Greek Mosaics

1965 ◽  
Vol 85 ◽  
pp. 72-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Robertson

The curious art of mosaic had one period of splendour: the Byzantine empire; and that art was assuredly Greek. The Greek mosaics of my title, however, are the much more humdrum productions of an earlier age. In mosaic, even more than in other arts, it is hard to draw the line between Greek and Roman, but this provisional survey of early development hardly reaches a point where that comes in question. I am not concerned with Pompeii, and little with Delos, Pergamon or even Sicily; a trifle more with Alexandria; but primarily with the pebble-mosaics of the fourth century, though looking forward as well as back. The earliest pebble-mosaics are of a simple, decorative character; later they become much more pictorial and sophisticated. The later pieces are of the greatest interest to the art-historian, but may trouble the art-critic. Mosaic by its nature is essentially an art of decoration, and can only achieve real greatness in an aesthetic ambience where purely decorative values are dominant, as they were in Byzantium; not in the Greco-Roman world, where, as in the Renaissance, half the artist's excitement comes from wrestling with the representation of nature.Technically the pebble-mosaics of which I shall be speaking are all set in approximately the same way: a layer of coarse cement or plaster as a foundation, and above that one of finer quality into which the pebbles are pressed. Presumably the mosaicist, like the fresco-painter with his top coat of plaster, laid only so much of the fine layer at a time as he could adorn before it hardened; and as the fresco-painter normally worked down the wall, the mosaicist, I suppose, worked from one edge, moving backwards across the already hard surface of the coarse cement, laying the fine and setting the pebbles in it. In Renaissance fresco-painting the artist often drew asinopiaor outline of the composition on the under-plaster, to guide him as he painted the wet plaster with which he gradually covered it. Traces of such guides have been observed by the excavators under mosaic-floors at Pella. One would guess that it was normal practice, and that the mosaicist working on any but the very simplest pattern-design must also have followed a cartoon, but of what nature we have no idea.

1997 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heleen M. Keizer

The Christian church had its early development in the Hellenistic, Greco-Roman world and for that reason it can certainly be stated that the church was “Hellenized”. But how should we define this Hellenization? And what should be our judgement of it? The collection of essays entitled Hellenization revisited centers on an important theme.


1996 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter Scheidel

How can these ideas be linked to the ancient sources? Focusing first of all on women's contribution to arable cultivation and arboriculture, we immediately face the first of many blanks. To the best of my knowledge, we do not have any explicit evidence of ploughing by women in the Greco-Roman world. Only two lines from Hesiod's Works and Days seem to establish a connection between women and ploughing: according to Hesiod, a proper head of a household would need ‘first of all a house, and then a woman and oxen for ploughing – a slave woman, not a wife, to follow the oxen [or: to care for the oxen]’ (405 f.). In the fourth century B.C., however, the second line that specifies the status and the function of the desired woman was apparently not yet part of the received text, since Aristotle could still regard her as a free woman (Pol. 1252a llff). Not until the first century B.C. did Philodemos of Gadara quote and defend the reading that defined Hesiod's woman as a slave labourer. Even so, the wording does not make it clear whether this woman was meant to follow the harnessed oxen, that is, to do the ploughing, or to care for the oxen in the stable.


2021 ◽  
pp. 0142064X2110248
Author(s):  
Kyung Min Kim

In 2 Cor. 10–13, Paul tries to prove his authority as a reliable leader by using two different masculinity standards. Paul manifests his power and control over the Corinthian church members by using an image of paterfamilias (11.2-3; 12.14). Paternal control of others was an essential element of hegemonic masculinity in the Greco-Roman world. Moreover, Paul proves his manliness by revealing his endurance and submission to divine authority (11.21b–12.10) according to the Hellenistic Jewish masculinity. I argue that Paul is embedded in these different cultural assumptions regarding masculinity and that he refers to these assumptions to persuade Gentile and Jewish groups in the Corinthian church.


1965 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 381-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deno J. Geanakoplos

In the medieval theocratic societies of both the Byzantine East and the Latin West, where the influence of Christian precepts so strongly pervaded all aspects of life, it was inevitable that the institutions of church and state, of sacerdotium and regnum to use the traditional Latin terms, be closely tied to one another. But whereas in the West, at least after the investiture conflict of the eleventh century, the pope managed to exert a strong political influence over secular rulers, notably the Holy Roman Emperor, in the East, from the very foundation of Constantinople in the fourth century, the Byzantine emperor seemed clearly to dominate over his chief ecclesiastical official, the patriarch.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document