Volume 4 Issue 1
1. Michael Fontaine, “Schizophrenia in the Golden Ass” (2016) Vol.4, Iss.1, pp. 1-11.
Lucius, the narrator of Apuleius’ Golden Ass, meets the diagnostic criteria of schizophrenia. This observation suggests (1) that schizophrenia is not a recent disease, as historians of psychiatry assert, but that—whatever its origin and nature—it is at least ancient and probably eternal. It also suggests (2) that Lucius is an unreliable narrator of the novel because he believes his own delusions even more sincerely than most readers do.
2. Panagiotis J. Stamatis, “Communication in ancient Greek teaching procedures: Interpreting images of Douris’ kylix in comparison to modern pedagogical communication styles” (2016) Vol.4, Iss.1, pp. 12-25.
The aim of this paper is the examination of the relationship between the Protagoras’ description about basic educational procedures in classical Greece and depicted ones on the kylix of Douris which is a unique and well preserved pottery revealing aspects of an ancient school interior. This study is based on bibliographical and phenomenological analysis. The depicted images are interpreted in comparison to written references related to Platonic thought about education. After that, teaching procedures of classical Greece related to communication styles are discussed comparatively (between) the ancient and modern instructional circumstances of primary education. Written evidence and painting analysis conclude that various differences exist in many educational levels including courses, teaching styles and instructional strategies. The roles of teachers, students and pedagogues are totally revealed. Those roles are comparable to the modern ones and relative to the procedures of individualization and personalization of learning.
3. Spyros Syropoulos, “Which audience does Euripides address? The reception of the poet in respect to the political intelligence of his audience.” (2016) Vol.4, Iss.1, pp. 26-43.
There have been many different approaches to the subject of Euripides’ reception by his contemporary audience. The present article focuses on the aspect of the audience’s political education and experience, as a parameter for the discussion about the reception of Euripides’ plays.