pothos.org

amyntoros wrote:

marcus wrote:

artemisia wrote:Marcus, there are 6 goddesses, you forgot Hestia = Vesta

Hmm, by my reckoning, Hestia can't be included if Demeter is, and vice versa - that's an interesting point to raise.

The male Olympians are: Zeus, Poseidon, Hades, Apollo, Hephaestus, Ares, Hermes.

Which is seven, leaving room for five goddesses: Hera, Athena, Artemis, Aphrodite ... and one more. I have just discovered two lists, one of which says Demeter, and the other says Hestia. So I don't disagree with you, but am now puzzled as to which we list we should be following.

Anyway, doesn't particularly matter ...

ATB

It may not matter to US, but I'm guessing it did to the ancients. Anyway, yes, Hestia was sometimes included in the Olympians although I'm not sure who she replaced. And Hades wasn't included in the twelve (he didn't live on Olympia), but Dionysos. There were plenty of other lesser "Olympian" gods also - Theoi.com is the place to go for info. Kind of like Pothos for the Greek gods only without a forum.

When I said it didn't matter, I meant only in the context of this particular discussion!

I just checked the Oxford Classical Dictionary, which of course is now upstairs and I'm downstairs, so now I've forgotten what all of them were.

The OCD lists the Twelve Olympians as those that feature on the Parthenon Frieze. Hestia isn't among them, although Demeter is. Now, Dionysus is among them, so I'm thinking that the one that's missing is Hades - because, as Artemisia points out, he didn't live on Mount Olympus.

So, at least according to the OCD, the Twelve Olympians were: Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, Hephaestus, Ares, Hermes and Dionysus; Hera, Athena, Aphrodite, Artemis and Demeter.

ATB

So, I see you don't believe in gender equality

artemisia wrote:So, I see you don't believe in gender equality

Honestly, I think it's disgusting that the Ancient Greeks should have split their pantheon 7/5, but what can you do? I suppose I could always sneak into the British Museum and 'alter' one of the gods of the frieze to make him more like a goddess?

ATB

Imagine the security guards face if you walked in with a hammer and chisel. . And didnt the Vatican have an "artist" come in long ago and make the marbles(no pun intended) a bit more "appropriate" with some oak or ivy leaves or something using a kind of plaster?

spitamenes wrote:Imagine the security guards face if you walked in with a hammer and chisel. . And didnt the Vatican have an "artist" come in long ago and make the marbles(no pun intended) a bit more "appropriate" with some oak or ivy leaves or something using a kind of plaster?

I am a member of the British Museum. It gets me 10% discount in the shop as well as some other benefits. Surely that permits me to remove less than 10% of a god's anatomy in order to make him a goddess?

Didn't even the Romans cover up Greek statues in this way? Or did the Romans just get round the problem by carving all their statues with clothes on? Not sure about the Vatican, because there are plenty of Renaissance statues where the subjects are displayed au naturel.

ATB

marcus wrote:

spitamenes wrote:Imagine the security guards face if you walked in with a hammer and chisel. . And didnt the Vatican have an "artist" come in long ago and make the marbles(no pun intended) a bit more "appropriate" with some oak or ivy leaves or something using a kind of plaster?

I am a member of the British Museum. It gets me 10% discount in the shop as well as some other benefits. Surely that permits me to remove less than 10% of a god's anatomy in order to make him a goddess?
ATB

Of course it does! I don't even think you would have to ask them for permission first. You should be able to just walk right in and start chiseling. Let me know how that turns out!

I would suggest looking at some of the statues of Apollo, particularly the one in the British Museum that leads into the room with the Alexander head (and the Praxitiles' Lizard Apollo). The body may be masculine, but the hair and face is more than a little feminine, which slightly redresses the balance.

As an aside, Apollo and Artemis were originally gods from (I think) Phyrgia (or the Levant) so their Olympian face was only one aspect of much older gods. And interestingly, Artemis as a virgin goddess of fertility, is still, it might be argued, worshiped as the Virgin Mary who settled at Ephesus with St John after the Cucifixion.

Alexias wrote:I would suggest looking at some of the statues of Apollo, particularly the one in the British Museum that leads into the room with the Alexander head (and the Praxitiles' Lizard Apollo). The body may be masculine, but the hair and face is more than a little feminine, which slightly redresses the balance.

As an aside, Apollo and Artemis were originally gods from (I think) Phyrgia (or the Levant) so their Olympian face was only one aspect of much older gods. And interestingly, Artemis as a virgin goddess of fertility, is still, it might be argued, worshiped as the Virgin Mary who settled at Ephesus with St John after the Cucifixion.

Ref the Apollo statue - that's true!

Ref Apollo and Artemis - indeed. The cult statue of Artemis at Ephesus was a multi-mammarian one, very un-Greek, bearing much more resemblance to the Earth-goddess type of earlier civilisations. I can't remember whether the cult centre was originally one of Cybele or another such Earth-goddess, but it certainly was a very un-Hellenic type.

ATB

Is the Apollo marble your speaking of the one where he has a lyre on his left and missing his right hand and forearm? If so, that is pretty interesting and I'm wondering if it was sculpted with these male and female features for a specific reason. I know he was the patron god of music, which explains the lyre. But why the female features?

spitamenes wrote:Is the Apollo marble your speaking of the one where he has a lyre on his left and missing his right hand and forearm? If so, that is pretty interesting and I'm wondering if it was sculpted with these male and female features for a specific reason. I know he was the patron god of music, which explains the lyre. But why the female features?

It's not that the sculptor gave Apollo female features, it's just that Apollo's features are very 'feminine'. I don't think we should start assuming that Apollo was some sort of androgynous Ganymede-type.

ATB

spitamenes wrote:Is the Apollo marble your speaking of the one where he has a lyre on his left and missing his right hand and forearm? If so, that is pretty interesting and I'm wondering if it was sculpted with these male and female features for a specific reason. I know he was the patron god of music, which explains the lyre. But why the female features?

This is the one I meant I don't think it is particularly androgynous, but it does give the statue an other-worldly quality in my opinion at least, that makes you realise that it is not quite human.

The Praxitiles' one, on the other hand, is I think meant to represent an ideal of youthfulness and beauty

Alexias wrote:

spitamenes wrote:Is the Apollo marble your speaking of the one where he has a lyre on his left and missing his right hand and forearm? If so, that is pretty interesting and I'm wondering if it was sculpted with these male and female features for a specific reason. I know he was the patron god of music, which explains the lyre. But why the female features?

This is the one I meant

DSCI1024a.jpg

I don't think it is particularly androgynous, but it does give the statue an other-worldly quality in my opinion at least, that makes you realise that it is not quite human.

The Praxitiles' one, on the other hand, is I think meant to represent an ideal of youthfulness and beauty

DSCI0055.JPG

Alexias,
That's the same marble I was looking at as well, yours is a MUCH better image though. The image I was looking at seemed to be much more feminine, (looking more from his right side instead of straight on). Still looks very feminine but is more "other worldly", like you stated. Good pictures! Did you take those? Or are you not allowed where that marble is?
All the best,
Spitamenes

spitamenes wrote:Alexias,
That's the same marble I was looking at as well, yours is a MUCH better image though. The image I was looking at seemed to be much more feminine, (looking more from his right side instead of straight on). Still looks very feminine but is more "other worldly", like you stated. Good pictures! Did you take those? Or are you not allowed where that marble is?
All the best,
Spitamenes

Thank you, I did take both pictures, but had to prune them to fit into the 256kb limit on pothos. The first is from the British Museum where you can take pictures to your heart's content, as you can at Oxford's Ashmolean Museum, which has a gallery of plaster casts taken from world-famous statues. The Apollo I think is cast of a Roman copy in the Capitoline Museum of Praxitiles' (lost) original, where there is also this slightly un-human satyr.

Alexias wrote:

spitamenes wrote:Alexias,
That's the same marble I was looking at as well, yours is a MUCH better image though. The image I was looking at seemed to be much more feminine, (looking more from his right side instead of straight on). Still looks very feminine but is more "other worldly", like you stated. Good pictures! Did you take those? Or are you not allowed where that marble is?
All the best,
Spitamenes

Thank you, I did take both pictures, but had to prune them to fit into the 256kb limit on pothos. The first is from the British Museum where you can take pictures to your heart's content, as you can at Oxford's Ashmolean Museum, which has a gallery of plaster casts taken from world-famous statues. The Apollo I think is cast of a Roman copy in the Capitoline Museum of Praxitiles' (lost) original, where there is also this slightly un-human satyr.

DSCI0052.JPG

Well great job on the pictures! This I kind of an off base question but, how accurate are the roman copies of greek originals supposed to be? I've seen so called "copies" of original paintings that look nothing like the originals, just have the same basic theme. I wonder if the Roman marble copies were done in the same way or if they were as true to the originals as possible. Just a thought...

There is much more confusion over Alexander's birth date than it seems. Yes, Plutarch (Alx.3) does state that it was 6 Hekatombaion which he equates to the Macedonian month of Loios and Aelian

Book 2.25

They say that the sixth of Thargelion brought much good fortune not only to Athens but to many other cities. It was for instance the date of Socrates’ birth; the Persians were defeated on that day; on it the Athenians sacrifice to the goddess Agrotera three hundred goats, acting in accordance with Miltiades’ vow. The sixth day at the beginning of the month is also said to be the date of the battle of Plataea, when the Greeks were victorious. The previous defeat of the Persians, which I have mentioned, was at Artemisium. The Hellenic victory at Mycale is also accepted as having been the gift of that day and no other, assuming that the victories of Plataea and Mycale were on the same day. Alexander of Macedon, son of Philip, is also reported to have crushed the many myriads of barbarians on the sixth of the month; that was when Alexander defeated Darius And it is believed that Alexander himself was born and departed this life on the same day.

Which can be understood as meaning that Alexander was born on the sixth of a month not necessarily Thargelion (May/June).

BUT Aristoboulos Arr.VII 28 i says Alexander lived thirty-two years and eight months and reigned for twelve years and the same eight months. Since he died on the last day of Daisios 323 that would mean he was born late in Hyperberetaios or the beginning of Dios (Octoberish).

A letter of Philip's of 339 preserved in Demosthenes De Corona 157 equates Loios of 339 with Boedromion, which would require a slippage of about thirty seven days (assuming that the date in Hekatobaion is really the second sixth, waning actually the 25th) between the Athenian and Macedonian year in a period of only seventeen years which seems too much. It may be that Plutarch means that in his day Loios was equivalent to Hekatombaion.

It must be better to go with Aristoboulos.

For reference the Athenian year ran the Macedonian
1 Hekatombaion 10.Loios
2 Metageitnion 11 Gorpiaios
3 Boedromion 12 Hyperberetaios
4 Pyanepsion 1 Dios
5 Maimakterian 2 Apellaios
6 Poseidon 3 Audunaios
7 Gamelion 4 Peritios
8 Anthesterion 5 Dystros
9 Elaphebolion 6 Xandikos
10 Mounichion 7 Artemisios
11 Thargelion 8 Daisios
12 Skirophorion 9 Panemos.


Plutarch and Philip might be reconcilable by making 356 a 12 month year and 340 a 13 month one in Macedon, the additional Xandikos Embolimos would push the Loios of 339 to Metageitnion requiring less of a slippage but nothing is going to explain Aristoboulos' implied birth date in Hyperberetaios/Dios.