Writing (Fall 2018)

Guidelines and Objectives for the Writing Assignments

Introduction

[Preface: in what follows, the leader of this section will provide instructions about the writing assignments for section seventeen of Humanties 101, assume the first person, and individually address the participants, that is the students, in the second person. In reference to another participant in the section, this document will follow the conventions of the Washington Post and New York Times and use the plural pronoun “they” for the purposes of gender inclusivity.]

One of my main objectives as the leader of this section is to help you further develop your ability to articulate ideas persuasively and clearly in written form. We will collectively work toward this objective through a series of assignments that will take the form of “interviews” posted on the website for the course: www.zetesis.org (“zētēsis” is the Greek word for “search”). The process of posting a writing assignment to the website will involve four steps:

1. You will compose responses to a set of questions or prompts.
2. You will work with the other members of your team to ensure that both your responses and those of the other members of your team conform to the guidelines for usage and style for the course. In other words, you will serve as the editor for the responses of others, and, in return, they will serve as your editor.
3. When the editorial phase of the assignment is complete, you will post your interview on the website.
4. You will then comment on at least one other interview, offering a thoughtful observation and posing a question for further discussion.

How this process works will be the topic of discussion in colloquium. You should keep electronic copies of your work for your own reference and in case problems arise in the process of posting the assignments to the website. At the end of each semester, you should download your posts and archive them at least for the duration of your undergraduate experience. These documents will constitute a writing portfolio, which allows you to see the growth of your writing skills during your first year at Rhodes and beyond and makes it possible for you to reflect upon avenues for further developing your abilities. From one semester to the next in the Search sequence, the portfolio may also play a role in assignments that call for you to revise or expand upon previous work, help other faculty members become familiar with your academic background and training, and provide important documentation for academic competitions and recognitions.

Interviews

One of the aims of this course is to cultivate the practice of careful, close reading. Each writing assignment will promote and demonstrate this attention to the text by taking the form of an interview. You are to imagine that you are the guest on a talk show, for example, The Tonight Show hosted by Jimmy Fallon, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, or Late Night with Seth Meyers. You and the host are talking about your experiences as a first-year college student, and he asks you about the courses you are taking. The conversation then focuses on Search, and he asks you to talk about what you have been reading and studying. You are welcome to chose any work we have read to discuss during the interview, but you will need to refer to a specific passage. This format is analogous to interviews with actors about a role they are playing, where they first discuss the movie, i.e., the larger narrative context, then narrow the focus to their particular roles, and finally show a clip, for which they provide very specific information about the context and often comment about the significance of the scene. Below are the questions the host will ask with some further explanations about how you should respond. For the purposes of this exercise, your host will be Conan O’Brien:

Conan: Tell us about what you’ve been reading.
You: Well, Conan, we’ve been working through several—I guess you could say seminal—works in the Indo-European cultural tradition, for example, the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Iliad.
Conan: Boy, that takes me back to my college days.1 Okay, I sort of skipped past those and went straight to William Faulkner and Flannery O’Connor, but I do know about Gilgamesh—not from college but from the “Darmok” episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation—and the Iliad, well, Achilles was also 6′ 4″ and had red hair, so I know all about that! No seriously, a lot of my friends read the Iliad for a course called Heroes for Zeros. They’re all working in ancient Greece now.2 Back to you, though. For Andy’s benefit, be the professor and take us through something you’ve read.3
You: Well, speaking of Achilles, I was really struck by his encounter with Aeneas in Iliad 20.156-198, where it talks about his red hair. No, just kidding. But the poem does compare Achilles to a lion, three of which, for Andy’s benefit, appear on the Mather House shield. [Here comes the first part of your writing assignment: setting the scene for the audience. You need to briefly describe how the passage you have chosen fits into the larger narrative. In other words, tell Conan and the audience what happens before and after this passage.]

This passage comes at the beginning of the fourth and final battle in the poem. The first begins in Iliad 3 after the catalogue of ships and continues through 7.312, when night intervenes and the two side pause to bury or burn their dead. The second battle appears in Iliad 8 and concludes with the Trojans’ driving the Achaeans back inside their newly-built fortifications. The third battle begins in Iliad 11 and continues through the death of Patroclus and the skirmish over his body in 18. The fourth battle begins after an assembly among the Achaeans (19.1-275) when Achilles says, “Now I surely cease my anger” (67) and a parallel assembly among the gods (20.1-40) when Zeus tells the others: “For my part, I will remain seated on a fold of Olympus, / where I will pleasure my heart in watching; but the rest of you / go, until you come among the Trojans and Achaeans, / and give your aid to either side, whichever each of you desires.” (20.22-25). Achilles has rejoined the Greeks intent on avenging the death of Patroclus by killing Hector, which happens in Iliad 22.250-375. For the first time in the poem, Achilles has taken his place on the field of battle, and Aeneas is the first Trojan warrior he encounters.

Conan: What happens?
You: Okay, before I get there, let me zoom in and provide just a little more context.[The second part of your interview comes here.]

The encounter between Achilles and Aeneas began taking shape earlier in Iliad 20 when Apollo takes the form of Lykaon, one of Priam’s sons, and encourages him to fight with Achilles. Aeneas is reluctant at first, citing the time when Achilles nearly killed him when he sacked Lyrnessos (89-96). He goes on to note: “always one of the gods stands by him, who wards off destruction” (98). Lykaon responds by reminding Aeneas that he is the son of Aphrodite, while Achilles is the son of Thetis, a “lesser deity,” and implying that Aeneas can also count on the favor of the gods. In his speech to Aeneas, Achilles returns to the events at Lyrnessos and urges Aeneas to “retreat / back to your host,” because the gods are unlikely to save him this time. Following the observation of Lykaon, Aeneas responds by recounting his ancestry, claiming divine descent on both sides through Dardanos, the son of Zeus, who is the great-great-great grandfather of Anchises, his father, and Aphrodite, his mother. The episode at Lyrnessos provides the paradigm for what will happen in this encounter. Achilles will again prove to be the superior warrior, and the gods will again rescue Aeneas because as the audience learns in 302-308: “it is fated for Aeneas to escape death, / so that the race of Dardanos not perish without seed, blotted out, / Dardanos whom the son of Cronus loved beyond all his sons / who were born to him from mortal women.” In referring to the sack of Lyrnessos, Achilles also notes that he “led the women away, captives, having stripped them of their day of freedom” (193). As we know from Iliad 2.686-694 Briseïs was among those women. Achilles has no reason to mention Briseïs in his speech to Aeneas about the events at Lyrnessos. However, the audience is aware of the connection and knows from Iliad 19 that Achilles has ambivalent feelings toward Briseïs at this point in the narrative, having told Agamemnon: “Artemis should have killed her with an arrow aboard the ships / on that day when I took her as a prize after destroying Lyrnessos” (19.59-60). This will change once Achilles completes the process of reintegration in Iliad 24, when Briseïs will make one further appearance in the poem. After the Priam and Achilles come to terms, Priam slept “in the forecourt of the shelter” while “Achilles slept in the inward recess of his well-built shelter, / and Briseïs of the lovely cheeks lay at his side” (674-676).

Conan: Okay, so what happens? You’re killing me!
You: Well, Achilles is just about to kill Aeneas, but as we have just learned Aeneas is not fated to die just yet. (He goes on, as Virgil claims in his Roman epic, to settle in Italy and become the progenitor of the Julian clan.) So, Poseidon saves him. But, it’s not just that a god saves poor Aeneas but how the poem describes what happens.
Conan: What do you mean?
You: [Here, in the third part of your interview, you explain what is significant about this passage or what purpose this passage serves in the larger narrative. In other words, why did the author or authors include this passage.]

The passage consists of three parts: lines 156 to 160 set the scene and narrow the focus from the battle as a whole to the combatants; lines 161 to 175 contain description of the warriors; and in lines 176 to 198 Achilles addresses Aeneas. The description of Aeneas is only three lines, highlighting actions related to three components of his arms. He “tosses his head” enclosed in a “heavy” helmet; he holds his “stark” shield in front of his chest, and he “shakes” his spear. The description of Achilles, on the other hand, incorporates a ten-line simile comparing him to a lion. The poem refers to lions at least forty-one times. These references come in three types: in eighteen instances lions appear in conflict with human beings, who are herdsmen protecting or attempting to protect their livestock, or hunters, who are pursuing game; in ten cases the lions are in conflict with other animals; and twelve cases are brief references to characteristics associated with lions, such as “like a lion in the pride of his strength” of Aeneas in 5.299 or “raging like a lion” of Agamemnon in 11.239. This simile falls in the first category and is unique in the way it describes the lion: “he whirls, jaws open, over his teeth foam / breaks out, and in the depth of his chest the powerful heart groans; / he lashes his own ribs with his tail and the flanks on both sides / as he rouses himself to fury for the fight, eyes glaring” (168-171). References to the eyes, ribs, and tail of a lion only appear in this passage; a reference to a lion’s jaws also appears in a simile in Iliad 13 (197-205) and one to a lion’s flanks in Iliad 8 (338-342); and references to teeth in two others (11.132 and 11.174). The use of the lion imagery tends to cluster in sections of the poem where one warrior is distinguishing himself, for example, Diomedes is the topic of the three similes in Iliad 5 (136-143, 159-165, and 778-783), Agamemnon of three in Iliad 11 (11.113-121, 170-178, 238-240), and Patroclus of three in Iliad 16 (16.485-491, 751-753, 755-758). Beginning in 18.318-322, Achilles is the topic of four similes that feature a lion as the vehicle, including one that appears in the shield. This vehicle, then, serves as a marker for the emergence of a dominant warrior, and the unique nature of this simile distinguishes Achilles as the most preeminent warrior of all.

Conan: Amazing! Andy, are you paying attention? From now on, I want lions everywhere, to signal my superiority over all other talkshow hosts. And none of that “What makes the muskrat guard his musk?” or “What puts the ‘ape’ in apricot?” crap!
Andy: Okay, but you’ll have to fight me with one paw tied behind your back and standing on one foot!4
Conan: What was it about this passage that made such a strong impression on you?
You: [Here comes the fourth element of your interview.]

We see Achillles in action as the greatest warrior of the Greeks, and he is a beast. He is ravenous, and nothing is going to stop him from killing Hector. As the first of the Trojan warriors to encounter Achilles, Aeneas just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Achilles is the greater fighter and, futhermore, has the technological advantage of wielding latest weapons from the workshop of Hephaestus himself. At the same time, Apollo is urging Aeneas to fight, and because he has been embarrassed by Achilles before, he is not going to give way. One of them has to die, but it is too soon for Achilles, although he will not live to see the sack of Troy, and Aeneas will eventually survive the war. It is as though they are daring the divine system to step in and resolve the situation, and just as Aeneas is about to hit Achilles with a rock, “which two men could not lift, / such as mortal men are now” (20.286-287), and Achilles would have “stripped Aeneas of his life with is sword” (289), Poseidon steps in and pours “a cloud of mist over his eyes, / over the eyes of Achilles” (321-322) (the ancient equivalent of a smoke bomb, I suppose), and flings Aeneas “over the many ranks of warriors, over the many ranks of horses” to the “farthest edge of the charging battle / where the Kaukones were armed for war” (326, 328-329). It just goes to show how the result of any contest, regardless of how certain the outcome seems to be, is never final until the very end.

Conan: I get it!
You: Let me conclude with what Achilles says after Aeneas disappears as a reminder that we not over estimate the accuracy of our own views and discount those of others: [Here comes the fifth and last element of your interview.]

“Oh shame! This is a great wonder I see with my eyes. / This spear lies upon the earth, and I do not see the man at all / at whom I let fly, as I raged to kill. / So, after all, Aeneas is beloved by the immortal gods; / and I thought he boasted idly of this” (344-348).

Notes
1Conan O’Brien graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College in 1985. His senior thesis was “The ‘Old Child’ in Faulkner and O’Connor.” During his sophomore and junior years, he was president of the Harvard Lampoon, the college’s student-run humor magazine. He talks about his thesis in an interview you can access here.^
2“Heroes for Zeros” was a popular name for The Ancient Greek Hero, a course offered by Professor Gregory Nagy. The joke about working in ancient Greece comes from a commencement speech O’Brien gave at Dartmouth College in 2011.^
3Andy Richter is a writer for Conan and serves as the announcer and O’Brien’s sidekick. He graduated from Columbia College in Chicago.^
4Conan quotes lines from the screenplay of “The Wizard of Oz” by Noel Langley et. al. Richter’s reply also draws on the Cowardly Lion’s dialogue.^

You will complete your interviews using forms with fields for each of the five elements corresponding to the following prompts:

1. Setting the scene for the audience: “How does the passage you have chosen fit into the larger narrative? In other words, briefly tell us what happens before and after this passage.”
2. Summary of the content: “Tell us what happens.”
3. Explaining the significance within the work: “Before you tell us why you chose this passage, share with us your views about the purpose this passage serves in the larger narrative. In other words, why did the author or authors include this passage?”
4. Explaining the significance of the passage for you: “Why did you choose this passage? What appealed or spoke to you in this selection and why?”
5. Providing a meaningful quote: “In closing, quote for us something that for you best conveys the meaning or significance of the passage or, if you wish, something that you find particularly meaningful, that is, something you want to remember.”

Your interviews should be approximately 1,000 to 1,500 words in length. (The example above is 1,387 words.) For every twenty-four-hour period the interview is late, I will subtract five points from a possible 100. Once you have submitted your interviews, I will assign editorial responsibilities.

Due Dates, Lengths and Late Penalties:

Assignment 1: Due Sunday, September 16 by 5:00 pm.
Assignment 2: Due Sunday, October 28 at 5:00 pm
Assignment 3: Due Sunday, December 2 at 5:00 pm

Fundamentals

The interviews should demonstrate that you have engaged meaningfully with the texts and given careful thought to the main points of a work, drawn careful and relevant parallels and distinctions among the readings, foreseen plausible consequences of the ideas both within the historical contexts of the readings and for your own lives and circumstances, and given proper credit to the ideas and perspectives of others where it is due.

I will evaluate the interviews with specific attention to the mechanics of writing (for example, grammar, spelling, and conformity with stylistic guidelines as outlined below), the accuracy and quality of the insights, and the strength of argumentation (that is, the organization of ideas and the support one marshals in support of one’s views). For guidance, students should consult A Guide to Effective Paper Writing. All writing assignments fall under the provisions of the Rhodes College Honor Code.

Process

Planning ahead. Do not put off work on a writing assignments until the night before it is due. You should allow time for revising your initial drafts more than once.
Revisions. Revising is not simply a matter of correcting spelling. It is the process of improving the writing, making it more clear and concise.
Editorial support. You should always proofread and edit your own interviews carefully before posting it and not rely solely on a spelling and grammar checker. You  should routinely read your interviews aloud to your colleagues and ask them to read through your interviews and offer specific suggestions on how to make them better. You should be prepared to do the same for others.
Archiving your work. You should keep a copy of your writing assignment as originally submitted, both a hard copy and more than one digital copy on more than one storage devise.
Help. You should avail yourselves of the support offered by the Writing Center (http://www.rhodes.edu/content/writing-center). You should read and follow the advice in A Guide to Effective Paper Writing and regularly consult following reference works:

The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style
The New Oxford American Dictionary
Chicago Manual of Style

Mechanics and Style

All interviews should conform to the standards of effective academic prose, which

1. Uses proper grammar and sentence structure
2. Avoids retelling the story and quoting long sections of the text
3. NEVER indulges in sweeping generalizations (e.g. “throughout history,” “since the dawn of time,” “as humans have always wondered,” “As I have always believed”) and vague abstractions (e.g. “ancient peoples,” “religious people,” “the Church,” “in ancient times”)
4. Almost NEVER uses the passive voice (“it is thought,” “it was decided,” “the people were struck by”). Active verbs express meaning more emphatically and more precisely: “Gilgamesh deliberated,” “Moses decided,” “the Israelites equivocated.”
5. Avoids jargon, wordiness, and unnecessary repetition
6. Seldom if ever uses adjectives and adverbs that introduce one’s unsupported subjective judgments (“this excellent passage,” “a good example of this idea,” “Gilgamesh energetically advances the idea that he and Enkidu should hunt and slay Humbaba.”)
7. Avoids using the second person (“You can see an example of this concept in Enkidu’s dream.”)
8. Uses inclusive language. In conformity with the policy of official Rhodes publications and accepted professional practice authors should avoid variants of the term “man” (including “men,” “mankind,” “family of man,” “brotherhood,” and compounds such as “chairman,” “clergyman,” etc.) as generic identifiers, using instead inclusive terms (e.g. “human beings,” “humanity,” “humankind,” “people,” “minister,” etc.) to designate both individuals and groups. Note: Direct quotations should reproduce the quoted text, inclusive or not, exactly as in the original.

Documentation

Citing one’s sources is an absolute necessity for good writing and a matter of intellectual honesty. Proper citation involves two considerations: when and how to cite.

Writers must always acknowledge their debts to the authors of the words or ideas they have used. Thorough and precise acknowledgement of any such debt is required by the Honor Code, and failure to do so is a form of plagiarism. For further guidance, see A Guide to Effective Paper Writing, Section II, Intellectual Honesty.

Citations should allow the reader to trace the sources of one’s thoughts and the connections between one’s evidence and observations. Proper citation, therefore, directs the reader as precisely as possible to the sources. The specific information in the citation may vary from work to work. For most cases in the first semester of Search, the citation will be to the author, work, and a number that identifies the location in that work, such as a line number, the number of a book and chapter, or the number of a chapter and a verse. The different structures and divisions of these works typically reflect the means of transmission and publication. For example, the citations to the works of Plato (e.g., Phaedrus 231c) will use a numbering system based on the three-volume 1578 edition of Plato’s works by Henricius Stephanus (Henri Estienne). The Stephanus editions of Plato featured two columns of text. Estienne set the Greek text in the inner column, i.e., the column next to the gutter of the book, and the Latin translation by Jean de Serres in the outer column. He also divided the Greek text into sections, which he labeled with the Roman letters A through E in the alley, i.e., the space between the columns. Here is an image of the first page of Euthypho (click on the image to see it in higher resolution):

Euthyphro_Stephanus_1578_p_2

The translations of Plato we use in this course incorporate the Stephanus numeration, which we will use instead of the page numbers of the translation. This ensures that readers can refer to the appropriate passage in the primary text regardless of the edition or translation of Plato they happen to use including more recent electronic versions. The same principle applies to the works of Aristotle. Irwin’s translation of the Nicomachaean Ethics includes numbers that refer to the edition of Aristotle’s work published by the Prussian Academy of Sciences from 1831 to 1870. The editor of that edition was August Immanuel Bekker. His edition displayed the Greek text in two columns, a and b. So Nicomachean Ethics 1105b1 refers to the first line of the second column on page 1105 of the Bekker edition. Here is a page from that edition (click on the image to see it in higher resolution):

Bekker_1831_page184

In all cases, however, the citation must relate to the information in the bibliography for the course. For example, the abbreviated reference in the citation (Herodotus, Histories 1.127) requires that the entry for this work in the list of references begin with “Herodotus.” Most entries will consist of the following items:

The name of the author, last name first (if known)
The name of the work
The name of the translator or editor
The city where the work was published (followed by a colon), the publisher (followed by a comma), and the year of publication

Below are examples of parenthetical documentation, the type of citation we will use in the writing assignments for this course. Each example employs a different manner of referring to a text (short quotation, offset quotations, paraphrase) and the proper way to format and punctuate each. Following each parenthetical citation is the form of the bibliographical citation as it appears in the bibliography. All of the citations will also take the form of a link to the bibliography on the website. The URL you will use follows each example.

Example of citing the Epic of Gilgamesh:

In the body of the interview

Gilgamesh differs from the other characters in the Epic of Gilgamesh because of his divine parentage: “Gilgamesh was his name from the day he was born, / two-thirds of him god and one third human. / It was the Lady of the Gods drew the form of his figure, / while his build was perfected by divine Nudimmud.”  (I.47-50).

[Note that the text of the interview includes a reference to the Epic of Gilgamesh, so the citation only needs to provide the location of the quotation, which should provide the tablet number (I) followed by a period and the numbers of the lines.]

You should link each citation to the bibliography:

https://zetesis.org/wp1/humanities-101-2018/bibliography-fall-2018/

The bibliography contains the following citation that identifies the source of the text:

Anon. The Epic of Gilgamesh. Translated by Andrew George. London: Penguin Books, 2000.

Example of the Odyssey (and other texts divided into books and lines);

In the body of the interview

Occasionally, the poem seems to allude to other songs in the epic cycle, for example, when Mentes tells Telemachus, “Son of Penelope, you and your sons / will make a name in history, since you are / so clever.” (Odyssey 1.222-224).

[As long as you provide a link to the bibliography, which provides the necessary information about which translation of Homer we are using (as provided below), you do not need to indicate the translator. (Incidentally, we are using Wilson’s translation partly because the lines of her English version correspond to the lines in the Greek text.) “Homer” does not appear in the citation because readers within academic contexts will associate the Odyssey with Homer, and you would only specify the author if someone other than Homer were the author.]

The bibliography contains the following citation that identifies the source of the text:

Homer. Odyssey. Translated by Emily Wilson. New York: New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2017.

Example of a play by Euripides (and other texts with line numbers)

In the body of the interview

The tragedians both followed and affirmed the tradition that appears in the text of the Odyssey as we have received it, but they also occasionally challenge elements of the story or hint at alternative versions that have not survived. For example, we see Helen remark:

Why do I go on living, then? Yet I have heard
from the god Hermes that I yet shall remake my home
in the famous plain of Sparta with my lord, and he
shall know I never went to Ilium— if I’ve not shared
my bed with any other man. (Euripides, Helen 56-60).

[If the text of the interview includes a reference to Euripides’ Helen, the citation would not have to provide the author or the work, just the line numbers. If the translation does not provide line numbers, refer to the location of quotations by indicating the page number.]

The citation in the bibliography provides the necessary information about the translator and the edition.

Euripides. Helen. Translated Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013.

Example of verses from the Bible:

In the body of an interview:

The second commandment: “You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them” (Exodus 20:4-5), does not imply that Yahweh is not anthropomorphic but rather that a physical artifact should not become an object of worship as though a divine power emanates from the artifact itself. With regard to the gender of Yahweh, we read in the first creation story: “Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth,a and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them'” (Genesis 1:26-27). In this passage, “humankind” (Hebrew: “adam“) is masculine according to grammatical gender, which does not suggest that the human is male or female nor that Yahweh is by nature one gender or the other. Carr notes: “The text stresses the creation of humanity as simultaneously male and female. This leads to the emphasis in the blessing of v. 28 and the book of Genesis as a whole on the multiplication of humanity in general (6.1; 9.1–7) and Israel in particular (17.2–6; 47.27)” (Footnote on 1.27-28).

[Note that neither “Exodus” nor “Genesis” appears in italics, as is typically the case for what we designate as books, and that a colon separates the number of the chapters and the verses, which differs from the convention for other books or chapters with smaller subunits of text such as lines or verses as noted above for citations that refer to the Odyssey.]

In the bibliography the references to the New Oxford Annotated Bible will appear as

Coogan, Michael D. et al., ed. The New Oxford Annotated Bible. 4th ed. New York: Oxford, 2010.

Example of citing the works of Plato:

In the body of the interview:

Socrates then describes the elements of the soul by using the metaphor of a chariot drawn by two horses, one that is “upright in frame and well jointed, with a high neck and a regal nose; his coat is white, his eyes are black, and he is a lover of honor with modesty and self-control” and the other, “a crooked great jumble of limbs with a short bull-neck, a pug nose, black skin, and bloodshot white eyes; companion to wild boasts and indecency, he is shaggy around the ears— deaf as a post— and just barely yields to horsewhip and goad combined,” and driven by a charioteer. (Plato, Phaedrus 252d-e).

In Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates describes a situation that parallels what Alcibiades recounts concerning his mentor’s ability to control his sexual urges:

When they are in bed, the lover’s undisciplined horse has a word to say to the charioteer— that after all its sufferings it is entitled to a little fun. Meanwhile, the boy’s bad horse has nothing to say, but swelling with desire, confused, it hugs the lover and kisses him in delight at his great good will. And whenever they are lying together it is completely unable, for its own part, to deny the lover any favor he might beg to have. Its yokemate, however, along with its charioteer, resists such requests with modesty and reason (255e-256a).

In the bibliography the reference to the translation by Nehamas and Woodruff appears as:

Plato. Phaedrus. Translated and edited by C. D. C. Reeve. In Plato on Love. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2006.

Example of citing the works of Aristotle:

In the body of the interview

Whether or not an act is virtuous is not a matter of perspective but one that is subject to rational analysis. In fact, according to Aristotle, an action cannot be virtuous unless the agent acts in accordance with reason. A person acts virtuously only if he “does them knowingly; second, if he deliberately chooses them and deliberately chooses them because of themselves; and third, if he does them from a stable and unchangeable state.” (Nichomachean Ethics 1105b).

Aristotle opens the Nicomachean Ethics with the observation that “Every craft and every line of inquiry, and likewise every action and decision, seems to seek some good…” (1094a1).

The reference to the translation and edition of the Nicomachean Ethics we are using appears as follows in the bibliography

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Robert C. Bartlett and Susan D. Collins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012.

Example of citing Herodotus:

In the body of the interview

Hero cults are an example of local religious traditions because the worship of a hero takes place where the mortal remains of the hero are buried. One example is the cult of Protesilaos, the first Greek to die in the Trojan War at Elaious, where “there was great store of wealth, vases of gold and silver, works in brass, garments, and other offerings” (Herodotus, Histories 9.116). During the Second Persian War, Artayktes, the governor of the region desecrated the sanctuary, for which he received punishment as described in Herodotus’ Histories:

Now the Chersonesites relate that the following prodigy befell one of the Greeks who guarded the captives. He was broiling upon a fire some salted fish, when of a sudden they began to leap and quiver, as if they had been only just caught. Hereat, the rest of the guards hurried round to look, and were greatly amazed at the sight. Artaÿctes, however, beholding the prodigy, called the man to him, and said – “Fear not, Athenian stranger, because of this marvel. It has not appeared on thy account, but on mine. Protesilaüs of Elæûs has sent it to show me, that albeit he is dead and embalmed with salt, he has power from the gods to chastise his injurer” (9.120).

In the bibliography the citation to Purvis’ translation appears:

Herodotus. The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories. Translated by Andrea L. Purvis. New York: Anchor Books, 2009.