|
Post by timoneill on Dec 18, 2017 18:47:56 GMT
Yes, well as Thony Christie commented to me dryly, being lauded in the "Torygraph" may be more like infamy. But I'll take the praise.
|
|
|
Post by mendicant on Jan 16, 2018 20:25:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by domics on Feb 5, 2018 12:08:22 GMT
" Visit the Parthenon Marbles at the British Museum and you’ll see that the east pediment is particularly badly damaged — ‘almost certainly’ by Christians, the author tells us. But that’s about all she tells us, except to note that the marble was ‘likely’ ground down and used for mortar to build churches. This is a terrifically exciting aside: the greatest achievement in Greek art was pestled into cement for Christian construction work? How likely is this? How do we know? How could we know?" On the Parthenon an article by Prof. Anderson against what he calls "argument from epochal suitability".
Anderson, Benjamin, "The Defacement of the Parthenon Metopes," Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017), 248-260. Abstract: "Modern attempts to explain the defacement by invoking sectarian motives are demonstrably uncogent, and the damage may instead have been due to local and temporary contingencies." From the article: "Any theory of monotheistically motivated defacement of the Parthenon must contend with the multitude of sculptures (the south metopes, the frieze, and west pediment) that remained intact throughout Byzantine, Frankish, and Ottoman rule."grbs.library.duke.edu/article/view/15735
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Feb 5, 2018 21:49:13 GMT
" Visit the Parthenon Marbles at the British Museum and you’ll see that the east pediment is particularly badly damaged — ‘almost certainly’ by Christians, the author tells us. But that’s about all she tells us, except to note that the marble was ‘likely’ ground down and used for mortar to build churches. This is a terrifically exciting aside: the greatest achievement in Greek art was pestled into cement for Christian construction work? How likely is this? How do we know? How could we know?" On the Parthenon an article by Prof. Anderson against what he calls "argument from epochal suitability".
Anderson, Benjamin, "The Defacement of the Parthenon Metopes," Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017), 248-260. Abstract: "Modern attempts to explain the defacement by invoking sectarian motives are demonstrably uncogent, and the damage may instead have been due to local and temporary contingencies." From the article: "Any theory of monotheistically motivated defacement of the Parthenon must contend with the multitude of sculptures (the south metopes, the frieze, and west pediment) that remained intact throughout Byzantine, Frankish, and Ottoman rule."grbs.library.duke.edu/article/view/15735Yes, I did intend to use Benjamin's article to show that, in yet another case, Nixey had simply accepted the interpretation that suited her thesis. But it was one of several examples that I ended up not using because my review was already rather long and I thought the point had already been made.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Feb 24, 2018 3:32:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by justacomment on Sept 21, 2020 19:07:26 GMT
in Latin this passage is: "ac Graecorum quidem opiniones exstinctae deletaeque sunt."link'Opinions' and not 'writings'! Another curious thing in Rohmann's translation of this same passage is this. He translates: "From the time that he was and the others,since then [the writings] of Pythagoras and of Plato, which seemed before to dominate, have been kept secret,..."The correct translation is: "From the time when both he and the other fishermen lived, the teaching of Pythagoras have fallen silent, as well those of Plato,..." linkWhy the omission of the reference to the fishermen? To 'keep secret' is not the same as to 'fall silent' as the first implies an intention by someone. Just saying that the author of those two quotations, John Chrysostom, did speak neither Latin nor English. He was from Antioch and his native language was therefore Greek.
It is strange, therefore, to say that a 17th century Latin translation (the one quoted) or an openly religious book (which contains a nihil obstat) from 1957 are closer to the original Greek than Rohmann is.
Well, at least without checking the original Greek text ... !
But I guess this is the level of "scholarship" one has to expect here (si tacuisses...)
|
|