scholarly journals Typhoeus and Etna in Hesiod, Pindar, and (Pseudo-)Aeschylus

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno Currie
Keyword(s):  
Eighth Century ◽  
Fifth Century ◽  
Mount Etna ◽  
The West ◽  
Prometheus Bound ◽  
Canonical Status

This paper discusses the suspected reading †ἀïδνῆς in Hes. Theog. 860 and proposes the emendation οὔρεος ἐν βήσσῃς, <ε>ἰν Αἴτνῃ παιπαλοέσσῃ. The interpretative consequences of thus introducing into the text a reference to Mount Etna are then explored. The immediately following passage, ll. 861-867, is reinterpreted in the light of a preceding reference to the Sicilian volcano. Not only Hesiod, but also Homer is argued to have knowledge of volcanism. Hesiod’s simple, unelaborated reference to Typhoeus’ defeat at Mount Etna implies that the association of Typhoeus with Mount Etna was made by Greeks before Hesiod; it can plausibly be connected to Greek colonising or proto-colonising activity in the eighth century BCE. The Typhonomachy would be only one of several mythological episodes in early Greek hexameter poetry to be localised in the West. Finally, the arguable presence of the Typhoeus-Etna link in Hesiod’s Theogony significantly increases the likelihood that the closely related descriptions of Typhoeus in passages of Pindar (from Pyth. 1, Pyth. 8, Ol. 4, and frr. 92-3 Maehler) and the (Pseudo-)Aeschylean Prometheus Bound do not depend on each other, but on a lost early hexameter account of the Typhonomachy (perhaps, but not necessarily, the Cyclical Titanomachy) that had attained canonical status by the fifth century BCE. Thus also one popular argument for a late dating of the Prometheus Bound, and for its non-Aeschylean authorship, would need to be discarded.

Regional identities Angles and Saxons?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Rippon
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Material Culture ◽  
Eighth Century ◽  
Fifth Century ◽  
Archaeological Record ◽  
Anglo Saxon ◽  
The West ◽  
East Anglia ◽  
Southern Scandinavia ◽  
Burial Rites

Writing in the early eighth century, Bede described how three separate peoples— the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes—had settled in Britain some three hundred years earlier, and ever since the genesis of ‘Anglo-Saxon’ scholarship in the nineteenth century archaeologists have sought to identify discrete areas of Anglian, Saxon, and Jutish settlement (e.g. Leeds 1912; 1936; 1945; Fox 1923, 284–95). The identification of these peoples was based upon different artefact styles and burial rites, with most attention being paid to brooches. The degree of variation in the composition of brooch assemblages across eastern England is shown in Table 9.1. Cruciform brooches with cast side knobs, for example, were thought to have been ‘Anglian’, and saucer brooches ‘Saxon’ (although even in the early twentieth century Leeds (1912) had started to doubt the attribution of applied brooches to the West Saxons). In recent years, however, this traditional ‘culturehistorical’ approach towards interpreting the archaeological record has been questioned, as it is now recognized that, rather than being imported from mainland Europe during the early to mid fifth century, regional differences in artefact assemblages emerged over the course of the late fifth to late sixth centuries (e.g. Hines 1984; 1999; Hilund Nielsen 1995; Lucy 2000; Owen- Crocker 2004; 2011; Penn and Brugmann 2007; Walton Rogers 2007; Brugmann 2011; Dickinson 2011; Hills 2011). In early to mid fifth-century England, in contrast, it now appears that Germanic material culture was in fact relatively homogeneous, with objects typical of ‘Saxon’ areas on the continent being found in so-called ‘Anglian’ areas of England, and vice versa. The earliest material from East Anglia, for example—equal-arm, supporting-arm, and early cruciform brooches—are most closely paralleled in the Lower Elbe region of Saxony, with the distinctive ‘Anglian’ identity of EastAnglia onlyemerging through later contact with southern Scandinavia (Hines 1984; Carver 1989, 147, 152; Hills and Lucy 2013, 38–9). Indeed, many elements of the classic suite of early Anglo-Saxon material culture actually developed within Britain as opposed to having been created on the continent (Hills 2003, 104–7; Owen-Crocker 2004, 13), with new identities beingmade in Britain rather than being imported frommainland Europe (Hills 2011, 10).

Dis-integration, 400–600

The Great Sea ◽  
2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Abulafia
Keyword(s):  
Roman Empire ◽  
Eighth Century ◽  
Fifth Century ◽  
Seventh Century ◽  
The West ◽  
Long Period ◽  
Old Order ◽  
The Mediterranean ◽  
The Government ◽  
The City

Ever since Edward Gibbon wrote his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire the question why, when and indeed whether this great Roman Empire fell has been vigorously pursued by historians. It has been observed that at least 210 explanations have been offered, some frankly ridiculous (‘Semitization’, homosexuality, decline in manliness). The argument that it was the barbarian invasions that destroyed Rome – both the city and its empire – lost favour and has returned to favour. Some historians have insisted that the whole concept of the ‘fall of Rome’ is a misconception, and have emphasized the continuity of the Roman inheritance. Yet from a Mediterranean perspective, it is abundantly clear that the unity of the Great Sea had been shattered by 800. That leaves several centuries in which to place the process of disintegration, and several suspects: the Germanic barbarians in the fifth century and after, the Arab conquerors in the seventh century, Charlemagne and his Frankish armies in the eighth century, not to mention internal strife as Roman generals competed for power, either seeking regional dominions or the crown of the empire itself. Evidently there was no single ‘cause’ for the decline of Rome, and it was precisely the accumulation of dozens of problems that brought the old order to an end, rupturing the ‘Second Mediterranean’. During the long period from 400 to 800, the Mediterranean split apart economically and also politically: the Roman emperors saw that the task of governing the Mediterranean lands and vast tracts of Europe west of the Rhine and south of the Danube exceeded the capacity of one man. Diocletian, ruling from 284 onwards, based himself in the east at Nikomedeia, and entrusted the government of the empire to a team of co-emperors, first another ‘Augustus’ in the west, and then, from 293 to 305, two deputies or ‘Caesars’ as well, a system known as the Tetrarchy.

Capital Scripts

2020 ◽  
pp. 78-97
Author(s):  
David Wright
Keyword(s):  
Eighth Century ◽  
Fifth Century ◽  
Second Century ◽  
Sixth Century ◽  
Augustan Era

This chapter surveys capital letterforms, which have been in use from the second century BC until the present day. It defines two types of capitals in use since the Augustan Era: formal Square Capitals and informal Rustic Capitals, and traces the development of Rustic Capitals as a text hand in manuscripts of classical authors until the sixth century AD as well as the use of Square Capitals until the late fifth century AD. It closes with a look at the use of Rustic Capitals in rubrics of eighth-century manuscripts from England, and Rustic and Square Capitals found in Carolingian contexts.

Naming the West and Making a Name: The Reputations of Bierstadt and Twain

Prospects ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 93-123
Author(s):  
Lee Clark Mitchell
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Mark Twain ◽  
The West ◽  
The Right ◽  
Canonical Status

In the mid-1860s, with the nation immured in a devastating Civil War, two artists emerged as the premier representatives of America's Far West. Albert Bierstadt (1830–1902) and Mark Twain (1835–1910) captured the nation's imagination with images that challenged ideas about the West as well as about art itself. In little more than a decade, however, Bierstadt's paintings were being ignored while Twain's name began to acquire something of its present canonical status. Unremarkable as this divergence in reputations may seem today (when “fifteen minutes of fame” has been promised to every one of us), a century ago Warhol's prediction would have been inconceivable. That in itself makes the receptions first accorded Bierstadt and Twain as interesting as the dramatic divergence later taken in their careers. What was it, one might well ask, that so appealed to contemporaries, and why should Bierstadt's success so quickly have palled while Twain's only continued to grow?The question encourages us to transgress the boundaries that separate painting from writing, to shift attention from a given medium onto the larger process by which popularity is won. One of the questions that then emerges is whether artists acclaimed in different media make similar demands upon their audience. Do a certain set of common standards, that is, shape an artist's reception, much as they more self-consciously dictate assessments that scholars will make later on? Or is it simply a matter of being in the right artistic place at the right cultural time? Certainly, the receptions accorded Bierstadt and Twain suggest that the former is true -indeed, that in their case a forceful aesthetic logic was at work.

The Date of the Mosaics of the Rotunda at Thessaloniki

1970 ◽  
Vol 38 ◽  
pp. 183-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Vickers
Keyword(s):  
Eighth Century ◽  
Fifth Century ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Main Body ◽  
The South ◽  
East And West ◽  
The City ◽  
The Church

In a recent important article on the mosaics of the basilica of St. Demetrius at Thessaloniki, R. S. Cormack proposes a list of churches in the city with mosaics ‘for which a late fifth century date must be considered.’ The list comprises the Acheiropoietos basilica, the first phase of the basilica of St. Demetrius, and Hosios David. The purpose of this article is to show that the mosaics of the second phase of the Rotunda (now known as the church of St. George) should be included in Cormack's list.The first thing to note about the Rotunda mosaics is that there has been less than unanimity concerning the date of their construction. Volbach, Lazarev and Cormack, amongst others, follow Dyggve and Torp in dating the mosaics to c. 400 or slightly earlier; Diehl and Dalton dated them to the fifth century, Weigand to the sixth and Holtzinger to the seventh or eighth century, all on largely stylistic grounds. What are obviously needed are some objective dating criteria, and these are to be found, not so much in the mosaics themselves, but rather in the building fabric and the furniture of the converted Rotunda. The conversion of the Rotunda, incidentally, consisted of the blocking of an opaion in the cupola and the addition of an ambulatory, a monumental entrance to the south, an apse to the east (Plate XXIII) and various subsidiary buildings to east and west. The mosaics were placed in the cupola and in the niches which connected the main body of the Rotunda with the ambulatory.

Transformations of Identities

2020 ◽  
pp. 97-116
Author(s):  
Magali Coumert
Keyword(s):  
Civil Wars ◽  
Eighth Century ◽  
Fifth Century ◽  
Seventh Century ◽  
Specific Group ◽  
Specific Context ◽  
Royal Authority ◽  
Place Of Origin ◽  
Made In

Ethnogenesis theory has brought about a seminal shift in research on ethnic identities. This chapter maps the fluidity of Frankish identity in the Merovingian realm, illustrating that the assertion and role of ethnic identity depended on the specific context in which such claims were made. In the fifth century, elite Romans and Franks were open to innovation and local collaborations. As demonstrated by Salic Law, the Merovingians built their kingdom on territorial authority. Only after 580 did they choose to be linked with the Franks as a specific group, in the context of the civil wars and the partition of the territory among different kings. From the seventh century, the Merovingian kings voluntarily increased the legal diversity inherited from the conquests with laws for specific groups, like the Lex Ribuaria, distinguished by their place of origin. This custom highlighted royal authority as well as autonomy within the kingdom. Interest in the gens Francorum grew in parallel. The eighth century brought a new unification of the Franks with Merovingian and Pippinid leaders.

Athens Honours Proxenos (IG i2. 146)

1974 ◽  
Vol 69 ◽  
pp. 295-298
Author(s):  
Michael B. Walbank
Keyword(s):  
West Coast ◽  
Fifth Century ◽  
Small Island ◽  
The South ◽  
The West ◽  
South West

This document is one of a number of Attic proxeny-decrees that A. G. Woodhead considered to be evidence for Athenian concern with the south-west Aegean towards the end of the fifth century B.C. He identified the honorand Proxenos as a native of Chalke, a small island off the west coast of Rhodes. I share the view of J. and L. Robert that Woodhead has not proved his case either for the date or for the ethnic.The inscription is non-stoichedon, its engraving inexpert and careless, with several mistakes untidily erased and corrected. There is a mixture of Attic and Ionic letter-forms in the first three lines (gamma, eta, and lambda are Ionic, while xi is written chi sigma); otherwise the lettering is Attic, indicating a date before 403 B.C.

The Saxon Culture-Sequence at Portchester Castle

1970 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry Cunliffe
Keyword(s):  
Tenth Century ◽  
Eighth Century ◽  
Fifth Century ◽  
Seventh Century ◽  
Sixth Century ◽  
Isle Of Wight ◽  
Glass Vessel ◽  
Local Tradition ◽  
Culture Sequence ◽  
Made In

SummaryExcavations at Portchester Castle have produced evidence of occupation throughout the Saxon period. After the cessation of standard Roman wares and local hand-made types early in the fifth century two Grubenhäuser were built. The contemporary assemblage, assignable to the mid fifth century, included (?) imported carinated bowls and local hand-made grass-tempered wares made in the Roman tradition. Late in the fifth or early in the sixth century stamped Saxon urns appear and probably continue, alongside the grass-tempered tradition, into the seventh century. An association of a grass-tempered pot with an imported glass vessel of eighth-century date shows that the local tradition persisted, but by the middle of the eighth century hand-made jars in gritty fabrics, like those from Hamwih, appear in a substantial rubbish deposit which belongs to the initial occupation of the hall complex. By the tenth century a new style of wheel-thrown pottery, called here Portchester ware, is dominant. It is mass produced and distributed largely from the Isle of Wight to central Hampshire and from the Sussex border to the River Mean. Contemporary forms include imported wares, green-glazed pitchers, pots from the Chichester region, and an assemblage made in a wheel-made continuation of the local gritty-fabric tradition. Portchester ware had gone out of use by 1100 at the latest.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document