, the background for the transfiguration was Moses' ascent of Sinai when he also encountered God and became radiant.[57] Viewed from the lenses of Moses' ascent and the eschaton, the transfiguration of Jesus is about his identity as God's definitive chosen ruler, not about any kind of innate divinity. Lastly, the resurrection and ascension validated Jesus' messianic claims to be the ruler of the age to come (Acts 17.31; Rom 1.4). Rather than concluding Jesus was deity, early Jewish Christians concluded these events showed that “God has made him both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2.36). The interpretative backgrounds for Jesus' ascension were not stories about Heracles, Asclepius, or Romulus. No, the key oracle that framed the Israelite understanding was the messianic psalm in which Yahweh told David's Lord to “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool” (Psalm 110.1). The idea is of a temporary sojourn in heaven until exercising the authority of his scepter to rule over earth from Zion. Once again, the biblical texts remain completely silent about deification. But even if the original meanings of Jesus' birth, ministry, transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension have messianic overtones when interpreted within the Jewish milieu, these same stories began to communicate various ideas of deity to Gentile converts in the generations that followed. We find little snippets from historical sources beginning in the second century and growing with time. Evidence of Belief in Jesus' as a Greco-Roman Deity To begin with, we have two non-Christian instances where Romans regarded Jesus as a deity within typical Greco-Roman categories. The first comes to us from Tertullian and Eusebius who mention an intriguing story about Tiberius' request to the Roman senate to deify Christ. Convinced by “intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity”[58] Tiberius proposed the matter to the senate (Apology 5). Eusebius adds that Tiberius learned that “many believed him to be a god in rising from the dead”[59] (Church History 2.2). As expected, the senate rejected the proposal. I mention this story, not because I can establish its historicity, but because it portrays how Tiberius would have thought about Jesus if he had heard about his miracles and resurrection. Another important incident is from one of the governor Pliny the Younger's letters to the emperor Trajan. Having investigated some people accused of Christianity, he found “they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god”[60] (Letter 96). To an outside imperial observer like Pliny, the Christians believed in a man who had performed miracles, defeated death, and now lived in heaven. Calling him a god was just the natural way of talking about such a person. Pliny would not have thought Jesus was superior to the deified Roman emperors much less Zeus or the Olympic gods. If he believed in Jesus at all, he would have regarded him as another Mediterranean prophet who escaped Hades to enjoy apotheosis. Another interesting text to consider is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. This apocryphal text tells the story of Jesus' childhood between the ages of five and twelve. Jesus is impetuous, powerful, and brilliant. Unsure to conclude that Jesus was “either god or angel,”[61] his teacher remands him to Joseph's custody (7). Later, a crowd of onlookers ponders whether the child is a god or a heavenly messenger after he raises an infant from the dead (17). A year later Jesus raised a construction man who had fallen to his death back to life (18). Once again, the crowd asked if the child was from heaven. Although some historians are quick to assume the lofty conceptions of Justin and his successors about the logos were commonplace in the early Christianity, Litwa points out, “The spell of the Logos could only bewitch a very small circle of Christian elites… In IGT, we find a Jesus who is divine according to different canons, the canons of popular Mediterranean theology.”[62] Another important though often overlooked scholarly group of Christians in the second century was led by a certain Theodotus of Byzantium.[63] Typically referred to by their heresiological label “Theodotians,” these dynamic monarchians lived in Rome and claimed that they held to the original Christology before it had been corrupted under Bishop Zephyrinus (Eusebius, Church History 5.28). Theodotus believed in the virgin birth, but not in his pre-existence or that he was god/God (Pseudo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.35.1-2; 10.23.1-2). He thought that Jesus was not able to perform any miracles until his baptism when he received the Christ/Spirit. Pseudo-Hippolytus goes on to say, “But they do not want him to have become a god when the Spirit descended. Others say that he became a god after he rose from the dead.”[64] This last tantalizing remark implies that the Theodotians could affirm Jesus as a god after his resurrection though they denied his pre-existence. Although strict unitarians, they could regard Jesus as a god in that he was an ascended immortalized being who lived in heaven—not equal to the Father, but far superior to all humans on earth. Justin Martyr presents another interesting case to consider. Thoroughly acquainted with Greco-Roman literature and especially the philosophy of Plato, Justin sees Christ as a god whom the Father begot before all other creatures. He calls him “son, or wisdom, or angel, or god, or lord, or word”[65] (Dialogue with Trypho 61).  For Justin Christ is “at the same time angel and god and lord and man”[66] (59). Jesus was “of old the Word, appearing at one time in the form of fire, at another under the guise of incorporeal beings, but now, at the will of God, after becoming man for mankind”[67] (First Apology 63). In fact, Justin is quite comfortable to compare Christ to deified heroes and emperors. He says, “[W]e propose nothing new or different from that which you say about the so-called sons of Jupiter [Zeus] by your respected writers… And what about the emperors who die among you, whom you think worthy to be deified?”[68] (21). He readily accepts the parallels with Mercury, Perseus, Asclepius, Bacchus, and Hercules, but argues that Jesus is superior to them (22).[69] Nevertheless, he considered Jesus to be in “a place second to the unchanging and eternal God”[70] (13). The Father is “the Most True God” whereas the Son is he “who came forth from Him”[71] (6). Even as lates as Origen, Greco-Roman concepts of deity persist. In responding to Celsus' claim that no god or son of God has ever come down, Origen responds by stating such a statement would overthrow the stories of Pythian Apollo, Asclepius, and the other gods who descended (Against Celsus 5.2). My point here is not to say Origen believed in all the old myths, but to show how Origen reached for these stories as analogies to explain the incarnation of the logos. When Celsus argued that he would rather believe in the deity of Asclepius, Dionysus, and Hercules than Christ, Origen responded with a moral rather than ontological argument (3.42). He asks how these gods have improved the characters of anyone. Origen admits Celsus' argument “which places the forenamed individuals upon an equality with Jesus” might have force, however in light of the disreputable behavior of these gods, “how could you any longer say, with any show of reason, that these men, on putting aside their mortal body, became gods rather than Jesus?”[72] (3.42). Origen's Christology is far too broad and complicated to cover here. Undoubtedly, his work on eternal generation laid the foundation on which fourth century Christians could build homoousion Christology. Nevertheless, he retained some of the earlier subordinationist impulses of his forebearers. In his book On Prayer, he rebukes praying to Jesus as a crude error, instead advocating prayer to God alone (10). In his Commentary on John he repeatedly asserts that the Father is greater than his logos (1.40; 2.6; 6.23). Thus, Origen is a theologian on the seam of the times. He's both a subordinationist and a believer in the Son's eternal and divine ontology. Now, I want to be careful here. I'm not saying that all early Christians believed Jesus was a deified man like Asclepius or a descended god like Apollo or a reincarnated soul like Pythagoras. More often than not, thinking Christians whose works survive until today tended to eschew the parallels, simultaneously elevating Christ as high as possible while demoting the gods to mere demons. Still, Litwa is inciteful when he writes: It seems likely that early Christians shared the widespread cultural assumption that a resurrected, immortalized being was worthy of worship and thus divine. …Nonetheless there is a difference…Jesus, it appears, was never honored as an independent deity. Rather, he was always worshiped as Yahweh's subordinate. Naturally Heracles and Asclepius were Zeus' subordinates, but they were also members of a larger divine family. Jesus does not enter a pantheon but assumes a distinctive status as God's chief agent and plenipotentiary. It is this status that, to Christian insiders, placed Jesus in a category far above the likes of Heracles, Romulus, and Asclepius who were in turn demoted to the rank of δαίμονες [daimons].[73] Conclusion I began by asking the question, "What did early Christians mean by saying Jesus is god?" We noted that the ancient idea of agency (Jesus is God/god because he represents Yahweh), though present in Hebrew and Christian scripture, didn't play much of a role in how Gentile Christians thought about Jesus. Or if it did, those texts did not survive. By the time we enter the postapostolic era, a majority of Christianity was Gentile and little communication occurred with the Jewish Christians that survived in the East. As such, we turned our attention to Greco-Roman theology to tune our ears to hear the story of Jesus the way they would have. We learned about their multifaceted array of divinities. We saw that gods can come down and take the form of humans and humans can go up and take the form of gods. We found evidence for this kind of thinking in both non-Christian and Christian sources in the second and third centuries. Now it is time to return to the question I began with: “When early Christian authors called Jesus “god” what did they mean?” We saw that the idea of a deified man was present in the non-Christian witnesses of Tiberius and Pliny but made scant appearance in our Christian literature except for the Theodotians. As for the idea that a god came down to become a man, we found evidence in The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Justin, and Origen.[74] Of course, we find a spectrum within this view, from Justin's designation of Jesus as a second god to Origen's more philosophically nuanced understanding. Still, it's worth noting as R. P. C. Hanson observed that, “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355.”[75] Whether any Christians before Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria held to the sophisticated idea of consubstantiality depends on showing evidence of the belief that the Son was coequal, coeternal, and coessential with the Father prior to Nicea. (Readers interested in the case for this view should consult Michael Bird's Jesus among the Gods in which he attempted the extraordinary feat of finding proto-Nicene Christology in the first two centuries, a task typically associated with maverick apologists not peer-reviewed historians.) In conclusion, the answer to our driving question about the meaning of “Jesus as god” is that the answer depends on whom we ask. If we ask the Theodotians, Jesus is a god because that's just what one calls an immortalized man who lives in heaven.[76] If we ask those holding a docetic Christology, the answer is that a god came down in appearance as a man. If we ask a logos subordinationist, they'll tell us that Jesus existed as the god through whom the supreme God created the universe before he became a human being. If we ask Tertullian, Jesus is god because he derives his substance from the Father, though he has a lesser portion of divinity.[77] If we ask Athanasius, he'll wax eloquent about how Jesus is of the same substance as the Father equal in status and eternality. The bottom line is that there was not one answer to this question prior to the fourth century. Answers depend on whom we ask and when they lived. Still, we can't help but wonder about the more tantalizing question of development. Which Christology was first and which ones evolved under social, intellectual, and political pressures? In the quest to specify the various stages of development in the Christologies of the ante-Nicene period, this Greco-Roman perspective may just provide the missing link between the reserved and limited way that the NT applies theos to Jesus in the first century and the homoousian view that eventually garnered imperial support in the fourth century. How easy would it have been for fresh converts from the Greco-Roman world to unintentionally mishear the story of Jesus? How easy would it have been for them to fit Jesus into their own categories of descended gods and ascended humans? With the unmooring of Gentile Christianity from its Jewish heritage, is it any wonder that Christologies began to drift out to sea? Now I'm not suggesting that all Christians went through a steady development from a human Jesus to a pre-existent Christ, to an eternal God the Son, to the Chalcedonian hypostatic union. As I mentioned above, plenty of other options were around and every church had its conservatives in addition to its innovators. The story is messy and uneven with competing views spread across huge geographic distances. Furthermore, many Christians probably were content to leave such theological nuances fuzzy, rather than seeking doctrinal precision on Christ's relation to his God and Father. Whatever the case may be, we dare not ignore the influence of Greco-Roman theology in our accounts of Christological development in the Mediterranean world of the first three centuries.    Bibliography The Homeric Hymns. Translated by Michael Crudden. New York, NY: Oxford, 2008. Antioch, Theophilus of. To Autolycus. Translated by Marcus Dods. Vol. 2. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Aphrahat. The Demonstrations. Translated by Ellen Muehlberger. Vol. 3. The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings. Edited by Mark DelCogliano. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2022. Apollodorus. The Library of Greek Mythology. Translated by Robin Hard. Oxford, UK: Oxford, 1998. Appian. The Civil Wars. Translated by John Carter. London, UK: Penguin, 1996. Arnobius. Against the Heathen. Translated by Hamilton Bryce and Hugh Campbell. Vol. 6. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Arrian. The Campaigns of Alexander. Translated by Aubrey De Sélincourt. London, UK: Penguin, 1971. Bird, Michael F. Jesus among the Gods. Waco, TX: Baylor, 2022. Blackburn, Barry. Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions. Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991. Callimachus. Hymn to Artemis. Translated by Susan A. Stephens. Callimachus: The Hymns. New York, NY: Oxford, 2015. Cicero. The Nature of the Gods. Translated by Patrick Gerard Walsh. Oxford, UK: Oxford, 2008. Cornutus, Lucius Annaeus. Greek Theology. Translated by George Boys-Stones. Greek Theology, Fragments, and Testimonia. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2018. Cotter, Wendy. "Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in Matthew." In The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study. Edited by David E. Aune. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Cyprian. Treatise 6: On the Vanity of Idols. Translated by Ernest Wallis. Vol. 5. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Dittenberger, W. Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae. Vol. 2. Hildesheim: Olms, 1960. Eusebius. The Church History. Translated by Paul L. Maier. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007. Fredriksen, Paula. "How High Can Early High Christology Be?" In Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Edited by Matthew V. Novenson. Vol. 180.vol. Supplements to Novum Testamentum. Leiden: Brill, 2020. Hanson, R. P. C. Search for a Christian Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Hart, George. The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2005. Homer. The Odyssey. Translated by Robert Fagles. New York, NY: Penguin, 1997. Iamblichus. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Thomas Taylor. Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras. Delhi, IN: Zinc Read, 2023. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. Translated by Thomas B. Falls. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003. Laertius, Diogenes. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Edited by David R. Fideler. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988. Laertius, Diogenes. Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Translated by Pamela Mensch. Edited by James Miller. New York, NY: Oxford, 2020. Lane, William L. The Gospel of Mark. Nicnt, edited by F. F. Bruce Ned B. Stonehouse, and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974. Litwa, M. David. Iesus Deus. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014. Livy. The Early History of Rome. Translated by Aubrey De Sélincourt. London, UK: Penguin, 2002. Origen. Against Celsus. Translated by Frederick Crombie. Vol. 4. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Pausanias. Guide to Greece. Translated by Peter Levi. London, UK: Penguin, 1979. Perriman, Andrew. In the Form of a God. Studies in Early Christology, edited by David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022. Philostratus. Letters of Apollonius. Vol. 458. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2006. Plutarch. Life of Alexander. Translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert and Timothy E. Duff. The Age of Alexander. London, UK: Penguin, 2011. Porphyry. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Edited by David Fideler. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988. Pseudo-Clement. Recognitions. Translated by Thomas Smith. Vol. 8. Ante Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Pseudo-Hippolytus. Refutation of All Heresies. Translated by David Litwa. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016. Pseudo-Thomas. Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Translated by James Orr. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1903. Psuedo-Clement. Homilies. Translated by Peter Peterson. Vol. 8. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1897. Siculus, Diodorus. The Historical Library. Translated by Charles Henry Oldfather. Vol. 1. Edited by Giles Laurén: Sophron Editor, 2017. Strabo. The Geography. Translated by Duane W. Roller. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2020. Tertullian. Against Praxeas. Translated by Holmes. Vol. 3. Ante Nice Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Tertullian. Apology. Translated by S. Thelwall. Vol. 3. Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Younger, Pliny the. The Letters of the Younger Pliny. Translated by Betty Radice. London: Penguin, 1969. End Notes [1] For the remainder of this paper, I will use the lower case “god” for all references to deity outside of Yahweh, the Father of Christ. I do this because all our ancient texts lack capitalization and our modern capitalization rules imply a theology that is anachronistic and unhelpful for the present inquiry. [2] Christopher Kaiser wrote, “Explicit references to Jesus as ‘God' in the New Testament are very few, and even those few are generally plagued with uncertainties of either text or interpretation.” Christopher B. Kaiser, The Doctrine of God: A Historical Survey (London: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1982), 29. Other scholars such as Raymond Brown (Jesus: God and Man), Jason David BeDuhn (Truth in Translation), and Brian Wright (“Jesus as θεός: A Textual Examination” in Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament) have expressed similar sentiments. [3] John 20.28; Hebrews 1.8; Titus 2.13; 2 Peter 1.1; Romans 9.5; and 1 John 5.20. [4] See Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians 12.2 where a manuscript difference determines whether or not Polycarp called Jesus god or lord. Textual corruption is most acute in Igantius' corpus. Although it's been common to dismiss the long recension as an “Arian” corruption, claiming the middle recension to be as pure and uncontaminated as freshly fallen snow upon which a foot has never trodden, such an uncritical view is beginning to give way to more honest analysis. See Paul Gilliam III's Ignatius of Antioch and the Arian Controversy (Leiden: Brill, 2017) for a recent treatment of Christological corruption in the middle recension. [5] See the entries for  אֱלֹהִיםand θεός in the Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon (BDB), Eerdmans Dictionary, Kohlenberger/Mounce Concise Hebrew-Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament, the Bauer Danker Arndt Gingrich Lexicon (BDAG), Friberg Greek Lexicon, and Thayer's Greek Lexicon. [6] See notes on Is 9.6 and Ps 45.6. [7] ZIBBC: “In what sense can the king be called “god”? By virtue of his divine appointment, the king in the ancient Near East stood before his subjects as a representative of the divine realm. …In fact, the term “gods“ (ʾelōhı̂m) is used of priests who functioned as judges in the Israelite temple judicial system (Ex. 21:6; 22:8-9; see comments on 58:1; 82:6-7).” John W. Hilber, “Psalms,” in The Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 5 of Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Old Testament. ed. John H. Walton (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 358. [8] Around a.d. 340, Aphrahat of Persia advised his fellow Christians to reply to Jewish critics who questioned why “You call a human being ‘God'” (Demonstrations 17.1). He said, “For the honored name of the divinity is granted event ot rightoues human beings, when they are worthy of being called by it…[W]hen he chose Moses, his friend and his beloved…he called him “god.” …We call him God, just as he named Moses with his own name…The name of the divinity was granted for great honor in the world. To whom he wishes, God appoints it” (17.3, 4, 5). Aphrahat, The Demonstrations, trans., Ellen Muehlberger, vol. 3, The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2022), 213-15. In the Clementine Recognitions we find a brief mention of the concept:  “Therefore the name God is applied in three ways: either because he to whom it is given is truly God, or because he is the servant of him who is truly; and for the honour of the sender, that his authority may be full, he that is sent is called by the name of him who sends, as is often done in respect of angels: for when they appear to a man, if he is a wise and intelligent man, he asks the name of him who appears to him, that he may acknowledge at once the honour of the sent, and the authority of the sender” (2.42). Pseudo-Clement, Recognitions, trans., Thomas Smith, vol. 8, Ante Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [9] Michael F. Bird, Jesus among the Gods (Waco, TX: Baylor, 2022), 13. [10] Andrew Perriman, In the Form of a God, Studies in Early Christology, ed. David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022), 130. [11] Paula Fredriksen, "How High Can Early High Christology Be?," in Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity, ed. Matthew V. Novenson, vol. 180 (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 296, 99. [12] ibid. [13] See Gen 18.1; Ex 3.2; 24.11; Is 6.1; Ezk 1.28. [14] Compare the Masoretic Text of Psalm 8.6 to the Septuagint and Hebrews 2.7. [15] Homer, The Odyssey, trans., Robert Fagles (New York, NY: Penguin, 1997), 370. [16] Diodorus Siculus, The Historical Library, trans., Charles Henry Oldfather, vol. 1 (Sophron Editor, 2017), 340. [17] Uranus met death at the brutal hands of his own son, Kronos who emasculated him and let bleed out, resulting in his deification (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 1.10). Later on, after suffering a fatal disease, Kronos himself experienced deification, becoming the planet Saturn (ibid.). Zeus married Hera and they produced Osiris (Dionysus), Isis (Demeter), Typhon, Apollo, and Aphrodite (ibid. 2.1). [18] Lucius Annaeus Cornutus, Greek Theology, trans., George Boys-Stones, Greek Theology, Fragments, and Testimonia (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2018), 123. [19] Apollodorus, The Library of Greek Mythology, trans., Robin Hard (Oxford, UK: Oxford, 1998), 111. [20] Pausanias, Guide to Greece, trans., Peter Levi (London, UK: Penguin, 1979), 98. [21] Strabo, The Geography, trans., Duane W. Roller (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2020), 281. [22] Psuedo-Clement, Homilies, trans., Peter Peterson, vol. 8, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1897). Greek: “αὐτὸν δὲ ὡς θεὸν ἐθρήσκευσαν” from Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologia Graeca, taken from Accordance (PSCLEMH-T), OakTree Software, Inc., 2018, Version 1.1. [23] See Barry Blackburn, Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions (Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991), 32. [24] Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, trans., Pamela Mensch (New York, NY: Oxford, 2020), 39. [25] Iamblichus, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Thomas Taylor, Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras (Delhi, IN: Zinc Read, 2023), 2. [26] Diogenes Laertius, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988), 142. [27] See the list in Blackburn, 39. He corroborates miracle stories from Diogenus Laertius, Iamblichus, Apollonius, Nicomachus, and Philostratus. [28] Porphyry, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988), 128-9. [29] Iamblichus,  68. [30] What I call “resurrection” refers to the phrase, “Thou shalt bring back from Hades a dead man's strength.” Diogenes Laertius 8.2.59, trans. R. D. Hicks. [31] Laertius, "Lives of the Eminent Philosophers," 306. Two stories of his deification survive: in one Empedocles disappears in the middle of the night after hearing an extremely loud voice calling his name. After this the people concluded that they should sacrifice to him since he had become a god (8.68). In the other account, Empedocles climbs Etna and leaps into the fiery volcanic crater “to strengthen the rumor that he had become a god” (8.69). [32] Pausanias,  192. Sextus Empiricus says Asclepius raised up people who had died at Thebes as well as raising up the dead body of Tyndaros (Against the Professors 1.261). [33] Cicero adds that the Arcadians worship Asclepius (Nature 3.57). [34] In another instance, he confronted and cast out a demon from a licentious young man (Life 4.20). [35] The phrase is “περὶ ἐμοῦ καὶ θεοῖς εἴρηται ὡς περὶ θείου ἀνδρὸς.” Philostratus, Letters of Apollonius, vol. 458, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2006). [36] See George Hart, The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses, 2nd ed. (Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2005), 3. [37] Plutarch, Life of Alexander, trans., Ian Scott-Kilvert and Timothy E. Duff, The Age of Alexander (London, UK: Penguin, 2011), 311. Arrian includes a story about Anaxarchus advocating paying divine honors to Alexander through prostration. The Macedonians refused but the Persian members of his entourage “rose from their seats and one by one grovelled on the floor before the King.” Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, trans., Aubrey De Sélincourt (London, UK: Penguin, 1971), 222. [38] Translation my own from “Ἀντίοχος ὁ Θεὸς Δίκαιος Ἐπιφανὴς Φιλορωμαῖος Φιλέλλην.” Inscription at Nemrut Dağ, accessible at https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=cimrm32. See also https://zeugma.packhum.org/pdfs/v1ch09.pdf. [39] Greek taken from W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae, vol. 2 (Hildesheim: Olms, 1960), 48-60. Of particular note is the definite article before θεός. They didn't celebrate the birthday of a god, but the birthday of the god. [40] Appian, The Civil Wars, trans., John Carter (London, UK: Penguin, 1996), 149. [41] M. David Litwa, Iesus Deus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 20. [42] ibid. [43] Blackburn, 92-3. [44] The Homeric Hymns, trans., Michael Crudden (New York, NY: Oxford, 2008), 38. [45] "The Homeric Hymns," 14. [46] Homer,  344. [47] Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, trans., Marcus Dods, vol. 2, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001). [48] Callimachus, Hymn to Artemis, trans., Susan A. Stephens, Callimachus: The Hymns (New York, NY: Oxford, 2015), 119. [49] Siculus,  234. [50] Cyprian, Treatise 6: On the Vanity of Idols, trans., Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). [51] Arnobius, Against the Heathen, trans., Hamilton Bryce and Hugh Campbell, vol. 6, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). [52] Livy, The Early History of Rome, trans., Aubrey De Sélincourt (London, UK: Penguin, 2002), 49. [53] Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, trans., Patrick Gerard Walsh (Oxford, UK: Oxford, 2008), 69. [54] Wendy Cotter, "Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in Matthew," in The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study, ed. David E. Aune (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 149. [55] Litwa, 170. [56] William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, Nicnt, ed. F. F. Bruce Ned B. Stonehouse, and Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974). [57] “Recent commentators have stressed that the best background for understanding the Markan transfiguration is the story of Moses' ascent up Mount Sinai (Exod. 24 and 34).” Litwa, 123. [58] Tertullian, Apology, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 3, Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [59] Eusebius, The Church History, trans. Paul L. Maier (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 54. [60] Pliny the Younger, The Letters of the Younger Pliny, trans., Betty Radice (London: Penguin, 1969), 294. [61] Pseudo-Thomas, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, trans., James Orr (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1903), 25. [62] Litwa, 83. [63] For sources on Theodotus, see Pseduo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.35.1-2; 10.23.1-2; Pseudo-Tertullian, Against All Heresies 8.2; Eusebius, Church History 5.28. [64] Pseudo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, trans., David Litwa (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016), 571. [65] I took the liberty to decapitalize these appellatives. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, trans. Thomas B. Falls (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 244. [66] Justin Martyr, 241. (Altered, see previous footnote.) [67] Justin Martyr, 102. [68] Justin Martyr, 56-7. [69] Arnobius makes a similar argument in Against the Heathen 1.38-39 “Is he not worthy to be called a god by us and felt to be a god on account of the favor or such great benefits? For if you have enrolled Liber among the gods because he discovered the use of wine, and Ceres the use of bread, Aesculapius the use of medicines, Minerva the use of oil, Triptolemus plowing, and Hercules because he conquered and restrained beasts, thieves, and the many-headed hydra…So then, ought we not to consider Christ a god, and to bestow upon him all the worship due to his divinity?” Translation from Litwa, 105. [70] Justin Martyr, 46. [71] Justin Martyr, 39. [72] Origen, Against Celsus, trans. Frederick Crombie, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [73] Litwa, 173. [74] I could easily multiply examples of this by looking at Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and many others. [75] The obvious exception to Hanson's statement were thinkers like Sabellius and Praxeas who believed that the Father himself came down as a human being. R. P. C. Hanson, Search for a Christian Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), xix. [76] Interestingly, even some of the biblical unitarians of the period were comfortable with calling Jesus god, though they limited his divinity to his post-resurrection life. [77] Tertullian writes, “[T]he Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son” (Against Praxeas 9). Tertullian, Against Praxeas, trans., Holmes, vol. 3, Ante Nice Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003).

Michel Valim is a spiritual practitioner hailing from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Michel is a Bruxo/Witch, Sacerdote/Priest of Aphrodite and Dionysus, Priest of the Religion of Antinous. He is a reiki practitioner and works as an integrative therapist and diviner of witch runes. On today's show we talk about Michel's spiritual journey, the relationship between Aphrodite/Dionysus/Antinous in his life, and his work at community building in the queer pagan community in Brazil. To connect with Michel, please check out his socials: FB: https://www.facebook.com/mickyvalim IG:  @ValimMichel  YT: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCG128dn7W-S3D_zZAcAwK9g ---------------------------------------------------------- LIKE and SUBSCRIBE to keep up with the Essence Summer Series Podcast. Join us on our other socials: IG: www.instagram.com/benstimpsonauthor YT: @BenStimpsonAuthor FB: www.facebook.com/benstimpsonauthor WS: www.benstimpson.com

In this episode we explore the intersection of identity and opera with University of Florida musicologist Leo Walker. Opera, with its grandeur, emotion, and powerful storytelling, has been a stage for human experiences throughout history. Amidst the vast repertoire of operatic works, there are narratives that explore the diverse spectrum of queer identities. These stories, often overlooked or overshadowed, have found their place within the canon, enriching the operatic landscape. Unveiling the queer threads in the operatic fabric allows us to appreciate the richness and diversity of human experiences. Composers like Benjamin Britten, Leonard Bernstein, and many others, have contributed to this exploration, often drawing inspiration from their own lives and relationships. By examining their music, letters, and historical context, scholars like Leo Walker have shed light on the queerness within the works of these composers, deepening our understanding and appreciation of their contributions to the art form. These narratives illuminate the beauty and struggles of love, desire, and self-discovery. They transcend boundaries and foster belonging for audiences of all backgrounds and identities. Episode Credits: Host - Ashley Daniel FootGuest - Leo WalkerEditor - Mack McGillivray Music Credits: “Adziu! Adziu!” from Act I of Benjamin Britten's Death in Venice. Performed by the English National Opera with John Graham Hall as Aschenbach. Conducted by Edward Gardner. “To Know” from Laura Kaminsky's As One. Performed by Sasha Cooke, Kelly Markgraf, and The Fry Street Quartet. Produced by American Opera Projects in association with BAM (Brooklyn Academy of Music). “Without You What Am I” from Act III of Rufus Wainright's Hadrian. Performed by the Canadian Opera Company with Thomas Hampson as Hadrian and Isaiah Bell as Antinous.

Hadrian and Antinous https://shows.acast.com/the-rest-is-history-podcast/episodes/340-hadrian-and-antinous Antínoo https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%ADnoo The longstanding battle of the body & the mind | Yuval Noah Harari & Pedro Pinto https://youtu.be/duYADoanwTU Brian Lowery on the Social Self https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2023/06/12/239-brian-lowery-on-the-social-self/ An evolutionary history of the human brain, in 7 minutes https://bigthink.com/the-well/the-evolution-of-the-human-brain/ meu perfil no BlueSky https://bsky.app/profile/renedepaula.bsky.social meu perfil no t2: https://t2.social/renedepaula meu perfil no Post: ... Read more

A mysterious death on the Nile, an unconventional love affair, a Roman-Greek hero turned God - the story of Hadrian and Antinous is full of intrigue. Join Tom and Dominic as they delve into the world of Roman romance, where gender binaries and modern moral arguments do not feature, and look into the possible theories of how Antinous' body ended up in the Nile...*The Rest Is History Live Tour 2023*:Tom and Dominic are back on tour this autumn! See them live in London, New Zealand, and Australia!Buy your tickets here: restishistorypod.comTwitter: @TheRestHistory @holland_tom @dcsandbrook Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Scientists from around the world gathered in Rome on 2nd May 1922 to agree on a definitive list of 88 constellations, which up until then had been an astronomical free-for-all. The collection of eminent astronomers eventually settled on 42 animals, 29 inanimate objects and 17 humans or mythological characters, which, taken together, offered a complete map of the skies for the very first time. In this episode, Arion, Rebecca and Olly explain how different ancient civilisations around the world understood the heavens differently; marvel at the immense contribution of Ancient Greeks to contemporary astronomy; and discuss why Antinous, the boy lover of the Roman emperor Hadrian, is the greatest constellation no longer in use…  Further Reading: • ‘10 Constellations that Never Caught On' (Mental Floss, 2010): https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/49454/10-constellations-never-caught  • ‘The Constellations' (IAU, 2001): https://www.iau.org/public/themes/constellations/  • ‘Pictures in the sky: the origin and history of the constellations' (The Royal Society, 2014): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZm-QaKqS-Y&t=271s  #1920s #Space #Europe #Science Love the show? Join 

As we looked back at the year, we found some ridiculous updates to some romances that just won't quit. Turns out Meirivone and her Rag Doll husband are having fidelity issues, and the magic is gone between Erica Eiffel and her towering Parisian lover! Plus, people are taking their Replikas a little TOO seriously. But don't worry, Amenhotep and Tiye are still making headlines, Oscar Wilde along with Hadrian and Antinous are still inspiring LGBT communities to stay strong, and Deland McCullough's family continues to impress!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

En esta sección de Cultura LGTBIQ+ en Plaça Tísner, presentada por Laura Sangrà, la artista e investigadora Rubén Antón de Drag is Burning celebra el transformismo, el travestismo religioso en estas fechas navideñas y reivindica la letra I del colectivo LGTBI. Esa letra que muchas veces se olvida mencionar y se corresponde con la intersexualidad. Con Sor Fernanda Fernández, monja capuchina intersex del siglo XVIII nacida en Granada. Fátima Miris como mujer pionera del transformismo que se puso los pantalones en escena a principios del siglo XX y de descendencia italiana. Amanda Lear, musa de Dalí, vestida de Santa Lucía para celebrar el 50 aniversario de Vogue Paris en 1971. Mención especial al cierre a final de año de la librería CÓMPLICES de Barcelona después de 29 años aportando cultura literaria a la ciutat y las librerías que apuestan por la cultura LGTBI+ cómo La Raposa de Poble-sec, Prole en Sant Antoni, Antinous en la antiga esquerra del Eixample y Acció Periférica en Vilapicina i Torre Llobeta.

On June 13, 1888, Fernando António Nogueira Pessôa was born in Lisbon, Portugal. When he was scarcely five years old, his father died. His mother remarried a year and a half later to the Portuguese consul in Durban, South Africa. Pessoa attended an English school in Durban, where he lived with his family until the age of seventeen. When he was thirteen he made a year-long visit to Portugal, returning there for good in 1905. He began studying at the University of Lisbon in 1906 but dropped out after only eight months. During the following years he stayed with relatives or in rented rooms, making his living by translating, writing in avant-garde reviews, and drafting business letters in English and French. He began publishing criticism in 1912, creative prose in 1913, and poetry in 1914. This was also the year when the alter egos he called heteronyms—Alberto Caeiro, Ricardo Reis, and Álvaro de Campos—came into existence. In 1915 he dropped the circumflex from his surname.The majority of Pessoa's poems, heteronymic or otherwise, appeared in literary journals and magazines. He published his first book of English poems, Antinous in 1918, followed by Sonnets(1918) and English Poems (1921), but released only a single book of Portuguese poems, Mensagem, in 1933. He died November 30, 1935, in Lisbon from cirrhosis of the liver. Pessoa avoided the literary world and most social contact; it wasn't until years after his death that his work garnered a wide readership.Literary alter egos were popular among early twentieth-century writers: Pound had Mauberley, Rilke had Malte Laurids Brigge, and Valéry had Monsieur Teste. But no one took their alter ego as far as Pessoa, who gave up his own life to confer quasi-real substance on the poets he designated at heteronyms, giving each a personal biography, psychology, politics, aesthetics, religion, and physique. Alberto Caeiro was an ingenuous, unlettered, unemployed man of the country. Ricardo Reis was a doctor and classicist who wrote Horace-like odes. Álvaro de Campos, a naval engineer, was a bisexual dandy who studied in Glasgow, traveled to the Orient, and lived outrageously in London. In an English text, Pessoa wrote, "Caeiro has one discipline: things must be felt as they are. Ricardo Reis has another kind of discipline: things must be felt, not only as they are, but also so as to fall in with a certain ideal of classic measure and rule. In Álvaro de Campos things must simply be felt." In later years, Pessoa also gave birth to Bernardo Soares, a "semiheteronym" who authored the sprawling fictional diary known as The Book of Disquietude; António Mora, a prolific philosopher and sociologist; the Baron of Teive, an essayist; Thomas Crosse, whose critical writings in English promoted Portuguese literature in general and Alberto Caeiro's work in particular; I. I. Crosse, Thomas's brother and collaborator; Coelho Pacheco, poet; Raphael Baldaya, astrologer; Maria José, a nineteen-year-old hunchback consumptive who wrote a desperate, unmailed love letter to a handsome metalworker who passed under her window on his way to work each day; and so on.At least seventy-two names besides Fernando Pessoa were "responsible" for the thousands of texts that were actually written and the many more that he only planned. Although Pessoa also published some works pseudonymically, he distinguished this from the "heteronymic" project: "A pseudonymic work is, except for the name with which it is signed, the work of an author writing as himself; a heteronymic work is by an author writing outside his own personality: it is the work of a complete individuality made up by him, just as the utterances of some character in a drama would be."From https://poets.org/poet/fernando-pessoa. For more information about Fernando Pessoa:Previously on The Quarantine Tapes:Rabih Alameddine about Pessoa, at 12:00: https://quarantine-tapes.simplecast.com/episodes/the-quarantine-081-rabih-alameddine“Fernando Pessoa”: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/fernando-pessoaThe Book of Disquiet: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/286380/the-book-of-disquiet-by-fernando-pessoa-edited-and-translated-by-richard-zenith/“Fernando Pessoa & His Heteronyms”: https://poetrysociety.org/features/tributes/fernando-pessoa-his-heteronyms

Subscribe to Quotomania on Simplecast or search for Quotomania on your favorite podcast app!On June 13, 1888, Fernando António Nogueira Pessôa was born in Lisbon, Portugal. When he was scarcely five years old, his father died. His mother remarried a year and a half later to the Portuguese consul in Durban, South Africa. Pessoa attended an English school in Durban, where he lived with his family until the age of seventeen. When he was thirteen he made a year-long visit to Portugal, returning there for good in 1905. He began studying at the University of Lisbon in 1906 but dropped out after only eight months. During the following years he stayed with relatives or in rented rooms, making his living by translating, writing in avant-garde reviews, and drafting business letters in English and French. He began publishing criticism in 1912, creative prose in 1913, and poetry in 1914. This was also the year when the alter egos he called heteronyms—Alberto Caeiro, Ricardo Reis, and Álvaro de Campos—came into existence. In 1915 he dropped the circumflex from his surname.The majority of Pessoa's poems, heteronymic or otherwise, appeared in literary journals and magazines. He published his first book of English poems, Antinous in 1918, followed by Sonnets (1918) and English Poems (1921), but released only a single book of Portuguese poems, Mensagem, in 1933. He died November 30, 1935, in Lisbon from cirrhosis of the liver. Pessoa avoided the literary world and most social contact; it wasn't until years after his death that his work garnered a wide readership.Literary alter egos were popular among early twentieth-century writers: Pound had Mauberley, Rilke had Malte Laurids Brigge, and Valéry had Monsieur Teste. But no one took their alter ego as far as Pessoa, who gave up his own life to confer quasi-real substance on the poets he designated at heteronyms, giving each a personal biography, psychology, politics, aesthetics, religion, and physique. Alberto Caeiro was an ingenuous, unlettered, unemployed man of the country. Ricardo Reis was a doctor and classicist who wrote Horace-like odes. Álvaro de Campos, a naval engineer, was a bisexual dandy who studied in Glasgow, traveled to the Orient, and lived outrageously in London. In an English text, Pessoa wrote, "Caeiro has one discipline: things must be felt as they are. Ricardo Reis has another kind of discipline: things must be felt, not only as they are, but also so as to fall in with a certain ideal of classic measure and rule. In Álvaro de Campos things must simply be felt." In later years, Pessoa also gave birth to Bernardo Soares, a "semiheteronym" who authored the sprawling fictional diary known as The Book of Disquietude; António Mora, a prolific philosopher and sociologist; the Baron of Teive, an essayist; Thomas Crosse, whose critical writings in English promoted Portuguese literature in general and Alberto Caeiro's work in particular; I. I. Crosse, Thomas's brother and collaborator; Coelho Pacheco, poet; Raphael Baldaya, astrologer; Maria José, a nineteen-year-old hunchback consumptive who wrote a desperate, unmailed love letter to a handsome metalworker who passed under her window on his way to work each day; and so on.At least seventy-two names besides Fernando Pessoa were "responsible" for the thousands of texts that were actually written and the many more that he only planned. Although Pessoa also published some works pseudonymically, he distinguished this from the "heteronymic" project: "A pseudonymic work is, except for the name with which it is signed, the work of an author writing as himself; a heteronymic work is by an author writing outside his own personality: it is the work of a complete individuality made up by him, just as the utterances of some character in a drama would be."From https://poets.org/poet/fernando-pessoa. For more information about Fernando Pessoa:Previously on The Quarantine Tapes:Rabih Alameddine about Pessoa, at 12:00: https://quarantine-tapes.simplecast.com/episodes/the-quarantine-081-rabih-alameddine“Fernando Pessoa”: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/fernando-pessoa“Fernando Pessoa's Disappearing Act”: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/09/04/fernando-pessoas-disappearing-actThe Book of Disquiet: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/286380/the-book-of-disquiet-by-fernando-pessoa-edited-and-translated-by-richard-zenith/

Hemos recibido la visita de tres autores de Ediciones Mutis, el primero, Misael Sanroque, cineasta, dramaturgo y guionista, que ha publicado 'Rosita' (ver también la entrevista en este mismo programa recién publicado el libro) y en breve publicará 'Gente nocturna' con este mismo sello editorial. Hemos disfrutado mucho hablando sobre la facilidad que tiene el autor para hacernos viajar por la Barcelona de hace más de 50 años (a pesar de su juventud) y de lo interesante que es el enfoque sobre la difícil vida de una persona transexual en esa época. Continuaremos con él en la siguiente entrevista ;). Os recomendamos mucho a Misael Sanroque para Sant Jordi! Podréis encontrar al autor por Sant Jordi durante todo el día, en las paradas de Mexcat, Librería Antinous y Ediciones Mutis. (Localización exacta en redes sociales). Ona Cultural - Ona de Sants - cultura - libros - llibres - autor - dramaturgo - radio - Laura Clemente

Not much was known of the young Antinous before he attracted the attention of the ruler of the Roman world at its height. He was born in Bithynia, the northwest corner of the country that we now call Turkey, in the year 111 CE. He was very likely not from a wealthy family. However, because of his mysterious bond with Roman Emperor Hadrian, by the end of his short life Antinous was a house-hold name all over the Roman Empire. This episode is also available as a blog post: http://martinifisher.com/2022/03/03/the-divine-beloved/

Homer - The Odyssey - Episode 5 - Home And Penelope Reunited!   Hi, I'm Christy Shriver and we're here to discuss books that have changed the world and have changed us.    And I'm Garry Shriver and this is the How to Love Lit Podcast.  Today we conclude our discussion over the Odyssey, the timeless 24 books that introduced us to so many monsters and legends, but, of course, it goes without saying, we've just scratched the surface in understanding how all of this has influenced our world.  In fact, even as we claim to be on the last episode, we're still just a little over halfway through the story itself.  Our task today is to fly through the rest of the books in 45 minutes give or take a few.  Can we do it?     We'll give it a try.  Obviously there is no way to discuss everything that could be said or even has been said about  Homer himself, these books and all the themes so cleverly weaved.  We've chosen to hit the points thematically which stand out the most and of course- that leads us to the all-important Greek idea of WEAVING.      Oh yes, the woman and their weaving.  Christy, how good of a weaver are you?    Well, you know the answer to that- I have no idea how to weave, spin or even sew.  I can sew on a button.  You know my mother and both of my grandmothers were amazing seamstresses.  My mom even competed in 4H in sewing competitions at Boones Creek High School in Gray, Tennessee.  And your sisters Barbara and Deanna are amazing seamstresses.  But not me.  And of course, sewing is not weaving.  In my mind, although this is nowhere near historical fact,  over time weaving has simplified itself to sewing because we don't have to make our own cloth, and now sewing has become ordering off of Amazon because now most of us don't sew.    Instead we push buttons …. on a phones.     HA!  Well, first of all that analysis of the disintegration from weaving to ordering on Amazon is somewhat deliberately ridiculous, but if you're going to go there, don't take away from the talent of finding the sale and couponing.  There's an art to that.         I guess so, but back to the ancient Greeks, it's easy to overlook if you're not paying attention to the female characters really, but Homer places an enormous emphasis on weaving throughout the Odyssey, even the goddesses weave- Circe and we'll see here at the end- Athena herself.  It clearly indicates how interwoven (if I may use this term) weaving was to the idea of womanhood.  Tell us a little bit about how important weaving was in Ancient Greece.      For sure….spinning and weaving were incredibly important in the expectations for women during this time period.  The was a definite and strong connection between a woman's ability to weave and her desirability as a woman.  Even depictions of goddesses that we see today on ancient art work are often depictions of the goddess weaving.  Athena, btw, was the goddess of women's handicrafts, so of course, weaving and spinning were important elements of her cult.  In fact,  weaving a robe for the statue of Athena, was a part of the very important Panathenaic festival in Athens at the Acropolis.   In the archeological digs found in Greece archeologists have found all kinds of tools used in spinning and weaving.  There is evidence of looms and textiles and strong evidence linking the female contribution in terms of textiles to economic trading at a domestic level as well as a commercial industry.  It's interesting to understand that women of all social classes were weaving- from the lowest slaves to the highest noble women like we saw in Queen Arete of the Phaeacians.  Girls would learn to work wool and weave and would spend a big portion of their time on their “trousseau”.  A trousseau is a collection of all the garments, soft furnishings, beddings, and clothes that a girl would produce during her childhood and would represent her contribution to her marriage.      Yikes, again, I'd be a world of hurt. I can't imagine what my trousseau would look like.  But even without knowing that insight about weaving, it doesn't take much to see that clothes are a big part of the all important recognition scenes that are basically what these last books are about- It's an interesting element of the story to notice how clothes are used by Homer to designate identity.  But before we do that, I wanted to weave in an anecdote, since we're on the subject the weaving and mythology.  Let's take a second to talk about Arachne and Athena.      Arachne as in where we get the word arachnophobia- fear of spiders.    Yep, so the story goes that Arachne was a girl in Ancient Greece who was so good as weaving and spinning that she went around telling people she was a better weaver than Athena.  Well, obviously this made Athena mad , so Athena challenged her to a weaving dual.  They set up their looms in the same room and wove all day and into the night.  When they finished, they compared their artifacts.  Well, Athena had woven a scene of all the gods and goddess on Mt. Olympus sitting together doing good deeds for humanity.  Arachne wove a cloth of all the gods and goddess on Mr. Olympus but in hers they were all getting drunk and falling over themselves.  Archne's was clearly the better craftmanship, but Athena didn't care. She pointed her finger at Arachne and made her entire body shrivel up to what today we would call a spider.  She said, “You want to spin, go ahead and spin!”  And so there you have it.       Oh my, well, I will say, Arachne really should have known better; I would say the first rule of the gods is don't hack off the gods.      So, true.    So, by way of recapping, in episode 1, we discussed the poet Homer and the set up for this story.  We introduced the idea that Homer does not take credit for writing the story, the Muse sung it to him- the story comes from the gods and is about a man Dr. Wilson translates as a complicated man; Fagles calls him the man of twists and turns.  We learn at the beginning of book 1, that after offending Poseidon and wandering the sea for ten years, Odysseus returns home- a place called Ithaca- but he arrives there shipwrecked and alone- all of his companions destroyed by their own recklessness: They should never have eaten Helios' cows.     Indeed, next we introduced this Greek idea that there are things that happen to us as humans that are not our fault that are caused by the gods.  That is a thing, but there are many things that happen to us that ARE our fault because of our own foolishness and often we blame the gods for things that were always in our control.  Of course, what happened to Odysseus falls into this category.  What happened to him was caused by him because he did not respect the gods and the rules of the universe they created.  What happened to him also happened to him because he just couldn't let his ego rest- he had the fear of being a nobody.     He isn't the only person on this earth with that fear. In episodes 2 and 3 we looked at the world the gods created and the values they instructed men to live by.  Episode 2 we looked at books 1-4, often called the Telemachy, and we watched Telemachus develop as a man.  Of course, the first tip to developing into a man is to learn to listen to Athena (something Arachne should have paid attention to).      Indeed, maybe we wouldn't have so many dangerous spiders, if she had.  In episode 3, we talked about Xenia and how fundamental hospitality is to the books of the Odyssey as well as the lives of the Ancient Greeks.  Well, if I'm honest, really not just the Greeks but many cultures around the globe- ancient and contemporary.  We talked about Polyphemus, the one eyed-cyclopes and how his lack of hospitality could be contrasted with some of the many other examples of hospitality we see all over the epic.  We talked about how the hospitality scenes are type scenes and we can learn a lot by comparing them to each other.    On a side note, I was reading a little bit about the Odyssey this week and one writer asked a very interesting question, I don't know the answer to.      Oh yeah, what is it.      This guy wondered how two Greeks gods, Polyphemus' mother was a beautiful sea nymph, but he wondered how two beautiful Greek gods could possibly have an ugly child with only one eye.    HA!  That's a great question. Did you find the answer?    No.  I can't.  So, if anyone out there knows, connect with us on our social media or via email.  I'm interested.      Well, back to our story and the role Polyphemus plays in the Odyssey highlights a burning need inside of Odysseus.  Odysseus, after Polyphemus begins eating his men one by one, is able to blind the cyclopes and then sneak away and back onto his ship.  Blind and enraged Polyphemus begins hurling rocks at Odysseus as Odysseus leaves.  Odysseus' big mistake came, not from blinding Polyphemus, but from taunting him.  As he leaves, Odysseus just can't leave it alone, he tells Polyphemus that if anyone ever asks who blinded him to tell him it was Odysseus.  He had previously told Polyphemus his name was Nobody- but he just couldn't leave it at that.  Odysseus didn't want to be a nobody, he wanted to be a somebody, he wanted to be the recognized leader of his oikos- and he was going to strive for that- no matter if it took the entirety of his mortal life.  He would pay any price to get him- he would even relinquish the offer of immortality.    And so Odysseus takes his ten year odyssey to get there.  I will say- it is not lost on me that one of the most central ironies of the entire story is that here at the very beginning Odysseus cannot let a lie stay a lie- but for the rest of the epic especially here at the end, we see that, Odysseus is not just extremely comfortable lying, but  In fact, it's his trademark.  He prides himself on his ability to deceive.  This last half of the book is literally him lying and deceiving first one group of people than another- all the way until the last chapter where he lies to his own dad for no apparent reason.    So true, strangely enough, though, Athena finds it admirable and helps him conceal time and time again.  Odysseus calls it tactics.  He learns to use deceit and recognition as a weapon for survival.  What we're going to see as Homer  brings the story to its dramatic climax, from a literary stand point is that Homer is him using a type-scene to structure- the recognition scene.  Remember a type scene is a scene that is repeated over and over again.  There are over a dozen of these in the second half of the book and they pretty much follow a similar pattern- first Odysseus tests the person he wants to reveal himself to.  He wants to know if they are loyal, not just to him, but to the oikos.  He uses deception and concealment in the testing process.  Most of the time, he tells these crazy stories about who he is and where he's been.  After going through some long convoluted story about some fake travel, he either foretells that Odysseus will return- or he reveals his true identity- depending on the audience.     Well.  Never again after Polyphemus will he make the rash decision of just openly stating his identity- not even to Penelope.  Athena is most responsible for his many disguises- She changes his physical appearance and she gives him false covers of other kinds, including these convoluted stories.  The whole game is to go into the place, conceal who he is until he's in full control of the moment, and then together with the gods make his move.  Here at the end, he and his oikos  will be given divine power to overthrow the suitors, reclaim his physical space and title, AND do all of this without starting a war with the families or oikos from which all these suitors come from- that's a trick even greater than killing the suitors.    So true, and to bring this back to weaving and textiles for just a second, I think it's one important thing to pay attention to the role people's clothes pay in identifying who they are.  It is very clear that in Homer's world, a person's outfit is very much a way of determining how they ranked in society.  Textile gifts are a big deal.  Notice how important it is to be dressed in the proper way in order to receive the proper respect.      Well, of course, this is not uncommon in all cultures and a very important psychological observation.   I think it was Virginia Wolfe, the British writer, who said, “Vain trifles as they seem, clothes have, they say, more important offices than merely to keep us warm.  They change our view of the world and the world's view of us… There are endless studies on the role of clothing functioning as identification.        Which I guess the simplest way to see what we have going to here is to reduce it to this:  A king without a proper tunic is not a king.  Odysseus dressed as a beggar is not Odysseus.  He may be so in his head, in Telemachus' head and even in Athena's head, but until he is recognized from the outside, he cannot reclaim his oikos.   And we see clothing playing an important part in the various recognition scenes.    The goddess Athena before she allows Telemachus to recognize his father, she makes a point to- before she even changes Odysseus body- to change his clothes.  Let's read that famous passage where Athena reveals to Telemachus that his father has come home.    Page 344    It soon turns into such a sweet passage.  A son recognizing a father; a father recognizing a son.      For sure it's sweet, but in one sense the word “recognition” isn't really the right word here.  Telemachus doesn't know his father.  He can't possibly recognize him.  Which I think is an interesting thing to pay attention to as we go through all these scenes.  All of these people who Odysseus presents himself to have different relationships with Odysseus.  Telemachus has an intimate relationship with his father in one way, but he has no shared history with him.  He has no idea what his father is capable of which comes out in their dialogue. Telemachus is quick to tell his father that reclaiming the oikos is not just a matter of showing up.      Page 346    He goes on to count them out-- we have at a minimum 106 posers maybe more.    To which Odysseus responds that he's not worried.  He's being flanked by Athena and Father Zeus.    Page 346-      That would make me feel more confident.    I know right.  And Telemachus does seem a little more confident, at least he talks to his mom more brazenly, which I find annoying, to be totally honest- can't get rid of that arrogance of the presence.  But he also talks more boldly to the suitors as well.  I love that Odysseus cannot keep his identity a secret from his old nurse.  The recognition scene with Eurycleia is the only one that he does not initiate.  When she washes the beggars feel and legs, she touches the scar and immediately knows what's going on.  Of course this freaks him out and he threatens her, needlessly, I might add.      Don't forget about Argos, the dog.  Argos recognizes him.       True, there is a lot of drama that goes on as Odysseus, disguised as a beggar, loiters around his home and watches how horrible all the suitors are behaving.  The place is in utter chaos and the whole thing is designed to fill him with rage.  I did want to draw just a small minute of attention to book 19 when the beggar and Penelope talk.  At this point in the story, Penelope does not know that Odysseus is Odysseus- at least we aren't told that she knows.  There are many scholars that are absolutely convinced she knows who he is and is faking it, but the interaction between the two is sweet no matter what.  Odysseus, as he always does, tells a long elaborate lie about who he is.  However, during the course of his story, he claims that he met Odysseus.  Penelope wants to test the beggar so she asks him to describe what Odusseys was wearing when he met him.  Let's read that part.      Page 397    For something he saw all those years ago, that's quite a bit of detail he remembers.      And of course, this makes Penelope cry because she had given him that outfit and fastened the brooch on herself.      Well, it isn't too long after that that the scene will be set for Odysseus' complete revelation.  Just as a recap for those who haven't read the story in a while.  Penelope has made the decision that it is time to pick a husband.  She has gone into the vault and pulled out Odysseus' old bow- one he never took to Troy.  She goes downstairs and faces the suitors with a challenge that will decide her fate.  Let's read what she says.    Page 426    The part about all the suitors getting up and trying to string the bow is just classic dramatic build up.  Finally the beggar gets his turn courtesy of Penelope, Eumaeus the swineherd, and even Telemachus.  The suitors have no idea what hits them…it's a pun!!    Oh my, it is!! I do want to point out that the recognition scene with Eumaeus and Philoetius in book 21, is very quick.    There's not any time.The bow contest is heating up and revenge is coming.      That's true, but I also think what we are witnessing is this progression from the less intimate relationships towards the most.  He didn't know Telemachus at all, not really.  He did know Eurycleia, the swineherd and the goatherd, but his relationship with these is one of master/servant- employer/employee- to use our language.  He engages them here like, in some sense in the old way. Odysseus needs these servants, as well as Eurycleia, to come through for him right here.  Eumaues had already spent quite a bit of time with Odysseus as a beggar, and Eumaeus had already made multiple comments as to how much this beggar resembled Odysseus so he was pretty much primed.  But Philoteus had been primed too, if you remember at one point Odysseus, as a beggar asks Philoetius, if Odysseus were to come back would you help him?  Both of these were familiar with his scar and he uses it as evidence- really the only evidence- except they fall back into the old work relationship they enjoyed back in the old days. Odysseus' tone is matter of fact and authoritative at this point.  They are very comfortable falling back into this relationship and it isn't really much of a struggle.     This point where the suitors recognize Odysseus is one of the most exciting parts of the whole story. Even after Odysseus strings the bow and shoots the arrow through the axes, the suitors really don't know what's going on.  It's really only after Antinous is murdered in front of them, that they really start to figure out what's happening.  But of course, whether they recognize Odysseus at this point really doesn't matter at all- they are getting ready to die.      Page 439     Homer does like to get graphic with his death scenes and I have to admit they are super-fun.  IF you don't read anything but like gore- reading chapter 22 is worth a perusal.  Eurymachus tries to broker a deal.  And the poor female slaves, they have a pretty terrible end.  Their existence and the fact that the suitors took them as their concubines- whether or not the women were given an option makes no difference.  They are a source of shame to the oikos and must go.      “”With that, taking a cable used on a dark-prowed ship he coiled it over the roundhouse, lashed it fast to a tall column, hoisting it up so high no toes could touch the ground.  Then, as doves or thrushes beating their spread wings against some snare rigged up in thickets- flying in for a cozy nest but a grisly bed receives them- as the women's heads were trapped in a line, nooses yanking their necks up one by one so all might die a pitiful, ghastly death…they kicked up heels for a little- not for long.”        Odysseus is cleaning.  Eurycleia brought her master fire and brimstone.  He is purging the halls, the palace, the court- all of it.  It's quite a picture of devastation and renewal- however- even with all of the emphasis Homer puts on the end of the suitor- the killing or the revenge isn't the main thing.  Much more attention is given to Odysseus becoming recognized by those that matter most- his father and his wife- the completion of his oikos.  And that is yet to come- chapters 23-24.  With Penelope it literally takes three attempts to convince her of who he is.  The first two of these attempts aren't even made by Odyssues at all but by Eurycleia and then Telemachus.    Well, just to bring it back to a modern theme and something that we have to think about especially when it comes to reuniting with romantic partners.  The recognition with Telemachus was easy.  The recognition scene with the servants was exciting.  This recognition scene with Penelope is expressed with way more mixed emotions- which is extremely understandable.  When two people are brought together after a long time, there's a sense that the external recognition is only a part.  I may recognize who you are on the outside- but will I recognize who you are on the inside?  Are you even the same person you were when I last saw you?  Am I the same person I was when you last saw me?  And of course, the answer is NO- of course neither one of you is.  Your literally not even the same person- molecules in your body have all completely changed- but of course that's not what worries people- will we have a relationship anymore?  Those are not easy questions for anyone.  The psychological gap in a case of twenty years is enormous.      Homer expresses every bit of that.  After Penelope is told Odysseus is home she responds with coldness and skepticism.  Homer says her heart was in turmoil.  Torn.  “Should she keep her distance, probe her husband?”  Let's read the whole paragraph…    Page 458    Notice the detail that he's in rags.  Telemachus, like a child, fusses at his mother, but sweet dad comes to his wife's defense (that would charm me).  Anyway, I think it's cute how Homer creates this developing connection for these two.  In essence, they perform something of a mental fight, or a dance.  They engage each other intellectually, in some sense to see if they are still compatible.  Odysseus, up to this point in the story has never met his match.  He has outsmarted even goddess Circe, nevermind 100 plus suitors.  But Penelope stumps him.      Athena does her part- back to clothes- she weaves for him – decking him out in fine clothes- he is now the recognized king- she makes him godlike, And yet- that is not enough.  Penelope outdoes Odysseus in scepticism and tests HIM with the instruction that his bed be prepared outside in the hall.  What we see here is the difference between outside recognition and inside recognition.  For the servants, seeing the scars were evidence enough that their master was home.  For Penelope, not even seeing her husband as king was enough.  What is special about the bed is that it contained a secret.  It was theirs.  She wanted to know if the bed, in his mind, was still their secret.    Page 461    This is so ingenuous because not only does she prove that she is indeed Odysseus' wife, but in essence she opens the door to allow them to engage in very intimate feelings at this juncture.  What matters isn't really the recollection that the bed can't move, but what that bed has meant to them regarding loyalty, fidelity, trust- these are the issues at stake in Penelope's heart.  And in many ways we are really never told how she feels.  Her options in life have been so very limited.  The stress has been so very great.  Odysseus comes back as a savior, in one sense, but that is a fairy-tale way of thinking about life, and the text here seems much more honest as to the range of emotions that would be engaged as well as the uncertainty of the future not just with Ithaca, but between these two main characters.      Of course, there's a lot metaphorically we could say there, there's a lot in regard to gender roles for sure, but not just that- what she feels, what he feels is way beyond even the two of them.  Reconstituting the oikos starts with Penelope and ends with Penelope.  Of course, this story is told from an ancient male perspective, with a ancient male audience in mind, but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot here to think about when we think about what constitutes a healthy oikos- a home- many of us want to build economic, social entities that will constitute a positive legacy- The ancient Greeks saw intellectual compatibility, mutual respect and the absence of secrets between partners central tenants to an lasting oikos.    Of course, I agree, but I will add, although Penelope is clearly front and center to all of this, what we just read is still chapter 23.  There is one more relationship to be reconstituted and that is with Laertes, Odysseus father.   If there is to be a complete reconstruction of structure out of chaos, this relationship is not simply a p.s., but it's central.      Agreed- and of course, Laertes is a reminder, at least you must think that would be, that Odysseus gave up immortality with Calypso for what he is now recreating.  Also, Penelope's entire schtick for keeping the suitors at bay was in weaving a funeral shroud for Laertes.  So, in a sense, and this would be an entire episode if we wanted to trace this theme, the meaning of death is in many ways an idea that has been in this story since the beginning.  We did visit hades, at one point.  But there is something conclusive about this father-son relationship.  It is finding resolution in this final recognition that harmony is restored.      True- although I will say, I found this recognition scene slightly problematic.  Why does Odysseus have to lie to his father?  The first thought I had was that maybe he didn't want to give his father a heart attack- thinking back to the recognition scene with the dog, Argos.     Yeah- I don't know- what I do know- and where we will end because we just don't have time to go into anything else- is that the story ends with Odysseus and Laertes sharing an intimate moment, but a different kind of intimacy than Odysseus shared with Penelope.  We end with trees.  Trees are a tangible token of history.  They are identifying markers.  In this case, the orchard is well-tended.  Odysseus will now be a different kind of hero.  He will not be a warrior doing battle with the world, but a tender of gardens- a man who will live to see his children grow up, who will build, create, and structure a world that has once been filled with chaos.  The orchard of Laertes bares fruit.  There's a little more to the story, Odysseus has to handle that issue with Poseidon, but in the end, I think this is the Greek vision of peace- of a satisfying life. It's not a bad vision.  And the very end, Athena says, “Hold back ye men of Ithaca, back from brutal war! Break off- shed no more blood- make peace at once!”   I agree!!    It is definitely not a bad vision.  They clearly were on to something.   Well, thank you for listening.  We hope you have enjoyed our race through the epic, The Odyssey.  We know there is a lot more to say, but hopefully, we left you with some food for thought as you sort through this complex tale that has mesmerized the world for millenia.  Please remember that if you enjoy our work, give us a good review on any of the podcast apps- apple, amazon, spotify, etc.  If you are an educator, visit our website for support materials. www.howtolovelitpodcast.com.  Also, feel free to connect with us on Instagram, fb, linked in or just plain email.  We'd love to hear from you.    Peace out!!           

Homer - The Odyssey - Episode 2 - Telemachus Begins The Journey To Manhood And Finding Odysseus!   Hi, I'm Christy Shriver and we're her to discuss books that have changed the world and have changed us.    And I'm Garry Shriver, and this is the How to love lit podcast.  Today is our second episode covering the first and perhaps foremost author in what is often described as the Western Canon- Homer and his famous epic, The Odyssey.  Last week, we discussed a little of the historical context surrounding the mysterious origins of the story- the Bronze age, the Myceneans and the Trojan war.    But besides the origins of the stories, we also discussed the origins of Homer himself, if there was such a man.  It is thought that Homer lived 400 years after the timeframe of the settings of the stories he tells in his epics.  His version of The Odyssey was solidified in or around 750 BCE.  Tradition claims he was a blind bard who began this famous tale invoking the muse who had shared it with him, and within his stories the religion and cultural heritage of the Greeks has not only been preserved and passed down, but the tales have influenced the writing, thinking and worldviews of innumerable cultures around the world. Like most first book episodes, however, in episode 1 we didn't get far into the story itself, we stayed in the opening of book 1.  At the beginning of book 1, we meet Homer himself invoking the Muse to tell us Odysseus' story.  But then, the skies are opened before us and we are swiftly taken upward to the mighty Mt Olympus where we are privileged with a glimpse  inside a discussion between the gods where Zeus brings up Agamemnon's son, Orestes, avenging his father's murder by killing his own mother and her lover after they plotted and killed him on his return from Troy.  We are reminded by Zeus himself that men tend to blame the gods for everything that happens to them, but that there are many things that happen to us that are indeed our own fault.   Zeus talks about the case of Agamemnon's son avenging his death as an example.  Following this, Athena brings up the case of Odysseus, the mortal she likes.  She requests Zeus' permission and help to help bring Odysseus home, even though he has foolishly angered Zeus' brother, Poseidon, god of the sea, by blinding one of his sons, the cyclops, Polyphemus.      The Odyssey really has quite a complicated set up in some ways, and this week's episode which will cover the Telemachy is really more set up before we even meet the namesake main character, Odysseus in book 5.      There is a lot going on, there are a lot of Greek characters, a lot of backstory to explain why things are the way they are. Certainly a lot of intrigue and treachery has already taken place before we meet Odysseus on Ogygia's island, and we learn a lot of this context in the Telemachy.        True- the Telemachy or the first four books in the epic centers around Telemachus- and that is the name of Odysseus' son.  Odysseus' wife is named Penelope, and they had a son right before he had to leave against his will for the Trojan War.   The Odyssey opens with the story of Odysseus' son, but here in the Telemachy we also meet Penelope.  We meet Eurycleia.  She's a slave who has been a nurse for both Odysseus.  We meet Mentor.  It starts about a month before Odysseus arrives back in his homeland after his absences of 20 years.  In these first four books, we learn that Ithaca is in total chaos.  There is no leadership, no code of morality, no enforcer of the rules.   There has not been a assembly of the community in twenty years.  After the first four books of the Telemachy , the story switches over to Odysseus' captivity in book 5, where Hermes arrives at Ogygia and tells Calypso she must let Odysseus get home explaining to the reluctant nympyh that it is not his fate to stay with her forever.  The story of Odysseus' difficult journey from Calypso's island is from books 5-9- the stories about his journey over the last 10 years are told in the context of a flashback.  In chapter 15, we resume the Telemachy, with Telemachus arriving back home, and then in Book 16 Telemachus and Odysseus reunite and from there the story takes a totally different direction as these two seek to restore order and justice to Ithaca.  So, yes, it's slightly complicated.  But what do we expect from an epic!!!       I think it's likely that if you were Greek listening to this story being sung by Homer, himself, you already knew the stories at least in part, so the complicated plot line and characters weren't confusing like they can be for us today. But even today, so many of us are familiar with many of these story lines from different places.  For example, just the name mentor- I've heard that word used all my life, but I didn't know Mentor was the name of a man in the Odyssey who mentored Telemachus.  There's a lot of references in pop culture to a lot that we're reading- from the various gods that show up in movies, or monsters that have found their way in video games, or even just portions of the stories that have been told in things like cartoons.   Things like cyclops and sirens are a part of the culture of the world, and it seems I've always known what they were not necessarily knowing they came from The Odyssey.  For me, the best way to read this book, is not to try to keep track of all the names and characters.  It's easy to get  lost in the details of the different digressions. I found that just reading through is the best plan- and if I forget who Mentes is or Eurymachus, I can still understand what's happening in the story.  It doesn't hurt the overall understanding if we don't understand every detail of every story Menelaus, Nestor or Helen want to share with Telemachus.      No, I agree, the main ideas are easy to follow.  For one reason and this was also one thing we talked about last week is how Homer pares down the complicated Greek pantheon of gods to a number small enough for us to manage, so the pantheon of gods isn't what is going to confuse us.  Once you know who Athena, Zeus, Poseidon and Hermes are, you are pretty much good to go, and these we will learn in context. But another reason is because the focus isn't on the gods it's on the family- and even that is pared down.  We are concerned about Odysseus' family.  The value and the place of the family is very important to Homer and to Greek culture.  Odysseus, as well as the other characters, but let's focus on Odysseus, always identifies himself in relation to his family- his father, Laertes, his son, Telemachus,  and/ or his wife, Penelope.  Understanding what these basic family relationships mean is of great interest to Homer.  What does it mean to be a father, a son, a wife?  What do we do with these roles?  How do they form our identity?     So,the Telemachy which is the first four books of the Odyssey focuses on Telemachus as the starting point of the story, which is a little unusual.  Telemachus is not the protagonist of the Odyssey.  He's also not very heroic, at least not as we think of Greek heroes.  In fact, a lot of literary critics absolutely reject Telemachus as anything but drain on Odysseus.  I am not going to see him like that.  I see Telemachus' role as unique, for sure.  And, he definitely is not a returning hero like his future, but he is still the future- but it is a different future.  He is the future for Odysseus, the future for Ithaca and will have to be defined differently.  Whatever Odysseus is to be in this world after he returns from Troy, he will be it in the context of his family relationships- and when we see Odysseus on the island with Calypso, we see him understanding himself just in that way.  Calypso has offered him immortality, but it's not what he wants.  As great as he is, as a hero, as a warrior, as a pirate, he is nothing alone, and so before we meet Odysseus in chapter five crying and groaning for home, we start by looking at Telemachus- the personification of Odysseus' home.  One thing to notice about Telemachus as a character, and this is something I didn't know until I researched him for this podcast, is that Telemachus is the ONLY character in Greek literature that is not a static character.      Just as a refresher, let me remind everyone that Static characters are characters that don't change in stories. The character traits that define them at the end of the story are the same as the ones in the beginning and usually the one that creates the tragedy.  We saw this in both Oedipus and Antigone.  No one in those stories is willing to change- hence the problem.  Dynamic characters are characters that are changed by the experiences of the story- either for the better or for the worse, so you're saying that NO other characters besides Telemachus experience change over time or grow up?    I'm not saying it.  Greek scholars CMH Millar and JWS Carmichael made that claim in the journal Greece and Rome, but yes- that's it exactly.  Greeks are famous for their tragedies, but how the stories are set up with those chorus' and all, it's not designed for characters to develop inside the story- maybe between stories- Oedipus certainly changes between stories, but not within a story.  Telemachus is the only character where, the point of him is to see him change over time. So, whatever this change is, is obviously something very important to Homer.  And for Homer, the change is explicitly stated- it is not implied- it is absolutely stated through the various characters who will talk to Telemachus.  Homer is interested in showing us how a boy becomes a man.  Now, let me make the one obvious disclaimer, I am going to use gendered language because this is the way the ancient Greeks thought of this idea today we call coming of age- but please understand that this journey of self-discovery is not exclusively male – it's not even exclusively a path from childhood to adulthood, although that's always the language we employ and a good way of understanding this.    No- I think psychologically speaking, we could say that many adults never arrive to this sense of  manhood if you want to use the gendered language of the Greeks.  What Homer is clearly talking about is that place in a life's journey where any individual takes up the burden of personal responsibility- the transition from passive agent in one's life to active agent.  This is something that we think of as being nurtured by parenting because role models are how we learn in this world.  But parenting is a luxury not everyone experiences.  What do you do if you have no healthy role models in your world for whatever reason?   And what if you do- is a privileged birth a guarantee of future success? What we can see clearly in the life of Telemachus, especially if you compare him with the suitors and other sons in the Telemachy is that nothing is guaranteed- regardless of your advantages or disadvantages.  This acceptance of personal responsibility that the Greeks are representing through this language of becoming a man is something that no one can do for anyone else-  either a person takes on the burden of responsibility for his or herself and the others who are in their orbit or a person doesn't.  The suitors certainly think there is a shortcut to success, and so did the man who killed Agamemnon.       But, the gods don't allow these kinds of people to succeed ultimately- in the cases you just mentioned  both of these groups experience  the same fate- death.  Homer's gods absolutely make sure everyone gets hit with something- not even King Menelaus himself, married to the most beautiful woman in the world escapes the twists and turns of fate thrown at them by the gods.  But as we are told in the first lines of the story- what we do with the circumstances we are given are in large part what will seal the outcome of our existences.      And so the challenge of facing one individual's particular fate is broken down by looking at the particular circumstances facing Telemachus at this particular age.  Most scholars suggest he is probably 20, but that's not explicitly stated anywhere.  I think it's also interesting to note that the things he has to deal with are tremendously difficult problems and they are also not his fault.  Telemachus knows this and does what most people at least want to do when we are faced with tremendously large and difficult problems that are not our fault.  We meet Telemachus in the beginning  casting blame and sulking.  He's angry, but honestly it's easy life.  He gets pushed around by people who have literally injected themselves into his world, and he just sits in a corner.      I find it interesting that at one point Telemachus even claims that he's not even sure who his father is- even though- no one else seems to question this at all.  It's that kind of ‘who am I' that seems to be casting blame.  None of what we see in Telemachus here is very admirable or helpful.   Homer clearly illustrates the cost of doing nothing- regardless of the reason- and there are lots of good reasons to do nothing-  Telemachus has reasons to be intimidated.   He's young, he's outnumbered by men who are better trained, larger and older than he is.   He doesn't have any personal strength of mind, but maybe not of body either. At least at this point in the story, we can't be sure of how strong or smart he is.  He hasn't done anything to show us one way or the other.      Yes- and I'm glad you brought up strength of mind-  you have brought us exactly back to Athena- the goddess of wisdom.  That's who Telemachus needs and that who comes to intervene on his behalf.  The best of us are the ones who are good at listening to Athena, and thinking of wisdom as a Greek goddess speaking in our ear- is a very lovely way to conceptualize this.  In this case, he will hear a little voice speaking to him from outside of himself.  It will be on him to decide whether or not to listen to the voice.  Let us jump into the story and see how Athena meets Telemachus in book 1.  One magical element of the story is that Athena is a shape-shifter.  She can appear to people as anything or anyone she wants and that is what she does.  She is going to approach Telemachus as an old family friend, a neighboring king, a man by the name of Mentes.  As Mentes, she enters his house.      Page 81    Telemachus receives her/him well.  He gives him a seat of honor and tries to take care of the stranger.  It doesn't appear that he knows him.      No, and Athena, as Mentes, prophecies that his father will come home.  But Telemachus is despondent.  He's bitter at what has happened.  He's angry people have moved in and are taking over his home, siphoning off his wealth, and that his mother can't seem to do anything about it.  But it never occurs to him that HE can do anything himself.  He dreams of the day when his father will come back, he also longs to be famous in his own right. He dreams, but he cannot conceive of taking initiative himself.  Athena, the voice of wisdom must awaken him.  Let's read what she says in the person of Mentes    Page 86-87    First of all, he must remember who he is.  He is a son- a member of a family, he has responsibility to himself, but also to his father dead or alive as well as his mother.  Athena charges him to take up that banner of responsibility, but then she gives him a very practical plan.  Do this 1) get a boat, 2) find some associates 3) go get some advice from older successful men.  Find out the status of your family.  After you have information as to your actual status, come back and take hold of your own life.      It's also interesting that she compares him to this other prince we've heard about from Zeus, Prince Orestes who killed Aegisthus, a different lord who had made a play on his birthright and had taken him down.  There is this idea that gods will help you, but it's on you to take down your rivals.  Over the next three books, Telemachus kind of wakes up to this idea that nobody is coming- although in his case, someone IS coming, but Athena doesn't let him know that.      He wakes up to his own independence- his separateness from his mother, his nurse, his mentor, even this father- he is going to become comfortable with his own personhood.  Leaving home was Athena's strategy to enable this to happen in him.  He wakes up to a sense of responsibility- that it's on him to make something happen but lastly, he also wakes up to the difficulties of his mother's position.  He doesn't come across as empathetic at first, but this changes as he himself matures and we see this in book 15- he moves to viewing his mother as a woman with complicated choices and respects what she's managed to do and I, as a mom, appreciated this change in attitude, for sure. When Telemachus talks to his mom in book 1, and I know this is my own cultural understanding of a text of a different culture, but I was offended at how rude he appeared to me- more offended than Penelope was.  He bosses her around.  I want to read this, “So mother, go back to your quarters.  Tend to your own tasks, the distaff and the loom, and keep the women working hard as well.  As for giving orders, men will see to that, but I most of all: I hold the reins of power in this house.”  I would have wanted to say, young man, don't talk to your mother like that.  But, her reaction is not one of offense, but the word the Fagles uses is “astonished”.  And she obeys him almost happy.  It says she took to heart “the clear good sense in what her son had said.”              Well, I think she was astonished.  Here is this young man who has never taken agency in his life, and now he's going to try to stand up to her and to the suitors.  She seems to be glad he's at least owning the fact that he has responsibility in this household.  This is new.  In some ways, especially if you compare him to Orestes who is likely the same age as he is- that Telemachus might even be an embarrassment to her.  The suitors certainly have no respect for him.  In the very next paragraph it says they and I quote, “broke into uproar through the shadowed halls, all of them lifting prayers to lie beside her, share her bed.”  Penelope has been and IS  in real danger with no protection at all.  Now Telemachus tells the suitors to leave; they are amazed that he is willing to talk to them like that, even if they don't show any signs of actually moving or conceding space.  Antinous says this, “I pray that Zeus will never make YOU king of Ithaca, though your father's crown is no doubt yours by birth.”  In other words, I know this is your birth right but if you cannot claim it, you cannot have it.  The idea being, even if something is yours by birthright, it's not really yours until you can claim it.    Leadership as we all know, is more than a position, there must be an element of person charisma that creates respect.  When someone is supposed to be charge who does have personal charisma and who cannot garner respect, someone else who does will snatch it regardless of who holds the official position.      And that's where we are in the story here in Book 1.  Telemachus should be a king, but he is trapped in a place where he can't get anyone to respect him even if he wanted them to.     According to Aristotle, albeit years later, one essential part of being a king or leader is the ability to dispense justice.  That is what kings do in the ancient world, and really that's what good leadership is supposed to do to this day.  Telemachus has not done that up to this point; he has not been able to do that in any way for various reasons- and the reasons are understandable.  But that doesn't matter.  He has not administered his properties; he is not administering justice in his realm of influence, and so Telemachus has no authority and his world has no harmony.  Until he can figure that piece out, he is not in charge, he is not a king.  And so the question the text brings up, is how can he do this?  And of course the first step is that he must realize it's on him to do it.  Telemachus is going to have to construct his own authority in the eyes of those suitors.    Well, that's true, and honestly, he has to construct authority in the eyes of the reader of the text as well.  WE have to decide he's worthy, especially after we see everything that Odysseus is and has been.  If Homer can convince us that Telemachus is worthy, then we can accept and even feel glee when we see what happens to the suitors at the end of the story.  It will feel like a king dispensing justice and not just vengeance.  That's an important distinction.  Justice is for everyone; vengeance is personal.  And of course, at no time either in book 1 or in book 2 are we convinced that Telemachus is capable of of being a king.  In book 2, he calls an assembly together of all the Acheans.  This is a big deal.  No assembly has been called since Odysseus left twenty years before.   Everyone crowds around, the elders come in, Telemachus takes his father's seat.  Nine speeches are given by various people, but on first pass nothing good comes out of any of this.  Telemachus is filled with anger, he complains about what they have done but ultimately he dashes the speaker's scepter and bursts into tears.  None of that is great, but it IS a start.  The text says that everyone felt pity, but what does that do.  They just sat there in silence.  One of the suitors, Antinous, speaks up and basically says, well, it's really your mother's fault.  She won't pick a new husband, but instead has tricked us.  She told us she would marry someone when she finished making this shroud for her father-in-law Laertes, but every day she weaved it and every night she unraveled her work, so that the shroud was never done.  This went on for three years. Antinous calls Penelope “matchless queen of cunning” which is quite the backhanded compliment, but ultimately, he is taking the focus away from Telemachus.  Telemachus appears to be a nothing here.  On the other hand, and let me ask this question, from a historical perspective,  I never really have understood why Penelope had to get married.  Why couldn't she just be the queen?      Well, I'm not totally sure, remember this culture is mysterious.  One idea might be that warring and pirating is such a key component of the culture, so as not have a warrior as the head would leave a kingdom vulnerable to invaders- that may be one idea.  But, I will say, just in general, that it's important to understand that every single character in this story is an aristocrat.  These are not common people.  They are rulers, and in the world of aristocrats, and this is not just in Greek culture, but all cultures to this day, if we're honest, people put a lot of effort in planning and selecting marriages.  Social interchange between families creates links of union and interdependence that are the hallmark of the history of humanity as a whole.  So, in that sense, marriage is a political and economic game that can be won or lost.  Men compete- and this is no more obvious than with this actual game we will see being played by these suitors.  I think it's important to note that all of these suitors come from good aristocratic families.  These are not beggars or miscreants that are moving in on her.  They are Greece's finest, so to speak, men who feel like they can compete and deserve to be a king.  What is a little difficult to understand here is who is supposed to be responsible for the choice of Penelope's next husband, and we see different answers depending on who's talking here. Athena tells Telemachus to send his mother back to her father and to let her father make this choice.   Antinous says something similar, but if Antinous sends Penelope back, the he's the one in charge, not Telemachus.  If she goes back because Antinous told her to, basically the suitors have already seized authority over Penelope in making this decision for her and taking it away from Telemachus.  What we can say for sure, is there is a power vacuum in Ithaca- Telemachus may have the position of leadership because of his birthright, but he doesn't possess the charisma or the moral authority at this point to exercise any leadership and be listened to.  He is ignored and irrelevant.      That is the point of his own Odyssey.  And I think that's the whole idea that people have intuitively understood.  The first step in manhood and I'll use the gendered language of the Greeks, the first step to growing up is understanding that you have to do something and if you don't- others will swoop in and make those decisions for you, but the decisions others make likely will not be in your best interest.   Even if you start out disadvantaged, just as Telemachus is starting here, there are things you can do to help yourself.  For Telemachus, that's what he gets from listening to the goddess Athena and discerning her words of wisdom.  He gets up, calls an assembly, announces his plan.  He heard Mentes and figured out that those were words he should be listening to- they were the words of the goddess Athena.  But after listening, he still has to make a choice, he has to actually pick up and do what Athena told him to.  And he does.  He goes to the storehouse, collects goods for the trip, he talks to his nanny and tells her to not tell his mom for at least 10 maybe 12 days,  and he even faces down the suitors, clearly establishing to their faces that he views them as enemies.  He calls out the game.  And let me further note, as soon as he starts moving, Athena also engaged the world and pushed others to help him.  She also drugs the suitors so he can get out without being challenged.      Page 105        And off he goes first in book 3 and then in book 4 to older wiser men- King Nestor at Pylos and then King Menelaus at Sparta.  One interesting little side-bar is that scholars really do not agree  as to what he gets out of this trip if anything.  For sure, he doesn't get what he sets out to get.  He doesn't find his father.  They also don't agree on how long he was gone.  Homer in a couple of places implies he's only there a couple of days, but in other places, and if you match up Telemachus leaving Ithaca with Odysseus leasing Ogygia, he would need to have been gone about a month.      I think the month idea makes more sense especially if you think about the changes that occur in Telemachus while he's gone.    Well, I agree.  Also there's that detail that the nurse was told not to tell her for 10-12 days, so that's another hint, that Homer understands and expects his audience to understand Telemachus is gone longer than a couple of days.  Anyway, I'm not sure it matters a whole lot- the transformation is the transformation and the reunion on the other side will be the reunion on the other side.  In Pylos, he meets Nestor's son, Peisistratus, who has had a much more normal upbringing than Telemachus had. Pylos is kind of the example of family that has gone right.  Nestor, even in the Iliad is kind of portrayed as a wise counselor who gives speeches and advice.  Although it has been pointed out that at no time does Telemachus ask their opinion on what he should do.  He seems to be interested just in learning about the past, who his father way, how things have worked.    And he learns a lot about that.   Nestor talks  a lot about what happened at Troy- things I didn't know.  He talks about Achilles and Patroclus, about Ajax, King Priam and the role Odysseus played in the war.  He also tells Telemachus about his own journey home, and we revisit again this story about Agamemnon being murdered by his friend and Orestes murdering his father's murderer as well as his own mother.      To which I notice Telemachus said, “If only the gods would arm me in such power I'd take revenge on the lawless, brazen suitors.”  Basically, saying, I wish I were like that guy.   It's very obvious that Telemachus doesn't know how to act in this world and that is exactly why Athena sent him out.  Ithaca is not the world of Pylos or Sparta.  In fact, it's very different, but there are things to learn.  He learns by listening to how other men act and how he they interact with each other.  He learns how to conduct himself religiously, too.  How do I stay out of trouble with the gods.  The day after the big banquet Nestor throws, Nestor sends his youngest daughter Polyoaste to give Telemachus a bath.  There are those who suggest this detail of the bath is designed to express some sort of a baptism, if you want to see it that way.  Telemachus emerges and I quote, “looking like a god”.  I don't know if that's a stretch- sometimes literary people can stretch stuff.      Maybe a bath is just a bath,    yes or maybe it IS a baptism.  Who knows.  What we do know for sure is that Nestor sees something great in Telemachus, something the suitors haven't seen.  Nestor sees leadership, something, we as readers haven't seen either and Telemachus responds to this.  Nestor gives him horses, a chariot and sends him off with his own son to Sparta.  In Sparta, we are going to assume he stays for about a month, he will see and experience the life of the most successful man in Greece, Menelaus, husband to Queen Helen, the woman who started the Trojan war.  Telemachus is overwhelmed by the amazing opulence of this environment.  He's never seen anything like this before.  In terms of wealth, this is the ultimate.      The main takeaway from my perspective for Telemachus is comparing how Menelaus conducts affairs successfully and we can compare this to how things are going in Ithaca.  If we think about the last conversation Telemachus had about his mother not getting married, how interesting that we see Menelaus conducting not one but two marriages- and not even his child through his wife.  Menelaus is creating that most political of arrangements- marriages- two of them.  WE can already see that Telemachus is less awkward meeting Menelaus than he was meeting Nestor, even though this stage is even bigger.  He's speaking is more controlled and more confident to the point that when Menelaus offers him three horses, and he actually declines because horses are impractical in Ithaca.  In other words, this version of Telemachus can engage a great man like Menelaus as an equal.      Or man to man- to use a gendered expression- and this really impresses Menelaus.  WE don't know what all happens in Sparta really.  We do get to hear Helen's side of the Trojan war story, which I found really interesting, but we don't really have time to get into that- suffice it to say, it's not her fault.  The main takeaway is that by the time Telemachus leaves Menelaus which isn't until book 15, he's ready to go home.  The Telamachy won't pick up again until book 15 when Athena sends him home.  But by book 15, Telemachus is aware of his responsibilities, and we see this new Telemachus- Telemachus 2.0 as a man of action.  I know it's getting a head in the story if we look by chapters, but by book 15, Telemachus is going to offer political asylum to a wanted murderer in Ithaca.  This is stepping out in the realm of administering justice.  The man's name is Theoclymenus.   Theoclymenus is a prophet and interprets for Telemachus and omen of a hawk who is appearing on the right with a dove in its talons.  He correctly predicts that “no family in Ithaca is kinglier than yours; you will have power forever.”  That's always a nice thing to say.      And so, there we go, now Telemachus is set up for the confrontation, now we just need to get Odysseus home.      Yes- and that is what books 5-8 are about as well.  Odysseus also must find his way to those sandy shores- but before he does, he's going to tell the King who will take him how he ever got himself in the mess he did.  And next episode, we'll listen in and find out why you should never expect a Christmas party invite from a cyclops.  There's the tip for the day.      Ha!  Well, I'll keep my hopes down on that score.  Thank you for listening.  If you are enjoying this series on Homer and the Odyssey, please remember to give us a rating on your podcast ap.  And of course, share an episode with a friend.  Also, don't hesitate to connect with us via email, our website www.howtolovelitpodcast.com, Instagram, Facebook, linked in or any other social media ap you use.   And if you are listening to this in real time, we hope you are getting off to a great start in this year 2022.             

We now come to the conclusion of Odysseus' story as he makes it back to his home of Ithaca. However, he still has many trials to face, as we discuss in this episode! Join us as we look at the reunion of Odysseus and Telemachus, Penelope's plan to keep the suitors away, the battle in Odysseus' palace, and much more!  Follow us on Twitter! @UlmtdOpinions

Twins, synchronicity, science, anomalies, and dark mysteries. Support the show Merch, book Music by Kevin MacLeod  Read the full script. Reach out and touch Moxie on FB, Twit, the 'Gram or email.     In 1940, a pair of twin boys, only three weeks old, were put up for adoption in Ohio.  Separate families adopted each boy and coincidentally named both James, calling them Jim for short.  They grew up never knowing anything about one another, but their lives were bizarrely similar.  They each had a dog named Toy and in elementary school, each both was good at math, showed talent in woodshop, but struggled with spelling.  But it was as they moved into adulthood that coincidences really started to pile up.  My name... If one is good, two must be better, so today we were talking about twin on the first of a pair of twin episodes.  Let's start with a quick review.  Fraternal twins occur when two eggs are separately fertilized.  They are genetically distinct, basically regular siblings that happened to be conceived at the same time.  Or not.  There's a rare circumstance called superfetation, where a woman ovulates while already pregnant and the second egg also gets fertilized.  Multiple eggs being released during ovulation can sometimes result in heteropaternal superfecundation, meaning the eggs were fertilized by different men's sperm, creating fraternal twins with different fathers.  Identical twins occur when a fertilized egg splits, creating two zygotes with the same cells.  The splitting ovum usually produces identical twins, but if the split comes after about a week of development, it can result in mirror-image twins.  Conjoined twins, what we used to call Siamese twins, can result from eggs that split most of the way, but not complete.  Twins account for 1.5% of all pregnancies or 3% of the population.  The rate of twinning has risen 50% in the last 20 years.  Several factors can make having twins more likely, such as fertility therapy, advanced age, heredity, number of previous pregnancies, and race, with African women have the highest incidence of twins, while Asian women have the lowest.    Twins have always been of great interest to scientists.  There's simply no better way to test variable vs control than to have two people with identical DNA.  Identical twins share all of their genes, while fraternal twins only share 50%.  If a trait is more common among identical twins than fraternal twins, it suggests genetic factors are at work.  "Twins studies are the only real way of doing natural experiments in humans," says Tim Spector, a professor of genetic epidemiology at Kings College, London. "By studying twins, you can learn a great deal about what makes us tick, what makes us different, and particularly the roles of nature versus nature that you just can't get any other way.”   NASA was presented with a unique opportunity in the Kelly brothers, identical twins Scott, a current astronaut, and Mark, a retired astronaut.  As part of the "Year in Space" project, which would see Scott spend 340 on the ISS, the brothers provided blood, saliva, and urine samples, as well as undergoing a battery of physical and psychological tests designed to study the effects of long-duration spaceflight on the human body.  According to Dr Spector, twin studies are currently underway in over 100 countries.  Working with data and biological samples in the TwinsUK Registry, Spector's team has found more than 600 published papers showing a clear genetic basis for common diseases like osteoarthritis, cataracts and even back pain.  "When I started in this field, it was thought that only 'sexy' diseases [such as cancer] were genetic," Spector says. "Our findings changed that perception."   Back on our side of the pond, the Michigan State University Twin Registry was founded in 2001 to study genetic and environmental influences on a wide range of psychiatric and medical disorders.  One of their more surprising findings is that many eating disorders such as anorexia may not be wholly to blame on societal pressured by may actually have a genetic component to them.  "Because of twins studies,” says co-director Kelly Klump, “we now know that genes account for the same amount of variability in eating disorders as they do in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. We would have never known that without twins studies."  On the topic of body-fat, a LSU study by Claude Bouchard in 1990 overfed a dozen young male twins by 1,000 calories a day for three months.  Although every participant gained weight, the amount of weight, and more importantly for the study, fat varied considerably, from 9-29lbs/4-13kg.  Twins tended to gain a similar amount of weight and in the same places as each other, but each pair differed from the other pairs in the test.   While some twin studies, like Year In Space, are famous, others are infamous.   If you're worried where this topic is going, don't be.  We're not talking about Joseph Mengele or the Russian conjoined twins, Masha and Dasha, though they may show up next week.  Twin studies helped create the thinking and even the word “eugenics.”  Francis Galton, a half-cousin of Charles Darwin, was one of the first people to recognize the value of twins to study inherited traits.  In his 1875 paper, "The History of Twins," Galton used twins to estimate the relative effects of nature versus nature, a term he is credited with coining.  Unfortunately, his firm belief that intelligence is a matter of nature led him to become a vocal proponent of the idea that "a highly gifted race of men" could be produced through selective breeding and that unsuitable people should be prevented from reproducing.  The word “eugenics” came up a lot during the Nuremberg trials, if it wasn't already clear with adherents to the idea had in mind.  More recently, in 2003, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia reviewed the research on the heritability of I.Q.  He noticed that most of the studies that declared that I.Q. is genetic involved twins from middle-class backgrounds.  When he looked at twins from poorer families, he found that the I.Q.s of identical twins varied just as much as the I.Q.s of fraternal twins.  In other words, the impact of growing up poor can overwhelm a child's natural intelligence.   Bonus fact: The trope of the evil twin can be traced back as far as 300 BCE, to the Zurvanite branch of Zoroastrianism, the world's oldest continuously-observed religion.    Of all the things inherent to and special about twins, one of the most fascinating is twin language.  You might have seen the adorable viral video of a pair of toddlers having an animated conversation in their twin language.  If you want to bust out your Latin, it's cryptophasia, a form of idioglossia, an idiosyncratic language invented and spoken by only one person or very few people.  It was a struggle not to throw myself head-first down the idioglossia rabbit hole; maybe for a later episode.  Twin speak, or even sibling speak has existed, for as long as human language, but has only been seriously studied for the last few decades, not only to determine how the languages develop but to see if speaking a twin language could hamper the children learning their parents' language.  The reason twins are more likely than other sibling pairs to create their own language is less interesting than psychic phenomena - twins spend a lot of time together, being built-in companions, and are at the same developmental stage.  They unconsciously work together to build their language by imitating and pretending to understand one another, reinforcing their use of the language.  This can weaken their incentive to learn to speak to everyone else--they already have someone to talk to.  Some researchers advocate treating cryptophasia as early as possible.  According to Oxford neuropsychologist Dorothy Bishop, twins often get less intervention from speech therapists than nontwins. “People often assume that it's normal for twins to have funny language, and so they don't get a proper assessment and diagnosis. And then, when they are identified, they are often treated together as a unit, and so each gets half the attention of the professionals working with them.”   When doctors first began examining cryptophasic children, they discovered that the language isn't created out of nothing, but is made up of mispronounced words they've heard or references that only work inside their family.  It's usually not a language at all.  According to Karen Thorpe, a psychologist with Queensland University of Technology, you can think of it like “conversations between married couples where words are invented and abbreviated or restricted codes are used because full explanations are redundant.”  That absolutely happens here.  My husband and I talk like kids in a tree fort clubhouse.  But sometimes, just sometimes, a full-blown language does develop, complete with syntax and totally independent of the language spoken at home.  The syntax of a true twin language doesn't arise from mistakes made while learning the family's language.  It's similar to the syntax seen in deaf children who create their own sign language when not taught to sign.  This syntax could “gives us a potential insight into the nature of language” and mankind's “first language,” says linguist Peter Bakker.  Twin languages play fast and loose with word order, putting subjects, verbs, and objects wherever, but always putting the most important item first, which makes sense.  Negation, making something negative, is used as the first or last word of the statement, regardless of how the parental language handles negation.  It's almost like a Spanish question mark, letting you know where the sentence is going.  Verbs aren't conjugated--go is go, regardless of it's attached to I, he/she, us, or them.  There are also no pronouns, like he, she, or they, only the proper nouns.  There is also no way to locate things in time and space; everything just is.  If you're a fan of Tom Scott's language series on YouTube, he's started making them again.  If not, start with “Fantastic Features We Don't Have In The English Language.”  I'll put a link to it in the show notes.  If I forget, or you want to tell me what you thought, Soc Med.  Breakroom  Most children stop using private languages on their own or with minimal intervention, which is good, according to psychologists, because the longer they practice cryptophasia, the worse they do in tests later.  If you remember nothing else I say ever, remember that correlation does not equal causation.  Cryptophasia could be a symptom of an underlying handicap and that's the cause of the low test scores.     This simple-structured language is fine for two or a few people, but once there are more people to talk to or more things to talk about, you're going to need some more features, “unambiguous ways to distinguish between subject and object,” Bakker says.  “In the twin situation these can be dispensed with, but not in languages in which it is necessary to refer to events outside the direct situation.”  So do twin languages really offer insight into mankind's first language?  Could a primitive society have functioned as a cohesive unit with a language that can only refer to what can be seen at that moment?  That's what linguists are studying, but UC-Santa Barbara's Bernard Comrie adds the asterisk that this research into the infancy of spoken language is still a baby itself.  “First we were told that creole languages [that is, a distinct language that develops from the meeting a two or more languages] would provide us with insight into ‘first language,' then when that didn't pan out interest shifted to deaf sign language (also with mixed results)—I guess twin language will be the next thing.”     It's not an easy scientific row to hoe.  Twin languages come and go quickly as the children develop hearing their parents' language much more than their twin language.  They might keep speaking their twin language if they were very isolated, like two people in a Nell situation or that Russian family who lived alone for 40 years, but we'll file that idea under “grossly unethically and probably illegal.”  Not that it hasn't been tried.  Herodotus tells us of what is considered the first every psychological experiment, when Pharaoh Psammetichus I in the sixth century BCE wanted to know if the capacity for speech was innate to humans and beyond that, what language would that be.  He ordered two infants to be raised by a shepherd hermit who was forbidden to speak in their presence.  After two years the children began to speak; the word that they used most often was the Phrygian word for bread.  Thus, Psammetichus concluded that the capacity for speech is innate, and that the natural language of human beings is Phrygian.  Similar experiments were conducted by Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II in the 12th century CE who ordered children to be raised by caretakers forbidden to speak to them and 15th century James I of Scotland who ordered children raised exclusively by a deaf-mute woman, which was repeated by 16th century Mughal Indian Emperor Akbar, among others.  I shouldn't have to tell you that they were all based on dubious methodology and soaking in confirmation bias.  A less-terrible test was done in the 20th century by British ethologist, or animal behavior scientist, William H. Thorpe, who raised birds in isolation to determine which songs are innate.   One of the best-known cases a negative impact from cryptophasia is the Kennedy sisters of San Diego, Grace and Virginia, of Poto and Cabengo, as they called each other.  They created a media whirlwind in 1970s when it was reported that they only spoke their twin language, to the complete exclusion of English, at the rather advanced age of 6.  “Twin Girls Invent Own Language,” “Gibberish-Talking Twins,” “Like a Martian” the headlines read.  Here is a clip of the girls speaking and sadly this is the best audio quality I could find.  Grace and Virginia had suffered apparent seizures as infants, leading their parents to conclude that the girls had been left mentally handicapped.  Their parents opted to keep them inside and away from other children, leaving them mostly in the care of a laconic grandmother who often left them to their own devices.  They seemed like the next big thing in language-creation studies, but on closer examination, it was discovered that, like most cryptophasics, the girls were just very badly, and very quickly, mispronouncing English and German, the languages spoken at home.  Adding to their disappointment, when scientists tried to use the girls' words to converse with them, the girls couldn't stop laughing.  Grace and Virginia were also cleared of their parents mis-labeling them as intellectually handicapped.  Both were found to have relatively normal IQs, for as much good as IQ tests are, which is very little, but that's another show.  The girls eventually underwent speech therapy and learned regular English, though their language skills were a bit stunted, even into adulthood.  identical twins come from a fertilized egg that splits.  If the zygote splits most of the way, but not all, it results in conjoined twins.  Or if the zygotes collide and fuse, science isn't really sure.  Thus conjoined twins are always identical, meaning the same gender.  Why am I pointing that out?  I met two moms of twins at the She PodcastsLive conference who regularly have people ask them if their identical twins are the same gender.  This is why we need sex ed in school.  You'll also notice I'm not using the term Siamese twins.  That term comes from Chang & Eng Bunker, who were born in Siam, modern day Thailand, in 1811, connected by a band of tissue at the chest.  It's not offensive per e, but just doesn't apply to anyone not born in Siam, so people have stopped using it.   Conjoined twins occur once every 2-500,000 live births, according to the University of Minnesota. About 70% of conjoined twins are female, though I couldn't find a reason or theory why.  40 to 60% of these births are delivered stillborn, with 35% surviving only one day.  The overall survival rate is less than 1 in 4.  Often, one twin will have birth defects that are not conducive to life and can endanger the stronger twin.   Conjoined twins are physically connected to one another at some point on their bodies, and are referred to by that place of joining.  Brace yourself while I wallow in my medical Latin.  The most common conjoinments are thoracopagus (heart, liver, intestine), omphalopagus (liver, biliary tree, intestine), pygopagus (spine, rectum, genitourinary tract), ischiopagus (pelvis, liver, intestine, genitourinary tract), and craniopagus (brain, meninges).  75% are joined at the chest or upper abdomen, 23% are joined at the hips, legs or genitalia, 2% are joined at the head.     If the twins have separate organs, chances for separation surgery are markedly better than if they share the organs.  As a rule, conjoined twins that share a heart cannot be separated. Worldwide, only about 250 separation surgeries have been successful, meaning at least one twin survived over the long term, according to the American Pediatric Surgical Association. The surgical separation success rate has improved over the years, and about 75 percent of surgical separations result in at least one twin surviving.  The process begins long before the procedure, with tests and scans, as well as tissue expanders, balloons inserted under the skin and slowly filled with saline or air to stretch the skin, so there will be enough skin to cover the area where the other twin's body used to be. It requires a whole hospital full of specialties to separate conjoined twins, from general surgeons, plastic and reconstructive surgeons, neurosurgeons, neonatologists, cardiologists, advanced practice nurses, and maternal-fetal medicine specialists, among others.  In fact, the longest surgery of all time was a conjoined twin separation.  Separation surgeries often last an entire day; this one required 103 hours.  If they started at 8am Monday, the team finished the surgery at 3pm Thursday.  In 2001, a team of 20 doctors at Singapore General Hospital worked in shifts to separate Ganga and Jamuna Shrestha, 11-month-old twins conjoined at the head.  Not only did the girls share a cranial cavity, their brains were partially fused.  Each tiny brain had hundreds of bitty blood vessels, each of which had to be traced and identified as belonging to one or the other of the girls.  Their brains were not only connected, they were wrapped around each other like a helix.  Plus, each twin's skull needed to be reshaped and added to, using a blend of bone material and Gore-Tex fibers.  Both babies survived the surgery.  Sadly, Ganga died of meningitis at age 7, but Jamuna has gone on to live a healthy life and attend school.   We interrupt this podcast script for an exciting article.  Meaning I was almost done writing it, then I found something I had to go back and include.  There was another pair of conjoined twins named Ganga and Jamuna, this pair born in 1970 in West Bengal.  The pairing of the names makes sense when you learn that the Ganga and Jamuna are sacred rivers.  The sisters are ischio-omphalopagus tripus, meaning joined at the abdomen and pelvis.  They have two hearts and four arms, but share a set of kidneys, a liver and a single reproductive tract.  Between then they have three legs, the third being a nine-toed fusion of two legs, which was non-functional and they kept that one under their clothing.  They can stand, but they cannot walk and crawl on their hands and feet, earning them the show name "The Spider Girls".  Managed by their uncle while on the road with the Dreamland Circus, they exhibit themselves by lying on a charpoy bed, talking to the spectators who come to look at them.  They earned a good living, making about $6/hr, compared to the average wage in India of $.40.   Ganga and Jamuna have two ration cards for subsidized grain, though they eat from the same plate.  They cast two votes, but were refused a joint bank account.  They also share a husband, Gadadhar, a carnival worker who is twenty years their senior.  When asked which he loves more, Gadadhar replies, "I love both equally."  In 1993, the twins had a daughter via Caesarean section, but the baby only lived a few hours.  Though the sister would like to have children, doctors fear that pregnancy would endanger their lives.  Doctors have offered them separation surgery, but they're not interested.  They feel it would be against God's will, be too great of a risk, and put them out of a job.  "We are happy as we are. The family will starve if we are separated."   Not all parasitic twins are as obvious as a torso with arms and legs.  The condition is called fetus in fetu, a parasitic twin developing or having been absorbed by the autosite twin.  It's extremely rare, occurring only once in every 500,000 births and twice as likely to happen in a male.  The question of how a parasitic twin might develop is one that currently has no answer.  To say the fetuses in question are only partially developed is still overstating thing.  They are usually little more than a ball of tissues with perhaps one or two recognizable body parts.  One school of thought holds that fetus in fetu is a complete misnomer.  Adherents contend that the alien tissue is not in fact a fetus at all, but a form of tumor, a teratoma, specifically.  A teratoma, also known as a dermoid cyst, is a sort of highly advanced tumor that can develop human skin, sweat glands, hair, and even teeth.  Some believe that, left long enough, a teratoma could become advanced enough to develop primitive organs.   There have only been about 90 verified cases in the medical record.  One reason fetus in fetu is rare is that the condition is antithetical to full-term development.  Usually, both twins die in utero from the strain of sharing a placenta.  Take 7 year old Alamjan Nematilaev of Kazakstan, who reported to his family abdominal pain and a feeling that something was moving inside him.  His doctors thought he had a large cyst that needed to be removed.  Once they got in there, though, doctors discovered one of the most developed cases of fetus in fetu ever seen.  Alamjan's fetus had a head, four limbs, hands, fingernails, hair and a human if badly misshapen face.    Fetus in fetu, when it is discovered, is usually found in children, but one man lived 36 years, carrying his fetal twin in his abdomen.  Sanju Bhagat lived his whole life with a bulging stomach, constantly ridiculed by people in his village for looking nine months pregnant.  Little did they know, eh?  Fetus in fetu is usually discovered after the parasitic twin grows so large that it causes discomfort to the host.  In Bhagat's case, he began having trouble breathing because the mass was pushing against his diaphragm.  In June of 1999, Bhagat was rushed to Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai, India for emergency surgery.  According to Dr. Ajay Mehta, "Basically, the tumor was so big that it was pressing on his diaphragm and that's why he was very breathless.  Because of the sheer size of the tumor, it makes it difficult [to operate]. We anticipated a lot of problems."   While operating on Bhagat, Mehta saw something he had never encountered.  The squeamish may wish to jump30 and think about kittens, though if you've made it this far, you're cut from strong cloth.  As the doctor cut deeper into Bhagat's stomach, gallons of fluid spilled out.  "To my surprise and horror, I could shake hands with somebody inside," he said. "It was a bit shocking for me."   One unnamed doctor interviewed in the ABC News story described what she saw that day in the operating room:  “[The surgeon] just put his hand inside and he said there are a lot of bones inside,” she said. “First, one limb came out, then another limb came out. Then some part of genitalia, then some part of hair, some limbs, jaws, limbs, hair.”  There was no placenta inside Bhagat -- the enveloped parasitic twin had connected directly to Bhagat's blood supply. Right after the surgery, Bhagat's pain and inability to breathe disappeared and he recovered immediately.  Upon recovery from the surgery, in which his twin was removed, Bhagat immediately felt better. But he says that villagers still tease him about it. The story I was referring to was made into a plot point on AHS:FS, the tale of Edward Mordrake, the man with two faces.  In 1895, The Boston Post published an article titled “The Wonders of Modern Science” that presented astonished readers with reports from the Royal Scientific Society documenting the existence of “marvels and monsters” hitherto believed imaginary.   Edward Mordrake was a handsome, intelligent English nobleman with a talent for music and a peerage to inherit.  But there was a catch.  With all his blessings came a terrible curse.  Opposite his handsome was, was a grotesque face on the back of his head.  Edward Mordrake was constantly plagued by his “devil twin,” which kept him up all night whispering “such things as they only speak of in hell.”  He begged his doctors to remove the face, but they didn't dare try.  He asked them to simply bash the evil face in, anything to silence it.  It was never heard by anyone else, but it whispered to Edward all night, a dark passenger that could never be satisfied.  At age 23, after living in seclusion for years, Edward Mordrake committed suicide, leaving behind a note ordering the evil face be destroyed after his death, “lest it continues its dreadful whispering in my grave.”   This macabre story ...is just that, a story, a regular old work of fiction.  “But, but, I've seen a photograph of him.”  Sadly, no.  You've seen a photo of a wax model of the legendary head, Madame Toussad style.  Don't feel bad that you were convinced.  The description of the cursed nobleman was so widely accepted that his condition appeared in an 1896 medical encyclopedia, co-authored by two respected physicians.  Since they recounted the original newspaper story in full without any additional details, gave an added air of authority to Mordrake's tale.   “No, there's a picture of his mummified head on a stand.”  I hate to puncture your dreams, but that's papier mache.  It looks great, but the artist who made it has gone on record stating it was created entirely for entertainment purposes.  If you were to look at that newspaper account of Mordrake, it would fall apart immediately.  “One of the weirdest as well as most melancholy stories of human deformity is that of Edward Mordake, said to have been heir to one of the noblest peerages in England. He never claimed the title, however, and committed suicide in his twenty-third year. He lived in complete seclusion, refusing the visits even of the members of his own family. He was a young man of fine attainments, a profound scholar, and a musician of rare ability. His figure was remarkable for its grace, and his face – that is to say, his natural face – was that of Antinous. But upon the back of his head was another face, that of a beautiful girl, ‘lovely as a dream, hideous as a devil.'”  What did we say at the top?  Conjoined twins are identical, meaning among other things, the same gender.   And that… though we'll finish up out story of the twin Jims.  Their lives were so unbelievably similar, if you saw it in a movie, you'd throw your popcorn at the screen.  Both Jims had married women named Linda, divorced them and married women named Betty.   They each had sons that they named James Alan, though one was Alan and the other Allan.  Both smoked, drove a Chevrolet, held security-based jobs, and even vacationed at the exact same Florida beach, though one assumes not at the same time.  After being reunited at age 37, they took part in a study at University of Minnesota, which showed that their medical histories, personality tests, and even brain-wave tests were almost identical.  Remember, you can always find… Thanks…  

The Eleusinian Mysteries are the best kept secret in history! (But you know we've got some ideas.) Hadrian and Antinous attended this trippy event and kicked off a world-tour romance that would inspire people for centuries to follow. But after a fatal drowning, the Romans make their own little stop at Speculation Station! Hear the epic conclusion now! Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Hadrian had some big sandals to fill when he succeeded Trajan as Emperor of Rome. The senate didn't love him, but fortunately one ridiculously attractive, athletic, cool AF man did. Their story became legend, and these men have gone down in history as icons, inspiring gay culture and sports to this day. Hear how Hadrian changed an Empire, challenged the Roman senate, and met his one true love in part 1 of this epic story! Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

We're back this week with the latest in our Roman emperor series! Today we're talking about the emperor Hadrian and his lover Antinous. Join us to learn about one of the most famous male-male couples of all time, the mystery of Antinous' death, and how to make your boyfriend into a god. Check out our website, where you can find out everything there is to know about Queer as Fact.  If you enjoy our content, consider supporting us on Patreon, checking out our merch, and following us on Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook.

In this show: The Last Raisin - by Sarah Pratt An Unfortunate Series of Coincidences - by Tony Owens - narrated by Marg Essex Taila2 - by Geraldine Borella Our Audio License AntipodeanSF Radio Show by Ion Newcombe is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at www.antisf.com.au. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://www.antisf.com.au/contact Excess Raisin by Jeff Gburek is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License. Drunk Clown by Seazo is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License. Treatment Resistant by Nicky Andrews is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License.   Intro & Outro Music Celestial Navigation by Blue Dot Sessions is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial License

Ben and Jenny discuss Antinous the gay lover of Roman emperor Hadrian who subsequently became a God. They also discuss one of ancient Greek mythology's most influential black heroes and, what Boris Johnson really looks like underneath all that hair.

Special guest Tim Platt (@iamkingbozo) joins David to talk about one of Roman's greatest emperors, the legendary Hadrian. David and Tim discuss Hadrian's legacy, his love of the youth Antinous, and the complexities of unpacking history as we know it. David also talks 'Drag Race UK,' 'WandaVision,' Robert Altman's 'Three Women' and more. You can follow David on Instagram @david_odyssey and @adavidodyssey on Twitter. To book a tarot/astrology reading, email adavidodyssey@gmail.com. The Luminaries is made with love in New York City: consulting producer Carly Hoogendyk, music by Henry Koperski, and creative director Greg Kozatek. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This episode the ladies talk about May-December relationships: Roman Emperor Hadrian and his beautiful boy-turned-god, Antinous, and the 1971 cult classic Harold and Maude, the darkest romcom around. Content warning: this episode contains sensitive material. If you or someone you know is suicidal call 1-800-273-8255 Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/morethanacrushpodcast)

Praised by the New York Times for his “genuine originality,” Rufus Wainwright has established himself as one of the great male vocalists and songwriters of his generation. The New York-born, Montreal-raised singer songwriter has released countless studio albums, three DVDs, and three live albums, including the fantastic Grammy nominated Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall, which captured his celebrated Judy Garland tribute performance at the London Palladium in 2007, and the album Release The Stars which went Gold in Canada and the UK. His new album Unfollow the Rules – his ninth with original material — was released on 10 July 2020.Wainwright has received Juno Awards for Best Alternative Album in 1999 and 2002 for Rufus Wainwright and Poses, respectively, and nominations for his albums Want Two (2005)and Release the Stars (2008). He was nominated for Songwriter of the Year in 2008 for his Release the Stars album. He also composed the original music for choreographer Stephen Petronio’s work BLOOM which has toured across the country.Musically Rufus has collaborated with artists including Elton John, David Byrne, Boy George, Joni Mitchell, Pet Shop Boys and producer Mark Ronson among others. He collaborated on the title track of Robbie Williams’ latest album, Swings Both Ways, which was co-written with renowned musician and producer Guy Chambers and sung as a duet between Rufus and Robbie.In addition to being a celebrated contemporary pop singer, Rufus has made a name for himself in the classical world. His much acclaimed first opera, titled Prima Donna, premiered at the Manchester International Festival in July 2009. The opera was subsequently performed in London at Sadler’s Wells in April 2010, in Toronto at the Luminato Festival in June 2010 and at the Brooklyn Academy of Music’s Howard Gilman Opera House in February 2012.Now fully established as a composer of operas, Rufus was commissioned by the Canadian Opera Company to write his second opera based on the story of the Roman Emperor Hadrian and Antinous. The new opera, Hadrian, premiered in Toronto on October 13, 2018.The music for the podcast is Twiggy's version of "Waterloo Sunset" by the Kinks and can be found on Apple Music at this link https://music.apple.com/gb/album/romantically-yours/693460953If you’ve enjoyed listening to “Tea With Twiggy” please give take a moment to give us a lovely 5 STAR rating on Apple Podcasts. It really helps other people to find the show.If you haven’t done so already please subscribe to this podcast so you auto-magically get the next episodes for free and do tell all your friends and family about it too. If you want to connect with me I’d love to hear from you.You can find me on Twitter @TwiggyOr you can find me on Instagram @Twiggy LawsonMy thanks go to all the people that have helped this podcast happen:● Many thanks to James Carrol and all the team at Northbank Talent Management● Thanks to all the team at Stripped Media including Ben Williams, who edits the show, my producer Kobi Omenaka and Executive Producers Tom Whalley and Dave CorkeryIf you want to know more about this podcast and other produced by Stripped Media please visit www.Stripped.media or email Producers@Stripped.Media to find out! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Odysseus reunites with his son, Telemachus, but remains in disguise while he returns to his house accompanied by Eumaeus the swineherd. There, he is met with touching recognition by Argos his hound, but shocking insult by Antinous, the most insolent of Penelope's suitors.

Fernando Pessoa nació 13 de junio de 1888, en Lisboa. Su padre, Joaquim de Seabra Pessoa, era funcionario público del Ministerio de Justicia, y crítico musical del periódico Diario de Notícias. Su madre, Maria Magdalena Pinheiro Nogueira, era natural de las Azores. Fue bautizado el 21 de julio en la Iglesia de los Mártires, del Chiado. Su padre murió víctima de la tuberculosis, cuando Fernando tenía cinco años, pero otro suceso trágico marcaría la infancia del poeta, ya que su hermano Jorge falleció al año siguiente sin cumplir un año. La madre se vio obligada a subastar parte de los muebles y la familia se mudó a una casa más modesta. La madre contrajo segundas nupcias por poderes en 1895, en la Iglesia de São Mamede de Lisboa con el comandante João Miguel Rosa, cónsul de Portugal en Durban, y allí transcurrió el resto de la infancia del escritor, donde recibió una educación británica. Sus primeros textos y estudios fueron redactados en ese idioma. En 1899 ingresó en la Durban High School, fue uno de los primeros alumnos de su promoción. Su hermana Henriqueta murió a los dos años de edad. En 1901 la familia partió a Portugal. En la capital portuguesa nació João Maria, cuarto hijo del segundo matrimonio de la madre de Fernando Pessoa. La familia viajó a la isla natal de la madre, la Isla Terceira, en las Azores. El futuro padre de las letras portuguesas decidió permanecer en Lisboa cuando el resto de la familia se trasladó de nuevo a Durban, y regresó solo a Durban para matricularse en la Commercial School. En 1903 se presentó a las pruebas de ingreso para la Universidad del Cabo de Buena Esperanza. Terminó con éxito sus estudios en Sudáfrica tras realizar en la Universidad el Intermediate Examination in Arts. Regresó definitivamente a la capital portuguesa, solo, en 1905, para residir en la casa de su abuela Dionísia. Pessoa seguía escribiendo poemas en inglés y en 1906 se matriculó en el curso superior de letras de la Universidad de Lisboa, que abandonó a causa de una huelga estudiantil, sin siquiera haber terminado el primer año. Es esta época entró en contacto con importantes escritores de la literatura portuguesa, en especial la obra de Cesário Verde. En Agosto de 1907 murió su abuela Dionísia, dejándole una pequeña herencia. Con ese dinero montó una modesta imprenta, que rápidamente quebró, con el nombre de Empresa Íbis — Tipografía Editora — Oficinas a Vapor. A partir de 1908 se dedicó a la traducción de correspondencia comercial, trabajo que realizará a lo largo de toda su vida. Inició su actividad de ensayista y crítico literario con la publicación, en 1912 en la revista Águia, del artículo Empezó a traducir y a escribir para la revista de vanguardia Orpheu (1915), Atena (dirigida por él mismo), Ruy Vaz (a partir de 1924) o Presença (en 1927). Su primer libro de poemas, y el único publicado junto con Mensagem, Antinous, apareció en inglés en 1918. Su primera obra en portugués, el poema patriótico Mensagem, única que publicó en vida, no apareció hasta 1933. Murió el 30 de noviembre de 1935, en el Hospital de São Luís dos Franceses, en Lisboa. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/hunab-ku/message

Topics include:Newborn rituals, bulla, and Dies Lustricus celebration. Father’s death. Preschool training, clothing, food, and daily life. Homeschool teachers and early learning.Emperor Hadrian’s early interest in Marcus and the nickname he gave him, Verissimus (Meaning most truthful). Priesthood college, tutors and Stoic philosophers. Toga Virilis ceremony.Third Jewish Roman war. The sacrifice of Antinous. What Marcus thought of Hadrian, the adoption of Antoninus, and his changing marriage arrangements. Marcus becomes the youngest Quaestor in history at seventeen years old.Hadrian’s death and succession plans.Chapter highlights of Harmony’s Secret (Interactive)An event calendar compares the Roman dating system to the one in use today. Information panels provide concise overviews of Ancient Rome, and each of the emperors that preceded Marcus.Marcus lesson assignments focus on Mindfulness. This includes how to distinguish what is within her control, and what is not. And how to build moment to moment non-judgmental awareness into her character.Harmony’s role play of a Stoic Scout helps her become more open, bold, and adventurous. Her story telling illustrates her ability to interpret patterns, movements, and relationships. She also develops skills on how to clear her mind to reveal the truth. As well as what is in her control. 

In Episode 3, Tenaya talks about Hortense Mancini, the brilliant Italian writer, and mistress to aristocrats and royalty. And Kristen tells you the story of Antinous, the lover of Emperor Hadrian and the face of antiquity. Make sure to subscribe to the podcast to automatically get new episodes. Follow us on insta @CoquettePodcast, on twitter @CoquettePodcast or send us an email at historicalwpodcast@gmail.com And check out our website: https://coquettepodcast.wixsite.com/home The theme song is a clip from Body And Soul by Annette Hanshaw (1930 - Public Domain Mark 1.0). All views, thoughts and opinions expressed in this podcast are the hosts and are not necessarily held by their workplaces. PodcastHistoryPodcastHistorywomen Explicit

Around Grandfather Fire - Episode 28 Copyright 2019 -- P. Sufenas Virius Lupus joins Jim, Sarenth and Caitlin to talk about new Gods, Antinous, and the end of the Age psufenasviriuslupus.wordpress.com coast.noaa.gov -- Opening voice work Kai Belcher Music “Ophelia” by Les Hayden, provided by the Free Music Archive and used under Creative Commons licenses: freemusicarchive.org/music/Les_Hayden/Proverbs/Les_Hayden_-_Proverbs_-_05_Ophelia_1785 -- Find us on FaceBook Around Grandfather Fire -- Sareth Odinsson sarenth.wordpress.com Twitter: @Sarenth -- Jim Two Snakes anchorandfoxconsulting.com/jim-two-snakes/ Twitter: @JamesAtTheOwl Instagram: @jim_two_snakes FaceBook: www.facebook.com/jimtwosnakes/ -- Caitlin Storm Breaker FaceBook: www.facebook.com/caitlin.terry.5099 stormpaqo.home.blog -- #Shaman #SarenthOdinsson #JimTwoSnakes #CaitlinStormBreaker #Antinous #Polytheism --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/around-grandfather-fire/message

The one where Ben ships Admiral Akbar off to Love Island and Phil gives them bread and circuses. Other topics include but are not limited to... Stella Street, Pirate DVD's, Musicals, The Hero's Journey, Seven of Nine, Antinous, Strictly Come Dancing, Human Centipede, Furries, Swine Flu, Asterix, Shaolin Monks and The Twits.... Message us here....follow, like, subscribe and share. (comments, corrections, future topics etc) @amishinqpodcast https://www.facebook.com/amish.inquisit.3 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmv8ucrv5a2KpaRWyBWfBUA theamishinquisition@gmail.com    

We're trying this thing where we provide GRABBIER episode titles for you all and, uh, I think this is our best yet! I mean, would you rather listen to "Who's There: Antinous & David Adefeso" or "Who's There: The Gay Ghost Haunting Simon Cowell & David Adefeso"? (If you say the former, UNSUBSCRIBE NOW.) (Kidding, never ever ever do that.) Anyway, Simon Cowell's house is probably being haunted by the thotty gay ghost of some hunky Roman named Antinous. What's his unfinished business, you ask? He neeeeeeeeeeeeds to become a gay influencer on Instagram! OooOoOOoOOOOo, is there anything spookier?! Moving on, we've got some corrections per usual, a little chatter about Judaism per usual, gay shit per usual, and a lengthy investigation of Tamar Braxton's new boyfriend who may or may not be solving the student loan crisis. If so, we stan. If not, watch out Tamar!!! As always, call in at 619.WHO.THEM with your questions and comments, don't forget to support us on Patréon for a jam-packed weekly newsletter and fortnightly bonus episodes—and come see us LIVE! in Nashville, Boston & DC. 

In the first episode of Season 4 Sebastian looks at the historical reputation of the Roman Emperor Hadrian. Hadrian has been celebrated as one of Rome's "five good emperors", but is that reputation actually deserved? Hadrian's reputation is complicated by the mysterious death of his teenage lover, Antinous. What should we believe about this strange chapter in the life of one of Rome's most celebrated emperors? Tune in and find out how radical beards, fantastical walls, and ancient man-love all play a role in the story.     See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In the first episode of Season 4 Sebastian looks at the historical reputation of the Roman Emperor Hadrian. Hadrian has been celebrated as one of Rome's "five good emperors", but is that reputation actually deserved? Hadrian's reputation is complicated by the mysterious death of his teenage lover, Antinous. What should we believe about this strange chapter in the life of one of Rome's most celebrated emperors? Tune in and find out how radical beards, fantastical walls, and ancient man-love all play a role in the story.    

A Stasie solo episode as she takes us back to ancient Greece, Rome, and a story about how lost love can create entire reglious movements. Contact us at cultsofourlives@gmail.com and Cults of Our Lives Podcast on Facebook!

The title of Sex God gets bandied around quite a bit these days, as Carrie Quinlain knows all too well. But there can only be one true sex god. How he got to be a god is a little more disturbing. But what with over 2000 statues of his perfect pecs and rosebud lips, such modern concerns are nothing in comparison to what love can aspire to. Just, yeah... as Obelix says "These Romans are crazy." Thanks for listening - if you can, please donate, but you can also help by sharing this episode on social media and writing a review on iTunes. www.zlistdeadlist.com FEATURING: Anitnous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinous Cleopatra III https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra_III_of_Egypt Carrie Quinlan is an Actor, comedian and writer. Currently starring in John Finnemore's Souvenir Programme on BBC Radio 4. @quinlan_carrie Iszi Lawrence is a comedian and podcasterer and contributer to BBC's Making History and presenter of The British Museum Membercast. @iszi_lawrence The Z List Dead List is a podcast about obscure people from History. Created by Iszi Lawrence @iszi_lawrence To help support the show please share it with your friends and on social media. Also leave us a review on iTunes - this makes us more visible so that other people can find us. For any donations please use the paypal button. Thanks very much!   MUSIC All Licenses can be viewed on www.freemusicarchive.org. Theme: Time Trades Live at the WFMU Record Fair - November 24, 2013 by Jeffery Lewis (http://www.thejefferylewissite.com)

With Hadrian safely back from his travels we take a moment to have a look at what could debatably be the loves of Hadrian's life - his building projects, his wife Vabia Sabina, and a certain young man named Antinous.

Jennifer Marie Brissett‘s first novel, Elysium, or the World After (Aqueduct Press, 2014), portrays a fractured world, one whose seemingly irreversible destruction does nothing to dampen the survivors’ collective will to live. Brissett showed similar determination in writing the book, whose non-traditional structure places it outside the mainstream. Fortunately, her approach has been validated, first by her teachers at Stonecoast Creative Writing Program at the University of Southern Maine, where she wrote Elysium as her final thesis, and later by the committee that selected Elysium as one of six nominees for the Philip K. Dick Award. (The winner will be announced April 3). “I wasn’t sure there was a space for me in this writing world. And to a certain degree I still sort of wonder. But the idea that I could write and that my stories are worthy of being told was something [Stonecoast] really helped to foster in me,” Brissett says in her New Books interview. In some respects, Elysium is simple: it tells a story of love and loss between two people. But Elysium is also complicated because those two people morph from scene to scene, changing from two brothers to father/daughter to husband/wife to boyfriend/boyfriend to girlfriend/girlfriend. When imagining the future, conventional science fiction often focuses too much on gadgets and not enough on people, Brissett says. “We think [science fiction] is about … the new machines we’ll have, the little gadgets that will make our lives easier … but I think the civil rights movement is one of the most science-fictional things that could have probably happened, because all of a sudden this entire group of people that was totally ignored showed up at the table and said ‘We want in.'” As a child, Brissett found the Wonder Bread future depicted in The Jetsons frightening. “I remember watching as a kid the Jetsons and thinking ‘That is an absolutely terrifying vision of the future. Where are all the black people?'” she says. “The future belongs to everybody. It doesn’t really belong to any one group. And yet when you see visions of the future, it’s usually mostly white heterosexual people wandering around.” In the early 2000s, Brissett owned an independent bookstore in Brooklyn, N.Y., where she experienced the publishing industry’s struggles firsthand. Rather that discourage her from becoming a writer herself, the experience seems to have solidified her desire to tell stories in the way she wants to tell them. “You have to love this field to be here. If you’re here for money, you are certifiably crazy,” she says. Spoiler Alert From 6:45 to 10:24 we talk about a major part of the plot, which is revealed on the book jacket but isn’t explained until near the end of the book. Listeners might want to skip this part (and not read the jacket copy) if they want to approach the story as a mystery whose answer lies in the book’s structure. Related Links * Elysium was inspired, in part, by Roman Emperor Hadrian’s love of Antinous. * Brissett mentions her recently deceased friend, the writer Eugie Foster. * She also mentions a number of her teachers, including Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jennifer Marie Brissett‘s first novel, Elysium, or the World After (Aqueduct Press, 2014), portrays a fractured world, one whose seemingly irreversible destruction does nothing to dampen the survivors’ collective will to live. Brissett showed similar determination in writing the book, whose non-traditional structure places it outside the mainstream. Fortunately, her approach has been validated, first by her teachers at Stonecoast Creative Writing Program at the University of Southern Maine, where she wrote Elysium as her final thesis, and later by the committee that selected Elysium as one of six nominees for the Philip K. Dick Award. (The winner will be announced April 3). “I wasn’t sure there was a space for me in this writing world. And to a certain degree I still sort of wonder. But the idea that I could write and that my stories are worthy of being told was something [Stonecoast] really helped to foster in me,” Brissett says in her New Books interview. In some respects, Elysium is simple: it tells a story of love and loss between two people. But Elysium is also complicated because those two people morph from scene to scene, changing from two brothers to father/daughter to husband/wife to boyfriend/boyfriend to girlfriend/girlfriend. When imagining the future, conventional science fiction often focuses too much on gadgets and not enough on people, Brissett says. “We think [science fiction] is about … the new machines we’ll have, the little gadgets that will make our lives easier … but I think the civil rights movement is one of the most science-fictional things that could have probably happened, because all of a sudden this entire group of people that was totally ignored showed up at the table and said ‘We want in.'” As a child, Brissett found the Wonder Bread future depicted in The Jetsons frightening. “I remember watching as a kid the Jetsons and thinking ‘That is an absolutely terrifying vision of the future. Where are all the black people?'” she says. “The future belongs to everybody. It doesn’t really belong to any one group. And yet when you see visions of the future, it’s usually mostly white heterosexual people wandering around.” In the early 2000s, Brissett owned an independent bookstore in Brooklyn, N.Y., where she experienced the publishing industry’s struggles firsthand. Rather that discourage her from becoming a writer herself, the experience seems to have solidified her desire to tell stories in the way she wants to tell them. “You have to love this field to be here. If you’re here for money, you are certifiably crazy,” she says. Spoiler Alert From 6:45 to 10:24 we talk about a major part of the plot, which is revealed on the book jacket but isn’t explained until near the end of the book. Listeners might want to skip this part (and not read the jacket copy) if they want to approach the story as a mystery whose answer lies in the book’s structure. Related Links * Elysium was inspired, in part, by Roman Emperor Hadrian’s love of Antinous. * Brissett mentions her recently deceased friend, the writer Eugie Foster. * She also mentions a number of her teachers, including Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jennifer Marie Brissett‘s first novel, Elysium, or the World After (Aqueduct Press, 2014), portrays a fractured world, one whose seemingly irreversible destruction does nothing to dampen the survivors’ collective will to live. Brissett showed similar determination in writing the book, whose non-traditional structure places it outside the mainstream. Fortunately, her approach has been validated, first by her teachers at Stonecoast Creative Writing Program at the University of Southern Maine, where she wrote Elysium as her final thesis, and later by the committee that selected Elysium as one of six nominees for the Philip K. Dick Award. (The winner will be announced April 3). “I wasn’t sure there was a space for me in this writing world. And to a certain degree I still sort of wonder. But the idea that I could write and that my stories are worthy of being told was something [Stonecoast] really helped to foster in me,” Brissett says in her New Books interview. In some respects, Elysium is simple: it tells a story of love and loss between two people. But Elysium is also complicated because those two people morph from scene to scene, changing from two brothers to father/daughter to husband/wife to boyfriend/boyfriend to girlfriend/girlfriend. When imagining the future, conventional science fiction often focuses too much on gadgets and not enough on people, Brissett says. “We think [science fiction] is about … the new machines we’ll have, the little gadgets that will make our lives easier … but I think the civil rights movement is one of the most science-fictional things that could have probably happened, because all of a sudden this entire group of people that was totally ignored showed up at the table and said ‘We want in.'” As a child, Brissett found the Wonder Bread future depicted in The Jetsons frightening. “I remember watching as a kid the Jetsons and thinking ‘That is an absolutely terrifying vision of the future. Where are all the black people?'” she says. “The future belongs to everybody. It doesn’t really belong to any one group. And yet when you see visions of the future, it’s usually mostly white heterosexual people wandering around.” In the early 2000s, Brissett owned an independent bookstore in Brooklyn, N.Y., where she experienced the publishing industry’s struggles firsthand. Rather that discourage her from becoming a writer herself, the experience seems to have solidified her desire to tell stories in the way she wants to tell them. “You have to love this field to be here. If you’re here for money, you are certifiably crazy,” she says. Spoiler Alert From 6:45 to 10:24 we talk about a major part of the plot, which is revealed on the book jacket but isn’t explained until near the end of the book. Listeners might want to skip this part (and not read the jacket copy) if they want to approach the story as a mystery whose answer lies in the book’s structure. Related Links * Elysium was inspired, in part, by Roman Emperor Hadrian’s love of Antinous. * Brissett mentions her recently deceased friend, the writer Eugie Foster. * She also mentions a number of her teachers, including Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this third episode that coincides with Pantheacon, we talk to P. Sufenas Virius Lupus about the evolution of gender in regards to Deity. Do the Gods really care about their, and our, gender? Can we create new deities that are inclusive and that work for us? How have we evolved in our thinking around gender? How does pagan isolationism contribute to issues of gender and inclusion? We also talk about how sharing and listening to the stories of people can put a human face onto the “other.” (And there’s some Buffy spoilers for the uninitiated.) P. Sufenas Virius Lupus is a metagender person, and the founding member, Doctor, Sacerdos, Magistratum, and Mystagogos of the Ekklesía Antínoou (a queer, Graeco-Roman-Egyptian syncretist reconstructionist polytheist religious group dedicated to Antinous, the deified lover of the Roman Emperor Hadrian and other related gods and divine figures), a contributing member of Neos Alexandria, and a Celtic Reconstructionist in the traditions of filidecht and gentlidecht, amongst other spiritual pursuits.  Lupus’ work (poetry, essays, and fiction) has been published in many of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina devotional volumes, and in the anthologies Datura and Mandragora edited by Ruby Sara, When the Lion Roars edited by Galina Krasskova, Etched Offerings edited by Inanna Gabriel and C. Bryan Brown, Rooted in the Body, Seeking the Soul edited by Tara Miller, Bringing Race to the Table edited by Crystal Blanton, Taylor Ellwood and Brandy Williams, and the periodicals Witches & Pagans, Abraxas, Circle Magazine, Eternal Haunted Summer, Walking the Worlds, and Air n-Aithesc...and, there's always more on the way!  E has also published a book of poems, The Phillupic Hymns (2008), and the book-length poem All-Soul, All-Body, All-Love, All-Power:  A TransMythology (2012), and also several other monographs:  The Syncretisms of Antinous (2010); Devotio Antinoo:  The Doctor's Notes, Volume 1 (2011); A Garland for Polydeukion (2012); A Serpent Path Primer (2012); and Ephesia Grammata:  Ancient History and Modern Practice (2014). Lupus used to write the "Queer I Stand" column at Patheos.com's Pagan Channel, and currently writes the "Speaking of Syncretism" column at Polytheist.com.       Links Lupus’ blog: Aedicula Antinoi:  A Small Shrine of Antinous (Which includes a link to eirs books): http://aediculaantinoi.wordpress.com/   Lupus’ Email: aediculaantinoi@hotmail.com Gender and Transgender in Modern Paganism

In this bonus TWIH episode, we welcome Sister Krissy Fiction, a Sister of Perpetual Indulgence from Portland, OR. We talk about what it takes to be a Sister, what the sisters do, and how Sister Krissy Fiction came to be. We also delve into gender non-conformance, theology, and how the pagan community is evolving.  This is second in a series of interviews that coincide with Pantheacon. Sister Krissy Fiction, the nun that got nailed, is a Gnostic, Pagan, drag clown nun.  In the past she has been a minister in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church and in the United Church of Christ.   These days she is a practicing Gnostic, a devotee of Antinous and a member of an Alexandrian Witchcraft coven. She has been  a fully professed member of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence for 8 years and is the Prioress of the Order of Benevolent Bliss in Portland, OR.   Links Sister Krissy’s Facebook Email: sisterkrissy@gmail.com Twitter: @sisterkrissy Blog: http://promulgatethis.wordpress.com Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence: http://thesisters.org Circle of Cerridwen’s Account of their Gender Activism  

Pagans Tonight Radio Network presents: 8PM CST - Circle Sanctuary's Circle Talk:  (A Circle Sanctuary Radio Ministry program):Druidry and Druidic Traditions-David & Jeanet Ewing talk with David North of Virginia, who practices in the tradition of the Order of Bards, Ovates & Druids (OBOD), as he discusses the rise of the Druidic practices and differences between the various traditions. 9 PM~(1st & 3rd Wednesday) Wyrd Ways Live:  tonight's guest: P. Sufenas Virius Lupus is a metagender person, and one of the founding members of the Ekklesía Antínoou–a queer, Graeco-Roman-Egyptian syncretist reconstructionist polytheist group dedicated to Antinous, the deified lover of the Roman Emperor Hadrian, and related deities and divine figures–as well as a contributing member of Neos Alexandria and a practicing Celtic Reconstructionist pagan in the traditions of gentlidecht and filidecht, as well as Romano-British, Welsh, and Gaulish deity devotions. Lupus is also dedicated to several land spirits around the area of North Puget Sound and its islands. Lupus has contributed to a large number of devotional anthologies and other pagan publications, and has written six books (though that might be a higher number by the time of the interview!). You can find eir writings on the Aedicula Antinoi blog, and on the "Queer I Stand" column at Patheos.com's Pagan channel.  

Episode 32 of the Ancient Art Podcast revisits the lovely discussion of the disembodied with the portrait busts of Roman Emperor Hadrian and his young beloved Antinous from the Art Institute of Chicago. From the 2nd century CE, the larger-than-life marble heads of Hadrian and Antinous exemplify the Hellenistic aesthetics and innovation of the Hadrianic era. We discuss the life and times of this dynamic duo, explore the tragic fate of Antinous with his true-to-life unsolved mystery along the Nile, and discover just how far even a, by all accounts, level-headed grieving emperor is willing to go. To round things out, we'll have a brief glimpse of the history of beards in the Roman world and explore how modern connoisseurship, scholarship, and prejudice will mold and influence our understanding of the ancient world. See past episodes, image galleries, credits, transcripts, and additional resources at http://ancientartpodcast.org. Connect at http://twitter.com/lucaslivingston and http://www.facebook.com/ancientartpodcast.

Hadrian's relationship with the teenage boy Antinous raised eyebrows even in permissive Ancient Rome. His relationship with the Jews raises eyebrows even today.