Cut the Old Queers Some Slack

This post brought to you by a review of Sandra Boehringer’s Female Homosexuality in Ancient Greece and Rome, which recent translation I posted about earlier with no little excitement. The BMCR review annoyed me for a couple reasons.

First was an assumption that when a book is translated, the author should retool it to modern terminology.* In the end, the reviewer said maybe just the forward from Boehringer should have addressed trans issues—which isn’t an invalid point—but other parts of the review seem to slam Boehringer for not doing more revisions for the new English translation (from a French original published in 2007). This leads me to….

Second issue: this assumes a uniquely Angliphone understanding, and even more, a British one (the reviewer teaches at Leeds), where the issue of TERFs is more pressing than in the US. Here, transphobia and transmisogyny is rooted more in religious objections than a subsect of radical feminists (who may not be religious at all). It’s not that the US has no TERFs, but it's not nearly the issue (ime) as in the UK.

Every country has its own quirks of bias. And the author is French. If I’ve learned anything about Queer culture in my almost 60 years on this planet, it’s that the pressing issues in one country are manifestly not the pressing issues in another—particularly across language lines. To assume they are (or should be) centers Angliphone culture in a way that annoys me.

OTOH, yes, especially US English-speakers have poor linguistic skills to read non-Anglophone scholarship as a result of bad public-school language education. But access to good language education is a matter of MONEY, which gets us into issues of social class, et al. That’s a different kettle of fish (which deserves its own post about wealth gate-keeping in academia).

But I do my best to remain cognizant that the ways we talk about queer culture and concerns differ even in Anglophone countries, never mind those of non-English speakers.

So that was my second big issue with this review.

The reviewer acknowledges that the original came out in 2007, and queer scholarship about the ancient world has moved on, particularly as regards recognition of non-binary ancient figures. But she can’t seem to keep from knocking Boehringer for not magically keeping up.

Folks, grant the Old Queers some slack here? When I was young, it was just LGB. Then LGBT. Now it’s an alphabet soup. I’m quite sure young queers who read “An Atypical Affair: Alexander the Great, Hephaistion Amyntoros, and the Nature of Their Relationship,” could take exception to my phrasing in places. Hell, I’ll revise portions of it for my bio on Hephaistion and Krateros.

But it was published in 1999! And I actually wrote the thing in 1996 as a class assignment, then revised it in 1998 for that 1999 publication date.

Remember, some of us have been in this fight a while. I do my best to keep up with current terminology—and do genuinely want to do so—but it’s kinda gauche to slam authors for material previously published, especially in such a rapidly changing field.

To expect an author to substantially retool a prior publication for a translation is uncool. Real revision takes a lot of time. Not something I think many people fully understand. It’s not a matter of a couple weeks’ tweaks. If she were to produce a revised/second edition, that might take years. I’d rather have the book translated than wait five years for Boehringer to revise it. I can take it in the spirit of its original publication date: 2007. Could she have been more straightforward in her new forward? Perhaps. But French concerns aren’t British ones.

——

*Let me also say—as someone whose work is currently being translated—we may not have as much control as readers assume. I sent a letter to the Italian publisher, all but begging them to PLEASE keep the Greek transliterations of names and Greek words with Dancing with the Lion. They said they would, but I can’t force them to do so. For all I know, the Italian translation could be a dumpster fire. I hope not, I trust not, but translations are dicey. And if academic translations are quite different from fiction, be aware of the limits original authors face with translations.

"BMCR 2009.10.48

Ancient Greece and Ancient Iran: Cross-Cultural Encounters. 1st International Conference (Athens, 11-13 November 2006)

Seyed Mohammad Reza Darbandi, Antigoni Zournatzi, Ancient Greece and Ancient Iran: Cross-Cultural Encounters. 1st International Conference (Athens, 11-13 November 2006). Athens: National Hellenic Research Foundation; Hellenic National Commission for UNESCO; Cultural Center of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 2008. xxix, 377. ISBN 9789609309554. €60.00 (pb).

Review by

Margaret C. Miller, University of Sydney. [email protected]

[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review.]

The volume commemorates a landmark occasion, when the national research centres of Iran and Greece collaborated in a multi-national interdisciplinary conference on the history of exchange between Iran and Greece. Its nearly 400 pages reflect a strong sense of its symbolic importance. Papers span the Achaemenid through the Mediaeval periods and address the theme of exchange from the perspective of many disciplines — history, art, religion, philosophy, literature, archaeology. The book thus brings together material that can be obscure outside the circle of specialists, and in a manner that is generally accessible; the wide range of topics and periods included is a strength. Excellent illustrations often in colour enhance the archaeological contributions, as does inclusion of hitherto unpublished material.

The volume commences with a brief section on what might be called Greek textual evidence (Tracy, Petropoulou, Tsanstanoglou), followed by papers on interaction in Sasanian through mediaeval Persia (Azarnoush, Alinia, Venetis, Fowden), four papers discussing Achaemenid, Seleucid and Parthian history (Weiskopf, Ivantchik, Tuplin, Aperghis), aspects of the archaeology of Persepolis and Pasargadae (Stronach, Talebian, Root, Palagia), and ends with essays on the receptivity to Achaemenid culture in the material culture of the western empire and fringes: Cyprus, Turkey, Greece (Zournatzi, Lintz, Summerer, Paspalas, Ignatiadou, Sideris, Triantafyllidis), followed by a paper on traces of Greek material culture in the archaeology of (Seleucid) Iran (Rahbar). The wealth of vehicles, contexts and levels of exchange attested through the ages is both eye-opening and exciting. While there is unfortunately little attempt at globalizing synthesis or theoretical modelling, the analytical methods and collections of data in the individual contributions will aid future work in the area.

Stephen Tracy starts the volume with a synchronic analysis of the ways in which first Aeschylus, then Homer, play upon the prejudices of their audience against ” barbaroi” and then show the human quality of the enemy. In Persai, the Athenians are anonymous in contrast with the delineated personalities of the Persian royal family; in the Iliad, Achilles is “not very likeable” but learns humanity from the sorrow of Priam. Both poets focus on common humanity that transcends short-term hostilities.

Angeliki Petropoulou offers a detailed analysis of Herodotus’ account of the death of Masistios and subsequent mourning (Hdt. 9.20-25.1). Herodotus played up the heroic quality of Masistios’ death, stressing his beauty and height, qualities appreciated by both Greeks and Persians. The fact that Masistios seems to have gained the position of cavalry commander in the year before his death, coupled with the likelihood that his Nisaian horse with its golden bridle was a royal gift, suggests he had been promoted and rewarded for bravery.

Kyriakos Tsantsanoglou discusses the Derveni papyrus’ mention of magoi (column VI.1-14). Though the papyrus dates 340-320, the text was composed late fifth century BC, making the apparently Iranian content especially important. Both the ritual described and the explanation for it cohere with elements known from later Persian sources as features of early Iranian religious thought. While the precise vehicles of transmission of such knowledge to the papyrus are unknowable, the papyrus is the first certain documentation of the borrowing of Iranian ideas in Greek (philosophical) thought.

On the Iranian side exchange of religious ideas is documented by Massoud Azarnoush in the iconography of a fourth-century AD Sasanian manor-house he excavated at Hajiabad 1979.1 Moulded stucco in the form of divine figures included dressed and naked females identified with Anahita. The very broad shoulders of the Hellenistically dressed Anahita fit an Iranian aesthetic; the closest parallel for the slender naked females is found not in the cognate Ishtar type but in the Aphrodite Pudica type. Reliefs of naked boys, of uncertain relationship with Anahita, have attributes of fertility cult in the (Dionysian?) bunches of grapes they hold and in the ?ivy elements of their headdress.

Sara Alinia offers a brief but fascinating account of the development of state-sponsored religion hand-in-hand with state-sponsored persecution of religious elements that were deemed to be affiliated with another state: the Christian Late Roman Empire and the Zoroastrian Sasanian Empire. She documents the rise of religion as a tool of inter-state diplomacy and vehicle for inter-state rivalry; religion was but one facet of the political antagonism between the two.

Evangelos Venetis studies the cross-fertilization between Hellenistic and Byzantine Greek romance and Iranian pre-Islamic and Islamic romantic narrative. Persian elements are found in Hellenistic romance; Hellenistic themes contribute to Persian epics. The fragmentary nature of texts ranging 2nd -11th/14th c. AD and the lack of intermediary texts are serious impediments which may yet be overcome. The Alexander Romance, known in Iran from a Sasanian translation, contributed to the form and detail of the Shahname, as well as to other Persian epics.

Garth Fowden outlines the complex history of the creation, translation, wide circulation and impact of the pseudo-Aristotelian texts on religious thought. Aristotle’s works were translated into Syriac in the 6th c. and in the mid 8th c. into Arabic. Arab philosophers, attracted to the idea of Aristotle as counsellor of kings, updated him. Owing to his remoteness in time, “Aristotle” offended neither Muslim nor Christian. The Letters of Alexander, Secret of Secrets and al-Kindi’s sequel of Metaphysics, the Theology of Aristotle, contributed significantly to the philosophical underpinnings of both Muslim and Christian theology; the last remains an important text in teaching at Qom.

Michael N. Weiskopf argues that Herodotos’ account of the Persian treatment of Ionia after the Ionian revolt constitutes “imperial nostalgia” — the popular memory of how good things were under a past regime, in the context of a new regime. Herodotos 6.42-43, stressing the administrative efficiency and fairness of Artaphernes’ arrangements, allows a reading of Mardonios’ alleged imposition of democratic constitutions (so dissonant with the subsequent reported governing of Ionian states) as imperial nostalgia, to be contrasted with the inconsistent and unfair treatment of the Ionians by the Athenians of Herodotos’ own day.

Askold I. Ivantchik publishes two Greek inscriptions from Hellenistic Tanais in the Bosporos (and reedits a third). Evidently private thiasos inscriptions, they confirm that the city was already in 2nd or 1st century BC officially divided into two social (presumably ethnic) groups: the Hellenes and the Tanaitai, presumably Sarmatians, on whose land the city was founded in the late 3rd century BC. A thiasos for the river god Tanais includes members with both Greek and Iranian names, showing that private religious thiasoi were an important vehicle for breaking down social barriers between the two populations of the city.

Two papers offer contrasting interpretations of the evidence for Seleucid retention of Achaemenid institutions. That there were parallels between structures of the different periods is uncontested; the question is whether the parallels signify a deliberate programme of Seleucid self-presentation as the “heirs of the Achaemenids.” Christopher R. Tuplin argues that acquisition of the empire involved adoption of the Achaemenid mantle in some contexts and maintenance of those structures that worked, but that the balance of evidence suggests no conscious policy of continuation, and considerable de facto alteration of attitude and form. He suggests that the evidence of continuity of financial (taxation) structures — a major part of Aperghis’ argument — is ambiguous, at best. The treatment and divisions of territory, most notably the “shift of centre of gravity” from Persis to Babylonia, argue more for disruption than continuity.

G. G. Aperghis gives the case for a deliberate Seleucid policy of continuation of many Achaemenid administrative practices. He points to the retention of the satrapy as basis of administrative organization; use of land-grants (albeit to cities rather than individuals); continuing royal support of temples; maintenance of the Royal Road system (n.b. two Greek milestones, one illustrated in this volume by Rahbar); the retention of two separate offices relating to financial oversight. He suggests that the double sealing of transactions in the Persepolis Fortification Tablets metamorphosed into the double monogram on Seleucid coinage. Further field work in Iran, like that outlined by Rahbar (see below), will settle such contested matters as whether the many foundations of Alexander had any local impact. At present, Tuplin offers the more persuasive case.

David Stronach, excavator of Pasargadae, gives his considered opinion on the complex nexus of issues relating to the date of Cyrus’ constructions at Pasargadae. Touching upon the East Greek and Lydian contribution to early Achaemenid monumental architecture in stone and orthogonal design principles, Cyrus’ conquest chronology and the Nabonidus Chronicle, Darius’ creation of Old Persian cuneiform, the elements of the Tomb of Cyrus, and new evidence confirming the garden design, he argues that the chronology of the constructions at Pasargadae indirectly confirms the date of the conquest of Lydia around 545.

Mohammad Hassan Talebian offers a diachronic analysis of Persepolis and Pasargadae, starting with a survey of the Iranian and Lydian elements in their construction. Modern interventions include the ill-informed and damaging activities of Herzfeld and Schmidt at Persepolis in the 1930s, the stripping away of the mediaeval Islamic development of the Tomb of Cyrus, and the damage to the ancient city of Persepolis in preparation for the 2500-anniversary celebrations in 1971. Recent surveys in the region compensate to some degree. Talebian urges the importance of attention to all periods of the past rather than a privileged few.

Margaret Cool Root continues her thought-experiment in exploring how a fifth-century Athenian male might have viewed Persepolis.2 Sculptural traits such as the emphasis on the clothed body and nature of interaction between individuals would have seemed to the hypothetical Athenian to embody a profoundly effeminate culture. Yet Root’s study of the Persepolis Fortification Tablet sealings, their flashes of humour and playfulness in their utilisation on the tablets, reveals a world in which oral communication — idle chit-chat — perhaps bridged the cultural divide. She concludes that a visiting Greek might well have learned how to read the imagery like an Iranian.

Olga Palagia argues that the most famous Greek artefact found at Persepolis, the marble statue of “Penelope”, was not booty but a diplomatic gift from the people of Thasos: its Thasian marble provides a workshop provenance. The “Polygnotan” character, seen also in the Thasian marble “Boston Throne,” possibly from the same workshop, suits the prestige of the gift: Thasos’ great artist, the painter Polygnotos, is also attested as a bronze sculptor. A putative second Penelope in Thasos, taken to Rome in the imperial period with the “Boston Throne,” would have served as model for the Roman sculptural versions.

Antigoni Zournatzi offers the first of a series of regional studies documenting receptivity to Persian culture in the western empire and beyond, with a look at Cyprus. Earlier scholarship focused on siege mound and palace design; receptivity can be tracked in glyptic, toreutic, and sculpture. Western “Achaemenidizing” seals may be Cypriote; Persianizing statuettes may reflect local adoption of Persian dress (or Persian participation in local ritual). The treatment of beard curls on one late 6th century head may reflect Persian sculptural practice. Zournatzi suggests that Cypro-Persian bowls and jewellery were produced not for local consumption but to satisfy tribute requirements.

Yannick Lintz announces a project to compile a comprehensive corpus of Achaemenid objects in western Turkey, an essential step in any attempt to understand the period in the region.3 Particular challenges lie in matters of definition, both of “Achaemenid” and “west Anatolian” traits. The state of completion of the database is not clear; one is aware of a volume of excavated material in museums whose processing and publication was interrupted and can only wish her well in what promises to be a massive undertaking.

Lâtife Summerer continues her publication of the Persian-period Phrygian painted wooden tomb at Tatarli in western Turkey with discussion of the different cultural elements of its iconographic programme.4 The friezes of the north wall especially present Anatolian traditions; the east wall friezes of funerary procession and battle (between Persians and nomads) offer a mix of Persian and Anatolian. New Hittite evidence clinches as Anatolian the identification of the cart with curved top familiar in Anatolo-Persian art; it carries an effigy of the deceased. Alexander von Kienlin’s appendix expands the cultural mix presented by the tomb with his demonstration that its Lydian-style dromos was an original feature.

Stavros Paspalas raises questions about the vehicles and route of cultural exchange between the Persian Empire and Macedon through analysis of Achaemenid-looking lion-griffins on the façade of the later fourth century tomb at Aghios Athanasios. He identifies a pattern of specifically Macedonian patronage of Achaemenid imagery also in southern Greece in the fourth century in such items as the pebble mosaic from Sikyon and the Kamini stele from Athens. Enough survives to suggest independent local Macedonian receptivity to Persian ideas rather than a secondary derivation through southern Greece.

Despina Ignatiadou summarises succinctly the growing corpus of Achaemenidizing glass and metalware vessels in 6th-4th century BC Macedon. Three foreign plants lie behind the forms of lobe and petal-decoration on phialai, bowls, jugs, and beakers: the central Anatolian opium poppy, the Egyptian lotus (white and blue types) and the Iranian/Anatolian (bitter) almond. The common denominator is their medicinal and psychotropic qualities; Ignatiadou suggests that their appearance on vessels has semiotic value and that such drugs were used in religious and ritual contexts along with the vessels that carry their signatures, perhaps especially in the worship of the Great Mother.

Athanasios Sideris outlines the range of issues related to understanding the role of Achaemenid toreutic in documenting ancient cultural exchange: production ranges between court, regional, and extra-imperial workshops, not readily distinguishable. The inclusion of little-known material from Delphi and Dodona enriches his discussion of shape types. He works toward identification of local workshops, both within and without the empire, based especially on apparent local preferences in surface treatment. The geographical range of production is one area that will benefit from further international research collaboration.5

Pavlos Triantafyllidis focuses on the wealth of material from Rhodes, both sanctuary deposits and well-dated burials, that attests a history of imports from Iran and the Caucasus even before the Achaemenid period. Achaemenid-style glass vessels start in the late 6th century with an alabastron and petalled bowl, paralleled in the western empire, and carry on through the fourth century. An excavated fourth-century glass workshop created a series of “Rhodio-Achaemenid” products that dominated Rhodian glassware through the early third century. This microcosmic case study brilliantly exemplifies a much broader phenomenon.

Mehdi Rahbar outlines and illustrates archaeological material, some not previously published, that will be fundamental in future discussions of Seleucid Iran. The as of yet limited corpus includes: modulation of Greek forms perhaps to suit a local taste (Ionic capital from the temple of Laodicea, Nahavand, known from an 1843 inscription of Antiochus III; fragmentary marble sculpture of Marsyas?), amalgam of Iranian and Greek (milestone in Greek with Persepolitan profile), Greek import (Rhodian stamped amphora handle ΝΙΚΑΓΙΔΟΣ from Bisotun);6 and Iranian adoption of Greek decorative elements (vine leaves, grapes, and acanthus patterns, for which compare Azarnoush’s stucco).

The volume concludes with a brief overview of ancient Iranian-Greek relations and their modern interpretation by Shahrokh Razmjou.

The inclusion of the texts of the introductory and concluding addresses made on the occasion of the conference in particular allow the reader to comprehend its aims: hopes of exchange in the modern world through assessing exchange in the past. A number of the papers make it very clear that collaboration between specialists of “East” and “West” in both textual and archaeological research could yield great gains for all periods of history and modes of analysis. The conference and its publication, therefore, succeed at a variety of levels.

Editing such a volume must have been a real challenge and it is to the credit of authors and editors that throughout the whole volume, I found only a handful of minor infelicities and typographical errors, none of which obscure meaning.7

Contents: Stephen Tracy, “Europe and Asia: Aeschylus’ Persians and Homer’s Iliad” (1-8) Angeliki Petropoulou, “The Death of Masistios and the Mourning for his Loss” (9-30) Kyriakos Tsantsanoglou, “Magi in Athens in the Fifth Century BC?” (31-39) Massoud Azarnoush, “Hajiabad and the Dialogue of Civilizations” (41-52) Sara Alinia, “Zoroastrianism and Christianity in the Sasanian Empire (Fourth Century AD)” (53-58) Evangelos Venetis, “Greco-Persian Literary Interactions in Classical Persian Literature” (59-63) Garth Fowden, “Pseudo-Aristotelian Politics and Theology in Universal Islam” (65-81) Michael N. Weiskopf, “The System Artaphernes-Mardonius as an Example of Imperial Nostalgia” (83-91) Askold I. Ivantchik, “Greeks and Iranians in the Cimmerian Bosporus in the Second/First Century BC: New Epigraphic Data from Tanais” (93-107) Christopher Tuplin, “The Seleucids and Their Achaemenid Predecessors: A Persian Inheritance?” (109-136) G. G. Aperghis, “Managing an Empire—Teacher and Pupil” (137-147) David Stronach, “The Building Program of Cyrus the Great at Pasargadae and the Date of the Fall of Sardis” (149-173) Mohammad Hassan Talebian, “Persia and Greece: The Role of Cultural Interactions in the Architecture of Persepolis-Pasargadae” (175-193) Margaret Cool Root, “Reading Persepolis in Greek—Part Two: Marriage Metaphors and Unmanly Virtues” (195-221) Olga Palagia, “The Marble of the Penelope from Persepolis and its Historical Implications” (223-237) Antigoni Zournatzi, ��Cultural Interconnections in the Achaemenid West: A Few Reflections on the Testimony of the Cypriot Archaeological Record” (239-255) Yannick Lintz, “Greek, Anatolian, and Persian Iconography in Asia Minor : Material Sources, Method, and Perspectives” (257-263) Latife Summerer, “Imaging a Tomb Chamber : The Iconographic Program of the Tatarli Wall Paintings” (265-299) Stavros Paspalas, “The Achaemenid Lion-Griffin on a Macedonian Tomb Painting and on a Sicyonian Mosaic” (301-325) Despina Ignatiadou, “Psychotropic Plants on Achaemenid Style Vessels” (327-337) Athanasios Sideris, “Achaemenid Toreutics in the Greek Periphery” (339-353) Pavlos Triantafyllidis, “Achaemenid Influences on Rhodian Minor Arts and Crafts” (355-366) Mehdi Rahbar, “Historical Iranian and Greek Relations in Retrospect” (367-372) Shahrokh Razmjou, “Persia and Greece: A Forgotten History of Cultural Relations” (373-374)

Notes

1. The site is fully published in: M. Azarnoush, The Sasanian manor house at Hajiabad, Iran (Florence 1994).

2. The first appears as “Reading Persepolis in Greek: gifts of the Yauna,” in C. Tuplin, ed., Persian Responses: Political and Cultural Interaction with(in) the Achaemenid Empire (Swansea 2007) 163-203.

3. Deniz Kaptan is similarly compiling a corpus of Achaemenid seals and sealings in Turkish museums.

4. Other studies: “From Tatari to Munich. The recovery of a painted wooden tomb chamber in Phrygia”, in I. Delemen, ed., The Achaemenid Impact on Local Populations and Cultures (Istanbul 2007), 129-56; “Picturing Persian Victory: The Painted Battle Scene on the Munich Wood”, in A. Ivantchik and Vakhtang Licheli, edd., Achaemenid Culture and Local Traditions in Anatolia, Southern Caucasus and Iran: New Discoveries (Leiden/Boston 2007: Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13), 3-30.

5. Considerable progress is being made, e.g., in Georgia: V. Licheli, “Oriental Innovations in Samtskhe (Southern Georgia) in the 1st Millennium BC,” and M. Yu. Treister, “The Toreutics of Colchis in the 5th-4th Centuries B.C. Local Traditions, Outside Influences, Innovations,” both Ivantchik / Licheli, edd., Achaemenid Culture and Local Traditions in Anatolia (previous note), 55-66 and 67-107.

6. For early 2nd c. date of this fabricant, see Christoph Börker and J. Burow, Die hellenistischen Amphorenstempel aus Pergamon: Der Pergamon-Komplex; Die Übrigen Stempel aus Pergamon (Berlin 1998), cat. no. 274-286; one example has a context of ca. 200 BC.

7. Except possibly the misprint on p. 357, line 8 up, where “second century” should presumably be “second quarter” (of the fourth century)."

🚴‍♀️ Ready to take your cycling to the next level? 🚴‍♂️ BMCR Cycling is the ultimate guide to competitive racing. Whether you're a seasoned pro or just starting out, this comprehensive resource has everything you need to succeed. 🏆 From training tips and race strategies to gear recommendations and nutrition advice, BMCR Cycling has it all. Our team of experts has years of experience in the cycling world and is dedicated to helping you reach your full potential. 👀 So what are you waiting for? Whether you're looking to compete at the highest levels or just want to improve your skills, BMCR Cycling is the perfect resource for anyone looking to take their cycling game to the next level. So strap on your helmet, grab your bike, and let's get started! 🚴‍♀️🚴‍♂️1. Understanding the Basics of BMCR Cycling: A Guide to Competitive RacingBMCR cycling is a competitive racing sport that involves racing on a track with fixed-gear bikes. It requires high skill and endurance to compete in BMCR cycling. The bikes used in BMCR cycling have no brakes and are designed for speed. Riders must have a good understanding of the rules and regulations of the sport. BMCR cycling is a fast-paced sport that requires quick reflexes and excellent bike handling skills. Riders must be able to navigate tight turns and corners at high speeds. Strategy is also important in BMCR cycling, with riders often working together to gain an advantage. Riders must be able to maintain a high level of intensity throughout the race. Training for BMCR cycling involves a combination of endurance, strength, and speed training. Riders must also practice their bike handling skills and learn to ride without brakes. Proper nutrition and hydration are also important for peak performance. BMCR cycling is a challenging but rewarding sport for those who are up for the challenge. Joining a BMCR cycling team can provide riders with a supportive community and access to training resources. Competing in BMCR cycling races can also lead to opportunities for sponsorship and professional racing. Overall, BMCR cycling is an exciting and thrilling sport that requires a combination of physical and mental strength. 🚴‍♀️🚴‍♂️🏆 2. The Importance of Proper Training for BMCR Cycling CompetitionsProper training is crucial for BMCR cycling competitions. It improves endurance, speed, and strength. It reduces the risk of injury and fatigue. It helps athletes reach their full potential. Training should include a mix of cardio, strength, and flexibility exercises. Cardio improves endurance and stamina. Strength training builds muscle and power. Flexibility exercises prevent injury and improve mobility. Training should also include proper nutrition and hydration. A balanced diet with plenty of protein and carbs is essential. Hydration is crucial for performance and recovery. Avoid sugary drinks and alcohol. Rest and recovery are just as important as training. Rest allows the body to repair and rebuild. Overtraining can lead to injury and burnout. Stretching and massage can aid in recovery. Proper training leads to better performance and enjoyment of BMCR cycling competitions. 🚴‍♀️🚴‍♂️3. Essential Gear and Equipment for BMCR Cycling RacesWhen it comes to BMCR cycling races, having the right gear and equipment can make all the difference. Here are some essentials: Bike: A lightweight, high-performance bike with good tires, brakes, and gears is crucial. Clothing: Wear comfortable, breathable, and moisture-wicking clothing, such as padded shorts and a cycling jersey. Helmet: A well-fitting, certified helmet is a must for safety. Gloves: Cycling gloves provide grip and cushioning, protecting your hands from blisters and numbness. Shoes: Cycling shoes with cleats provide better power transfer and control. Sunglasses: Protect your eyes from the sun, wind, and debris with cycling-specific sunglasses. Water bottle: Stay hydrated during the race with a water bottle and a bottle cage on your bike. Tools: Carry a multitool, tire levers, spare tubes, and a pump or CO2 inflator for emergencies. Don't forget to check the weather forecast and pack accordingly. A rain jacket, arm warmers, and leg warmers can come in handy. Investing in quality gear and equipment can improve your performance, comfort, and safety on the road. 🚴‍♀️🚴‍♂️4. Strategies for Success in BMCR Cycling: Tactics and Techniques🚴‍♀️ To succeed in BMCR cycling, it's important to have a variety of tactics and techniques up your sleeve. Here are some strategies to help you achieve your goals: ⚡️ Attack early and often. Don't wait for the final sprint; make your move early and catch your opponents off guard. 🌀 Stay in the slipstream. Drafting behind other riders can save you up to 30% of your energy, so try to stay close to the rider in front of you. 🏋️‍♀️ Build your endurance. BMCR races can be long and grueling, so it's important to have the stamina to keep going. Train with long rides and hill repeats. 🔍 Study the course. Familiarize yourself with the terrain and any potential hazards. Plan your strategy accordingly. 👥 Work as a team. If you're racing with a team, communicate and coordinate your efforts to maximize your chances of success. 🔥 Be aggressive. BMCR racing is not for the faint of heart. Don't be afraid to take risks and push yourself to the limit. 💪 Focus on your strengths. Whether you're a sprinter or a climber, play to your strengths and use them to your advantage. 🎯 Visualize success. Mental preparation is just as important as physical training. Visualize yourself crossing the finish line first and use that motivation to drive you forward.5. Nutrition and Hydration for Optimal Performance in BMCR CyclingProper nutrition and hydration are crucial for BMCR cycling performance. 🚴‍♀️ Fuel up with carbohydrates before and during rides. 💪 Protein is also important for muscle recovery. 🍎 Eat fruits and vegetables for vitamins and minerals. 🥦 Stay hydrated by drinking water before, during, and after rides. 💦 Electrolyte drinks can also help replenish lost minerals. 🍹 Avoid sugary drinks and alcohol. 🚫 Caffeine can enhance performance, but be mindful of its effects. ☕ Timing is key. Eat a meal 2-3 hours before a ride. 🍽️ Snack on a banana or energy bar 30 minutes before. 🍌 During rides, consume 30-60g of carbohydrates per hour. 🍞 Refuel within 30 minutes after a ride. 🍗 Consider supplements like creatine and beta-alanine for improved performance. 💊 However, consult with a healthcare professional before taking any supplements. 🩺 Remember, a balanced diet is the foundation for optimal performance. 🍽️ In summary, proper nutrition and hydration are essential for BMCR cycling performance. 🚴‍♂️ Fuel up with carbs, protein, fruits, and veggies. 💪 Stay hydrated with water and electrolyte drinks. 💦 Time your meals and snacks accordingly. 💡 Consider supplements but prioritize a balanced diet. 🍎6. Injury Prevention and Recovery for BMCR Cyclists: Tips and TricksAs a BMCR cyclist, injury prevention and recovery are crucial for your performance. Here are some tips and tricks to keep you on the road: Warm-up: Start with a 10-minute easy ride to increase blood flow and loosen muscles. Cool-down: End your ride with a 5-10 minute easy spin to flush out lactic acid. Stretching: Stretching helps to prevent muscle tightness and injury. Focus on your hamstrings, quads, glutes, and calves. Hydration: Drink plenty of water before, during, and after your ride to prevent dehydration and muscle cramps. Nutrition: Eat a balanced diet with enough carbohydrates, protein, and healthy fats to fuel your body. Rest: Allow your body to recover by taking rest days and getting enough sleep. Cross-training: Mix up your workouts with other activities like yoga, swimming, or weightlifting to prevent overuse injuries. Listen to your body: If you feel pain or discomfort, take a break and seek medical attention if necessary. By following these tips and tricks, you can prevent injuries and recover faster, allowing you to perform at your best. 🚴‍♀️🚴‍♂️7. Mental Preparation for BMCR Cycling Competitions: Staying Focused and MotivatedWhen preparing for BMCR cycling competitions, mental preparation is just as important as physical training. Here are some tips to stay focused and motivated: Visualize success: Picture yourself crossing the finish line first. Set goals: Create achievable targets to work towards. Stay positive: Believe in yourself and your abilities. Manage stress: Practice relaxation techniques to stay calm under pressure. Stay motivated: Surround yourself with supportive people and remind yourself why you love cycling. It's important to remember that mental preparation is an ongoing process. Keep practicing these techniques and adjust them as needed. Another helpful tip is to create a pre-race routine. This can include stretching, listening to music, or doing a mental warm-up. Stick to this routine to help calm nerves and get in the right mindset. Finally, don't forget to have fun! Cycling competitions are a chance to challenge yourself and enjoy the sport you love. 😎 In conclusion, BMCR cycling is a thrilling sport that requires dedication and perseverance. With the right training and equipment, anyone can become a competitive racer. 🚴‍♀️🚴‍♂️ Whether you're a seasoned cyclist or just starting out, BMCR racing offers a unique challenge that will push you to your limits. Don't be afraid to take the leap and join a race – you might surprise yourself with what you're capable of achieving. 🏆 So, grab your bike, hit the road, and get ready to experience the rush of BMCR cycling. With hard work and determination, you can become a champion in this exciting sport. 🚵‍♀️🚵‍♂️ https://cyclingshop.uk/bmcr-cycling-a-guide-to-competitive-racing/?_unique_id=649752fd2e2ba

Effort to Accelerate Resilience Projects, Lays out Approximately $8.5 Billion in Future Infrastructure Needs

Effort to Accelerate Resilience Projects, Lays out Approximately $8.5 Billion in Future Infrastructure Needs

Image by Maxime Vibert-Ward from Pixabay BMCR Will Reduce Flood Risk – From Both Sea Level Rise and Storm Surge – For Tens of Thousands of New Yorkers, Including Those Living in Two Bridges   “Climate Strong Communities” Program Will Accelerate Design of Projects in Areas Left Unaddressed by Sandy Recovery Funding and Historically Facing Deeper Impacts as a Result of Climate Change  Mayor Says…

View On WordPress

This BMCR reviewer is VALID.

[ID: Text from Jesse Hill’s review of Ciano, Nunzia: Gli Aratea di Cicerone: saggio di commento ai frammenti di tradizione indiretta con approfondimenti a luoghi scelti, which reads, “Cicero’s prose corpus, so dauntingly massive and so obviously important, has tended to overshadow what remains of his poetry. Usually, if we classicists remember that Cicero wrote poetry at all, it’s that one excellently self-aggrandizing verse—o fortunatam natam me consule Romam (fr. 8 Courtney)—that sticks in our brains, inspiring us more to laughter than scholarship. But Cicero deserves better. He is an important, interesting, and even a good poet; readers of republican and Augustan verse would benefit from spending more time with him.” /end ID.]

It just seems wild to me that people are getting upset because Taylor wants to own HER music?? The music she wrote? And someone took that away from her. When she speaks out she's 'playing the sympathy card' when she doesn't speak out everything is fine. But heaven forbid she ask for the right to own music she wrote. All artists should own their music. Record labels shouldn't have the right to screw over the artists and take advantage of newer and upcoming artists.

This whole situation is mind blowing and incredibly frustrating. And I can't imagine what Taylor is going through right now. But at the end of the day I stand with Taylor Swift. Forever and Always.

i’m glad you’re enjoying playing detective! tiMe for the second clue. let’s see if you Can guess what i blog the most about. i’m Really liking being mysterious. did you get it? - Lucas

Lucas……. W H A T..?

Hey how's it going? Wanted to check in on you (the author)?

Fantastic now! We are returning to a regular broadcasting schedule starting September 3rd!

BMCR reminds residents of Black Mesa to not drink the black ooze creeping in through your window sills. Please contact your nearest gardener for removal.

‘reading it straight through is a little like eating a very large box of not-quite-first-rate chocolates’ truly a next-level backhanded compliment from this BMCR reviewer

Good review of what looks to be an interesting book. Despite being reviewed by BMCR, it’s popular history from Bettany Hughes (who you’ve probably seen in some documentaries on ancient Greece, if you watch that sort of thing). It’s meant for a non-specialist audience (or students), and it’s not ungodly expensive.

What caught my eye is that she’s tackling the “problem” in popular presentations of Greek myth where deities get locked into one or two “focus”-related understandings. So Poseidon is god of the sea (but, um...also of earthquakes and horses, et al). Demeter is goddess of grain (but, um...really of most crops [as opposed to vines/groves, which go to Dionysos] and also has a mother goddess/fertility and underworld aspect).

In fact, all the gods had rather complicated aspects, and Aphrodite was one of them.

Of possible interest to my regular readers--around the middle of the 4th century, she became the chief goddess of Pella (see below, terracotta votive from the Pella museum). Before that, it was Athena (see the votive under Aphrodite). And we see a TON of Persephone-ish votives, usually found in kitchens of domestic space (votive below under Athena). Aphrodite’s Macedonian name was Zierene, and she has a large shrine on the northern side of the Pella agora (marketplace), along with the earth mother. In iconography, she does have the “sexy” vibe, but she is also portrayed with mother vibes too, and Eros shows up with her a lot. (As below, see the baby on her skirt?)

“BMCR 2020.08.24

Herodotus. Histories. Book V

P. J. Rhodes, Herodotus. Histories. Book V. Aris & Phillips classical texts. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2019. ix, 263 p.. ISBN 9781789620153 £22.99 (pb).

Review by

Charles Chiasson, The University of Texas at Arlington. [email protected]

Professor Rhodes’ edition of Book 5 is the first book of Herodotus’ Histories to appear in the Aris and Phillips series, which aims to accommodate readers with rudimentary knowledge of ancient Greek. (Rhodes plans a companion edition of Book 6 to carry the narrative of Greco-Persian conflict through the battle of Marathon in 490 BCE.) The choice of this book is a good fit for the editor’s primarily historical interests, as it includes Herodotus’ accounts of the Ionian Revolt; the end of the Peisistratid tyranny and the beginning of more democratic rule in Athens; and Spartan attempts to expand its political influence in Greece beyond the Peloponnese. The book also contains some of Herodotus’ most memorable literary creations—characters, scenes, and speeches introduced to underscore important historical moments, such as Aristagoras’ brazen attempt to secure military aid from the Spartan king Cleomenes, and the Corinthian Socles’ pivotal speech opposing the Spartan re-establishment of tyrannical rule in Athens.

This edition includes an introduction with bibliography, a Greek text with facing English translation, and a commentary of approximately 100 pages.

The introduction is suitably substantial and covers essential background to orient the novice, although even Herodotean veterans will find points of interest along the way. Rhodes lucidly covers the evidence for Herodotus’ life, the ‘publication’ of the Histories (likely to have involved public recitals before full written publication in the mid-420’s), and Herodotus’ use of (primarily oral) sources. In judging the reliability of Herodotus’ hotly debated source citations, Rhodes advocates a middle course between extreme skepticism and extreme credulity, in the belief that Herodotus probably “wrote what he honestly thought he remembered” (11), although his memory may have failed him occasionally. Rhodes makes an explicit exception of the Persian Constitutional Debate, which he considers (despite repeated Herodotean claims to the contrary) a product of 5th-century Greece rather than 6th-century Persia.

In discussing Herodotus’ language, narrative techniques, and beliefs, Rhodes rightly acknowledges the importance of Homeric precedent: his epics serve as a model for Herodotus’ long narrative, set in multiple locales and enlivened by frequent speeches and occasional epic locutions. Moreover, Rhodes finds further justification for Pseudo-Longinus’ description of Herodotus as “most Homeric” at a deeper thematic level. He endorses John Gould’s view that Herodotus’ focus on the vulnerability of human existence and prosperity, his “sympathetic engagement with human suffering” (18),[1] has distinctly Homeric roots.

Other topics addressed by Rhodes include Herodotus’ political beliefs and the extent to which the Histories acknowledge or allude to political developments in the Greek world that took place after the end of the narrative in 479. Rhodes shares the now popular view that Herodotus is neither pro-Athenian nor pro-Spartan, and in broad terms prefers free constitutional government over one-man rule (whether Oriental monarchy or Greek tyranny). As for the relationship between Herodotus’ narrative of the past and contemporary Hellenic politics (especially the polarization between imperial Athens and Sparta, with their respective allies), Rhodes defends the conservative view that Herodotus’ primary objective is the one he announces explicitly in his opening sentence—i.e., to write about great deeds of the past in Homeric fashion.

Rhodes devotes the second section of his introduction (pp. 34-43) to the history of contact and conflict between the Greeks and Persians, from the Hellenic migrations to the Aegean islands and Asian coast during the Dark Age through the invasion of Xerxes and its aftermath. The introduction concludes with an outline summary of Book 5, which helps the reader navigate the complexities of the text, with its frequent changes of place and time, and demonstrates (inter alia) Herodotus’ enthusiastic embrace of analepsis: almost half of the book consists of flashbacks into Spartan and Athenian history (chaps. 39-97), which help explain the divergent reactions of the two communities when Aristagoras comes calling in search of military aid against the Persians.

The depth and breadth of erudition that Rhodes brings to bear upon the text can be gleaned from his lists of references at pp. vii-ix (collections of inscriptions, other prose and poetic texts, and journals in various languages) and pp. 45-48 (a select bibliography of Herodotean texts, commentaries, translations, and reference works). One work that Rhodes cites often throughout his commentary is R. J. A. Talbert’s Barrington Atlas,[2] which helps to compensate for the minimal cartographic resources available in this volume: three black-and-white maps (a page each for Magna Graecia, Greece and the Aegean, and the Near East) that precede the introduction.

Rhodes describes the Greek text that he prints as his own in “all the substantial matters which seemed to call for a decision” (Preface p. v), while following N. G. Wilson’s 2015 Oxford Text with regard to the spelling of Herodotus’ eastern Ionic dialect. In terms of general editorial practice, Rhodes parts company with Wilson in his greater willingness to defend rather than emend the transmitted text. The text (like others in the Aris and Phillips series) has a minimal apparatus criticus; in his commentary Rhodes often discusses and justifies his choices, persuasively to my mind. True to his conservative textual creed, Rhodes introduces only a single conjecture of his own into the text (at 66.1).

In the Preface (p. v) Rhodes declares that the primary task of his translation is “to express the meaning accurately in good English,” which has resulted in his changing Herodotus’ sentence structure on occasion. To give readers some small sense of the result, here in Rhodes’ rendition is the opening of the speech given by the Corinthian Socles to the Spartans and their allies at 5.92:

”Indeed heaven will be below the earth and earth up in the air above the heaven, and mankind will have a life in the sea and fish the life which mankind previously had, when you, Spartans, are prepared to overthrow equalities of power and restore tyrannies to the cities, something than which nothing is more unjust among mankind or more bloodthirsty.”

For comparative purposes, here is the same passage as translated by Robin Waterfield:[3]

“Whatever next?” he said. “Will the heavens be under the earth and the earth up in the sky on top of the heavens? Will men habitually live in the sea and fish live where men did before? It’s a topsy-turvy world if you Lacedaimonians are really planning to abolish equal rights and restore tyrants to their states, when there is nothing known to man that is more unjust or bloodthirsty than tyranny.”

However brief the sample, the juxtaposition underscores both strengths and weaknesses of Rhodes’ approach. On the one hand, and despite his stated concern about infidelity to Herodotus’ text, Rhodes in this instance (and as a general rule) reproduces the sentence structure of the original almost without deviation. The result is unquestionably accurate if occasionally awkward (“something than which…”). By contrast, Waterfield’s translation is freer and livelier, turning a long single declaration into a series of indignant questions that are truer to the spirit than the letter of Herodotus’ text. Rhodes’ more conservative approach is appropriate, however, given the purpose and the audience of this edition.

In his commentary (as in his introduction) Rhodes claims to have been “particularly but not exclusively concerned with the subject-matter: the history which Herodotus narrates, and how and why he narrates it as he does” (Preface, pp. v-vi). Of course the “history” that Herodotus narrates is famously wide-ranging, which requires that an editor be well versed in a wide variety of fields: not just history in the modern sense but also “deep” history (legend or myth), ethnography, geography, prosopography, epigraphy, and religion, among others. In short, Professor Rhodes has a masterful command of this wide spectrum of knowledge, and a gift for expressing it clearly and concisely. Rhodes serves the needs of readers new to Herodotus in various ways. For example, he consistently notes how Herodotus organizes his narrative by means of ring composition and analepsis. His descriptions of the nuts and bolts of the Athenian and Spartan governmental systems are clear without being reductive. He intervenes as necessary to explain potentially mystifying aspects of Greek religious practice, like the status of the local gods Damia and Auxesia, whose theft explains the origins of the hostility between Athens and Aegina (chaps. 82-86); or the hero cult established for the decapitated Cyprian rebel Onesilaus after a swarm of bees builds a honeycomb in his head (chap. 114).

At the same time, seasoned Herodoteans will appreciate his even-handed citation and assessment of previous scholarship, including frequent references (some approving, some dissenting) to Simon Hornblower’s recent edition of book five in the Cambridge ‘green and yellow’ series.[4] A sample passage where Rhodes must entangle all manner of scholarly problems is the post-tyranny transition in Athens to Cleisthenes’ rule (chaps. 66-81), where his discussion is informed by a wide range of primary witnesses (Thucydides, Plutarch, and the Aristotelian Constitution of the Athenians for starters) and secondary scholarship from the likes of Sarah Forsdyke, Ernst Badian, and Josiah Ober. Rhodes wears his learning lightly, and seldom lets his scholarship impede intelligibility.

On occasion Rhodes’ historical focus prevents him from acknowledging points of broader narratological and literary interest. I have in mind especially one of my favorite scenes in book five, Aristagoras’ visit to Sparta and King Cleomenes in search of allies in the Ionian Revolt against Darius. In this scene (5.49-51) Herodotus gives his readers yet another reason to dislike Aristagoras: he attempts (unsuccessfully) to pass himself off as an enquirer, like Herodotus, armed with geographical and ethnographical knowledge to inform a crucial political decision. He brandishes a map (recalling Herodotus’ own cartographic interests), describes the various foreign peoples en route to Sousa in much the same way that Herodotus describes non-Greek populations, and even adapts Herodotus’ signature superlative phrase in describing the Phrygians as “the richest in flocks of all whom I know, and in crops” (49.5). And yet Aristagoras repeatedly exaggerates the ease of conquering all of Asia, and ultimately defeats his own purpose by telling Cleomenes that the trip from Sardis to Sousa would last three months. As Herodotus wryly observes, Aristagoras “slipped” in this regard: “for he ought not to have told the truth, if he wanted to lead the Spartiates to Asia” (50.2). Rhodes declines to comment, when he might have called attention to both Herodotus’ humor and the crucial difference thus drawn between Aristagoras’ misleading historiē and its truth-based Herodotean counterpart.[5]

Nonetheless, this scarcely diminishes Rhodes’ impressive achievement throughout. This edition marks an auspicious beginning for Herodotus in the Aris and Phillips series; it provides a lucid and learned introduction to an author whose boundless curiosity requires informed explication by a “wise advisor” indeed, and Professor Rhodes unquestionably fills the bill. It is difficult for me to imagine, on this scale, a more informative historical commentary on book five.

Notes

[1] J. Gould, Herodotus (New York, 1989) 132.

[2] R. J. A. Talbert, ed., Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (Princeton 2000).

[3] R. Waterfield, Herodotus The Histories, with introduction and notes by C. Dewald (Oxford, 1998).

[4] S. Hornblower, ed., Herodotus Histories Book V (Cambridge 2013).

[5] D. Branscome, Textual Rivals: Self-Presentation in Herodotus’ Histories (Ann Arbor, 2013) 105-49.

Source: https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2020/2020.08.24/

The first time I've ever been to the Grace Emily Hotel, and what a little gold mine that place is! They have a shrine for Bert Newton! I wanted to bring all the decor home with me! Thanks for a fun couple of hours Peet and Lia, and massive thanks for the intro to this pub! #moonface #bmcr #festivus (at Grace Emily Hotel) https://www.instagram.com/p/BrIEiphlu9S/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=plqp51pw61jg

the bmcr review for wilson’s odyssey translation is out, and i think it’s fair and thoughtful in its praise and criticism alike.

Velo Schils Bank Holiday BMCR circuit race

Colchester Northern Gateway Sunday 29 August 2021 BMCR (Category B, 45-49) 90 minutes of the Colchester circuit? Let’s go. This race was a Velo Schils 40+ BMCR Masters race on a warmish August bank holiday weekend. There’s a strong northerly wind. It’s dry and the drive over is easy. I decided to go last minute and entered on the line in the morning.

There are over 30 riders on the line. I know a few names and faces. I figured it was unlikely to be full-gas from the start given the length of time and sure enough, the pace is super gentle. This is good as I wanted to remind myself of the corners again on this nice, flat 1-mile loop.

I’m finding it pretty easy to keep near the front. And to get my most preferred side of the peloton for the wind direction, most of the time. Half an hour or so in and the race picks up. I don’t see one guy escape: which is amazing really when the course has such visibility.

Nor do I see a small group of three get away some time later. To be honest, even if I did, I wouldn’t have put my faith in these riders that they could stick. But their teammates in the pack were doing a great sandbagging job – and it was proving very hard to hustle the speed and effort for any period of time. I make it over to an emerging sizeable break at one point, but it’s all chased down and neutralised.

I take a gel at the start, and another after 40 mins. I don’t feel exhausted near the end though and feel sprightly going into the final three laps. I want to make it a fast finish. I have to play my endurance advantage. But I’m too boxed in by riders surging forward. I eventually break free on the final straight before the turn for the line. I can tell I’m able to move up as the others are tired. All the same, I’m among good riders and can only climb up the ranks so far before the line. 10th in the sprint after the four ahead, for 14th overall.

Epilogue/note to self: Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I should have given it beans after 1hr and tried to jump the sandbaggers. They may have let a solo go and I reckon for a while the riders ahead only had about 30-40 seconds on us. I could have buried myself and used my time-trial to find 10 seconds a lap. I can do a pretty good 10-minute/4-lap effort I'm sure. If it would fail, I'd still have time to recover for a back-up sprint option at the end. Ah well.

Strava link: https://www.strava.com/activities/5871725110

😀Inspiration du jour 🌺 Belle journée à tous ! ☀️ 👉Tag un ami avec qui tu as envie de partager Tu peux aussi aimer et commenter🌳 http://monatelierbienetreartherapie.fr Page FB ! https://www.facebook.com/odiledelx/ #citation #bienetre#arttherapie#passion#positivevibes#musictherapy #partage#proverbe#message https://www.instagram.com/p/CElVxB-BmcR/?igshid=8ue2fquefahc