Dave and Jeff this week tackle two fascinating articles in a portmanteau of Classical learning (Sahoney-Mahouter). First up, it's the 1911 article by famed philologist and New Testament scholar Alexander Souter. Examining the evidence, and building a cumulative argument, Souter argues that the Apostle Paul in all probability could speak the language of Rome's seven hills. But how strong is his case, and where might it be vulnerable to pushback? Then after halftime, Anne Mahoney (Tufts Univ.) leads the show back on to the gridiron for some computer-aided analysis of what Greek and Latin forms are indispensable as to frequency, and which are more of a purple unicorn that can safely be shelved until the third or fourth semester. For language gurus, you won't want to miss the surprises here: vocative outranks dative? Present and perfect tense verbs constitute almost 75% of all Latin verb forms? Quid rei est? And, be sure to send in your own audio clips for episode 200 to join the fun.

All you Marrou fans out there may have been wondering, "Where did that fabulous Frenchmen go"? After all, this little podcast has not covered H.I.'s theme since April 1 of the current year. Fitting date? Don't be fooled, Jeff and Dave have not given up on all things ancient education, and this week the guys return to Part II, Chapter IX. In this portion of the larger section, Classical Education in the Hellenistic Age, Marrou is dealing with what he entitles "Lesser Forms". How was the ephebia structured, and how did the architectural forms change to match this? What did the typical syllabus contain, and what of the formation of a canon? What is the connection between thinking great thoughts and walking? Should you look out for roving hygienists in your neighborhood, and can you earn a certificate or award for φιλοπονία (love of industry)? The disscussion next moves on to the "birdcage" center of ancient learning, the Museum (Alexandria, et alia), where MacArthur Fellowship recipients complained about the sluggish wifi and were feted by the Ptolemies. But we digress. Stick around for the closing bit on medicine and vo. tech, and think about sending us your own reflections for episode 200!

The guys are back to Ovid this week for another pair of vignettes. First up it’s the tragic, would-be love affair between little-known Trojan prince Aesacus and his would be wooed Hesperia. Like Eurydice, Hesperia forgets her little galoshes, and is struck down by a deadly snake in the grass before Aesacus can catch her. Aesacus can’t handle it and goes full Greg Louganis, until the gods turn him into a diving bird. What is Ovid saying here about fate and love's destructive power? Then its on to Pomona who turns down every “prom-posal” till Vertumnus, the sylvan Cicero, gives it a go. Even then it’s no picnic…he’s forced to become his own “wing man”…er, woman? What’s the message? Stop chasing, fellas, and up your disguise and persuasion game? Tune in and find out. Also, don't miss the on-air drawing for the Plato prize.

What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem, Corinth with Philadelphia, or Ephesus with Ft. Lauderdale? Perennial questions these, no doubt, and it doesn't take a Tertullian to ask or answer them. Charles Sumner, Nathaniel "Crimson Digit" Hawthorne, James Fenimore Cooper, or Charles Francis Adams will do. Join the guys this week for the penultimate look at Carl Richard's taut, thrilling, barn-burner, as we peel back the layers on the relationship between Christianity and Classical culture at the apogee of the latter's popularity in those British castoffs, the former colonies. Does pagan morality dovetail nicely with the Christian faith, or is it sharply at odds? What of the antithesis between Christ's "love your enemies and pray for those who hate you", and the Homeric honor code of strict vengeance? Is this conflict real or imagined? And, just how much nudity is acceptable in statuary and painting, whether a Venus di Urbino, or George Washington, who, says Hawthorne, had so much gravitas that he was born clothed? All this and more, plus the usual servings of bad puns (not all Dave's, as it turns out). Don't miss this!

Check this one out! This episode is long overdue! All will be fine(s). Don't get all Dewey-eyed (and other book-borrowing puns)! This week the guys delve into the history (and some stubborn myths regarding it) of the Library of Alexandria. Most people have heard of its “burning”, but do the generally accepted versions of it hold water? Once you get past the cover it seems like things are a bit more complicated: it didn’t all burn down at once; it probably wasn’t the devastating, permanent loss of knowledge as it’s sometimes portrayed, and the whole pagan vs. Christian finger pointing doesn’t help. Join Jeff "Jamie Franklin Hyneman" Winkle and Dave "Adam Savage" Noe as they look at the ancient sources and the archaeology (or lack thereof), and attempt to get down to the nittus-grittus.

This week, Jeff and Dave wrap up the third installment in their brief series on Plato's Apology. So what exactly is Socrates' daimon? Is it like conscience, sometimes accusing, sometimes excusing? Is it similar to what the apostle Paul describes in Romans 2.14-15? If so, how come Socrates' inner voice never motivates him toward action, but only seeks to drive him away from something? And, is Socrates really being honest when he says he is no threat to traditional Athenian religion, seeing how his definition of the divine is anything but Homeric, but rather consists in a newly strict ethical conception, wherein the gods must -- gasp -- behave at least as well as their worshippers? And finally, what's Dave got against Shawshank? Is there any way to redeem this episode? O Chalupa, just tune in to find out!

Sorry (not sorry), it’s back to Plato’s Apology this week for round two. This time the guys tackle the nature of the elenchus—the method of question and answer that Socrates uses to get closer to the ‘truth’ and refute arguments of his interlocturos. How does it show up in the Apology itself? Is the elenchtic method a useful ‘truth-finding’ tool orjust a manipulative tactic not that far from what the Sophists peddled? Where does Socrates end and Plato begin? And how might this affect your opinion of the chalupa? We also turn to the great Gregory Vlastos for help as well as examining Socrates’ beef with the craftsmen. Be sure to listen for the magic word for the great Hackett giveaway.

At long last, Jeff and Dave get around to talking about the great granddaddy of all Western philosophy: Socrates. In this episode, the guys lay the groundwork for a look at Socrates' defense speech, the Apology. What were the social and political factors that contributed to putting the pug-nosed wonder on trial? How did the reign of the 30 tyrants, and Plato's aristocratic background, as well as Socrates'connections to great men like Pericles influence the content of the speech? This episode also examines the role of the elenchus, Socrates' system of question-and-answer refutation, in the development of ethical and moral teaching in the 5th century. Tune in for the instruction, the laughs, and a chance to win your copy of C.D.C. Reeve's A Plato Reader, from Hackett.