Got Greek?

Classical Civilizations

[gaiaddict-blog]

The Porta Nigra

The Porta Nigra, the North Gate of Ancient Trier, is one of the exemplary monuments of the Roman Empire’s military power outside of Rome itself. The gate was part of the city’s wall, which, at the gate, skirted the river. To the east, the gate incorporated a wall of the amphitheater. The outer side of the wall is the most frequently photographed side. It boasts the round sides of both semi-circular towers, which are flat in this photo. I have chosen to focus on the interior side of the wall as an example of Roman architecture.

Built in the late 3rd or early 4th century, C.E., the Porta Nigra owes its survival to the fact that, like the Pantheon, it was used as a church during the Dark Ages. It is made of sandstone, which has blackened over time, giving the Porta Nigra (the Black Gate) its name. These sandstone blocks are held together not by concrete, but by iron clamps.

On the inner side of the gate, the one pictured here, there are two towers visible - one per each side of the gate. Both were, originally, four stories high. These are connected by a three story connecting unit with two large arches at the center, at road level. There is a roadway going through each of these arches, as there was when the structure was erected.

What sets this building apart from other architectural pieces is its zealous fenestration. Three stories of half-columnades frame Roman arch windows. In fact, these windows, and the columns around them, are comparable to the interior of Roman basilicas that were being constructed around the same time. The Porta Nigra is the perfect combination of Religion and Rome. The column design may remind passerby of a church or a temple. The windows these designs framed, however, served a very Roman purpose: military advantage. As enemies approached the gates of Trier, a battalion would await in these archways, ready to rain a terrifying torrent of weaponry upon those who drew near. 

Keep reading

[christine-allen]

Hey Mia! I really love this analysis, how you incorporated how it was used with its style and features. I especially liked that even though this was a factual analysis, I could still hear your own voice and thoughts - it sounds like you're really interested in this piece! Nothing stood out to me as "missing," if anything, you could add a little bit about the outer side of the wall to give a different perspective, but I recognize you were focusing on the inner part, so it's not really necessary.

[christine-allen]

Temple of Minerva, Veii

In all, the openness and horizontal structure of this temple made it a massive, dominating representation of Roman architecture. It highlights the commanding effect that their temples were meant to have, and shows how temples were built to be an organic part of their surroundings.

The Temple of Minerva at Veii was built in the fifth century B.C. This Etruscan temple displays the Roman commonality to worship more than one god in each temple, as it was built to worship both the goddess Minerva and the god Apollo. It is divided into two parts, a deep, open front porch and a back portion with a triple cella. The front porch had wide-set columns that added to the commanding effect that the building had on the worshippers who came there. The overhanging wooden roof and lifted height of the temple on a raised podium also added to this effect, and was somewhat dominating and intimidating for the worshipper. The roof also creates different shadows and highlights at different parts of the day, displaying a focus on light and its effects that the Romans had.

I imagine that the figures placed on the roof may have been difficult to see from the ground, but it’s also possible that they may have added to the overpowering aesthetic. The bright color that this temple would have had would have magnified the temple’s power, as well as make it easier for the figures and details of the temple to be seen.

Brown, Frank E. Roman Architecture, New York: George Brazieller, Inc., 1961.

Image from: http://www.kuntzaparthistory.com/etruria---pre-rome

[christine-allen]

Art 3.10

First off, I just want to note how harsh Susan Woodford was when she was talking about some of these Roman artists, saying that they were "naive" and had "little grasp" of how to make art. She gave those guys 0 credit. That said, I thought it was really cool how art, specifically architecture, was built all over the Roman Empire, each piece meant to express the dignity of the empire itself. Even though different materials and such were used depending on the area, the architecture maintained this common goal, which shows kind of a widespread unity. I also like that the bath buildings were just as important as the amphitheaters. Woodard mentions the Imperial Baths at Trier and notes that they were never completed--why? Did a new ruler come to power? What happened? Also, how do we know it wasn't finished if it has all the rooms a bath building usually has?

[christine-allen]

Confessions 3

How much of Augustine's thought is purely his own, and how much of it did he get from his mom? It seems that she was a significant part of his life (and his faith base), how much of an influence did she have on him? I found it relatable when Augustine was talking about his struggle in putting God first in his life--he talked about his love of love, and how he found that desire taking precedence over his love for God, which is something I think a lot of Christians struggle with today.

[christine-allen]

Confessions 2

In the first book it seemed that Augustine was writing for himself, like a sort of journal entry. In this book it isn't as clear to me if he is continuing in this. Is he writing just for himself, or is he writing as a testimony to others? I can't tell if Augustine is being humble in his acknowledgement of his sin, or if he is being overly self-deprecating. It doesn't appear that he is giving himself any mercy.

[christine-allen]

Villa of Livia at Primaporta

Augustus’ wife, Livia Drusila was visiting Veio when an eagle flew by and dropped a white hen with a laurel branch in her lap. It is on the site that this symbolic experience occurred that now rests Livia’s Villa at Prima Porta, otherwise known as “ad Gallinas Albas” (of the white hens). Owned by the wife of the emperor, the splendor of this place becomes immediately evident. The underground dining room wall painting depicts the scene of a garden (approximately 19 by 38 feet). Indicating the progression from Second to Third Style, the rich blue background and the high quality of the painting makes it clear that Livia was a woman with access to extreme wealth. The room is in the shape of an exedra, the walls showing images of trees and birds of all types--pine, oak and firs, nightingales, magpies, swallows and more. The lack of any human figures makes the involvement of the spectator absolutely necessary, and gives the illusion that the viewer is walking through the richly vegetated garden; the details of coloring as well as accuracy in portraying the plants and birds also add to this effect. The lack of windows in the room rejects the idea of another reality, so the viewer is left with the garden as a sort of imaginary paradise.

In addition to being beautiful, the wall painting is also representative of the prosperity and well-being that Augustus wanted to promote in the new imperial regime. All of the flowers seem to be blooming simultaneously, indicating the prosperity of the Imperial age and alluding as well to the peace and success Augustus was guaranteeing.

Mazzoleni, Donatella. Domus: Wall Painting in the Roman House. Los Angeles: Getty Publications, 2004.

[christine-allen]

Art 3.9

I love that even though the Romans greatly admired and took a lot of stylistic aspects of their culture from the Greeks, they still had a strong sense of their own style and character, especially in the sense that they were able to have their own major developments that were beyond what could have been accomplished by the Greeks. It shows their dedication to development, creativity and innovation as well as style. They mention that the application of orders on the Colosseum were ornamental, but that they also served functions. Were these functions noted by the architects when they were designing and building the Colosseum, or were these benefits discovered later on (either by Romans after it was built, or by historians in later centuries)?

[christine-allen]

Parthenon Lecture, Oct. 27, 2016

On October 27, I attended a lecture by Neil Silberman at the Parthenon in Nashville titled “Rebooting Antiquity.” In this lecture, Silberman concentrated on four major points comparing the progress of archaeology with the downloading of a software. 

Above: Ella and I at the Nashville Parthenon getting ready to hear Silberman’s lecture.

Silberman’s first point was on “Social Context Recognition.” To me, the most profound thing about this point was the idea of a “non-place”, a place that in reality could exist anywhere. The rising popularity of these “non-places” are replacing significant places; nostalgia is being replaced by a feeling of “rootedness,” which is taking away from history. Silberman’s second point focused on an “Alternative Narrative Construction.” Here he recognizes the dangers of people thinking in terms of a single story. In reality, no thing has a single story. There is cultural heritage and significant legitimacy in almost everything, an aspect that most people ignore. Thirdly, Silberman noted the changing archaeological experience. In hearing him talk about this, I found it sad how archaeological sites are now becoming a form of entertainment for tourists. Nowadays, it’s all about the visit, not the heritage. People go to historical places just to say they’ve been there instead of for the purpose of actually learning about it and becoming more worldly knowledgeable. 

Above: tourists at an archeological site. Image taken from http://www.greekboston.com/travel/archaeological-sites-athens/

The fourth and final point Silberman made was on “Multiple Significance” of modern archaeology. In this, he simply recognized the question: How do we fix this? In reality, there’s no easy answer. It is difficult to determine what cultural heritage even is, let alone how to cultivate it or who should be put in charge of doing so. From this lecture, I was exposed to the growing concern surrounding archaeological endeavors, and how history’s importance lies not in the past, but in the present and future. Neil Silberman highlighted the point that if society continues on the path it’s on, cultural heritage may be detrimentally diminished.

[christine-allen]

Pliny Letters and Meet the Romans Episodes 1 and 2

In Meet the Romans Episode 1, I found a lot of Mary Beard’s comments about the culture of ancient Rome reminded me of going to college. You’re immersed in a new place with a slew of new people that come from all over the place--yes, there are some natives of the area, but there are a lot of people from all over the country, and asking “Where are you from?” is a very common question. To me, this idea of everyone being from somewhere different really reflected what Mary Beard was saying about the multitude of cultures in Rome.

Pliny wrote his letters to Cornelius Tacitus, who was a Roman senator and historian. As he accounts the death of his uncle and his own story about the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, it seems like a personal narrative. This made me wonder why it was that Tacitus was asking for them, and why did he care?

[christine-allen]

Aeneid 9-12

Is there an Aeneid Part 2? I was so disappointed by the ending--it felt like Virgil just got tired of writing and so decided to just end the book. Does Aeneas marry Lavinia? Are we just supposed to assume that everything worked out the way the gods said it would? Despite Aeneas' lack of pity for those that beg for mercy, I think it is still comforting that both parties allow each other time (12 days) to mourn and bury their dead in the midst of war. I think this shows a level of respect in warfare and a bit of humanity as they both recognize that they are in pain and need time to heal.

[christine-allen]

Shown above is “Orestes and Electra”, ca. 50-25 B.C. The initial feature that shocked me about this sculpture was the size of the woman. The piece depicts the Stephanos athlete interacting with a female figure. Unlike most of the ancient sculptures I have seen in the past, I noticed that the female’s muscles and size matched that of the athlete. While the figure does possess a pose similar with a Venus Genetrix style that was common in the fifth century, the fact that her hair is rolled tightly against her head, the boxiness of her body shape, and her sharp facial features, cause this figure to appear to be quite masculine. Even her hands and feet seem to be too large. The only suggestion of femininity is in her bust, but even this feature is downplayed by the drapery she is wearing. While this clothing is tight fitting and virtually see through, it still does not allude to an overly “woman” form underneath. To me, the drapery instead highlighted the woman’s thicker legs and box-like torso.The overall combination of these features suggests that the artist most likely used male Severe Style statues as his prototypes for both the athlete and the woman. The conttroposta of the athlete and the thin drapery of the female were both aspects seen in Greek sculpture, thus displaying the Roman’s continuous use of Greek features in their art. Overall, “Orestes and Electra” portrayed a use of diverse styles that appealed to an artistically sophisticated society in ancient Rome.

Kleiner, Diana E.E. Roman Sculpture. United States: Yale University, 1992.

Images from: https://www.studyblue.com/notes/note/n/roman-art-midterm/deck/5882409

[christine-allen]

Thank you for your feedback; there was no explanation other than the assumed male model that would indicate why the woman’s figure was so masculine. I wish there was, as this was one of my questions as well while researching this sculpture. In regards to the background of the image: the athlete was a Stephanos athlete names after the artist Stephanos. His best known piece was that of an athlete, which was a regular subject (young, athletic male) to re-create at the time. The Stephanos athlete survives in a number of copies, suggesting that it stood as a signature piece of the Pasitelean workshop where Stephanos studied. An emphasis was put on presenting the ideal male figure in combination of other figures, which is exactly what we see in “Orestes and Electra.”

[christine-allen]

Aeneid 6

By the end of Book 4, I pitied Dido so much, so to me it was a bit of a happy ending for her that she got to be with Sychaeus, who loved her the same way she loved him. It seemed to me that even though she didn't actually say anything to Aeneas, she still kind of got the last word in their relationship. Aeneas continuously comments on how he's doing the things he's doing because the gods said he had to. Was there any wiggle room in this? Would it be possible for him to diverge from what the gods wanted and to do instead what he thought was best? Was this notion unheard of, or was Aeneas just especially pious?

[christine-allen]

Aeneid Book 4

Why couldn't Aeneas take Dido with him to conquer Italy? He makes it clear that he loves her, but he doesn't fight to try and stay with her, why did he show disregard to their union? I found Dido's mental collapse so emotionally traumatizing. I pitied her so much, especially after she kills her self when it is noted that she died before her time and undeservingly. It broke my heart that her life was ruined by the games being played by the gods messing with human lives.

[joncastor-blog]

Laocoon’s Death

The Laocoon group is one of Rome’s most famous pieces, and is dated back to around 50 B.C. (Furtwangler 161). It depicts the death of Laocoon, the Trojan priest of Apollo, and his two boys at the hand of serpents sent from the sea (Furtwangler 161). The snakes intertwining throughout the piece help to draw all of the figures together into one solid piece, and allow the human eye to travel along them across the sculpture. By adding these snakes, it allowed the artists to make a sculpture with five different creatures in it (Furtwangler 161). The head of Laocoon immediately catches the eye, not only because of the size but also the extreme detail in his hair, which is a great head of lettuce, romaine that is. His eyes look almost as if they are rolling back in his head, and the open mouth suggests one last breath escaping his body as he dies. His extreme muscular build gives off the strength of a great man who is in his final moments, as he arches back in pain from the snake bite (Furtwangler 161). His son on the left appears to be struggling less than the father, and almost giving up. His body is not as muscular which helps the eye not to linger too long and to carry on to the next figure. The son on the right looks at his father with an expression of horror as he watches his father die (Furtwangler 161). The family’s final moments are captured together in this piece in a final scene of horror and despair.  

[christine-allen]

My favorite part of this analysis was when you compared the father to his son on the left. I find the idea that he is giving up to be something the viewer can clearly see in this piece, especially as you emphasized that his muscles were loose and less muscular. Is it possible that this son was already dead? 

What I also enjoyed about this was how you mentioned the facial expressions on the father and the son on the right. I think you could have expanded more on the expression of utter anguish on Lacoon’s face, and how that reflected the look of horror on the face of his son.

[christine-allen]

@claireemiko @laurelofolympia

[christine-allen]

Aeneid

In this text I found the human reliance on the will of the gods to be extremely prevalent. Almost everything that went on was either the result of a gods whims or desires, or was otherwise the intentional doing of a god. Did the Trojans follow the Greek or Roman system of gods? I had thought that they followed the Greek system but Virgil uses the Roman gods--is this just because Virgil is writing in Rome (for Romans)?

[christine-allen]

Shown above is “Orestes and Electra”, ca. 50-25 B.C. The initial feature that shocked me about this sculpture was the size of the woman. The piece depicts the Stephanos athlete interacting with a female figure. Unlike most of the ancient sculptures I have seen in the past, I noticed that the female’s muscles and size matched that of the athlete. While the figure does possess a pose similar with a Venus Genetrix style that was common in the fifth century, the fact that her hair is rolled tightly against her head, the boxiness of her body shape, and her sharp facial features, cause this figure to appear to be quite masculine. Even her hands and feet seem to be too large. The only suggestion of femininity is in her bust, but even this feature is downplayed by the drapery she is wearing. While this clothing is tight fitting and virtually see through, it still does not allude to an overly “woman” form underneath. To me, the drapery instead highlighted the woman’s thicker legs and box-like torso.The overall combination of these features suggests that the artist most likely used male Severe Style statues as his prototypes for both the athlete and the woman. The conttroposta of the athlete and the thin drapery of the female were both aspects seen in Greek sculpture, thus displaying the Roman’s continuous use of Greek features in their art. Overall, “Orestes and Electra” portrayed a use of diverse styles that appealed to an artistically sophisticated society in ancient Rome. Kleiner, Diana E.E. Roman Sculpture. United States: Yale University, 1992. Images from: https://www.studyblue.com/notes/note/n/roman-art-midterm/deck/5882409