This upcoming webinar event at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens will be broadcast live from their website:
Abstract
"The weaponization of relics in Byzantium is attested in chronicles, military treatises, and inscriptions. This practice began with Constantine I, who, according to Eusebius, made a copy of the βsignβ from his vision and carried it into the battle at Milvian Bridge. From that time forward, Byzantine emperors were accompanied on campaign with sacred objects, including relics of Christ, the Mother of God, and the saints. The sacred remains of holy figures were believed to be the protectors of, and divine aids to, the troops, the emperor, and the empire. One of the richest sources on this practice are epigrams that are, or were, inscribed on reliquaries. They document the power that was invoked to ensure victory over oneβs enemiesβboth spiritual and earthly. This lecture examines the material and rhetorical strategies of epigrams, and the ways in which the visual and textual programs of reliquaries communicated and activated the martial function of relics."
As the title says.
I've always been aware of Ostracism as a concept but have never given much thought as to how it actually must have worked in the lead up to the vote.
As I understand it, ostracism was often used as a form of the citenzry self policing itself. A way to remove people who were posed a threat to the stability of Democracy. People gathering power and influence enough to potentially become a dictator. I imagine it was used for less noble, petty reasons too.
I had heard that the average citizen in Athens was often much more politically aware than people in our era generally are, that they would attend Assembly's regularly etc. However I still imagine that "the man on the street" so to say would still have a certain ignorance compared to the upper echelons of the political system.
I bring this up because, Dangerous individuals who genuinely pose a threat to democracy will often use populism to gather his power, will appear to be the friend of the everyman etc. So the everyman who doesn't recognise the danger posed may cast votes that they shouldn't.
This train of thought got me wondering about how the political class ensured the masses actually voted out the truly dangerous individuals. Would there have been an election campaign where the citenzry would have been urged to "Vote No.1-Thimistocles Out!" Etc etc?
I'm kind of picturing the election campaigns you stumble across in Vault 11 in Fallout New Vegas .
TLDR. How did the Athenian Political class ensure that the individuals who posed a threat to democracy were ostracised by a voting mass who were potentially not politically informed enough to recognise the danger posed ?
Hello, i've recently been very interested in the differences between the writings of Euripides and other ancient tragedians. In particular, I was reading E. R. Dodd's 'Euripides the Irrationalist' who comments on his "peculiar blend of a destructive scepticism with a no less destructive mysticism; the assertion that emotion, not reason, determines human conduct; despair of the state, resulting in quietism; despair of rational theology." He then goes on to say that "the germ survived, became endemic, and spread over the whole Greco-Roman world as soon as social conditions were favourable to its development."
I've been wondering how Euripides writings (particularly the Bacchae, as I'm very interested in Dionysus) effected the societal ethos of classical Athens and how this change (as far as i've read) was detrimental to the social order of Greek society. If anyone has any good book or article recommendations on this I would really appreciate if you let me know, I am very interested to understand the relationship between Greek drama and society.
Thank you!
I'm trying to find any info about some paintings I saw a few years ago by an Athens artist. I think they were displayed at an art walk in the Leathers Building in 2014ish. The work was environmental portraiture of modern subjects, but styled like classical portraits, think like the old paintings of genteel nobility with a long rifle surrounded by hunting dogs; but what that looks like now with a cooler and duck boots but the same sort of serious air / powdered wig vibe. Media was oil (I think) and larger sized canvas; 48-60" works. Any ideas of who that might be?
https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1224776852251795457?s=21
It is itself, a product of an architecture competition held at the time as mentioned on our channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1pvZv5Ny9M&t=13s
Although the rectangular white marble Parthenon has suffered damage over the centuries, including the loss of most of its sculpture, its basic structure has remained intact.
Ancient ruins like the Parthenon can teach us about the past in a unique way. Through architectural remains, we can gather what building techniques and civilizations were like long ago. Even so, ruins canβt compare to the real deal, and historical reconstructions of these architectural wonders are key to a fuller understanding of the cultures that created them.
https://preview.redd.it/6kct5n1qo4r51.jpg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=741f28de2dfda6f395b1484c4a3478e40c3a983c
The period it is best known for, between the reform of Cleisthenes and when Philip founded the Hellenic League. Especially compared to systems people might like to think are closer to republics based on the rule of law, magistrates elected for their merits, and courts based on the law and deliberative judges and juries, like Rome.
Rome became infamously corrupt, and even in the mid and early republic was dominated by class struggles and smoke filled room tactics and bribes.
How did Athens compare, given juries were large with unimportant presiding judges and the Boule was for short impeachable terms using sortition from a large pool of elected candidates?
From another post on this sub I learned that even Corinth, despite being powerful enough to challenge Athens on the seas, was subservient to Sparta.
Was it able to stay strong compared to other powers due to its neutrality whilst they weakened each other? Why was it never punished for being unreliable (either from the Greco-Persian wars or any others)?
Its position on the map seems like it would hold strategic importance (although I must admit, like on many things I am ignorant here).
Edit: removed a wrong misconception I asked about that I misrepresented to seem as more common, but was me making a biased mistake.
They certainly didnβt have patents of nobility like in medieval era. And i donβt hear much about something like the patrician families in Rome either. So was it more like the gentry class in Victorian England which was based on land and wealth?
And a follow up question, what benefits did one get for belonging to the aristocracy in a democracy like Athens? Besides money, power and influence obviously, I mean was there any formal privilege? I imagine not much different from being a super rich man in modern USA?
