To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Past studies of the Nero-Antichrist paradigm have tended to focus on whether or not Nero is a plausible Antichrist figure by looking at the characteristics of the Antichrist and deciding whether the Nero we know from classical historiography does or does not fit the role. In doing so, some assume that the biblical writers themselves were thinking primarily of Nero, the same Nero with whom we are now familiar through the historiographical tradition, when composing their works. Left unexplored is the possibility that the Nero link was phase of the reception of biblical texts in late antiquity and not programmed into the texts themselves. This chapter investigates the problem of whether the historical Nero is in the Bible at all, and argues that the Bible’s Antichrist figures do not bear enough of a similarity to the historical Nero to warrant the assumption of intent on the part of its authors.
This chapter is concerned with the British classical scholar Jane Harrison. Harrison is most commonly invoked in contemporary classical scholarship for her part in the controversial ‘Cambridge Ritualists’ movement of the early twentieth century. Harrison was a central part of the intellectual genealogy of modernism, and a central reason that so many modernist authors made use of parallels with antiquity. This chapter suggests that by studying the changing valence of Nietzschean antiquity across her intellectual project it is possible to discern her altering attitude towards the value of the past in the present. After discussing the connection between anthropology, primitivism and Classics that yokes together the understandings of ancient irrationalism in both Nietzsche and Harrison, the chapter proceeds to consider the connections with James Frazer’s The Golden Bough as well as Wittgenstein’s critique of that work. The final sections focus on two of Harrison’s main works, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (1903) and Themis: A Study of the Social Origins of Greek Religion (1912), and the confluence of Dionysus, satyrs and religious belief in these works.
It has traditionally been assumed that biblical writers considered Nero to be the Antichrist.. This book refutes that view. Beginning by challenging the assumption that literary representations of Nero as tyrant would have been easily recognisable to those in the eastern Roman empire, where most Christian populations were located, Shushma Malik then deconstructs the associations often identified by scholars between Nero and the Antichrist in the New Testament. Instead, she demonstrates that the Nero-Antichrist paradigm was a product of late antiquity. Using now firmly established traits and themes from classical historiography, late-antique Christians used Nero as a means with which to explore and communicate the nature of the Antichrist. This proved successful, and the paradigm was revived in the nineteenth century in the works of philosophers, theologians, and novelists to inform debates about the era's fin-de-siècle anxieties and religious controversies.
Dionysus after Nietzsche examines the way that The Birth of Tragedy (1872) by Friedrich Nietzsche irrevocably influenced twentieth-century literature and thought. Adam Lecznar argues that Nietzsche's Dionysus became a symbol of the irrational forces of culture that cannot be contained, and explores the presence of Nietzsche's Greeks in the diverse writings of Jane Harrison, D. H. Lawrence, Martin Heidegger, Richard Schechner and Wole Soyinka (amongst others). From Jane Harrison's controversial ideas about Greek religion in an anthropological modernity, to Wole Soyinka's reimagining of a postcolonial genre of tragedy, each of the writers under discussion used the Nietzschean vision of Greece to develop subversive discourses of temporality, identity, history and classicism. In this way, they all took up Nietzsche's call to disrupt pre-existing discourses of classical meaning and create new modes of thinking about the Classics that speak to the immediate concerns of the present.