On the morning of June 7th 415 BC the people of Athens woke to find that the statues of the Idol Hermes, which stood in front of private houses and temples where vandalised. Every citizen could see his divine guardian standing at his doorstep damaged and desecrated, and gradually they found that they not alone, the whole city have lost its divine guardian. Trepidation was great. The Athenians wanted to discover the identity of the vandalisers and announced that they will give rewards and immunity to the informers who would provide some information about the blasphemy. The information received included more than information about the damaging of statues, it included information about desecration of Oration ceremonies held in private houses. The scandal was immense, the biggest one in Athenian history. Arrests were made, prosecutions, executions and flights to exile. Andocides, who was one of the accused, lists, in the defence speech he gave, the speech about the Orations, the chain of events and tries, of-course, to prove his innocence. The speech gives important information on the scandal and is an key source for learning about state events at the end of the 5th century BC.

Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire examines the formation of the "poor" as a distinct social class in Roman society, a class for which the church claimed special responsibility. This is the story of a society that gradually saw itself as responsible for a certain group of people, a group that previously no one cared about, and of those who benefited from this change in priorities. "The poor" serve as a kind of lens that reveals with wonderful clarity the delicate network of connections and social relations that made the late Roman Empire a changing world. Peter Brown seeks to restore the condition of the poor before the rise of Christianity, to stand for the true nature of the Christian rhetoric about the love of the poor: were its motives always sincere or were they sometimes selfish? Brown uses not only Greek and Latin sources, but also Jewish sources, to document the interrelationships between Middle Eastern societies and Roman classical traditions. He succeeds in shedding light on a crucial aspect of the transition from classical culture to Christian culture, the main point of which is the growth of a new concept regarding the debt owed by society and the church to the poor.

Meidias (in Greek Mειδίας; lived 4th century BC), an Athenian of considerable wealth and influence, was a violent and bitter enemy of Demosthenes, the orator. His hostility he first displayed in 361 BC when he broke violently into the house of Demosthenes, with his brother Thrasylochus, to take possession of it,–Thrasylochus having offered, in the case of a trierarchy, to make an exchange of property with Demosthenes, under a private understanding with the guardians of the latter that, if the exchange were effected, the suit then pending against them should be dropped. This led Demosthenes to bring against him an accusation of kakegoria (ie verbal insult), and when Meidias after his condemnation did not fulfil his obligations, Demosthenes brought against him a dike exules (ie a trial for obtaining something already lawfully assigned to the plaintif). Meidias found means to prevent any decision being given far a period of eight years, and at length, in 354 BC, he had an opportunity to take revenge upon Demosthenes, who had in that year voluntarily undertaken the choregia. Meidias not only endeavoured in all possible ways to prevent Demosthenes from dis­charging his office in its proper form; also, their mutual relations were sored more still when Demosthenes attempted to oppose the proposal for sending aid against Callias and Taurosthenes of Chalcis to Plutarch, the tyrant of Eretria, and the friend of Meidias. The breaking point arrived when Meidias attacked Demosthenes with open violence during the celebration of the great Dionysia. Such an act gave Demosthenes a good opportunity for moving a public incrimination against his enemy (353 BC), and on this occasion wrote Against Meidias, still extant, which was never pronounced as the two adversaries found an amicable arrangement under which Demosthenes retired his accusation for thirty minae.

This book contains the biographies of the Antonine Caesars (Aelius-Didius Iulianus) from the Manuscript P(alatinus) 899 in the Vatican Library. The manuscript was already known to men of letters in the late Middle Ages That its contents are essential to a better understanding of Imperial Rome is conventionally accepted by historians. It was published as early as the first generation of printers (Milano 1475). The biographies present a wide array of deeds and indecisions in the history of Rome during the IInd century AD. These were actually the days near the.end of the Pax Romana. The biographies present not only the characters of the Caesars, for they equally reveal the many patterns of Enlightment hovering over Rome during the years of the Antonine patronage. The tendency to base the life of citizens as well as those of the provincials not on the arbitrariness of imperial bureaucrats but law (Roman Law) inspired by philosophy (Hellenic and Hellenistic) is a remarkable signpost of this period Women were in those days considered more as juridical persons and less under the tutelage of men. Indeed the Antonines did not abolish slavery, but the attitude towards them more human. The tolerance these Caesars based on moral principles.aleviated the task of preaching in the name of Christ and winning followers. . Jews were freed by the Caesars from the danger and oppression of the edicts imposed by Hadrian. Their moderation enabled the Jews in Judaea (recently renamed Palaestina by Hadrian) to come close to a rcovery. The author of these biograpies had intentionally disguised his name and identity. Nevertheless (relying on internal evidence of his work) it seems most likely that he had compiled the SHA at the turn of the fifth century. Born as a scion of the old Roman aristocracy, the new religion aggresively imposed on Rome did not attract him. He rather felt close to the Rome of the days bygone, of the liberal temper, its literature and thought and freedom of belief. Aiming to avoid a confrontation on unequal terms with the contemporary authorities in Rome, he prefered to present his work under cover of six differerent pseudonyms. All this makes even the literary aspect of his work of greater interest and admiration Introduced,translated and annotated by David Golan

The author argues that the key distinction in Plato's psychology, as it is elaborated in Phaedo and Republic, is not between soul and body but rather between two aspects of the soul. The main starting point in justifying this argument is an analysis of the theory of recollection that Phaedo presents. This theory, along with the proof for immortality which it proves, requires us to distinguish between two aspects: The soul contains, on the one hand, a perfect and forgotten knowledge – on the other hand, being one phenomenon among many, the soul exists and as part of this existence it recollects some of this perfect and forgotten knowledge. This duality is not one between the rational and non-rational parts of the soul. Recollection involves reason. The duality in recollection is between latent and perfect knowledge, on one hand, and the rational activity by means of which it is revealed, on the other. The opposition that is intrinsic to this duality is hence closely related to Plato's distinction between Ideas and phenomena. It is an opposition between the being and becoming, between the eternal and mortal. In Phaedo, throughout the various arguments and according to the various participants' grasp, this concept is developed and culminates in the last proof: This proof point at the source of life, much like the theory of recollection revealed the source of knowledge. The duality of the soul also elucidates the mythic symbols at the outset of Phaedo. The proofs that this dialogue furnishes for immortality clarify the duality of the soul and in doing so they offer a novel interpretation for the mythical symbols concerning the struggle of the soul which the body imprisons. This external conflict is rendered philosophically meaningful in Phaedo, turning thus into an expression of the basic tension between the two aspects of the soul. The interpretation that this book offers takes issue with more conventional ways of understanding Phaedo's psychology, which usually present it as though it was based on a division between body and soul. By reading this dialogue's arguments with reference to the duality of the soul, the author evokes the coherency of the proofs proposed in Phaedo to the immortality of the soul and clarifies the relationship between Plato's views of the soul as they appear in Phaedo and Republic respectively. Thus he sheds light on the latent dimension of the soul, on the inconceivable depth of the human soul which constitutes the foundation of Plato's philosophy of yearning.