#christopher pelling

[aboutanancientenquiry]

Homer and Herodotus

Christopher Pelling "Homer and Herodotus" in Epic Interactions: Perspectives on Homer, Virgil, and the Epic Tradition Presented to Jasper Griffin by Former Pupils (ed. M. J. Clarke , B. G. F. Currie, R. O. A. M. Lyne), OUP 2006.

"Abstract

Jean–Pierre Vernant suggested that the ‘tragic moment’, the combination of circumstances that made tragedy so dominant a genre in the fifth century, came at a time when the sense of a past heroic age and code of values coincided with a new sensibility for the community and the rule of law. That individualistic world needed to be distant, but not too distant, just as the role of interventionist gods needed to be distant, but not too distant, from everyday experience. The whole created a conceptual mix where the relation, often the clash, of these two worlds of thought and action could be explored with particular urgency and force. Vernant's analysis certainly provides a thought-provoking set of ideas to play with, and this chapter will play with them in historiography also. It portrays a Herodotus who asks questions which overlap with the ones that Vernant suggests: a Herodotus who operates with some idea of a distinctive set of Homeric values, and one who is interested in questioning how distant any such way of thinking is from the world of 5th-century politics. The answer suggested by the text is doubtless that it varies; that is always the answer with Herodotus. But if at times Herodotus presents us with people who are thinking and acting in ways surprisingly close to their Homeric counterparts, that suggests a way in which he read Homer as well as an interpretation of the more recent past."

[gabbbyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy]

Ykw… screw it!!!!!!!! TNMN Nightmare Mode voice hcs!!!!!!!

Xezbet Xerbeth- Gloomius Maximus (Rolie Polie Olie: The Great Defender of Fun) (VA: James Woods)

Drugia Fleuretty- Life (Adventure Time) (VA: Corrine Kempa)

Exael Lanithro- Legoshi (Beastars) (VA: Jonah Scott)

Barbatos Barrabam- Heavy (Team Fortress 2) (VA: Gary Schwartz)

Abducius Morail- Chuckles (Legends of Avantris) (VA: Mikey Glider)

Lilith Lilitu Lilit- Jane Doe (RTC) (specifically the version singing in this video)

Anazareth Anazarel- Starfire (Teen Titans) (VA: Hynden Walch)

Chaugnar Faugn- Kratos (God of War) (VA: Christopher Judge)

Nyogtha Z’mog- Mel Medarda (Arcane: LoL) (VA: Toks Olagundoye)

Zoth Ommog- Jafar (Aladdin) (VA: Jonathan Freeman)

Shub Niggurath- Nyanlathotep (Sucker for Love) (VA: Lani Minella)

Yog Sothoth- Ennui (Total Drama: TRD) (VA: Carter Hayden)

Quachil Uttaus- Lefty (FNAF: Pizzeria Simulator) (VA: Lena Gwendolyn Hill)

Yan Luo Wang Diyu- GLaDOS (Portal) (VA: Ellen McLain)

Orcus Dis Pater- Narrator (Horror Short film “Teeth”) [VIEWER DISCRECTION IS ADVISED]

Ishtar Ereskigal- Tails (Secret History of Sonic and Tails) (VA: Mick Lauer)

Teutates Taranis- Satan (The Adventures of Mark Twain) (VAs: Michele Mariana and Wilbur Vincent)

Ah Puch Xibalba- Director Phobos (Madness Project Nexus) (VA: William Harmar)

Dagda Crom Cruach- Edgar (Electric Dreams 1984) (VA: Bud Cort) (Start at 9:15!!)

Izanami Yomi- Sakura Ogami (Danganronpa THH) (VA: Jessica Gee-George)

BONUS

The Nightmare Clown- DJ Grooves (A Hat In Time) (VA: Anthony Sardinha)

Xuchilbara Lobsel Vith- Cala Maria (The Cuphead Show) (VA: Natasia Demetriou)

Mask Ghost- Ballora (FNAF sister location) (VA: Michella Moss)

Chester- Fiddleford McGucket (Gravity Falls) (VA: Alex Hirsch)

Hooded man/Clown Mask man- Red Guy (DHMIS) (VA: Joseph Pelling)

(WHEN HE RARELY SPEAKS)

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Christopher Shields

* * * *

On Thursday, Lucy once again pulled the football away from Charlie Brown at the last moment--to no one’s surprise. Republicans dropped all pretense of helping the “little guy” whose support Trump courted during the election. Instead, Republicans made clear that the working class, unions, retirees, veterans, and disabled Americans will be roadkill in the headlong rush to extend Trump's 2017 tax cut for millionaires and big corporations.

Before looking at the details, I urge readers to maintain a clear distinction between two closely related sets of facts:

Despite the bravado and tough talk of Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Speaker-In-Name-Only Mike Johnson, it is highly unlikely that Republicans will succeed in cutting Social Security, Medicare, Veterans healthcare, and a variety of other safety net programs and federal agencies. See Business Insider, Trump's former chief of staff says Elon Musk will have an easier time getting to Mars than making proposed DOGE cuts.

Notwithstanding the remote prospects of implementing the cuts, Democrats must treat those efforts as a frontal assault on the working class, unions, veterans, retirees, and disabled Americans, converting the proposals into an albatross around the necks of House Republicans going into the 2026 midterms.

So, we must hold firm to two thoughts: (1) Do not panic over every pronouncement from court jesters Musk and Ramaswamy, but (2) raise the alarm about their reckless pronouncements at every opportunity.

The shocking proposed cuts to social programs discussed by Musk and Ramaswamy on Thursday must be treated as the opening salvo of the 2026 midterms.

What happened on Thursday?

Musk and Ramaswamy held a closed-door meeting with the GOP congressional caucus to discuss cutting $2 trillion from a $6.5 trillion annual budget. Other than “tough guy” talking points, Musk and Ramaswamy offered no concrete solutions. See The Independent, Elon Musk came to DC to lots of fanfare. But he said surprisingly little of substance.

After the meetings, Republican lawmakers avoided any discussion of cuts to specific programs—except to say that Musk and Ramaswamy want to “cut waste.” Well, there’s a shocker! Who doesn’t want to “eliminate waste”?

Although Trump has repeatedly promised that he will not cut Social Security, Musk has been amplifying calls on Twitter by Republican Senator Mike Lee to cut Social Security. It is always a bad idea to contradict a president-elect about proposed policies; doing so with Trump is usually the shortest path to a breakup. See MSNBC, Opinion by Ryan Teague Beckwith | Republicans are suddenly interested in cutting Social Security.

As of Thursday evening, Fox News is reporting that cuts to “Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are on the table.”

But the Musk-Ramaswamy proposals don’t stop there. Per Steve Ratner on BlueSky (@steverattner.bsky.social), the bulk of additional savings will come from proposed cuts to

· VA Healthcare - $516 billion (100% reduction) · National Institutes of Health - $47 billion (eliminate NIH) · Pell Grants - $22 billion (80% reduction) · Head Start - $12 billion (100% reduction) · FBI -$11 billion (out of $11.3 billion budget) · Federal Prisons -$8 billion (100% reduction) · SEC - $2 billion (out of $2.1 billion current budget)

A careful review of the above proposed cuts reveals that the Musk cuts will effectively eliminate the following agencies and programs: VA healthcare, NIH, Head Start, FBI, Federal Prisons, and the SEC.

The cuts are nonsensical—which is why you should not lie awake at night worrying about them. But because they are nonsensical, we must begin hammering on those proposals as our opening salvo in the 2026 midterms.

And I dearly hope that all the pundits who have been (wrongly) castigating Democrats for “ignoring” the working class will condemn Republicans with equal zeal for the cuts proposed by Musk and Ramaswamy.

The proposed cuts show that Trump was lying to the working class, using them as pawns to pay for the extension of the 2017 tax cuts for millionaires and corporations. Disgusting! That betrayal must be in the opening paragraph of every op-ed, mailer, TikTok, Substack, and speech given by Democrats between now and Election Day 2026.

[Robert B. Hubbell]

[mariacallous]

Linda McMahon, a business and wrestling executive and major Republican donor, is likely to lead the Education Department, CNN reported Tuesday evening, citing four people familiar with the matter.

McMahon, a co-chair of President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team who has virtually no experience in education, served as director of the Small Business Administration in Trump’s first term. She left the administration in 2019 and went on to help create the American First Policy Institute, a pro-Trump think tank that’s been closely involved in planning for the second term. The Trump transition team did not respond to a request for comment about the selection.

McMahon is perhaps most known for her time as CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, which she co-founded with her husband, Vince McMahon. Together, they built the company from a small regional corporation to a multinational public enterprise. She stepped down from the executive role in 2009. In 2010 and 2012, she ran unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate in Connecticut.

Although her experience in education is sparse, McMahon does have some ties. A New Bern, N.C., native, she graduated from East Carolina University in 1969 with a bachelor’s degree in French and certification to teach. She also served a one-year term on the Connecticut State Board of Education after being appointed by Republican governor Jodi Rell in 2009.

She’s a longtime supporter of and board member at Sacred Heart University, a private Roman Catholic institution in Fairfield, Conn. In 2012, Sacred Heart’s student commons was named after McMahon, who gave $5 million to support capital projects at the university, according to The Register Citizen.

Picking McMahon, a wealthy executive with little experience in education, is a move reminiscent of Trump’s first term, when he appointed Betsy DeVos as education secretary. DeVos, a billionaire philanthropist known for her support of school choice, voucher programs and charter schools, was a controversial candidate whose confirmation required then–vice president Mike Pence to cast a tie-breaking vote in her favor.

McMahon will be the second consecutive education secretary with ties to Connecticut—current secretary Miguel Cardona grew up in the state and served as commissioner of the Connecticut State Department of Education from 2019 to 2021.

McMahon’s name was not one of those thrown out as a potential candidate to lead the department, though The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that she was in the running for education secretary or U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom, citing people familiar with the matter. McMahon was up for the position of commerce secretary, CNN reported, though that job went to Howard Lutnick, also a co-chair of the transition.

Candidates whom some lobbyists and experts considered likely to be on the short list included Ryan Walters and Cade Brumley, the state superintendents of Oklahoma and Louisiana, respectively; Tiffany Justice, a co-founder of Moms for Liberty; and Christopher Rufo, a board member at New College of Florida and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.

If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, McMahon will take over a department that Trump has repeatedly said he wants to get rid of. But doing so will require an act of Congress. Some policy analysts have said Trump and his allies are more likely to leverage the department’s power to reshape the higher education system. Trump himself has pledged to fire accreditors in order to reclaim colleges from the “radical left” and proposed creating a free online university funded by taxes on wealthy private colleges.

McMahon penned an op-ed for The Hill in September supporting the Workforce Pell Act introduced by congressional Republicans in 2023, offering a rare glimpse into her potential education policy agenda.

The bill, which would expand eligibility for federal Pell Grants to students enrolled in short-term credential programs, was blocked by Democrats but faces a much easier path to becoming law in the new Congress. Critics worry that in lieu of increases in overall Pell funding, expanding the program would deplete funds for students pursuing four-year degrees.

In the Hill piece, McMahon argued that Pell funding for credentials like coding boot camps would “create high-paying jobs for more Americans.” A report published Monday on a federal short-term Pell pilot program found that it did not lead to higher employment or earnings for participating students.

“Half a century ago … colleges were focused on preparing students for professional roles at the highest levels of government, science, business and the arts,” she wrote. “Today, however, many degree programs have lost sight of their mission … Our educational system must offer clear and viable pathways to the American Dream aside from four-year degrees.”

Career Education Colleges and Universities, a national trade association representing for-profit technical institutions, endorsed Trump’s reported pick in a statement Tuesday evening.

“Linda McMahon has extensive experience that positions her well to address many of the key areas that will be education priorities in the new administration,” CECU said in the statement. “We look forward to working with the new secretary and the team assembled around her. Under her leadership, we are confident that the new Department of Education will take a more reasoned and thoughtful approach in addressing many of the overreaching and punitive regulations put forth by the Biden administration, especially those targeting private career schools.”

[1344666k]

«Но вскоре в тёмных глазницах снова стали переливаться блики. Дрожащей рукой Пелле коснулся локтя Ошета, слегка поддерживая и направляя.

— Спасибо.»

Из фанфика «Sista orden» автора Christoph Himmel.

Ссылка: https://ficbook.net/readfic/018f4c99-b6d5-71e2-9383-623671ff6f14 (размещение согласовано)

◇─◇────◆─◈─◆────◇─◇

«But soon the glare began to shining in the dark eye sockets again. With a trembling hand, Pelle touched Aarseth elbow, slightly supporting and guiding it.

— Thanks.»

From fanfic «Sista orden» by Christoph Himmel.

Link: https://ficbook.net/readfic/018f4c99-b6d5-71e2-9383-623671ff6f14 (publication agreed) (fanfic written in russian lang)

[newsintheshell]

📢 LEVIATHAN: LA SAGA STEAMPUNK DI SCOTT WESTERFELD STA PER DIVENTARE UNA SERIE ANIMATA, IN ARRIVO SU NETFLIX!

L'anime è in produzione presso lo studio Orange (Trigun Stampede, Beastars, Land of the Lustrous) e debutterà globalmente in streaming nel corso del 2025.

Sarajevo, 1914: dopo l’attentato all’arciduca d’Austria scoppia la Prima guerra mondiale. Ma se a combattersi fossero bestie e macchine? Allora sareste nel mondo di Leviathan, Behemoth e Goliath. Sareste nel mondo di Alek e Deryn. È come una guerra tra universi differenti. Da una parte, le potenze Cigolanti e le loro macchine. Dall’altra, gli alleati Darwinisti e le loro creature di sintesi. Carburante contro cibo, metallo contro pelle. Alek contro Deryn. Aleksander è il figlio dell’arciduca assassinato, in fuga da un impero di cui nessuno lo vuole erede. Deryn è una ragazza arruolata in vesti maschili nell’Aviazione britannica, decisa a vivere come vuole. Si incontrano per caso ma si alleano per scelta e affrontano il conflitto insieme: da Istanbul a New York, tra battaglie aeree e rivoluzioni, Alek e Deryn impareranno che cosa sono il caos e l’odio, ma anche l’amicizia e la speranza – forse addirittura l’amore.

Prima prova alla regia per Christophe Ferreira, che si cimenta con l'interessante mondo fantastorico e retrofuturistico immaginato dallo scrittore americano, la cui trilogia di romanzi per ragazzi (composta da Leviathan, Behemoth e Goliath) è edita in Italia da Einaudi.

[theroseandthebeast]

Yuletide 2022 Recs, Batch Five

17 recs for Master & Commander, Midsommar, Nope, Only Murders In The Building, Peacemaker, Persuasion, Point Break, Pyre, Ready or Not?, Severance, The Sleuth of the Ming Dynasty, Transistor, and Under the Banner of Heaven

Cadential Motion

Jack Aubrey/Stephen Maturin - “I’ll be frank with you, Captain, it’s a relief to finally have you in my chair. I was beginning to worry that you didn’t trust my expertise.”

Aubrey and Maturin discover that their first impressions of one another were borne out of some misunderstandings.

Hasaeti 

Dani Ardor/Pelle - Dani learns about the ongoing responsibilities of the May Queen, deepens her relationship with the land - and finds her throne.

Beyond The Stars

Angel Torres, OJ Haywood - It'd been seven months since they last spoke, but who's counting?

Making wishes is a sucker’s game, but at least there’s cake

Mabel Mora & Oliver Putnam & Charles-Haden Savage - Mabel isn’t celebrating her birthday because she stopped doing that when she was 8 years old. Charles and Oliver find a way to be there for her anyway.

Portrait of the Artist

Theo Dimas/Mabel Mora, Mabel Mora & Oliver Putnam & Charles-Haden Savage - Winter brings back memories for Mabel, but also the opportunity to make new ones.

I'm Feeling This

Adrian Chase/Christopher Smith - Adrian doesn't have feelings but he does feel things. He feels a lot for Chris. More than for anyone else.

I Must Go Up From The Seas Again.

Anne Elliot/Frederick Wentworth - It sounds bitter to say that he's still not over his ex who wouldn't uproot her entire life, leave her entire support system behind, and go be a trailing spouse for five years in a place with no career prospects for herself.

Of Duty, and A Path Not Ridden

Anne Elliot/Frederick Wentworth - Two years after Miss Anne Elliot declined to marry Captain Frederick Wentworth of His Majesty's Navy, an opportunity arises for the captain to renew his suit.

come as you are

Bodhi/Johnny Utah - Johnny goes to Mexico, and there's one more Ex-President.

The Ultimate Ride

Bodhi/Johnny Utah - Even reeling from the shock that Johnny jumped out of the plane without a parachute to tackle him mid-air and point a gun at his head, Bodhi has never felt more connected to anyone.

Because Bodhi’s been chasing the ultimate ride his whole life and one look into Johnny’s eyes as they fall to earth together makes it crystal clear that Johnny is already there.

Constellations of the fall

Oralech/Volfred Sandalwood, Volfred Sandalwood/Tariq - Terrible starlight shines on Oralech as he lays dying on the northern slopes of Mount Alodiel. The same truth hangs over Volfred and Tariq, who are left to mourn. All they have is their memories and the warm embrace of failure.

A Smudge of Red

Daniel Le Domas/Grace Le Domas - "Funny story. Not really. But. Yeah. We were all adopted, Alex and Emilie and me, but I guess the old folks thought—rightly so—that baby me couldn't exactly play, uh, any board game. But Alex and Emilie were toddlers when their papers came through and they joined the family, so they did it, and I hadn't blown up yet by then, so. Yeah. Got left out of that one. A lot of goat sacrifices, though. To make up for it. Not fun. But, hey, I'm still in one piece. I guess."

"Great," is about all she can come up with. "I'm being asked some awkward questions, but glad I can blame it on your all being adopted and not on demons or whatever the fuck."

"Ah. The proper authorities." He grimaces."And hospital personnel, yeah." Her chair creaks. It's uncomfortable and noisy, and not making this conversation any easier.

all you are

Helena Eagan & Helly R. - In a dream, Helly meets Helena.

r/severed

gen - Welcome to r/severed! This is a subreddit to discuss the experience of severance and provide advice and support to fellow severed people (and friends and family).

Dear and Beloved

Tang Fan/Wang Zhi - Wang Zhi and Tang Fan are a lot more candid in their letters to each other than they are in person. One thing leads to another, until they have no choice but to admit what they really want.

i genuinely love to hear your thoughts

Mr. Nobody | Man Inside Transistor/Red - Red’s cheeks feel warmer than before. She’s never shared unfinished material with anybody—not even Sybil. She’d always thought it would cast a curse, doom the song to die before its first breath. If it dies, she thinks in the quiet of her lonely apartment, then let it be with him.

The Dust They Leave Behind

Jeb Pyre/Bill Taba - When to move on, and what to take with you.

[petalidiagapanto]

«Sulla mia spalla vicino al collo

la pelle si inarca

Se ricordo bene

è proprio la forma della tua guancia»

(Christoph Wilhelm Aigner)

[ugfriends]

Sirrah will you be paying for the glasses you have burst? Play in a play Christopher Sly audience to Kate the Curst Sly is drunk, a lord and his train snatch him for a prank He awakes in fairest chamber they talk of his noble rank Tells of transmutation to bear-herd he works up a thirst

Sly collaborates and once again, a pot o’ the smallest ale Players begin performance of the shrew, it is quite a tale Sister Bianca must marry posterior to ill tempered Kate Bianca’s fond suitors despair of finding Katharina a mate Here is Petruchio as Ahab beside Kate as his white whale

Called Plain Kate of Kate Hall my super dainty Kate to be Kate calls Petruchio a joint stool he says Come sit on me With my tongue in your tale? Nay Kate I am a gentleman Kate doth whale on Petruchio’s jaw has he a dental plan? Mad brained bridegroom he cuffed a priest and they flee

Katharina fallen with horse upon her in a miry dominion Wades dirt to pluck a swearing husband from his minion Falcon tamed a starved sleepy merlin her life all pell-mell She once said I must dance barefoot and lead apes in hell Proclaim banns and ban apes, Kate wings none can pinion

[aboutanancientenquiry]

Another review of the book of Christopher Pelling Herodotus and the Question Why

"2021

Review of "Herodotus and the Question Why," written by Christopher Pelling

Joel A. Schlosser

Christopher Pelling, (2019) Herodotus and the Question Why. Austin: University of Texas Press. xv + 360 pp. $55.00. ISBN 9781477318324 (hbk).

‘Does Herodotus think democracy a good thing?’ Christopher Pelling asks toward the end of his erudite and wide-ranging Herodotus and the Question Why. ‘The answer surely will be “yes and no”’ (p. 234). Freedom and democracy often lead to disturbing consequences as well as inspiring ones; Herodotus praises nothing without also revealing, sometimes subtly, its potential downsides. Strengths and weaknesses go closely together, both building and then imperiling greatness. Herodotus’ ability to hold these opposing interpretations together is not, Pelling asserts, an incoherence of thought. It is just a paradox.

Summoning many decades of inquiries into Herodotus (and citing 35 of his own articles, chapters, and books on the subject), Pelling centers the work of explanation in his study of Herodotus. Explanation appears as one of the motivations for the Histories themselves, which Herodotus describes (in Pelling’s translation) as ‘why they [sc. the Greeks and the barbarians] came to war with one another’ (p. 22). Explanation hopes to ‘make something more understandable’ (p. 5) and Pelling untangles the many skeins of explanation that Herodotus offers in the early books of the Histories: aiti- words that focus on blameworthiness or charges of malfeasance; prophasis, which Herodotus uses like Thucydides to describe an explanatory account put forward by an interested party; and proschêma, which describes a pretext or rationalization––not the true cause but a supposed one. Herodotus also employs stories for the sake of explanation, letting audiences draw their own inferences from recurrent patterns or suggestive narratives. Explanation, Pelling observes, ‘is a game for two’: explanatory success depends on an audience’s uptake. Herodotus’ preferred modes of explanation say a lot about who he took his audience to be and his variety of explanatory strategies suggests the different forms of persuasion current in his day.

But explanation comes with closure, and Herodotus’ Histories seem to resist closure at every turn. Herodotus and the Question Why expands the very idea of explanation early in its argument, opening it like a folded envelope to reveal the letter within. Herodotus does not just explain; he shows his readers how you could possibly know anything. He shows his own ‘rethinking in stride’ (p. 93)––one wonderful formulation among many in this volume––reworking patterns and complicating seemingly simply explanations as he goes. Pelling sees an affinity here with the Hippocratics, who developed ‘corroborative argument’ (p. 88) as well as such revisions, either finding support for initial hypotheses or revising their hypotheses when they discovered contrary evidence. Herodotus, for example, begins his description of the Egyptians by asserting that their way of life inverts that of the Greeks. ‘When the topsy-turvy idea returns’, Pelling writes, Herodotus has revised the ‘attention-grabbing initial strong proposition’ (p. 90), writing that the Egyptians ‘avoid using Greek customs and, so to speak, those of any other peoples’ (2.91), a phrase that leaves the possibility of similarities open.

As the narrative of the Histories unfurls, the predictability that explanations would seem to promise––e.g. that x phenomenon will lead to y consequence––becomes less clear cut. Aitia begins to appear ambiguous. Herodotus’ language of wonders (thômata) reflects his increasing awareness of unpredictable and inexplicable phenomena in the world he encounters. Modern historians worry about overdetermined events––what social scientists call ‘endogeneity problems’––but the language of wonder often evokes the opposite: underdetermined phenomena that seem enormously important yet stun and bemuse the inquirer. Wonders are things and events that resist explanation.

When Pelling turns to the actual sequence of events of the Histories––which he loosely follows in the latter two-thirds of the book––these framing thoughts on explanation allow for an expansive expatiation of Herodotus’ stories. While many interpretations leap on the pattern of expansionism and self-destruction that begins in Book I and shapes the narrative of the Persians’ invasions in the books that follow, Pelling sounds the many dissonant notes to this over-simple account. For one, the Greeks do a lot to bring the war with the Persians on themselves––meddling at the court, caring more about their own petty factionalism, and being sucked into aggressive behavior, such as when the Athenians are persuaded by Aristagoras to join the Ionian revolt from Persian control (5.97). More broadly, claims about blame and vengeance are ‘displaced from their natural place and placed in mouths where they ring false’ (p. 127). The stories of the Persians raise questions about how much they really differ from their Greek enemies. These stories are redolent with an ‘un-Greek’ atmosphere, yet while Cambyses behaves with ‘brutal insensitivity’, when Darius later asks Indians and Greeks about how they would treat the bodies of their dead fathers, the Greeks’ horror at the Indians’ response––that they would eat them––resembles Cambyses’ prejudicial judgment, while Darius exemplifies open-minded understanding.

Pelling’s own sensitivity to nuance and paradox in the Histories culminates in his approach to the treatment of the Greeks’ victory and especially the tendency among many readers of Herodotus to explain the triumph as one of Greek values––embodied by democracy or freedom or ‘civilization’––over Persian ones. Pelling grants that this story has some basis in Herodotus – Herodotus comments that isêgoria in Athens prompted her rise to greatness (5.78), and the Spartan Demaratus explains that it is the nomos of freedom that empowers the Greeks to fight (7.104). There are reasons to believe the Greeks’ triumph was of their own making. Pelling impersonates these moments of Greek pride when he asks: ‘Aren’t we simply better than them, and isn’t that explanation enough?’ (p. 167)

Such a rhetorical question may have satisfied many of Herodotus’ early auditors, but it did not stop Herodotus from further inquiry. For one, Herodotus’ sense of contingency qualifies any explanation: ‘Time and again, it could easily have been different’, Pelling observes (p. 167). Even with this qualification, no single explanatory variable––such as the Greeks’ being ‘better’––can suffice. In a rather un-Herodotean systematic survey, Pelling lays out the inadequacy of any simple explanation for the Greek victory: neither the gods nor ‘Greek values’ nor Greek strategies and tactics nor freedom nor democracy provides sufficient explanation. Unlike Thucydides, Herodotus does not appear interested in adducing a single set of causes. Peeling back the layers of Herodotus’ explanations, one never reaches the pith.

Yet each layer of explanation is distinct from the others. In this way, Herodotus is helpful for resisting the modern tendency toward conflating democracy and freedom. On his account, the Persians are free, but so are the Spartans, the Scythians, and the Athenians. Yet among these, only the Athenians have a democracy––and their democracy does not exist for the entirety of the Histories. Freedom may provide the rallying cry for the allied Greeks against the Persian invasion, but Herodotus has already staged a similar moment when Cyrus rallies the Persians against the Lydians on the grounds of freedom [my aboutanancientenquiry's remark: this is obviously a lapsus and the author means the Medes of Astyages, as it becomes clear later in the text]. Democracy is not necessary for freedom.

Nor is democracy sufficient for freedom. Democracy does play a powerful role at certain moments of the Histories, but its influence can also lead to ambivalent consequences. Pelling points out how democratic slogans in Ionia prompted revolts that then laid the groundwork for new forms of tyranny. The equal speaking for which democracy became notorious could get out of hand. Pelling describes how the Greek debate before the Battle of Salamis was a mess, a ‘great pushing and shoving of words’ during which Herodotus shows, on Pelling’s reading, that ‘the Greeks are wasting their bellicosity’ with endless vociferation (p. 184).

Demokratia, for which Herodotus is the earliest source, was not yet a laudatory word in the late 5th century when Herodotus was composing his inquiries. Herodotus often employs periphrastics such as the series of iso- related words––isonomia, isokratia, and isêgoria––that surface from the mouths of quite unlikely sources (like Otanes, the Persian nobleman) as well as quite undemocratic regimes (like the Spartans and the Corinthians). Pelling notes that isonomia is ‘never used pejoratively’, perhaps suggesting Herodotus’ affinities with the tyrant-slayers Aristogeiton and Harmodius who ‘made Athens isonomoi’ (p. 194). Yet while democracy ‘glistens’ for modern readers (p. 195), Herodotus does not shirk from casting shade.

Pelling casts doubt on a reading of Herodotus that celebrates the triumph of the people (dêmos). More often than he speaks of the dêmos, Herodotus describes groups of people––the Athenians, the Spartans, and the Persians. Yet even more often than this, Herodotus focuses his narrative on what Pelling calls the ‘big man antagonisms’, the vying of leaders of these groups of people. ‘It is as a tool’ of such antagonisms, Pelling asserts, ‘that the dêmos comes into play with Cleisthenes’ (p. 196). Cleisthenes’ engagement with Isagoras led him to ‘recruit the dêmos to his faction’ (translating Herodotus 5.66.2). The Spartans later complain of the ‘ungrateful demos’ (5.91) that threw off their protection, but as Pelling points out, the subsequent debate concerns not democracy but the broader conflict between tyranny and freedom.

Democracy, according to Pelling, ‘allows for a prism for seeing freedom pushed to the limit’, functioning as an inverse image of tyranny as a prism for seeing people ‘at the mercy of unrestrained power’ (p. 197). Here I wonder if Pelling too quickly assimilates the democracy of the Athenians with democracy in general and loses Herodotus’ appreciation for the wide variety of ways in which the people can create and lose power. Take, for example, the episode when Cyrus leads the Persians to revolt against Astyages. Pelling mentions the passage where Herodotus describes how ‘they’––the Persians––‘cast off the yoke of slavery and became free men’ (1.95), but he places this in the larger context of ‘big man’ accomplishments. I would instead interpret Herodotus here as anticipating his description of the strength of the Athenians, whose liberation was also a collective act (5.78). When Cyrus later calls on the Persians to free themselves from slavery, Herodotus relates how ‘they enthusiastically went about gaining their independence’ (1.128). Yes, Darius’ father Hystaspes describes Cyrus as having made the Persians free, but this does not come in the narrator’s own voice. So too with Darius’ later argument that disavows the importance of the dêmos for freeing the Persians. When Herodotus describes the event independent of a particular character, it has much more of a popular flavor. The Persians themselves act as rulers; they affirm their power to create their freedom.

Athenian democracy may not be as ‘special’ (p. 207) for Herodotus as 21st century readers, myself included, tend to make it, but Pelling’s insistence on this point risks glossing the nuances among different formations of collective power that appear across the Histories. Dêmokratia, as Pelling points out, does not receive systematic treatment by Herodotus. Tyranny and freedom, however, do. I would suggest that Herodotus’ attention to how different peoples create, sustain, and fail to maintain collective power through nomoi illuminates an underlying counterpoint to the ‘big man’ narratives he also loves to tell. Winning freedom may depend on a leader, but its sustenance requires that the collective wean itself from such dependence. Themistocles gives good advice about how the ‘wall of wood’ refers to a fleet ready for battle at sea, but the Athenians decide to follow this advice. The collectivity holds the power and they are, after all, the ones who win the battle itself.

That said, the paradox to which Pelling returns readers of the Histories remains: Herodotus proposes no definitive set of nomoi––culture, customs, or laws––that can guarantee the perdurance of freedom won by collective power. So ‘yes and no’ to democracy but also ‘yes and no’ to Spartan isokratia or Ionian isonomia. And ‘yes and no’ to each of the politeiai that Herodotus introduces across the course of his inquiry. As Pelling demonstrates, Herodotus brings readers to appreciate this paradox through his wonderful summoning of myriad causes, explanations, stories, and human and nonhuman actors. By doing so, Herodotus equips us to understand and appreciate the dynamic nature of things, illuminating the reasons for both ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Herodotus and the Question Why opens such a reading of Herodotus with skill and intelligence. About the book, then, one can declare with confidence a resounding ‘yes’.

Joel Alden Schlosser Bryn Mawr College jschlosser@brynmawr.edu"

[muutosarchive]

⭐ if there's any we haven't done lmao

MULTIMUSE MEME: Send a " ⭐ " and I will list muses I would be interested in throwing at yours, or potential muse combinations if you are also a multi / @dilffactory

lobo and harley/bruce

your new oc and my werewolf alpha christopher

imperator and omega

an actual thread with bowser and peach or plz waluigi my boyyyyy

yeah sorry i need more w. fluvis and flora immediately

Pelle and judith (i'd do vanny if u fucked w. fnaf) but judith

[fashionluxuryinfo]

Qualità. Etica. Sostenibilità: Atelier des Ors La maestosità di un flacone regale con un’incisione che ricorda i raggi del sole, resi più luminosi dalla polvere d’oro contenuta all’interno della fragranza, che ad ogni vaporizzazione lascia, insieme al profumo, una carezza luminosa e preziosa sulla nostra pelle. Atelier des Ors nasce in seguito ad un incontro, come spesso accade per le storie più belle, tra Jean Philippe Clermont, esperto nei prodotti di lusso, Marie Salamagne, famosa creatrice di fragranze di livello internazionale e Jean Christophe Rousseau, maestro doratore https://www.fashionluxury.info/it/

[kneedeepincynade]

Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen in America most loved betting game, the Chinese invasion of Taiwan! Do we have someone for 2025? 2026? Anyone! Ryathon technology for 2026! Anyone else?!

The post is machine translated

Translation is at the bottom

The collective is on telegram

⚠️ LA TECNICA DEL "DOMANI PIOVE! E NON PIOVE! ALLORA PIOVE DOPODOMANI, E NON PIOVE! E COSÌ VIA..." DEGLI IMPERIALISTI STATUNITENSI SU TAIWAN NON È ALTRO CHE UNA STRATEGIA PER OTTENERE PIÙ FONDI PER IL SETTORE MILITARE ⚠️

🤦‍♀️ Ci risiamo, anche questa volta gli imperialisti statunitensi hanno una data per la fantomatica "Invasione Cinese a Taiwan" ⚔️

🤡 Secondo il Maggior Christopher Brown - Ufficiale di Riserva dell'Esercito USA, Storico dell'Esercito ed Ex Vice-Direttore delle Operazioni di Informazione e Pianificazione Tattica in Africa - l'Esercito Popolare di Liberazione inizierà un'offensiva contro il regime-fantoccio di Taiwan entro il 01/01/2025, con un minimo di 1 milione di truppe tra Forze di Terra, Aviazione e Marina Militare 🤔

🤦‍♂️ L'imperialista scrive «Non approfondirò le mie ragioni, supportate solo da informazioni open-source disponibili pubblicamente» ❗️

😂 D'altronde, perché spiegare, perché argomentare, perché approfondire? Basta un "trust me, bro", e i liberali crederanno a qualsiasi cosa! 🤦‍♀️

🙃 Nel suo articolo, l'imperialista scrive che esiste un modo per salvare l'America (neanche gli USA, l'America, come se gli USA fossero l'America, e non una parte di essa, ma si sa - il suprematismo è una delle loro principali caratteristiche) 🇺🇸

🤔 Qual è il modo? Cito testualmente: «Il Congresso dovrebbe avviare un obbligo di servizio militare di un anno per l'intera popolazione in età di reclutamento tra i 18-24 anni. I giovani Americani devono capire cosa significhi servire» 🤹‍♂️

🤔 In pratica, un Vietnam 2.0 - fondendo il concetto di "guerra per procura", sulla pelle della Popolazione dell'Isola, dove gli USA hanno inviato oltre 200 soldati (❗️), con l'obiettivo di contenere e bloccare l'Ascesa della Repubblica Popolare Cinese 🇨🇳

😱 "War Before 2025 – The PLAs Villainous Plan To Defeat the U.S. Military" è l'ennesimo articolo che pompa, in maniera inaudita, il cosiddetto concetto del "China Threat", la "Minaccia Cinese", con il solo obiettivo di costituire una base più solida per aumentare le spese militari, garantendo guadagni da capogiro a corporazioni come la Raytheon Technologies o Lockheed Martin 💰

🌸 Con ✅ andremo a segnalare quando una "previsione" degli USA di una "Invasione Cinese a Taiwan" si è verificata, e con ❌ quando non si è verificato alcunché 👀

🔺"Cina - Taiwan: Sarà il 2019 l'anno del confronto finale?" di ISPI Online: ❌

🔺"Taiwan afferma che la Cina potrebbe lanciare un'invasione con successo nel 2020" di Reuters: ❌

🔺"Le azioni militari della Cina contro Taiwan nel 2021: Cosa possiamo aspettarci" di The Diplomat: ❌

🇺🇸 Gli imperialisti statunitensi vogliono già portarsi avanti, e con l'obiettivo di aumentare i fondi per armare il regime-fantoccio di Taiwan, hanno già fatto previsioni [questa volta credibili eh, lo giurano loro stessi! 😂] fino al 2027 🤡

🔺"Un'invasione di Taiwan nel 2023 è imminente o implausibile?" di USSC 🤹‍♂️

🔺"Comandante della Marina Militare USA avverte che la Cina potrebbe invadere Taiwan prima del 2024" di Financial Times 🤹‍♂️

🔺"Generale degli USA prevede un conflitto della Cina con Taiwan nel 2025" di Nikkei Asia 🤹‍♂️

🔺"CSIS Wargame: Invasione Cinese di Taiwan nel 2026" di Naval News 🤹‍♂️

🔺Milley: La Cina vuole la capacità per prendere Taiwan entro il 2027, non vedo alcun intento ad invadere nel breve termine" di USNI News 🤹‍♂️

🌸 Iscriviti 👉 @collettivoshaoshan

⚠️ THE TECHNIQUE OF "TOMORROW IT'S RAINING! AND IT'S NOT RAINING! THEN IT'S RAINING THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, AND IT'S NOT RAINING! AND SO ON..." US IMPERIALISTS ON TAIWAN IS NOTHING BUT A STRATEGY TO GET MORE FUNDS FOR THE MILITARY SECTOR ⚠️

🤦‍♀️ Here we go again, once again the US imperialists have a date for the phantom "Chinese invasion of Taiwan" ⚔️

🤡 According to Major Christopher Brown - US Army Reserve Officer, Army Historian and Former Deputy Director of Intelligence Operations and Tactical Planning in Africa - the People's Liberation Army will begin an offensive against the puppet regime of Taiwan by 01/01/2025, with a minimum of 1 million troops including Land Forces, Air Force and Navy 🤔

🤦‍♂️ The imperialist writes «I will not elaborate on my reasons, supported only by publicly available open-source information» ❗️

😂 On the other hand, why explain, why argue, why deepen? Just a "trust me, bro", and liberals will believe anything! 🤦

🙃 In his article, the imperialist writes that there is a way to save America (not even the USA, America, as if the USA is America, and not a part of it, but you know - suprematism is one of their main features) 🇺🇸

🤔 What is the way? I quote: “Congress should initiate a one-year compulsory military service for the entire population of recruiting age between the ages of 18-24. Young Americans need to understand what it means to serve» 🤹‍♂️

🤔 In practice, a Vietnam 2.0 - merging the concept of "proxy war", on the skin of the population of the island, where the US has sent over 200 soldiers (❗️), with the aim of containing and blocking the rise of People's Republic of China 🇨🇳

😱 "War Before 2025 – The PLAs Villainous Plan To Defeat the U.S. Military" is yet another article that pumps up, in an unprecedented way, the so-called concept of the "China Threat", the "Chinese Threat", with the sole aim of constituting a more solid basis to increase military spending, guaranteeing dizzying profits to corporations like Raytheon Technologies or Lockheed Martin 💰

🌸 With ✅ we will signal when a US "prediction" of a "Chinese Invasion of Taiwan" has occurred, and with ❌ when nothing has occurred 👀

🔺"China - Taiwan: Will 2019 be the year of the final confrontation?" by ISPI Online: ❌

🔺"Taiwan says China could launch successful invasion in 2020" by Reuters: ❌

🔺"China's Military Actions Against Taiwan in 2021: What We Can Expect" by The Diplomat: ❌

🇺🇸 The US imperialists already want to move forward, and with the aim of increasing funds to arm the puppet regime of Taiwan, they have already made predictions [this time credible eh, they swear by themselves! 😂] until 2027 🤡

🔺"Is an invasion of Taiwan in 2023 imminent or implausible?" by USSC 🤹‍♂️

🔺"US Navy Commander Warns China Could Invade Taiwan Before 2024" by Financial Times 🤹‍♂️

🔺"US General Predicts China Conflict With Taiwan in 2025" by Nikkei Asia 🤹‍♂️

🔺"CSIS Wargame: Chinese Invasion of Taiwan in 2026" by Naval News 🤹‍♂️

🔺Milley: China wants capacity to take Taiwan by 2027, I see no intent to invade in the near term" by USNI News 🤹‍♂️

🌸 Subscribe 👉 @collettivoshaoshan

[kevrocksicehouse]

Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio. 

D: Guillermo del Toro (2022). 

The Pinocchio at the center of Guillermo Del Toro’s stop-motion animation reimagining of Carlo Collido’s classic story, is a creature of id, impulse and elbows, a gangling anarchic collection of limbs with the curiosity of a puppy with a tornadoes attention span. Del Toro envisions the living puppet in almost punk terms unpainted and raw, wood with a shock of carved hair and a snowman’s nose. Gepetto (David Bradley) created him in a drunken fit of grief over his beloved and long-dead son Carlo (both puppet and boy voiced by Gregory Mann) who casts a shadow over Pinocchio the same way the classic Disney movie does over this one. If Disney’s film was about a good-hearted boy learning lessons of obedience, honesty and selflessness, Del Toro’s version, set in Mussolini’s Italy pits his undisciplined free-thinking into a society where those virtues have been tainted by fascism.  

It’s not as heavy-handed as it might have been as Pinocchio’s exploitation by a corrupt impresario (Christoph Waltz) and a fascist governor (Ron Perlman) is less a boy being led down the wrong path than one running pell-mell down any path he can find, to the consternation of Sebastian (Ewan McGregor suitably pompous) deputized as his conscience by the Blue Fairy (Tilda Swinton). Del Toro’s vision is deceptively darker than Disney’s but his central idea of humanity defined by unruliness over conformity finds a perfect vehicle. Recommended.

[tawneybel]

my main guys list consist in Pelle(midsommar), Adrian Griffin(invisible man), Brahms Heelshire (the boy) and Thomas Hewitt(leatherface)😍😍😍😍

Right now my main men are:

Ransom Drysdale from Knives Out, whose grandfather is also kind of hot. R.I.P. Christopher Plummer.

Pretty much any character played by Tyler Posey. Scream: Resurrection was good, but I wanted to see Shane interact with Stavo. (Another husband.)

Edgar the Bug from Men in Black. I gotta finish up this this request prompt since I rewatched it.

Angel from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

[chromet]

Chief Keef in the Garden of Eden” (2015) by Christopher Henry