DOCSLIB.ORG

CAST GALLERY Section Contents 1. History of the Collection 2. Cast

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CAST GALLERY Section Contents 1. History of the Collection 2. Cast CAST GALLERY Section Contents 1. History of the Collection 2. Cast Collection listed by historical period 3. A History of Greek Sculpture Based on the Cast Collection a. Archaic Period, Introduction b. Fifth Century BCE, Introduction c. Second Half of Fifth Century BCE, Introduction d. Fifth Century, 425-400 BCE e. Fourth Century BCE, Introduction 4. Hellenistic Period, Introduction 5. Greek Architectural Orders 6. Cast Collection listed by location in Pickard Hall 7. Cast Gallery Expanded Labels MAA 6/2012 Docent Manual Volume 1 Cast Gallery 1 CAST GALLERY History of the Collection The University of Missouri-Columbia owns about one hundred plaster casts of sculpture, mainly Greek or Roman, but eleven represent later periods. In addition, scale models of parts of three buildings are examples of the Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian orders. Four of the casts were the gift of the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in 1973, but the bulk of the collection was personally selected for the University in 1895 and 1902 by John Pickard (1858- 1937), Professor of Classical Archaeology and founder, in 1892, of the Department of Art History and Archaeology at the University of Missouri. The records of the 1895 purchase show that the first fifty casts and the architectural models were acquired from casting studios in Germany, France, and England. Apparently no correspondence exists concerning the second acquisition in 1902, but the local newspaper reported that thirty or forty casts were acquired. Until 1940 the collection was displayed in a large gallery on the third floor of Academic Hall, the campus administration building, now called Jesse Hall, but, for a twenty-year period from 1940 to 1960, the casts were hidden from view, pushed aside to provide space for art classes. In 1960, the Art Department moved, and the Department of Art History and Archaeology was re-established. (In 1935, it had been split between the departments of Art and Classics.) The casts were brought back out, cleaned, and painted. In 1975 the collection was transferred to Pickard Hall where it is now housed, most of it in a gallery on the first floor, but some in the lecture hall, hallways, offices, and museum storage. Pickard Hall, the old Chemistry Building, was renovated in 1975-76 as the home of the Museum of Art and Archaeology and the Department of Art History and Archaeology. A tradition arose that the casts were exhibited at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition held in St. Louis in 1904. The catalogue of the exposition makes no mention of casts of Greek and Roman sculpture, however, and a search through The Columbia Daily Tribune from August 29, 1903 to December 31, 1904 revealed no mention of an exodus of casts from the museum in Academic Hall to St. Louis, nor of their return. The university's exhibit at the exposition is mentioned, however, and Dr. Pickard is described as having secured increased space for it. Although plaster casts of sculpture are not included, a model in plaster of the university's grounds and buildings is listed as part of the university's exhibit. Perhaps this and Dr. Pickard's involvement in the exposition gave rise to the local tradition that the plaster casts of Greek and Roman sculpture also went to the Fair. Casts were included in the exposition, but these were acquired especially for it and were given to Southeast Missouri State Normal School (now Southeast Missouri State University) by Mr. Louis Houck, who acquired them at the exposition and presented them in 1904. (MAA 8/97) MAA 6/2012 Docent Manual Volume 1 Cast Gallery 2 CAST GALLERY Cast Collection Listed By Historical Period Archaic Period Kouros from Tenea, ca. 575-550 BCE, Munich, Glyptothek. Athena, Temple of Aphaia, Aegina, West Pediment, ca. 490 BCE, Munich, Glyptothek Fifth Century BCE Harmodios the Tyrannicide, Roman copy of a bronze from the group by Kritios and Nesiotes, ca. 477-476 BCE, Naples, National Archaeological Museum. Charioteer, bronze original, ca. 475-470 BCE, Delphi, Museum. Diskobolos or Discus Thrower, Roman copy of a bronze original by Myron, ca. 460-450 BCE, Rome, Vatican Museums. Apollo, Temple of Zeus at Olympia, West Pediment, ca. 465-457 BCE, Olympia, Museum. Head of Lapith Youth, Temple of Zeus at Olympia, West Pediment, ca. 465-457 BCE, Olympia, Museum. Head of Lapith Woman, Temple of Zeus at Olympia, West Pediment, ca. 465-457 BCE, Olympia, Museum. Head of Theseus, Temple of Zeus at Olympia, West Pediment, ca. 465-457 BCE, Olympia, Museum. Head of Deïdameia, bride of the Lapith king Peirithoos, Temple of Zeus at Olympia, West Pediment, ca. 465-457 BCE, Olympia, Museum. Herakles and Atlas, Temple of Zeus at Olympia, Metope, ca. 465-457 BCE, Olympia, Museum. Ludovisi Throne, three-sided relief, ca. 460 BCE, Rome, National Museum. Athena Lemnia (?), Roman copy of a bronze original by Phidias, ca. 450-440 BCE, head in Bologna, Museo Civico and body in Dresden, Albertinum. Two Goddesses, The Parthenon, East Pediment, ca. 437-432 BCE, London, British Museum. Centaur and Lapith, The Parthenon, Metope, ca. 447-443 BCE, London, British Museum. Panathenaic Procession; Rider, The Parthenon, West Frieze, ca. 442-438 BCE, Athens. Panathenaic Procession; Marshal, The Parthenon, East Frieze, ca. 442-438 BCE, original missing. MAA 6/2012 Docent Manual Volume 1 Cast Gallery 3 CAST GALLERY Head of the Diadoumenos, or Fillet Binder, Roman copy of bronze original by Polykleitos, ca. 440-430 BCE, Naples, National Museum. Doryphoros, or Spear Bearer, Roman copy of a bronze original by Polykleitos, ca. 450-440 BCE, Naples, National Museum. Nike, by Paionios, ca. 425-420 BCE, Olympia, Museum. Battle of Greeks and Amazons, relief from the frieze of the Temple of Apollo at Phigaleia (Bassai), late 5th c. BCE, London, British Museum. Athena Velletri, Roman copy of a Greek work, perhaps by Kresilas, ca. 420 BCE, Paris, Louvre Museum. Karyatid, the Erechtheion, Athens, ca. 421-406 BCE, London, British Museum. Nike, Temple of Athena Nike, ca. 410-400 BCE, Athens, Acropolis Museum. Athlete, Roman copy of a Greek original, ca. 450-440 BCE Munich, Glyptothek Fourth Century BCE Battle of Greeks and Amazons, the Mausoleion at Halikarnassos, ca. 360-340 BCE, London, British Museum. Hermes and Dionysos, by Praxiteles, ca. 350-330 BCE, Olympia, Museum. Torso of Satyr, attributed to Praxiteles, ca. 370-355 BCE, Paris, Louvre Museum. Artemis from Gabii, Roman copy of a statue attributed to Praxiteles, ca. 360-330 BCE, Paris, Louvre Museum. Head of the Demeter of Knidos, ca. 350 BCE, London, British Museum. Head of Euripides, Roman copy of a Greek original, ca. 350-325 BCE, Rome, Vatican Museums. Woman from Herculaneum, Roman copy of a Greek original, ca. 340-330 BCE, Dresden, Albertinum. Head, Temple of Athena Alea, Tegea, Pediment, perhaps by Skopas, ca. 350 BCE, Athens, National Museum. Apoxyomenos, or Youth Scraping Himself, Roman copy of a bronze original by Lysippos, ca. 340-325 BCE, Rome, Vatican Museums. Alexander: the Azara Bust, Roman copy of an original perhaps Lysippos, ca. 330-323 BCE, MAA 6/2012 Docent Manual Volume 1 Cast Gallery 4 CAST GALLERY Paris, Louvre Museum. Dancing Woman, Roman copy of a flute girl by Lysippos, ca. 320 BCE, Berlin, Staatliche Museum. Sophokles, Roman copy of a Greek original, ca. 340-330 BCE, Rome, Vatican Museums. Hellenistic Period Nike of Samothrace, ca. 200 BCE, Paris, Louvre Museum. Medici Aphrodite (Venus de Medici), type of Knidian Aphrodite, early 3rd c. BCE, Florence, Uffizi Gallery. Apollo Belevdere, Roman copy of a Greek original, ca. 200-150 BCE, Rome, Vatican Museums. Zeus Battling the Giants, from the frieze of the Altar of Zeus and Athena, Pergamon, ca. 180 BCE, Berlin Museum. Borghese Warrior, signed by Agasias, ca. 100 BCE, Paris, Louvre Museum. Aphrodite (Venus Genetrix), Roman copy of a Greek original by Arkesilaos, ca. 50 BCE, Paris, Louvre Museum. Aphrodite of Melos (Venus de Milo), ca. 150-100 BCE, Paris, Louvre Museum. Homer, Roman copy of Late Hellenistic work, ca. 150 BCE, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts. Laokoon and his Sons, by Hagesandros, Polydorus and Athanodoros, late 1st c. BCE-early 1st c. A.D., Rome, Vatican Museums. Roman Period Head of Roman Matron, ca. 200 A.D., Naples, National Museum. Ludovisi Hera, Roman work in the Greek manner of 4th c. BCE, Rome, National Museum. MAA 6/2012 Docent Manual Volume 1 Cast Gallery 5 CAST GALLERY A History of Greek Sculpture Based on the Cast Collection (MAA 8/97) The following account incorporates excerpts from William R. Biers, The Archaeology of Greece, An Introduction, 2nd edition (Cornell University Press 1996), by kind permission of the author. Problems of Identification and Interpretation of Greek Sculpture The Romans were great collectors, and works of what was for them already ancient Greek art were especially prized. Statues were carried off by the shipload from Greek lands both as war loot and as "collectibles." The source was soon exhausted, however, so the practice of making copies of works of famous artists of the past became a thriving business. With the loss of the original statues, we must depend mainly on Roman copies for an idea of the style of the famous artists of Greece. Unfortunately, there are serious drawbacks to our enforced reliance on copies made for the Roman market. Copies of Greek originals were made in many ways by artists of widely varying abilities. A statue could be copied more or less freehand or by means of a "pointing machine" that gave almost exact reproductions. Further problems arise in the ease with which a given type--for instance, a young athlete--could be changed into another type, such as Hermes, by the simple addition of an attribute by the copyist.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Samenvatting Summary
    SAMENVATTING SUMMARY 1. H. G. BEYEN: THE SOCIAL STATUS OF THE PAINTER IN GREEK ANTIQUITY The opinion has been expressed on more than one occasion that in the Greek world the sculptor or painter was not held in esteem as much as one would have expected, because. people invariably saw the f3avav(Jo~ , i.e, the artisan in him. This opinion is founded mainly on passages in Plato and Aristotle. However, the word f3avav(Jo~ was tinged with an element of contempt only to the conser- vative aristocrat and to the abstract thinker who saw an unbridgeable gulf between the work of the mind and that done by hand. Plato combined the two types and even Aristotle's liberality was extremely moderate. They definitely do not voice the "communis opinio". Polygnotus was a national character and was thought ofvery highly. Owing to his distinguished, human art [mural decoration in the full sense ofthe word, destined for the community] he became the educator of his contemporaries. He was honoured by numerous distinctions [such as the citizenship ofAthens, "hospitia gratuita" on behalf ofthe Delphic Amphictyom, the appointment as {}ewe6~ by his native town Thasos]. The subsequent period (from about 45o-about 325) was the time when indi- vidualism and the "free" art of painting, i.e. not executed in connection with architecture and carried out in the studio on panels or slabs ofmarble, flourished. In this period too the painters reaped great personal fame and considerable riches [Zeuxis, Nicias], presumably even more so than the sculptors. The self-assurance of some of them is reminiscent of that of the artists of the Renaissance [Parrha- sius].
    [Show full text]
  • Royal Power, Law and Justice in Ancient Macedonia Joseph Roisman
    Royal Power, Law and Justice in Ancient Macedonia Joseph Roisman In his speech On the Crown Demosthenes often lionizes himself by suggesting that his actions and policy required him to overcome insurmountable obstacles. Thus he contrasts Athens’ weakness around 346 B.C.E. with Macedonia’s strength, and Philip’s II unlimited power with the more constrained and cumbersome decision-making process at home, before asserting that in spite of these difficulties he succeeded in forging later a large Greek coalition to confront Philip in the battle of Chaeronea (Dem.18.234–37). [F]irst, he (Philip) ruled in his own person as full sovereign over subservient people, which is the most important factor of all in waging war . he was flush with money, and he did whatever he wished. He did not announce his intentions in official decrees, did not deliberate in public, was not hauled into the courts by sycophants, was not prosecuted for moving illegal proposals, was not accountable to anyone. In short, he was ruler, commander, in control of everything.1 For his depiction of Philip’s authority Demosthenes looks less to Macedonia than to Athens, because what makes the king powerful in his speech is his freedom from democratic checks. Nevertheless, his observations on the Macedonian royal power is more informative and helpful than Aristotle’s references to it in his Politics, though modern historians tend to privilege the philosopher for what he says or even does not say on the subject. Aristotle’s seldom mentions Macedonian kings, and when he does it is for limited, exemplary purposes, lumping them with other kings who came to power through benefaction and public service, or who were assassinated by men they had insulted.2 Moreover, according to Aristotle, the extreme of tyranny is distinguished from ideal kingship (pambasilea) by the fact that tyranny is a government that is not called to account.
    [Show full text]
  • Marathon 2,500 Years Edited by Christopher Carey & Michael Edwards
    MARATHON 2,500 YEARS EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 124 DIRECTOR & GENERAL EDITOR: JOHN NORTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS: RICHARD SIMPSON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARATHON CONFERENCE 2010 EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 2013 The cover image shows Persian warriors at Ishtar Gate, from before the fourth century BC. Pergamon Museum/Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin. Photo Mohammed Shamma (2003). Used under CC‐BY terms. All rights reserved. This PDF edition published in 2019 First published in print in 2013 This book is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0) license. More information regarding CC licenses is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Available to download free at http://www.humanities-digital-library.org ISBN: 978-1-905670-81-9 (2019 PDF edition) DOI: 10.14296/1019.9781905670819 ISBN: 978-1-905670-52-9 (2013 paperback edition) ©2013 Institute of Classical Studies, University of London The right of contributors to be identified as the authors of the work published here has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Designed and typeset at the Institute of Classical Studies TABLE OF CONTENTS Introductory note 1 P. J. Rhodes The battle of Marathon and modern scholarship 3 Christopher Pelling Herodotus’ Marathon 23 Peter Krentz Marathon and the development of the exclusive hoplite phalanx 35 Andrej Petrovic The battle of Marathon in pre-Herodotean sources: on Marathon verse-inscriptions (IG I3 503/504; Seg Lvi 430) 45 V.
    [Show full text]
  • ΤΑΡΤΑΡΟΣ in Greco-Roman Culture, Second Temple Judaism, and Philo of Alexandria* Clint Burnett (Boston College)
    Going Through Hell; ΤΑΡΤΑΡΟΣ in Greco-Roman Culture, Second Temple Judaism, and Philo of Alexandria* Clint Burnett (Boston College) Tis article questions the longstanding supposition that the eschatology of the Second Temple period was solely infuenced by Persian or Iranian eschatology, arguing instead that the litera- ture of this period refects awareness of several key Greco-Roman mythological concepts. In particular, the concepts of Tartarus and the Greek myths of Titans and Giants underlie much of the treatment of eschatology in the Jewish literature of the period. A thorough treatment of Tartarus and related concepts in literary and non-literary sources from ancient Greek and Greco-Roman culture provides a backdrop for a discussion of these themes in the Second Tem- ple period and especially in the writings of Philo of Alexandria. I. Introduction Contemporary scholarship routinely explores connections between Greco- Roman culture and Second Temple Judaism, but one aspect of this investiga- tion that has not received the attention it deserves is eschatology. Te view that the eschatology of the Second Temple period was shaped largely by Persian es- chatology remains dominant in the feld.1 As James Barr has observed, “Many of the scholars of the ‘biblical theology’ period, were very anxious to make it clear that biblical thought was entirely distinct from, and owed nothing to, Greek thought. … Iranian infuence, however, seemed … less of a threat.”2 Tis is somewhat surprising, given that many Second Temple Jewish texts, including the writings of Philo of Alexandria, mention eschatological con- cepts developed in a Greco-Roman context. Signifcant among these are the many references to the Greco-Roman subterranean prison of Tartarus and the related mythology of the Titans and Giants.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Kingdom of Alexander the Great Ancient Macedonia
    Advance press kit Exhibition From October 13, 2011 to January 16, 2012 Napoleon Hall In the Kingdom of Alexander the Great Ancient Macedonia Contents Press release page 3 Map of main sites page 9 Exhibition walk-through page 10 Images available for the press page 12 Press release In the Kingdom of Alexander the Great Exhibition Ancient Macedonia October 13, 2011–January 16, 2012 Napoleon Hall This exhibition curated by a Greek and French team of specialists brings together five hundred works tracing the history of ancient Macedonia from the fifteenth century B.C. up to the Roman Empire. Visitors are invited to explore the rich artistic heritage of northern Greece, many of whose treasures are still little known to the general public, due to the relatively recent nature of archaeological discoveries in this area. It was not until 1977, when several royal sepulchral monuments were unearthed at Vergina, among them the unopened tomb of Philip II, Alexander the Great’s father, that the full archaeological potential of this region was realized. Further excavations at this prestigious site, now identified with Aegae, the first capital of ancient Macedonia, resulted in a number of other important discoveries, including a puzzling burial site revealed in 2008, which will in all likelihood entail revisions in our knowledge of ancient history. With shrewd political skill, ancient Macedonia’s rulers, of whom Alexander the Great remains the best known, orchestrated the rise of Macedon from a small kingdom into one which came to dominate the entire Hellenic world, before defeating the Persian Empire and conquering lands as far away as India.
    [Show full text]
  • Greek Painting and the Challene of Mimesis
    CHAPTER 14 Greek Painting and the Challenge of Mimesis̄ Hariclia Brecoulaki A pigeon had grown very thirsty, so she flew from place to place looking for some water to drink. She saw a water jar painted on a wall and thought that it was actually full of water, so she flew right into the wall in order to take a drink. Aesop, Fables 431, The Pigeon and the Painting Introduction: The School of Sicyon, Chrestographiā , and “undecaying beauty” The city of Sicyon, known for centuries for her famous school of arts (Strabo VIII, 6, 23; Plut. Arat. 12), auctioned her public painting collection to pay debts to Rome sometime in the second half of the first century BC (Cic. Ad Att. I, 19.9; 20.4). The paintings were acquired by the Roman aedile Aemilius Scaurus in 58 BC and exhibited at the wooden theater in the Campus Martius (Pliny, NH 35.127). Numerous wooden panels were seized as war booty from Greek cities or purchased to decorate public and private buildings in Rome (Raoul Rochette 1836; Carey 2004; Rouveret 2007a). However, the paintings created by the Sicyonian masters seem to have been the most prized ones. The orator Hortensius paid 114,000 sesterces to buy the Argonauts of Cydias and made a shrine for its display at his villa at Tusculum (Pliny, NH 35.130). Augustus paid the city of Cos a hundred talents to carry Apelles’ legendary Anadyomene off to Rome, where it was dedicated in the Shrine of his father Caesar (Pliny, NH 35.91). Following the conquest of Egypt, he transferred many of Apelles’ paintings, together with the wooden panels that originally decorated Alexander’s funerary cart (Diod.
    [Show full text]
  • Zeus in Exile: Archaeological Restitution As Politics of Memory
    Working Paper Series, 13 Zeus in Exile: Archaeological Restitution as Politics of Memory S.M. Can Bilsel Working Paper #13, Fall 2000 Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies [email protected] (609) 258-5180) The Zeus Altar of Pergamon in Berlin Overshadowed by the debates on the Holocaust Memorial or the fate of the Berlin Wall, the reunification of archaeological collections in Berlin nevertheless poses an international problem. The question is, in a way, analogous to the current sensibilities about the future of memory, as it was called by a recent conference at Princeton University. How will the past will be framed and commemorated in a reunified Germany; what constitutes the cultural heritage of the new Berlin Republic? As Berlin assumes the role of the capital, both official and popular approaches to memory of the recent past gain a vital importance. Curiously, an internationally recognized effort on the part of the federal government to commemorate the victims of the Nazi regime goes hand in hand with a systematic repression of the more recent East German past. As the American-style malls and corporate headquarters of the Postdamer Platz, once the busiest center of Europe, celebrate the victors of the Cold War, the institutions of the East German Republic are being erased from the city. New Berlin will be a city of memory, as evident in its memorials and museums. Yet it will also remain a site of amnesia and forgetting. This paper will discuss Berlin’s contested Zeus Altar and its role as a collectively negotiated construct of memory.
    [Show full text]
  • It's Role in Greek Society
    The Development of Greek Theatre And It’s Role in Greek Society Egyptian Drama • Ancient Egyptians first to write drama. •King Menes (Narmer) of the 32 nd C. BC. •1st dramatic text along mans’s history on earth. •This text called,”the Memphis drama”. •Memphis; Egypt’s capital King Memes( Narmer) King Menes EGYPT King Menes unites Lower and Upper Egypt into one great 30 civilization. Menes 00 was the first Pharaoh. B The Egyptian civilization was a C great civilization that lasted for about 3,000 years. FROM EGYPT TO GREECE •8500 BC: Primitive tribal dance and ritual. •3100 BC: Egyption coronation play. •2750 BC: Egyption Ritual dramas. •2500 BC: Shamanism ritual. •1887 BC: Passion Play of Abydos. •800 BC: Dramatic Dance •600 BC: Myth and Storytelling: Greek Theatre starts. THE ROLE OF THEATRE IN ANCIENT SOCIETY This is about the way theatre was received and the influence it had. The question is of the place given To theatre by ancient society, the place it had in people ’s lives. The use to which theatre was put at this period was new. “Theatre became an identifier of Greeks as compared to foreigners and a setting in which Greeks emphasized their common identity. Small wonder that Alexander staged a major theatrical event in Tyre in 331 BC and it must have been an act calculated in these terms. It could hardly have meaning for the local population. From there, theatre became a reference point throughout the remainder of antiquity ”. (J.R. Green) Tyre Tyre (Latin Tyrus; Hebrew Zor ), the most important city of ancient Phoenicia, located at the site of present-day Sûr in southern Lebanon.
    [Show full text]
  • The Education of Artists in Ancient Greece
    Hyperboreus 18:1 (2012) Antonio Corso THE EDUCATION OF ARTISTS IN ANCIENT GREECE Introductory Remarks The aim of this article is to collect the written evidence which may help us to understand what type of education and training ancient Greek artists enjoyed throughout the different ages and in the most important artistic centres. As I shall point out several documents may be also enlightening about the relations between masters and pupils and may indicate the infl uence of philosophical ideas on this phenomenon. I believe that this topic has been little studied and that several relevant sources have not yet been fully used in order to enhance our knowledge of this issue.1 These considerations hopefully justify the present study of this topic. Masters and pupils in the workshops of artists of archaic Greece In archaic Greece the rivalry among craftsmen who work with the same materials and the same techniques was very harsh. 1 I delivered lectures on the education of ancient Greek artists in the University of Pavia in March, 2007 as well as at Saint-Petersburg, in the Bibliotheca Classica, in September, 2007. I thank Prof. Harari, who invited me to deliver my lecture in Pavia, as well as Profs. Kazansky, Gavrilov, Verlinsky, who encouraged me to talk about the results of my research in Saint-Petersburg. About workshops in ancient Greece, see S. Nolte, Steinbruch – Werkstatt – Skulptur (Göttingen 2006) 9–303 who cites the most important previous bibliography. About workshops of painters see A. Anguissola, “La bottega dell’artista”, in: C. Gallazzi and S. Settis (eds.), Le tre vite del Papiro di Artemidoro (Milan 2006) 124–131 with relevant previous bibliography.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Mythology Ancestry
    GRANHOLM GENEALOGY EARLY MYTHOLOGY ANCESTRY 1 INTRODUCTION This book covers the earliest history of man and the mythology in some countries. The beginning from Adam and Eve and their descendants is from the Old Testament, but also by several authors and genealogy programs. The age of the persons in the lineages in Genesis is expressed in their “years”, which has little to do with the reality of our 365-day years. I have chosen one such program as a starting point for this book. Several others have been used, and as can be expected, there are a lot of conflicting information, from which I have had to choose as best I can. It is fairly well laid out so the specific information is suitable for print. In addition, the lineage information shown covers the biblical information, fairly close to the Genesis, and it also leads to both to mythical and historical persons in several countries. Where myth turns into history is up to the reader’s imagination. This book lists individuals from Adam and Eve to King Alfred the Great of England. Between these are some mythical figures on which the Greek (similar to Roman) mythology is based beginning with Zeus and the Nordic (Anglo-Saxon) mythology beginning with Odin (Woden). These persons, in their national mythologies, have different ancestors than the biblical ones. More about the Nordic mythology is covered in the “Swedish Royal Ancestry, Book 1”. Of additional interest is the similarity of the initial creation between the Greek and the Finnish mythology in its national Kalevala epos, from which a couple of samples are included here.
    [Show full text]
  • STUDIES in the DEVELOPMENT of ROYAL AUTHORITY in ARGEAD MACEDONIA WILLIAM STEVEN GREENWALT Annandale, Virginia B.A., University
    STUDIES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ROYAL AUTHORITY IN ARGEAD MACEDONIA WILLIAM STEVEN GREENWALT Annandale, Virginia B.A., University of Virginia, 1975 M.A., University of Virginia, 1978 A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Corcoran Department of History University of Virginia May, ABSTRACT This dissertation examines the elements which defined Argead kingship from the mid-seventh until the late fourth centuries B.C. It begins by reviewing the Argead king list where it is argued that the official reckoning of the dynasty's past was exploited in order to secure the throne against rivals, including those who were Argeads. Chapter Two analyzes the principles of Argead succession and concludes that the current theories on the subject are unsatisfactory in face of the e v id enc e. Ra the r, the sources suggest that Argead succession was a function of status where many ingredients were considered before a candidate 1 eg it ima te 1 y ass urned the throne. Among the factors influencing the selection were, the status of a potential heir's mother, age, competence, order of birth, and in lieu of father to son succession, relation to the late monarch. Chapter Three outlines the development of the king's military, judicial, economic, and social responsibilities from the personal monarchy of the early period to the increa~ingly centralized realm of the fourth century. Chapter Four concentrates on the religious aspects of Argead kingship, reviewing the monarch's religious duties· and interpreting a widespread foundation myth as an attempt to distinguish Argead status by its divine origin and its specific cult responsibilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Pindar, Sappho, and Alexandrian Editions Enrico Emanuele Prodi
    Text as Paratext: Pindar, Sappho, and Alexandrian Editions Enrico Emanuele Prodi HAT LITTLE SURVIVES of the archaic Greek lyricists has come down to us as bare text, shorn of music, Wdance, location, ambience, occasion, ceremony.1 Our texts ultimately go back to Alexandria and the late third century B.C., when the scholars of the Museum compiled what were to become the canonical editions of those poets; and what those editions preserved and enabled to circulate anew throughout the Greek-speaking world were written words alone. But that from sung spectacle to written text, from body and voice to papyrus and ink, was not the only change of state to which lyric poetry was subjected between the archaic and the Hellenistic age. Another, equally momentous transforma- tion took place: individual compositions which were originally independent of, and unrelated to, one another became joined together in a fixed sequence as constituents of a larger unit, the book.2 Lyric was not the only kind of poetry that was affected by this 1 Fragments of Pindar are cited from Snell-Maehler, fragments of Sappho and Alcaeus from Voigt. All translations are my own. 2 G. O. Hutchinson, “Doing Things with Books,” Talking Books: Readings in Hellenistic and Roman Books of Poetry (Oxford 2008) 1–2, cf. 4–15. On ancient poetry books see also J. van Sickle, “The Book-Roll and Some Conventions of the Poetic Book,” Arethusa 13 (1980) 5–42. The interrelation between Pindaric song and the materiality of the book is now the subject of T. Phillips, Pindar’s Library: Performance Poetry and Material Texts (Oxford 2016), a volume I was regrettably unable to consult until rather late in the composition of the present article.
    [Show full text]