Plundering and taking home precious objects from a defeated enemy was a widespread activity in the Greek and Hellenistic-Roman world. In this volume literary critics, historians and archaeologists... Show morePlundering and taking home precious objects from a defeated enemy was a widespread activity in the Greek and Hellenistic-Roman world. In this volume literary critics, historians and archaeologists join forces in investigating this phenomenon in terms of appropriation and cultural change. In-depth interpretations of famous ancient spoliations, like that of the Greeks after Plataea or the Romans after the capture of Jerusalem, reveal a fascinating paradox: while the material record shows an eager incorporation of new objects, the texts display abhorrence of the negative effects they were thought to bring along. As this volume demonstrates, both reactions testify to the crucial innovative impact objects from abroad may have. Show less
Who or what makes innovation spread? Ten case-studies from Greco-Roman Antiquity and the early modern period address human and non-human agency in innovation. Was Erasmus the ‘superspreader’ of the... Show moreWho or what makes innovation spread? Ten case-studies from Greco-Roman Antiquity and the early modern period address human and non-human agency in innovation. Was Erasmus the ‘superspreader’ of the use of New Ancient Greek? How did a special type of clamp contribute to architectural innovation in Delphi? What agents helped diffuse a new festival culture in the eastern parts of the Roman empire? How did a context of status competition between scholars and poets at the Ptolemaic court help deify a lock of hair? Examples from different societal domains illuminate different types of agency in historical innovation. Show less
This chapter analyses how humanist poets during the Renaissance employed the aetiological discourse concerning the origins of Rome. By this aetiological discourse I do not only mean the foundation... Show moreThis chapter analyses how humanist poets during the Renaissance employed the aetiological discourse concerning the origins of Rome. By this aetiological discourse I do not only mean the foundation myths of Rome themselves, but also the body of ancient literature in which these myths were told, as well as the aetiological thinking and reasoning they reflect. I aim to show that these poets, as well as the influential people for whom they often wrote did not just have antiquarian or literary interest in these ancient foundation myths. Instead, I argue that in essence the same things were at stake for the humanist writers as for their ancient predecessors, when they used aetiological stories to explain and legitimize a certain status quo: a political, cultural or religious institution or practice.2 More specifically, I explain how numerous parties (cities, nations, empires etc.) employed the same aetiological discourse not in isolation, but in competition with each other. Show less
