Parallel session 2, panel 2: Modern Reception

(Thursday 21^st June, 11.45-1.15pm)

Recycling Plato: The Memory of Plato’s Chariot in The Trevi Fountain
Lotte Van Olman (University of Ghent)

The Trevi Fountain, designed in 1732 by Nicola Salvi, has been interpreted as a symbolic representation of contemporary enthusiasm for meteorology. Ten years before the Trevi Fountain was designed, Giovanni Poleni discovered the principle of water circulation: water evaporates, clings together in clouds, condensates and rains back on the earth. Hereward Lester Cooke, among others, links this scientific discovery to Salvi’s design, casting the classical elements aside as ornamental. Thereby Cooke reduces the Trevi Fountain to a ‘useful lesson and an explanation of natural phenomena’, wrapped in ‘a cloak’ of mythology.

However, this ‘mythological cloak’ needs further investigation. Salvi was presumably familiar with Plato, for Plato was topic of debate in the early Italian Enlightenment (B. William, S. Moravia, G. Papini). Having Plato in mind, the difference in character between the two horses of the Trevi Fountain is remarkable: one horse is obstinate, and dragged backwards, the other is good and encouraged forward. The difference in character between these two horses, strongly reminds us of Plato’s horses. In the Phaedrus, namely, Socrates uses the image of a horse chariot for the soul in love, whereof one horse is intemperate and needs to be dragged backwards and the other is brave and encouraged.

I will research to what extent the concept of Plato’s horse chariot has inspired the horse chariot in Salvi’s Trevi Fountain. I will do this by looking, among other things, at Salvi’s instructions to his architect Panini and consequently investigate how the two interpretations of the Trevi Fountain can be reconciled. In other words: why would Salvi recycle the metaphysical language of Plato to talk about a natural phenomenon like water? This research on the Trevi Fountain sheds light on how memory of the classical past can be used as a language to talk about the present. Salvi, through memory, mythologized the present.

Elagabalus: the worst of them all? Why cultural attitudes to gender caused 18th and 19th century historians to vilify an emperor the 21st century has largely forgotten
Kathryn Adams (The Open University)

In The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, published in 1789, Edward Gibbon stated that the behaviour of Elagabalus has an ‘infamy that surpasses that of any other age or country’. This depiction of Elagabalus as not only the worst Roman emperor but the worst figure in history is compounded by another historian forty years later. In The Roman Empire, published in 1827, Barthold Niebuhr states that ‘the name Elagabalus is branded in history above all others’. Elagabalus is not an emperor that has received much attention in modern scholarship and is unlikely to be named by any scholar as a particularly villainous figure from the classical world, let alone all of history.

This paper will focus on how Niebuhr’s and Gibbon’s depictions of Elagabalus are heavily influenced by the prevailing attitudes to ideas of masculinity at the time they were written.

Elagabalus became emperor at the age of 14 and ruled from 218-222 AD. Dio, Herodian and the Historia Augusta paint a picture of a feminine boy who flaunted male boyfriends around court, making clear he played the passive role in these relationships. The primary sources heavily suggest that Elagabalus’ refusal to fit in with Roman ideals of masculinity played a large part in his brief time in power. This negative attitude to Elagabalus existing outside of a narrow gender binary was echoed by Gibbon and Niebuhr writing in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. An exploration of how the cultural bias of both historians affected their reception of the primary sources will show that the negative depictions of Elagabalus are largely due to their refusal or inability to recognise the societal attitudes implicit in their analysis of the emperor.

Selective Memory: the Ancient World and Modern Hate Groups
Alexander Hardwick (University of Oxford)

For two millennia, the ancient world has been commemorated in literary, cultural and political thought. This isn’t always a good thing. In recent years, a growing number of modern hate groups have used Classics to justify their misogyny and racism. Though deplorable, this is part of how the Classical world is remembered today. This paper argues against such misuse of the Classical tradition. After exploring how these movements have misappropriated the Classical world, this paper explains why they are wrong to do so. Classical Greece and Rome may seem far more patriarchal and oppressive than modern society, but a closer look reveals more nuance and tolerance in ancient societies’ views of race and gender. Furthermore, our understanding of race and gender in the ancient world is conditioned by the sources we possess.

The first part of this paper summarises the history of hate groups’ appropriations of Classical motifs, demonstrating how modern hate groups’ appropriations are rooted in Nazi-era propaganda. This paper then surveys material drawn from modern hate groups, in order to establish a pattern of how and why the Classical world is reinterpreted to suit their agendas. It then explores the fundamentally selective nature of this memorialisation, discussing the ways in which a more balanced and tolerant side to the ancient world has been ignored or deliberately elided. Finally, we must remind ourselves that much of our source material is drawn from authors of the same race, class and gender: this paper discusses how we can allow ancient minority voices to play a greater role in our memory of the ancient world.