Final Posting...For Now

This is my final post for the course but I'm not sure if it will be the final post on this blog. I'm not an internety sort of girl and didn't really like the idea of setting up a blog and I have found the tone hard to adjust to the informal style of a blog but remembering it was being assessed. I have started to enjoy it though and might continue for my own pleasure.
This course has made me think of new things particularly the reception of classical architecture in stately homes. Being a member of the National Trust I often go to different places and I always love seeing examples of architecture but I never think too much about it. This course has really made me think and see my surroundings in a different light. While walking around in London I notice the columns and friezes on so many buildings, little urns, pinecone shapes (which I learnt was often attributed to Dionysos) nymph type statues. We can even see this type of architecture in Putney where the front of a club (of all places) shows many examples of the style.
I am disappointed I didn't get to see the temple at Mount Clare but I am planning to go exploring and see it for myself and I hope the university get's funding to restore it. I would also like the university to take more care of its 17th century and Neo-classical roots by having more information panels around the historical buildings otherwise when students ask and want to know they are told the wrong information. In my first year I was told the mausoleum held Froebel's body when instead it is the resting place of Mr and Mrs Lyne-Stephens and I was completely unaware of my university's history. Now while I'm sure some of my friends might find it boring there must be other students like me who would like to know a little more of the 'historical campus' the website talks so much about.

Neo-classicism in Roehampton.

We've been looking at the neoclassical reception of antiquity through the buildings in our university. The first one we looked at was Grove House (right) now a part of the Froebel campus. A house was built on the site between 1622 and 1625 by Bartholomew Bennett when David Paillon owned it. Later it was bought by  SIr Richard Weston who added a chapel and gardens. After changing hands quite a few times the property was bought by Joshua Vannek in 1786. Between 1779 and 1793 (Gerhold, 1997:14) he pulled down the old house and built a villa, designed by Wyatt and the interiors by Robert Adam. The room we were looking at in particular is called the Adam Room and contains a representation of Hercules that was popular since the Renaissance. Hercules was a popular figure in within neoclassicism and one that I have seen before else where in other stately homes which I have already mentioned. The representation is of Hercules' choice between vice and virtue found in Prodicus, when he was contemplating at the crossroads and two women came to him embodying Vice and Virtue. It was a popular theme throughout the Renaissance and beyond because of its moral value. Not all neo-classical art has to have a moral theme though and was often used to show wealth and opulence because upper class young gentlemen would take the 'grand tour' around Europe and would often bring back artefacts or be inspired by what they seen and commission copies or similar architectural to the wonders they saw. We have an example of this in Froebel college, round the back of Grove house there are four white statues re
0presenting the Four Seasons made by Aristide Fontara (fl. c. 1890) and a coade stone roundel which shows Greek inspired Dionysian figures juxtaposed with Christian scenes representing St Mark. This merging of cultures was often seen at that time and the roundel has been thought to have been an original brought back from a gentleman's 'grand tour' possibly by one of the Lynne Stephans who owned the house from 1843-1897. (Gerhold. 1997:16)

The  two other villas that Roehampton owns are Parkstead House, also known as Manresa House (left) and Mount Clare. We went to Parkstead House which is now Whitelands College and is and odd juxtaposition of modern class architecture mixed with the original Georgian house. The original front of the house is now considered the back but is still almost unaltered and is a lovely view found in the heart of a what seems to be a normal London estate. The house was built by the Earl of Bessborough around 1761-1763. The house was designed by Sir William Chambers, a rival of Robert Adam who designed the interiors of Grove house, and helped him to become known at the time and chambers went on to design the Pagoda at Kew Gardens and Somerset House. It was lovely exploring the state rooms and looking at the ceilings which were beautiful and obviously influenced by Classical art but we found the rams skulls to be a little odd in a ceiling which seemed to be showing an abundance of fruit and maybe would have been a dining room, though we weren't entirely sure what it was used for.
I have enjoyed exploring these buildings and really want to learn more about them and will go to Mount Clare in my own time as we were held up by the rain. I'm very much looking forward to seeing the Doric Temple I've heard so much about and I really hope the university will get funding to restore it.


Bibliography

• Gerhold, Dorian (1997) Villas and Mansions of Roehampton and Putney Heath. Printed by Roebuck Print Shop, Mitcham. Wandsworth Historical Society. 
• Gerhold, Dorian (1994) Putney and Roehampton Past. London. Historical Publications Ltd.
• Loose, Jacqueline. (197 Roehampton 'The Last Village in London.' London. London Borough of Wandsworth Libraries and Arts.

Hephaistos: Greatest God or the Lamest God?

In class today we were discussing which god is greatest. The obvious answer would be Zeus whose main role is as the leader of the gods, but when we started to look in greater detail that view started to be challenged. When Susan said we had to pick out a name and think about how they could be considered the greatest god or goddess I initially thought it would be quite easy until we drew out Hephaistos and all I could think of was "how lame." Well not really really, but who can resist that pun? I did find it hard to initially come up with any real reason that I couldn't dismiss straight away. The first thing we came up with was his main role as the blacksmith of the gods. Now this could be seen as a sign of his serving role to the rest of the gods but at the same time it can also be said that the gods need him to protect themselves.Not only the god of blacksmiths but he's also the god of fire and volcanoes both strong destructive elements which could denote great power. In book 21 of Illiad he "produced a supernatural conflagration ... and the whole plain was dried up." (Illiad. 21.342-345) His power is so great he is expected to help and save Achilles who has divine help from many, detectably, more powerful deities and so is can be considered equal.

The next day we looked at the Homeric Hymn for Hephaistos to see if it matched our interpretations.

"Sing, clear-voiced Muse, of Hephaestus famed for inventions. With bright-eyed Athena he taught men glorious crafts throughout the world, —men who before used to dwell in caves in the mountains like wild beasts. [5] But now that they have learned crafts through Hephaestus the famed worker, easily they live a peaceful life in their own houses the whole year round.
Be gracious, Hephaestus, and grant me success and prosperity!"

The main point expressed in this hymn is his role as a 'working man's god'. He is one of the only gods who actually makes things which is probably why the ancients felt connected to him. It expressed a view that without him men would not have progressed and would still live in caves. That seems to be the only role it expresses and seems to miss out others we pointed out. He is famed for his inventions but he was also cunning and used his inventions to trick Hera and Aphrodite and Mars to get the better of them when he felt insulted. 

Walter Burkert has his own interpretation of Hephaistos from his book Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical:

Hephaistos: Hephaistos the god has crippled feet, making him an outsider among the perfect Olympians; for this there are realistic and mythological explanations; special powers are marked by a special sign… Glorious works of art come from his hands: tripods on wheels which roll about automatically and even robot maidens made of gold who support their master. Even more astonishing is the shield which he makes: an image of the entire world of man framed by the heavenly starts. The craftsman god becomes the model of the all-fashioning creator.
(Burkert 1985: 168)

Burkert has brought up something the Homeric Hymn and us left out, the fact that Hephaistos is a crippled god. The stories differ but at some point in his life he was declared lame and unfit to be on Olympus. Sometimes its at his birth and he was thrown off a mountain, sometimes he is lame because he was thrown off a mountain. All interpretations agree that he is lame, though for me it was an obvious negative point when talking about the greatest god, something that the author of the hymn must have felt too seeing as it isn't mentioned there either. Burkert though seems to suggest that it is a sign marking him out as special, maybe even greater than the "perfect Olympians" (Burkert 1985: 168) He is being present here as being the great craftsman -even a creator. We should remember that he did in fact create Pandora, although look at how that turned out. So even a great god can still have flaws and make mistakes.






Bibliography

• Anonymous. Translated by Evelyn-White, Hugh G. (1914) The Homeric Hymns and Homerica. Cambridge, MA.,Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 
• Burkert, W. (1985.) Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical, Oxford: Blackwell. 
• Homer, translated by Rieu, E. V. (1950) The Iliad. London: Penguin. 

We don't actually know ANYTHING!

Today we went to the British Museum and life and certainty as I knew it just started to crumble around me. This started when I was thinking about a blog post that I was drafting yesterday. I was reflecting on Hercules Received into Olympus found in the Red Drawing Room at Waddesdon Manor. The ceiling painting was created by Dutch artist Jacob de Wit. When first looking at the painting from the floor I found it difficult to know quite what I was looking at. After looking at the information panel in the room I found out that it was showing the apotheosis of Hercules. According to the website, Mercury is the more prominent figure in the painting being the one charge of the horses. I felt that in the whole painting it isn't the chariot that draws my eye, but Mars in darker colours in the foreground and Minerva in lighter but brighter blue colours a little in the background. I think it is the colours that are the main attraction for me. They're clearer and so its what I see first. It wasn't until I looked at the enlarged photo that I managed to even see Mercury and Hercules, which the picture on the left shows. If I wasn't told then I would not have guessed this was Hercules because he seems to be lacking his main attributes lilke his lion skin and club. Maybe he is holding them, because there is something on his hip and he's leaning on something wooden but it isn't clear, and far away on the ceiling. How would anyone have known? Well, when a painting was created it 1725 you'd ecpect and hope that the artist has said something about it somewhere, or as least named it so we know the general subject matter. However when something was created more than 2000 years ago how can we know anything about it?

This was my problem at the British Museum today. During the handling session with Alexandra Villing we looked at vase with a winged figure on it (right).
Its a winged female leaning before an altar. We weren't too sure what it would have been used for and it was quite small. We were asked who we thought it was and we answered Nike but I asked "how can we know?" After a quick internet search I find from the theoi website that Nike "was depicted in ancient Greek vase painting with a variety of attributes including a wreath or sash to crown a victor, an oinochoe and phiale (bowl and cup) for libations, a thymiaterion (incense burner), an altar, and a lyre for the celebration of victory in song." Ok, so our little vase has a winged woman in front of an altar therefore it must be Nike right? But why? How can we know? Are all the winged figures we see depicted Nike? Could there maybe be a figure that has been lost and missed out in our version of Greek mythology that we have mistaken for Nike? These sorts of questions were just answered with we can't really be sure and that made my whole world start crumbling around me as things I considered fact or something that I didn't know as a uneducated student were shown to be pretty unstable, fluid and not known to even the most authoritative scholar. I suppose that's why there are so many scholarly debates on different topics within Classics as people try to make sense of what we know with what little evidence we have left.

One of these debates that we have been thinking about in class is identifying the figures on the east frieze of the Parthenon. During the first lesson on it we were shown the figures and allowed to look at what they're carrying and think of the mythology we know to come to the right conclusion, or at least, the conclusion most scholars agree with. Whether it's the right one is unknown but visitors to the museum are presenting with what appears to be solid fact. Of course I don't expect labels like "This figure might possibly, maybe could be Zeus, but then again maybe not." because that would be completely ridiculous and visitors would leave knowing less than they started with but I had never noticed before how limiting and self assured the labels appear to be. It was interesting for us to note that the figure commonly thought to be Iris wasn't even

referred to by the label, maybe because the curators don't want to claim they know who she is. Although often considered to be Iris, Jenifer Neils argues that it is actually Hebe, Hera's daughter, standing behind her mother, in symmetry with Eros standing behind his mother Aphrodite on the other side of the frieze.

Its an interesting theory but how will we ever know anything? So until we build a time machine my world continues to crumble.

Herakles Vase.

In our second class we looked at a portrayal of Herakles found on a red figure vase, shown above (Boston 99.538). We decided that this image showed many examples of Herakles' key attributes. He has his club which was made from an olive tree in the valley of Nemea which he then used during his first labour; killing the invulnerable Nemean Lion. This lion was overcome and the skin was then used by Herakles as armour. This skin is an iconic image and is one of his most typical attributes. He is also carrying a quiver, as he is a good archer, as the Stymphalian bird episode emphasises. This attribute is not always found in images of Herakles because archery was seen as a cowardly practice since you were picking your enemies off from afar and not besting them with your own physical strength. He is carrying a sword too showing his how skilled he is with many weapons.
In class we were also wondering what he was carrying on his left arm. After I looked it up on the Perseus website, I discovered that he is carrying two wine skins. The rest of the image shows Herakles driving the Cretan Bull, another one of his labours, where he has to bring the bull from Crete back to king Eurystheus. He could be celebrating his success by carrying the wine skins or maybe it is alluding to his role as deity for young men who had many festivals dedicated to him.