English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

The 2008 argument of C. Baikouzis and M. Magnasco that Odyssey 20.356-57 preserves a reference to the solar eclipse of 26 April 1178 BCE has received widespread attention in generalist publications. Unlike Carl Schoch’s 1926 argument, which came to the same conclusion, the new argument cannot be rejected on the basis of the passage’s context. Baikouzis-Magnasco require several other tacit assumptions, however, and many of these may be rejected with great confidence

transactions of the american philological association (1974-)

&lt;i&gt;Odyssey&lt;/i&gt; 20.356-57 and the Eclipse of 1178 &lt;small class="caps" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"&gt;b.c.e&lt;/small&gt;.: A Response to Baikouzis and Magnasco