Gli eroi del Trono di Apollo ad Amicle tra apoteosi, immortalità elisia e destino di morte

This paper is part of a wider research project on the figurative program of the Throne of Amyklai and investigates six scenes described by Pausanias in 3.18.11-12: a controversial Hermes Dionysophoros, the introduction of Herakles to Olympus, the delivery of Achilleus to Cheiron, the abduction of Kephalos by Eos, the wedding of Kadmos and Harmonia, and the duel of Achilleus and Memnon. The analysis of the relevant literary and artistic sources shows that a complex texture of mutual references links the heroic and divine protagonists of these scenes. Some heroes, because of their virtue or beauty, ascend to Olympus, while some of them meet death, which causes deep grief to their divine mothers. An implicit comparison is made between their and Hyakinthos’ story, whose death and apotheosis also structures the festive ritual of the Hyakinthia. The set of images under investigation seems to function almost as a hymn to Apollo and Hyakinthos.Il contributo è parte di una più ampia ricerca sul programma figurativo del Trono di Amicle e analizza sei scene descritte da Pausania in III 18,11-12: un Ermes Dionysophoros d’incerta interpretazione, l’ascesa di Eracle all’Olimpo, la consegna di Achille a Chirone, il ratto di Kephalos da parte di Eos, le nozze di Cadmo e Armonia e il duello di Achille e Memnone. L’analisi della tradizione letteraria e figurativa mette in luce una fitta serie di riferimenti incrociati che legano i protagonisti eroici e divini di queste scene. Alcuni eroi, nel segno della virtù o della bellezza, ascendono all’Olimpo, altri vanno incontro alla morte, recando così dolore alle dee che li hanno generati. Le loro storie sono implicitamente confrontate con la vicenda di Hyakinthos, la cui morte e apoteosi è determinante anche per la struttura del rituale festivo delle Giacinzie. L’insieme delle immagini sembra avere la funzione di un inno ad Apollo e Hyakinthos

Krypteiai spartane

As E. Lévy pointed out in 1988, ancient sources convey two different images of the Crypteia. According to Plato (Laws, I, 633b-c) and the scholiast ad loc., the Crypteia was a hard endurance test. Plato and the scholia do not mention the helot hunt, the most eminent feature of Plutarch’s account of the Crypteia (Lyc., 28), largely based on “Aristotle” Lakedaimonion Politeia (cf. Heracl., fr. 10 Dilts = fr. 611, 10 Rose). Plutarch’s debt from “ Aristotle” is larger than usually assumed and includes the reference to the treacherous massacre of helots narrated by Thucydides (IV, 80, 3-4). That the Crypteia operated in this action was a (fallacious) hypothesis of “Aristotle”, which induced him to suggest that sometimes the victims were dangerous helots designated by the authorities. His reconstruction provided in turn ground for the (no less fallacious) modern view of the Crypteia as a secret police. The paper summarizes the modern attitudes towards the Crypteia, and the difficult dealing of 19th-century historians with Plutarch’s description. The 20th-century scholarship had many good reasons for holding true this evidence and has usually conceived the endurance test and the killing of helots as two faces of a century-old institution, which came to combine initiation and police duties or terroristic aims. This view does not stand up to closer scrutiny. Plato and the sources of the scholia illustrate an elder form of the Crypteia, while “ Aristotle” portrays a modified Crypteia, set up in the mid-fourth century, as a counterpart to the annual declaration of war against the helots (Plut., Lyc., 28, 7). The Spartans refused to recognize the legitime possession ofComo señaló E. Lévy en 1988, las fuentes antiguas transmiten dos imágenes diferentes de la Krypteia. Según Platón (Leyes, I, 633b-c) y el escolio a este pasaje, la Krypteia era un duro examen de resistencia. Platón y los escoliastas no mencionan la caza del hilota, el rasgo más destacado de la explicación de Plutarco sobre la Krypteia (Lyc., 28), en gran medida basada en la Lakedaimonion Politeia de “ Aristóteles” (cf. Heracl., fr. 10 Dilts = fr. 611, 10 Rose). La deuda de Plutarco con “ Aristóteles” es mayor de lo que se piensa habitualmente e incluye la referencia a la traicionera masacre de hilotas narrada por Tucídides (IV, 80, 3-4). Que la Krypteia tuvo que ver en esta acción era una hipótesis (errónea) de Aristóteles, que le llevó a sugerir que a veces las víctimas eran peligrosos hilotas señalados por las autoridades. Su reconstrucción dio pie a su vez a la no menos errónea visión moderna de la Krypteia como una policía secreta. El artículo resume las posiciones actuales sobre la Krypteia, y las dificultades de los historiadores decimonónicos en el manejo de la descripción de Plutarco. La investigación del siglo XX tenía buenas razones para considerar cierta esta evidencia y ha tendido a pensar que la prueba de resistencia y el asesinato de hilotas eran dos caras de una institución centenaria, que llegó a combinar iniciación y funciones policiales o intenciones terroristas. Esta interpretación no se mantiene cuando se somete a un examen riguroso. Platón y las fuentes de la escoliástica ilustran una forma antigua de Krypteia, mientras “ Aristóteles” retrata una Krypteia modificada, conformada a mediados del siglo IV, como equivalente de la declaración de guerra anual contra los hilotas (Plut., Lyc., 28, 7). Los espartanos se negaron a reconocer la legitimidad de la posesión de Mesenia por los mesenios : los mesenios no eran auténticos mesenios, sino simples hilotas. La declaración de guerra anual contra los hilotas expresaba el obstinado deseo de recuperar Mesenia. El asesinato de algunos hilotas en Laconia por los jóvenes que celebraban la Krypteia fue una vía indirecta de llevar a cabo una campaña imposible, y sobre todo, una forma de traspasar este deber supremo a las siguientes generaciones.Nafissi Massimo. Krypteiai spartane. In: Los espacios de la esclavitud y la dependecia desde la antigüedad. Madrid, 28-30 novembre 2012. Actats del XXXV coloquio del GIREA. Homenaje a Domingo Placido. Besançon : Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté, 2015. pp. 201-229. (Actes des colloques du Groupe de recherche sur l'esclavage dans l'antiquité, 35

Krypteiai spartane

As E. Lévy pointed out in 1988, ancient sources convey two different images of the Crypteia. According to Plato (Laws, I, 633b-c) and the scholiast ad loc., the Crypteia was a hard endurance test. Plato and the scholia do not mention the helot hunt, the most eminent feature of Plutarch’s account of the Crypteia (Lyc., 28), largely based on “Aristotle” Lakedaimonion Politeia (cf. Heracl., fr. 10 Dilts = fr. 611, 10 Rose). Plutarch’s debt from “ Aristotle” is larger than usually assumed and includes the reference to the treacherous massacre of helots narrated by Thucydides (IV, 80, 3-4). That the Crypteia operated in this action was a (fallacious) hypothesis of “Aristotle”, which induced him to suggest that sometimes the victims were dangerous helots designated by the authorities. His reconstruction provided in turn ground for the (no less fallacious) modern view of the Crypteia as a secret police. The paper summarizes the modern attitudes towards the Crypteia, and the difficult dealing of 19th-century historians with Plutarch’s description. The 20th-century scholarship had many good reasons for holding true this evidence and has usually conceived the endurance test and the killing of helots as two faces of a century-old institution, which came to combine initiation and police duties or terroristic aims. This view does not stand up to closer scrutiny. Plato and the sources of the scholia illustrate an elder form of the Crypteia, while “ Aristotle” portrays a modified Crypteia, set up in the mid-fourth century, as a counterpart to the annual declaration of war against the helots (Plut., Lyc., 28, 7). The Spartans refused to recognize the legitime possession ofComo señaló E. Lévy en 1988, las fuentes antiguas transmiten dos imágenes diferentes de la Krypteia. Según Platón (Leyes, I, 633b-c) y el escolio a este pasaje, la Krypteia era un duro examen de resistencia. Platón y los escoliastas no mencionan la caza del hilota, el rasgo más destacado de la explicación de Plutarco sobre la Krypteia (Lyc., 28), en gran medida basada en la Lakedaimonion Politeia de “ Aristóteles” (cf. Heracl., fr. 10 Dilts = fr. 611, 10 Rose). La deuda de Plutarco con “ Aristóteles” es mayor de lo que se piensa habitualmente e incluye la referencia a la traicionera masacre de hilotas narrada por Tucídides (IV, 80, 3-4). Que la Krypteia tuvo que ver en esta acción era una hipótesis (errónea) de Aristóteles, que le llevó a sugerir que a veces las víctimas eran peligrosos hilotas señalados por las autoridades. Su reconstrucción dio pie a su vez a la no menos errónea visión moderna de la Krypteia como una policía secreta. El artículo resume las posiciones actuales sobre la Krypteia, y las dificultades de los historiadores decimonónicos en el manejo de la descripción de Plutarco. La investigación del siglo XX tenía buenas razones para considerar cierta esta evidencia y ha tendido a pensar que la prueba de resistencia y el asesinato de hilotas eran dos caras de una institución centenaria, que llegó a combinar iniciación y funciones policiales o intenciones terroristas. Esta interpretación no se mantiene cuando se somete a un examen riguroso. Platón y las fuentes de la escoliástica ilustran una forma antigua de Krypteia, mientras “ Aristóteles” retrata una Krypteia modificada, conformada a mediados del siglo IV, como equivalente de la declaración de guerra anual contra los hilotas (Plut., Lyc., 28, 7). Los espartanos se negaron a reconocer la legitimidad de la posesión de Mesenia por los mesenios : los mesenios no eran auténticos mesenios, sino simples hilotas. La declaración de guerra anual contra los hilotas expresaba el obstinado deseo de recuperar Mesenia. El asesinato de algunos hilotas en Laconia por los jóvenes que celebraban la Krypteia fue una vía indirecta de llevar a cabo una campaña imposible, y sobre todo, una forma de traspasar este deber supremo a las siguientes generaciones.Nafissi Massimo. Krypteiai spartane. In: Los espacios de la esclavitud y la dependecia desde la antigüedad. Madrid, 28-30 novembre 2012. Actats del XXXV coloquio del GIREA. Homenaje a Domingo Placido. Besançon : Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté, 2015. pp. 201-229. (Actes des colloques du Groupe de recherche sur l'esclavage dans l'antiquité, 35

La stele di Damonon (IG V 1, 213 = Moretti, IAG 16), gli Hekatombaia (Strabo 8,4,11) e il sistema festivo della Laconia d’epoca classica

Forthcomin

Paides, melleirenes e eirenes: le classi di età dell’‘efebia’ spartana. A proposito di Plutarco, Lyc. 17, 3-4

Plutarco in Lyc. 17,3 si esprime in modo contraddittorio circa l’età dei melleirenes e degli eirenes. Come in sostanza suggeriva G.Busolt, la confusione di Plutarco è probabilmente dovuta a una sua imperfetta conoscenza, forse solo indiretta, dei nomi de

Gli eroi del Trono di Apollo ad Amicle tra apoteosi, immortalità elisia e destino di morte

This paper is part of a wider research project on the figurative program of the Throne of Amyklai and investigates six scenes described by Pausanias in 3.18.11-12: a controversial Hermes Dionysophoros, the introduction of Herakles to Olympus, the delivery of Achilleus to Cheiron, the abduction of Kephalos by Eos, the wedding of Kadmos and Harmonia, and the duel of Achilleus and Memnon. The analysis of the relevant literary and artistic sources shows that a complex texture of mutual references links the heroic and divine protagonists of these scenes. Some heroes, because of their virtue or beauty, ascend to Olympus, while some of them meet death, which causes deep grief to their divine mothers. An implicit comparison is made between their and Hyakinthos’ story, whose death and apotheosis also structures the festive ritual of the Hyakinthia. The set of images under investigation seems to function almost as a hymn to Apollo and Hyakinthos

Ancora su Artemis Astiàs e Artemis Kindyàs. Prodigi, culti e storia a Iasos e Bargylia

According to Polybius (16, 12, 2), the inhabitants of Iasos and Bargylia claimed that neither rain nor snow fell on the statues of two local goddesses, Artemis Astiàs and Artemis Kindyàs. An earlier paper attempted to clarify the nature of this wonder in relation to Greek religious and cultural tradition, and to contextualize it within the dynamics of rivalry between cities in the same region. The investigation continues with a review of what is known about the sanctuaries that housed the two statues, the role of the goddesses, and the integration of their cult into civic religion. In this respect, the present paper illustrates the institutional, figurative and devotional practices that developed in Iasos and Bargylia as a premise of, or parallel to, traditions about prodigies. Regarding Iasos, aspects such as the distinctive features of the epiclesis of Artemis Astiàs, the cult of the Apollonian triad at the sanctuary of Çanacık Tepe, and the role of Apollo and Artemis in political and religious life are examined from the perspective of the history of the city and within the framework of Graeco-Carian relations. Regarding Bargylia, in addition to the issue of the location of the sanctuary and its relationship with Kindye, the paper reconsiders the very early appearance of the image of the cult statue as a mintmark on the city’s coinage. It is suggested that this relates to the pre-existing fame of the statue’s prodigious properties