ANALECTA ROMANA INSTITUTI DANICI XLIV © 2020 Accademia Di Danimarca ISSN 2035-2506
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ANALECTA ROMANA INSTITUTI DANICI XLIV ANALECTA ROMANA INSTITUTI DANICI XLIV 2019 ROMAE MMXX ANALECTA ROMANA INSTITUTI DANICI XLIV © 2020 Accademia di Danimarca ISSN 2035-2506 SCIENTIFIC BOARD Mads Kähler Holst (Bestyrelsesformand, Det Danske Institut i Rom) Jens Bertelsen (Bertelsen & Scheving Arkitekter) Iben Fonnesberg-Schmidt (Aalborg Universitet) Karina Lykke Grand (Aarhus Universitet) Thomas Harder (Forfatter/writer/scrittore) Morten Heiberg (Københavns Universitet) Hanne Jansen (Københavns Universitet) Erik Vilstrup Lorenzen (Den Danske Ambassade i Rom) Mogens Nykjær (Aarhus Universitet) Vinnie Nørskov (Aarhus Universitet) Niels Rosing-Schow (Det Kgl. Danske Musikkonservatorium) Erling Strudsholm (Københavns Universitet) Lene Østermark-Johansen (Københavns Universitet) EDITORIAL BOARD Marianne Pade (Chair of Editorial Board, Det Danske Institut i Rom - 31.08.19) Charlotte Bundgaard (Chair of Editorial Board, Det Danske Institut i Rom) Patrick Kragelund (Danmarks Kunstbibliotek) Sine Grove Saxkjær (Det Danske Institut i Rom) Gert Sørensen (Københavns Universitet) Anna Wegener (Det Danske Institut i Rom) Maria Adelaide Zocchi (Det Danske Institut i Rom) Analecta Romana Instituti Danici. — Vol. I (1960) — . Copenhagen: Munksgaard. From 1985: Rome, «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider. From 2007 (online): Accademia di Danimarca. ANALECTA ROMANA INSTITUTI DANICI encourages scholarly contributions within the Academy’s research fields. All contributions will be peer reviewed. Manuscripts to be considered for publication should be sent to: [email protected] Authors are requested to consult the journal’s guidelines: www.acdan.it Contents SIGNE BUCCARELLA HEDEGAARD & CECILIE BRØNS: Lost in Translation: An Introduction to the Challenging Task of Communicating Long-lost Polychromy on Graeco - Roman Marble Sculptures 7 LÆRKE MARIA ANDERSEN FUNDER: Continuity and Reception: The Life of the Spinario 29 CLAUS ASBJØRN ANDERSEN: What is Metaphysics in Baroque Scotism? Key Passages from Bartolomeo Matri’s Disputations on Metaphysics (1646-1647) 49 COSTANTINO CECCANTI: “Andre udmærkede Bygmestre”: Hermann Baagøe Storck e lo stile toscano nella Danimarca dell’Ottocento 73 Philology Then and Now Proceedings of the Conference held at the Danish Academy in Rome, 16 July 2019 INTRODUCTION: Making Sense of Texts: From Early Modern to Contemporary Philology 95 MINNA SKAFTE JENSEN: The Emic-Etic Distinction: a Tool in Neo-Latin Research? 99 ŠIME DEMO: Getting Help from a Daughter: Linguistic Methodology and Early Modern Philology 113 PAOLO MONELLA: A Digital Critical Edition Model for Priscian: Glosses, Graeca, Quotations 135 JOHANN RAMMINGER: Stylometry in a Language without Native Speakers: A Test Case from Early Modern Latin 151 MARIANNE PADE: Imitation and Intertextaulity in Humanist Translation 169 JULIA HAIGH GAISSER: Philology and Poetry in the Humanism of Giovanni Pontano 187 KAREN SKOVGAARD-PETERSEN: Philological Pessimism: Henrik Ernst’s Treatise on Textual Criiticism (1652) 205 TRINE ARLUND HASS: The Meaning of Jul (Christmas) according to Pontanus, Vedel and Worm: Etymology, Controversy, and Foundation Myths of the Danes 217 Report JAN KINDBERG JACOBSEN, CLAUDIO PARISI PRESICCE, RUBINA RAJA & MASSIMO VITTI: Excavating Caesar’s Forum: Present Results of the Caesar’s Forum Project 239 Continuity and Reception: The Life of the Spinario* by LÆRKE MARIA ANDERSEN FUNDER Abstract. In this paper the author constructs an object biography of the Spinario, a Roman bronze sculpture from the first century AD. In so doing, the paper will highlight the importance of a contextualizing approach to the study of the pivotal moments that have affected the reception of the Spinario from the Renaissance up to the present. The understanding of the reception of the Spinario has hitherto hinged upon a perceived total discontinuity between the medieval interpretations of the piece (which allegedly cast it as a symbol of pagan idolatry) and the Renaissance interpretation (which viewed the Spinario as a purely aesthetic object). Based on contemporary written and visual sources for the reception of the Spinario during successive periods, this paper shall argue that the bucolic connotations that attached to the Spinario in the medieval period were instrumental in propelling the piece to widespread fame in the Renaissance, making it a fitting material element in a cultural landscape influenced by bucolic poetry. The author then explores the afterlife of the bucolic frame of interpretation up until the present, to show how the shifting material and literary contexts of the Spinario created separate spheres of reception, leading to rather different interpretations in differing contexts. The Spinario – the “Boy with Thorn” – was a mythological or heroic motif, nor was it not only one of the most popular antique discovered under fortuitous circumstances. It pieces in the Renaissance; it entered the is one of the only pieces of bronze sculpture Renaissance having already acquired a long that simply has remained above ground since history that impacted on its reception during its birth in antiquity. Today, it can be found that period.1 The Spinario was part of the in the Hall of the Triumphs at the Capitoline group of bronzes that in 1471 were moved Museums (inv. no MC1186). from the Lateran Palace in Rome to the The Spinario offers us no detailed account Capitol, given back to the people of the city by of its long life before its sudden burst to Pope Sixtus the IV (Fig. 1). Over the next two fame in the late fifteenth century. Indeed, it centuries, the Spinario became an extremely has been proposed that the popularity of the popular motif among collectors, artists and Spinario can in fact be attributed to this state intellectuals. It was replicated in miniature, of “anonymity”: that the statue’s origins were sculpture, plaster casts and drawings, and lost in history made it an easily mouldable reinterpreted by contemporary artists.2 Unlike image suited to a range of interpretations, other sculptures that gained fame in the and furthermore allowed for a heightened same period, the Spinario does not represent focus on its aesthetic qualities.3 A study of the * This paper was written as part of the project Cul- ancient art, see McHam 2013; Bober & Rubenstein tural Encounter as a Precondition for European Identity 2011; Haskell 1995. funded by the Carlsberg Foundation. 2 Helmstutler di Dio & Coppel 2016, 16. 1 For an overview of the Renaissance reception of 3 Barkan 1999, 150. 30 LÆRKE MARIA ANDERSEN FUNDER Spinario in the Middle Ages. Through a critical engagement with these three studies, I shall explore what the implications might be of a change in our understanding of the Spinario’s medieval reception on our understanding of its interpretative potential in the Renaissance. I shall argue that the most significant context of interpretation was formed in the late fifteenth century, leading to a substantial shift in cultural context, which changed the medieval perception of the Spinario as a symbol-laden genre figure into a unique object with its own set of connotations. I will trace how this specific layer of interpretation was challenged and transformed in two later significant moments in the Spinario’s life: the development of the discipline of classical archaeology in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and the modern interpretation of the sculpture in the Capitoline Museums. Through analyses of visual and textual sources, I will create an object biography of the Fig. 1. “The Spinario” in the Hall of the Triumphs, Spinario. The biographical method implies The Capitoline Museums (inv. no. MC1186). Roman, 1st cent BC.-1st cent AD. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons. that objects accumulate meanings over time. Courtesy of Jean-Pol Grandmont, 2013). Because the loss or conservation of these meanings is essential to the meaning-making Renaissance sources on the Spinario, however, abilities of the objects in a new context,5 indicates that it was anything but anonymous. the biographical approach highlights the The reception of the Spinario has been subject renegotiations of meaning that take place to three studies. W. S. Heckscher’s analysis of when objects are moved from one cultural 1955 of the reception of the Spinario in the context to another. It conceives objects “as Middle Ages greatly affected interpretations a culturally constructed entity, endowed with of the sculpture in subsequent research.4 culturally specific meanings and classified Gerhard Schweickhart built his 1977 study and reclassified into culturally constituted of the Renaissance reception of the Spinario categories”.6 The biographical approach on Heckscher’s conclusions, which deeply acknowledges that the interpretation of an influenced his hypothesis regarding the object always reveals just one of many aspects Renaissance interpretation of the sculpture. of its total biography. The insistence of the Rita Amedick’s study of 2005, however, object biography method on meaning as challenges both Heckscher’s and Schweickhart’s contextual and subject to change makes it a conclusions about the interpretation of the fitting methodology for exploring the dynamic 4 Heckscher 1955a and Heckscher 1955b; Panofsky to their cultural context and use. In their seminal 1972; Barkan 1999, 148–153. publication of 1999, Gosden and Marshall showed 5 Benzecry 2015. Kopytoff 1986 introduced the con- the potential of this approach in archaeology. cept of the “cultural biography of things”, where 6 Kopytoff 1986, 6. he showed that the meaning