Alexandria: The Oxford Undergraduate Classics Journal - Fourth Issue

ALEX ANDRIA: THE OXFORD U N D E R G R A D UAT E C L A S S I C S JOURNAL

E DI TOR IA L T E A M editor-in-chief:

Evie Atmore editors:

Cat Bridges Dominic Kane Annabel Holt Leo Kershaw Grace Gentle Thomasina Smith Allyson Obber

Branwen Phillips Phoebe Hyun Myesha Munro creative

director:

Emily Wigoder illustrators:

Alex Haveron-Jones Deniz de Barros

A L E T T E R F ROM T H E E DI TOR A n e w y e a r, a n e w d e c a d e , a n d h e r e w e a r e b r i n g i n g y o u a n o t h e r assortment of eclectic, engaging, and intellectually-stimulating ar t icles wr itten by c ur rent Oxford Underg raduates.

My team and I have thoroughly enjoyed editing pieces on the p olitical intrigue of Classical Athens, Ar t and C olour in Ancient Egypt, and even the Importance of Elephants (yes, Elephants) in the Hellenistic Period.

I would like to offer my sincere thank you to my editorial team, my creative director and team, and of course our amazing contributors, who have been a pleasure to collaborate with. Without further ado, I hope you enjoy the 4th issue of Alexandr ia, t he Oxford Underg raduate C lassics Jour na l!

Ev ie Atmore, Editor-in-Chief

TA B L E OF C ON T E N T S A n A t h e n i a n G e n e r a t i o n G a p ?

WILLIAM CROSS

Anti-Augustanism in O vid's prayer for Augustus

3-6

7-12

MIA PORTMAN

Hellenistic Kings, Hegemonic Masculinity and

13-24

Elephants BRANWEN PHILLIPS

A n c i e n t E g y p t i a n C o l o u r a n d i t s S i g n i f i c a n c e

26-35

PHOEBE HYUN

Ĉu en tombejo – Edmond Privat 36-38 Latin Sapphics translation FELIX STOKES

A N AT H E N IA N G E N E R AT I ON G A P ?

William Cross

In 1975 G e orge For rest prop o s e d t hat i n t he l ate 5 t h ce ntur y B C a p ar t i c u l ar g roup of upp er- cl ass yout hs eme rge d i n At he ns w ho, i n t he abs e nce of “ issue s of pr i ncipl e” and under t he in f lu ence of t he s ophist s , pre c ipit ate d t he ol i g arch i c re volut i on i n 41 1. 1 His pr imar y s ou rc e is Ar istophane s . For me, t his ge ne rat i on g ap i n At he ns is much hard er to d ef ine t han he su g ge st s . In re sp ons e to h is ar t i cl e, I ask t h re e quest ions : w hat s or t of g ap c an we s e e ; w hy mi g ht it have for me d; and w hat shap e d i d it t a ke in 4 1 1 ?

The f irst st r and of For re st’s arg u me nt is t hat t he young re volut i onar i e s of 4 1 1 re pres ente d a d ist inc t s o c i a l g roup. He s e e s a ge ne r at i on g ap of age and cl ass. In t he l ate 5t h ce ntu r y, as he p oi nt s out , re fe re nc e s to cl e ver and d ange rous young me n ab ound. In t he 4 2 0 s Ar istophane s s at i r is e s e du c ate d young me n l i ke B delycl e on, Pheidippid es or t he Kn i g ht s . His el de rly chor us i n Achar ni ans compl ai n bitte rly ab out v ici ous you ng or ators ( Ach. 6 7 6 - 7 1 8 ) . More ove r, Eur ipi de s, w r it i ng i n 4 2 3 B C, conde m ns re ck less you ng me n i n Suppl i ant s . T hei r cl amour pushe s Adrastus to j oin t he war against Theb e s ( Supp. 1 6 0 - 1 ) and t he chor us bl ame t he m for f ai lure i n t he con f lic t (2 5 0 ). Fou r t h- c e ntu r y aut hors , to o, i d e nt i f y a si m i l ar c ate gor y. In Xenophon’s Memor abi l i a , t he f utu re re volut i onar i e s Cr it i as and A l cibi ade s abus e rhetor ic for t heir ow n pu r p o s e s ( Me m . 1 . 2 . 4 0 - 4 6 ) . In Pl ato’s G org i as, young C a l l i cl e s is dr iven on ly by su ccess ( G org . 4 5 4 d- 4 5 5 d) and b e ars a st r i k i ng re s e mbl ance to S o crates’ ar isto cr at ic pupi l Phe i dippi de s ( C l. 1 4 - 3 1 , 1 1 9 -1 2 0 , 1 3 2 1 -1 3 5 0 ) . C l e ve r, uns cr upu l ous and ambit i ous you ng me n l o om l arge in t he l ate 5 t h ce ntur y.

Howe ver, many of t hes e ob s e r v at i ons are ab out you ng me n and ol d me n i n ge ne ra l. 2 You ng p e opl e are of ten prone to r isk - t a k i ng and c an b e a de st abi l isi ng i nf lue nce.

In T huc yd id es’ a ccou nt of t he Archi d ami an War, Arch i d amus II is pushe d to war by cl amorous you ng men ( T hu c . 2 . 2 1 . 2 -3 ) - just l i ke Adrastus i n Suppl i ants. In Xenophon’s a ccou nt of 4 0 4 -3 , he char a c te r is e s t he young Gre ek me rce nar i e s w ho j oine d Cy r us as c areless ( Hel l. 3 . 1 . 1 0 ) , but is e qu a l ly re ck l e ss i n h is ow n f ai lure to fol low S o cr ates’ a dv ic e ( 3 . 1 . 4 - 1 0 ) . Dist i nc t i ons b et we e n young and ol d are a ls o c ommonpl a ce. T he At he n i ans e mphas is e te ns i on at home b e t we e n t he ge ne rat i ons i n t he Sici l i an D eb ate (Ni c i as 6 . 1 2 . 2 , A l c ibi a de s 6 . 1 7.1 ) but t he s ame conf l i c t is found in ot her cit ies (1 . 4 2 . 1 , 2 . 8 . 1 e tc . ) . And, as of te n as t he dist i nc t i on is made, old and you ng are not a lw ay s s o di f fe re nt . In t he bu i l dup to t he Si ci l i an E x p e dit i on, t he older gener at ion are just as hast y as t he you nge r : “e ve r yone fel l i n l ove w it h t he enter pr is e” (T hu c. 6 . 2 4 . 3 ) . Eve n Ar istophane s’ C louds, t he crow n i n For r re st’s argument, is not s imply ab out a cl ash b e t we e n t he gene rat i ons.

1 2

Forrest (1975) Jordovic (2008)

Pheidippid es l e ar ns to ma ke t he we a ke r arg u me nt st ronge r ( C l. 8 8 6 -1 1 2 4 ) and t heir con f lic t intens if i e s u nt i l he is abl e to st r i ke h is f at he r and just i f y it ( 1 3 2 1 1 350) . R ash and sus cept ibl e, Phe i dippi de s f it s For re st’s c ate gor y - a l ong w it h most ot her you ng men and s ome ol d one s to o. T he e v i de nce for t h is ge ne rat i on gap is abu nd ant, but on ly b e c aus e it is a lw ay s p o ss ibl e to ma ke such compl ai nts.

The next element of For re st’s arg u me nt c onc e r ns t he mot iv at i ons of t he re volut i onar ies . He id e nt i f i e s a p ol it i c a l g ap b e t we en young and ol d. The ol de r generat ion , l i ke t he ju rors of Wasps 3 or t he ant i - Sp ar t an hopl ite s of Achar ni ans, g r umble d ab out t he const itut i on . E du c ate d you ng me n, l i ke t he Ol d Ol i g arch , prefer re d to t he or is e ab out it . His p amph l e t is st r uc ture d l i ke a s oph ist i c epideix is - a s or t of rhe tor i c a l p ar t y - pi e c e. It pre s e nts a v isi on of t he At he ni an p olit ic a l s y stem ent irely b as e d on t he s el f - i nte re st of t he de mo s ( t he com mon p e ople) . 4 T he d eb ate e x ami ne s t he r at i ona l cl ass i nte re st of t he de mo s and c a l ls for t he el ite to a c t i n t he i r ow n i nte re st s to o. It conclude s t hat re volut i on is imp o ss ible (C onst.At h. 3 . 1 2 ) but of fe rs mu ch of t he mate r i a l us e d by l ate r intel le c tu a ls , su ch as Ar istot l e i n his Pol it i c s , to c r it i que At he ni an de mo crac y. 5 You ng com ic w r iters , For re st arg u e s , j oi ne d i n t his pro -el ite cr it i cism of t he st ate. A f r ag ment f rom Eup ol is’ D e me s ( f r. 1 1 7 ) l amb asts de mago g ue s w it h t he s ame dis d ain t he Ol d Ol i g arch us e s for t he “ l e a de rs” ( 2 .2 0 ) . Kni g hts, pro duce d

by Ar istophanes in 4 2 4 , pre s e nt s a s i mi l arly i ne f f i ci e nt and cor r upt sy ste m .

The t wo sl aves d esp air of t he ob s e qu i ous Paph l agon’s i nf lue nce ( Kn. 4 0 -7 0 ) but f ind t hat t heir on ly hop e is t he more aw f u l S aus age S el l e r. The de mo s’ el de rly repres ent at ive D emos t a ke s a dv ant age of t he s e de mago g ue s for h is ow n pl e asure (1121-11 5 0 ) - just as t he Ol d Ol i g arch’s de mo s e x pl oit “t he worst me n” ( 2 .1 9 ) .

Wh i le e du c ate d you ng me n a c t ively c r it i c is e t he de mo s and t he i r de mago g ue s, t he old p opu l at ion are p ar t of t he c or r upt s y ste m .

Howe ver, ot her e v id enc e f rom Ar istophane s cha l l e nge s For re st’s p ol it i c a l g ap.

A lt houg h Ar istophanes s ome t i me s c r it i c is e s t he de mo s l i ke t he Ol d Ol i g arch , he f re quent ly compl ic ate s t he g ap b e t we e n you ng and ol d. In Kni g hts, D e mo s changes age. He is in it i a l ly p or t r aye d as a ha l f - de af ol d man, but is e ve ntu a l ly restore d to yout h and re - e mbr a c e s t he v a lu e s of t he g l or i ous ge ne rat i on t hat fou g ht against t he Pers i ans . T he de mo s is b ot h young and ol d ( Kn. 1 3 2 1 f f.) .

Where wou l d t he “gene r at i on g ap” b e ? Ar istophane s a ls o compl i c ate s t he p olit ic a l d iv id e b et we e n you ng and ol d. In Wasps , pro duce d i n 4 2 2 , it is ol d Ph i lo cle on w ho proves mo st re volut i onar y. Ab andoni ng ob e di e nt jur y-s e r v i ce, he h it s fel l ow memb ers of t he de mo s ( Wa . 1 3 2 2 -2 5 ) and c aus e s havo c i n t he st re et s (1 3 8 8 - 9 1 , 1 4 1 7 ) . Me anw hi l e his ar isto c r at i c s on B delycl e on has no intent ion of cha l l eng ing de mo c r a c y it s el f ( 6 5 0 -1 , 7 2 9 -3 4 , 1 0 1 5 -1 7 ) and on ly w ishes to r id it of its f l aw s ( 6 5 0 - 7 3 4 ) . Whe re are t he young re volut i onar i e s l i ke t he Old Oligarch ? Even t he i mpl i c at i ons of “you ng” and “ol d” c an b e f l e x ibl e i n Ar istophanes’ come d ie s .

3 4 5

Crichton (1991-3) Ste Croix (1972) Ober (2001)

“You ng”, for inst ance, is us e d as a te r m of abus e w he n appl i e d to t ho s e w ho are “old”. In Frogs , w hen h is s e r v i c e of At he ns is c a l l e d i nto que st i on, t he for t y ye ar-old A l cibi a d es is c a l l e d a you ng l i on ( Fr. 1 4 2 1 -3 1 ) . The Ol d Ol i g arch m i g ht su g gest t hat you ng ar isto c r at s de s i re d a re volut i on , but Ar istophane s of fe rs l itt l e supp or t t hat t h is was ab out t he p ol it i c s of a ge ne r at i on g ap.

The f ina l el ement of For re st’s arg u me nt is ab out t he ol i g archs of 4 1 1 . His mo del assu mes a cl ass g ap b e t we e n ne w f ami l i e s and ol d. He i de nt i f i e s a handf u l of k a loi k agat hoi ( ar isto c r at s ) w ho we nt on to st age t he re volut i on of 411: Ant iphon, C r it i as , Phr y n i chus , Pe is ande r, Ar isto crate s, The rame ne s and A lcibi ades . 6 T here is go o d e v i de nc e i n t he At he naion Pol ite i a t hat t he r u l i ng fami lies of e arly At hens we re ar isto c r at i c , re g arde d t he ms elve s as t he fore mo st cit izens, and hel d on to t he mo st p owe r f u l p o s it i ons of of f i ce ( At h . Pol. 3 ) . 7 The not ion of ol igarchy and de mo c r a c y f i rst e me rge s e xpl i cit ly i n Pi nd ar’s S e cond P yt h i an O d e and in Ae s chy lus’ Suppl i ant s ( Supp. 6 0 3 ) . By t he t i me of Eph i a lte s and Cimon it s e ems t hat t he re w as a c t ive c omp e t it i on b e t we e n de mo crat i c and olig archic r u le among t he el ite. It c ont i nu e d b e t we e n Pe r i cl e s and Thuc ydi de s s on of Mel es i as into t he 4 4 0 s ( Plut . Pe r. 1 1 . 1 -3 ) . By t he 4 2 0 s, a lt houg h opp osit ion to Per icl es e ve ntu a l ly broke up ( T hu c . 2.6 5 .8 -1 0 ) , me n of v ar i ous st ates were st i l l r a l ly ing to t he b an ne rs of de mo c r ac y and ol i g archy ( Plut. Pe r.

3.82.8) .

Howe ver, b e yond t he te x t of t he Ol d Ol i g arch, t he re is i n f ac t l itt l e e v i de nce of w hat m ig ht b e ter me d ol i g archi c re s ist anc e to de mo crac y. In Ar istophane s, t he pre dom inant conce r n is not ol i g archy but t y r anny. In Wasps, B delycl e on is acc us e d of t y r anny by t he chor us of ol d ju rors w he n he t r i e s to t a ke h is fat her away f rom ju r y s e r v i c e ( Wa . 4 6 3 -5 0 7 ) . In Bi rds, Pe is e t ai ro s prom is e s t he de at h p ena lt y for birds w ho att a ck t he f r i e nds of t he de mo s ( Bi. 1 5 8 3 -5 ) . In Knig ht s , t he d emagogu e Paph l agon re p e ate d ly att a cks h is opp one nts as t y rants.

Fu r t her more, At hens w as a l arge c it y w it h a hi g h prop or t i on of urb an worke rs t han ks to t he cont r ibut i on of t he D el i an L e ag u e. Mo st of t he ol i g archs we re ac tu a l ly f rom t he s ame cl ass of ne w, pro sp e rous f ami l i e s as t he de mago g ue s.

A lt hou g h many of t he i r name s elu de us , t he i ndi c at i on is t hat mo st of t he you ng ar isto cr ats involve d i n 4 1 1 we re not dist i ng uishe d f rom t he i r de mo crat i c p e ers in any t h ing ot he r t han opp or tu n is m . Far f rom b e i ng do c t r i nai re l ove rs of oligarchy, at l e ast 8 of t he 2 1 we c an i de nt i f y ha d hel d de mo crat i c of f i ce b efore. S ome, su ch as R hi non , su c c e e de d i n hol di ng of f i ce unde r t he de mo crac y, su r v iv ing t h rou g h t he Fou r Hu ndre d, t he T hi r t y and t he Te n, and hel d of f i ce ag ain und er t he ne w ly e st abl ishe d de mo c r a c y. C ont rar y to For re st’s prop o s a l, it is hard to f ind a gap b e t we e n p ass i onate ol i g archs and arde nt de mo crats i n t he re volut ion of 4 1 1 .

6 7

cf. Wasps 1302 Rhodes (2000)

In su m , For rest' s not i on of a “ge ne r at i on g ap” i n At he ni an s o ci e t y i n t he l ate f if t h centu r y B C prove s misl e a di ng . Whi l e a ce r t ai n cl ass of young me n b e c ame conspic u ous for t he i r d ange rous i n f lu e nc e, t he age g ap i de nt i f i e d by aut hors of t he l ate 5 t h and 4 t h c e ntu r y is b e st unde rsto o d as a com me nt on t he inf lu ence of you ng me n i n ge ne r a l. T he v i e ws e x pre ss e d i n t he Ol d Oligarch su g gest a d e s i re for de mo c r at i c re for m , but Ar istophane s’ pl ays cha l lenge t he p olit ic a l g ap b e t we e n you ng and ol d. And a lt houg h ol i g archy had s ome c u r renc y as a p ol it i c a l te r m , it is di f f i c u lt to i de nt i f y b ona f i de oligarchs in t he bu i ld-up to t he re volut i on i n 4 1 1 .

BIBLIOGRAPHY Cr ichton , A ., “ T he Ol d Are i n a S e c ond C hi l d ho o d” : Age R e ve rs a l and Jur y S er v ice in Ar istophane s’ Wasps’, BICS 3 8 ( 1 9 9 1 -3 ) 5 9 -8 0 For rest, W.G., ‘An At he n i an ge ne r at i on g ap’, YCS 24 ( 1 9 7 5 ) 3 7 -5 2 Jordov ic, I., ‘A gener at i on g ap i n l ate f i f t h c e ntu r y B C At he ns’, B a l c ani c a 3 8 ( 2008) 7 - 2 7 O b er, J., Polit ic a l D iss e nt i n D e mo c r at i c At he ns : i ntel l e c tu a l cr it i cs of p opu l ar r u l e (Pr inceton , 2 0 0 1 ) 1 4 -5 1 Ste Croix, G.E .M. d e, T he Or i g i ns of t he Pel op on ne si an War, ( 1 9 7 2 ) 3 0 7 -1 0 R ho des , P.J., ‘Ol igarchs i n At he ns’, i n R . Bro ck & S. Ho d k i ns on ( e ds) A lter nat ives to At hens ( Ox ford, 2 0 0 0 ) 1 1 9 -3 6

A N T I - AU G U STA N I SM I N OV I D’ S P R AY E R F OR AU G U S T U S : T H E M E TA M OR P H O SE S I N C ON V E R S AT I ON W I T H H OR AC E’ S C A R M E N S A E C U L A R E

Mia Por tman Aug ustus com m iss ione d t he C ar me n S a e c u l are ( ‘S e c u l ar S ong’) , a praye r for t he e ter na l prosp er it y of R ome, to b e re c ite d at his re v iv a l of t he Ludi Sae c u l are s (S e c u l ar Games ) in Ju ne 1 7 B C E . It c el ebr ate s a re tu r n to t radit i ona l R oman v i r tue s, and was p er for me d by re pre s e nt at ive s of t he supp o s e d b e ne f i ci ar i e s of t he e mp e ror’s mora l refor ms : R oman ch i l dre n . T he p o e m is arg u ably t he e pitome of p at r i ot i c Aug ust an l iter atu re — p e rhap s t he ly r i c a l c ou nte r p ar t of t he Ae ne i d. He re we sha l l c ons ider O v id’s pr ayer for Au g ustus ( Me t . 1 5 . 8 6 1 -7 0 ) as an i nte nt i ona l p aro dy of Horace’s C ar men ; in h is pr aye r, O v i d re pl a c e s Hor a c e’s p e r p e tuit y and st abi l it y w it h h is t ra d emark s ens e of i mp e r mane nc e — of r is e and f a l l, change, re ne wa l, and cha o s . Hora ce c a l ls for Pho ebus to “a lw ay s e x te nd a b e tte r age” ( mel ius que s e mp e r / prorog at a e vu m , l l. 6 7 - 8 ) for t he “R oman st ate” ( re m ...R omanam , l. 6 6 ) . Th is bro ad us e of ter m inolog y (rem, matte r, st ate, af f ai r ) supp or ts an e x p ansive, f l e x ibl e, and opt imist ic not ion of t ime. By c ont r ast , O v i d t i e s a e v um — t he word t hat conve ys i d e as of age, er a , l ifesp an — sp e c i f i c a l ly to Au g ustus , t hus l i m it i ng t he l e ng t h of t he pres ent age to a hu man l i fe sp an . We c ou l d re a d t his as an atte mpt to outdo Horace i n obs e qu e y, w it h t he su g ge st i on t hat t he c ou rs e of histor y is i n he re nt ly de f i ne d by t he emp eror. But obs e qu e y is t he p e r fe c t dis g u is e for a st ate me nt ab out t he C ar me n its elf. O v id is l ay ing b are it s t r u e pu r p o s e, w hi ch is to s ol i di f y Aug ustus’ p owe r. It is Au gustus w ho reinst ate d t he G ame s , and it w as his mar r i age and adu lte r y l aws of 18-17B C E 1 t hat wou ld br i ng b a ck “anc i e nt mo de st y and ne g l e c te d v i r tue” ( CS 57- 8) : Aug ustus , O v id impl i e s , is Hor a c e’s u n name d, t r ue subj e c t. Cr it i cs such as Fe ene y ( 19 9 9 ) and R os at i ( 2 0 0 1 ) have e st abl ishe d a re adi ng of t he Me t amor pho s e s as a counter p oint to a tel e ol o g i c a l, t r a dit i ona l ly e pi c v i e w of h istor y and of t he Aug ust an age. T he Pr aye r’s ant i -Au g ust an s e nt i me nt is b ot h st re ng t he ne d and shar p ene d w hen inter tex tu a l ly ana ly s e d a l ong s i de Horace’s C ar me n. The praye r for Aug ustus combines a ref ut at i on of t he Au g ust an re g i me as t he ‘e nd of h istor y ’ and t he emp ower ment of O v i d as a nar r ator to su g ge st t hat O v i d h i ms el f w i l l u lt i mately usur p t he emp eror. T he a l lus or y f r ami ng of t he Me t amor pho s e s comp els us to re e xamine t he w hole p o em . T his ar t i cl e w i l l su g ge st t hat i n h is f i na l ve rs e s, O v i d d e cl ares a l l of t ime h is ow n — not just t he p ast w hi ch he ch roni cl e s, but t he br i g ht f uture t hat Hor a ce pl a ce s i n Au g ustus’ hands .

That O v id’s pr ayer is ant i -Au g ust an , r at he r t han ob s e qui ous, is app are nt i n t he way he f rames Au gustus’ ap ot he o s is ( 1 5 . 8 6 8 - 7 0 ) . In orde r for t he e mp e ror to watch ove r R ome and he ar its pr ayers ( a c c e d at c a el o f ave atqu e pre c ant ibus abs e ns, he as ce nds to he aven and, t hou g h ab s e nt , f avou rs t ho s e w ho pr ay [to h i m ], l. 8 7 0 ) , he must f i rst le ave t he mor t a l world b ehi nd ( or b e rel i c to, w it h t he worl d l e f t b eh i nd, l. 8 6 9 ) .

1 These were two of the Leges Iuliae, or Julian Laws: Lex Iulia de Maritandis Ordinibus, concerning the Marriage of the Social Classes, in 18BCE, and Lex Iulia de Adulteriis Coercendis, concerning the Curbing of Adulterers, in 17BCE.

Ag ain, we c an re a d t h is as a re assu r i ng t w ist on t he not i on of de at h — w hat app e ars to b e an end is on ly a c ont i nu at i on — but it is susp e c t to bracke t t he opt imis m of f ave at pre c ant ibus ( he f avou rs t ho s e w ho pray) , w it h rel i c to and abs ens (l ef t b eh ind ). T his g ive a s e ns e of ab andon me nt, or, at t he ve r y l e ast, a l ack of int ima c y b e t we e n me n and go ds . A lt hou g h t he de i f i e d r u l e r may st i l l b e listen ing , w ho is to s ay t hat R ome w i l l e x p e r i e nce h is f avour, s o many centu r ies s ince t he go ds l ast app e are d b e fore me n ? Fur t he r more, to pray i n t he f irst pl a ce t hat Au g ustus’ de p ar tu re b e f ar of f ( t ard a l. 8 6 8 ) , sp e ci f i c a l ly p ast O v id’s l ifet ime ( no st ro s e r i or a e vo, b e yond our ge ne rat i on/ my l i fe t i me, l. 868) e vokes anxiet y and u nde r m i ne s t he p o s it ive spi n. We oug ht to b e remind e d of t he b eg i n n i ng of B o ok 1 5 , w he re O v i d ve nt r i l o quis e s P yt hagoras for over fou r hu nd re d l i ne s ( l l. 6 0 -4 7 8 ) . P y t hagoras is l argely a com i c a l f ig u re, but h is he av y i mpl i c at i on t hat R ome, l i ke Troy, w i l l f a l l matche s t he worldv ie w p os e d im me di ately b e fore O v i d’s f i na l praye r : l i fe is compr is e d of dow n fa l l and su cc e ss i on . “S o we s e e t i me s change,” s ays P yt hagoras, “and s ome nat ions gaining st re ng t h, ot he rs de cl i n i ng” (l l. 4 2 0 -4 2 2 ) ; “ [n]ow I s e e a cit y me ant for Ph r y g i an de s c e nde nt s [ R ome ] ; none is, or w i l l b e, or has b e e n s e en in ages p ast t hat is s o g re at” ( l l. 4 4 4 - 4 4 5 ) . He do e s not st ate t hat it to o must fa l l, but t here is no ne e d. Whi l e P y t hagor as’ v i e w may b e dism iss e d as der is ion, t he pr ayer for Au g ustus us e s e x a c t ly t he s ame rhe tor i c a l te ch ni que : “S e eing h is s on’s go o d work s , C a e s ar a ck now l e dges t he y are g re ate r t han h is ow n, and d el ig hts in b e i ng su r p ass e d by hi m . T houg h t he s on forbi ds h is ow n ac t ions b eing honou re d ab ove his f at he r’s , ne ve r t hel e ss f ame, f re e and ob e die nt to no one’s orde rs , e x a lt s hi m , de spite hims el f, and de ni e s h i m i n t h is one t h ing . S o g re at At re us c e de s t he t it l e to Ag ame m non: s o The s e us outdo e s Aegeus , and Achi l l e s his f at he r Pel e us : and l ast ly, to quote an ex ampl e wor t hy of t he s e t wo, s o S atu r n is l e ss t han Jove.” 2 Here O v id impl ies t hat Au g ustus to o must e ve ntu a l ly b e outshone “ by g re ate r de e ds” (f a c t a ...maiora , l l. 8 5 0 - 1 ) t han his ow n , and i ne v it ably b e succe e de d by a g re ater p ower. He and P y t hagor as ( w ho, l e st we forge t, is a ls o O v i d) mutu a l rein force one anot he r. Fu r t he r more, b ot h acc urately de s cr ib e t he world as p ainte d t h rou g hout t he Me t amor pho s e s : f u l l of change and e ndi ng s.

Here O v id f r ames Aug ustus’ de at h as b ot h t he e nd of h is di re c t conne c t i on to R ome and a her a l d ing of s ome f utu re usu r p at i on .

O v id, by su g gest ing t hat he shou l d and w i l l t a ke t h is succe ssi on g race f u l ly, as C aes ar has (gau d e t , he re j oi c e s /t a ke s pl e asu re i n, l. 8 5 1 ) , de ni e s Aug ustus e ven t he s ma l l est amou nt of e pi c v i r tu e and di g n it y. Aug ustus is not g rante d any opp or tu nit y to re s ist , l i ke how S atu r n re s iste d Jupite r. It is p o ssibl e to re ad t h is as Au gusut s’ re de mpt i on : g r a c i ous ne ss and mo de rat i on s e t h im ap ar t f rom t he ir ate go ds — p ar t i c u l arly Jupite r, to w hom Aug ustus is f re quent ly comp are d to by O v i d and ot he r Au g ust an p o e ts. 3 2 ll. 850-857 ‘Metamorphoses’, Poetry In Translation, <https://www.poetryintranslation.com/ PITBR/Latin/Ovhome.php>, [accessed 23 December 2019] 3 see e.g. Tristia 1.5 throughout; Horace Odes 3.5.1-2; Eclogues 1.1, in which Tityrus’ “god” in Rome is commonly accepted as a figure for Augustus

T h is is an imp or t ant re de mpt i on to ma ke i f O v i d wants to l e nd pl ausibl e deni abi l it y to ant i- Aug ust an s e nt i me nt . But t his re adi ng do e s not sur v ive contex tu a l is at ion in t he bro a de r p o e m. We c an not re ad t he ap ot he o sis of t he emp eror as pro- Au g ust an i n l i g ht of t he ge ne ra l p or t ray a l of t he go ds and ap ot he os is in t he Me t amor pho s e s as O v i d sp ends t he p ast f i f te e n b o oks att ach ing negat ive ass o c i at i ons to b ot h. In p ar t i c u l ar, O v i d sp e ci f i c a l ly comp ares Au gustus to Jupite r i mme di ately b e fore t he l atte r f l o o ds t he e ar t h i n resp ons e to t he c r i me s of Lyc a on ( 1 . 1 7 5 - 6 ) — a disprop or t i onate punish ment d e cid e d by disprop or t i onate f u r y. Events t h roug hout B o oks 1 to 6 are dr iven by t he go ds’ i ns at i abl e s e x u a l and ve nge f u l app e t ite s, and t i me and again t heir ent ang l eme nt s w it h p e opl e are nar r ate d t h roug h t he p e rsp e c t ive of t he p e ople and t heir su f fe r i ng , w he t he r t hat b e Io’s fe ar of he r ow n re f l e c t i on ( p er t imu it s e qu e exste r nat a e f f u g it , she b e c ame f r i g hte ne d and f l e d he rs el f in ter ror, 1 .6 4 1 ) or t he i ne x pl i c abl e t r ans for mat i on of Phae t hon’s siste rs i nto p opl ars , w hos e hard e n i ng te ars of g r i e f ( i nde f luunt l acr i mae, st i l l at aque s ole r iges c u nt / d e r amis el e c t r a nov is , st i l l t he i r te ars f l ow, harde ne d i n t he su n, dr ipping as amb e r f rom t he ne w ly - ma de b ou g hs, 2 .3 6 4 -5 ) are one hor ror fol low ing anot her w it hout re spite.

In p ar t ic u l ar, O v id s e t s up a ne g at ive v i e w of c at aste r ism t h roug h t he s e stor ies, w h ich c an b e t r ans fe r re d to t he de i f i c at i ons of C ae s ar and Aug ustus, w h ich he d es cr ib es in st ar r y te r ms at t he e nd of t he p o e m . Phae t hon and Ap ol lo — a t a le of man’s hubr is , t he f i rst of s e ve r a l i n t he Me t amor pho s e s — is , among ot her t h ing s , a he r me ne ut i c g u i de to t he stor y of C a l l isto and Arc as t hat comes l ater on in t he b o ok . Jupite r’s s nap de c isi on to tur n C a l l isto and Arc as into constel l at i ons ( om n ip ote ns [ . . . ] ips o s [ . . .]i np o suit c ael o v i ci naque s idera fe cit, t he a l l - p owe r f u l go d pl a c e d t he m i n t he sky and made t he m i nto neig hb ou r ing st ars , 2 . 5 0 5 - 7 ) is t he cl o s e st t hi ng to ap ot he o sis t h is e arly on in t he p o em — a c at aste r is m . It is di f f i c u lt , e ve n w it h t he sudde nne ss of t he e vent , not to b e rem i nde d of Pha e t hon’s f l i g ht , “a j our ne y t h roug h ambushe s and t he for ms of w i ld b e ast s”, ( p e r i ns i di as ite r [ . . . ]for mas que fe rar um , 2.78) , w h ich le aves h i m “te r r i f i e d” ( t re pi dus , 2 . 1 94 ) of t he constel l at i ons, “out of h is m ind w it h i c y te r ror” ( me nt is i nop s gel i d a for m i di ne, 2 .2 0 0 ) .

To b e pl a ce d in t he sky is to b e c ome s ome t hi ng ove r w hel m i ng ly f r i g ht f u l ; Phaet hon’s l o om ing si mu l a c r a re m i nd us of e ve r y t h i ng he ave n ly t hat is not to b e emu l ate d, inclu di ng Jove’s bl a z i ng ange r b e fore t he f l o o d. In B o ok 1 5 , w hen C a es ar and Au g ustus are ap ot he o s is e d, “Ve nus c ar r i e [s] C ae s ar’s s ou l to t he he aven ly st ars” (Ve nus [ . . . ] C a e s ar is [ . . . ] an i mam c ael e st ibus i ntu l it ast r is, 15.844 - 6 ); Au gustus “as c e nds to he ave n” ( a c c e d at c ael o, 1 5 .8 7 0 ) . Th is re c a l ls t he mis er abl e circ u mst anc e s and f r i g hte n i ng app e arance of c at aste r ism and, in t he worl d of t he Me t amor pho s e s , must b e i nauspi ci ous. By cont rast, i n t he C ar men , t he st ars are ass o c i ate d w it h re c e pt iv it y and b e ne vol e nce : w he n Di ana is aske d to “ he ar t he you ng g i rls” ( au di. . . puel l as, l l. 3 5 -6 ) w ho pray to her, she is c a l l e d t he “qu e e n of t he st ars” ( s i de r u m re g i na, l. 3 5 ) . Th is may e ven rem ind t he l iste ne r of C a e s ar’s c ome t — t he ne w ly-made go d i n t he for m of a st ar, t he af f ir m ing s y mb ol of t he i mp e r i a l c u lt and of Aug ustus’ c are e r.

O v id’s p or t r ay a ls of c at aste r is m do t he s ame, but i n a ne g at ive l i g ht. O v i d, by

t aint ing t h is s y mb ol w it h ne w and te r r i f y i ng ass o ci at i ons f rom h is ow n work v i a h is pr ayer, is work i ng di re c t ly ag ai nst Hor a c e’s prop ag and a proj e c t.

T h is rel i ance on t he my t hol o g i c a l bu i lt up ove r t he cours e of t he e pi c a l l ows O v id to tu r n Hor a ce’s i nvo c at i on of t he go ds on its he ad. Fi rst ly, Horace ma kes no ment ion of C a e s ar or his de i f i c at i on , w hi ch helps helps h i m to dist ingu ish b et we en mor t a ls and i mmor t a ls . G o ds are p or t raye d to b e t he k ind b enefa c tors of t he R oman p e opl e. His doubt f u l “ i f ” ( si, 6 5 ) — “ i f he favours t he Pa l at ine a lt ars” — is i ron i c , s i nc e he has a l re ady e st abl ishe d t hat “t he S e ven Hi l ls [ of R ome ] pl e as e [ t he go ds ] ” ( quibus s e pte m pl ac ue re coles , l. 7 ). Hor a ce l ate r re mi nds us t hat R ome is c ur re nt ly t h r iv i ng at war ( l l. 53- 6 ). T he cond it i ona l cl aus e prompt s t he au d i e nce to ack now l e dge t he pre ce d ing e v id enc e : Ap ol l o do e s f avou r t he Pa l at i ne a lt ars, s o we must el im inate a l l d oubt re g ardi ng his ge ne ro s it y towards L at ium ( 6 6 ) .

Fur t he r more, a lt hou g h Hor a c e me nt i ons t he w hole p ant he on i n t he f i na l st anza (Iovem ...d e os qu e c u nc to s , Jove and a l l t he go ds, 7 3 -4 ) , t he hop e t hat t he go ds w i l l he ar t he pr ais e s of t he chor us ( 7 3 -6 ) re sts on Di ana and Ap ol l o, t he on ly d eit ies d ire c t ly a ddre ss e d, as he ave n ly amb ass adors to R ome. Th is p air is a p er fe c t s y mb ol of st abi l it y and de p e nd abi l it y b e c aus e of t he i r co sm i c emb o diments , mo on and su n , w ho s e c ycl e s are pre di c t abl e. Horace ma ke s f u l l us e of t h is metony my, a ddre ss i ng t he i mmor t a l s ibl i ng s as S ol ( 9 ) and Luna ( 36) as wel l as by t he i r name s . By t he sp e c i f i c a ddre ss of t he s e t wo, t he ot he r go ds , a ck now le d ge d e ve n i n e pi c to b e c r u el and ve nge f u l, are yoke d to t he m .

O v id i m me d i ately tu r ns t his st r ate g y on it s he a d by addre ssi ng a l l t he go ds at once ( D i, go ds [! ], 1 5 . 8 6 1 ) plus a l ist of de it i e s ( 8 64 -6 ) among st w h i ch Ap ol l o is a litt le l ost and D i ana go e s u n me nt i one d. Hor a ce’s p or t raya l of rel i abl e and b ene volent is natu r a l ly re pl a c e d by O v i d’s p or t ray a l of t he m as go ds w ho are a lway s gover n ing change, de at h, and br i ng i ng unde s e r ve d suf fe r i ng . The metony my of D i ana and Ap ol l o wou l d have no re s onance i n t h is conte x t, s ince O v id has sp ent t he Me t amor pho s e s u nde r m i ni ng t he go ds’ co sm i c for ms by p or t r ay ing t hem as hu manoi d monste rs and p ol it i ci ans ( s e e t he couns el of t he go ds in B o ok 1 and t he de i f i c at i on of Ae ne as i n B o ok 1 4 ) . Accordi ng to t he Pha et hon epis o de, Ap ol l o must b e t he su n ; i n rel at i on to D aph ne, he is an el eg i a c lover and c om m itte r of s e x u a l ass au lt. Thus we are l e f t w it h t he impress ion t hat t he nar r ator is b ot h dis b el i e v i ng t hat t he go ds w i l l he e d h is prayer, and a ls o has l itt l e a dm i r at i on for t he m. T hus, natura l ly, by e x te nsi on w hat Au gustus is du e to b e c ome — subj e c t to “ l i c e nt i a, t he abi l it y to i ndu l ge [h is] mo o d in t he s el f -g r at i f y i ng e xe rc is e of p ower” ( Fe e ne y, 1 9 9 1 , 2 0 2 ) , e ve n if l l. 85 2 - 4 attest t hat he st i l l has s ome mo de st y ye t. D e i f i c at i on g u arante e s fe ar, but not ne cess ar i ly a dm i r at i on .

Since C a es ar has (a l l e ge d ly ) b e e n out shone by Aug ustus, and t h is has b e e n dic t ate d by a h istor ic a l p atte r n ( l l. 8 5 5 -6 0 ) , t he n s ome one must e ve ntu a l ly outdo Au gustus and i n t hat sp a c e O v i d pl a c e s hi ms el f. “I sha l l b e b or ne fore ver ab ove t he h ig h st ars ,” he de cl are s , “and my name w i l l b e i m mor t a l” ( my t ransl at ion, l l. 8 7 5 -6 ) . In w hi ch c as e, his de pi c t i on of t he go ds up unt i l t h is p oint b e comes a probl e m i n his ow n s el f -f ash i oni ng . Not i ce, howe ve r,

t hat he nar row ly sh ie s aw ay f rom t he c at aste r is m mot i f by pl aci ng h i ms el f b e yond t he st ars (sup e r ) r at he r t han among t he m, or as one. Th is a l one may s e em a p e d ant ic d ist i nc t i on , but it is on ly t he b e g i nni ng . He i m me di ately retu r ns to e ar t h , not as a dist ant l iste ne r to t ho s e pray i ng , l i ke Aug ustus is due to b e come, (fave atqu e pre c ant ibus ab s e ns , he f avours t ho s e pray i ng [to h im] a lt hou g h he is ab s e nt , l. 8 7 0 ) but an i nt i mate and i m me di ate pre s e nce, “re ad on t he lip s of t he p e opl e” ( ore l e g ar p opu l i, l. 8 7 8 ) . My t ransl at i on of ore as an abl at ive of pl a c e e mphas is e s O v i d’s pre s e nce, of cours e ; it is more li kely to b e an i nst r u me nt , “ by t he l ip s of t he p e opl e”. But, i n e it he r t ransl at ion, l egar con ne c t s t he de c e as e d O v i d to t he l iv i ng worl d w it h more cer t aint y t han t he d e i f i e d Au g ustus . Ye t b e c aus e he is not quite a st ar, nor quite a go d — ind el ibi l e ( i mp o ss ibl e to e r as e, l. 8 76 ) but not div i ne — he is a ls o less t h re aten ing to l iv i ng me n .

Inde e d, O v id cl aims to have re w r itte n t he worl d. We c an arg ue h is g re at ne ss in ret rosp e c t, of cou rs e, b e c aus e i n s o many c as e s t he R oman and Gre ek myt hs t hat have su r v ive d are O v i d’s ve rs i ons . But t he p o e t pre s age s t h is h ims el f by rep e at ing t he not i on of his ow n t i me, me a te mp ora, at t he b eg inning (1 .4 ) and e nd ( no st ro. . . a e vo, 1 5 . 8 6 8 ) of t he p o e m . Its me ani ng init i a l ly is st r aig ht for w ard: t he age i n w hi ch he l ive s, i n cont rast to t he rest of h istor y, ab out w hi ch he a ls o i nte nds to w r ite. But by t he e nd, t he me aning has sh if te d. It has shi f te d f i rst b e c aus e of t he p owe r t he nar rator exer t s over t he nar r at ive i n st ar t i ng and stoppi ng it at w i l l. Thus O v i d’s ae vu m — age, er a , and l i fe sp an — is s i mply t i me its el f, b e c aus e he cont rols it . Ever y t r ans for mat i on ( u n l e ss it appl i e s to a go d) is i r re ve rsibl e and ostensibly mark s t he e nd of an e pis o de. If t hat is not marke d by de at h as w it h S e mel e or Pent he us , it is of te n re f l e c te d i n t he f i x it y of t he ne w for m : t he b ark t hat st if fens D aphne and Pha e t hon’s s iste rs, t he i mpl i cit ste r i l it y of t he t rans for me d Her maphro ditus . O v i d’s g re at a ch i e ve me nt is i n re cove r i ng f rom t hat st as is e ver y t i me i n his t r ans it i ons f rom one myt h to t he ne x t. That c annot happ en if he d o e s not a l l ow us to s it u nc om for t ably i n t he st i l l ne ss for a moment, wait ing . Whe n Me rc u r y tel ls Arg us t he stor y of Sy r i nx to s e nd h im to sle ep, O v id inte r r upt s at l. 7 0 0 and s w itche s to orat i o obl i qu a as i f to help t he re a d er st ay aw a ke and c o g n is ant of t he dist i nc t nar rat ive l aye rs: t hat Sy r inx is p or t r aye d by Arg us , w ho is p or t r aye d by t he nar rator/ O v i d. The nar rator su g gests t hat he is p e r fe c t ly abl e to pro duce a s e am l e ss e pi c — one f lu id enou g h t hat we l o s e t r a ck of w ho is sp e a k i ng w he n — but de pr ive s us of it to demonst r ate t he g re ate r sk i l l of re v iv i ng it at e ve r y o ste nsibl e de ad e nd.

T he ne w me aning of me a te mp or a is f i na l is e d i n t he l ast t wo l i ne s of t he Met amor phos es . Inste a d of as c r ibi ng hi ms el f to one age as he do e s just ten lines e arlier, he cl ai ms he w i l l l ive ( v iv am) t hroug h a l l age s ( p e rque omni a s a e c u l a ). He has t he ve r y qu a l it y of Di ana and Ap ol l o i n t he C ar me n Sae c u l are: e ver pres e nt , e ve r c ons iste nt , but on ly sp oke n of i n rel at i on to R ome (o colend i / s emp e r e t c u lt i, CS l l. 2 - 3 ) . T his af fords h i m t he st atus of a go d w it hout t he p o ss ibi l it y of b e i ng usu r p e d as Satur n was by Jupite r.

T he p e r manence fou nd for Di ana and Ap ol l o i n t he i r co smol o g i c a l for ms

is af ford e d O v id in h is ve r b a l for m . T his k i nd of s el f -f ash i oni ng is, on t he one hand, incre d ibly hubr ist i c ; he has e ss e nt i a l ly de cl are d h i ms el f out of Au gustus’ le agu e. O n t he ot he r hand, t he re are w ay s i n w h i ch it prote c ts h im f rom t h is ver y a c c us at i on . His name w i l l b e sp oke n “w he re ve r i n t he conque re d world R ome’s p owe r re a che s” ( 1 5 . 8 7 7 ) . His f ur t he st hor i z ons are t he longe v it y and re a ch of t he R oman e mpi re, and h is pre s e nce, f ame, and inf luence are d ep ende nt on it s pro sp e r it y b e c aus e t he y on ly f unc t i on w it h i n it . Accord ing to t he p ar a di g m of t he Me t amor phos e s, supp or te d by t he voi ce of P yt hagor as , in w h i ch a l l t hi ng s change and e nd, R ome, l i ke Troy, must fa l l. O v id t hereby u nde rc ut s his ow n p o stu r i ng . We are l e f t w it h an ant i C ar men Sa e c u l are w ho s e ai m is not s i mply to u nd e r m i ne Aug ustus ( a lt houg h it do es t hat wel l ) but , w he n champi on i ng O v i d as h is p ote nt i a l usur p e r, to b e u nder m ine d its el f by t he p o e m of w hi ch it is a p ar t. Pe rhaps t h is ni h i l ism is t he on ly way to a cc u rately i nve r t t he C ar me n , w hi ch , as prop ag and a for t he st ate, must b e compl e tely s i nc e re.

BIBLIOGRAPHY B e agon, M. (2 0 0 9 ). ‘O rde r i ng Wonde rl and: O v i d’s P y t hagoras and t he Au gust an Vis ion’ in Par a dox and t he Mar vel l ous , Hardi e e d.

Cu rle y, D an (2 0 1 3 ) ‘St ag i ng i mp e r iu m: Ve rg i l, O v i d, and S e ne c a’, i n Trage dy in O v id Far rel l, J. (1 9 9 9 ). ‘ T he O v i di an c or pus : p o e t i c b o dy and p o e t i c te x t’ i n O v idi an Tr ans for mat i ons , Hardi e, B archi e s i, Hi nds e ds.

Fe ene y, D. C . (1 9 9 1 ) ‘O v i d’, i n T he G o ds i n Epi c Fow ler, D on (1 9 9 5 ) ‘From Ep o s to C o s mo s : Lu c re t ius, O v i d, and t he Po e t i cs of S eg ment at ion’, in Et hi c s and R he tor i c : C l ass i c a l E ss ays for D ona l d Russ el l on His S e vent y - f if t h Bi r t hd ay, In ne s , D ore e n C. , Hi ne, Har r y M., and Pel l i ng , C h r istopher B. R . e ds .

Gar ro d, H. W. (1 9 0 1 ) Q. Hor at i i F l a c c i O p e r a ( O C T) Hardie, P. (1 9 9 5 ). ‘ T he sp e e ch of P y t hagor as i n O v i d Me t amor pho s e s 1 5 : Emp e d o cl e an Ep os’, C Q 4 5 : 2 0 4 -1 4 K line, A .S. t r ans . ‘O v i d: T he Me t amor pho s e s’, Po et r y i n Transl at i on, <https:/ / w w w.p o et r y int r ansl at i on . c om /PI T BR /L at i n /O v home.php> [Acce ss e d 2 3 D e cemb er 2 0 1 9 ] O t is , Bro ok s (1 9 6 6 ) ‘ T he Pl an of O v i d’s Epi c’, i n O v i d as an Epi c Po e t Tar rant, R .J. e d. (2 0 0 4 ) P. O v i di i Nas on is Me t amor pho s e s ( O CT)

H E L L E N I S T I C K I N G S , H E G E M ON I C M AS C U L I N I T Y A N D E L E P HA N T S

Branwen Phillips

T his p ap er combines R . W. C on nel l’s ge nde r orde r t he or y of he ge moni c mas c u l i nit y w it h w hat we k now ab out t he Hel l e n ist i c k i ng s ( and l o c a l dy nasts) . C onnel l is c oncer ne d w it h t he mas c u l i n it y t hat o c c upi e s t he he ge moni c p o sit i on i n a g ive n p atter n of gend er rel at ions and is us e d to just i f y t he sub ordi nat i on of t he com mon ma le and fema le p opu l at i on , and ot he r marg i na l i z e d way s of b e i ng a man. It w i l l b e argue d t hat t hes e exot i c p a chyde r ms 1 we re a b a dge of he ge moni c mas c u l i nit y and a way of a l lu d ing to a k i ng’s t a xonom i c c ont rol, t he e x te nsive ne ss of t he i r re s ources and m i l it ar y m i g ht . In a ddit i on , t he p ap e r arg ue s t hat acqui r i ng el e phants or inclu ding t hem in one’s i c ono g r aphy w as a w ay of t r y i ng to e nte r or ke e p memb ersh ip of t he ‘roy a l club’ 2 and t he re fore a chi e ve he ge moni c mas c u l i nit y.

E qu a l ly, t he l oss - or of te n , c on f is c at i on - of t he s e el e phants cou l d me an a l o ss of he gemonic mas c u l init y and pl a c e on t he Hel l e n ist i c worl d st age.

R . W. C on nel l’s C oncept of He ge mon i c Mas c u l i n it y T he t he or y of hegemon ic mas c u l i n it y go e s b a ck to t he pi one e r i ng work of C onnel l’s Mas c u linit ies , w h ich i l lust r ate s a mat r i x and hi e r archy of di f fe re nt mas c u l i nit i e s.

Bui lding on t he com mon ly re c o g n is e d u nde rst andi ng t hat ge nde r rol e s and ge nde r its elf are s o ci a l ly and p ol it i c a l ly c onst r u c te d, t he t he or y re co g nis e s mu lt ipl e mas c u linit ies w it h in a h i e r archy. He ge mon i c mas c u l i nit y de f i ne s t he succe ssf u l w ay s of b eing a man; in s o doi ng , it de f i ne s ot he r mas c u l i ne st y l e s as i nade qu ate, c omplicit or sub ord inate. 3 T he tu r bu l e nt p e r i o d of t he Hel l e nist i c k i ng s, 4 w h i l e re ceiv ing s ome attent ion , 5 has mu ch s c op e for i nte rd is cipl i nar y appro ache s to mas c u linit y. In p ar t ic u l ar, as t he ‘roy a l club’ 6 of t he Hel l e nist i c k i ng s and t he le g it imac y of t heir p os it i on and st atus w as c onst ant ly b e i ng cha l l e nge d and te ste d, e st ablish ing t heir cont rol and he ge mony ( i n many f i el ds) was of p aramount i mp or t anc e. I su g gest t hat i n t his tu mu ltu ous p e r i o d el e phants ( b ot h i n i cono g raphy and in war fare) were us e d to c onst r u c t and de c onst r uc t he ge moni c mas c u l i nit y i n order to gain or t a ke away pre st i ge, and to a l lu de to a k i ng’s t axonom i c cont rol, aut hor it y over t heir res ou rc e s and m i l it ar y m i g ht .

1 Meaning elephant, derived from the Ancient Greek.

2 Austin, 1986. P.457 3 Cornwall and Lindisfarne, 1994, 3 4 Traditionally dated from the death of Alexander the Great 323 BC to the Victory of Rome at the Battle of Actium 31 BC 5 See Roy in Foxhall & Salmon 6 Austin, 1986. P.457

Pre ce dent and g host of A l e x ande r T he Gre at In t he e arly Hel l en ist i c p e r i o d 7 t he g ho st of A l e x ande r l o ome d l arge i n t he minds and prop agand a of t he Di a do chi 8 , s e e n w it h Eume ne s const r uc t i ng a qu asi- s é ance to com mu ne w it h A l e x ande r by s e tt i ng up h is te nt, t h rone, di adem and s cept re w he n hol di ng c ou nc i l. 9 T he pre ce de nt and us e of A lex and er’s l ega c y w as a p ote nt we ap on i n t he c onst r uc t i on of t he succe ss or’s pl ace i n t he ne w worl d orde r. T his is s e e n by t he f ac t t hat af te r A l e x ande r’s de at h his gener a ls and S at r aps l i ke Pe rdi c c as , Ant ip ate r, and Ant i gonus cont inu e d m int ing coi ns w it h his roy a l t y p e s . 10 E rgo, it is v a lu abl e to e x pl ore A lex and er’s us e and rel at i onship w it h el e phant s i n orde r to unde rst and how and w hy t he y were s o i mp or t ant and prom i ne nt af te r h is de at h .

Wh i le el ephant p ar t ic ip at i on i n t he b att l e of G au gamel a ( 3 3 1 B C) has b e e n re cent ly qu est ione d by s ome s chol ars 11 du e to t he probl e mat i c s ource t radit ion, t heir pres e nc e is u nqu e st i onabl e w he n A l e x ande r foug ht Por us at t he Hyd asp e s i n 3 2 6 , w it h Ar r i an de s c r ibi ng t he p achyde r ms’ cont r ibut ions as ‘w it hout p ar a l l el i n any pre v i ous b att l e’. 12 Eve n b e fore t h is l atter con f ront at i on A l e x ande r’s i nte re st is cl e ar, as w he n he s e nt out a re connaiss ance force af te r t he c aptu re of Aor no s ‘he was e sp e ci a l ly anx i ous to f ind out a l l ab out t he el e phant s’. 13 At B aby l on shor t ly b e fore h is de at h , A lex and er est abl ishe d a forc e of el e phant s to g u ard h is p a l ace and cre ate d t he p ost of E lephant arch. 14 T he i mp a c t t he s e e xot i c ani ma ls had on A l e x ande r and t heir re cog nis e d p ote nt i a l as b ot h we ap ons i n war f are and sy mb ols of p ower c annot b e ig nore d, w it h Phy l archus de s c r ibi ng A l e x ande r’s p av i l i on as su r rou nd e d by t he el e phant -c or ps . 15 Whi l e it w as A l e x ande r’s succe ss ors, and not h im , w ho we re t he f i rst Gre ek s to us e el e phants of fe nsively i n war fare, t he y pl aye d no i ns i g n i f i c ant rol e i n his l ife. Th is is re f l e c te d i n t he de c or at ion of h is f u ne r ar y vehi cl e on w hi ch ele phants for me d p ar t of a s er ies of h istor ic a l re pre s e nt at i ons ; fou r l ong p ai nte d t abl e ts e x h ibite d t he fou r ar ms of t he i mp e r i a l ar my : i n f ant r y, c av a l r y, nav y and ‘el e phants e qu ipp e d for war, fol l ow i ng t he b o dy g u ard. T he y c ar r i e d Indi an ma houts in f ront w it h Ma ce d on i ans f u l ly ar me d i n t he i r reg u l ar e quipme nt b eh i nd t hem’. 1 6 T h is f u nc t ione d to c anon is e t he rol e of el e phants i nto t he for mat i on of ar m ies at t h is t ime. In t his c onte x t t he s e an i ma ls we re consi de re d as p ower f u l and p otent an i mage as A l e x ande r’s f l e e t s of sh ips and Mace doni an c ava lr y for ef fe c t ively e vok i ng his v i c tor i e s and prowe ss. In de at h , as i n l i fe, 7 A term traditionally used to refer to the period after Alexander’s death 8 The name given to the first generation of military and political leaders after the death of Alexander the Great 9 Plutarch, Eumenes, 13; Diodorus, 18. 60-1 10 See Thonemann, 2015, 18 11 Charles, Michael B. "Alexander, Elephants and Gaugamela." Mouseion: Journal of the Classical Association of Canada, vol. 8 no. 1, 2008, p. 9-23. Project MUSE 12 Arrian (An. 5.17.3). Diodorus (17.88.1).

13 Arrian IV 30.6 14 Scullard, 75. Nosov, 2008, 19 15 Athenaeus XII, 539 16 Diodorus, XVIII, 27

A lex and er was es cor te d by el e phant s . 17 T he app e arance of t he p achyde r ms cer t ain ly int ro du ce d an u npre c e de nte d i mage i n t he h istor y of Gre ek ar t and repres ent at ion of roy a l p owe r. 18 When lo ok ing at t he i mp a c t A l e x ande r ha d on his succe ss ors af te r h is de at h - t heir choice of cl e an - shave n l e on i ne p or t r aitu re and us e of h is coi nage - it is cle ar t hat, in t he ab s e nc e of t he i r he ge mon i c k ing and i con of he ge moni c mas c u l init y, emu l at ion of hi m w as a w ay of a c c e ssi ng t h is ne w v ac ant p o sit i on of k ing sh ip and mas c u l i n it y. T his wou l d e x pl ai n Eume ne s’ ove r-comp e ns at i on w it h t he A lexand er te nt s é anc e, as he w as Gre ek , not Mace doni an, and t herefore ha d no lin k to t his dom i nant e t hno -cl ass. Thus, Eume ne s st re ss e d h is con ne c t ion to A l e x ande r to a chi e ve re c o g n it i on i n t he h i e rarchy of mas c u l init y amongst t he su c c e ss ors w ho c rowde d around at t h is e arly t i me.

T herefore, t he su ccess ors’ us e of el e phant s ( l i ke ot he r e mbl e ms ass o ci ate d w it h A l exand er ) b ot h i n b att l e, c e re mony and i c ono g raphy was i nit i a l ly a way of lin k ing t hems elves b a ck to t his now l o st b a dge of he ge mony and ass e r t i ng t heir dom inance. Howe ve r, t his w as not t he on ly rat i ona l e for t he i r adopt i on of t hes e p a chyd er ms .

Emergence of E l ephant s i n t he i n it i a l p o st A l e x ande r worl d Wit h t he bre a kd ow n of t he Arge a d dy nast y, t he disi nte g rat i on of t he A lex and r i an s y stem of s at r api e s and no cl e ar su c ce ss or, pre st i ge and i n p ar t ic u l ar mas c u linit y w as of g re at i mp or t anc e i n t he p o st-A l e x ande r worl d.

We s e e t h is in t he g re at e mphas is pl a c e d on ‘sp e ar won l and’ for t he Di ado ch i as a way to express l e g it i ma c y and m i l it ar y p owe r. The Sud a pre s e nts a v isi on of k ing sh ip t hat owes not hi ng to bi ol o g i c a l de s c e nt: 19 ‘It is ne it he r de s ce nt nor leg it ima c y w h ich g ive s monarchi e s to me n , but t he abi l it y to com mand an ar my and to hand l e af f ai rs c omp e te nt ly ’. 20 Howe ve r, t hat Ki ng sh ip was ex plicit ly mas c u l ine, as show n i n t he publ i c i mage and roy a l i cono g raphy of Kingsh ip, not just by p ol it i c a l and m i l it ar y a c t iv it i e s. 21 Th is, I b el i e ve, is exemplif ie d by t he us e of el e phant s .

T h is is most st ark ly s e e n i n t he us e of el e phant s as a for m of c apit a l punish ment by Perd ic c as , w ho ha d reb el l e a de rs f rom Mel e age r’s f ac t i on cr ushe d by t he elephant s i n B aby l on i n 3 2 3 . 22 T he us e of A l e x ande r’s conque re d war el ephant s to c r ush reb el l i ons ag ai nst h is rol e as R e ge nt was not on ly a br ut a l a c t but w as a ls o he av i ly s y mb ol i c a l ly charge d, and ass e r te d h is cont rol and mas c u l i n it y i n t he te mp e stu ous t i me af te r A l e x ande r’s de at h .

It is interest ing to note t hat Gre c o -Ma c e don i an b asi l e is ( ‘k i ng s’) are ne ve r fe atu re d r id ing or mou nt i ng t he an i ma l. 23 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Scullard, 1974, 76 Troncoso, 2013, 255 Berrey, 2017, 97 Suda, Austin, 2006, 96 Roy, in Foxhall and Salmon, 1998, 113 Curtius 10.9.11-18 Tronoco, 2013, 256

I wou ld su g gest t hat t he b e ast s t he re fore c ou l d a c t as an e x te nsi on of a r u l e r’s ( or aspir ing r u ler’s ) p owe r and mas c u l i n it y e ve n in h is abs e nce, e ss e nt i a l ly ac t ing as a shor t hand for hi m and his aut hor it y. Th is wou l d e x pl ai n t he p achyd er ms’ pres ence on t he c oi nage of t he Hel l e nist i c k i ng s, e sp e ci a l ly t ho s e w h ich d o not sp or t a r u l e r p or t r ait , as t he s e p a chyde r ms b e c ame a me t aphor of t r iu mph and hegemon i c mas c u l i n it y.

A p ote nt i a l Ind i an t ra dit i on of el e phant s and k i ngsh ip shou l d b e ack now l e d ge d as a p o ss ibl e i n f lu e nc e on t he i r prom i ne nt us e i n t h is p e r i o d.

C handr agupt a’s l egend ar y assu mpt i on of k i ng ship is t i e d w it h el e phants: Just in re cord e d t hat a mass ive w i l d el e phant volu nt ar i ly subm itte d to C handr agupt a and t h is w as c ons i de re d an i mp or t ant si g n of h is f uture k ingsh ip. 2 4 Wh i le t h is do e s b are s ome t roubl i ng p ara l l els w it h t he A l e x ande r and Bu cepha lus stor y re c orde d by Plut arch, 25 it shou l d not b e dis counte d as a p oss ible pre ce d e nt for c ont rol of t he s e c re ature s, conne c t i on to k i ng ly aut hor it y and a b a d ge of he ge mon i c mas c u l i n it y.

E lephants , t he concept of Ki ng ship and t he supre me mas c u l i nit y : S el e uci ds, Ptolem ies and lo c a l dy nast s It shou ld b e note d b e fore c ont i nu i ng t hat t he s y mb ol ism of el e phants and t heir a ccomp any ing i c ono g r aphy c an e voke mu lt ipl e me ani ng s si mu lt ane ously and to d if ferent p e opl e. T he re fore, it wou l d b e re duc t ive to s e e t he s e obj e c ts as hav ing a s ing l e binar y me an i ng ( i. e. mas c u l i n it y ) . E l e phants, l i ke any iconog r aphy, c an have s e ve r a l ove rl appi ng e vo c at ions: i nv i ncibi l it y, unive rs a l hegemony, hy p er- mas c u l i n it y, ap ot he o s is , c onqu e st of Indi a, and ass o ci at i on w it h D iony sus , 2 6 and t his is de p e nde nt on t he c onte x t and p o ssibl e v i e we r.

T h is is wel l i l lust r ate d by P tol e my S ot ar’s c oi nage, w h i ch shows A l e x ande r in an el ephant s c a lp he a ddre ss . For Gre ek s and Mace doni ans t h is wou l d have a l lu d e d to A lexande r’s t r ip to Siw a h and c ons e que nt ly sy mb ol i c of h is Indi an conqu ests , w hi l e i n t he e ye s of t he Eg y pt i an p opu l at i on t h is m i g ht have lin ke d A lexand e r to t he Sy r i an el e phant hu nt of Thut mo s e III, crow ni ng h is conqu ests in As i a and t he div i ne mand ate of Eg y pt i an r u l e ove r Asi a w h ich A l exand er ha d re store d. 27 T his a l lus i on to t he el e phant hunt l i n ke d A lex and er, and by ass o c i at i on P tol e my, to t he t r a d it i ona l pharaoni c rol e of master y of t he forces of cha o s and br i nge r of ma at. 28

24 Justin, 15.4.19 25 Plutarch, Live of Alexander, 6. This parallel is troubling in so far that it might suggest a literary trope in the Greek sources, rather than recording something which was thought to have happened.

26 Smith, 1988, 41 27 Lorber, 2012, 26 28 Roughly translating to balance, order or harmony

E lephants , b ot h phy si c a l and i c ono g r aphi c , e me rge d as roy a l e mbl e ms to reinforce t he k ing’s and l o c a l dy nast’s p o s it i on . 29 The y b e c ame an acce pte d s y mb ol of p ol it ic a l p owe r i n t he Gre c o -Ma c e don i an m i l i e u of a k i ng’s u nqu est ionabl e supre me mas c u l i n it y. T he P tol e mi e s and S el e uci ds we re t he pr incip a l Hel l en ist ic dy nast i e s , a l ong s i de w it h s ma l l e r dy nast i e s, w h i ch ut i lis e d p a chyd er ms as s y mb ols of p owe r and k i ngsh ip; t he re fore I sha l l fo c us on e ach in tu r n .

Ptolemy S ot ar was t he f i rst to bre a k aw ay f rom A l e x ande r’s coi n t yp e and int ro duce h is ow n coi nage i n 3 2 0 /1 9 ; t he ne w obve rs e showe d t he he ad of t he dei f ie d A l exand e r i n an el e phant he a ddre ss ( f i g ure 1 ) . The pre s e nce of t he p achyd er ms on t he c oi nage fol l owe d P tol e my ’s h ij ack of t he el e phantde corate d he ars e, A le x ande r’s f u ne r a l i n Me mphis and Pe rdi cc as’ f ai l e d invasion of Eg y pt, w hi ch not ably i nclu de d el e phants. In t h is l ast e ve nt Dio dor us re cords t hat P tol e my hi ms el f, i n t r u e A le x ande r f ash i on, l e d h is t ro ops and gou ge d out t he e ye s of t he l e a d el e phant. 30 Th is coi nage s oug ht to re cog nis e A lexande r’s v i c tor i e s i n Indi a , but a ls o h is re st i ng pl ace i n Memphis as wel l as P tol e my ’s ar iste i a 31 and v i c tor y ove r Pe rdi cc as and h is mig ht y b e asts . Inde e d, it has b e e n note d t hat t h is coi nage suppl ante d A lex and er’s ow n Her a k l e s te t r a dr a chms , and t he i mpl i c at i on is t hat ‘as t he lion s c a lp was to h is anc e stor, s o now w as t he el e phant s c a lp to A l e x ande r’, 32 and by implic at ion , P tol e my. By t his ana ly s is He r a k l e s’ hyp e r-mas c u l i nit y, ach ie ve d by sl ay ing and we ar i ng t he Ne me an l i on , is e x te nde d to A l e x ande r and Pto el my in conqu e r i ng and ow n i ng t he s e p a chyde r ms. That t h is iconog r aphy and hege mon i c mas c u l i n it y show n by Ptol e my was re co g nis e d w it h in t he Hel l en ist ic ‘roy a l club’ is c on f i r me d by t he f ac t t hat l o c a l dy nasts emu l ate d t h is coinage, e ve n w he n t he y di d not have any h istor y of el e phant encounters or ow nership t he ms elve s . T his b ehav i our by sma l l dy nasts wou l d fa l l into w hat C onnel l te r ms c ompl i c it mas c u l i n it y, 33 i n w h i ch a man may not f it into a l l t he char a c te r ist i c s of he ge mon i c mas c u l i nit y but do e s not cha l lenge it, and re ce ive s s ome b e ne f it s f rom supp or t i ng it.

From 2 9 8 / 7 B C onwards ( af te r his assu mpt i on of t he di ade m ) Ptol e my int ro duce d a ne w s er i e s of gol d st ate rs , w hi ch c ar r i e d h is ow n di ade me d p or t rait on t he obvers e ; t he re ve rs e showe d a char i ot draw n by four el e phants b e ar ing a d eif ie d f igure of A l e x ande r ar me d w it h ae g is and t hunde rb olt unde r t he legend ‘P tol emaious B as i l e i o s’ ( f i g u re 2 ) .

29 Should be noted it was not just Elephants but other lions which could be employed for royal imagery in this period, like Lysimachus and lions (see Lund, 1992, 6-8) 30 Diodorus, 18 31 Translating as Excellence, but in Epic poetry is a convention where a hero in battle has his finest moments.

32 Stewart, 1993, 235 33 Connell, 2005, 79-80

T h is , li ke b efore, a l lu de s to A l e x ande r’s t r iu mph i n Indi a as wel l as to h is sup er natu r a l p ower ove r t he forc e s of natu re, s y mb ol i z e d i n t he huge st re ng t h of t he t wo p airs of p a chyde r ms 34 − ‘t he y subm it m i l d ly to h is di re c t i on’. 35 By hav ing P tol emy ’s p or t r aitu re on t he obve rs e, he is assi m i l ate d w it h t he i mage of cont rol over t hes e b e ast s and i mbu e s hi m w it h an aura of t he div i ne -l i ke p ower. T h is repres ent at i on g ive s hi m a sup e r i or mas c u l i nit y t hat mo st wou l d not b e abl e to a ccess .

T h is image of el ephant s submitt i ng to P tol e mai c cont rol is l ate r p e r for me d

by Ptol emy II Ph i l a d elphus i n t he f amous pro c e ssi on i n A l e x andr i a i n honour of h is f at her, as d es cr ib e d by C a l l i xe i nus , pre s e r ve d i n At he nae us. Among t he items and menage r i e of an i ma ls show n w as a re pre s e nt at i on of an 1 8 -fo ot Dionysus retu r ne d f rom Indi a re cl i n i ng on t he b a ck of an el e phant, fol l owe d by t went y fou r char iot s dr aw n by el e phant s . 36 T he pro ce ssi on c u l m i nate d i n a gold st atu e of A lexande r f l an ke d by Vi c tor y and At he na i n a char i ot draw n by elephants . T he a c tu a l is at i on i n t his pro c e ss i on of t he sy mb ol ism s e e n i n t he gol d st aters of P tol e my I , on w hi ch el e phant s are one of t he s a l i e nt i cons of Ptol emaic d om inanc e and c ont rol, t i e s wel l i nto Judit h But l e r’s t he or y of gend er and mas c u l i n it y as e ss e nt i a l ly c re ate d t hroug h sust ai ne d s o ci a l p er for mances . 3 7 In t his c onte x t t he us e of el e phants b e come s i ne x t r i c ably lin ke d to t he King’s p owe r and i de nt it y. E l e phant s b e c ame an i mp or t ant s ig nif i er of t he King’s supre me ( and t he re fore he ge moni c) mas c u l i nit y, w h i ch was u natt ainabl e to a l mo st a l l e xc e pt ot he r Ki ng s and l o c a l dy nasts. Th is is exemplif ie d by Ant io chus I V, w ho i n 1 6 6 B C st age d a p age ant w h i ch si m i l arly c u lminate d w it h a d ispl ay of p a chyde r ms , i n w hi ch p arade d a ‘char i ot draw n by fou r elephants and anot he r dr aw n by a p ai r, t he n i n a si ng l e f i l e t h i r t y si x splendid ly d e cor ate d el e phant s’. 38 T his w as done af te r S el e uci d p owe r had b e en d amage d fol l ow i ng a rebu f fe d i nv as i on i n Eg y pt ( 1 6 8 B C) . The re fore, t h is s o ci a l p er for manc e, e qu a l ly i mpre ss ive as P tol e my II’s, i n p ar t atte mpte d to re ass er t t hat t he k i ng’s p owe r and, t he re fore, h is sup e r i or mas c u l i nit y, were u nd amage d by t he de fe at i n Eg y pt , and c ont i nue d i n de f i ance of R ome’s b an on S el eu cid el ephant s ( dis c uss e d b el ow ) .

T he h i g h pr ior it y P tol e my I I Phi l a delpho s g ave to el e phants is show n by t he fac t t hat he l au nche d t he f i rst ( a c c ordi ng to Di o d or us) 39 l arge -s c a l e m i l it ar y and s cient if ic exp e d it i on to Ae t hi opi a and Nubi a i n c. 2 7 5 B.C., w h i ch p ave d t he way for t he imp or t at i on of ‘e x t r a ordi nar y ’ an i ma ls i nto A l e x andr i a. 40 Frag me nts f rom Agat harchi de s of Kn i do s a l lu de to t he or i g i n of t h is Ptolemaic a c t iv it y in t he Upp e r Ni l e Va l l e y du r i ng t he re i g n of Ph i l adelpho s: ‘Ptolemy, t he su ccess or of t he s on of L ago s , w as t he f i rst to org anis e t he hunt ing of el ephants . . . An i ma ls w hi ch ha d b e e n s e p arate d by Nature he 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Troncoso, 262 Bosworth 2007, 18 Athenaeus V 197-208 See Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of identity Austin, 377 Diodorus, I.37.5 Thomas, 2016, 67, see Diodorus, III.36.3–5

brou g ht toget her to l ive i n one pl a c e’. 41 T his s e e m i ng ly go d-l i ke abi l it y to br ing toget her an ima ls ' s e p ar ate d by natu re’ pre s e nts Ptol e mai c p owe r and mas c u l init y as supreme and c ompl e tely u natt ai nabl e by ot he rs. The i de a t hat Ptolemaic mas c u linit y w as displ aye d t hrou g h c ont rol of Eg ypt’s re s ource s and elephants is s e en in a rel i e f f rom Me ro e ( Mus a w - warat e s-s of ra i n Sud an) w h ich shows a k ing in f u l l phar a on i c g ar b ( w it h t he crow ns of upp e r and lower Eg y pt) r id ing an el e phant ( f i g u re 3 ) . 42 T he S el eu cid dy nast y ’s i nte re st , ow ne rship and i c ono g raph i c us e of el e phants is re cog n is e d, w it h Plut arch re c ordi ng t hat D e me t r ius de ro g at ively c a l l e d S eleu c us ‘Master of t he E l e phant s’. 43 Howe ve r, t his i nte nde d r i di c u l e f rom h is r iva ls rel at ing to his el e phant s w as cl e arly not acce pte d by S el e uc us or h is subj e c ts , w ho us e d his c oi nage w hi ch he av i ly fe ature d el e phants ( f i g ure 4-5) . R at her, t he exte ns ive us e of t he s e b e ast s and b e i ng ‘maste r of el e phants’ was a b a d ge of p ower and he ge mon i c mas c u l i n it y w h i ch D e me t r ius at t hat st age ha d no cl aim to. T his t au nt of D e me t r ius no doubt re fe r re d to S el e uc us I’s t re at y w it h C handr ag upt a i n 3 0 5 /4 , 44 w hi ch s aw S el e uc us t ransfe r to C handr agupt a ' s k ingdom t he e aste r n mo st s at r api e s of h is e mpi re, w it h C handr agupt a in retur n g iv i ng S el e u c us 5 0 0 Indi an war el e phants. St rab o f rames t h is me et ing as an e xchange and su g ge st s t hat t ho s e t h i ng s e xchange d ac te d as tokens for re c o g n it i on of t he i r roy a l st atus. S ome s chol ars sug ge st t hat t h is was t he mome nt at w hi ch S el e u c us assu me d t he di ade m . 45 If it is t he c as e t hat t he re ce iv i ng of el e phant s i n t he c onque re d l ands of A l e x ande r was t he imp etus for S el e u c us t a k i ng t he t it l e of k i ng and t he di ade m , it wou l d me an t hat t he s y mb ol of el e phant s wou l d b e, onc e ag ai n, i ne x t r i c ably l i n ke d to a Ki ng’s supreme p owe r and he ge mon i c mas c u l i nit y i n t he Hel l e nist i c world. T h is wou l d ex pl ai n t he pre v a l e nc e of el e phants on h is and h is su ccess ors’ coinage.

Ant io chus I, S el eu c us’ su c c e ss or, a ls o ut i l is e d t he s e ani ma ls to e mphasis e h is aut hor it y and hege mon i c mas c u l i n it y. T his is mo st cl e arly s e e n i n h is ‘elephant v ic tor y ’ 4 6 ag ai nst t he mar au di ng horde s of Gau ls i n 2 7 5 B C, w h i ch was a ls o t he o cc as ion of hi m t a k i ng t he t it l e S ot ar ( s av i our) . To cel ebrate t h is v ic tor y Ant io chus com m iss i one d an e pi c c omp o s e d by Si moni de s of Mag ne si a ( Sud a) and ere c te d a t rophy de pi c t i ng a s i ng l e st andi ng el e phant. 47 By t h is t ime, one cou ld s ay t hat el e phant s ha d b e c ome a sy mb ol of t he Hel l e nist i c King's p ar t ic u l ar t y p e of he ge mon i c mas c u l i n it y, w h i ch cou l d b e unde rsto o d e ven w it hout a d epic t i on of t he Ki ng hi ms el f. T his t rophy doubt l e ss inf luence d t he ter r a c ott a work shop s of My r i na ne ar Pe rg amon w h i ch pro duc e d f igu r ines d e pi c t i ng el e phant s t r ampl i ng s ol di e rs w it h Ga l at i an ov a l 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

Agatharchides fr. 1 Burstein Scullard, 126 Plutarch, Demetrius, 25.4 Strabo, XV 2, 9 Kosmin, 33; see Mehl 1986 160-1 Scullard, 122-3 Michetall, in Eskine, 2003, 283

sh ields (f igu re 6 ). T he el e phant c r ushi ng a publ i c is e d e ne my of t he S el e uci d dy nast y a c te d again as a st and- i n for t he k i ng and by e x te nsi on h is aut hor it y and supreme mas c u li n it y.

I sha l l us e Agat ho cl es of Sy r a c us e as an e x ampl e of sma l l e r and l o c a l dy nasts us ing el ephants as s y mb ols of t he i r p owe r and mas c u l i nit y, i n t he f u l l k now le d ge t hat t here are ot he rs l i ke P y r rhus , D e me t r ius I of B ac t r i a and Ap ol lo d otus I w h ich t his ana ly s is c ou l d b e e x te nd e d to. Ag at ho cl e s st r uck s e vera l issu es of coins , many of w hi ch i mit ate c onte mp orar y Mace doni an t yp es, one w h ich was prol i f i c a l ly i m it ate d w as P tol e my S ot ar’s A l e x ande r i n elephant he a d d ress (f i g u re 7 ) . T he s e c oi ns we re m i nte d af te r h is i nv asi on of Lydi a and att a ck on C ar t hage i n 3 1 0 , 48 e vok i ng t he i cono g raphy of he ge moni c mas c u l init y d espite t he f a c t t hat Ag at ho cl e s ha d ne ve r b att l e d or ow ne d elephants . I su g gest t hat he di d s o to pl a c e hi ms el f as an e qu a l to t ho s e li ke Ptol emy on t he Hel l e n ist i c st age, t he re fore e vok i ng t he s ame i con of hegemonic mas c u l init y to e nte r t he ‘roy a l club’. Inde e d, unt i l t he col l aps e of h is C ar t hag in i an exp e dit i on i n 3 0 7 , it mi g ht have s e e me d as t houg h he was b e com ing a ‘wester n A l e x ande r’. 49 T he us e of t he s ame i cono g raph i c l e x i con of ot her k ings put e ve n t he l e ss su c c e ss f u l k i ng s or sma l l dy nasts on a p ar w it h t he most su ccess f u l. T he re fore, t he s e p a chyd e r ms b e c ame a me t aphor of t r iumph and hegemon i c mas c u l i n it y, e ve n for t ho s e w ho had not att ai ne d t he cor resp ond ing l e vels of p owe r.

C onf is c at ion of el ephant s : t he l o ss of pre st i ge and he ge moni c mas c u l i nit y Just as gain ing cont rol of or us i ng t he i c ono g r aphy of el e phants cou l d re f l e c t aut hor it y, cont rol of re s ou rc e s and b e i ng p ar t of t he he ge moni c mas c u l i nit y st r u c tu re, t he con f is c at i on of el e phant s c ou l d me an a l o ss of t h is st atus.

T h is is s e en in t he Tre at y of Ap ame a i n 1 8 8 B C , w h i ch s aw Ant i o chus III hav ing to su r rend er, among ot he r t hi ng s , a l l his el e phants and b e i ng b anne d f rom amass ing any more. T he re mov a l of el e phant s, such a prom i ne nt dy nast ic s y mb ol for t he S el e u c i ds and an i mp or t ant p e r for mat ive asp e c t of mas c u linit y, d amage d t he i r mi l it ar y abi l it y, aut hor it y and mas c u l i nit y public a l ly. It is t here fore u nsu r pr is i ng t hat de spite t h is s anc t i on S el e uci ds amass e d elephants ag ai n , w it h Ant i o chus I V o ste nt at i ously hol di ng a p age ant fe atu r i ng over 4 0 elephant s i n 1 6 6 B C i n de f i anc e. 50 C onclus ion Wh i le I have fo c us e d on Hel l e n ist i c k i ng s and l o c a l dy nasts f rom t he p e r i o d init i a l ly af ter A l exande r’s de at h, t his t he or y and ana ly sis c an e asi ly e x te nd b e yond t he Hel l en ist i c k i ng s to t ho s e l i ke Han n ib a l and Pomp e y w ho l i ke Ptolemy II p er for me d t he i mage of l e a de r pu l l e d by a qu adr i g a of el e phants. 51 48 49 50 51

Diod. Sic. 20.3–18 Thonemann, 162. Stewart 1993: 266–9 Polybius XXX.25, see Austin, 377 Plutarch, Life of Pompey, 14.4

T h is is show n by a re c e nt ar t i cl e by Ke n ne t h L ap at i n 52 w h i ch e x am i ne s a bronze l imb of t he le f t hi nd l e g of an el e phant found of f t he S out h -We st cor ner of Sici ly in 1 9 9 9 , w hi ch wou l d i n it s c ompl e te st ate range up to 2 .5 met res in heig ht. Wh i l e it is i mp o ss ibl e to s ay w it h ce r t ai nt y w he t he r t h is is p ar t of a C ar t hag ini an work b e i ng t a ke n to R ome af te r t he v i c tor y of S cipi o Aemi li anus , 5 3 or a Hel l e n ist i c t rophy l i ke t hat of Ant i o chus I, L ate R oman R epublic an, or e ven f rom t he Imp e r i a l p e r i o d, 54 w hat one c an s ay is t hat l i ke t he Hel l en ist ic exampl e s ab ove, t his ar te f a c t wou ld have h i g h l i g hte d to t he v ie wer t he p at ron’s aut hor it y and supre me mas c u li nit y.

In su m , lo ok ing at t he anc i e nt e v i de nc e of el e phants and Hel l e nist i c Ki ng s t h roug h t he l ens of C on nel l’s t he or y, one is abl e to eluci d ate to an e x te nt w hat t he us e of t he p a chyde r ms me ant as e mbl e ms of k i ng ly p owe r and ancient concepts of mas c u l i n it y. T he de s i re, and at t i me s obs e ssi on, for t he Hel len ist ic k ings and dy nast s to p o ss e ss , de fe at or de pi c t t he s e el e phants demonst r ates t hat t he y we re more t han just a mi l it ar y we ap on or v isu a l g immi ck , and were in f a c t a p owe r f u l and p ote nt b adge of t r iumph and hegemonic mas c u l init y. It w as a w ay of a l lu di ng to a k i ng’s t axonom i c cont rol and aut hor it y of t heir re s ou rc e s , mi l it ar y m i g ht and supre me mas c u l i nit y, w h ich was u natt ainabl e to a l mo st a l l ( we s e e hard ly any e v i de nce for l owe r st atus p e ople or mas c u l i n it i e s us i ng i mage s of el e phants) , e xce pt ot he r k i ng s and dy nasts . T hes e an i ma ls we re u lt i mately b e ast s f rom fore i g n l ands and t heir pres ence, b ot h phy s i c a l and v isu a l, sp oke to t he p owe r and mas c u l i nit y of t he men w ho ha d t ame d and maste re d t he m .

FIGURES F igure 1 - Tet r a d r a chm of P tol e my I

52 53 54

A Puzzling Pachyderm in Visual Histories of the Classical World in honour of Bert Smith Lapatin, in Visual histories of the classical world, 2018, 166 Pliny Natural History xxxvi.67

F igure 2 – G old st ate r of P tol e my I 3 0 4 ( f rom c . 2 9 8 / 7 B C) .

Fi g ure 3 – Me ro e rel i e f

F igure 4 – Tet r a d r a chm of S el e u c us I , E l e phant bi g a t y p e.

F igure 5 – E l ephant arche s bron z e of S el e u c us I

F igu re 6 – Te r r a c ott a el e phant t r ampi ng Ga l at i an s ol di e r, MET

F igure 7 – G old st ate r of Ag at ho cl e s of Sy r a c us e (c. 3 1 0 –3 0 7 B C)

BIBLIOGRAPHY ● Ans on, E dward, and V. A l ons o Tronc o s o. Af te r A l e x ande r : The Ti me of t he D i a d o ch i (3 2 3 -2 8 1 B C) ( 2 0 1 3 ) . ● Aust in, M. M . T he Hel l e n ist i c Worl d f rom A l e x ande r to t he R oman C onqu est : A S ele c t ion of Anc i e nt S ou rc e s i n Tr ansl at i on ( 2 0 0 6 ) . ● B er re y, Marqu is . Hel l e n ist i c S c i e nc e at C our t( 2 0 1 7 ) . ● B os wor t h , A . B. ( 2 0 0 7 ) R i de r i n t he C har i ot: Ptol e my, A l e x ande r and t he E le phants . In K. A . She e dy ( e d. ) A l e x ande r and t he Hel l e nist i c Ki ngdoms.

T he West morel and C ol l e c t i on , 1 7 – 2 2 , Sydne y. ● Br i ant, Pier re. , and Pe te r T. D an i els . From Cy r us to A l e x ande r : A Histor y of t he Pers i an E mpi re ( 2 0 0 2 ) . ● But l er, Ju d it h . G e nde r Troubl e : Fe m i n is m and t he Subve rsi on of Ident it y (1 9 9 9 ). ● C at har ine C . L or b e r, Ame r i c an Jou r na l of Num ismat i cs ( 1 9 8 9 -) , Vol. 24 ( 201 2 ), pp. 2 1 - 3 1 ● C harl es , Micha el B. " A l e x ande r, E l e phant s and Gaug amel a."

Mous eion: Jou r na l of t he C l ass i c a l Ass o c i at i on of C anad a, vol. 8 no. 1 , 2 0 0 8 , p. 9-23 . ● C onnel l, R a e w y n . Mas c u l i n it i e s ( 2 0 0 5 ) . ● C or nwa l l, Andre a , and Nanc y L i ndis f ar ne. Disl o c at i ng Mas c u l i nit y : C omp ar at ive Et h nog r aphi e s ( 1 9 9 4 ) . ● E rsk ine (e d.) , A C omp an i on to t he Hel l e nist i c Worl d ( 2 0 0 3 ) . ● Foxha l l, L in., and John S a l mon . Whe n Me n We re Me n : Mas c u l i nit y, Power, and Id ent it y i n C l ass i c a l Ant i qu it y ( 1 9 9 8 ) . ● Hol mes , Bro oke. G e nde r : Ant i qu it y and Its L e g ac y ( 2 0 1 2 ) . ● Ioss if, Panag i ot is P. , and C at hr i ne C . L or b e r. "THE ELEPHA N TA RC HE S BRONZ E OF SE LE U C OS I NIKATOR ." Sy r i a 8 7 ( 2 0 1 0 ) : 147-64 ● Kos m in , Pau l J. T he L and of t he E l e phant Ki ng s : Sp ace, Te r r itor y, and Ide olog y in t he S el e u c i d E mpi re ( 2 0 1 4 ) . ● Lu nd, Hel en S . Ly s i ma chus : A Stu dy i n E arly Hel l e nist i c Ki ng sh ip ( 1992) . ● Nos ov, K., and Pe te r D e n n is . War E l e phants ( 2 0 0 8 ) . ● Sm it h , R . R . R . Hel l e n ist i c S c u lptu re ( 1 9 91 ) . ● Sm it h , R . R . R . Hel l e n ist i c R oy a l Por t r ait s ( 1 9 8 8 ) . ● Sm it h , R . R . R . , C at he r i ne M . Dr ayc ott , Rubi na R aj a, Kat he r i ne E. Welch , and Wi l l i am T. Wo otton . Visu a l Histor i e s of t he C l assi c a l Worl d : E ss ays in Honou r of R . R . R . Smit h ( 2 0 1 8 ) . ● S c u l l ard, H. H . T he E l e phant i n t he Gre ek and R oman Worl d ( 1 9 7 4 ) . ● Ste war t, Andre w F. Fa c e s of Powe r : A l e x ande r's Image and Hel len ist ic Polit ics (1 9 9 3 ) . ● T homas , Joshu a J. , and Smit h, R . R . R . Ar t and Natura l S ci e nce i n t he Hel len ist ic Worl d (2 0 1 6 ) . ● T honemann , Pe te r. T he Hel l e n ist i c Worl d : Usi ng C oi ns as S ource s ( 2015) .

A NC I E N T E G Y P T IA N C OL O U R A N D I T S SI G N I F I C A N C E

Phoebe Hy un

I NTRODUC T ION

D espite t he worl d’s l ong f as c i nat i on w it h Anci e nt Eg ypt, t h is once br i l l i ant c iv i lis at ion remains a my ste r y to us . O u r c onst ant , unpre di c t abl e dis cove r i e s are humbling , and it is s imu lt ane ously d au nt i ng and e xcit i ng how much of Eg y pt i an histor y st i l l re qu ires ou r c ont i nu e d atte nt i on and re s e arch .

O ne su ch asp e c t is t he us e and s i g n i f i c anc e of col our i n Anci e nt Eg ypt, w hich un for tu nately remai ns a hit he r to u ne x pl ore d subj e c t. Th is may come as a su r pr is e to most — af te r a l l, is Eg y pt not mo st f amous for its ar t? Howe ve r, w h i l e t here inde e d is extens ive work on Eg y pt i an ar t , r arely have h istor i ans fo c us e d on t he us e of col ou r its el f. In f a c t , b e fore t he 1 9 t h c e ntur y h istor i ans dism iss e d t he si g nif ic ance of col ou r e nt i rely. Johan n Jo a chi m Wi nckel mann ( 1 7 1 7 -1 7 6 8 ) , t he f i rst histor i an to com ment on t he subj e c t , 1 arg u e d: “ The h istor y of t he ar t of t he Eg y pt i ans is , as t he i r l and, l i ke a l arge de s ol ate pl ai n t hat c an b e f u l ly su r ve ye d f rom t wo or t hre e towe rs .” 2 Winckelman n’s sho ck ing ass e ss me nt re f l e c t s t he ge ne ra l att itude of h istor i ans towards ancient Eg y pt i an ar t i n t he 1 8 t h c e ntu r y. A lt houg h Eg y ptol o g ists sl ow ly b eg an a re appr ais a l in t he 1 9 t h- c e ntu r y, e ve n t he n it was t h roug h a “p o stR enaiss ance” l ens . 3 Arg u ably, it is n’t u nt i l re c e nt ly t hat h istor i ans have atte mpte d a more obj e c t ive stu dy i nto anc i e nt Eg y pt i an ar t and how anci e nt Eg y pt i ans us e d c olour.

O n one hand, of c ou rs e, t his is u nde rst and abl e. The e x te nsive h istor y of ancient Eg y pt i an ar t, w hi ch i n it s tot a l it y c ove rs over 4 ,0 0 0 ye ars, as wel l as t he numerous t y p es of pig me nt s t hat re qu i re ana ly s is , ma ke s de t ai l e d study a he rc u l e an t ask. Howe ver, colou r is arg u ably an i ndisp e ns abl e c omp one nt of si g ht, one of humans’ f ive b as ic s ens e s . T he ar t of p ai nt i ng it s el f is a cl e ar i ndi c ator t hat t he ancient Eg y pt i ans were not on ly aw are of, but a c t ively e x pl ore d t he natura l worl d around t hem . T hus , an ana ly s is of how anc i e nt Eg y pt i ans cre ate d and us e d col our is i ncre dibly ne cess ar y as it c ou l d prov i de me an i ng f u l i nsi g ht i nto how t he y p e rce ive d t heir natur a l env iron me nt , as wel l as t he i r c u ltu re.

For tu nately, mu ch of anc i e nt Eg y pt i an ar t re mai ns i n sur pr isi ng ly und amage d cond it ion 4 — b ot h du e to t he natu r a l ly dr y cl i mate of Eg y pt and to ancient Eg y pt i ans’ impre ss ive pre s e r v at i on of pi g me nts t h roug h me ans such as re si n.

1 Megahn Strong, “Do You See What I See? Aspects of Colour Choice and Perception in Ancient Egyptian Painting,” Open Archaeology no.4 (2018), 173.

2 Johann Winckelmann, History of the Art of Antiquity (Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2006), 145.

3 Meghan Strong, “Do You See What I See? Aspects of Colour Choice and Perception in Ancient Egyptian Painting,” 173.

4 Ibid, 174.

T hus, w it h t he a dvent of ne w archa e ol o g i c a l te chni que s such as t he R aman Sp e c t ros copic Ana ly sis , 5 we are abl e to c ondu c t a more acc urate e x am i nat i on of Ancient Eg y pt i an pi g me nt s and, f rom t he re, study w hat si g ni f i c ance c an b e found b eh ind t he way c ol ou r w as us e d. 6 REC O GN IT ION OF C OLOU R

B efore ana ly si ng t he i mp or t anc e anc i e nt Eg ypt i ans pl ace d on col our, howe ver, it is su rely c r u c i a l to dis c uss w he t he r ‘c ol our’ its el f was s ome t h i ng t he y inter a c te d w it h or not . Inde e d, i n ou r mo de r n worl d w he re col ours of a l l sha d es c an b e s e en and re pro du c e d w it h i nc re d ibl e e as e, t he conce pt of ‘colour’ may come natu r a l ly to us . Howe ve r, w hi l e humans may natura l ly p erceive col ou r, c ategor is i ng t he m and a c t ively e ng ag i ng w it h t he m is an ent irely d if ferent matte r.

Astonish ing ly, anc i e nt Eg y pt i ans are e st i mate d to have name d b asi c colours as e arly as mi d-3 rd m i l l e n n iu m B. C. , c re at i ng te r ms such as ‘dŝr’ for ‘war m’ colou rs and ‘w 3 d’ for ‘g re e n’ c ol ou rs . 7 T he s e de nom i nat i ons s e e m to have b e en et y mol o g i c a l ly de r ive d f rom t he ro ot s of nouns; for e x ampl e, ‘dŝ r’ is li kely d er ive d f rom t he word ‘dŝ r t’ ( de s e r t ) w it h its re ddish -yel l ow s and. 8 As t ime p ass e d, t he anc i e nt Eg y pt i ans st ar te d de vel opi ng e ve n more det ai le d names for d i f fe re nt c ol ou rs , for i nst anc e ‘k m’ ( bl ack) , de r ive d f rom ‘k mt’ (s oi l), or ‘ hd’ ( w hite ) , de r ive d f rom ‘ he dj’ ( si lve r) . 9 The s e te r ms cle arly d emonst r ate how t he anc i e nt Eg y pt i ans not on ly re co g nis e d but a ls o cons ci ously c ategor is e d di f fe re nt sha de s of c ol ou r.

T he ancient Eg y pt i ans f u r t he r de vel op e d t he i r k now l e dge of col our t h roug hout t he Ol d, Mi dd l e and Ne w Ki ngdoms , 10 and t he us age and v ar i e t y of colou rs t he y inter a c te d w it h i nc re as e d dr amat i c a l ly. As D av i d S cott cl aime d : “… [t he ancient Eg y pt i ans ha d one of ] t he mo st dive rs e pi g me nt p a l e tte [s] of t he ancient world”. 1 1 He go es on to show t hat t he y not on ly us e d s e ve r a l di f fe re nt col ours rang i ng f rom bl a ck to g re en , but t he y a ls o i nc or p or ate d t he di f fe re nt shade s of one colour w h i lst p aint ing . 12 T his is de monst r ate d, for e x ampl e, by t he b e aut i f u l E st ate F igu re c ar v ing of c a . 1 9 8 1 -1 9 7 5 B. C . [ f i g . 1 ], 5 A form of non-destructive archaeological technique used to analyse pigments on artefacts.

6 David, Rosalie, Edwards, H.G.M., D.W. Farewell, and De Faria D.L.A., “Raman Spectroscopic Analysis of Ancient Egyptian Pigments”, Archaeometry 43 (2001): 461.

7 Ibid, 283.

8 Ibid, 284.

9 Ibid.

10 The three Kingdoms in Ancient Egyptian history; Old Kingdom was from 2575B.C.E. to 2150B.C.E, Middle Kingdom 2040B.C.E.-1782B.C.E, and New Kingdom from 1570B.C.E to 1544B. C.E. 11 David Scott, “A Review of Ancient Egyptian pigments and cosmetics,” Studies in Conservation 61:4, 185.

12 Ibid, 197.

w h ich cle arly shows s e ve r a l sha de s of blu e on t he fe ma l e f i g ure, rang i ng f rom t he f a d e d Pr uss i an of he r hai r to t he br i g ht turquois e and d arke r roy a l blue de cor at ing her d re ss . T he l e vel of te chnol o g y and t he amount of e f for t t hat went b eh ind cre at i ng t he s e c ol ou rs are re markabl e as wel l ; for e x ampl e, in orde r to cre ate t he i c on i c ‘Eg y pt i an blu e,’ t he y had to sy nt he sis e s e ve ra l dif fere nt mater i a ls such as c r ushe d qu ar t z s and and l i me, t he n re -he at t he mixtu re at temp er atu re s as hi g h as 8 5 0 ˚ C-9 5 0 ˚C. 13 Th is, i f anyt h i ng , is def in ite e v id ence t he anc i e nt Eg y pt i ans e ng age d w it h col our v i a h i g h ly advance d me ans .

Ind e e d, it is e v i de nt t hat t he anc i e nt Eg y pt i ans not on ly i nte rac te d w it h and repro du ce d di f fe re nt c ol ou rs , but t he y c onsi de re d t he m i mp or t ant enou g h to b e pres er ve d as wel l. In f a c t , it is e v i dent t he y atte mpte d to incre as e t he l onge v it y of t he i r p ai nt s t hrou g h us e of natura l g lue s such as resin. Ind e e d, t he anc i e nt Eg y pt i ans us e d bitu me n 14 — or aspha lt — f rom 18t h D y nast y onwards ; 15 pr i or to t his , t he y us e d more si mpl e r me ans l i ke eg g-w hites or b e es wa x . 16

T hus , t he anc i e nt Eg y pt i ans’ c re at i on of ne w p ai nts v i a sy nt he sisi ng var ious pig ments , as wel l as t he i r e f for t s at pre s e r v i ng t he i r p ai nt i ng s, indic ates t hat t he y we re not on ly aw are of, but a ls o ac t ively and i nte nt i ona l ly ut i lis e d d if ferent col ou rs . T his t he n r ais e s t he qu est i on: w hat si g ni f i c ance, i f any, di d t he ancient Eg y pt i ans pl a c e on c ol ou r ?

SIG N IFIC A NC E OF C OLOU R

Su r pr is ing ly, it s e e ms t he anc i e nt Eg y pt i ans di d not pl ace t hat g re at of a s ig n if ic anc e on c ol ou r it s el f. 17 S ome t i me s, col our was us e d for emphas is — in ot her words , us i ng more not i c e abl e, or br i g hte r col ours to p or t ray cer t ain asp e c t s of a p ai nt i ng i n orde r to h i g h l i g ht its i mp or t ance over ot hers . Howe ver, t he a c tu a l c ol ou r t hat w as us e d to do was uni mp or t ant.

For ex ample, in t he Tomb s of Me n na 18 at T heb e s 19 t he Me nna’s cl ot he s we re p ainte d w it h hu nt ite, w hi l e e ve r yone els e’s we re p ai nte d w it h c a l cite — t h is had t he resu lt ing ef fe c t of ma k i ng Me n na’s i mage s st and out among ot he rs as h is clot hes app e are d more i nte ns ely w hite t han t hat of h is s e r v ants [f i g .2 ]. 20 T he main pu r p os e of t his s e e me d to b e to ma ke Me nna more not i ce abl e by cont rast; t he a c tu a l c ol ou r us e d — ‘w hite’ — is u ni mp or t ant. Th is sug ge sts t hat images , r at her t han c ol ou rs , we re more s i g n i f i c ant to t he anci e nt Eg y pt i ans .

13 Ibid, 188.

14 Ibid, 187.

15 The 18th Dynasty started from 1549/1550B.C.E. 16 David Scott, “A Review of Ancient Egyptian pigments and cosmetics,” 187.

17 Rolf Kuehni, “Colour and Colourants in Ancient Egypt,” Colour Res. Appl., 5 (1980): 170.

18 A famous tomb chapel of an official named Menna, dated to either the reign of Amenhotep III or Thutmosis IV. 19 Melinda Hartwig, “The Tomb of Its Owner,” The Tomb Chapel of Menna, edited by Melinda Hartwig, The American University in Cairo Press, 2013, 9.

20 Meghan Strong, “Do You See What I See? Aspects of Colour Choice and Perception in Ancient Egyptian Painting,” 176.

In f a c t, ancie nt Eg y pt i ans mo st ly us e d c olour i n i m it at i ng t he natura l world arou nd t hem . T his is c or rob or ate d by how t he y name d col ours; as det ai le d ab ove, t heir c ol ou r name s we re e t y mol o g i c a l ly de r ive d f rom nouns denot i ng natu r a l fe atu re s of s i mi l ar c ol ou rs , su ch as t he re d de s e r t, bl ack s oi l or s i lver. T heir word for ‘c ol ou r’ it s el f — ‘ j w n’ — was l i kely de r ive d f rom ‘ jnm’, me an ing ‘sk in’. O f c ou rs e, as R ol f Ku ehn i arg ue s, i n s ome i nst ance s t hes e c ol ou r d enom inat i ons may have ha d s ome s y mb ol i c ass o ci at i ons; for ex ampl e, ‘re d’ was ass o c i ate d w it h t he cha ot i c and d ange rous re d de s e r ts and t herefore w it h Sut, or e v i l, w hi l e ‘ bl a ck’ w as ass o ci ate d w it h fe r t i l it y due to t he fer t i le bl a ck s oi ls of t he Ni l e. 21 Howe ve r, t he s e col our name s a ls o of te n had cl ash ing me aning s — re d a ls o s y mb ol is e d prote c t ive ne ss 22 — w h i ch su g gests t he s y mb olis m b ehi nd c ol ou rs w as ar bit rar y, and change d w it h t he context of t he p or t r aye d i mage, as wel l as p e rhaps w it h t he p e rs ona l preferences of t he p ai nte r or c omm iss i one r. T his sug ge sts t hat t he sy mb ol ism b eh ind colou rs was not of p ar amou nt s i g n i f i c anc e i n anci e nt Eg ypt i an ar t . Ind e e d, t he remai n i ng e v i de nc e su g ge st s t he anci e nt Eg y pt i ans we re more c oncer ne d w it h re a l ist i c a l ly i mit at i ng t he natura l col ours of t he i r su r round ings t han fo c us i ng on t he s y mb ol i c ass o ci at i ons of t he i r pi g me nts; in fac t , t he y went to e x t re me me ans to e x pre ss t he v ar y i ng tone s and te x ture s of dif ferent su r fa ces . For e x ampl e, i n a rel i e f of Ne fe r t i ab e t, 23 he r sk i n was p ainte d w it h yel l ow o chre 24 but he r l e op ard dre ss is col oure d w it h j aro site to dif fere nt i ate b et we en t he c ol ou r and te x tu re of t he s e t wo yel l ow sur f ace s. The le vel of attent ion p ai d to t he re pro du c t i on of re a l it y i n anci e nt Eg y pt i an ar t shows t heir w ish to re pre s e nt t he i r natu r a l e nv i ronme nt i n t he i r p ai nt i ng s; howe ver, t he s ig n if ic anc e of c ol ou r on ly e x te nds t h is f ar.

Interest ing ly, c ol ou r w as not a lw ay s just us e d to re f l e c t re a l it y.

For inst ance, t here are nu me rous e x ampl e s , p ar t i c u l arly f rom t he Mi dd l e Kingdom onwards , 2 5 of p e opl e us i ng di f fe re nt yel l ow p ai nts to i m it ate t he natura l sh ine of gol d w he n de c or at i ng t he i r tomb s or te mpl e s. At t he t i me, gold w as h ig h ly covete d and w i dely us e d for j e wel l e r y and de corat i on; howe ver, w h i l e Eg y pt ha d l arge re s e r ve s of gol d i n t he E aste r n D e s e r t and Nubi a, a ccess it to it w as mo st ly re g u l ate d by t he pharaoh . 26 On ly t ho s e w it h g re at we a lt h or sp e ci a l c omm iss i on f rom t he pharaoh wou l d have b e e n abl e to de cor ate t heir tomb s or te mpl e s w it h l arge qu ant it i e s of gol d. The re fore, t ho s e w ho cou l d not do s o cho s e to i m it ate t he we a lt hy by usi ng p ai nts of a s imi l ar col ou r. Meg han St rong c ondu c te d s e ve r a l e x p e r i me nts to de monst rate t hat a m ixtu re of or pi me nt and o chre p ai nt s topp e d w it h v ar nish cre ate d a 21 Rolf Kuehni, “Colour and Colourants in Ancient Egypt,” 170.

22 Meghan Strong, “Do You See What I See? Aspects of Colour Choice and Perception in Ancient Egyptian Painting,” 175.

23 A stele of the princess Nefertiabet from the late Middle Kingdom; currently found at the Louvre Museum, Room 635 (https://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/stele-princess-nefertiabet-and-her-food).

24 A earthy pigment that produces a brownish-yellow colour.

25 Ibid.

26 Deborah Schorsch, “Gold in Ancient Egypt,” The Met, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, January 2017, https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/egold/hd_egold.htm

yel low s im i l ar to gold. 27 Of c ou rs e, w he n v i e we d unde r t he br i g ht f luore s ce nt lig ht s of mo d er n d ay t his pi g me nt s e e ms a s or r y subst itute for gol d; howe ve r, as St rong argu es , u nde r c and l el i g ht , as t he anc i e nt Eg ypt i ans wou l d have us e d, t he colou r b e come s mu ch more s i mi l ar to t hat of re a l gol d. 28 Arg u ably, gold w as imp or t ant to t he anc i e nt Eg y pt i ans b e c aus e its g l itte r i ng yel l ow colour was rem in is ce nt of t he su n , w hi ch c ou l d b e ass o ci ate d w it h t he i r sun go ds , R a and Amu n [ f i g . 5 ] ; t hus , t he us e of or pi me nt and o ch re as subst itute s cou ld b e const r u e d as atte mpt s to i mbu e t he i r p ai nt i ng s w it h g re ate r rel i g i ous me aning . Howe ver, it s e e ms l i kely t hat t he app e a l of gol d was more s o due to it s ass o ci at ions w it h we a lt h and pre st i ge. T he re fore, it cou l d b e arg ue d t hat i n t h is inst ance t he colou r gol d ha d b ot h rel i g i ous and e conom i c sy mb ol isms.

In ot her c as e s , c ol ou rs we re us e d as a c onve ni e nt me ans to dif fere nt i ate b et we en p e opl e i n p ai nt i ng s . For i nst ance, t he re are nume rous ex ampl es of men b eing p ai nte d w it h re ddish sk i n and wome n w it h yel l owe r sk in. 29 T h is is s e en , for e x ampl e, on a rel i e f on t he e ast wa l l of Na k ht’s of fer ing chap el, w here t he c e nt r a l fe ma l e f i g u re is p ai nte d i n yel l ow w h i l e t he men are p ainte d i n re d[ f i g . 3 ] . T his p e rhaps re f l e c te d re a l it y as wel l, as men most l i kely wou l d have b e e n e x p o s e d to su n l i g ht more f re que nt ly t han women ancient Eg y pt’s ag r i c u ltu r a l s o c i e t y, and t hus wou l d have had t anne d sk in. T h is may a ls o b e an i ndi c at i on of anc i e nt Eg ypt i an ge nde r ste re ot yp e s; in fac t , p aint ings a ls o of te n showe d me n doi ng outdo or ag r i c u ltura l work, w h i le women were more of te n p or t r aye d “prov i di ng re f re sh me nts for t he l ab ourers” or manag i ng t he hous ehol d v i a “s ma l l -s c a l e i nfor ma l t rans ac t i ons” w it h neig hb ou rs . 3 0 As s e ve r a l rel i e f s de monst r ate, 31 v ar y i ng shade s of p ai nt were a ls o us e d to d if fe re nt i ate b e t we e n anc i e nt Eg ypt i ans and fore i g ne rs.

T h is is s e en , for exampl e, i n a bl o ck of rel i e f f rom t he re i g n of Ame n hote p II, w here wester n As i an s ol di e rs we re de pi c te d w it h a di f fe re nt shade of yel l ow t han t he more re d d ish hu e of t he anc i e nt Eg y pt i an s ol di e rs [f i g . 4 ]. Howe ve r, t he ac tu a l col ou rs us e d s e e me d to b e of l i mite d s i g ni f i c ance — t he y si mply help e d to d ist ingu ish b e t we e n f i g u re s i n p ai nt i ng s and rel i e f s. Thus, t he s e ex ampl es ab ove s e em to su g ge st t hat c ol ou r w as of l i m ite d si g ni f i c ance i n ancient Eg y pt i an ar t i n mo st c as e s and w as mo st ly us e d to re pre s e nt re a l it y or dif fere nt i ate b et we en di f fe re nt de mo g r aphi c s of p e opl e.

INSIG N IF IC A NC E OF C OLOU R

In f a c t, t he arg u me nt t hat t he anc i e nt Eg ypt i ans pl ace d l i m ite d me aning b eh ind t heir us e of c ol ou rs is c or rob or ate d by t he f ac t t hat col our is rarely ment ione d in anc i e nt Eg y pt i an te x t s .

27 Meghan Strong, “Do You See What I See? Aspects of Colour Choice and Perception in Ancient Egyptian Painting,” 181.

28 Ibid, 178.

29 Rolf Kuehni, “Colour and Colourants in Ancient Egypt,” 170.

30 Joyce Tyldesley, Daughters of Isis (London: Penguin UK, 1995), Chapter 4.

31 Unknown, ca. 1427-1400B.C.E., The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, New York.

Arg u ably, t he most s i g n i f i c ant anc i e nt Eg y pt i an tex t is t he Papy r us of Ani, a ls o k now n as t he B o ok of t he D e a d, w hi ch out l i ne s a l l rel i g i ous and mag i c a l r itu a ls and s y mb ols for t he anc i e nt Eg y pt i ans’ j our ne y i nto t he af te rl i fe [f ig .6]. 3 2 Wit h in t h is i nc re dibly i mp or t ant te x t , howe ve r, t he re are on ly 10 “dire c t us es of col ou r words” 33 w hi ch su g ge st s t hat col our its el f was cons id ere d u n imp or t ant i n r itu a ls c on ne c te d to t he af te rl i fe. Th is is h i g h ly s ig nif i c ant as it cou ld e ve n su g ge st t hat c ol ou r had l i m ite d i mp or t ance w it h i n t he ancient Eg y pt i an rel i g i on a lto ge t he r.

T h is l a ck of si g n i f i c anc e is f u r t he r su g ge ste d by t he f ac t t hat, as Joh n B aines argu es , t he anc i e nt Eg y pt i ans s e e me d u nc once r ne d ab out pro duci ng ex ac t ly t he s ame sha de s of c ol ou r e ve n w it hi n one pi e ce of work. 34 Th is is demonst r ate d in many of t he re mai n i ng e x ampl e s of Eg y pt i an ar t; for ex ampl e, e ven in t he afore me nt i one d p ai nt i ng at t he Tomb of Me nna, s e ve ra l of t he s er v ants , p ar t i c u l arly t he t wo on e it he r s i de of t he p apy r us marsh , are e v ident ly p ainte d in di f fe re nt sha de s of re d [ f i g . 2] for no app are nt re as on — it was li kely for t he p ai nte r’s c onve n i e nc e. T hus , t h is sug ge sts t hat t he anci e nt Eg ypt i ans p erceive d c ol ou r as b e i ng more for de c orat i on and a re f l e c t i on of re a lit y, r at her t han b e i ng of s y mb ol i c s i g n i f i c anc e.

C ONCLU SION

C olou r was undoubte d ly w i dely us e d i n anci e nt Eg y pt i an ar t.

T h rou g h t heir a dv anc e d te chnol o g y t he y we re abl e to pro duce mu lt ipl e shades of col ou rs , w hi ch a l l owe d t he m to pro du c e s ome of t he mo st b e aut i f u l and de t ai le d p aint ing s to b e fou nd i n anc i e nt histor y. Wh i l e it is e v i de nt t hat t he ancient Eg y pt i ans we re i nc re dibly a de pt at re pro duci ng col ours, howe ve r, it s e ems t he y d id not pl a c e any g re at me an i ng on t he m .

T h is is not to su g ge st , of c ou rs e, t hat t he gorge ous rel i e f s, wa l ls and p apy r i p aint ings pro du c e d by anc i e nt Eg y pt i ans are e nt i rely me ani ng l e ss or insig nif ic ant. It just s o happ e ns t hat , c ont r ar y to assumpt i ons f re que nt ly made regard ing t he anc i e nt Eg y pt i ans’ e x te ns ive us e of pi g me nts, col our was not an asp e c t of ar t t he t he y att r ibute d g re at s y mb ol ism to. As Kueh ni arg ue s: “Mag ic s e ems to have b e e n mu ch more ass o c i ate d w it h for ms and si g ns t han sp e cif i c col ou rs”. 3 5

Ind e e d, t h is is ma de e ve n more cl e ar w he n one ana lys e s t he mu lt ipl e ways in w h ich colou r w as of te n us e d i n anc i e nt Eg y pt i an ar t. For i nst ance, w h i le colou rs of ten e mphas is e d ot he r i mage s ove r ot he rs — such as i n t he Tomb s of Menna — 32 Janice Kamrin, “Scrolling through Imhotep's Book of the Dead,” The Met, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 12.06.12, https://www.metmuseum.org/blogs/now-at-the-met/2016/book-of-the-dead 33 Rolf Kuehni, “Colour and Colourants in Ancient Egypt,” 170.

34 Jones Baines, “Colour Terminology and Colour Classification: Ancient Egyptian Colour Terminology and Polychromy,” 285.

35 Rolf Kuehni, “Colour and Colourants in Ancient Egypt,” 170.

in mo st c as es t he y we re s i mply us e d to re c re ate re a l it y onto t he wa l ls of temples and tombs . This is c or rob or ate d by t he e t y mol o g i c a l ro ots of many of t he ancient Eg y pt i an c ol ou r de nomi nat i ons w h i ch de r ive d f rom t he i r natura l su r rou nd ings , as wel l as t he f a c t t hat t he y pro duce d nu ance d shade s to ex press d if ferent te x tu re s and obj e c t s . Eve n i n t he c as e of gol d, w h i ch was arg u ably one of t he more s y mb ol i c c ol ou rs du e to its di re c t ass o ci at i on w it h t he su n go ds , its e conom i c v a lu e and i mpl i e d ass o ci at i ons w it h we a lt h and prest ige were l i kely e qu a l ly as app e a l i ng as it s rel i g i ous me ani ng . In mo st ot her us es of col ou r, di f fe re nt sha de s we re pro du ce d me rely as a me ans of conven ience for t he p ai nte r to show dist i nc t i ons b e t we e n di f fe re nt g roups of p e ople. T he ancient Eg y pt i ansâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; su r pr is i ng l a ck of conce r n towards col our is f ur t her show n t h rou g h it s l i mite d me nt i on w it hi n rel i g i ously ce nt ra l te x ts su ch as t he Papy r us of An i, as wel l as t he f a c t t hat p ai nte rs we re noncha l ant ab out us ing d if ferent sha de s of one c ol ou r e ve n w he n p ai nt i ng t he s ame obj e c t w it h in one p ai nt i ng . T he s e afore me nt i one d e x ampl e s h i g h l i g ht t hat w h i le colou r was w id ely us e d on nu me rous me diums i n Anci e nt Eg ypt, t he i r s ig nif i c ance was more de c or at ive t han s y mb ol i c . â&#x20AC;&#x192;

BIBLIOGRAPHY

B aines, Jones . “C olor Te r m i nol o g y and C ol or C l assi f i c at i on: Anci e nt Eg y pt i an C olor Ter m inolog y and Polychromy ”. Ame r i c an Ant h rop ol o g ist 8 7 :2 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , 282-29 7 .

D av id, R os a lie, et a l. “R aman Sp e c t ro s c opi c Ana ly sis of Anci e nt Eg ypt i an Pig ments .” Archa e ome t r y 4 3 ( 2 0 0 1 ) : 4 6 1 - 4 7 3 .

Har t w i g , Mel ind a . “ T he Tomb of It s O w ne r.” T he Tomb C hap el of Me nna, e dite d by Mel ind a Har t w i g , T he Ame r i c an Un ive rsit y i n C ai ro Pre ss, 2 0 1 3 , 9-21.

Kamr in , Janice. “S crol l i ng t hrou g h Im hote p ' s B o ok of t he D e ad.” The Met rop ol it an Mus eu m of Ar t , http s : //w w w. me t mus e um .org / bl o g s/ now-at-t he met /20 1 6 / b o ok - of - t he - de a d. Ac c e ss e d 1 2 . 0 6 . 1 2 .

Kueh ni, R ol f. “C ol or and C ol or ant s i n Anc i e nt Eg y pt.” C ol or R e s. Appl., 5 ( 1980) : 1 6 9 - 1 7 2 .

S chors ch , D eb or a h . “G ol d i n Anc i e nt Eg y pt .” T he Me t rop ol it an Mus e um of Ar t , http s :/ / w w w.met mus e u m . org /to a h/hd/e gol d/hd_e gol d.ht m . Janu ar y 2 0 1 7 .

S cott , D av id A ., “A R e v i e w of Anc i e nt Eg y pt i an pi g me nts and co sme t i cs”, Stu dies in C ons er v at i on 6 1 : 4 , 1 8 5 -2 0 2 .

St rong , Meg han . “D o You S e e What I S e e ? Asp e c t s of C ol our C hoi ce and Percept ion in Ancient Eg y pt i an Pai nt i ng .” O p e n Archae ol o g y : 4 ( 2 0 1 8 ) : 1 7 3 184.

Ty ldesl e y, Joyce. D au g hte rs of Is is . L ondon , Pe ng ui n UK, 1 9 9 5 .

Winckelmann , Johann . Histor y of t he Ar t of Ant i quit y. L o s Angel e s: G e tt y R es e arch Inst itute, 2 0 0 6 .

FIGURES F ig . 1: Wo o d en E st ate F i g u re f rom t he Mi dd l e Ki ngdom , Ga l ler y 1 0 5 , Access Nu mb e r 2 0 . 3 . 7 , T he Me t rop olit an Mus eum of Ar t, Ne w York C it y, Ne w York

F i g . 2: R e pl i c a of a p ai nt i ng at t he Tomb s of Me nna, show i ng Me nna ( l arge st f i g ure ) on e it he r si de of t he p apy r us marsh w it h sl i g ht ly w h ite r cl ot he s t han h is sur roundi ng s e r v ants, Ga l l e r y 1 3 5 , Acce ss Nu mb e r 3 0 .4 .4 8 , The Me t rop ol it an Mus e um of Ar t, Ne w York Cit y, Ne w York

F ig . 3: E ast Wa l l, S out h Si de of Na k ht ' s Of fer ing C hap el, Ga l l e r y 1 3 5 , Ac c e ss Nu mb e r 1 5 .5 .1 9 b, T he Me t rop ol it an Mus eum of Ar t, Ne w York C it y, Ne w York

Fig . 4: Bl o ck f rom a R el i e f D epic t i ng a B att l e, Ga l l e r y 1 1 9 , Access Nu mb er 1 3 .1 8 0 . 2 1 , T he Met rop ol it an Mus eu m of Ar t , Ne w York C it y, Ne w York

F i g . 5 : Stel a of Aafe nmut w it h yel l ow b a ck g rou nd and re pre s e nt at i ons of R a, G a l l e r y 1 2 6 , Acce ss Numb e r 2 8 .3 .3 5 , T he Me t rop ol it an Mus e um of Ar t, Ne w York Cit y, Ne w York.

Fig . 6: B o ok of t he D e a d for t he Singer of Amu n, Nany ( ab ove : weig h ing of t he he ar t, b el ow : Nany b e fore Os ir is , Is is and Nepht hy s ), Ga l l er y 1 2 6 , Ac c e ss Nu mb er 3 0 .3 .3 1 , T he Me t rop ol it an Mus eum of Ar t, Ne w York Cit y, Ne w York .

Ĉ U E N TOM B E JO – E DM ON D P R I VAT L AT I N S A P P H I C S T R A N SL AT ION

Felix Stokes

L AT I N

tē ne pu l l ātō stup e f a c tō e t arc am au di e nte i n fo ss a prof u nd a l ābī, s ōl ne lū c ēb at ? c upi dus n i hi l sum ip s e s e pu l c r ī. ho c te g is tū pu r pu re īs qu e f lē tūque atqu e vē n it f l ōr ibus a lte r ae quē. g r āt i ās vōbīs l a c r i m īs , at ō dī ip s e s e pu l c r u m . e c c e hi e ms , nu nc i mbre c a de nte c ānō, a ds i de t c r ū c ē s sup e r a d put andum ; n i xqu e c ant it du l c e s i l e ntu m a de ss e, at v āna s e pu l c r a . hī c s it ast i am p ar v u l a a d hū c puel l a, hī c s e ne x ? au dī n t ibi ve r b a mae st a: “ he u m is e r qu ī nōmi ne e ge t , not āque” nōlu mus ī re arc u l a e t p o stqu am s it a te r r ā ap e r t āst, n ī s e pu l c rē tu m mel ius qu e f ac tumst l a e t ius qu e sp ē, i am e go e am s e pu l crō qu a e re re f r ust r ā . nōn ibī qu a e rēb am , at ubī que v īv it i l l a a d hū c te nde ns qu e fove ns que c āra; c u mqu e mor b ō s īs , e t ubī qu e de x t rā g r āt i a e ag u ntu r. propte r ha e c c ēl e ntqu e s e pu l c ra ni mbī, lū c e at s ōl, f l ōre at atqu e nu nc f l ō s: nu l l ī hu mō s it sp ē s , amor : arc u l ās v īve nt i a v i nc unt.

E SP E R A N TO D u m t i e v i st ar is e n n i g r a mantel o Kaj ĉ e rkon e n fo s on aŭsku lt is de g l it i, Ĉu br i l is l a su no ? Ĉu blu is ĉi el o ?

L a tomb on ne n i am mi vol as v i z it i.

Su r tomb o v i ol oj n v i ŝut is ku n pl oroj, Kaj iu ku n roz oj v i n i r is im it i.

Mi d an k as , am i koj, pro l ar moj kaj f l oroj ; L a tomb on mi t ame n ne vol as v i z it i.

E k s i d as l a v i nt ro, du m f a l as arĝe nto, Su r k r u c oj g r an it aj p or l onge me dit i ; Kaj k ant as l a ne ĝo pr i l ' dol ĉ a si l e nto, E ĉ nu n m i l a tomb on ne vol as v i z it i. Ĉu f l an ke tombi ĝ as k nab e t ' sub kol ono ? Ĉu v i ro ma lju na ? Ĉu aŭ d as v i di r i : " Jen tomb o ma l r i ĉ a , s e n nomo, s e n ŝtono ?"

Ho l asu ? Mi t i e n ne vol as a l i r i.

D e k i am v i l as is l a ĉ e rkon en te ro S e l ' tut a tomb e j ' ne f ar i ĝ is pl i b el a, Pl i g aj a , pl i r i ĉ a j e lu ma e sp e ro, Ŝi n v ane mi s e rĉ us e n tomb o ma l hel a.

Ne t i e mi s e rĉ is , s e d k i e an koraŭ Ŝi v iv as p e r amo k aj f l e go donit aj ; Su r l itoj su fe r aj, e n ĝoj o de l 'koroj E n d an k aj oku l oj, e n manoj te nit aj.

Kaj t i a l ek f a lu su r tomb oj n l a ne ĝo, Aŭ br i lu l a su no k aj f l or u l a f l oroj ; A l te r ' ap ar te nas nek amo nek pre ĝo, Kaj ĉ e rkon nu r ve n k as v iv ant aj me moroj

E NG L I SH Whi l e you we re sto o d t he re i n a bl ack co at, and he ard t he c of f i n sl i di ng i nto t he ditch , w as t he su n shi n i ng ? Was t he sky blue ?

I ne ve r w ant to v is it t he g rave.

You p ou re d v i ol e t s onto t he tomb w it h cr y i ng , and s omeb o dy c ame to c opy you w it h ro s e s.

I’m g r ate f u l, f r i e nds , for t he te ars and t he f l owe rs; but I st i l l don’t w ant to v is it t he g rave.

Whi l e s i lve r f a l ls , t he w i nte r sits on g r an ite c ro ss e s to p onde r for a and t he s now s i ng s ab out t he s we e t e ve n now I don’t w ant to v is it t he

dow n w h i l e, si l e nce, g rave.

To t he s id e, is t he re a s ma l l chi l d bu r i e d b e ne at h a colum n?

Is t here an ol d man ? C an you he ar p e opl e s ay i ng : “Here is a p o or g r ave, w it hout a name, w it hout a stone” ?

Oh , l e ave it ? I don’t w ant to go ove r t he re.

Af te r you l e f t t he c of f i n i n t he e ar t h , if t he w hol e g r ave y ard di d not b e c ome more b e aut i f u l, more j oyous , more abu nd ant i n g l ow i ng hop e, I wou l d s e arch for he r v ai n ly i n a d ark g rave.

I di dn’t s e arch t he re, but w he re she st i l l lives t hrou g h t he l ove and c are w h i ch she g ave ; on su f fe r i ng b e ds , i n t he j oy of he ar ts, i n g r ate f u l e ye s , i n hands hel d.

And s o, l e t t he s now f a l l on t he tombs, l et t he su n shi ne and t he f l owers f l owe r ; neit he r l ove nor pr aye r b el ong s to t he e ar t h , and on ly l iv i ng me mor i e s c onqu er t he cof f i n.

Proud of a tutorial essay?

Interested in writing or illustrating?

Want editorial and publishing experience?

GET INVOLVED IN ALEXANDRIA Alexandria: The Oxford Undergraduate Classics Journal is Oxford University’s academic journal for undergraduate students of Classics and related subjects. We publish academic articles on a wide varieties of Classical topics.

These span across history, archaeology, philosophy, literature, reception and philology.

We also publish articles more closely related to CAAH and COS as well as Latin and Greek prose and verse compositions.

If you are interested in getting involved, there are lots of ways you can join in!

• Contribute to the journal by sending in your work to us at alexandriaclassicsjournal@gmail.com • Join our editorial or creative teams to help publish our journal each term