#historiography of Alexander the Great

[jeannereames]

Should we (not) read old history books?

And by old I mean academic works from maybe the 1960s onwards. Of course I understand what you always say about dated opinions, advances on historiography & archeology. And I don't dispute in any way, shape or form that we should always read the most recent work.

But is the old academic work really that disposable? Don't we have anything to learn with history books from the 80s, 90s, 2000s? Thanks for your attention.

The problem isn’t so much that they’re old, but that—if you’re entering an area of history about which you might not know much—older books can have pitfalls that newer ones don’t. This is hardly to say, just because something is recent, it’s good. Far from it. But my caution on older books was specifically in response to the query about reading pop history, and how to know what to trust.

So that’s the caveat. In that same post, I mentioned that I still regularly recommend Brian Bosworth’s Conquest and Empire from 1988. It’s a great fast summary and he tackles several important themes in part II. I also often recommend Gene Borza’s In the Shadow of Olympus (1991). Until Sabine published her book on Perdikkas, his chapter on Perdikkas there was the best thing in print (and still is in English).

Of course, to me, the 80s aren’t old books. Ha. When I think “old” books, I’m thinking 1950s and earlier. Part of that owes to the fact some very important ideological changes happened in history as a discipline in the 1960s and 1970s.

Yet one issue with older books—even good ones—involves new evidence. The asker alludes to that. Unfortunately, one must already know something about a field to discern what information in an older book is outdated. So, let’s take Gene’s In the Shadow as an example. Two very important changes in evidence have happened since that book came out. First, the matter of language (and thus ethnicity) of the ancient Macedonians. Gene argues that we don’t know what language the ancient Macedonians spoke, in large part because we just don’t have enough of it to judge. He suggests it might not be Greek (which was how he leaned at the time). That was all true…in 1990. But we do now have enough epigraphical evidence to say the ancient Macedonians spoke a form of Doric Greek (and Attic for court business). That means they were Greeks, however “backwards” politically/culturally, to the Greek mind.*

Similarly, none of us knew then what was about to come out of the ground at Archontiko in the early 2000s. Even what we’d seen at Aigai and Sindos didn’t make it clear how astonishing the Archaic Age was, up there. All these recent discoveries have changed what we think we know about Argead Macedonia before Philip and Alexander. Gene hinted at some of it in his assertion that, from Archelaos to Philip, Macedon went through a slump, and Philip brought it back. It didn’t just emerge from the swamps with Philip (as Demosthenes and other ancient writers would have one believe). So, Gene was already on the leading curve, but in 1990, none of us had seen enough yet. I remember sending him pictures from Archontiko near the end of his life, and he was very excited, commenting how it would change our ideas about Archaic Era Macedon.

So, if you read his book (and I hope you do), a lot of what’s in there is still solid material, 30 years later. But a few things are dated. And now you know two things that are…because I told you.

But if you didn’t have me to tell you, how would you know?

Ergo my caution. If you’re entering a field that’s new to you, start with later articles and work your way backwards. Ironically, that’s how I got into Macedonian history…reading arguments in the footnotes of articles, especially between the “Three Bs” (Badian, Borza, and Bosworth), plus Green, Heckel, Carney, Anson, Adams, and Greenwalt. Before I ever knew those guys, I was reading their citations of—and commentary about—each other. From that, I was able to render my own ideas of what I trusted, and didn’t trust, about Alexander, Philip, and Macedonia.

And that brings me to my final point. YES, reading earlier articles and books is very important when you really get into a field, precisely for the HISTORIOGRAPHY. In this case, not ancient, but modern. How did a field develop over time? To grok where Alexander studies are today, one must know a bit about where they began, with the heroizing of Droysen, Tarn, et al. in the late 1800s and pre-war era, down to Badian blowing it all up post-war in the late 1950s and the revolution of the ‘60s and ‘70s with Badian, Green, Bosworth, and Schachermeyer and their revisionist view of ATG. About the same time, we get the rise of Macedonian Studies apart from Alexander and Philip, under Edson, Dell, Hammond, and their students. And it all peaked really with the discovery of the Royal Tombs at Vergina when Macedonian archaeology both married and divorced (at the same time) Macedonian history. It’s really hard to express how radically ATG and Macedonian studies changed in the 1980s and ‘90s. Then is changed again in the early 2000s when everybody got tired of debating Who’s Buried in Philip’s Tomb and Macedonian ethnicty. Archaeology turned up new treasures but passed mostly into Greek hands (and was written in modern Greek) while historians started looking more closely at literary trends and Romanization overlay. More recently yet, (some) archaeology is coming back into English, and a wider awareness, welding to new literary approaches to ATG and Macedonian history. And don’t forget the important publication of Brill’s New Jacoby, making a huge contribution to source criticism! Where are we headed next? Time will tell!

So yes, reading older texts helps one situate where we are now relative to where we were then, and back then, and even before back then.

That said, if you’re brand new to reading about Alexander the Great, PLEASE please don’t pick up either Droysen or Tarn’s history of Alexander and think it’s anything close to accurate.

We’ve come a long way, baby.

———————-

* If you’ve read my Dancing with the Lion, you know that I tried to flip that, looking at Greece from the north and giving the Macedonian view of Greeks. So I want to emphasize that each side viewed the other was “lesser.” I’m not advocating, above, the Greek view as correct.

[josefavomjaaga]

I was listening to a podcast episode and the guest mentioned that Eugène was liked by the allies because he had principles. He was always loyal to Napoleon and never made too much of a fuss throughout the Empire like the Bonaparte siblings did, so when the Congress was underway they were happy to entreat with him. Would you say this is the case?

I guess I need to learn to express myself more carefully so I don't get myself into hot waters again, but in one word: No?

I think I've already quoted several instances of how Eugène in the beginning of the congress felt sidelined, disregarded, ignored. His letters to his wife, the reports of Vienna secret police about him standing all alone during the first public events and about members of Italian delegations cutting short any talk with him while badmouthing him behind his back, even archduke Johann's diary.

Of course it's hard to say without having heard the podcast what the guest meant by their remark. That the four big players could not avoid letting him in, as the only "napoleonide" of the event? That is correct. But - in my opinion - the only reason he was there and was heard was due to tsar Alexander. That was also the impression of contemporary witnesses and one more reason for people in Vienna to hate Alexander. The treaty of Fontainebleau that promised Eugène a "suitable principality outside of France" was mostly Alexander's work to begin with. And if Alexander had not ostensibly taken Eugène under his wing in Vienna, Eugène would have been pushed aside completely, like so many others. That's proven by the fact that, as soon as he lost Alexander's protection and Alexander lost much of his influence at the congress (after Napoleon's return from Elba), all dreams about a sovereign principality went out the window.

As to loyalty, modesty, friendliness etc, those were personal qualities that made Eugène liked. They did not make him respected. Not to forget: this is the beginning of the post-napoleonic era. The "great man"-style historiography has just received the ultimate great man to drone over. Those who want to be respected will have to do a lot of chest drumming and muscle flexing from now on, no matter how ridiculous it looks.

Eugène, like always, trusted that people would treat each other fairly at the congress. In truth it was several months of haggling, and those who had nothing to offer and nothing to threaten with were in a bad position. Diplomacy, much more than a military battle, is a game of chess. Eugène was just another pawn to be sacrificed.

Thanks for the question, sorry I cannot answer any better!

[areyougonnabe]

How would you suggest people get started learning about polar expeditions? I read Frozen in Time but I'm at a loss of where to go now 😭 any suggestions?

Hi!!! It depends on which era you're interested in!!

For Victorian exploration including the FE, I always recommend Erebus by Michael Palin, William Battersby's Fitzjames biography, and Barrow's Boys by Fergus Fleming. Now, all of those books have their flaws as many nerds (like me) will tell you, but they are all great starting points and will introduce you to the cast of characters/run of events of that era. Once you've advanced a bit, you could check out Dave Woodman's Unraveling the Franklin Mystery for an intensely detailed look at Inuit testimony; The Spectral Arctic by Shane McCorristine for an academic exploration of ghosts and clairvoyance in Victorian exploration; or Finding Franklin by Russell Potter for an overview of the search expeditions up to the present day. Michael Smith's Crozier biography is also a solid read. (EDIT: I forgot The Man Who Ate His Boots by Anthony Brandt if you want to know more about Franklin himself and his earlier expeditions!)

If you're more interested in the late Victorian/Edwardian era, commonly referred to under the "Heroic Age" umbrella, you have a lot of potential starting points....

That era could be said to have begun in 1897 with the Belgica expedition, one of the most chaotic and insane expeditions of all time. Madhouse at the End of the Earth by Julian Sancton is a RIDE of a book (more like FRATHOUSE at the end of the earth, amirite) and will get you started with two of my favorite figures of the age: it was the polar origin story of Roald Amundsen, and where he met a pre-pole controversy Frederick Cook (HIS SOULMATE).

For more Amundsen after the Belgica, I really liked The Last Viking by Stephen Brown. You could also check out Roland Huntford's biography buuut this blog is a No Roland Zone so I am hesitant to recommend him, even though re: Amundsen he's more legit than elsewhere.

The Worst Journey In The World is a classic for a reason: a really beautiful and detailed first-person account of Scott's last expedition that is a pillar of travel writing and the foundation for much of the historiography that came after. However, you could also start with A First Rate Tragedy by Diana Preston (which I haven't read yet but comes highly recommended) or even Cherry's biography by Sara Wheeler which is really excellent. OH and the graphic novel version of Worst Journey just released its first volume which is a WONDERFUL introduction to the story! Buy it here and support the artist!

I've also really enjoyed all of the other first-person accounts I've read, many of which are free & in the public domain: With Scott: The Silver Lining by T. Griffith Taylor and The Great White South by Herbert Ponting are super interesting and give you a taste of what it was like to really be there.

For Shackleton, definitely start with Endurance by Alfred Lansing and go from there. Shackleton's Forgotten Expedition is a good second step & will get you background on him and Scott (& Wilson). I have had Shackleton: A Life In Poetry by Jim Mayer recommended to me as well but haven't read it yet. After that, Frank Worsley (captain of the Endurance) wrote two books which are great supplements: Shackleton's Boat Journey and another one just called Endurance. And Caroline Alexander's The Endurance is really good too but it's a coffee table book with nice pictures, so grab a hard copy!

And last but CERTAINLY not least, I May Be Some Time by Francis Spufford is the be-all and end-all of polar exploration nonfiction, IMO. I'm just finishing a reread right now actually—I first read it post-Franklin obsession but pre-Scott obsession and honestly, it's an entirely different book once you're crazy about the Heroic Age, so while I have recommended it in the past for people just getting started, and still do, at this point I also kind of want to tell people to maybe wait until you've already reached a certain level of derangement to dive into it.

[ghelgheli]

The Stuff I Read in June/July 2023

Stuff I Extra Liked is Bold

I forgot to do it last month so you get a double feature

Books

Ninefox Gambit, Yoon Ha Lee

Heteropessimism (Essay Cluster)

The Biological Mind, Justin Garson (2015) Ch. 5-7

Sacred and Terrible Air, Robert Kurvitz

Wage Labour and Capital, Karl Marx

Short Fiction

Beware the Bite of the Were-Lesbian (zine), H. C. Guinevere

Childhood Homes (and why we hate them) by qrowscant (itch.io)

piele by slugzuki (itch.io)

بچه‌ای که شکل گربه میکشید، لافکادیو هرن

بچه های که یخ نزدند، ماکسیم گورکی

پسرکی در تعقیب تبهکار، ویلیام آیریش

Küçük Kara Balık, Samed Behrengi

Phil Mind

The Hornswoggle Problem, Patricia Churchland,  Journal of Consciousness Studies 3.5-6 (1996): 402-408

What is it Like to be a Bat? Thomas Nagel, (https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674594623.c15)

Epiphenomenal Qualia, Frank Jackson, Consciousness and emotion in cognitive science. Routledge, 1998. 197-206

Why You Can’t Make a Computer that Feels Pain, Daniel Dennett, Synthese, vol. 38, no. 3, 1978, pp. 415–56

Where Am I? Daniel Dennett

Can Machines Think? Daniel Dennett

Divided Minds and the Nature of Persons, Derek Parfit (https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118922590.ch8)

The Extended Mind, Andy Clark & David Chalmers, Analysis 58, no. 1 (1998): 7–19

Uploading: A Philosophical Analysis, David Chalmers (https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118736302.ch6)

If You Upload, Will You Survive? Joseph Corabi & Susan Schneider (https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118736302.ch8)

If You Can’t Make One, You Don’t Know How It Works, Fred Dretske (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4975.1994.tb00299.x)

Computing Machinery and Intelligence, Alan Turing

Minds, Brains, and Programs, John Searle (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00005756)

What is it Like to Have a Gender Identity? Florence Ashley (https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzac071)

Climbing towards NLU: On Meaning, Form, and Understanding in the Age of Data, Emily M. Bender & Alexander Koller (10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.463)

On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜 Emily M. Bender et al. (https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922)

The Great White Robot God, David Golumbia

Superintelligence: The Idea that Eats Smart People, Maciej Ceglowski

Misc. Articles

Ebb and Flow of Azeri and Persian in Iran: A Longitudinal Study in the City of Zanjan, Hamed Zandi (https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110694277-007)

WTF is Happening? An Overview – Watching the World Go Bye, Eliot Jacobson

Using loophole, Seward County seizes millions from motorists without convicting them of crimes, Natalia Alamdari

Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens, Cathy J. Cohen, Feminist Theory Reader. Routledge, 2020. 311-323

Is the Rectum a Grave? Leo Bersani (https://doi.org/10.2307/3397574)

Why Petroleum Did Not Save the Whales, Richard York (https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023117739217)

‘Spider-Verse’ Animation: Four Artists on Making the Sequel, Chris Lee

Carbon dioxide removal is not a current climate solution, David T. Ho (https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00953-x)

Fights, beatings and a birth: Videos smuggled out of L.A. jails reveal violence, neglect, Keri Blakinger

Capitalism’s Court Jester: Slavoj Žižek, Gabriel Rockhill

The Tyranny of Structurelessness, Jo Freeman

Domenico Losurdo interviewed about Friedrich Nietzsche

Keeping Some of the Lights On: Redefining Energy Security, Kris De Decker

Gays, Crossdressers, and Emos: Nonormative Masculinities in Militarized Iraq, Achim Rohde

On the Concept of History, Walter Benjamin

Our Technology, Zeyad el Nabolsy

Towards a Historiography of Gundam’s One Year War, Ian Gregory

Imperialism and the Transformation of Values into Prices, Torkil Lauesen & Zak Cope

[aboutanancientenquiry]

Alexander the Great in the Persian Tradition: History, Myth and Legend in Medieval Iran (Library of Medieval Studies) 

Hardcover – May 30, 2018

by Haila Manteghi

Publisher: I. B. Tauris

Alexander the Great (356-333 BC) was transformed into a legend by all those he met, leaving an enduring tradition of romances across the world. Aside from its penetration into every language of medieval Europe, the Alexander romance arguably had its greatest impact in the Persian language. Haila Manteghi here offers a complete survey of that deep tradition, ranging from analysis of classical Persian poetry to popular romances and medieval Arabic historiography. She explores how the Greek work first entered the Persian literary tradition and traces the development of its influence, before revealing the remarkable way in which Alexander became as central to the Persian tradition as any other hero or king. And, importantly, by focusing on the often-overlooked early medieval Persian period, she also demonstrates that a positive view of Alexander developed in Arabic and Persian literature before the Islamic era. Drawing on an impressive range of sources in various languages - including Persian, Arabic and Greek - Manteghi provides a profound new contribution to the study of the Alexander romances. Beautifully written and with vibrant literary motifs, this book is important reading for all those with an interest in Alexander, classical and medieval Persian history, the early Islamic world and classical reception studies.

Table of Contents

Foreword (Richard Stoneman) Introduction Chapter One: Greek and Syriac Versions of the Alexander Romance and their Development in the East Chapter Two: Arabic Accounts of Alexander the Great and the Legacy of Sasanian Historiography Chapter Three: Alexander the Great in the Shahnama of Firdawsi Chapter Four: Alexander the Great in the Arabic and Persian Popular Romances Chapter Five: Alexander in the Iskandarnama of Nizami Ganjavi (1141–1209) Chapter Six: Alexander in the Iqbalnama of Nizami Ganjavi Conclusion Appendix I: Summary of the Syriac Alexander Romance Appendix II: Summary of Alexander's letter to Aristotle about the wonders of India and China in the Syriac Alexander Romance (Book III, 7) Appendix III: Alexander's Persian Genealogy Bibliography

Haila Manteghi is a lecturer at the University of Munster and recently completed her second PhD on the Persian Alexandrian tradition, at the University of Exeter. Her first PhD, on the same topic, was completed at the University of Alicante, and she has published in peer-reviewed journals and edited collections.

Haila Manteghi

[exhibit-of-the-century]

Masterlist: Lesson Recommended Readings

Masterlist

BUY ME A COFFEE

✨Lucy E. Thompson, 'Vermeer's Curtain: Privacy, Slut-Shaming and Surveillance in "A Girl Reading a Letter", Survelliance & Society 2017 ✨Gregor Weber, 'Paths to Inner Values,' in Gregor Weber, Pieter Roelofs, and Taco Dibbits, Vermeer, (NewYork: Thames & Hudson, 2023) ✨Bernard Berenson on Masaccio, panel in National Gallery, 1907 ✨Giorgio Vadari, Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors and Architects (online translation published, 1912) ✨Marjorie Munsterberg, Writing about Art ✨Paul Binski, Westminster Abbey and the Plantagenets: Kingship and the Representation of Power, 1200-1400, 1955 ✨Toby Green, A Fistful of Shells: West Africa from the River of the Slave Trade to the Age of Revolution, 'Rivers of Cloth, Masks of Bronze: The Bights of Benin and Biafra', 2019

✨Pieter Roelofs, 'Girls with Pearls', extract from 'Vermeer's Tronies' in Gregor Weber, Pieter Roelofs, and Taco Dibbits, Vermeer, (NewYork: Thames and Hudson, 2023)

✨Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks (1986)

✨Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (1963)

✨Decolonial/Postcolonial Voices

✨Honour, Hugh and Fleming, John.  A World History of Art. London: Laurence King Publishing. 7th ed, 2005

✨The Painter of Modern Life, Charles Baudlaire, 1863 Part 2, Part 3 Other Quality

✨The Photographers Eye, John Szarkowski, 1966

✨Elkins, James. Stories of Art. London: Routledge, 2002

✨Paragraphs on Conceptual Art, Sol Lewitt, 1967

✨Nikolaus Pevsner, The Buildings of England. London, volume 1, The Cities of London and Westminster, 1973

✨Annie E. Coombes, Reinventing Africa: Museums, Material Culture and Popular Imagination in Late Victorian and Edwardian England, 'Material Vulture at the Crossroads of Knowledge: The Case of the Benin "Bronzes", 1994

✨Hatt, Michael and Klonk, Charlotte, Art History: A Critical Introduction to its Methods, 2006

✨Meyer Schapiro, H. W. Janson and E. H. Gombrich, ‘Criteria of Periodization in the History of European Art’, New Literary History, 1970 ✨Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, ‘Periodization and its Discontents’, Journal of Art Historiography, 2010

✨Kathryn Wysocki Gunsch, The Benin Plaques: A 16th Century Imperial Monument, 2018

✨D'Alleva, Anne. How to Write Art History. London: Lawrence King Publishing, 2010/2013/2015

✨Christopher Wilson, The Gothic Cathedral: the Architecture of the Great Church, 1130 - 1530, 1990

✨Anne D'Alleva, Methods and Theories of Art History, 2005/2012

✨Jonathan Alexander and Paul Binski (eds.), Age of Chivalry: Art in Plantagenet England, 1200-1400, 1987 ✨Paul Binski, Ann Massing, and Marie Louise Sauerberg (eds.), The Westminster Retable: History, Technique, Conservation, 2009

✨Christa Gardner von Teuffel, ‘Masaccio and the Pisa Altarpiece: A New Approach’, Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen, 1977 Part 2

✨John Shearman, ‘Masaccio’s Pisa Altar-Piece: An Alternative Reconstruction’, The Burlington Magazine, 1966

✨Kathryn Wysocki Gunsch, ‘Art and/or Ethnographica?: The Reception of Benin Works from1897–1935’, African Arts, 2013

✨Eliot Wooldridge Rowlands, Masaccio: Saint Andrew and the Pisa altarpiece, 2003

✨Svetlana Alpers, The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century, 1983

✨Clementine Deliss, Metabolic Museum 2020 ✨Laura Sangha, ‘On Periodisation: Or what’s the best way to chop history into bits’, The Many Headed Monster, 2016 ✨A Gangatharan, ‘The Problem of Periodization in History’, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 2008

✨McHam, Sarah Blake, "Donatello's Bronze David and Judith as Metaphors of Medici Rule in Florence," Art Bulletin, 2001

✨Eve Borsook, ‘A Note on Masaccio in Pisa’, The Burlington Magazine, 1961

✨Gombrich, E.H. The Story of Art, London: Phaidon Press Ltd, numerous editions

✨Paul Binski, 'The Cosmati at Westminster and the English Court Style', The Art Bulletin 72, 1990

✨Lindy Grant and Richard Mortimer (eds.), Westminster Abbey: The Cosmati Pavements, 2002

✨Peter Draper, The Formation of English Gothic: Architecture and Identity, 2006

✨Paul Crossley, ‘English Gothic Architecture’, in Jonathan Alexander and Paul Binski (eds.), Age of Chivalry: Art in Plantagenet England, 1200-1400, 1987

✨James H. Beck, Masaccio: The Documents, 1978 ✨R. A. Donkin, Beyond Price: Pearls and Pearl-Fishing: Origins to the Age of Discoveries, 1998

✨Nanette Salomon, ‘From Sexuality to Civility: Vermeer’s Women’, National Gallery of Art, Studies in the History of Art, 1998

✨Irene Cieraad, ‘Rocking the Cradle of Dutch Domesticity: A Radical Reinterpretation of Seventeenth-Century “Homescapes” 1’, Home Cultures, 2019

✨Walter D. Mignolo, ‘Delinking: The rhetoric of modernity, the logic of colonility and the grammar of de-coloniality’ in culture studies (2000)

✨H. Perry Chapman, ‘Women in Vermeer’s home: Mimesis and ideation’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek,2000

✨Christopher Wilson, ‘The English Response to French Gothic Architecture, c. 1200-1350’, in Jonathan Alexander and Paul Binski (eds.), Age of Chivalry: Art in Plantagenet England, 1200-1400, 1987

✨Johann Joachim Wicklemann (1717 - 1768) from Reflections on the Imitation of Greek Works in Painting and Sculpture

✨Antonie Cotpel (1661-1722) on the grand manner, from 'On the Aesthetic of the Painter'

✨Andre Felibien (1619-1695) Preface to Seven Conferences

✨Charles Le Burn (1619-1690) 'First Confrence'

✨Various Authors (Reviews) on Manet's Olympia

✨Zionism and its Religious Critics in fin-de-siecle Vienna, Robert S. Wistrich, 1996

✨Sex, Lies and Decoation: Adolf Loos and Gustav Klimt, Beatriz Colomina, 2010

✨Women Writers and Artists in Fin-de-Siecle Vienna, Helga H. Harriman, 1993

✨Fashion and Feminism in "Fin de Siecle" Vienna, Mary L. Wagner, 1989-1990

✨5 Eros and Thanatos in Fin-de-Siecle Vienna, Sigmund Freud, Otto Weininger, Arthur Schitzler, 2016

✨Recent Scholarship on Vienna's "Golden Age", Gustav Klimt, and Egon Schiele, Reinhold Heller, 1977

✨Maternity and Sexulaity in the 1890s, Wendy Slatkin, 1980

✨Andre Breton (1896 - 1957) and Leon Trotsky (1879 - 1940) 'Towards a Free Revolutionary Art'

✨Sergei Tretyakov (1892 - 1939) 'We Are Searching' and 'We Raise the Alarm'

✨George Grosz (1893 - 1959) and Weiland Herzfeld (1896 - 1988) 'Art is in Danger'

✨Paul Gaugin (1848 - 1903) from three letters written before leaving for Polynesia

✨Siegfried Kracauer (1889 - 1966) from 'The Mass Ornament'

✨Victor Fournel (1829 - 1894) 'The Art of Flanerie'

✨Various Author's (Reviews) on Mante's Olympia

✨Rosalind Krauss (b. 1940) 'A View of Modernism'

✨Clement Greenberg (1909 - 1994) 'Modernist Painting'

✨Clive Bell (1881 - 1964) 'The Aesthetic Hypothesis'

✨Catherine Grant and Dorothy Price, 'Decolonizing Art History', Art History 43:1 (2020), pp.8-66.

✨Terry Smith (b. 1944) from 'What Is Contemporary Art?'

✨Geeta Kapur (b. 1943) 'Contemporary Cultural Practice: Some Polemical Categories'

✨Chin-Tao Wu 'Biennials Without Borders?'

✨Edouard Glissant (1928 - 2011) 'Creolisation and the Americas'

✨Rasheed Araeen (b. 1935) 'Why Third Text?'

[alessandroiiidimacedonia]

Out soon: "Elite Women in Hellenistic History, Historiography, and Reception" by Borja Antela-Bernárdez and Marc Mendoza (eds)

Good day I’m Elena and thanks to be here on Alessandro III di Macedonia- Alexander the Great and Hellenism! Today I announce a new forthcoming book: Elite Women in Hellenistic History, Historiography, and Reception Borja Antela-Bernárdez, Marc Mendoza (eds) Brepols, Publishing date: August 21 or September The Hellenistic world, with its many new cultural trends and traditions, has often…

[annebrontesrequiem]

From my perspective as a dyed in the wool Imperial Russia nerd I think it’s a combination of source access and how hard it is to define Alexander and his reign easily.

Unfortunately there really isn’t a ton of stuff about Alexander I available in English. Usually he’s referenced most in large surveys (ex: Simon Sebag Montefiore’s Romanovs). Which is fine for an overall portrayal of Russia, but not for learning more. And then you go to the bibliography section and realize most of the sources are in Russian.

Biographies of Alexander I in English (or French, or German) are also pretty rare. Most were never translated out of Russian. The ones that exist tend to be older and not very up to date in terms of historiography.

Even contemporary memoirs are hard to find. Memoir writing peaked after Alexander I’s reign, and often focused on the era of Peter and Catherine. Alexander gets lost in the process.

But of course this doesn’t answer why nothing gets translated out of Russian. And I’d say it’s both the timing of Alexander’s reign and its (and his) fluidity.

Catherine is remembered as “the Great” and for rising unexpectedly to the throne - and expanding Russian borders through and incredibly aggressive policy of war and conquest. Pavel is not remembered but when he is it’s for the lurid story of his death. Nicholas I is remembered as being iron-fisted - as well as pushing a much more Russophilic policy than his predecessors. And Alexander just gets lost in the middle.

It makes sense too because Alexander’s reign is so hard to define because of how much changed within it. The aristocracy, so obsessed with Europe and France, was horrified by Napoleon. 1812 (as we all know thanks to Tolstoy) birthed both the Decembrists and incredibly nationalistic (for lack of a better terms) spheres within the nobility. It shook Russian society and politics to the core yet split the whole aristocracy down the middle.

Alexander himself resists easy definition. Liberal in his youth his friends (ex Sergei Volkonsky) were horrified when he became more conservative later in life. He was religious - haunted by his father’s murder - but also a product of the Enlightenment. His contemporaries don’t seem to agree if he liked being tsar. Some even say he faked his death so he could become a monk.

All this is fascinating, but also messy. And as much as a lot of people prolly would disagree, in some ways I think historians (especially popular historians) don’t like writing about messy things. Because it’s so hard. It reminds me of how most English historians skip the NEP era. Especially in popular history/culture. We go straight from 1918 to Stalin’s rise because the in between is just chaos.

Anyways this is so long and incoherent but that’s why I think Alexander is underrated. Because within the Napoleonic wars it’s easier to focus on Napoleon or Prussia or the generals. And within the scope of Russian history it’s easier to go right from Catherine to Nicholas. And poor Alexander gets shunted to the side.

(But to be clear new biography of Alexander and also period drama about Russia during that critical period of time that’s not a bad adaptation of W&P when?)

I honestly don’t understand why Tsar Alexander I is so overlooked among the tsars. Like yeah, Alexander II got blown up and Alexander III got a bridge in Paris named after him. But only the first Alexander made it all the way to Paris itself. I don’t get why the person who single-handedly reversed the destiny of Europe gets so skimmed over. I mean, even random English generals from the Napoleonic Wars are more acknowledged than him. It’s weird

[mercerspoems]

Roman History in a Nutshell: The Pyrrhic Wars - The Battle of Heraclea, 280 BCE

#Roman #History in a Nutshell: The #Pyrrhic #Wars - The #Battle of #Heraclea, 280 BCE - Covering the lead up to the Pyrrhic Wars, and the first battle. #Ancient #Rome and #Ancient #Greece were now, finally, bumping heads.

A little bit of where we are and a little bit of where we’re going! The Pyrrhic Wars lasted for approximately 5 years and saw the King of Epirus, Pyrrhus, cross the sea to air the Greek city of Tarentum. The first major battle took place at Heraclea (pictured southwest of Tarentum) (Credit: Piom By GDFL) In order to know where we are with these pesky, war hungry Romans we need to talk about…

[jeannereames]

What should we be excited about today in ATG historiography?

Actually, we should be excited about ARCHAIC ERA ARCHAEOLOGY. :-) E.g., the periods from about 580/570 down into the early Classical period. Sites like Aigai, Archontiko, and Sindos (et al.) are rewriting what we thought we knew about the origins of the Macedonian kingdom.

For Alexander historiography in particular, probably the fresher looks at the sources themselves are most exciting: how they pick-and-choose stories to suit their own themes. This has led to a lot of questioning about what happened...and what didn't. For instance, I'd submit the whole proskynesis affair was made up. Or at least, it didn't happen in the way (or even when) Arrian, Plutarch, and Curtius describe it. This is just one example. It's leading to some radical reappraisals of even the more famous events in Alexander's career.

Yes, this can be very disconcerting. But it's also kinda exciting.

[elucubrare]

the historiography of Alexander the Great is really fun because he became a Symbol almost immediately and there's no surviving sources from less than 100 years after he died, so there's some events where Source A says "he did it and it was awesome," Source B says "he did it and it was a sign of his growing hubris" and Source C says "some people say he did it and they're lying"

[ducavalentinos]

Cesare Borgia (1474/1475 - 1507): A detailed study of his horoscope made by Lorenz Beheim:

Cesare Borgia is one of the most famous figures of the Italian Renaissance, in his short life he was converted into a legendary, and infamous character, but when going beyond the myths, the pile of defamation, and the baseless assumptions attached to this name, and researching deeper about his life, it is incredible to realize how little certain information there is about him. As author José C. Deus puts it, Cesare is a historical figure where “almost everything has been invented, and almost nothing is known.”, and as it often happens with his historiography, even something as basic as a date of birth is obscure, with different possibilities. Some scholars put his year of birth between 1474 and 1476, the month is put as September, and the day as either the 13th or the 14th. His mother is definitely said to have been Vanotia de Cathaneis, or Vannozza dei Cattanei, as she is more commonly known. His father is said to have been Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia, later known as pope Alexander VI, although about his paternity there is a divergence of opinions among scholars. The place of birth is put by some (including Cesare himself according to one anecdote from 1503) as Spain, others put it as of being Subiaco, a town a little outside of Rome, where Cesare’s father was the holder of an important abbey along other numerous positions, and in the words of José C. Deus, perhaps applying a historical imagination to it, says that Cesare “was baptized with all intention with the name of Cesare/César, because his father expects of him no less feats than that of that Roman emperor.” If that is true, one might say Cesare did not disappointed his father in his great expectations of him. When he was only 18-years-old, he was appointed to the Sacred College of Cardinals. In 1498 he became the first Cardinal to leave his Cardinalate. The following year he married Charlotte d’Albret, making an alliance with France, and earning the title of Duke of Valentinois, as well as receiving at the hands of the King of France, Louis XII, the knightly Order of St. Michael, which was then the highest honour that France could confer. Back in Italy, from 1499 to 1503, he succeeded in the difficult task, one where other, more experienced men before him had failed, of conquering most of central Italy, which earned him a long list of titles, the most important one being Dux Romandiolae, Duke of the Romagna. For the first time in the region, an effective, just, and good government was installed, which truly made him beloved by the populace, but at the same time, this success combined with his magnetic, powerful personality (he was a “splendid soldier, an unrivalled administrator, a man pre-eminently just”) aroused the hatred and bitterness of other noble Italian families, and the envy of city-States like Venice and Florence, which lays at the core of his bad reputation, and it greatly impacted in how he was and continues being remembered in history. Lorenz Beheim was a German humanist, who also had knowledge in military engineering, chemistry, astrology and many other things. His relationship with the Borgia family probably begun around 1480, through his acquaintance of Rodrigo Borgia, who employed him as the maggiorduomo of his house. Later on, Beheim entered the service of Cesare himself, and at his request, he made an horoscope for him (astrology chart) based on his time of birth, which sadly Beheim does not reveal in his letters, but he determined the following about Cesare:

"At the time of his birth, the Sun was in its ascending phase, the Moon in the seventh, Mars in the tenth, Jupiter in the fourth..."

The positions of these starts made him predict "a dazzling existence, a life of conquests and glory, the irresistible rise to a sovereign power,” but also " the fall, the exile, and a violent death" as an epilogue. I thought it would be fun interesting to use Beheim’s information and make a study of it focusing in the planets and the positions he gives, and see if, where, and how much it matches with Cesare, and maybe also having new insights and speculating about his character, given all the uncertainty and mystery that surrounds him. I did some research, but I was unable to find what exactly Beheim meant by saying “the Sun was in its ascending phase...”, for the purposes of this set, I simply decided to replace it with Cesare’s Sun Sign, instead. The number of the positions he gives for the Moon, Mars and Jupiter, I interpreted as the positions of the houses as we know today, since he says he used the laws of astrology, “of diving the sky in twelve houses.” All the astrological characteristics used below are from a mix of astrology websites such as this, or this one. I base my interpretations of Cesare’s personality on his private correspondance (with personal and political/diplomatic letters he wrote and received), on his limited but documented actions, the records and official documents regarding his government in the Romagna, which historian Edoardo Alvisi thankfully brought to light in his brilliant biography about Cesare, with G. Sacerdote adding a little more about that (and other general information, too, including Lorenz Beheim) in his more accurately described encyclopedia about Cesare and his family, and from a few dispatches written by N. Machiavelli, Gianandrea Boccaccio, and Pandolfo Collenuccio, as well as the writings of other contemporaries I previously listed here.

Most likely date of birth: 13th September, 1475 (Subiaco, Rome)

Sun Sign: Virgo ♍ Sun:  The giver of life, represents our conscious mind in Astrology. It  represents our will to live and our creative life force. Just as the  planets revolve around the Sun in our solar system, we derive our life  purpose from the Sun in our natal chart. The Sun is our basic identity,  representing self-realization. In the chart, the position of the Sun by  zodiac sign represents the native’s life purpose and the style in which  they leave their mark in the world. Virgo is ruled by the planet of Mercury, it has Earth as its element, and the quality is Mutable. As the name implies, those with this quality are more flexible and comfortable with change than other signs, they are adaptive of their environment. They are also open-minded people, eager to understand other’s opinions. The ruling planet of Mercury is known as “the messeger”, it represents communication, thinking patterns, rationality and reasoning, and the intellect. It is connected to how we learn new concepts, exchange information and flex our mental agility. Signs under his planet (Gemini and Virgo) are usually the ones who have novel ideas, and little-known factoids, they are conversation starters. The Sign Symbol is the Maiden, Virgo has traditionally been linked with the Maiden, or the Virgin figure, symbolizing the sign’s pure intentions and strong independence. Their key phrase is “I analyze.” 

The natives of Virgo are usually described as being: analytical, intelligent, reserved, conscientious, loyal, kind, helpful, intensely curious and responsible. At its most stereotypical, they are known as “workaholics“ and people who are "obsessed with cleanliness and order", and on the negative traits, they are usually said to be overcritical of themselves and others, self-effacing, and overthinkers.

It was amusing to see how well this Sign’s traits matches with Cesare. In many ways, he was a typical Virgo. His high intellect was noted by contemporaries since his childhood, and his mind definitely seems to have been the analytical, meticulous, practical kind of mind, which usually is mistaken or misunderstood for coldness or ruthlessness, but in my view, it is just a straightforward way of looking at things and making decisions, Cesare, like most people, seems to have always tried to make the best decisions with what he got, he worked with the tools available to him and within the social and political landscape of his times, trying to stay alive in the process. He could be a visionary at times, but he wasn’t an idealist. He wasn’t one to be caught up in abstract philosophical and theological ideas, rather he was a man of action, a man of practical measures, who lived in the present and was more concerned with the material problems around him which could be solved, as quickly and peacefully as possible. There’s a constant groundedness and quick-thinking about him, a need to fix problems, that really do connect to some degree to what it’s said of Virgo, and of placement he has in Mars. It is noted how Cesare attended public events and festivities of the Roman society at a distance and/or reluctantly, always preferring to stay with his group of people, within his private court, partly we can say this was perhaps due to the prejudices about himself and his family in these circles, and the danger his position brought him, but partly this must have been due to his personality and personal inclinations, and under an astrology reading of it, definitely consistent with him being a Virgo, Virgos are said to feel a reticence when faced with anything new, people or things, but only until they feel comfortable, then ”they can talk up a storm,” from what it’s known about Cesare, at least in regards to people, he comes across as being like that. He seems to have been more reserved, keeping people at arm’s length until he felt some trust or appreciation for them, then he would reveal more of his personality, and was more open and cordial with them. This can be observed in one of the dispatches Machiavelli sends to the Signory of Florence, where he writes that although he was doing his best to “win his Excellency’s confidence, and to be able to talk familiarly with him,” up until present time he was unsuccessful, and hadn’t been able to learn anything new from him. I don’t believe Machiavelli ever truly won Cesare’s trust, but he did win his appreciation somewhat, which made their political meetings easier, with Cesare being more sincere than he usually was with envoys. In regards to being conscientious, loyal, kind, helpful, I think these traits were very present in his character. He seems to have been conscientious in the two senses of the word, in the sense of he was always serious about his work, and he put a lot of effort into it, and in the sense he seems to have firmly followed a personal set of moral and religious beliefs in his life. There are patterns in his decisions, political and personal, which illustrates that. From his desire to conquer the cities of the Romagna without bloodshed, where it is recorded that before taking Imola, "Cesare entered the church, prostrated himself before the enshrined figure, where he made a vow that he would finish the unfinished church and erect a chapel in honor of the Immaculate Conception, if he was able to take the city of Imola without bloodshed", to his strong sense of justice, or how he openly refused his father when this one asked him to go against a man who was also a member of the mentioned knightly order of St. Michael, because one of its oaths was to never fight against a fellow member. It would be long to list everything showing how loyal Cesare and remained until his death, to his family and people close to him, so that checks out, and it is possible he liked being helpful, for example, in one of his letters to his brother, Juan, after he comments upon a political treaty that had been reached, he adds with a tone of joy and pride, that this treaty was one he had "constantly intervened from beginning to end." And I think contrary to the image of a cruel, insensitive Cesare Borgia, which appears to have been mostly formed after his death, by reading the words of his contemporaries, usually hostile to him, and looking at his own actions, he seems to have had an kind disposition. There are many records stating his gentleness in dealing with others, the records stating his “cruelty”, mainly coming from Machiavelli’s conception of him, it’s better understood as “order” and/or punishment for men who either betrayed his trust, or plotted against him, and were circulating libels about him and his family, but even in these situations, the influence of Virgo can be seen, because his behavior was mild and restrained when put in comparison to other powerful lords, ladies, and kings, and within the general law and social codes of his time. The intense curiousity of Virgos, “their love for knowledge and their drive to know things, added with their attention to details and enormous observation powers give them the ability to learn all of the ins and outs of any subject” is demonstrably evident within what can be known about Cesare’s personality, and as I said before, I think it was one of the qualities which brought him and Da Vinci together and why they clicked so well with each other. Another possible aspect of the Virgo’s influence with Cesare can be seen in his strong sense of responsibility with everything, “Virgos, even when they’ve convinced themselves to be irresponsible about something or the other, they worry about it”, this sums up Cesare pretty nicely, I think. From the negative aspects, I don’t think there is enough to say Cesare was a "workalcholic", he was very focused and serious about his work, but his hard-work was constantly interwined with his moments of hard-partying lol, he loved having fun and he loved enjoying life, as Creighton rightly says here: "The Borgia nature pulsed with the joy of living, Cesare delighted in enjoying himself and was ready to contribute to the enjoyment of others." So he doesn’t match so well with the Virgo stereotype, same applies to the obsession with order and cleanniess, although there is a lot indicating his love for order, which I think the placement of his Mars influenced in that too, there is nothing to say he went overboard with it, and there is so little about his private life that is hard to know if he had an obsession with cleaniless, it’s possible, but the material only indicates he had a moderate concern about his health and physique, he loved physical exercises, and it looks as it was extremely important to him to have the best physicians with him, Torella in particular, was quite the innovative physician and I believe it was a quality that made Cesare employ him and keep him by his side. I couldn’t think of any records, or anecdotes suggesting he was self-critical and critical of others, I think this is one of the many open points about him, maybe he could have been to a certain degree, it wouldn’t surprise me to find that out. With being self-effacing, it could be said his moments of drawing attention to himself all had a political meaning, when he thought it was important, and that generally he didn't liked being at the center of attention, preferring to go by unnoticed and observe others, this trait can even be somewhat linked to his love of masks, come to think about it. He liked maintaining an anonymity about him and his private life, that’s for sure, especially as he ascended in his career, and wherever he was in Rome. Now the overthinking, and the perfectionism linked to Virgos, do seem to match with him sometimes, maybe not to an obsessed level, but on a higher level than others. It might partly explain the comments about his atypical downcast, melancholic moments, personally I tend to look at these moments as him being a normal human being, having his bad says like everyone does, or trying to avoid certain people and conversations, for all kinds of reasons, I don’t see anything unusual about that as his biographers tend to see, but in any case, it is interesting to notice these moments tended to happen wherever he was in Rome. There is a stark contrast in his behavior between Rome and the Romagna. In Rome, as he became more known, he was more guarded, recluse, moody, difficult to approach, and in the Romagna, he was the opposite, maybe this was due to his father’s presence, or because of all the people who wished to speak with him, who expected something from him, or the feeling of constantly being observed by others, the feeling of danger might also have felt higher in Rome than in places like his beloved Cesena, or Forlì and Imola, but besides all that, the fact he was a Virgo could have had its influence, too. With him typically overthinking, and worrying too much about everything, which ended up affecting his mood, and sometimes even his health, perhaps also being the cause of his moments of feeling ill from time to time, of having stomach and pain eyes, which are usually linked as a body response to a high level of stress and/or anxiety. Ohh, and there is also the Virgo’s sense of humour, which it’s said to be: “...sarcastic, witty, and because they possess an eye for detail and are sharp and observant people, they have an elite and intelligent sense of humour, that only a few can understand, it is not the most obvious sense of humour which automatically attracts attention, but they're the type of people to deliver the most clever, right remarks at just the right moment.”  That does fall in line with Cesare’s sense of humour, or at least we can make of it by his letters, some of his recorded words to contemporaries, and in his clever, funny remark, (possibly not only about himself but also his family and their reputation according to their enemies), when he dressed as a unicorn in one of the festivities for his sister’s wedding.  Planet in the houses: If the signs of the zodiac show “how” planets express themselves, the houses of the natal chart reveal “where” these energies play out.Each of the twelve houses of a chart rules certain areas of life, types of people and relationships, environments, ideas, and life circumstances. The planets represent different properties (such as action, affection, and communication) and the houses can tell us where in our lives we'll feel them most intensely (in our work, in our relationships, or in our personality, for instance).  Moon the in 7th House: Moon: It’s the ruler of Cancer and it represents our deepest personal needs, our basic habits and reactions, and our unconscious. It is all about how a person feels, its position in a sign and a House determining the way a person expresses him or herself when it comes to emotions. Where the Sun acts, the Moon reacts. It answers questions such as: How do we instinctively react or respond to problems? And what do we feel we need for a sense of security? In the chart, by house the position of the Moon shows which areas of life we feel the most “at home” or comfortable. For me, this is the most interesting aspect of Cesare's horoscope/birth chart, because of what the Moon represents, and because of its placement in the 7th House, which has said here, it's a very fascinating placement to have. And curiously enough, most of what it's said about this house and placement, and from everything I've read about Cesare and his relationships, it ends up matching rather neatly, too. The 7th House is correlated to the Sign of Libra, representing our primal balance and our ability to connect with others in the closest possible way, its planetary ruler is Venus. Its Latin motto is Uxor, this translates to “spouse” with its specific role as a mirror to our own Self found in other people, it is a house known as the house of marriage, but it rules all relationships, partnerships, and things we recognize in other people as a reflection of us. Each one-to one relationship is ruled by this house, including lovers, business partners, family relationships, and even enemies. Personality Traits: This placement of the Moon suggests a person with good diplomatic skills and a charming personality, they are a gentle, emotional person with a lot of charm. These qualities become more emphasized in one-on-one relationships or when dealing with the public. They intuitively know how to get what they want. They are versatile and many will like them for the way they act. Since the Moon is in opposition with their 1st house self, they are very balanced when it comes to their temper, being able to see both sides of a situation. This placement also indicates they are great at doing business, especially in the field of art. They are very interested in their own image and how the public sees them. When the Moon is in good aspects, natives of this house are capable of great emotions and very receptive to what others need. If the aspects are negative, they are changeable and moody, going with the flow when it comes to emotions and their existence in public. Moon in the 7 House people are usually in need of human interaction, and to be emotionally supported. It’s impossible for them to enjoy life on their own. They like doing things in groups, and to have others around who can make their life more fun. Their friends will be considered family, because they depend a lot on those who are closest to them. They are an extraordinarily supportive person to the people they care about. They tend to draw emotional or needy people into their lives, or they draw out strong emotional responses from others. They are talented at making others feel comfortable, quickly sensing their needs. They make a good counselor. Relationships/Partnerships: The Moon is the deepest part of our personality, and when it is placed in the house of marrige, it means these natives want a partner to be like they are deep down, they are not looking just for a partner, but a soulmate. Emotional bonds are important to them, more than others, they tend to seek emotional fulfillment through relationships, they like belonging to someone who makes them feel secure, who spoils and nurtures them. The women in their lives are particularly important to them, and their relationship with them powerfully influences theit sense of security and happiness. They feel they can’t achieve emotional balance without a significant other, they are often in love with the idea of love. This might make them change partners too often because they always rush to say they have found “the one” and get disappointed along the way, and/or they might also jump from relationship to relationship because they suffer when they are alone. They can be overly dependent on their relationship, not necessarily on their partner as a certain person, but rather on the idea of being in a relationship.You intuitively know how a person feels and if they like you. This is true for both romantic and interpersonal relationships in general.  A Moon in the seventh house has an emotional need for peace and harmony when it comes to close relationships, and partnerships. This need often overwrites their need to be self-assertive. Marriage: When married, they can feel the same things as their spouse because they’re sensitive and think this is the way to make their other half’s life easier. The celestial body also represents the Mother, so those who are more influenced by it will choose a spouse whom they can take good care of. The condition of the seventh house tells about their spouse, too. The Moon here suggests a sensitive, caring but sometimes moody partner. It’s hard for them to choose the perfect partner because there are many opportunities in their life. The men with the Moon in the 7 house want a good wife who can be an amazing mother. They will practically transfer the emotions they have for the woman who raised them to their spouse, this placement also suggests they will live in a happy marriage. For the personalit traits, there’s a good match here, Cesare had good diplomatic skills, he is praised by a contemporary for “even his sweetness and his gentleness…”, and him being an emotional person is suggested every now and again within his material. In my view, Cesare was not different from his father on this point either, he had his sentimentality and was a man of strong emotions, only I think he was inclined to keep that to himself, failing at it at some occasions, whereas his father had no problem displaying this side of him and his own strong emotions in public. And yes, we could say these qualities seemed to have been more emphasized in one-on-one relationships, Cesare knew how to cultivate personal relationships, a good example would be his relationship with Cardinal Piccolomini, but also his diplomatic relations with Ercole d’Este, Isabella d’Este and her husband the Marquess of Mantua, Francesco II Gonzaga, and he always dealt well with the public, even in Rome. As a Borgia, and if we take into consideration the influence of this placement in his horoscope, Cesare indeed seemed to know intuitively how to get what he wanted, same would apply to the versatility trait, the Borgia family adapted quickly to new situations and people. I always see a balance present in Cesare’s personality, as I do with in his father and his sister, and in his temper, this balance is even more pronounced. In order to break it one would have to try pretty hard, which some did, but his ability to see both sides is, for me, one of the things that made him such a good negotiator, especially when trying to reach peace agreements between rival noble families and their factions in the cities of the Romagna. When speaking of how good he was at business, precisely in the field of art, I can’t help but think of his activities as patron of the arts, which he certainly was, and of his purchase of The Sleeping Cupid by the-still-mostly-unknown-young Michelangelo. Like the rest of his family, and of nobles in general, it can be said Cesare always took great care about his image, how he presented himself in public, because it was a form of visual communication about personality and power. Unfortunately, we can’t know about his Moon aspects, but for both cases, the good and the bad, I think it could connect with him, we have a reaffirmation of these natives being capable of strong emotions, which can be seen in Cesare, and of them being receptive to others need, although we can’t really know to what extent that might have been, it still look like it was present in his personality. We can also tie, along with the other reasons I said before, his “moodiness” to his Moon being in bad aspect. And the way Cesare always kept his group of friends, his personal court with him, and how he loved hunting, dancing, sports, all activities that depend on at least another person, can easily connect to this need of human interaction, of wanting to enjoy life with others, and wanting those around who could make his life more fun, I can see that. From letters he wrote to people close to him, it also seems he regarded his friends like family. The degree of how supportive he was with those he cared about can only be speculated, but I think there are enough accounts suggesting he was to those close to him. It was intriguing to read these natives tend to draw emotional or needy people into their lives, haha, I kept wondering who might have fit into this description that was close to him, Rodrigo could be a good candidate for it, or Lucrezia (whose Sun Sign seems to have been Aries…), Vitellozzo Vitelli to me comes across as an incredibly emotional individual, and I’m always amazed at how well Cesare handled him and his outburst of emotions. And yeah, there is extensive evidence to say Cesare did draw out strong emotional responses from others, positive and negative. I think being talented at making others feel comfortable and sensing their needs is overall consistent to my interpretation of Cesare and one of the reasons why he was so successful when dealing with people, even his enemies. He certainly was a good counselor, otherwise I don’t think Rodrigo as pope Alexander VI, would have made sure of always having him by his side, and appreciating his presence. I can see the possibility of Cesare getting his emotional balance from a relationship, and him being in love with the idea of love, a poem written about him, his sword, and his favorite song do hint to that. The part about changing partners often is a bit ambiguous for him, though. It doesn’t look like he did that very much, actually. As far as evidence goes, his mistresses, the ones that could be considered long-term, seemed to have been only three, maybe four: A Sicilian woman who lived with him in Rome for a while, a woman known by the name of Drusilla, and another woman who shared captivity with him in Naples in 1504. Dorotea Malatesta could be included here, but it is hard to know if she was indeed his mistress or Diego Ramires’s mistress, and Cesare was only covering for their affair. In any case, it does look to me he fell in love fast and hard, perhaps thinking the woman was “the one”, and then maybe realizing she wasn’t. It’s noticeable he didn’t liked being alone, whether this was due to fear of being alone, or an overdependence of the relationship he had, and what that gave him, or on his idea on being in a relationship, and/or other reasons, this is purely speculative, however he did consistently had a female companion by his side, even when he was arrested at Naples, and with this particular unknown mistress nothing else really explains her presence there with him, if not for the strong feelings they seemed to have had for each other. Intuitively knowing how others felt and if they liked him, for both his romantic and interpersonal relationships connects well with Cesare, I think he could figure these things out very quickly. I see some indications of Cesare striving for peace and harmony with his close relationships and partnerships in general, like it will be said below in his placement in Mars, Cesare wasn’t the type to like chaos, so it makes sense this would apply to his emotional side/life, too. I just don’t know if it would be to the extent of this need overwriting his need of being self-assertive, perhaps with those he cared about, it could have been the case, or perhaps he also had a balance there, who knows. The marriage aspect was fascinating to read, because in Cesare’s actions towards Charlotte, he displays such sensitivity and goes beyong his way to please her and to make her life easier once he was no longer by her side in France. His actions also demonstrates he seems to have had concern in making sure Charlotte and his daughter would not be destituted in case of his death, or if he fell from power, even from Italy, he tried to take good care of them, even after he indeed fell from power, he never forgot her, and tried to send all of his wealth her way, for her to secured it. If he lived, he could use it, no doubt, but if he died, she would be even more secured than she already was. We can speculate if Charlotte was moody dsjdjs, it would be nice to know more about that, but there is evidence suggesting she was a caring, sensitive lady. And it fits well that Cesare had many opportunities, and maybe with his possible Virgo perfectionism, and/or the other emotional aspects of this Moon placement, he found it difficult to choose the “perfect partner”. If we take his placement in Jupiter, and combine with this one, it is likely the wanting of a good wife who could be an amazing mother to their children was a desire Cesare had within him, and maybe it an additional reason why he was so smitten with Charlotte. It is interesting how it says these natives will practically transfer the emotions they have for the woman who raised them to their spouse, because for most people, this would mean the mother, and if we think of Vannozza in this role, and how Cesare seemed to have had a good, affectionate relationship with her, so good emotions, then his treatment of Charlotte, under this astrology point of view, makes even more sense, but if we think that technically the woman who raised him was Adriana de Milà, and almost nothing is known about their relationship, then things get confusing, but it could serve to reassess some ideas in regards to Cesare’s, and his siblings, relationship with Adriana. Lastly, I think there is enough to say Cesare and Charlotte married happily with one another, and their time together in France carried an importance for both of them until the end of their lives, so even if afterwards, for political reasons, their marriage took a sad, frustrated path, and they never saw each other again, it still more or less matches the description of a happy marriage.

Mars in the 10th House: Mars: Mars is the ruler of Aries, it is the planet of energy, action, and desire. It is the survival instinct. Mars rules our animal instincts for aggression, anger, and survival. Our sexual desires come under the rule of Mars. This is the planet of action rather than reaction. With Mars, there is no contemplation before action. The drive associated with Mars differs from that of the Sun in that it is self-assertion rather than the assertion of the will; it is raw energy rather than creative energy. In the chart, by house the position of Mars hows the areas of life where we apply our drive and express our enthusiasm. Planets that Mars contacts are colored with action and self-assertion. These planets can represent the kinds of experiences we seek. The 10th House is correlated to the Sign of Capricorn, its Latin motto “regnum” means “Kingdom” and serves well for us to understand the importance of this house in our personal life. In the past, it used to be the house of the father, today it can be the house of the most dominating parent. It also reveals an individual’s strengths and weaknesses. The 10th House stands at the basis of a native’s personality, and reflects how they are behaving when out in the world, as well as how they act in public and their authority and career issues, it is usually a house that represents profissional activity, social status, power, and authority. Mars is a masculine, forceful planet, which means it helps people to move forward, no matter what. When in the 10th House, it also makes them more concerned about their reputation and image, their social status. They are usually said to be a “powerhouse of energy and enthusiasm”, who have high goals and are quite driven, practical, goal oriented, ambitious, motivated, and competitive. They have the necessary qualities to succeed in life, a willingness to work hard and smart at the same time, and of being persistant. Because of their strong drive they make a good executive. They are also said to thrive in careers in which they can pioneer, take the lead, or enjoy a certain amount of freedom and independence, these natives are self-starters. Their sense of humour is usually said to be the sarcastic type, and who loves people who can make them laugh. There is a lot saying how helpful and honest natives in this house tend to be, to their loved ones, employees and others, which it’s something that is appreciated about them. It also says it can be difficult for them to deal with others, “but it’s just until they make friends, and get to become nice and loving people they actually are.” In their free time, they are said to like competing in different types of sport, they like being active, and they generally have a healthy life. They have a strong need to be respected by peers, but only those people whom they consider important, they don't tend to let obstacles stop them, so they might step on other people's toes from time and time, and some people will not like them, no matter their success (or maybe because of it, too). And because they are always planning for the future, they generally are always more prepared to face what's about to come. People in this house also want to be boss, and definitely not only on paper, "as they can really make things move and efficiently organized them, their organizational skills are truly impressive, so they can impress anyone with their ability to put everything in order in a short amount of time." And as bosses, I learned they are generally strict, and they expect good results, but again it is their honesty which will have them appreciated by those who work for them. They are always looking to win and to get recognized by the public for their efforts. These are some of the traits which strongly connects with Cesare. Unfortunately for him, it does seem he cared about his reputation to a certain extent, which maybe it was something his enemies knew and it became a weakness they decided to explore as much as they could. He also appears to have been someone who was generally more concerned about achieving his goals than of gaining the approval of people around him, people he didn’t liked nor liked him and his family anyways. He tended to avoid conflict, but he wasn’t afraid of it when it was necessary. There are many records talking about his mental and physical energy, how he never got tired, and his enthusiasm about work and of course, having fun. It is uncertain just how ambitious he was, how much of his actions are his own and how much are his father's? it is impossible to disentangle the ambition and actions of father and son imo, or if Cesare had a personal endgoal, and if so in what direction was that? the possibilities are endless, but it is clear he did had ambition to a certain level, and perhaps because it was a family thing, and because of his Sun Sign + this placement and the rest of his horoscope, he was quite practical, hard-working, and he had plenty of drive and motivation to achieve his/ his family's goals. It was funny to see how among careers suggested for people with this placement, there's in politics and/or military, both fields where Cesare excelled at and it's known for. He clearly was a self-starter, and it's reasonable to assume he might have wanted more freedom and independence. Cesare, like his siblings and most nobles, were not free to live as they wished, their choices were limited because their lives were tied up with their families and the political landscape around them. I can see Cesare wanting more freedom of choice, an independence from his father, from the French, and that desire also driving his actions, with the influence of this placement in his horoscope. The rest of the traits also matches overall with what can be known about him, from the sense of humour (which adds to the Virgo’s sense of humour) to his love of hunting, playing different sports, and testing his strength etc, to his honesty, contrary to the legend of him being deceitful, there are various records, even from Machiavelli's dispatches, showing Cesare was more inclined to be honest, disarmingly so at times, about things and with people. He comes across as being too impatient and/or of valuing time too much to be playing deceit all the time as it is thought he did. He seems to have arguably only tried to keep his political plans a secret, which it’s the common behavior of nobles and Statesmen. And yeah, I can see the scenario of someone having one perception of Cesare, finding him difficult at first, but then once they befriended him, it was like having a completely different person in front of you, I think some people of his private court might have experienced that, I myself am constantly experiencing that, and I'm only dealing with the historical accounts about him. It’s possible he wanted the respect from people he respected, and the not stopping at any obstacle can have its influence in this placement in Mars, but also it seems it was another family trait he shared in, his father, his sister and other relatives also behaved similarly to him in the face of obstacles, they didn't care and they were smart and persistent about it, which helped further in earning them enemies, demonstrably in Cesare's case, his position of power and success gave him plently of bitter enemies, but there were some who even while standing at opposite sides politically, still appreciated him, or at least his notable qualities. I think there’s a good chance he was more sincere and helpful to those within his circle, there is info here and there which might hint at that, and if so, he had their appreciation for it. Cesare’s own recorded words indicates he always thought about the future and tried to prepare for it. And wherever it didn’t worked out, there are glimpses of what it is said about how Mars in this house reacts to failure, like any other sign of the Zodiac, they become bad-humoured, angry, frustrated, or feeling sorry for themselves, there are hints of Cesare feeling frustrated between 1501 to 1503, and of him feeling sorry for himself around 1504, 1505 when he said despondently that Fortuna had left him and those still following him should stop doing so. It is undeniable he did had an inclination to be as involved with his government as possible, he made it a point to speak with his subjects, and to take care of all the administrative aspects of each town, to an extent that in my view, surpasses the simple political calculation of it. He knew how to delegate, he chose people carefully and according to their merits, but still it does appear he had this need to not only be the boss on paper of things, he clearly liked being aware of everything, and taking care of things himself as much as he could, and it would be long to cite all the mentions by his contemporaries of his impressive organization skills, basically it is a marking trait within his historical material, wherever he went, order was adeptly and quickly implemented. It’s hard to ignore the aversion Cesare seemed to have for chaos and things done poorly, especially if he was in charge. It is always ironic to find him being described as a man who only created chaos in Italy, and only left a path of destruction behind him, because I really don’t think he could have done that if he wanted to 😂. And as a boss, I found that in a general sense, it fits Cesare as an employer, a leader, for sure. Lastly here, another super interesting aspect of that Mars in this placement indicates one of the person's parent was definitely dominant, and there were probably arguments with this parent in their lives, they might have been bossy or pushy, but "this parent or authority figure taught them to fight and do their best." Now, it is possible to see Vannozza in this role, anyone who has read her private correspondance knows she had a strong personality, and could be bossy on occasion, and I do think she taught Cesare many things as well, however, I think Rodrigo fits best in this descrption, and the evidence we have about their father-son relationship. There is nothing to support the idea of Cesare not being the favorite son, or of them not getting along, of Rodrigo being afraid or dominated by Cesare, everything points to the conclusion they had a pretty good understanding between them (which terrified those around them because it made them a powerful duo to be reckoned with), but I'd say given Rodrigo was a Capricorn, which could be said to influence in how he was bossy and demanding of those around him sometimes, the fact he and Cesare were so alike in so many ways, that they spend a lot of time with each other, and that families naturally disagree from time to time, I think it is highly possible there were the occasional arguments between them, when they were frustrated with each other, when they disagreed politically, (as it was the case in 1503 and in how Cesare openly disagreed with his father about what to do with the Roman barons), Rodrigo would lash out with bitter complaints about Cesare to others (or he pretended to, we’ll never know), or curse at him in public, and Cesare would lash out by not so quickly obedying his father, or by avoiding him, or by saying to others the pressure he was in by His Holiness, that he was merely following his wishes, etc., but then after they had cooled off, they would sort it out and it was fine again. But more importantly, it matches just right how the authority figure, Rodrigo in this case, taught Cesare how to fight and how to do his best, I think out of all of Rodrigo's children, Cesare and Lucrezia were the ones who notably seemed to have learned and then applied much of what was taught to them by their father. Jupiter in the 4th House: Jupiter: Jupiter is the ruler of Sagittarius. It is a planet of plenty. It is tolerant and expansive. The first of the social planets, Jupiter seeks insight through knowledge. Some of this planet’s keywords include morality, gratitude, hope, honor, and the law. Jupiter is a planet of broader purpose, reach, and possibility. Jupiter has generally been associated with good luck and bounty. Optimism and growth (including mental and spiritual growth) come under its rule. The more negative manifestations of Jupiter include blind optimism, excess, and overindulgence. Irresponsibility that results from blind optimism, not ill will, can be on display. In the chart, by house the position of Jupiter is the place you look for wisdom and understanding, it also reveals more about the circumstances that are best for obtaining good health. If favorably aspected, it grants the natural-born healer. The 4th House is correlated to the Sign of Cancer, it is the house of home and family. Its Latin motto “genitor”  translates to “parent”, as if it was on a mission to show the  importance of one person that made us feel at home, no matter if it is our actual parent or simply – ourselves. It is an important house because it lays the foundation for the rest of the chart to come to expression, it shows where we are coming from, what determines where we are going to a great extent. The ascestry and emotional conditioning are both seen through this house, it shows the family we grow up, but also the family that comes from you. This house is associated with real estate and land in astrology. A well-aspected fourth house gives luck in these matters. The fourth house represents our family, this position here suggests they may have a large family, with many siblings with whom they shared a big house as children, they most often live a good family life, where there is plenty of love and emotional support. The same Jupiter makes their family wealthy and their feasts truly abundant. Their parents are also usually a great help in their lives, not just financially, and they love and respect them. The fourth house also suggests they inherited some talent characteristic of their ancestors, people with this placement are very wise as kids. Jupiter in Fourth house individuals enjoy their childhood because they have a lot of fun when little. They will want to be prosperous and happy because this is what they’ve seen at home. They will always look for a partner who can help them make their dreams of a beautiful home come true. Their childhood inspired them to search for this and to want comfort. They are very lucky, generous, they readily make warn connections with others, particularly valuing their family and close loved ones, they love their family and friends more than anything else in the world with this position, they really enjoy being with them, and spending as much time as possible in a domestic environment, because this makes them feel secure and happy, they also respect and follow family traditions, and family problems can destroy them, so they should have a partner who understands their need for stability. These natives are very nurturing and they want as many people as possible in their lives, they have a need to have a “nest” where they can retreat when life seems difficult. These natives tend to manage life very well, they are usually good-looking and always positive, they attract the members of the opposite sex like magnets. Because the 4th house looks at the 10th house, it is said to mean these natives will be very respected, they know how to do business and have a talent for astrology or politics, as politicians, they will get to be appreciated for their honesty and to have great success with the crowds. They really don’t like change, and they don’t like hurting others, they also don’t like chaos, and are always looking for peace, so they won’t stick their noses where it doesn’t belong and will try not to gossip too often. They will defend their family and friends to the end, so many will want to be in their life because they inspire protection. Because they’ll most likely have success with anything and it’s possible for them to benefit from a good social position or to inherit consistent wealth from their parents. The fourth-tenth house axis is the parental axis in the natal chart. Opinions are mixed on which house shows which parent, the best is to check in your chart where the signs and planets overlap with your parents’ dominant placements. The parent represented by your fourth house was probably supporting and encouraged you to live up to your full potential. You know, I’m always saying Cesare gives me the impression of having been strongly family-oriented, and just reading further about this placement, and how heavily it is tied to family, you might say even astrology seems to support this interpretation lol. Yes, Cesare came from a large, wealthy family. He did had many siblings, and there is some variation about this, but it seems he lived with his siblings, Juan and Lucrezia, under the tutelage of Adriana de Milá until 1489, the year he went to Perugia to continue his studies. I think overall we could say Cesare had a good family life, where there was love and emotional support, and there’s records indicating their family feasts were abundant. Rodrigo and Vannozza were both of great help to him, too, although there is more direct evidence of that on Rodrigo’s side.There is also evidence suggesting Cesare loved and respected both of them, even if we follow the hypothesis of him being closer to his mother. There’s no doubt he inherited some talent characteristic of his ancestors, and he was a wise kid. This all matches so far, but now I think we kinda enter speculation once again, because it is impossible to know what Cesare really thought and felt, much less about his childhood, but it is possible he enjoyed his childhood. I can see him seeing how his parents were prosperous and joyful, and that shaping somewhat his ideas around how he wanted to be, and about family. Everything we know about Rodrigo and Vannozza’s relationship shows they had a passionate relationship and with time, it became a calm, respectful companionship. Vannozza had her husbands, Rodrigo had a mistress, but they still seem to have had a good understanding with each other, they had a strong bond that never broke off. In effect, we could say Vannozza was Rodrigo’s wife, and remained being so until the end. If all this is correct, then I think Cesare had an interesting example there, one it could have inspired him in terms of what he looked for, (consciously or unconsciously) in a partner. Trying to have fulfill his personal ideas of home and family, and the comfort it might have brought him. There’s a clear match regarding his luck and his generosity. Although I think there’s an exaggeration about Cesare's luck, his Fortuna, which intended or not, minimizes his own qualities and merits for his accomplishments in his political career, still it would be hard to deny, esp. if one believes in luck, that Cesare wasn’t blessed with it for most of his life. Even after his downfall, when luck became incredible bad luck, even so we can say he continue to have some luck: he successfully escaped a Spanish prison no one else ever did, not before nor after him, he survived said escape, and he died fighting bravely for Navarre, earning a place as a hero in their history. Of his generosity, it’s extensively documented he was incredibly generous with those around him. It’s true that when he wanted, he could readily make connections with others, in a way that is was usually described by his contemporaries as amiable, gentle, cordial, etc. He demonstrably valued and loved his family and close ones, that’s one of the few things it can be said with certainty about him. It seems he enjoyed being with his family members, I think that’s one of Borgias marking family trait, they all really seemed to enjoy each other’s company, which sadly contributed to the rumors of incest started by Giovanni Sforza. And in my view there’s indications showing Cesare, like his father, was big in domesticality, meaning: he seems to have been a man who craved stability and a domestic, family life, and I can see him always trying to create, or accommodate that in whatever way he could in his mostly unstable, unpredictable lifestyle. It does explain further his attempts at trying to bring his wife and child to Italy, and the failure of that might have also played a factor in his already mentioned sad, melancholic moments. I always think that perhaps the unstableness and danger of his life, combined with the distance of a wife he very much had sincere affection for, and of having a daughter he had not met, might have affected him from time to time. It had to be a strange, frustrated situation for him, especially if we consider his Sun Sign + his Moon placement and this placement, and if he had these ideas and goals regarding family life, and making a home for himself. He had a family, but he did not. He had power, and yet in that particular situation he was powerless to do anything more than what he already had tried to do over and over again. As said in his Moon placement, here it is also consistent with him often being noted as having a female companion and/or mistress, and their possible children by his side, as an alternative family, where he had that domestic environment he couldn’t have with Charlotte and their child. I don’t see Cesare behaving differently than his father, both men seemed to have needed this family enviroment, and they had, “a nest” of people close to them, where they retired to when they wanted some peace. It included their family members, and the women they had obviously had an emotional bond with. In managing life well, I think it connects with Cesare, he had an interesting balance, he had a reputation of having been strikingly good-looking, and of course, exactly like his father, he attracted women like magnets, haha. It is clear he knew how to do business, and he was a great politician who did had success with the crowds when he wanted to. His honesty was usually received with a mix of surprise, shock or suspicion. It is less clear how much he was respected, but from the documents we can say he was respected, certainly in the Romagna, and perhaps even by some enemies. The talent for astrology is interesting, there is nothing in the historical material pointing Cesare did had this talent, but at least he seems to have had a keen interest for it, like many others did in his times, and to this day (clearly seen right here right now lol). We also see a dislike for chaos in this placement, and of always looking for peace. This is a trait, a quality that’s very present in Cesare’s documented actions. It was a clever, practical political calculation (influenced by his Sun Sign), but it also seems it was his instinct in dealing with problems, which maybe was influenced by all these placements in his chart. He preferred and made efforts to resolve things peacefully, with minimal bloodshed, avoiding chaos as much as he could, and when he couldn’t and chaos would break out, he would quickly act to stop it, one example that comes to mind it’s the situation at Senigallia, he definitely appears to have had an aversion to chaos around him. The part about not sticking their noses in other people’s business can be seen, I mean, for the most part, unless it concerned him and his family, Cesare really didn’t seemed to be the type who liked intruding in other people’s business, he might have passed gossip with his family members, but he couldn’t care less about what was happening in people’s private lives, or how they lived, it’s even funny to observe his indifference to it. It baffles me how he apparently never engaged in the political strategy of publicly defaming and creating propaganda against your enemies. I never quite understood why he abstained from that, given his enemies were doing this in a methodical, genius way against him and his family, but perhaps he thought it wasn’t worth his time and energy (he was wrong there) and/or perhaps this is another point where astrology, and this placement can offer an explanation to. And finally, to end this, just as with the placement of Mars, here we also have another placement where something it’s said or implied about the parent. I think this description fits better when we think of Vannozza, she seems to have always been supportive of her children, especially Cesare, and it is possible to speculate she might have encouraged him to live up to his full potential, although it is also easy to see Rodrigo in this role, as well, so that the parent here is a open possibility for both of them, I suppose.

Anyways, this was my long way of wishing Happy belated 546'th birthday, mio Valentino! 💕

(@prideandprejudice can you believe I finally made this?! heh. If only we had his hour of birth *sighs in spanish*).

[lemonsharks]

TL;DR the Christian European history of West Asia already had a Greek bias and they/we ran with it. In a bad way, which is still felt in our attitudes toward Iran today.

(nuance is dead disclaimer: ecce amici, I am not a State of Iran Stan and I have no pedestal for its authoritarianism and human rights situation but the idea that it was always Like That? Is wildly inaccurate.)

#historiography is important

[aboutanancientenquiry]

Two interesting books about the question of the Greek influence and especially of the possible influence of Herodotus on the Bible

The Tragedy in History: Herodotus and the Deuteronomistic History: No. 251 (The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies) Hardcover – 1 Nov. 1997  by Flemming A. J. Nielsen (Author)

Publisher ‏ : ‎ Continnuum-3PL (1 Nov. 1997)

In this challenging new work, Nielsen compares Herodotus with Old Testament historiography as represented by the so-called Deuteronomistic History. He finds in the Old Testament evidence of a tragic form like that encountered in Herodotus’s Histories. Nielsen begins by outlining Herodotus’s Greek context with its roots in Ionic natural philosophy, the epic tradition and Attic tragedy, and goes on to analyse in some detail the outworking of the Herodotean tragedy. Against that background, the Deuteronomistic History is to be viewed as an ancient Near Eastern historiographic text in the tragic tradition.

Source: https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/tragedy-in-history-9781850756880/

The Bible and Hellenism

Greek Influence on Jewish and Early Christian Literature

Edited By Thomas L. Thompson, Philippe Wajdenbaum

First Published 2014 eBook Published1 October 2014

Pub. Location London  Imprint Routledge

ABSTRACT

Did the Bible only take its definitive form after Alexander conquered the Near East, after the Hellenisation of the Samaritans and Jews, and after the founding of the great library of Alexandria? The Bible and Hellenism takes up one of the most pressing and controversial questions of Bible Studies today: the influence of classical literature on the writing and formation of the Bible.

Bringing together a wide range of international scholars, The Bible and Hellenism explores the striking parallels between biblical and earlier Greek literature and examines the methodological issues raised by such comparative study. The book argues that the oral traditions of historical memory are not the key factor in the creation of biblical narrative. It demonstrates that Greek texts – from such authors as Homer, Hesiod, Herodotus and Plato – must be considered amongst the most important sources for the Bible.

Source: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.4324/9781315728889/bible-hellenism-thomas-thompson-philippe-wajdenbaum

I find very interesting these investigations, although instinctively I am for a “minimalistic” approach concerning the possible Greek influence on the books of the Old Testament written before Alexander’s conquest.

[architectuul]

The Story Of  The Abandoned Car Factory Pragovka

Prague is a city of postcard-perfect architecture: from immaculate works of Gothic beauty – like St. Vitus Cathedral and the 13th century Old New Synagogue in Josefov – to the statue-lined Charles Bridge, or the monumental neo-Renaissance building of the National Museum looking out across Wenceslas Square. It is not a city that most would associate with industrial decay, however Prague’s former palaces of industry are no less grand, even while history is in the process of burying them.

The Praga Car Factory Pragovka. | Photo via E-Factory.cz

The Praga Car Factory Pragovka on the city’s eastern edge was once the beating heart of the Czechoslovak manufacturing industry. It played a significant role in the city’s 20th century history, but it was here at the Prague’s darkest days was set into motion. In 1968 workers at Pragovka sent a letter to the Soviet Embassy requesting support in the fight against liberalisation. This letter, published in Pravda, would then be used as justification for the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia.

The Praga Car Factory today. | Photo Katka Havlíková

Pragovka is abandoned since the turn of the 21st century and is now a sprawling ruin, its extravagant factory halls succumbing slowly to time and nature. In 2017 I went to explore what was left of it. The Car Factory was founded in 1907 as a manufacturing site in the eastern suburbs of Prague, with just 30 employees. Two years later, its parent company adopted the name ‘Praga’ – the car brand used the Latin form of the city’s name in the hope of sounding more international. During WWI the Praga factory (then known as the First Czech-Moravian Machine Factory) supplied the Austro-Hungarian army; then after 1918 and the independence of Czechoslovakia, it began to focus more on passenger cars.

The main hall of the Pragovka factory in 2017. | Photo Katka Havlíková

The large, angled windows allowed plenty of natural light to enter, reducing electricity costs. | Photo Katka Havlíková

In 1927 Praga was incorporated into the new ČKD (Českomoravská Kolben-Daněk) group, one of the largest engineering companies in Czechoslovakia. Among other vehicles (including tanks, locomotives, tractors, motorcycles and metro cars), ČKD produced cars under the Praga, Škoda and Tatra brands, and was famous for making the Tatra T3 tramcar – a design which would sell almost 14,000 units, and become an iconic sight on the streets of socialist cities from Sarajevo to Tashkent. Meanwhile as many as half of the taxis on Prague’s streets had rolled out of this factory.

Left: Cover of a 1962 sales brochure from Strojexport, featuring the Tatra T3 tramcar. Right: Vintage poster featuring the Tatra T77.

In recent years, the Pragovka complex has been recognised as a heritage site and some of its spaces have been developed into an arts district. There is a retro-themed ‘Pragovka Cafe,’ and the place hosts film screenings, concerts and festivals. Reportedly as many as a hundred local artists have studios now on the former factory grounds, while the large E-Factory building has been converted into a gallery space. 

Some outer buildings still remain, linked by covered walkways. Other buildings have been bulldozed. | Photo Katka Havlíková

There’s talk of building apartments here too in future, a trendy new community rising up amidst the industrial decay. A large part of the complex remains off-limits for now though – and it was here that we entered. During the visit of Prague was fortunate enough to be offered a tour of its best ruins the local photographer Katka Havlíková. 

Raised gas pipes above an overgrown courtyard. | Photo Katka Havlíková

The factory has been abandoned long enough for creepers and graffiti to cover many of its surfaces. | Photo Katka Havlíková

Katka picks a careful path through the debris-field, towards the first of the factory’s grand production halls. | Photo Katka Havlíková

She led us around the back of the factory where we scrambled up a slope of rubble to reach a promontory at the corner of the former yard. Ahead of us lay a sea of green. Thick vegetation hid the concrete courtyard, with only the occasional street light, rising like drowning hands from water, to suggest that anything unnatural lay beneath. The main buildings, those still standing, were just visible through the trees and so we cut a path down through the overgrown wreckage towards the old factory halls.

The largest of Pragovka’s manufacturing halls looks no less grand today with its full-height windows. | Photo Katka Havlíková

After poking around in a few of the outer buildings that rise now out of bushes and debris, we made it finally to the main manufacturing halls of Pragovka. It was strange to see a building this grand left to ruin. The complex was built back in a time when factories and power plants were temples of the people – places of pride, not merely function, their spaces defined with grand architectural flourishes. This main hall could have been a train station, not a car factory. Natural light illuminated the hall from floor-to-ceiling windows (much of their glass still intact), while pillars supported an arched ceiling high above.

Nature creeps into Pragovka – vines find a way inside through broken window, letterboxes, or any other breach in the outer wall. | Photo Katka Havlíková

We didn’t see the new arts district at all – a fact indicative of just how large this complex was – but it was hard to imagine how any small business or community project could successfully take over a space like this. The factory halls were beautiful, but built on such a scale that maintenance and repairs would be an extraordinary burden, particularly after all these years of decline. 

Two levels of offices lined the wall. | Photo Katka Havlíková

A staircase connects floors inside the main building. | Photo Katka Havlíková

The seeming inevitability of this factory’s ruin cast a melancholy mood over the few hours we spent wandering the halls of Pragovka. Right now, like this, with the warm sun slicing in sideways through the dirty glass windows, and the greenery of nature’s scouts – along with bursts of bright graffiti – lending fresh colour to the otherwise muted palette of pastel-painted walls and pillars: Pragovka might never look this good again.

Old ledgers amongst broken glass in the courtyard.| Photo Katka Havlíková

When Pragovka falls, much of its history will be buried with it; and perhaps for some, that might be for the best. Pragovka is remembered not only as the heart of the Czechoslovak manufacturing industry, but it is also a place where the communists made their stand – forever linking these buildings with a historic victory for the pro-Soviet movement. In 1968 the Soviet Union and its allies led an overnight invasion of Czechoslovakia – to suppress the Prague Spring, a growing liberalisation movement under First Secretary Alexander Dubček. Although history remembers the event as an act of totalitarian foreign aggression, that invasion was not, in fact, universally unwelcome. 

A wall has collapsed to reveal the stairwell inside. | Photo Katka Havlíková

Numerous workers’ unions in Czechoslovakia supported Soviet intervention in their country, and one of the key triggers of the invasion was a letter of invitation, that was written here, at the Praga Car Factory. In 1971 the Czechoslovak journalist Josef Maxa authored A Year is Eight Months, which recounts the events of the Prague Spring and leading up to the invasion. “Moscow’s Pravda published a letter from ninety-nine workers in the Pragovka factory in Prague to the Soviet Embassy,” he wrote. “The letter denounced the Czechoslovakian enemies of socialism and of the Soviet Union.” That document was known as the “Letter of the Ninety-nine Praguers,” and it warned the Soviet Embassy how: “the manifestations of the democratisation of society in our republic threaten the building of socialism and in so doing, attack the blood-hardened friendship between the Czech and Soviet peoples” (as paraphrased by Martin Půlpán). 

Rooftop above one of the manufacturing halls.| Photo Katka Havlíková

The letter claimed that all honest citizens of Czechoslovakia felt safer in the presence of Soviet and Warsaw Pact troops occupying their country. When Pravda printed the letter, on 30 July 1968, along with all ninety-nine signatures, the document would be used as justification for the swift invasion that followed in August. The incoming normalisation government that subsequently took charge of Czechoslovakia would valorise the authors of that letter – raising a memorial plaque at the main entrance to Pragovka, that read: “In the revolutionary tradition of this great workers’ nation, a letter with ninety-nine signatures was sent to the USSR in the critical year of 1968, requesting support and assistance in fighting anti-socialist forces.”

A bright and airy side room near the main factory floor. | Photo Katka Havlíková

Nowadays that plaque is long gone. The gates of Pragovka stand barred, and the halls where the letter was written are lost to a maze of rubble, weeds and graffiti. The factory’s decline today is an inevitability – it is a temple to a lost industry, a relic displaced from its time and no longer fit for purpose in the new industrial landscape of the Czech Republic. 

The wall in a former office space. | Photo Katka Havlíková

Though Pragovka’s political history likely doesn’t help to endear these halls to the citizens of contemporary Prague – and it’s hard not to read some level of symbolism as this celebrated factory, once enshrined like a victorious battlefield in Czechoslovakia’s communist historiography, is slowly carved up, and crushed, by the oncoming future.

--

by Darmon Richter

[adapted with permission from an article at Ex Utopia]

[alessandroiiidimacedonia]