Lampas - Volume 51, Issue 4, 2018

Summary

This paper studies the use of Sappho as model and ‘anchor’ in two Hellenistic poets, Posidippus and Nossis, with a brief excursus on Catullus 51. Posidippus refers explicitly to Sappho three times in his epigrams. In all three instances he associates her with talk of or about women. Posidippus thus sees her primarily as a female poet and an authority on women. The same holds true for Nossis, but whereas Posidippus only appeals to Sappho’s authority when he wishes to speak about women, Nossis explicitly places herself in Sappho’s tradition, as a woman and a literary daughter. Posidippus uses Sappho as an anchor to speak as a poet about women, while Nossis, in her surviving epigrams, uses her as an anchor to speak as a woman poet, a subtle but significant difference. A brief analysis of Catullus 51 confirms this distinction, suggesting a gender difference in the way Sappho was used as anchor by male and female poets in antiquity.

Abstract

One of the central precepts in classical rhetorical theory is that form should match content. In many places, classical rhetoricians encourage their readers to use iconic language, which means that the speech or written discourse resembles the conceptual content in its form (for example, through sound effects, rhythmic patterns, clause length). This presupposes that the processing of the formal properties of the discourse (mainly a perceptual operation) interferes with the processing of the linguistic meaning it conveys (a conceptual operation). The question is how this interaction between the two types of operation can be described in linguistic terms. I argue that a meaningful answer to these questions can be given within the framework of Cognitive Linguistics. In this paradigm, iconicity can be understood as a communicative strategy whereby the depictive aspects of the discourse facilitate the processing of its conceptual meaning.

Summary

In this paper I discuss the introduction of the systematic dissection of human corpses for scientific (medical) purposes in Hellenistic Alexandria. This innovation – associated with the names of Herophilus of Chalcedon and Erasistratus of Keos (third century BCE) in particular – led to significant advances in anatomical and physiological knowledge such as the discovery of the nervous system. Surprisingly, it fell into disuse again very soon after its successful introduction. Why did human anatomy emerge in this particular place in this particular period? Why was it abandoned again so soon? In this paper I will argue that we are dealing with a case of innovation that failed due to inadequate anchoring. In so doing I will take a closer look at the circumstances prevailing in early Hellenistic Alexandria but also put these into perspective by pointing to developments in first and second century CE medicine when a group of physicians, especially Galen of Pergamum, succeeded in putting back anatomy, largely based on animal material, on the agenda of medical research. Two decisive factors and their interplay seem to have been central to the developments we describe, viz. societal (moral, religious) values and norms and developments within ancient medicine itself.

Summary

Under the influence of philhellenistic ideas, ancient scholars ascribed the beginning of Roman literature to a ‘Greek slave’, Livius Andronicus, and his alleged translation of a Greek drama in 240 BC. This paper aims to demonstrate that the Roman project of finding ‘Greek origins’ had an impact not only on our general understanding of Roman tragedy, but also on the theoretical framework, methods and techniques of editing and contextualizing its fragmentary remains, i.e. on philological approaches to working with its fragments.

Summary

Anchoring

can be a powerful strategy to legitimize innovation and changes, but its success also depends on the choice of the anchor. If a given anchor proves to be successful in one context, it may be purposefully employed again and again in highly different circumstances. The foundation of Rome is a case in point: major innovations were repeatedly related to the city’s most distant beginnings, and founders of Rome came to act as mirrors through which the Romans recognized the novelties of the present in a primordial past.

A concrete application of this idea is the phenomenon of ‘ktistic renewal’: redefining the concept of foundation, influential agents of innovation could be seen as ‘second founders’ of the city. This epithet was famously applied to the emperor Augustus, comparing him to Romulus. The way his innovative regime was anchored in turn functioned as an anchor for later innovations. In Late Antiquity, the apostles Peter and Paul were also seen as new founders of a reborn, Christian Rome. In both periods, foundational figures thus played a role as anchors to legitimate far-reaching religious and political changes. This article examines the repeated recourse to new and second founders in the Augustan Age and Late Antiquity to highlight the success of one anchoring device in two very distinct contexts. Obviously, such double or incremental anchoring may call for innovation in the use of the anchor itself – and that is exactly what this contribution aims to study.

Summary

Italian Fascism anchored its revolutionary ideology in the Roman past, embedding and legitimising changes in every sphere of life through an appeal to a supposedly shared Roman heritage. In this article, we scrutinise these Fascist dynamics of anchoring through an analysis of the Mussolini obelisk in Rome and the Latin text hidden below it: Aurelio Amatucci’s Codex Fori Mussolini. We focus especially on the Fascist manipulation of the obelisk tradition, the significance of Amatucci’s choice of language, and his use of ancient authors within the Codex. We argue that the ‘ground’ in which monument and text are anchored is fundamentally unstable: the Roman past itself is a dynamic and adaptable construction. Obelisk and Codex selectively evoke and (re-)combine a multiplicity of elements – from antiquity to the twentieth century, from the Renaissance to the Risorgimento. In doing so, obelisk and text shape the very tradition in which they anchor.

Summary

In this article we present teaching materials based on the concept ‘anchoring innovation’, meant for students in year three of secondary school. The purpose of the materials is to illustrate how ‘anchoring innovation’ worked in Antiquity and to illustrate that these principles are still relevant today. A secondary goal is to give students insight into Classics as an academic discipline. Within the context of the classroom ‘anchoring innovation’ helps students to understand the relationship between different historical events, texts and material culture.

In this set of teaching materials we focus on Augustus and his big innovation: the principate. Students will discover how Augustus anchored this political change. After analyzing texts, coins, buildings and works of art, they will present their findings in an infographic. They will find out that Augustus used all types of media to secure his principate. At the same time they will see that Augustus is careful not to use the wrong anchor.