The key fact known from the sources concerning the upbringing of Spartan kings is the following. All Spartiates, beginning at the age of seven, were subject to the famous ἀγωγή, the name given to the long course of education – primarily military, but also civic – distinguished by the extreme severity of the conditions imposed on those undergoing it. An exception, however, was made for heirs to the throne: instead of the ἀγωγή, they received a special form of royal education, although no direct evidence survives concerning its precise character. At the same time, it often happened that individuals who had not originally been heirs came to occupy one of the two Spartan thrones for various reasons and had therefore passed through the ἀγωγή. The comparison undertaken in this article between the personalities and activities of these two types of kings allows us to suggest, cautiously, that rulers exempted from the ἀγωγή generally displayed several distinctive traits: a more unconventional and creative cast of mind than their counterparts, broader erudition, more developed rhetorical abilities, and greater refinement in their manners and dealings with others. As a rule, they appear to us as more vivid personalities and, in any case, as more intellectually inclined figures.

According to a widely accepted scholarly view, Panhellenism was the first pan-ideology (from the Ancient Greek word Πάν, meaning “all,” “everything,” “everyone”) aimed at forming a shared supranational identity. It was in the works of Greek think-ers and orators that the concept of unifying all Greek poleis took shape. The emergence of Panhellenistic ideas dates back to the period between the 5th and 4th centuries BCE, when the Greek world was experiencing a deep crisis in inter-polis relations. The search for ways to overcome this crisis became a catalyst for the development of theories advocating the need for the ethno-cultural consolidation of the Greek world. For the ancient Greeks, their self-perception and their understanding of their “own world” were shaped largely through opposition to a signifi-cant “Other” – the barbarians. The primary “Other” that played a defining role in shaping Greek identity and worldview was the Persians. Despite the fact that Greece was not a unified state and that not all poleis or Greek alliances prioritized unity in their foreign policy, Panhellenism quickly gained popularity. This was largely facilitated by Greek literature and education. The ideas of Panhellenism can be traced in the works of ancient Greek au-thors such as Aristophanes (c. 444–386 BCE), Gorgias (c. 480–380 BCE), Lysias (c. 445–380 BCE), Xenophon (c. 430–356 BCE), and others. However, the true “father of Panhellenism” can be considered Isocrates (436–338 BCE), an Athenian rhetor-ician who continued the tradition of epideictic oratory and in whose speeches Panhellenic ideology found its conceptual com-pletion. Although scholars continue to debate whether Panhellen-ism was fully implemented in practice, it was widely embraced both by ordinary citizens (as reflected in Aristophanes’ come-dies) and the intellectual elite. This widespread appeal played a crucial role in shaping how the Greeks viewed themselves and the “Others” in their world. In many ways, Panhellenism encour-aged the Greeks to rethink their identity, history, and future. A central aspect of this discourse was the image of the "“Other” – the barbarian world – through which the Greeks defined their own cultural identity and unique educational practices.

- - * , 24-18-00349 .1 , .: (1989).. 68-77.2 : . ( ). , ,

ndor parentum ni(hi)l mihi maius dedit / [quam] quod marito digna iam tum visa sum / [se]d lumen omne vel decus nomen viri / Agori superbo qui creatus germine / patriam senatum coniugemq(ue) inluminas ( .. ).

К проблеме мышления и речи (на примере текста Цицерона «об ораторе»)Бермус А.Г.Н ет сомнений в том, что заявленная тема сборника «Концепция воспитания культурой Марка Туллия Цицерона» и проводящиеся в ее контексте обзор и исследования практик «возделывания души» предполагает возникновение множества сюжетов принятия -понимания -переосмысления не только текстов самого Цицерона, но и сопряженных гуманитарных традиций, вплоть до современных проблем.В этой связи, нам представляется весьма актуальным осуществление «гуманитарной триангуляции» между текстами Цицерона, задавшего, в известной мере, европейскую парадигму публичной речи; культурно-историческим подходом к проблеме «мышления и речи», в наиболее яркой форме заявленным Л.С.Выготским в одноименной книге; и актуальными феноменами и практиками публичной речи и мышления.При этом, само обращение к конструктам и концепциям Л.С.Выготского предполагает готовность к нескольким сложным методологическим проблемам.В первую очередь, краткость жизненного и творческого пути Л.С.Выготского, обостренная известным ему самому диагнозом и порождаемой, в этих условиях, спешкой, приводит к тому, что большинство его рассуждений объективированы не столько в моделях или формулах, сколько в некоторых проблематизациях, линиях рассуждений, ярких метафорах, аналогиях и т.д.Соответственно, вопрос о том, насколько аутентично наше понимание Л.С.Выготского, оказывается принципиально неразрешимым в силу того, что собственный концептуальный ответ Л.С.Выготского в разных текстах претерпевает самые существенные трансформации.По этой же причине нам не остается ничего иного, как обо

In De Republica, Cicero presents Scipio as the ideal moderator rei publicae, a statesman who is capable of teaching legislators. Scipio instructs the young men of his circle in the art of preserving good laws and changing bad laws for the better. His first task, however, and the crucial stage in the young men's education, is to recover the philosophic treatment of politics. In Cicero's time, philosophy had abandoned its concern with the city, preferring instead to study non-human nature. In De Republica, Scipio attempts to correct this understanding of philosophy, and thus make it once again useful to the city. In attempting thus to call philosophy back to earth, Cicero has been misunderstood by later scholarship. This article reassesses Cicero's political thought.