Particular attention is given to the word РћС”РћВ»РћВµРћв„–РћР…РџРЉРџвЂљ (РІР‚ВillustriousРІР‚в„ў) and its ritual uses in two roughly contemporary Late Classical sources: an Orphic-Bacchic funerary gold leaf from Hipponion in Magna Graecia, and EphorusРІР‚в„ў account of a Cretan pederastic age-transition rite. This article reconsiders the historical and typological relation between Greek maturation rituals and Greek mystery religion. by Plato), but also ambivalent judgments, such as that of Nepos, who wrote the only biography of Miltiades. The fifth paragraph offers final remarks and suggests that, notwithstanding MiltiadesРІР‚в„ў rehabilitation, due both to CimonРІР‚в„ўs propaganda and to the new conditions of 4th century Athens, his imagine remains at least partly controversial: criticisms are attested (e.g. 4.3): the aim of this section is not to ascertain the reliability of these pieces of news, that is usually very low, but to use them in order to understand which portrait of Miltiades these sources intended to provide. In the fourth paragraph it is provided a list of rare pieces of information preserved by the sources, concerning the battle of Marathon (par. 3.1), but we have a number of Latin sources, like Nepos, Cicero, Seneca the Elder, Valerius Maximus and others (par.

and 1st A.D.: the only Greek-writing author is Diodorus (par. The third paragraph focuses on the sources between 1st cent. 2.1) then his figure is analysed in authors like Plato, Aristotle (par. After the first paragraph, devoted to an introduction to the issue, the second one considers sources of the 4th century: the orators usually praise Miltiades and therefore they rehabilitate his reputation after he died in disgrace (par. and 1st A.D., thus after Herodotus and before Plutarch and the Second sophistic. This paper focuses on the portrait of Miltiades in the sources between 4th cent. In addition, this paper explores the possibility of changing the unknown РћСњРћВРџС“РџС“РћС—РџвЂ¦ РџР‚РћС—РџвЂћРћВ±РћСРћС—РџвЂ¦РќвЂљ with РћСњРћВµРћР‡РћВ»РћС—РџвЂ¦ РџР‚РћС—Р’ВРџвЂћРћВ±РћСРћС—РџвЂ¦РќвЂљ in the so called РІР‚ВAristodemusРІР‚в„ў (FGrHist 104 F 1, 13, 2). On the contrary, the peace of 449 BC, as described by Diodorus in XII 4, 4-6 on the basis of fourth-century sources (Ephorus among them), was bilateral, i.e., it implied obligations on both sides (Athens and Persia) whether Callisthenes and Theopompus also disputed that peace was made in 449, is unclear. The fact that Callisthenes and Theopompus did not accept that tradition, doesnРІР‚в„ўt imply, per se, that they believed that no peace between Athens and Persia was ever concluded in the V century BC. Such a view described the peace as unilateral, i.e., not implying any obligation on the part of the Athenians. РћвЂРњвЂњРџвЂћРџвЂћРћв„–РћС”РћС—Рћв„–РќвЂљРџвЂљ РћС–РџРѓРћВ¬РћСРћСРћВ±РџС“Рћв„–РћР… suggests that fourth-century historians Callisthenes (FGrHist 124 F 16) and Theopompus (FGrHist 115 F 154) challenged the view of contemporary Athenians РІР‚вЂњ attested especially in rhetorical writings РІР‚вЂњ that the Peace of Callias was concluded in the 460s BC in the aftermath of the battle at the river Eurymedon.

Cyme place in ancient rome