Why the ancient Greeks matter: the problematic miracle that was Greece

Focusing on Agnello and Orlando (1998), Elliger and Fink (1986), Weileder and Mayerhöfer (2013), Mihevc-Gabrovec (1978) and Keller and Russell (2012), I discuss attempts at introducing elements of Modern Greek into teaching its ancient predecessor. My analysis, which is based on the etymologies of LKN (Λεξικό της Κοινής Νεοελληνικής), shows that approximately half of the words in the textbooks investigated in this study retain the same written forms and meanings in Modern Greek as in Ancient Greek; the term word in this analysis subsumes headwords introducing lexical entries. On the other hand, words with the same written forms and different meanings in Ancient and Modern Greek are significantly less frequent, accounting for 5 to 11% of all words in the textbooks. Furthermore, these textbooks contain between 12 and 16% of words that retain the same meaning in Ancient and Modern Greek, and also show significant formal change. As a result, their written forms are different in Ancient than in Modern Greek. It is also found, however, that at least some inflected forms of the words belonging to the latter class retain in the modern language the same written forms and meanings as in Ancient Greek. These data suggest that it is possible to introduce elements of Modern Greek into teaching its ancient predecessor without drawing attention to grammatical and semantic differences between Ancient and Modern Greek. Based on these data I also evaluate at the end of the article existing attempts at incorporating elements of Modern Greek into teaching the ancient language.

This research traces and examines specific examples of the precursors of scientific models that were applied in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the ancient Greek world. The main purpose of the study is to compare the way that these different civilizations used models but also the purposes of their utilization in pre-Hellenic and ancient Greek science. A core question that arose is: Can we trace the roots of the utilization of what we nowadays call ‘‘scientific models’’ in ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Greek scientific activity? Another important question is how the application of models differs in the scientific activity of these civilizations. Based on an extensive review of historical books, papers, and web sources I inferred that ancient Egyptians and Babylonians utilized tools that nowadays we call mathematical and analogue or material models and the ancient Greeks utilized theoretical, fiction, and analogue models. Moreover, while the basic function of these tools seems to remain stable throughout the centuries, the core difference is detected in the purpose of their utilization in these civilizations and is related to the orientation of their scientific activity. Specifically, the scientific activity of Egyptians and Babylonians mainly aimed at solving practical problems related to spatial planning, architecture, and agriculture as well as issues related to religion while ancient Greek ‘‘episteme,’’ according to Plato, or ‘‘natural philosophy,’’ according to Aristotle, sought the acquisition of knowledge about the natural world, the understanding, description, and explanation of natural phenomena.

Pneumonology or Pneumology?: An Etymologic Approach

Did the ancient Greeks and Romans use psychoactive cannabis? Scholars say that hemp was commonplace in the ancient world, but there is no consensus on cannabis usage. According to botany, hemp and cannabis are the same plant and thus the ancient Greeks and Romans must have used it in their daily lives. Cultures parallel to the ancient Greeks and Romans, like the Egyptians, Scythians, and Hittites, were known to use cannabis in their medicine, religion and recreational practices. Cannabis in the Ancient Greek and Roman World surveys the primary references to cannabis in ancient Greek and Roman texts and covers emerging scholarship about the plant in the ancient world. Ancient Greek and Latin medical texts from the Roman Empire contain the most mentions of the plant, where it served as an effective ingredient in ancient pharmacy. Cannabis in the Ancient Greek and Roman World focuses on the ancient rationale behind cannabis and how they understood the plant’s properties and effects, as well as its different applications. For the first time ever, this book provides a sourcebook with the original ancient Greek and Latin, along with translations, of all references to psychoactive cannabis in the Greek and Roman world. It covers the archaeology of cannabis in the ancient world, including amazing discoveries from Scythian burial sites, ancient proto-Zoroastrian fire temples, Bronze Age Chinese burial sites, as well as evidence in Greece and Rome. Beyond cannabis, Cannabis in the Ancient Greek and Roman World also explores ancient views on medicine, pharmacy, and intoxication.

A question which occurs frequently to classical students and others concerns the relation between ancient and modern Greek. It is the purpose of the present article to indicate in as brief a fashion as possible the lines on which the question might be approached.Perhaps the most amazing thing about Greek is that in the period over which our written records extend—in over three millennia, since the decipherment of Linear B—it has changed so little. Whereas a student of Latin would be ill-equipped to read a modern Italian newspaper, a person with a good working knowledge of classical Greek would not only find an Athenian newspaper intelligible for the most part, but would be amazed at the remarkable likenesses between the ancient and the modern languages. For the vocabulary of a Greek newspaper is probably 99 per cent, of classical origin and modern Greek has retained much of the cumbersome grammar of the ancient language—and ancient Greek has got a cumbersome grammar, when we consider that its verb has over four hundred forms as compared to sixty or so in French and two in Afrikaans. Thus the declension of φίλος is precisely the same now (except for the absence of the dual, which was obsolescent in Xenophon's day, and of the dative) as it was in the fifth century B.c. The conjugation of the present of ἒχω is identical with that of the classical verb, although the third plural ending -ουσι occurs mostly dialectically, e.g. in Cypriot, and has been largely replaced by -ουν.

The aim of this study was to systematically examine ancient Roman and Greek texts to identify descriptions of schizophrenia and related disorders. Material from Greek and Roman literature dating from the 5th Century BC to the beginning of the 2nd Century AD was systematically reviewed for symptoms of mental illness. DSM IV criteria were applied in order to identify material related to schizophrenia and related disorders. The general public had an awareness of psychotic disorders, because the symptoms were described in works of fiction and in historical accounts of malingering. There were isolated instances of text related to psychotic symptoms in the residents of ancient Rome and Greece, but no written material describing a condition that would meet modern diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia. In contrast to many other psychiatric disorders that are represented in ancient Greek and Roman literature, there were no descriptions of individuals with schizophrenia in the material assessed in this review.

Egyptian and Greek ancient civilizations prevailed in eastern Mediterranean since prehistoric times. The Egyptian civilization is thought to have been begun in about 3150 BC until 31 BC. For the ancient Greek civilization, it started in the period of Minoan (ca. 3200 BC) up to the ending of the Hellenistic era. There are various parallels and dissimilarities between both civilizations. They co-existed during a certain timeframe (from ca. 2000 to ca. 146 BC); however, they were in two different geographic areas. Both civilizations were massive traders, subsequently, they deeply influenced the regional civilizations which have developed in that region. Various scientific and technological principles were established by both civilizations through their long histories. Water management was one of these major technologies. Accordingly, they have significantly influenced the ancient world’s hydro-technologies. In this review, a comparison of water culture issues and hydro-structures was adopted through the extended history of the ancient Egyptians and Greeks. The specific objectives of the work are to study the parallel historical cultures and hydro-technologies, assessing similarities and differences, and to analyze their progress since primitive times. The tools adopted for the research include visits to historical aeras and museums, comments, consultations, correlation and exhibitions available in the cyberspace. Review results herein showed that dams and canals were constructed in ancient Egypt to manage the flood of the Nile river and develop irrigation systems from ca. 6000 BC. In the second millennium BC, Minoans managed the flow of the streams via two dams, to protect arable land from destruction after intense rainfall and to irrigate their farms. Additional results showed that ancient Egyptians and Greeks invented many devices for lifting water for plant irrigation such as the shadouf, sakia and tympanum and pumps, of which some were already in use in Mesopotamia for irrigating small plots. The ancient Egyptians were the first who discovered the principle and the basis of coagulation (after ca. 1500 BC). They used the alum for accelerating the settlement of the particles. Additionally, the ancient Greeks developed several advanced water treatment technologies since the prehistoric times. To sum up, the study captured many similarities between two civilizations in water technologies. In addition, it confirmed the sustainability and durability of several of those hydro-technologies since they are still in use up to now in many places.

Analgesia and anesthesia: etymology and literary history of related Greek words.

The article examines the similarities and differences between Ancient Greek and contemporary conceptions of responsibility and guilt. Through linguistic and conceptual analysis of relevant terms in Ancient Greek, Latin, and Lithuanian, the author focuses on the problem of demarcation between the meanings of responsibility and guilt, particularly in cases when the terms under analysis express both senses and often do so syncretically and simultaneously. Special attention is given to the Ancient Greek tendency to conceptualize responsibility as potential guilt, defining those responsible as positive or negative “causes” of both wrongful actions and unfortunate outcomes. The possibility of conceiving responsibility without guilt is also briefly explored in the context of both Ancient Greek and contemporary thought. It is noted that the understanding of responsibility evident in Ancient Greek language itself is significantly more conservative and traditional in comparison to more innovative interpretations found in Ancient Greek philosophical writings. This innovation is exemplified by Ancient Greek philosophers who view the care (meletē) for oneself and one’s soul essentially as a form of responsibility devoid of guilt. The article concludes that Ancient Greek conceptions of responsibility, guilt, and their interrelation – especially the Ancient Greek version of the notion of responsibility without guilt – remain relevant not only in the historical study of Classical philosophy but also in contemporary ethical discourse. This relevance extends to the analysis of the limits of ethical responsibility, the relationship between collective responsibility and guilt, as well as the urgent need for spontaneous ethical initiatives by individual ethical subjects in response to global environmental and geopolitical challenges, and the ways of encouraging and supporting such initiatives.

Lynn Hunt, the renowned professor of modern European history, has recently argued that the concept of human rights, in its fully developed form, was first articulated in the second half of the eighteenth century.1 While this assertion may be correct, it also raises the question as to how this concept developed. What previous ideas did the concept of human rights develop from, and where, when, and by whom were those earlier ideas first expressed? If the complex notion of human rights proclaimed in the American Declaration of Independence (1776) and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789) did not come out of nowhere, then it is worth asking what ideas and values provided the basis for that eighteenth-century concept. This is not merely an academic question. If, as an ancient Greek proverb tells us, “the beginning is more than half the whole” (quoted by Plato in Laws 753e and Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics 1098b), then the origin of something in many ways determines its nature and character. Rachel Hall Sternberg (hereafter RHS) argues in The Ancient Greek Roots of Human Rights that the character-determining foundation of the eighteenth-century concept can be found in the historical, philosophical, and especially the dramatic works written by Athenians in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE. This is an important book that attempts to initiate a dialogue between classicists and early modern historians and should appeal to scholars of both periods.RHS admits, right at the outset (p. 2), that “the ancient Greeks never formally recognized human rights,” but she argues that the humane discourse of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was preceded by a “parallel wave” of humane discourse in classical Athens and that the Enlightenment philosophes consciously looked back to their Athenian forebears for inspiration. This complex argument takes up the first half of the book. RHS then discusses specific works of Greek literature that define, describe, and support four key elements of the concept of human rights. In the final chapter, she traces the transmission of these ideas from the Greeks to the Romans (especially Cicero and the Stoics), to the Renaissance, and finally to the classical education of early modern Europeans. Three excursuses focusing on thematically related topics (the idealism of eighteenth-century classicism, Xenophon’s innovative biography, The Education of Cyrus, and the tensions created when defenders of human rights own slaves) round out the book.The most compelling and original part of the book is the demonstration (in chapter 5) that Greek literary works articulated and championed four key components of human rights: the ideas of individuality and personhood, human dignity, freedom, and compassion. RHS begins the chapter with a quotation from Lynn Hunt, in which Hunt argues that “to have human rights, people had to be perceived as separate individuals who were capable of exercising moral judgment,” and that this perception did not emerge until the late eighteenth century.2 Taking issue with this belief, which she characterizes as long since outdated, RHS provides abundant evidence from ancient Greek literature demonstrating that the Greeks “definitely pioneered the Western version of respect for individual human beings . . . that would be reborn with the Renaissance and further developed during the Enlightenment” (p. 71). In fact, RHS argues persuasively that “what makes the Greeks special is that they created influential literary works that evoked and encouraged such awareness and acknowledged it as significant” (p. 75). Quoting from tragedies such as Aeschylus’ Agamemnon (458 BCE), Sophocles’ Ajax (442 BCE?) and Oedipus Rex (429 BCE?), and Euripides’ Medea (431 BCE), RHS shows that Greek tragedy “offered and continues to offer the world texts that richly depict the human mind.” She adds, “These texts antedate the famous Socratic aphorism, ‘the unexamined life is not worth living’ (Plato, Apology 38a), which insists that individuals with innerness have value” (p. 79).RHS then goes on to argue that three other core values that provide a foundation for the concept of human rights (human dignity, freedom, and compassion for others’ suffering) have their foundation in ancient Greek literature. RHS uses the character of Antigone, from Sophocles’ Antigone (441 BCE?), as an example of someone who epitomizes human dignity, as well as courage and moral autonomy, as she stands up to Creon’s unjust decree “while following her own consciousness of a higher law” (p. 81). Then, noting that “freedom . . . starts with protection from constraint and violence,” RHS points out that Solon laid the foundations for Athenian democracy by “abolishing debt slavery . . . [as] a privilege of citizenship” (p. 84). And while it is true that as the Athenians developed their democracy they continued to own slaves, their literature provides many examples of sympathy for the slave and sorrow for the enslaved person’s loss of freedom. Characters such as Cassandra in Aeschylus’ Agamemnon and Andromache in Euripides’ Trojan Women (415 BCE) poignantly describe the constraints on their freedom due to their change of status from noble to slave (p. 85). Finally, RHS notes (pp. 87–89) that compassion for suffering begins with Homer (e.g., Achilles’ pity for Priam in Iliad Book 24) and continues with Herodotus (e.g., the weeping of Harpagus, a Median nobleman, at the impending death of a royal baby, Hdt. 1.109), Sophocles (the compassion of the young Neoptolemus for the suffering of Philoctetes in the Philoctetes, 409 BCE), and Euripides (Trojan Women). While much more remains to be said on this topic, RHS has certainly shown that the core values that contribute to the concept of human rights were identified, explored, and championed by the ancient Greeks.While RHS has amply demonstrated her overall thesis, that the concept of human rights had its origins in ancient Greek thought, her specific argument, that those human values first found expression in classical Athens, is less compelling. There are so many examples of preclassical and non-Athenian authors who celebrate these values (e.g., Homer and Hesiod, the Greek lyric poets, and Herodotus, just to name a few), that the attempt to limit “the emergence of humane discourse” to fifth- and fourth-century Athens (p. 51) seems arbitrary and restrictive. The fact that, throughout the entire Odyssey (probably composed in Ionia in the eighth century BCE), the poet honors only one character with direct address, the enslaved swineherd Eumaeus, should make anyone think twice before claiming that the ideas of personhood, human dignity, freedom, and compassion originated in classical Athens. And in fact, Eumaeus proves himself to be one of the wisest, most courageous, and most generous characters in the epic. While RHS does mention some of these earlier and non-Athenian authors, she does not adequately discuss their work or acknowledge their substantial contributions to the developing concept of human rights.There are also a number of important points that RHS does not sufficiently explore. For example, she briefly mentions that the concept of “natural rights,” which developed in the Middle Ages through the merging of canon law and Roman law, contributed to the later concept of human rights (pp. 58 and 92), but she does not give even a cursory explanation of how this process occurred. Similarly, she notes that the eighteenth-century philosophes themselves acknowledged that they were inspired by Greek literature (pp. 3 and 22), but she does not provide either examples or elaboration.But perhaps it is churlish to criticize RHS for what she has not done, when what she has done is so valuable. She has decisively shown that the concept of human rights is continually evolving and that, while the first formal declaration of human rights may have come in the late eighteenth century, its roots go back to ancient Greek thought. The Ancient Greek Roots of Human Rights is a groundbreaking book and, like all pioneering works, raises further questions and opens up new areas of research. We can all be grateful to RHS for courageously venturing outside her own discipline to bring classicists and early modern historians into a dialogue that will hopefully provide new opportunities for collaboration.

The study of ancient Greece is essential for the proper understanding of the evolution of modern Western medicine. An important innovation of classical Greek medicine was the development of a body of medical theory associated with natural philosophy, i.e. a strong secular tradition of free enquiry, or what would now be called "science" (Eπiστnμη). Medical education rests upon the ancient Greek foundations and its history remains a fascinating topic for modern physicians and medical teachers. As Drabkin so eloquently noted half a century ago: "the history of medical education will show how lasting was the influence of the ancient system of medicine, not only in its substantive contributions, but in its devotion to reason, in its attitude toward the relation between science and the medical art, in its concept of disease and classification of diseases, in its ethical attitudes and standards and in countless other ways".1 MEDICAL EDUCATION THROUGH "MAGIC" AND "RELIGION" In prehistoric times, magic and religion were a fundamental part of the healing practice. Therefore, the first primitive medical practitioners were witch doctors or sorcerers. Through a gradual process that lasted for centuries, superstition and religion were replaced by rational inquiry and explanation. At its beginnings, ancient Greek medicine was undoubtedly influenced by neighbouring regions such as Babylonia and Egypt or even more distant civilizations such as India and China.2 As medical practice was tied to magic and religion, so too was medical education symbolized in myth. Thus, the first Greek medical teacher was probably Chiron (Xípωv), the human-horse mythological figure. According to Homer, Chiron taught Asclepius the secrets of the drugs that relieve pain and stop bleeding. Chiron was so famous in his era that the sons of many noble families, including Jason (Iáσovαò), Achilles (Aχiλληαò) and other Homeric heroes, became his apprentices and lived with him during early adolescence studying philosophy and the sciences, including medical arts. Among his teachings the "techni" (τéχvη) (art) of caring for the ill and injured was included.3 Asclepius (Aσκληπióδ) was the God of Medicine in Ancient Greece and he was worshiped in hundreds of temples (Asclepions) throughout Greece. The remains of such shrines may still be seen at Epidaurus (Eπíδαvpoò), Cos (Kώ;ò), Athens (Aθηvα), and elsewhere. Asclepions (Aσκληπieíα) were founded at the 6th century B.C. and served as mysticistic centers of medical education for selected "godly blessed" priests. Patients visiting these sacred sanctuaries were treated by a healing ritual known as incubation, or temple sleep. They slept overnight in the dormitory, or abaton (áβατo), and were visited in their dreams by Asclepius and his daughters Hygeia and Panacea or by one of his priests, who gave them divine advice and inspiration. They reported their dreams to a priest the next morning. The pilgrims were either spontaneously healed or the priest prescribed a cure based on their dream. Evidently, the temple healers relied largely on the use of psychological methods, i.e. suggestion through the use of charms, rituals and incantations, but they also employed physical means, some if which were genuinely efficient. Thus, the temple patients were also offered hydrotherapy and enjoyed theatre, music, poetry and a good diet. It must be emphasized that the temple physicians of Asclepions differed from lay medical practitioners and there is no evidence that they acted as tutors to lay physicians. Patients who visited the Asclepions and treated by the ritual therapeutics were usually cases that were given up as incurable by lay medicine.4 Asclepius' legacy was bequeathed by his sons and students Podaleirius (IIoδαλpípeioò) (Internist) and Machaon (Mαχαóv) (Military surgeon) who also appeared in the homeric epics (8th century B.C.). It is notable how the passing of medical knowledge from generation to generation in Ancient Greece is so characteristically reflected in the Asclepius' family. Even Aclepius' father, Apollo, was originally considered the God of Medicine before inheriting his mantle to his sons. With the passage of time, the influence of superstition and religion on medicine steadily decreased until the boundary of rationality and magic was demarcated by the arrival of Hippocrates' rational medicine.5 However, it appears that, despite the occasional competitive bouts between these different types of healers, the Asclepian temple physicians generally existed side by side, in uneasy proximity, throughout the centuries with the Hippocratics until the formers' practice was eventually perceived as a pagan rite and thus rejected by early Christianity. MEDICAL "CRAFTSMEN" AND THE MENTORING OF MEDICINE IN ANCIENT GREECE The division between medicine as a "science" and medicine as an "art" is an ancient one. The ancient Greeks frequently contrasted the non-scientific practitioner to the theoretically grounded physician/philosopher. According to Plato, a medical apprenticeship that was based only on observation and experience was routine and impersonal in comparison to those physicians who strived to make the understanding of nature fundamental to their art and teaching.6 It appears that the majority of medical practitioners did not concern themselves with biological theories and philosophy. However, the few that did care about the nature of health and the underlying anatomic and physiological changes behind a particular disease, were considered the leaders of their profession.5 Greek doctors usually practiced privately but were occasionally employed by a city-state as public health officers who treated citizens without charge. These state-salaried physicians were supported by a special tax called "iatrikon" (Iαtpiκóv) and sometimes received additional benefits including tax reductions, free pass to recreational centres and statues erected in their honour. Such state participation in citizen health care is evidenced throughout antiquity and began as early as the 6th century B.C. However, no evidence exists that these civic physicians were involved in medical education or that special taxes like the "iatrikon" were used to finance public medical education. Various texts from the Hippocratic Collection help us understand Greek medical practice during the antiquity. A surprisingly large part of medical practice of that period seems to reflect the physician's insecure position. Thus, a good diagnostician aimed to impress the patient and win his confidence. The practice of prognosis was also an important proof of competence and a valuable psychological tool in gaining the patients' trust. On the other hand, physicians tended to decline cases that were obviously incurable in order to avoid any loss of reputation. To ensure that physicians would not amass too much wealth, they were advised to adjust their fees to each patient's means and, when necessary, treat them without payment. While some doctors were permanent residents in a particular city, a large number travelled from place to place searching for a living in response to the demand for doctors and seeking to possess intimate knowledge of the ailments peculiar to each region.5 No system of formal medical education or any curriculum program that issued diplomas to successful medical students existed in the classical antiquity. Even the first centres of medical excellence such as Cos and Cnidos and, later on, the museum of Alexandria (Aλεξávδpiα) did not provide any legally recognized certification or formal system of teaching. On the other hand, physicians who were associated with one of the major medical schools were probably more in demand compared to their less prestigiously educated peers. The passing on of knowledge through mentoring was highly regarded in the Greek antiquity from as early as Homer's (Oμηpoò) time.7 Accordingly, medical knowledge was bequeathed from father to son or to the physician's assistant via a master-apprentice relationship: the apprentice learned by observing and assisting his master curing patients.8 Such medical education was fundamentally practical. The student learned to take detailed medical history from the patient, his relatives or friends, catalogue observable regularities, and accordingly formulate rational hypotheses, explanations and treatments. He was trained to properly use his senses of observation, hearing, smelling, palpating and carefully examine the patient's pains, mental state, position in bed, fever, breathing, and excretions (urine, feces and sweats). The patient's pulse was also examined but its profound diagnostic significance was not elaboratively catalogued at these times. Practical experience was an essential component of the medical craft taught to the apprentice. As was noted in the Hippocratic texts: "He who aspires to practice surgery must go to war". A competent student would also attend the patient as a nurse in serious cases. Good students would complement such practical work with the study of books (e.g. the Hippocratic Collection, Dioskorides' book of herbals and drug preparation) in order to combine knowledge with experience and obtain self confidence and autonomy. The quality of training depended on the master's skills and the student's prowess. The length of education depended on the depth of the apprentice's studies and on his intellectual skills and competence.1 In theory, medical training was open to every man. Of course, the aspiring physician required a master willing to train him and the successful medical protégée required certain characteristics, including above-average intelligence and a firm grasp of reality. But in principle, the pursuit of medical knowledge in ancient Greece was unrestrained. Evidently, medical practice retained a very "free market" approach throughout the ancient world. The Babylonians characteristically presented their sick at the market place in search of those persons who could advise and/or treat the disease. In line with this attitude, no legally recognized method existed to prevent amateur and inadequately trained physicians or various kinds of quacks from practicing in Greek antiquity. One established himself as a doctor not by presenting his training certifications but by vigorously defending the reputation he acquired in practice and by carefully cultivating the confidence of his clients. The physicians' fierce competition with other healers, his conscience, and the patient's demands for efficacy were his only restrictions and incentives for self-improvement. The only possible evidence of completed medical training and qualification may have been the Hippocratic Oath, as well as attendance to one of the major medical schools. It may be strange that the ancient Greek civilization, with all its sophistication, failed to establish any means of protection from ignorant and potentially dangerous physicians. But one needs to remember the distinct features of ancient Greece that could explain why this system persisted and even how it could work adequately for so many centuries. The Greek region was literally fragmented into hundreds of independent city-states and this hindered any possible attempt of a unified professional evaluation policy. Therefore the ancients had to rely on the self-policing apprentice system by which Greek medical education was organized. Each of the masters, who were successful and experienced physicians, would take care in recruiting, selecting and training their apprentices and carefully monitor their progress to ensure the quality of their education, which was important to reputation of the master as well as the student. THE ROOTS OF RATIONAL MEDICINE First medical schools The first medical schools were founded in Greece and in the Southern Italy (Magna Grecia) regions of Sicily and Calabria. In the classical antiquity, medical "schools" were essentially schools of thought formed by an influential medical practitioner and his followers. There were no academic buildings dedicated to medical training. The "school" was essentially realized wherever its adherents would gather. With the coming of the 5th century B.C. the most famous of such centers were Cos, where Hippocrates (Iππoκpáτηò) was born, and Cnidus, situated just opposite of Cos on Asia Minor. These ancient Greek states developed medical schools that served as hallmarks of medical education. The doctors associated with these schools shared knowledge and certain medical practices; medical students retained a master-apprentice relation with their teachers and observed their masters treating diseases and prescribing measures such as good diet, exercise, and herbal remedies. Aspiring surgeons were trained as assistants to a military surgeon accompanying troops on a campaign. The instruction was of course very informal and there was no established certificate of the student's right to practice.1 Hippocratic medicine Hippocrates was born in about 460 B.C. on the island on Cos, an island of the coast of Asia Minor in the Dodecanese (Δωδεκávησα), where he developed his immensely influential rational school bringing about the transition from empiricism to scientific medicine in antiquity. During his lifetime, Hippocrates was undoubtedly the most renowned physician and teacher of medicine. Soranus stated that Hippocrates traced his descent and medical knowledge from his father Heraclidos (Hpáκλεiδoò) and Asclepius. He practiced medicine in his birthplace of Cos but also ventured in other parts of Greece including Athens, Sicily, Alexandria, Cyrine and Cyprus; he died in Thessaly at an advanced age in about 377 B.C. Although Hippocrates is widely considered the father of medicine and well-known scribes such as Plato and Aristotle have documented a number his achievements, there is little knowledge about his actual life and biography. There is even a possibility that Hippocrates was actually not one but many men of the same name.9 Whether Hippocrates was one man or several, the works attributed to him mark the stage in Greek medicine where physicians were encouraged to offer rational explanations concerning the cause and character of disease and health, instead of superstition and magic. Hippocrates' rational medicine was notably based on common sense and substituted divine intervention in favour of a profound, practical philosophy. Hippocrates is thought to have originated the concept of the "four humours" (plegm, yellow bile, black bile and blood) in medical physiology. The humoural doctrine stated that good health was the result of the harmonious equilibrium and blending of the four humours. Thus, disease was explained as the consequence of humoural imbalance. Relative excess of each humour resulted in particular personality types. An abundance of blood, yellow bile, black bile or phlegm was respectively associated with the sanguine, phlegmatic, choleric and melancholic temperaments. Hippocratic medicine notably emphasized maximum conservation in all medical treatments according to the famous Hippocratic motto: "to help or at least to do no harm". Hippocrates put more emphasis on diet and recommended a restricted use of drugs, which is to be expected if one considers that the rational medical use of herbs required a thorough systemization of the botanical world that would only be achieved a century after Hippocrates' death by Theophrastus (Teófpασtoò). Hippocrates also knew well how to describe a disease clearly and concisely and recorded treatment outcomes, both failures as well as successes.9 He also introduced the first concepts of medical ethics contained in the Hippocratic oath which still serves as the ethical nucleus of today's physicians.10 Hippocratic medicine gave emphasis on the patient rather than the disease and concentrated on experience and on the visual aspect of observation rather than theory. On the other hand, Cos' rival school, Cnidus, focused on a reductionist conception of disease, similar to the modern approach. However, Hippocrates' school achieved more wealth and recognition because it focused on the patient, while the school of Cnidus concentrated on studying the disease in the absence of the necessary technical instruments and general scientific infrastructure that could carry out its ideas the School of Cnidus ceased to exist, whereas that of Hippocrates flourished. The conflicting philosophies of medical education and the different interpretations of the nature of medicine (medicine as science versus medicine as art) raged on for several centuries until the unifying influence of Galen's (ταληvóò) (129-200 A.D.). Theories and research became the standard system that was passed on to later ages all the way to the 16th century. Medical education through the Hippocratic collection It is possible that Hippocrates was the author of only some, or even none, of the texts that comprise the Hippocratic Collection (Corpus Hippocraticum), a compilation of over 70 medical treatises that are traditionally attributed to him. Hippocrates' students and his two sons, Thessalus and Draco, were the successors of the Hippocratic tradition and a large part of the Hippocratic Collection, including the Oath, was written by them. The Hippocratic tradition became the accepted standard for medical education and these texts were taught in universities throughout most of the ancient West and during the Renaissance until the 19th century. The Hippocratic collection contained a series of aphorisms, among which is the well-known "Life is brief, art is long, opportunity is fleeting, experience is fallacious, judgement is difficult" (often shortened to the Latin tag, "Ars longa, vita brevis"). These passages are the foundation of Hippocrates' philosophy and lay much stress to careful, repetitious thought before a medical intervention. Such aphorisms are followed by case histories, summary accounts of the climatic conditions, brief comments on diseases, symptoms and prognostic indications, many of which remain valid.9 Post-Hippocratic era In the following century the work of Aristotle (Apτστéληò), regarded as the first great biologist, incalculably influenced medicine. Aristotle was a student of Plato at Athens and tutor to Alexander the Great (Mέγας Aλέξαvδρoς). His interests and studies included the entire world of living things. He was the founder of comparative anatomy and embryology and his work influenced scientific and medical thinking for the next 2 millennia.5 Following Aristotle's time, the centre of Greek culture shifted to the Egyptian city of Alexandria. The famous medical school of Alexandria was established in about 300 BC and replaced Cos and Cnidos as the foremost centre of medical excellence. Its two founders and best medical teachers were Herophilus (Eρóφιλoς), who is known as the first anatomist in history, and Erasistratus (Eρασίστρατoς), whom some regard as the founder of physiology. Medical studies at this great school were based on a more professional tutorship by its renowned teachers supplemented by practical apprenticeship under one of these physicians. Thus, the earlier periods' master-apprentice relationship was gradually replaced by that of professor-student. Due to this notable change in the character of medical education, large numbers of students were tutored by fewer professors. This university atmosphere did not in itself preclude clinical instruction and bedside teaching. It did however introduce a new non-professional direction for medical education in the sense that some students studied biology and medicine not for the purposes of professional practice but as part of scientific and philosophic exploration. This division of studies probably depended on each student's social status, with the more wealthy protégées generally preferring to focus on an academic approach to medicine. There were also certain individuals who studied almost every possible subject matter (polymaths). Such an endeavour to encompass all knowledge would have been incompatible with a busy medical practice. The tripartite division of medical education can be seen from as early as Aristotle's time described as "the physician who is a craftsman, the scientific physician, and the man who has studied medicine as part of his education".1 The museum of Alexandria continued as a centre of medical teaching even after the Roman Empire had attained supremacy over the Greek world. The medical education of women Women in Greek antiquity avoided examination and treatment from male physicians, a fact that often hindered successful treatment. This should not come as a surprise considering that ancient Greek women were taught from a young age to be ashamed of their bodies. Before the 5th century B.C. childbirth was almost exclusively entrusted to female kin and neighbours who had themselves given birth. Some of these women stood out because of their skills and became known by the title of "maia" (Mαία) or "midwife". Most midwife practitioners were usually trained from other midwives. The story of Agnodice (Aγvoδίκη), who according to myth was the first female to achieve the role of physician despite this being forbidden by law, has been cited by many Western midwives during the Renaissance in an attempt to medicalize childbirth. It seems that there were women in ancient Greece who studied medicine serving alongside leading male physicians and practiced obstetrics and gynaecology. As of yet there are few data regarding the involvement of women in general medical practice other than gynaecology.1,5,11 CONCLUSION Medical education in ancient Greece closely mirroring the evolution of ancient Greek though originates from magic and religion which is gradually superseded by more objective and leading to the Hippocratic rational medicine that with the of of ancient medical education such as the reputation system of medical education and practice may be peculiar But on these ancient can also the fundamental concepts that to modern practice. In a world that was by the first great medical schools a more ethical practice to their students and these were and by the today's medicine. than two to the of modern medical education.

Did the Ancient Greek Novels Have Characters?

When this issue on ancient languages was suggested, certain members of our editorial team wondered whether we weren't venturing into something dry and elitist as generally, we try to stick to issues that speak to a large readership and cross many domains. Thus, we suggested that the link between the teaching of ancient languages and modern languages be made explicit with the intent of breaking down “stuffy old” barriers. And as the contributions came rolling in, we realized that there are clear benefits for “Old” meeting “New” and for “Ancient” and “Modern” to learn from one another! One aspect that kept cropping up throughout the editing of this issue was the use of generative artificial intelligence. If you ask Claude “Can AI write in ancient and modern Greek?” it says that it can, but it does state “Ancient Greek may have more inconsistencies since there's less digital training data” and that it sometimes has a hard time “Understanding of archaic grammar and syntax”. And then this ability of AI to actually be decent in giving any type of answer even in and about ancient and modern languages is cause for concern in evaluating student work. Consequently, several of us have made steps backwards, proposing written examinations that test specific knowledge, or facts, instead of more modern exams testing the transfer and application of knowledge. No longer can a BYOD mode or the writing of reflective portfolios be used in class as such things were too often used by students and though such AI produced texts that are sometimes convincing, they are rarely interesting. If the thinkers of antiquity were teacher trainers in the modern era, they would undoubtedly be surprised by the speed with which students delegate their learning to a machine. Socrates, for example, did not transmit ready-made answers: he questioned, provoked, forced his interlocutors to think. Generative artificial intelligences, on the contrary, provide instant and polite responses, but without the intellectual journey that leads to understanding. Therein lies the risk, according to us: replacing reflection with automation. The teaching of languages, both ancient and modern, must therefore continue to evolve. Since machines already translate faster than humans, the challenge is no longer only the accumulation of vocabulary or mastery of grammar, or even the development of communicative competence. The acquisition of a critical stance about learning language is in question: questioning meaning, comparing contexts, understanding nuances, and inferring meaning. In other words, cultivating Socratic skills through both modern language teachings as well as the teaching of ancient languages. Χαίρων ἀνάγνωθι!

The issue of national identity in ancient Greece played an important role during periods of war due to the absence of a unifying political authority. Ancient Greece was organized along the lines of independent city-states with different political systems. However, in two wars, they were able to unite to combat a common enemy of Greece. In the Greek-Trojan War, the Greeks were the aggressors, and many Greek city-states responded to the call for joint action. In the Greek-Persian War, the Greeks defended their homeland. Once again, the Greek city-states, primarily Athens and Sparta, joined forces to repel the Persian invasion of mainland Greece. Homer, in his Iliad, and Herodotus, in his Histories, provide definitions of what Greek national identity was all about. By the time of the civil war, i.e., the Peloponnesian War, there appears to be a paradigm shift in what constitutes Greek national identity. The best definition within the context of this paradigm is given by Isocrates. This paper examines the national identity of Greeks as proposed mainly in the works of Homer, Herodotus, and Isocrates. It also explores the 19th-century controversy regarding whether modern Greeks have the same national identity as their ancient counterparts. Keywords: national identity, education, Homer, Hesiod, Herodotus, Isocrates, virtue, ancient Greeks, modern Greeks.

The object of research in the article is scientific and methodological heritage of Crimean classical philologist Pavlenko Leonid Vasilyevich. The research presented allows to estimate the scholar’s important input into the development of national Hellenistic studies and studies of the Greek language (Ancient and Modern Greek) in Crimea. L.V. Pavlenko’s philological researches comprise the issues of Ancient Greek comedy (newly-found text by Menander in particular), Byzantian Christian literature and its influence on Slavic literature. The activity of the scholar in writing the textbooks in the Ancient Greek and Latin languages, textbooks and methodological materials in Byzantium literature can be called titanic and selfless.