Dionysos van die Parthenon.

Dionysos van die Parthenon.


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


Die Parthenon

Die Parthenon by die Akropolis van Athene.

Die Parthenon by die Akropolis van Athene is 'n Doriese tempel met ioniese argitektoniese kenmerke wat gebou is op die fondamente van die Hecatompedon ontwerp deur Themistocles. Die Parthenon is ontwerp deur Ictinos en Callicrates, die argitekte wat vir Pericles in die Akropolis -rekonstruksie gewerk het. Dit het agt kolomme aan die hoofgevels en 17 kolomme aan elke kant (dit was toe 'n peripterale octostyle -tempel). 'N Eienaardigheid van die Parthenon is dat die kamer agter sy groot cella of opisthodomos was relatief groot.

Plan van die Parthenon wat die rangskikking van die skulpturele versiering van die voorste en metope toon.

Toe die Parthenon gebou is, het die tradisionele Doriese styl tot in die volmaaktheid bereik. Al die tempel se horisontale lyne is effens geboë om die afwykings van perspektief te oorkom. Hierdie feit is in 1847 onthul deur die Engelse argitek Francis Penrose wat beroemd geword het toe hy die geringe kromming van die horisontale lyne in die uitleg van die Parthenon ontdek het. Die gebou is in 12 jaar van 448 tot 437 vC gebou. Die beeldhoukundige versiering was nog nie klaar toe Phidias uit Athene verban is nie, sodat sy dissipels die beelde onder die bevele van Pericles moes voltooi. Phidias, wat eens 'n beeldhouer was wat oorspronklik opgelei is in bronsgietwerk, het in modelle vir die standbeelde van Parthenon wat hy onder sy leiding later in Pentelic marmer ('n soort marmer van die berg Pentelicus gebring) deur sy assistente in klei of gips gemaak het. . Die dekor (wat tussen 447 en 432 uitgevoer is) word versprei in die fasade, die metope, voetstukke en onder die portiek in 'n fries sonder trigliewe wat sonder onderbreking loop. Om baie redes word die Parthenon -beelde beskou as een van die groot artistieke prestasies wat die mensdom behaal het.

Tans lyk al die versiering van Parthenon ’s baie vernietig. Die voorkant van die westelike fasade verteenwoordig die wedstryd tussen Athena en Poseidon om die reg van die stad se beskerming te eis. In hierdie voorblad slaan beide Athena en Poseidon die grond van die Akropolis met hul wapens: die godin laat die olyfboom uit 'n rots spruit terwyl die god die perd 'n kosbare geskenk bied, maar volgens die Atheners minder kosbaar as die boom gegee deur die godin. Hierdie toneel word ook bygewoon deur die eerste semi-goddelike inwoners van Athene, Cecrops en Erechtheus, met hul vroue en kinders.

Heropbou van die westelike voorkant van die Parthenon met die wedstryd tussen Athena en Poseidon.

In sy kronieke het Pausanias gesê dat die beeldhouwerke van die oostelike voorkant die wonderbaarlike geboorte van Athena uit die kop van Zeus verteenwoordig. Die figure in die hoeke van hierdie fronton is die enigste wat oorleef het: die ure en die lotgevalle, gode wat die geboorte en die dood presideer. Die idee van geboorte en dood word uitgebeeld deur die simbole van die son en maan met die koppe van hul strydwaens en#8217 perde in die skerp hoeke van die voorkant. Die grootmaakperde van Helios kondig die dag aan, terwyl dié van Selene (godin van die nag) passief hul kop buig. Athena is gebore in die uur van lig en die dagbreek, soos beskryf deur die beeldhouers van Parthenon. Slegs twee koppe is bewaar uit die standbeelde van die voetstukke van die Parthenon: die een is die van 'n jong man wat leun, gewoonlik aangedui met die naam Theseus of Dionysos, die ander is 'n vroulike kop wat veronderstel is om die van 'n oorwinning te wees dit was eens deel van die oostelike fronton.

Heropbou van die oostelike fronton van die Parthenon wat die geboorte van Athena uit die kop van Zeus verteenwoordig. The Fates: Clotho, Lachesis en Atropos, die drie figure wat aan die regterkant van die oostelike voorkant van die Parthenon (British Museum) sit. Die koue wind van die dood roer die klere van die drie gode. Die oorblywende standbeelde van die regterkantste hoek van die oostelike voorkant van die Parthenon. Van links na regs: Helios (Sun) in sy wa, Dionysos of Theseus, Demeter en Kore, en Artemis (British Museum). Perdekop uit die strydwa van Selene, beeldhouwerk uit die linkerhoek van die oostelike voorkant van die Parthenon (British Museum). Dionysos of Theseus, beeldhouwerk uit die oostelike fronton van die Parthenon.

Die metodes van die vier fasades bestaan ​​uit 'n reeks van 92 vierkante in hoë reliëf waar verskillende tonele voorgestel is: die gevegte van die Atheners teen die Centaurs, die Amazones en die barbaarse Grieke van Asië tydens die Trojaanse Oorlog.

In die suidelike metope van die Parthenon het Phidias die gevegte tussen Centaurs en Lapiths of Centauromachy uitgebeeld (Metope No. 30, Louvre).

In teenstelling met hierdie heroïese komposisies, was onder die groot portiek 'n beroemde fries wat 'n optog verteenwoordig waarin alle burgers van Athene aan 'n parade deelgeneem het. Verskillende lede van die sosiale klasse word uitgebeeld: dit was die burgers van Athene wat getrou na die Akropolis -heiligdom gekom het om Athena te aanbid. Hierdie burgerlike seremonie, oftewel Panathenaïese feeste, het elke jaar byeengekom en is deur al die mense van Athene bygewoon. Elke vierde jaar word dieselfde feestelikheid met groter hoogmoed gevier om 'n nuwe kleed of peplos aan die godin. Aanvanklik het die ou hout afgod van Athena 'n nuwe wol peplum nodig gehad, later is hierdie tradisionele gebruik ook waargeneem en die nuwe peplum is aan die priester gegee by die ingang van die Parthenon. Hierdie peplum is toe die hele jaar deur gehang in die cella reg langs die goue en ivoorbeeld van Athena Parthenos wat deur Phidias gevorm is.

Verspreiding van reliëfs langs die fries van die Parthenon. Diagram wat die dwarssnit van die oostelike punt van die Parthenon toon, let op die ligging van die fries tussen die hoofliggaam van die tempel en die metope.

Die fries wat die hele gebou omring het, was 160 meter lank en was in 'n reliëf gegraveer met figure van halfgrootte. Die nuwigheid van hierdie fries lê nie net in die bekendstelling van 'n samestelling van die burgerlike lewe vir die versiering van 'n tempel nie, maar eerder in die naturalisme waarin elke groep burgers verteenwoordig is. Van ou burgers wat mantels dra, die lang rye meisies en matrone, die jong mans wat perdry, die priesters en die burgerlikes tot by die waterdraers, al hierdie mense stap na die oostelike fasade waar die hoofingang van die tempel geleë was en die plek waar die peplos moes aan die godin aangebied word. Pragtig verteenwoordig, in die omgewing van die fries wat ooreenstem met die middel van die fasade, word die parade van die burgers onderbreek en word die kyker skielik na die streke van die Olympus oorgeplaas. Hierdie toneel bevat die figure van die twaalf Griekse hoër gode wat die burgerlike seremonie uit die hemel sou bywoon. Hierdie figure van die Griekse gode is deur Phidias self gemaak.

Detail van die fries van die Ergastines (Louvre) 'n fragment van die Parthenon -fries, wat die dogters verteenwoordig van die beste gesinne van Athene wat die nuwe peplos vir die godin Athena geweef en geborduur het en wat in tou gestap het om dit tydens die Panathenaïese optog aan te bied. Die hydraiphoroi- of hydray-draers (watervaartuigdraers), (Nasionale Museum van Athene), detail van die fries van die Parthenon. Jong ruiters (British Museum), detail van die fries van die Parthenon. Detail van die fries van die Parthenon wat Poseidon, Apollo en Artemis uitbeeld (Akropolis -museum, Athene), die eerste twee gesels leeg terwyl Artemis haar blik elders draai. 'N Volskaalse replika van die oorspronklike Parthenon is geleë in Centennial Park, in Nashville, Tennessee. Die replika is in 1897 gebou as deel van die Tennessee Centennial Exposition.


Wanneer het die bou van die Parthenon begin en geëindig?

Die vraag is daarna: wat is die Parthenon en waarom is dit gebou? Die Parthenon is 'n tempel gewy aan die godin Athena. Die inwoners van Athene gebou die Parthenon in die tyd toe hulle op die hoogtepunt van hul oorheersing was. Die Parthenon was hoofsaaklik gebou as 'n tempel vir die godin Athena, die hoofgod wat die inwoners van Athene aanbid het.

Hoe het die Parthenon gevolglik gelyk toe dit gebou is?

Sit op die heuwel by die Akropolis, die Parthenon was gebou in die middel van die 5de eeu vC om 'n monumentale goue standbeeld van Athena te huisves. Die reuse standbeeld was meer as 12 m hoog en gemaak van gesnyde ivoor en goud, en 1,140 kilo goud, om presies te wees.

Hoe is die kolomme van die Parthenon gebou?

Sy massiewe fondamente was gemaak van kalksteen, en die kolomme was gemaak van Pentelic marmer, 'n materiaal wat vir die eerste keer gebruik is. Die klassieke Parthenon was gebou tussen 447-432 vC die fokuspunt van die Akropolis-gebouekompleks is.


  • Agnós (ἁγνός) - "pur", "sfânt"
  • Ágrios (Ἄγριος) - „care trăiește pe câmpuri”, „sălbatic”, „feroce”
  • Ærívromos (Ἐρίβρομος) - "cel cu răget puternic"
  • Áreios (Ἄρειος) - "războinic"
  • Choroimanes (Χοροιμᾰνής) - "înnebunit după dans"
  • Chrysokeros (Χρῡσόκερως) - „cu coarne de aur”
  • Dimítohr (Διμήτωρ) - "născut de două ori"
  • Evantís (Εὐανθής) - "împodobit cu flori"
  • Efkarpos sau Eukarpos (Εὔκαρπος) - "roditor"

De două ori născut Modificare

Dionis era fiul lui Zeus cu muritoarea Semele, fiica regelui teban Cadmos și a Harmoniei. Se număra, deci, din cea de-a doua generație de said olimpieni. Ons kan ook 'n gegewe rekenaar gebruik om dit te bepaal. Zeus i-a apărut într-adevăr, înconjurat de fulgere și tunete, și i-a cauzat astfel moartea. Zeus kan weer 'n volledige weergawe van die samestelling van 'n nuwe woord vir ons in 'n propria lui coapsă hê, en dit is 'n unieke woord vir Dionis. Astfel, Dionis este cunoscut drept zeul "care s-a născut de două ori". Ca să-și ferească copilul de Hera, Zeus l-a ascuns in casa regelui Athamas și a soției acestuia, Ino. Acolo Dionis a trăit îmbrăcat in haine femeiești pentru a nu fi recunoscut, dar a fost descoperit de Hera și, drept răzbunare, mințile lui Ino și lui Athamas au fost luate. Atunci Zeus îl încredințează pe Dionis prin intermediul lui Hermes nimfelor de la Nisa (vezi și Hyades), mai târziu lui Silen.

Daar is ook 'n alternatiewe weergawe van die gegewens wat ons kan toelaat om 'n enkele lidmaatskap te gee. Numai inima i-a rămas, păstrată de Demetra, Rhea sau Artemis, dini din ea acesta a renăscut. [2]

Mituri Modificare

Ajuns volwasse, el a luat parte la lupta zeilor cu giganții, Gigantomahia, în care l-a ucis pe Euritus cu tirsul său, un toiag încununat de conuri de pin. Voldoen aan legendelor, și-a propagat el însuși cultul, ducându-l din Tracia in întreaga lume, ajungând in Egipt, Siria, Frigia și, in sfârșit, in India.

Pe muritori, zeul îi învață să cultive vița de vie. Daarbenewens kan 'n mens ook 'n gesiggie hê wat jou kan help om meer as een keer te speel. Față de cei care i s-au împotrivit sa arătat crud, luându-le mințile (ca in cazul regilor Lycurg și Pentheus), sau transformându-i in delfini (ca, de exemplu, pe pirații tirenieni care doriseră săîna drumul lui spre India). Die insulasie van Naxos Dionis en die Ariadne, wat die Tezeu-stad verlaat, is ook 'n wonderlike plek. Se spune despre Dionis că a coborât până la urmă și în Infern ca să-și salveze mama. Dit is 'n goeie idee om 'n dubbelbed te kry, maar ons kan ook 'n goeie idee hê vir die feit dat Semele in Olimp. Dionis a reușit să-l aducă in Olimp en Hefaistos, wat baie swak kan wees vir Hera.

Însoțitorii lui Dionis erau silenii, satirii și nimfele. Menadele, tiadele și bacantele formau cortegiul adoratoarelor sale, încununate precum zeul însuși cu iederă sau frunze de viță de vie și purtând tirsuri împodobite cu conuri de pin. Acest cortegiu ducea o viață sălbatică, vâna animalele pădurii și le devora cru. Chiar și Dionis lua câteodată înfățișarea unui animal, de cele mai multe ori cea a unui țap sau a unui taur. Ons kan die identifikasie van die aceea pe zeu cu "Străinul din noi înșine, temutele forțe antisociale pe care le dezlănțuie patima divină" [3].

Moartea en Infernul Modificare

  • Dionisos avea un mormânt la Delfi [2]
  • Moartea sa la Argos [2]
  • Voldoen aan imnului orfic LIII, când este absent, se află lângă Persefona [2]
  • Mitn mitul Zagreus-Dionisos, acesta este sfâșiat de titani și mâncat. O parte a corpului său este păstrată și acesta reînvie [2]

Cultul era originar probabil din Tracia sau din Lydia, dar se răspândise în întreaga lume veche (vezi și originile tracice ale orfismului). In epoca elenistică și romană, Dionis era cel mai popular dintre zei. Zeul cu numele frigian de Sabazios, dat de greci fiului zeiței trace Bendis, era venerat la traci ca "Eliberatorul" de anotimpul rece. Numele de Bacchus, sub care era cunoscut la romani, este de origine lydiană. Romanii l-au numit pe Dionis însă și Liber, waarskynlik in ooreenstemming cu originea sa tracică. Cu armatele lui Alexandru Macedon cultul acestui zeu a ajuns in India. Popularitatea is a fost propagationă și de Tegnieke, asociații parareligioase de artiști dionisiaci atestate la Atena din 300 î.Hr. [2]

As eliberator al vieții odată cu venirea primăverii, Dionis era sărbătorit alături de Demetra in misterele din Eleusis, ceea ce en dus in epoca romană la comemorarea nunții lui Liber cu Libera, aceasta fiind reprezentată de personal By die opvoeding van die woord kan u die Nisa met 'n mituriele regilor Lycurgus en Pentheus denotă originea străină en zeului noem. Serwările date în cinstea lui (dionysia sau bacchanalia) erau voorte populare. Leneele din decembrie și ianuarie erau caracterizate de reprezentații teatrale de tip cultic, asemenea micilor și marilor Dionisii, care erau influențate probabil de orfism. Dit is 'n tydperk waarin die Bromius (Asurzitorul) onder die naam van die organiese orgaan is. U kan hierdie versameling herhaaldelik in 'n tragedie of in 'n tragedie verwerk, sowel as 'n versorging van 'n simbool, 'n versorging van 'n beroepswêreld, 'n komedie. Sanctuarul templului de la Delphi era consacrat in timpul iernii lui Dionis și doar vara lui Apollo. Misterele zeului, inițiate de orfici, s-au celebrat in în Italia până târziu in epoca imperială.

Arhesteriile Modificare

Voldoen aan Tucidide, cele mai vechi și mai importante sărbători ale lui Dionis erau Anthesteriile. U kan die sfeer van die dag in Ianuarie, die tyd van die dag in Atena sien. Marcau atât fermentarea vinului nou cât și deschiderea sezonului de navigație.

Prima zi se numea Pithoigia, de la deschiderea butoaielor de pământ pithoi. Se duceau butoaiele in sanctuarul lui Dionis și se gusta vinul nou. 'N Doua zi, Choes (lit. „urcioarele”) het 'n lokaal eenstemmigheid. An aceeași zi, într-o "Nuntă Sfântă" ("Hieros Gamos"), soția lui arhon basileus se dăruia zeului, sorg era sărbătorit ca Anthios (Zeul Florilor). Anthesteriile se țineau cu ocazia întoarcerii zeului din Infern și de aceea toate trei, dar mai ales a doua, erau considerate nefaste. Kyk na Dionis coboară in Infern și se întoarce victorios cu umbrele morților dar și cu kere-le, regteăți malevolente. 'N Trein zi era destinată alungării acestor spirite malefice. [2]

Mania Modificare

In mitologie, is Dionis este asigurat cu rituri legate de manie și reîncarnare. Ons kan u 'n versameling versorging gee, en ons kan 'n uiteenlopende tema van dionisiese sorg aanbied. [2] Asemenea frenezii se numeau Bacanale prei preotesele se numeau Bacante.

Dionis en Hades Modificare

Mitologia sa și cultul său fac referire la reînnoire, coborâre în Infern (katabază) ci ciclicitate. 'N Voorbeeld van 'n wonderlike insig in Plutarh (De Iside, 35), en die Dionis -era het 'n belaglike rol gespeel. Ons kan 'n groot deel van die landbou in ons landbou, die resep van die werke, die versorging van die heraklit, die oorweging van Dionisos oorweeg om 'n geregtigde huis en 'n huis te gee. [2]

Primele reprezentări ale zeului Dionis in mijlocul cortegiului său, adesea însoțit și de Ariadne, se întâlnesc pe vazele grecești din secolul VI î. e. n. Bekende sente van "Întoarcerii lui Hefaistos in Olimp" de pe așa-numita vază en lui François, cea cu menade a pictorilor olarilor Kleophrades (München), Amasis (Würzburg Loui Louvre) Klei Kleophon, i înă ci aui spre Naxos, de pe tava lui Exechias (München, Staatliche Antikensammlung).

La jumătatea secolului V î. e. n. ons produseer 'n skimbare in ikonografie en sorg dat ons 'n adolessente kan doen. Atributele îi sunt pe lângă tirs, toiagul său ornat cu conuri de pin și frunze de viță de vie, un kantharos (vas pentru vin), pantera și șarpele. Ons kan 'n groot deel van die Lydos, die krater van die Pronomos (Napoli 3240), 'n groot deel van die stad, in Estland, met 'Est 2' (in situ Atena) gebruik. Pe aceeași friză de est a Parthenonului figura Dionis și în sfatul olimpienilor înaintea luptei cu giganții, ca ideal al nudului grecesc împodobea frontonul de est al templului [5]. U kan ook 'n IV-lea reprezentarea vir ons in 'n goddelike canonică sien, maar dit kan ook waargeneem word deur Panticapaion (Kerci, Ucraina) Paralel supraviețuiește in operele elenistice arhaizante en tipul zeului bărbos, prin așa-zisul tip "Louvre-Freiburg". Dionis mai poate fi reprezentat, începând cu sec. IV î. e. n., prini prin măști, computerită originii teatrului din cultul său.

Reprezentări ale zeului se întâlnesc des în pictura murală from Pompeii, the pildă ca patron al misterelor într-un ciclu scenic influențat of cultul orfic in "Vila Misterelor" sau, împreună cu Ariadne pe insula Naxos, înt "(azi în Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Napoli). Nunta cu Ariadne cori cortegiul dionisiac sunt temi temele preferate de sarcofagele moi mozaicurile romane.

Middeleeue kan nou meer as een keer vir ons toegepas word. Dacă este totuși înfățișat, the exemplu in ilustrații ale manuscriselor lui Hrabanus Maurus en Fulgentius-Metaforalis, atunci in postura de zeu al vinului, cu of cunună din vița de vie și cu oăăăă

Astfel îl reprezintă, mult mai des, și artiștii renascentiști. Ons kan 'n voorbeeld van 'n gravurilor van Andrea Mantegna sien, wat 'n invloed uitoefen op Albrecht Dürer. Dionis-Bacchus kan die ambisie van 'n mens 'n bietjie meer as 'n paar keer gebruik. Acest tip se regăsește mai târziu la Tițian ("Il Baccanale degli Andrii", ca. 1518, Prado, Madrid) lai la Peter Paul Rubens ("Bacchus", 1638-40, 191 x 161,3 cm, Ermitaj, St. Petersburg]) .

Michelangelo Buonarroti îl sculptează in tinerețea lui chiar pe zeul Dionis clătinându-se și având înfățișarea unui adolescent molatic (sculptură din marmură, 1497/98, Galleria degli Uffizi, florența) 1, put antice idealul bunei măsuri. In die geval van 'n nekonformis, kan ons 'n senzualității en 'n vanității in 'n figura unui tinerel stricat, îl pictează en Caravaggio. Acesta s-a identifat chiar cu zeul in autoportretul in postura de "Bacchus bolnav" (ca. 1593, Galleria Borghese, Roma) [2]. Barn baroc tipul acesta iconografic se transformă, subordonat tematicii vanității, într-un copilandru bând vin, the exemplu la Guido Reni (Gemäldegalerie Dresda).

Pictura flamandă en consacră lui Bacchus in secolele XVI en XVII un loc in festivitățile campestre, in mijlocul țăranilor, de pildă in "Nunta țărănească" en lui Johann Liss (Szépmüvés. Acest motiv e preluat și de Velázquez (imaginea din stânga).

Educația lui Dionis de către nimfe și legătura lui amoroasă cu Ariadne devin teme ale protoclasicismului francez din epoca raționalismului, the exemplu la Nicholas Poussin, in "Mercur încredințează pe Bacchus nimfelor" 1625-27, Musée du Louvre, met 'n uiteenlopende reprezentări ale Bacchanalelor cu accentul pus pe exercitarea cultică en dansului en a muzicii.

Ons kan nou 'n goeie manier kry om interesată de temă te sien, en ons kan ook 'n plan aanneem in 'n viziunile ei grațioase. Artiștii l-au citat pe Dionis doar ca personificare a toamnei sau a lunii octombrie. As 'n afsluiting van 'n gesamentlike sekulului XVIII kan ons die interpretasie van 'n sentimentele gegewens Ariadnei de către clasicistul van die Duitse Johann Heinrich von Dannecker in die viering van 'Ariadne pe panteră' (1814, Liebieg) femeii asupra pasiunilor manlik.

De-abia naturalismul îl redescoperă cu adevărat pe Dionis, la cumpăna dintre secolele XIX en XX, die pildă in autoportretul in care Lovis Corinth se reprezintă ca un Bacchus cherchelit, exponent al vitalității triumfând as. Bacchus corespunde in acest rol lui Pan in literatura naturalismului (Knut Hamsun) și Dionis-ului nietzschean din "Nașterea tragediei".


Antieke Griekse godsdiens

Gedurende die somer van 2011 was ek gelukkig om die goed bewaarde Romeinse villa The Villa of the Mysteries, net buite die antieke stad Pompeii, te sien. Die Villa is vernoem na een kamer wat luukse fresko's uitbeeld wat die minimum skade as gevolg van die uitbarsting van Vesuvius in 79 nC oorleef het en 'n ikoniese beeld van Pompeiaanse geword het. Aan die een kant van hierdie fresko sit die god Dionysos in die skoot van Ariadne, wat hy gered het nadat sy deur die held Theseus in die Griekse mitologie verlaat is. Dit het my gelei om die verhouding tussen die god Dionysos en sy geskenke in die Romeinse ikonografie te probeer verstaan. Mary baard verklaar oor die wetenskaplike debat rondom die fresco's, om eerlik te wees, dit is heeltemal verstommend, en geen mate van moderne geleerdheid het ooit daarin geslaag om die betekenis te ontrafel nie, of, ten minste, nie heeltemal oortuigend nie. ’ [i] Die geloofwaardigste teorie is dat die fresko 'n soort inisiasieritueel in die godsdienstige kultus van Dionysos uitbeeld. Maar ek wil graag fokus op die godheid self en hoe hy in die Griekse godsdiens uitgebeeld is en blykbaar in die Romein aangeneem is.

Nog iets om op te fokus is die beeld van Dionysos van die god van die onderdruktes. In die Antieke Wêreld word daar aan hom gedink as 'n bevryder wat sy volgelinge van die alledaagse lewe van vroue in sy kultus sou verlaat, wat hulle normale rolle sou laat staan. Hulle sou gewoonlik hul verantwoordelikhede vir kindersorg verlaat om met Dionysos, en selfs ander Dionysiese aanbidders, aan die bergkant te kommunikeer. Vroue sou dus hul huishoudelike rolle opsy laat. Hy sou individue uit hul daaglikse lewens bevry, en dit is iets wat hom as 'n simbool laat verdra het. In die Villa of Mysteries beeld die fresco uit van 'n vrou wat in die kultus geïnisieer is, wat dan getroos word, maar dit is duidelik dat dit gevier is. Dionysos is bevoordeel deur Griekse vroue en Romeinse vroue. Dionysos word nie gereeld deur homself gevind nie, hy word gereeld met syne verbind thiasos sy cortège of gevolg, want sy kultus is iets wat gedeel word. Hy word tipies nie alleen aangetref nie, maar in die geselskap van verskillende ander nuuskierige vrouefigure, waaronder die mainades/bakchai waansinnige vroue. Hier kan ons sien hoe hulle waansinnige danse dans; hulle hou baie van die natuurlike wêreld wat aandui dat hulle nie noodwendig hul aanbidding uitvoer nie. Of dit nou moet wees hoe die Grieke dit konseptualiseer. Een van die dinge wat gedoen sou gewees het, is dat diere nie meer spontaan uitmekaar geskeur sou word as om diere te offer deur middel van gewone metodes nie. Wat in die Villa uitgebeeld kan word, is so eenvoudig soos Dionysos met syne mainades/bakchai. Toe die Villa of Mysteries opgegrawe word, is 'n wynpers ontdek en dit is nou herstel na sy oorspronklike plek. Dit is aanneemlik dat een of ander vorm van hierdie feeste opgeneem is in die ritueel wat moontlik in die Villa gebeur het, wat sekerlik was dat wyn 'n belangrike kenmerk van die god Dionysos was. Hierdie tipe godsdiens was 'n taboe, nie deel van die Romeinse staatsgodsdiens nie, en het in die tweede eeu v.C. heer geword, en dan sou die kamer self 'n heilige gebied in die huis gewees het, weggesteek deur geheimhouding van die kultuslede. [vii] Die waarheid is dat hierdie fresco's in die moderne sin net so geheimsinnig is, aangesien dit baie betekenisse kan hê, wat beteken dat die naam van die villa goed gekies is. Wat duidelik is, is dat die Romeinse lewe 'n antieke beeld van Dionysos waardeer het, en dat dit in tyd vasgevries is, steeds vandag nog bestaan.

Metope

Terloops, metope beteken 'n reghoekige argitektoniese element, dit wil sê 'n ruimte op 'n fries wat oop kan wees, maar ook deur ander elemente gesluit kan word. Gewoonlik verteenwoordig enkele ruimtes, in die vorm van uitgebreide geverfde plate, enkele tonele wat tot een ondergeskikte konteks behoort.

Aan die suidekant van die tempel word die geveg van Lapiths teen Centaurs uitgebeeld. Kenmerkend vir hierdie metope is hul buitengewoon sterk emosionele uitdrukking. Dit is nogal skaars in die klassieke beeldhoukuns, en dit word hier weerspieël in die voorstelling van 'n jong man, sy gesig kronkel van pyn.


Die Akropolis het verskeie toeristewinkels en tavernes in die omgewing, veral in die historiese distrik Plaka onder die rots. Daar is ook die wêreldbekende Akropolis-museum, wat nie net skouspelagtige argeologiese vondste huisves sedert die bou van die Akropolis nie, maar ook 'n wonderlike dakkafee en restaurant met koffie en etes bedien op 'n terras met uitsig op die Parthenon.

Aangesien dit aan die kus geleë is, het die Tempel van Poseidon meer natuur, en daar is 'n klein kafee op die terrein waar u kan sit met 'n tuisgemaakte tert en koffie en ontspan. Vanweë die pragtige ligging, is daar 'n paar wonderlike luukse hotelle naby die perseel, wat 'n wonderlike plek kan wees om te bly en u 'n paar dae kan bederf met 'n verandering van die middestad.
Een daarvan is Grecotel Cape Sounio, wat suites en privaat bungalows bied, sommige met privaat swembaddens.


Wag, waarom is die Parthenon Marbles in Londen?

Lord Elgin het sy oorspronklike mandaat oorskry en 'n groot skat aan skat bymekaargemaak, sê 'n geleerde.

Marmer gode gedompel in vloeiende gewade, fries waarop perde galop en offervee wat na die slag gebring word, het besoekers van oor die hele wêreld in die British Museum in Londen ontstel. Hulle verteenwoordig ongeveer die helfte van die oorlewende beeldhouwerke uit die Parthenon -tempel in Athene, Griekeland.

Sedert hul verkryging deur die Britse nasie in 1816, is hul eienaarskap omstrede. Die Parthenon-albasters word dikwels die “Elgin Marbles genoem, ” na Thomas Bruce, 7de graaf van Elgin, wat hulle tussen 1801 en 1812 uit die Akropolis-kompleks laat verwyder het. Teen daardie tyd wys die Parthenon van die vyfde eeu sy ouderdom, nadat hy 'n katastrofiese ontploffing in 1687 opgedoen het terwyl dit deur die Turke as 'n kruitblad gebruik is. Jare se plundering het gevolg. In die vroeë negentiende eeu was Griekeland nog steeds deel van die Ottomaanse Ryk, en dit was van daardie regering dat Elgin 'n firman of amptelike toestemming gekry het om die albasters te neem.

Maar soos die omgewingsfilosofiese geleerde Karin Edvardsson, Björnberg opmerk Etiese teorie en morele praktyk, En die bestaan ​​van so 'n vuurman is bevraagteken, en min (indien enige) geleerdes is bereid om die standpunt te verdedig dat formele toestemming gegee is om soveel van die albasters te verwyder as wat Lord Elgin uiteindelik gedoen het. historikus Rochelle Gurstein, skryf in Daedalus, bevestig dat Elgin sy oorspronklike mandaat te bowe gegaan het, en 'n groot skatkis bymekaargemaak het wat die beste beeldhouwerke uit die voorpante insluit, meer as die helfte van die bestaan ​​van die friesplate, veertien van die beste bewaarde metope versier met hoë reliëf-beeldhouwerk , sowel as munte, argitektoniese fragmente en vase. ”

Elgin was toe 'n Britse ambassadeur in die Ottomaanse Ryk, en hoewel hy as 'n individu by hierdie verwydering opgetree het, het hy baat by amptelike ondersteuning. In die loop van 'n paar jaar het Elgin se albasters nie net deur privaat handelaars en geoktrooieerde skepe hul pad geloop nie, maar ook deur koninklike vloot- en staatsvervoervaartuie, skryf die historikus Holger Hoock in Die Historiese Tydskrif.

Liggende Dionysos, van die oostelike fronton van Parthenon, ca. 447–433 vC. via Wikimedia Commons

Hy het moontlik persoonlike verlossing gesoek. As die publiek dan bekend was met die naam van Elgin, was dit waarskynlik as gevolg van 'n skandaal. Sy vrou, Mary, het 'n verhouding gehad en die hofafskrifte uit 1808 van haar egbreuk, waarvoor Elgin om egskeiding gedagvaar het, onthul wat haar ongelukkigheid veroorsaak het. Soos die omgewingshistorikus Gillen D ’Arcy Wood ondersoek in Die Wordsworth Circle, dit was nie sy besige diplomatieke reisplan wat hul huwelik gespanne gemaak het nie, dit was sy neus. As gevolg van 'n degeneratiewe toestand, moontlik sifilis, is Elgin se neus weggevreet en het Mary se belangstelling in hom laat afneem. Wood skryf dat die verbrokkeling van sy huwelik, die bankrotskap van sy boedel, en die ondergang van 'n eens belowende diplomatieke loopbaan ” het 'n patologiese oorsprong gebied vir sy meedoënlose strewe na die antieke standbeelde wat hy so na aan hom gelyk het. ”

Deur hierdie groot kunswerke na Londen te bring, kon hy sy reputasie laat herleef. Een van sy ongerealiseerde doelwitte was om hulle te laat herstel, hul ontbrekende ledemate en natuurlik neuse te laat vervang. Dit was 'n goeie tyd, aangesien Engeland se onlangse oorwinnings in die Napoleontiese oorloë sy vloot- en militêre mag bevestig het. In die seevaardende mag van Athene het Londen 'n spieël van homself gesien.

Hierdie beeldhouwerke, wat in die 5de eeu v.C. in Athene ontstaan ​​het, het simbole van die Britse nasionale identiteit geword en is sedertdien kunsvoorwerpe wat verbonde is aan kulturele nasionalisme in sowel Brittanje as Griekeland, en skryf die geleerde Debbie Challis sedertdien in Die British Art Journal. Die British Museum is toe die “ National Museum, ” genoem, maar dit het kuns van regoor die wêreld ten toon gestel, wat sy koloniale identiteit weerspieël buite die Britse Eilande. Selfs die argitektuur van die museum beliggaam hierdie opvatting. Visitors today enter beneath a classically-inspired pediment depicting the “progress of civilization,” part of a grand Greek Revival building designed in 1823 by Sir Robert Smirke to communicate the “wondrous objects housed inside.”

From the moment of the marbles’ arrival in London, there were critics, with one of the most vocal being the poet Lord Byron. His narrative poem Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage compared the imperialism of the removal of the marbles to the ancient Roman practice of plundering trophies. The literary historian Angela Esterhammer writes in The Wordsworth Circle that “Lord Elgin—who is mentioned by name in Byron’s annotations, though not in the poem itself—is referred to by the epithets ‘plunderer,’ ‘spoiler,’ ‘robber,’ and ‘violator’: the Elgin Marbles are the ‘last poor plunder.'”

Weeklikse nuusbrief

Byron was hardly the last to accuse Elgin of robbery. More than a century later, the debate continues to center on whether the Parthenon marbles were acquired with proper permission or looted. Greece’s advocacy for their repatriation includes the Acropolis Museum, completed in 2009, which has a gallery designed for their display. “To honor the museum’s opening, several sculptural fragments that had been removed—including a foot of the goddess Artemis from a museum in Palermo and part of the foot of a lyre-player at Heidelberg University, as well as several pieces from the Vatican—were returned to Athens,” reported the archaeological writer Jarrett A. Lobell in Argeologie. The absences at the British Museum are still represented with dull plaster casts.

This November, Xi Jinping, the President of China, expressed support for returning the marbles during his first state visit to Greece. For now, though, the Parthenon marbles remain in their London gallery. As the museum’s Trustees state in their official position, “the breadth and depth of its collection allow a global public to examine cultural identities and explore the complex network of interconnected human cultures” and the Parthenon marbles “are a vital element in this interconnected world collection.”


The Central Archaeological Council has green lit a plan many years in the making to re-erect portions of the inner chamber's walls.

The Parthenon is to be brought closer to its original form after the Central Archaeological Council (KAS) green lit works to reconstruct the long northern wall of its inner structure (known as the cella or naos).

The relevant study that was debated by the KAS bears the signature of the late architect Charalambos Bouras, a key figure in the long-running restoration of the Acropolis who served as president of the Committee for the Conservation of the Acropolis Monuments. The study proposes rebuilding a section of the fallen wall by reinstalling 360 ancient stones alongside 90 new ones made from marble from the area of Dionysos in northern Attica which closely resembles the original Pentelic marble of the Parthenon.

This will effectively return the northern wall to the form it had following the bombing of the Parthenon by Fransesco Morosini in 1687 and up to 1822 when the Ottomans dismantled approximately 500 ancient stones during the siege of the Acropolis in order to remove the lead elements which were used by the ancient builders to link the stones.

In the first phase of the restoration, the height of the west side of the wall will reach 4.5 meters, while on the east end it will reach 10 meters. Where the restoration includes the section which once bore the frieze and the architrave – which were destroyed during the siege of 1822 and by the plundering of the Parthenon Marbles by Lord Elgin – the height of the west side of the wall will reach 13 meters. This portion of the study was the subject of intense debate among the KAS and, according to sources, two members of the council registered concerns, asking for further study in order to avoid, as much as possible, the use of new material.

The restoration of the Parthenon has lasted decades.

The restoration of the Parthenon has lasted decades.

The decision from the KAS is of great import as a restoration project will now move ahead that will restore the appearance and identity of the Parthenon. When the restoration of southern wall also moves ahead (guided by the study of the northern wall) the geometry and particular architecture of the building will be better revealed. Both works will be expensive and painstaking, taking at least 15 years.

According to the Directorate for the Restoration of Ancient Monuments, the study for the restoration was a “very important event in the modern history of the Parthenon,” as it is connected to the work and restoration plans for the monument by Charalambos Bouras and the professor and KAS member Manolis Korres which began over three decades ago.

The History of the Restoration of the Parthenon

Works to restore the Acropolis began following the founding of the Greek state in 1834-1835, but with the use of industrial iron. In 1922 a large restoration program began but the iron caused corrosion and distortion to the restored portions, causing new interventions to be required. A new beginning for the restoration work on the Acropolis began in 1975 with the founding of the Committee for the Conservation of the Acropolis Monuments.


The Parthenon and Its Sculptures

The present book is a collection of papers that developed from the international conference “The Parthenon and its Sculptures in the Twenty-First Century,” held at the University of Missouri-St. Louis in April 2002 and organized by the book’s editor, Michael Cosmopoulos. The aim of the conference was, in the words of Cosmopoulos, “to create an opportunity for Parthenon specialists to meet and assess the current state and future direction of Parthenon studies” (“Introduction,” 1). One of the most pressing issues addressed by Cosmopoulos and the book’s contributors is the need for a new methodological framework in which to study the Parthenon marbles. In light of archaeological discoveries and rapid developments in the physical sciences, some age-old assumptions and theories about the decorative marbles on the Temple of Athena Parthenos need redressing. This book takes some promising steps towards achieving that goal.

A legitimate question to ask at the outset is whether another book on the Parthenon marbles is really necessary. The bibliography on this monument is extensive: the past 40-odd years alone have seen the magisterial publications of Frank Brommer in 1963, 1967, and 1977, 1 sophisticated reconstruction projects in Basel, London and Athens, 2 and innovative studies by Jenifer Neils, Joan Connelly, Panayotis Tournikiotis, and others. 3 Readers at all levels are well-served by a rich collection of publications in several languages, and the stunning photographs by Socratis Mavrommatis, as well as the lavish digital images in Tournikiotis’s volume, are incomparable. Is there anything new to say about the Parthenon marbles?

The answer is yes, as several of the essays here convincingly demonstrate. After a brief introduction by Cosmopoulos, in which he sets out the four main parameters comprising the methodological framework of the 2002 conference (formal analysis new technologies ancient cultural setting diachronic studies), Sarantis Symeonoglou opens the discussion with, as he calls it, a new analysis of the Parthenon Frieze. Through close study of carving details, Symeonoglou tries to use hand analysis to differentiate the artists who worked on the Frieze. This is a method he has already applied to the sculptures of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia (“with a considerable measure of success,” he says), and which uses both typical and idiosyncratic characteristics of individual artists to identify and document them. Focussing on ten blocks of the Frieze, Symeonoglou painstakingly scrutinizes such elements as eyes, mouths, heads, feet, drapery, and horses’ bodies to pinpoint individual carvers’ work. He identifies three carvers, whom he calls Masters A, B and C, who worked on the ten blocks in question, and sets out the five stages of carving that they undertook to create the pieces. As Symeonoglou freely admits, these are preliminary arguments on his part and will remain tentative until the entire Frieze has been analyzed. If Symeonoglou is right, master carvers actually worked on the monument rather than simply supervised the work of apprentices (as was previously thought). Further, each Master seems to have had a speciality, or a flair for certain details — specialities that complemented each other. They called upon the craftsmen who worked under them to complete tasks when time was short and they (the Masters) needed to move on to other tasks.

Symeonoglou may offer a new way of studying the Parthenon Frieze, but his conclusions do not push the boundaries of interpretation. While it is true that we do not currently know how many individuals worked on the Frieze, the Master Carver model is standard. More provocative is John Younger’s essay, “Work Sections and Repeating Patterns in the Parthenon Frieze” (chapter 3). Taking on the same question (who carved the Frieze?), Younger offers a radically different answer. He, like Symeonoglou, undertakes a close technical study of the Frieze but concludes that they reveal “gangs of workers working from prepared sketches, transferring cartoons, repeating figures and poses, and making mistakes and rectifying them” (63). Younger also considers the work of modern Greek sculptors and their techniques — which are, he says, “basically the same as those that can be reconstructed for classical sculpture” (63). A central theme in Younger’s study is the repetition of figures and patterns, which he calls “dittography” (66-7). By employing repeating figures and transportable “cartoons” (75-82), carvers saved themselves time and ensured visual consistency. Even among strings of different figures, repeating pairs can be discerned (66). Patterns and models allowed the lesser-known craftsmen to follow a central plan. Repetition was not unique to the Parthenon Frieze, and its use here puts the Frieze in good company with the north frieze of the Siphnian Treasury, for example. Younger’s stated goal of democratizing the sculpting process and to “get away from the limiting notion of Master Sculptor” (83) is admirable, and his close observations of dittographic tendencies and carving mistakes do suggest the participation of rushed or less skilled carvers. But I was not convinced by his arguments that “gangs” comprising citizens and slaves were entrusted with major sections of the Frieze. Younger’s and Symeonoglou’s chapters work nicely together, though they disagree in their conclusions, to push readers to re-think the carving process of the Frieze.

The second chapter, “Classic Moments: Time in the Parthenon Frieze,” is Jenifer Neils at her best. Known for her work on the Panathenaic procession and the Frieze in particular (see 3 ), Neils here reconsiders “the narrative strategies used by the designer and (relates) them to Athenian ritual and social values” (43). Neils is primarily concerned with time: what is happening when in the procession, and how the progression of time is communicated to viewers. The time-space continuum may seem a radical idea within ancient Greek art, Neils says, but she points to precedents in sympotic vase paintings and the (now lost) mural painting of the Battle of Marathon in the Stoa Poikile in Athens that employ narrative techniques to imply the passage of time through their scenes. Neils carefully unpacks the cavalcades on the west, north and south sides of the Frieze (46-52), at times covering the same ground as Ian Jenkins’s 1994 publication. 2 She is interested in identifying specific units of horsemen and their tribal divisions so as to demonstrate that they are rooted in contemporary mid-5th century Athenian political reality rather than in myth. In other words, that the cavalcade takes place “now” (contemporary to the ancient Athenian viewer), and accompanies the viewer as he or she proceeds around the Frieze. The east and west friezes, however, present the more problematic “preparation” scenes (52-57), while the centre of the east frieze gives us a composition rooted in the “after” (57-60). The former Neils interprets as scenes of preparation before the actual procession, probably placed outside the city gates. The latter (“after” scenes) include the much-debated “Peplos ceremony”, which Neils argues is a depiction of the re-folding of the ritual peplos after the procession and the ceremony. The re-folding scene is important, Neils says, because it signals the success of the ceremony and the acceptance of the gift by Athena. I found this chapter particularly interesting because Neils tackles some difficult interpretive problems (namely, the preparation and Peplos scenes) and gives convincing if provocative solutions based on her deep understanding of the Frieze and its cultural and socio-political backdrop. Since Connelly’s 1996 article on the Peplos ceremony, this scene has invited much-needed rethinking. Neils’s arguments here push us to consider once again the significance of the scene and its placement within a larger narrative structure.

Chapter 4, “Pandora and the Panathenaic Peplos,” examines the relief scene on the base of the statue of Athena Parthenos and tries to place the scene in its wider artistic and cultural context. Noel Robertson sets out a close study of the (badly damaged) base relief and uses the evidence of vases to lead us through similar visualizations of the story of the creation of woman. Robertson takes on the important yet difficult question of why this particular story was chosen for the base (94-6), and concludes that it was, at its simplest, a link with the Great Panathenaea: “the only occasion when the statue and the base were seen by many people” (95). The argument follows that the story of Pandora’s creation was itself a cult myth that explained a festival ceremony. Robertson draws upon considerable knowledge of regional and ethnic differences in Greek ritual to assess the influences on the choice and manner of visual representations of cult and ceremony on the statue base and the Parthenon Frieze, and draws some new and intriguing links between base and Frieze. This is an illuminating chapter that will be certain to generate fruitful discussion on the symbolic relevance of Pandora’s creation to the overall theme of the Temple of Athena Parthenos.

In the book’s fifth chapter, Georgios Mostratos moves away from the main Frieze of the temple to look instead at the east pediment. Mostratos begins with the figures in the corners of the pediment, offering some new or unorthodox identifications (Figure D = Dionysos G = Hekate K = Artemis) and accepting several traditional ones. In studying the controversial central section of the pediment (now lost), Mostratos uses iconographic and structural evidence to piece together his reconstruction (120-30). He believes that the scene presented the final phase of the tale of Athena’s birth (the divesting of her arms) (120). Further, Athena would have occupied the position of honor (left of center) with no axial figure rather, there was a supplementary element (“Athena’s olive tree or Zeus’ thunderbolt or both” (126)) to add significance to the myth. Zeus would have stood opposite Athena (right of center) with a much-smaller Nike, crowning Athena, flying between them (author’s reconstruction, 128). As Mostratos sees her, Athena in the east pediment was calm and unarmed, “holding her helmet and spear in her hands, probably wearing a peplos without aegis. This is the peaceful Athena — Athena Polias, who was the protector of Athens and the Athenian democracy” (127-8). The end of the chapter is devoted to a piece-by-piece discussion of fragments that have been tricky to identify. On the whole, Mostratos’s interpretation of the east pediment as calm and almost symmetrical offers an innovative argument that is as fun to read as it is intriguing to consider.

Chapters 6 and 8 harness advances in the physical sciences to shed new light on the Parthenon marbles. In “The Parthenon East Metopes, the Gigantomachy, and Digital Technology,” Katherine Schwab uses digital photography and image-based software programs to “see more clearly the preserved subtle details on the surface of (the east metopes)” and to understand better how we might reconstruct poses within a composition (150). One of the important points made by Schwab is that line-drawing reconstructions of ancient monuments can be misleading in that they present figures as flat. Digital technologies present a more comprehensive view of sculptured figures, showing depth and contours of figures that tell us more about their dramatic impact and carving techniques (155-6). Taking Adobe Photoshop as an example of a computer program that is helping to further our understanding of the Parthenon marbles, Schwab looks at metope East 6 and finds parallels in a fourth-century BC Attic funerary relief fragment in the Metropolitan Museum in New York (159-60). Doing so demonstrates the exciting promise of using computer technology in comparing fragments with well-preserved models and trying to piece together the original scene. I came away from Schwab’s chapter with the sense that she had not so much offered new interpretations as prepared her readers for a new methodological approach that will shape our studies of ancient marble relief in future.

Chapter 8, “Intraquarry Sourcing of the Parthenon Marbles,” is the shortest chapter of the book. It introduces readers to the high-resolution Pentelic marble database, a sophisticated tool that enables scholars to distinguish between the different major white marble sources. The chapter’s author, Scott Pike, explains the usefulness of this database: “Being able to establish the provenance of artifacts correctly enables archaeologists, art historians, and museum curators to place them in a temporal context, piece together ancient trade routes, gain insights into changing aesthetic values, and recognize modern forgeries, ancient copies, and dissociated fragments” (196). His case study — pieces from the Parthenon in the British Museum located to one of three small quarries on Mount Pentelikon — is an illuminating example of how the marble stable isotope database will assist archaeologists in correlating construction phases of the Parthenon with marble extraction from Mount Pentelikon. This is not the first database to attempt such things, rather a latest version that promises to answer detailed questions about marble sourcing for the Parthenon.

The penultimate chapter, “The Parthenon in 1687: New Sources,” considers several 17th-century sources — literary and visual — in judging how much of the original temple was intact at the time of the explosion in 1687. At the centre of the discussion is a new manuscript discovered by one of the chapter’s authors, William St Clair. The manuscript gives an account of a visit to Athens in 1699 its author is unknown. What it tells us is that in the twelve years after the explosion, little was done to shore up or repair the temple. At the same time, no further damage to the building was done by the Turks when they cleared out their equipment from the interior. One new piece of information to emerge from the text is that the Parthenon was not a monument of pure, white marble, but was indeed painted in parts (“gilded on the capitals” 174). The polychromy comments of the text are taken by St Clair and his co-author, Robert Picken, as evidence for paint traces on the marbles taken by Lord Elgin to London — traces that were later lost. At the end of the chapter, the full text of the manuscript in its original French, along with an English translation, is usefully included. Readers will find much of interest with respect to the aesthetic effect of the design and decoration of the building and certain frieze details that have subsequently been destroyed. This is an enjoyable chapter to read, and is helpful in providing a bigger picture of the Parthenon after so many detailed studies in the same volume.

The book is nicely put together with clear indices and chapter-by-chapter bibliographies. The (entirely black-and-white) illustrations are a mixed bunch: most are crisply reproduced, but there is such variation in the degree of exposure in many photos of the Parthenon marbles (some too dark, some too light) that crucial details are missed. The asking price of $75.00 is not justified by the quality of illustrations, so it is useful that the written contributions are at a level commensurate with that price.

Cosmopoulos’s latest volume on the Parthenon and its sculptures will benefit a wide range of readers. Art historians will appreciate the new narrative interpretations of Neils, Robertson and Mostratos, while archaeologists will find the methodological arguments of Symeonoglou, Younger, Schwab and Pike of interest (with overlap between the two groups, to be sure). This book won’t have the final say on the Parthenon, but it is a useful guide to the latest research on the monument and to where that research may lead.

List of authors and titles:

M.B. Cosmopoulos, “Introduction: The Methodological Framework of Parthenon Studies,” 1-4.

S. Symeonoglou, “A New Analysis of the Parthenon Frieze,” 5-42.

J. Neils, “Classic Moments: Time in the Parthenon Frieze,” 43-62.

J.G. Younger, “Work Sections and Repeating Patterns in the Parthenon Frieze,” 63-85.

N. Robertson, “Pandora and the Panathenaic Peplos,” 86-113.

G. Mostratos, “A Reconstruction of the Parthenon’s East Pediment,” 114-149.

K.A. Schwab, “The Parthenon East Metopes, the Gigantomachy, and Digital Technology,” 150-165.

W. St Clair and R. Picken, “The Parthenon in 1687: New Sources,” 166-195.

S. Pike, “IntraQuarry Sourcing of the Parthenon Marbles: Applications of the Pentelic Marble Stable Isotope Database,” 196-207.

J. Neils, “Conclusion: The Current State of Parthenon Research,” 207-210.

1. F. Brommer, Die Skulpturen der Parthenon-Giebel: Katalog und Untersuchung. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1963. Die Metopen des Parthenon. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1967. Der Parthenonfries: Katalog und Untersuchung. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1977.

2. Basel: E. Berger and M. Gisler-Huwiler, Der Parthenon in Basel: Dokumentation zum Fries. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1996. London: I. Jenkins, The Parthenon Frieze. London: British Museum Press, 1994. Athens: The Parthenon Reconstruction Project, sponsored by the Melina Mercouri Foundation and the Hellenic Ministry of Culture.


Kyk die video: Фидий, Фриз Парфенона, 438432.