posted
In my spare time I've been reading a couple of interesting books. Here is one of them:
The book analyses the word 'classical', its meaning, nature, and uses.
Synopsis: The term "classical" is used to describe everything from the poems of Homer to entire periods of Greek and Roman antiquity. But just how did the concept evolve? This collection of essays by leading classics scholars from the United States and Europe challenges the limits of the current understanding of the term. The book seeks not to arrive at a final definition, but rather to provide a cultural history of the concept by exploring how the meanings of "classical" have been created, recreated, and rejected over time. The book asks questions that have been nearly absent from the scholarly literature. Does "classical" refer to a specific period of history or to teh artistic products of that time? How has its definition changed? Did those who lived in classical times have some understanding of what the term "classical" has meant? How coherent, or even justified is the term? The book's introduction provides a generous theoretical and historical overview. It is followed by eleven chapters in which the contributors argue for the existence not of a single classical past, but of multiple, competing classical pasts. The essays adress a broad range of topics---Homer and early Greek poetry and music, Isocrates, Hellenistic and Roman art, Cicero and Greek philosophy, the history of Latin literature, imperial Greek literature, and more. The most up-to-date and challenging treatment of the topic available, this collection will be of lasting interest to students and scholars of ancient and modern literature, art, and cultural history
The introduction pretty much makes it clear that the word 'classic' or 'classical' as we know it is a subjective Eurocentric term that could cover a variety of things deemed old and original-- usually infering to early European civilization.
And just so this isn't off-topic here is a section about Egypt:
"EGYPTOMANIA" by Jas Elsner
To test my proposition for Classicism, let us turn to the most prevalent of non-Greek-influenced styles in the Roman world, namely those of Pharaonic Egyptian art. There is a great deal of Egyptian and Egyptianizing art in Rome, but for various reasons it has proved easily relegated to a conceptual corner where its existence fails to make an impact on the Hellenocentric picture of Roman art. That the Egyptiana belong to a species of Classicism (according to my definition) is not in doubt. Pharaonic styles (and collected Pharaonic objects) were already being used to allude to the past in Hellenistic Alexandria. Indeed the very process of amassing objects in Pharaonic styles is surely modelled on Alexandria, where recent underwater excavation has found that Pharaonic antiquities appear to have been transported to and displayed around the famous lighthouse, the Pharos. Many Egyptian objects in Rome were antiquities---imported as booty and displayed as trophies, for example, most of the obelisks. In this, the collection and exhibition of Egyptiana in Rome resembles that of original Greek art, such as the fifth-century-B.C.E. pedimental scuptures from Greece, moved to the Augustan temple of Apollo Sosianus in the early Principate although it is possible that there was a different balance between intimations of domination and fascination in Roman responses to imported Egyptian art on the one hand and Greek art on the other. Other original Pharaonic works appear to have come for religious reasons, such as the XIXth Dynasty Horus from teh Isaeum Campense, which is now in Munich. Much more common, especially in the second century C.E. was the creation of Egyptianizing works in Rome by artists, either of Egyptian extraction or equally by locals and perhaps even by Greeks. Some such objects were didications at Isaea, for instance, the red granite crocodile now in the Capitoline Museum, but others were decorative embellishements designed to enhance an elite setting like Hadrian's Villa Tivoli. In the case of these three-dimensional finds---now scattered across the country houses and mseums of Western Europe and North America---it is hard to know how the Egyptian-influenced pieces mixed with non-Egyptian-related works. This isolationism of the Egyptian objects as finds means that they can be treated seperately form the Hellenizing and other objects with which they once stood side by side---not only in the handbooks but also in such displays as the VAtican's Museo Gregoriano Egizio, whose collection (despite its title) is almost entirely of Roman works in the Egyptian style. Clearly in Hadrian's Villa, for example, ther emust have been significant eclecticism---so that Gavin Hamilton's 1769 excavation of the Pantanello (effectively a bog) included the Lansdowne head of Aninous as Osiris as well as other Egyptianizing figures in addition to numerous statues in Greek-influenced styles...
On the narrowly art historical side, one might argue that the egyptiana give a general cultural referent that is muc hless connoisseurially and stylistically nuanced than the precise reference to very different Greek styles in the Roman reworkings of Greek art. That is, Roman Hellenic Classicism has a depth and precision of the reference unequalled by other Roman classicism. This is partly true and partly because the Greek material is so much more copious. But nonetheless the Egyptiana does distinguish between Pharaonic imagery and other kinds of more Hellenistic Egyptian imagery, especially in the allusion to Nilotic scenes, the imagery of pgymies, and so forth. A certain stylistic diversity (and the implicit awareness of a chronological progression?) within the Egyptiana is certainly present in Roman art, even if its references are not so precise as those of the Hellenica. This chronological and stylistic subtlety is muc hless obviously the case in examining Roman appropriations of the art of the near east. At the same time it must be admitted that the Egyptiana are a special case in one sense at least. Wheras the vast majority of other Roman visual appropriations (of Greek or easter or Italic motifs, for instance) are cast in the broad range of styles that look back to Greek artistic practice, the Egyptiana in their Pharaonic forms necessarily signal Egypt. Yet, when such motifs are intermixed with Greek-derived fotifs with the playful panache of the Casa del Futteto, it appears that Egyptian forms and styles have lsot any sense of historicsim, to become simply a matter of taste and whimsical artistic choices
In other words, if you think Egyptomania only began in the 19th century, you're wrong. It began during the Greco-Roman period ever since Alexander conquered Egypt to the Roman empire. Egypt is only considered "classical" due to ancient Europeans' appropriation of Egyptian styles, art, religion etc. A few of which still survives to this day in the form of the Black Madonna (Isis cult).
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The point is that European 'Egyptomania' did not begin in the 1800s with the British and French but long before then by the Romans. Even the Romans acknowledged that Egyptian civilization was far more ancient than theirs but unlike their Greek counterparts were willing to adopt more Egyptian traits.
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Greeks had their Gods and so did the Egyptians. Almost everything in Egyptian Art was a religious expression. The Greek Gods found their way into Egyptian culture as they did into Roman. The Egyptians were rare in that they not only respected other faiths but they took pride in adopting them.
Your comment comparing Romans to Greeks is rather weak. The Greeks had a strong religious following of their own Gods but respected Egypt for the way they were. There was little need for Greeks to adopt other religions especially when they reached a zenith in their Mythology/Religion around 700BC. This is not to say that Egyptian Gods or their equivilants never existed within Greek Mythology.
SO I presume that Egyptian Art was of such religious purpose that it had no need to be used in Greece. Another point to mention is that the ROmans kidnapped Cleopatras (VII?) children and Octavian raised them in the house of his sister. So this event may have created a need for Egyptian art to appear in Rome.
Posts: 104 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ephestion: The Greeks had their Gods and so did the Egyptians. Almost everything in Egyptian Art was a religious expression. The Greek Gods found their way into Egyptian culture as they did into Roman. The Egyptians were rare in that they not only respected other faiths but they took pride in adopting them.
Your comment comparing Romans to Greeks is rather weak. The Greeks had a strong religious following of their own Gods but respected Egypt for the way they were. There was little need for Greeks to adopt other religions especially when they reached a zenith in their Mythology/Religion around 700BC. This is not to say that Egyptian Gods or their equivilants never existed within Greek Mythology.
SO I presume that Egyptian Art was of such religious purpose that it had no need to be used in Greece. Another point to mention is that the ROmans kidnapped Cleopatras (VII?) children and Octavian raised them in the house of his sister. So this event may have created a need for Egyptian art to appear in Rome.
What do you mean Greek gods found their way into Egyptian religion? Egyptian gods are far much older than Greek gods.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ My question indeed?? Which Greek gods did the Egyptians adopt? Morever, why do you feel insulted about what was said about the Greeks? In fact, it was the Romans who were responsible for the first wave of Egyptomania in Europe.
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly, Djehuti. I googled Egyptians adopted Greeks gods. The results that I got all said the Greeks adopted Egyptian gods and gave them new names. I googled similar questions and every time I got results from sites saying that the Greeks borrowed Egyptian gods. Besides gods I got many results on other things that the Greeks got from the Egyptians. Never did I get any result about the Egyptians borrowing anything at all from the Greeks.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
My wording may have come across as the Egyptians proper took Greek Gods and used them. However, the point is that the Greeks developed their Gods independantly from others as did Egypt. However, the people of Egypt were always open to new Gods. Ammon who existed prior (possibly) from Zeus took on the natures of Zeus. By this I mean what Ammon represented prior to contact with the Greeks was different to what he represented post Classical era. Many temples in Egypt towards Lybia were erected at a time when Greeks and Egyptians had a very tight Grain based trade.
Ive forgotten which Gods were similar and really what we need is a good Egyptian vs Greek comparison List: Ammon = Zeus Isis = Hera (?) etc
As for the matter of borrowing faiths you must also consider that not only did they have trinkets and idols of Gods from other places but they also attempted to become monotheistic. Ramses tried to enforce monotheism in the Sun God (Ra) replacing Ammon. While these things were happening Hebrews were in Egypt as slaves. So like i said Egyptian Gods changed their nature ie what they represented and often they adopted other religions as their own. Egyptians were highly held and regarded for this Egyptian trait (Heroditus). Unlike some who plundered disrespected temples and foreign Gods etc.(Assyrians)
Posts: 104 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good points but to the poster that said allmost evrything in Egyptian art was "Religious" I think that it was more of a celebration of life and Egyptian culture. Many paintings and artwork in Egypt show the Egyptian people doing natural tasks from Building Pyramids and Temples, to riding, constucting boats, preforming task such as Counting and Taking Animals and Food, Showing tribute from subjected Nations, Showing Forien people, Showing the King "Smiting" the Foes of Egypt...Showing the King Triuphantly Riding his chariot..slaughtering his enemies...Animals such as giraffes, cheatas, fish, Celestial skies, Fantacy Creatures..all apear in Egyptian Art. It was clear the Egyptians loved their way of life and wanted to forever keep it.
Also the Greeks did develop their own unique Religions and Beliefs. The Greeks considered Man to be the most beatiful and pefect form...this is why allmost all their gods...and all their cheifs gods were in the form of Humans and had emotion and behaved like Humans...Jealousy, Adultry, Lying, Bribery, Trickery, Curiosity...are all Traits of Zeus, Hera, Appolo..ect. This is unique becuase most relegions at the time like Egyptian and Near Eastern...had Animals or Beings that were clearly unhuman and perfect...Egypt had Some Human like Gods like Isis..but The Greeks were obviously facinated with Mankind.
Also the notion that Egyptians didn't grieve or considered Dying a Happy and Joyus thing to me is false. I saw Mary Lefkrowitz on that vidio make this assumption. The Egyptians OBVIOUSLY mourned their Dead...as a matter of fact the made Mouring an profession at Royal Burials...to the point where the Professional mourners..."Ripped out their hair for the Death of the King"...I saw a picture drawn of a Widow after her husband died in Egypt...by herself in the Typical egyptian Mourning pose of her hand over her Head....it such a sad picture and you get the sense of sorrow and lonliness the Woman felt...
Good thread.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic