Sojourner553

Bede,

I was already familiar with the concept of conquerors melting down bronze and metal from the ancient Roman Empire (and of course ancient Egypt). That’s why it rang true for me when you commented that the Romans likely did this (in turn) to their predecessors-- including the Greeks.

For example, this was also done by Eastern Christians to Western Christians:

When the Byzantine emperor Constans II (successor of Justinian) visited Rome, he collected all the metal from the statues and buildings (including the bronze and lead tiles and roofs, and wall clamps holding buildings together) to melt down into armaments.

Isn't this a form of plunder—i.e. converting old treasures into cash-equivalents (armaments, coins, or other property of value).

One of your sources, however hints this was not always done for monetary purposes – but for ideological/political reasons as well. Here is the key paragraph:


“In ancient times, Roman dominance became pervasive throughout
the Mediterranean world. In the process, they sought to supplant
ancient religions and political systems in the conquered regions
with their own methods. Thus, worn metal statues commemorating
ancient gods or heroes, which had stood for ages in the public
areas in the cities of the conquered regions, were torn down and
sent to Rome. This scrap metal was melted down and recast as
either weapons for the Roman legions or new statues which were
dedicated to historic Roman events or leaders. “

Still the author carefully clarifies this as “worn METAL statue.

This was an interesting passage:

“ Many Greek statues were made from bronze but only a few have survived. Most are known to us only through their Roman copies made in marble.”

But again, the author says “many” and not “most”!!! This would (without better evidence) tend to support that “most” statues were NOT made of bronze, the most common metal.

Indeed, I do not see your sources talking about ANYTHING other than metal statues.


If the majority of statues/art artifacts are made of metal – then this is relevant.
But your sources are silent on non-metal statues – nor do they speak of the prevalence (or ratio) of metal statues and works of art to those with no metal (meltdown value.)

***This is important because there does not appear to be the profit factor in recycling marble that one finds in recycling metal!*** that is, if there were socio-religious-political motives also involved – one would see the marble statues and regular art being destroyed at close to the same rate as those made of metal. For I assume (as your sources are silent on this) that there was not much profit in recycling marble.

Gombrich on the other hand appears to be referring to ALL statues and paintings – not just metallic ones.

Statues and paintings of the Greek and Roman gods were sought out and destroyed.. "(EH Gombrich, THE STORY OF ART, Phaidon
Publishers, Inc, 1966, p 56)


One way to refute Gombrich is to show that:

(1) the majority of Greek statues and paintings were made of metal and
(2) non-metal works of art were destroyed at about the same rate as metal works (where the latter has significant financial profits to be obtained from recycling)

But the opposite is also true:

(1) If the majority of Greek art was non-metallic (which rings true in my firsthand experience and what I have seen in art books of marble, mosaics, etc.) and (2) they were also heavily destroyed – then this might be evidence there was social-religious-political forces at work (as opposed to financial $$ to melt down the metal).

…

Another interesting paragraph was:

“Lysippus, the master of Chares, was still more famous. Beginning as an ordinary workman in bronze, he decided that his statues, in which he specialized, must be absolutely natural in attitude and expression. He made the enormous number of 1,500 statues, nearly all bronze; 'in consequence of which', wrote his biographer with bitter irony a hundred years ago, 'none of them remain', although many are known from coins. “


Still the author is silent on the majority of artisans. Clearly Lysippus was considered one of the greatest artisans of his time, and as such was able to work in expensive materials. It cannot be extrapolated from this that ALL Greek artisans were this fortunate or wealthy!

In summary, you have brought forth some very interesting information. But not all the dots have been connected to prove your point. For your sources speak only of metal artifacts and are silent on how prevalent they were viz-a-viz the marble and regular (non-metallic) art.

Now Gombich would also have to see the chards of marble to think this was done for religious/political reasons. To me, this is what his statement covers. And Bede, I have seen this kind of evidence with other civilizations -- especially in the Americas under the Spanish so it wouldn't be an isolated instance.

BTW:
What about the sources of marble wearing away over time? I thought only pollution or gunpowder (from the Turks) was this effective. Last I heard the Caryatid in the environmentally friendly British Museum was faring very well… (Smile)

Sojourner

Sojourner553

Yes, I agree with you and Bede on this part.

Still the Christians were responsible for books being removed from the city of Alexandria (although surely some -- maybe most-- of this was from pagans being expelled from the city and taking their books with them, as opposed to the books being torched.) This is still an anti-intellectual act, but the violence is missing.

According to the Christian historian Orosius, who visited Alexandria in the
same year as Hypatia's death – ie 415 C.E.: "There are temples nowadays, which
we have seen, whose book-cases have been emptied by our men. And this is a
matter that admits no doubt. (Mostafa El-Abbadi, The Life and Fate of the
Ancient Library of Alexandria, Part III, ch. 5 "The Fate of the Library and the
Mouseion", 1992, pp. 164-167).


<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/ALEXANDR.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/ALEXANDR.TXT</a>


Sojourner

Bede

Sojourner,

I think the statue business is something I thought I knew can't can't remember why. It's good to be forced to vigorously test what we think we know but it might take time.

Anyway, I think we agree:

a) Many more marble statues (both Greek and Roman) have survived than bronzes (or wood or ivory etc);
b) Bronze statues were melted down for financial and political reasons by both pagans and Christians without much religious motive in evidence.

My contention is that the lack of surviving Greek statues is not because Christians trashed them for religious reasons (although undoubtably a few were), but simply that they were bronzes that didn't survive as well as marbles for the other reasons we have discussed.

To demonstrate this, I'd have to show that the proportion of marble statues surviving is much greater than the proportion of originally made. Anecdotally we could also look at some of the most famous statues and see what they were made of. Off hand -

Zeus of Olympia - Gold and Ivory (probably wood too). It was destroyed in urban unrest in the 6th century after being moved from the Olympia to Constantinople.

Athene of the Parthenon - Bronze, gold & ivory. Not sure what happened to this;

The Colossus: Bronze, destroyed in earthquake;

Nero's colossus: Bronze and melted when Nero died;

Serapis of the Serapeum: Wooden and this was destroyed by a Christian mob;

Artemis of Ephesus: Marble - survives.

The Laocoon of Rome: Marble - survives.

Augustus's Altar of Victory: Marble - survives.

Can anyone think of some more? Note, that I've heard of the surviving ones partly because they have survived so they might not be representative.

The best bronzes are those found in shipwreaks housed in a grotty museum in Athens. If you are into that sort of thing it's worth the flight alone.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Bede

Hey Sojourner, look at this: <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0008&query=toc& layout=&loc=2.4.3" target="_blank">Greek scuptors</a>.

We could count them up if we liked!

Unfortunately I have a life but it seems that the survivals are mainly marble whereas the originals split much more evenly with (I think) a majority in bronze).

B

Vorkosigan

Zeus of Olympia - Gold and Ivory (probably wood too). It was destroyed in urban unrest in the 6th century after being moved from the Olympia to Constantinople.

Are you sure? Everything I've read says it was destroyed by fire in 462 after it was moved to Constantinople.

Bede

I'll take your correction. I think I assumed it was in Justinains reign as he seemed to invite a lot of social unrest!

B

godfry n. glad

Bede:

Forgive me, for I did not intend to insinuate that you deliberately suppressed any sources, but that your bias leads you to select amongst the available conflicting sources so as to make determinations of accuracy and veracity which support your apologetic ends. Thus, your reading of the sources varies from that of Gibbon and Casson, who I expect do, or did, likewise. (Casson, for example, steadfastly holds to the Anno Domini convention in dating and avoids any extended discussion of the demise of the Alexandrian Library.) I appreciate that your apologetics are open, rather than veiled in pretensions of objectivity. And, I do know what you mean about arsehole behavior on these boards and I think things have improved considerably since the exit of Alexis Comemnus.

I have read your recommended site and found it mildly interesting. I'd be far more interested in reading the exchange betwixt you and Carrier over the topic than reading a fuller apologetic explication of the site I have already read. Is it possible for you to provide a link to that exchange?

You asked,

Casson cites a secondary source, rather than a primary one. It is: H. Pflaum, _Les carrieres procuratoriennes equestres sous le haut-empire romain_, pp 34-41 (Paris 1960-61). Your suspicions may well be correct. I'd be interested to know, but I have only the most rudimentary comprehension of French.

godfry n. glad

Bede

godfry,

Did you know I was Alexis? Kinda ironic if you didn't.

That French book is in a library at school so I'll look it up if I get a chance at the weekend. Goodness knows I need to get some library time in!

The Bede/Carrier plus assorted others debate stretched over several threads and got quite heated. The best bits are probably here:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=16&t=000656&p=1" target="_blank">RC on the Great Library</a>

Hope you enjoy a vintage SecWeb bun fight.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Sojourner553

Your sources that I went through last time indicated that ORIGINALLY there were "many" bronze statues. No where do they state that "most" statues were bronze, or even metal.

Therefore I am confused as to how you arrived at your conclusion of the opposite. Can you walk me through how you logically deduced this from your sources?

Now I do agree that the majority of the most expensive/impressive original works were in bronze. I also agree that the vast majority of bronze works would have been melted down for financial motives -- not religious/socio-political -- in every culture!

Thus it is over the non-metallic works of art where we apparently seem to disagree. I looked at your latest source (unfortunately it's first link could not find a server). It's second link was a reciting of facts about extant/nonextant works. Was there a relevent passage I missed? (That's why I like pasting the relevent passage for both the reader and myself!)

I heard a detective once explain that in researching a crime (or other event), a good test to see if one really has the truth is to look for a "motive" behind it. That is, it is relevent to try and look into a person's mind, to see if one can glean a motive for thier actions.

In applying this same principle: Do you not agree that -- during these times -- most Christians viewed all non-Christian works as being from the devil and therefore evil? Do you disagree with the accounts of Christian mobs tearing down pagan temples/smashing religious works and converting many to churches?

Just curious.

BTW: I do like to always look at critques that are pro AND con. (I learn the most that way.) I did a quick google search on smashing statues. The most detailed I saw was this site (that says to be taken from Vlasis Rassias' book, Demolish Them. The author appears to be a native born Athenian interested in preserving ancient Greek traditions.)

<a href="http://www.ysee.gr/html/eng/love.html" target="_blank">http://www.ysee.gr/html/eng/love.html</a>

I looked on the web -- as I like to find evidence FOR and AGAINST -- didn't see any. Anyone else know of any critique of the author and/or his facts?

Sojourner

[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Bede

Sojourner,

Hi there.

OK, I was being lazy with the link. Basically, I went through a few pages of the book and had a look at a few sculptors. I thought that bronze was the more valued material, that the Greats like Phideas tended to use it and that it seemed the most common material. I haven't done a statistical survey or anything.

I certainly deny that "-- during these times -- most Christians viewed all non-Christian works as being from the devil and therefore evil?" While a few nutters may have taken this view I doubt most Christians thought so then any more than they do now. Worshipping these idols was wrong but it was fine to see them as art which is why the Olympian Zeus, for example, was put on public display in Constantinople for instance.

I realise there were occasions when Christian mobs did terrible things but don't thing that we learn anything much from that except that mobs are bad.

Essentially, my point is that there was no great 'smashing of the idols' in the fourth century but rather isolated events have been misinterpreted and turned into a great movement that never was. The only occasion of a mob destroying a temple I know of is the Serapeum. I'm sure there were others but the fact is many pagan temples are still standing! Likewise, the statues - we can explain why and how some survived without requiring a great mythical period of smashing.

Consider how many mistakenly think that Christians destroyed much pagan literature (you hear this alot). In fact, we know they didn't but their priorities changed so they stopped taking much time to copy and preserve what was less important to them. Ditto the statues. Marble sort of hangs around if you ignore it but bronze does not. Hence marble survives (and a hell of lot does) but bronze doesn't. I've seen more antique marble than you could shake a stick at and next to no bronze.

Demolish Them is fantasy with a few facts thrown in for good measure. I started a project to go through it and find what was real and what wasn't but got bored when practically nothing checked out. The complete lack of references doesn't help and you, for one, are better than this kind of stuff.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>