ʻInyene Orah ḥayim : ʻavodat H., tefilah, berakhot, Shabat, Rosh ha-shanah, Yom ha-kipurim, ḳiyum mitsṿot, teshuvah, ḥinukh -- ʻInyene Yoreh deʻah : Torah, tsedaḳah, ʻinyanim shonim, midot, biṭaḥon, yom huledet -- Heʻarot ʻal Talmud Yerushalmi -- Hosafot le-Sefer Derekh ʻavodato, Shaʻar ha-biṭaḥon -- Ḳunṭres Tsidḳat Ḥanah : ḥidushim ṿe-liḳuṭim ʻal hilkhot ḥag he-Pesaḥ ṿe-Hagadah shel Pesaḥ (Mahadurah 3) -- Ḳunṭres Tsemaḥ Yiśraʼel : ʻal ʻinyene minhagim (Mahadurah 2) -- Ḳunt̥res Ḥesed ṿe-emunah : heʻarot ṿe-ḥidushim ʻal Sefer ḥasidim (Mahadurah 2) -- (...) Ḳunṭres Mile di-hespeda : ʻal zeḳeni ha-r. he-ḥ. Rabi Shelomoh Ḥayim Haizler zatsal. (shrink)

The subject of this study is the naḳīḍa (opposing) type of poetry competitions between the Meccan poet Ḍirār b. al-Khaṭṭāb (d. 12/633) and the Muslim poet Kaʿb b. Mālik (d. 50/670) from Medina during the Battle of Badr, when the Muslims and the polytheists confronted for the first time. The problem is the questioning of the approaches reflected in the naḳīḍa poems, which were used as a means of propaganda and psychological superiority by the Muslims and polytheists during the Battle (...) of Badr. Naḳīḍa poems, the subject of the study, are important for getting to know the two opposite understandings closely and forming an opinion about the naḳīḍa poems sung during the era of the Prophet Muhammad. Although there are some recent studies on naḳīḍa poems from the era of the Prophet, these studies lacked details and only mentioned general features. The interesting approaches and fine details reflected in the verses, such as Ḍirār b. al-Khaṭṭāb's claims aiming to distract attention and discredit the Muslims of Medina in the face of the unexpected defeat of the Meccan army at Badr that the Battle of Badr was a tribal war between the Meccans and the Medinans, makes this study prominent. On the other hand, Kaʿb b. Mālik's verses reflect the approaches bearing traces of the Islamic faith and draw attention to the fact that the battle was between faith and unbelief and the Muslims of Medina were proud of their support for the Messenger of Allah. Undoubtedly, Meccan immigrants participated in the Battle of Badr along with the Muslims of Medina. Even so, Kaʿb b. Mālik does not mention Muhājirs (immigrants) in his verses. This suggests that Kaʿb b. Mālik may have concentrated on responding to the allegations made by Ḍirār b. al-Khaṭṭāb. Document analysis, one of the qualitative method techniques, was used in the study. First, a literature review was conducted to better understand the subject, and the studies related to the field were briefly mentioned. Then, summary information about the concept and background of naḳīḍa is provided. Two call-and-response poems between the Jāhiliyyah period poet Imruʾ al-Qays (d. 545) and ʿAbīd b. al-Abraṣ (d. 555) are included as an example for the first phases of naḳīḍa poems. Then, brief information about the Meccan poet Ḍirār b. al-Khaṭṭāb and the Medinan poet Kaʿb b. Mālik are presented. After the background information, two naḳīḍa poems of both poets were examined and analyzed, and the differences in the Battle of Badr were pointed out. Concepts that are common in the eulogies of the Jāhiliyyah period, such as nobility, being a master warrior, and generosity, draw attention in Ḍirār b. al-Khaṭṭāb's verses. On the other hand, in his verses Ka'b b. Mālik uses terms and expressions brought by Islam such as the Messenger of Allah, there is no Lord but Allah, unbelievers, Hell, and hellfire. In the verses of both poets, there are clues about the commonly used battle orders and war equipment of the period. The opinions are summarised in the conclusion part of the study. (shrink)

One of the most important debates in the field of eighteenth?century French intellectual history concerns the ideological significance of the rise of the cult of the Great Frenchmen. Taking this debate as a frame of reference, the paper attempts a close reading of Robespierre's Éloge de Gresset (written in 1784, published in 1785). Usually dismissed by Robespierre scholars, this text is, in fact, a very important document offering clues not only to Robespierre's intellectual formation, but also his appropriation of what (...) he regarded as the official and conventional rhetoric of his age. These questions engage the larger debate regarding the origins of the French Revolution, in particular its ?cultural origins?, and its intellectual origins, defined as the distillation of and interactions between competing representations of society and its relation to the public sphere. The thesis proposed is that Robespierre's eulogy of Gresset indicates that his anti?philosophical ideas came from a much broader array of sources than previously believed. Among these sources, Gresset's 1740s?1750s polemics against the philosophes pointed the way towards the type of criticism of the Enlightenment that underpinned Robespierre's cultural revolutionary politics. (shrink)

Generally categorised as pertaining to the genre of paradoxical eulogies, the Encomium on Hair by Dio Chrysostom was until recently considered an example of the author’s strictly sophistic works, which the author would have pursued prior to his conversion to philosophy. Rather, the markedly autobiographical nature of the text, with references to the author’s mop of hair and the extremely well groomed hair of the filoκomoi, allows the Encomium on Hair to be classified as one of the numerous prolaliai (...) scattered throughout Dio’s corpus under fallacious titles. In these works the orator chose to speak about himself in order to claim, albeit in a Socratic style, his status as a philosopher of the most upright and uncompromising character. A comparison with the Encomium on Hair by Apollonius of Tyana also allows us to appreciate the rich symbolism inherent in Dio’s text. Despite its misleading title, the Encomium on Hair by Dio, therefore, should be considered less as a futile school exercise and more as a living document of the author’s personal life-story during the period of his so-called ‘exile’. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reframing Baudelaire: Literary History, Biography, Postcolonial Theory, and Vernacular LanguagesFrançoise Lionnet* (bio)In A Room of One’s Own, Virginia Woolf quips: “History is too much about wars; biography too much about great men;” literary history, she might have added, is too much about sons murdering their fathers. Canonical readings of the canon have often insisted on the vaguely Freudian (if not biblical) model of literary creation susceptible both to “anxieties (...) of influence” and to creative revisions imposed by strong misreadings. Criticism has followed the same reactive pattern in order to clear new ground for further research: the debate between “traditionalists” and proponents of “cultural studies” all but repeats this familiar and combative dialectic. Between formalist and sociopolitical readings, French texts have been mined by many different critical trends; but the perspectives that do not fit neatly into one or the other of these agonistic moves tend to be left out. Dominick LaCapra has suggested that “one issue for readers today is whether a different, ‘noncanonical’ reading of the canon, which resists symbolic resolutions as well as narrowly formalistic interpretations, may be one force in reopening texts to the[ir] broader sociopolitical effects” [731].In the case of Baudelaire, the way to do this “noncanonical” reading might well be to go back to a discursive field which includes biography and oral histories, and to resist the temptation either to eulogize the innovations of the poet of modernity or to denounce the patent racism of his images. The challenge today is to return to the scene of writing and the conditions of production of the early poetry—in other words, to look at the text from outside of conventional literary, critical or cultural history, to reclaim it for our side, that of a more global francophonie. To do so might mean to map out once again the contested terrain of culturally and politically sensitive readings such as the ones Christopher Miller and Gayatri Spivak claim to do. Their readings, however, do not take into account the residual cultural element of the poetry, that is, the vernacular language it appropriates. This language is all but buried beneath the emergent theoretical practices of postcolonial criticism and its vaguely nationalist agendas. 1 Critics have tended to look for [End Page 63] symbolic resolutions and to settle cultural scores at the expense of historical and geographical specificity, despite claims to the contrary.The facts of Baudelaire’s youthful travels in the Indian Ocean have remained relatively obscure. While doing research in the islands of Mauritius and Réunion on two separate occasions during the past few years, I came across written documents and watercolors that helped me reconstruct the historical and visual contexts that appear to have been Baudelaire’s in 1841. By re-examining the criticisms that have been lodged against the exoticizing rhetoric of his poetry, I want to foreground the links between the Creole culture with which Baudelaire became familiar and the now canonical texts he produced. These links can allow us to bypass the sterile opposition between “literary studies” and “cultural studies” or between aesthetics and politics; they demonstrate the urgency of re-visioning the canon not just from the perspectives of its margins, but as an important source of muted cultural knowledge. The questions with which I begin, then, are the following: where did Baudelaire actually go on his travels in 1841? and why does this matter to the field of French studies?Il faut en finir avec la légende de l’Inde parcourue par Baudelaire. Elle était séduisante, Gautier l’a adoptée, Banville ne l’a pas négligée.... Mais la vérité vraie est que Baudelaire, embarqué malgré lui, brûla la politesse à l’Inde.... Peut-être Baudelaire abandonnait-il complaisamment au commun public ces bruits de longues pérégrinations en pays fabuleux, parce qu’il en tirait, avec des couleurs de mystère, l’air de revenir de loin. Dans tous les cas, il ne nous parlait jamais de ces voyages. A peine, à son retour, nous dit-il quelques mots d’une station dans l’île Maurice ou l’île Bourbon. 2[It is time to put a stop to... (shrink)

Excerpts and paraphrases of this memoir appeared in 2008 and 2009. I posted it in full here in happy memory of Peter Hare and my joyful years with him. -/- 2008. Remembering Peter Hare 1935–2008. Philosophy Now. Co-authors: T. Madigan and A. Razin. Issue 66 March/April 2008. Pages 50–2. PDF -/- 2009. Remembering My Life with Peter Hare. Remembering Peter Hare 1935–2008. Ed. J. Campbell. Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy. pp. 9–16. http://american-philosophy.org/documents/RememberingPeterHare_final.pdf -/- Peter H. Hare, Distinguished (...) Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Buffalo (SUNY at Buffalo), died peacefully in his sleep on Thursday, January 3, 2008. I would like to share my memories of my life with him. Others have eulogized him, enumerated his virtues and accomplishments, and written his obituaries. I am revisiting my personal relationship with him. These memories are as much about me as about him. (shrink)

In the same year that, just a few days before his death, Locke was penning instructions to for the publication of some of his unprinted works, in particular of the Paraphrases on the Epistles of Saint Paul, a book entitled The Two Covenants of God with Mankind was published in London. The author, Thomas Taylor, had been for some time a staunch supporter of the thought and work of Malebranche, to whom the subtitle made explicit reference. It was during his (...) studies at Oxford that Taylor had begun to approach Malebranche’s thought, very probably through John Norris his chief English mentor. Indeed, Taylor referred to Norris in the notice To the Reader in his work, both explicitly as—“one who best understands [Malebranche]”—and by reutilising the encomiastic optical and astronomical metaphors with which Norris introduced the French philosopher at the beginning of The Theory of the Ideal or Intelligible World. Also traceable to the authority of Norris was Taylor’s eulogy of the Recherche de la vérité—“a Book that is alone a Library”—that he had translated 10 years earlier, which, along with the almost contemporary translation by Richard Sault, rendered Malebranche’s most influential work accessible to English readers. Taylor’s translation can be set within the context of Locke’s earliest stances regarding the theory of ideas of Malebranche and Norris, the principal documentation of which was to be found in Of Seeing all Things in God, another of the unpublished works mentioned by Locke in the letter to Peter King. King did indeed publish it in the Posthumous Works, albeit without the polemical initial paragraphs directed against Norris, whereas the editorial history of the Paraphrases was to be different. (shrink)

In recent decades, the relation between Egyptian and Greek praises of the goddess Isis has received much scholarly attention. The present study, however, focuses on six Demotic hymns and praises directed to this goddess: P. Heidelberg dem. 736 verso, O. Hor 10, Theban Graffiti 3156, 3462, 3445, and P. Tebt. Tait 14. These texts from the second century BC to the second century AD are re-edited in facsimile, transliteration and translation. A commentary to each document discusses philological matters, providing improved (...) readings in some instances. For the first time, the six texts are analyzed comparatively in regard to formal features and content. The concept of Isis that is outlined by the Demotic sources is set against Isis' role as described by other Egyptian sources and by Greek eulogies of the goddess. An appendix offers an overview of other Demotic hymns and praises addressed to various divinities. (shrink)

This book reminds us in yet another context that women's contributions to science can be rendered invisible by “the historical record.” The Manhattan Project, the supersecret midcentury United States research, development, and production enterprise that produced the nuclear bomb, was a massive undertaking, at one time employing 130,000 persons. About 10 percent were women, yet official histories made no mention of female scientists or engineers.Sleuthing by the physicists Ruth Howes and Caroline Herzenberg has documented Manhattan Project contributions by more than (...) three hundred women. Howes and Herzenberg begin with a few well‐known European women pioneers in nuclear science , none Americans and none available for the U.S. bomb effort. They then recount the history of the Manhattan Project via biographical vignettes of women, organized in chapters: “The Physicists,” “The Chemists,” “Mathematicians and Calculators,” “Biologists and Medical Scientists,” “The Technicians,” and “Other Women of the Manhattan Project.”It appears that few of these women knew each other. In her foreword, Ellen Weaver writes: “When I read the personal reminiscences of the men who were nuclear pioneers, I'm struck by the importance they place on their friends and associates, and on the often intense interaction among them, which could lead to major insights in both theory and practice of science. And I'm a bit jealous. By and large, women did not share in that give‐and‐take.”Not only was there little networking among women scientists and technicians in the early 1940s while the bomb was being developed, but there was little opportunity for them to share their experiences later. Only a very small percentage of these women were able to continue their professional careers. The many barriers to women as professional scientists and engineers, temporarily lowered owing to the manpower shortages of wartime, were raised after the war. There did not develop a community of women, engaged in teaching and research, with roots in the Manhattan Project.A web page is being developed to gather and provide further information about the women scientific workers of the Manhattan Project. Howes and Herzenberg are setting up an on‐line archive there, hoping that others who have information about the women scientific workers of the Manhattan Project will contact them via the web page or by email .The magnitude of their endeavor to learn about these women was illustrated vividly to me while writing this review. I attended the memorial service for my aunt, Mary Matilda Morrison Pendleton , and heard in her eulogy that “she worked as a nurse at the Hanford project, near Richland, Washington, where the government was secretly making atomic bombs. She would work shift work, two weeks of day shift, two weeks of swing shift, two weeks of graveyard shift, then she would get seven days off. She wore a badge every day that was checked after each day's work to see how much she had been radiated.” Although I thought that I knew her well, my aunt's role in the Manhattan Project had been unknown to me.The women of the Manhattan Project are finally gaining visibility. For example, Nancy Cook Steeper's book‐length biography of Dorothy Scarritt McKibbon is being published by the Los Alamos Historical Society. Howes and Herzenberg have provided ideas and starting points for many additional biographical projects. Perhaps the greatest long‐term value of their book is the impetus that it will give to further research.The book is well written, easy to read, and attractively printed. An appendix, listing the women and their roles, and a thorough index combine to make this an easily used reference work. There is also an informative sixteen‐page chronology that focuses on the crucial period from 1938 through 1945. (shrink)