Can anyone help me with links to primary sources on Alessandro Farnese, Duke of Parma? I've been searching for ages and can't find anything that can count as a primary source.
Thanks in advance
Primary sources should be out of copyright. Try Google Books, Google Shcolar and Project Gutenburg. I did briefly search through Ebscohost but found nothing. Maybe you will have better luck. I'm sure a local library will have access to Ebscohost or Jstor...
I found some references to that name in this book:
But it isn't a primary source.
OK, this one is. I think this has some stuff about him in it.
"The Rise of the Dutch Republic"
I found some other stuff that might be primary sources but they were in Italian and Spanish.
Last edited by War&Politics; October 08, 2009 at 05:55 AM.
"Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln.
(War is merely the continuation of politics by other means.)
Living Statue EssayFor the living statue project, I had to choose four statues, with each one belonging to one of the four different periods in Classical Greek history, Archaic, Early Classical, Late classical, and Hellenistic. My Archaic work was Kouros. Kouros is a 6’1/2” marble statue sculpted roughly around 600 BCE. Like other early Archaic pieces, Kouros was heavily influenced by the Egyptians to the south, as can be seen by the advanced left foot and rigid frontal profile of the statue. The Egyptian influence can also be seen in the in these statues principal purpose being to serve as grave markers. Kouros did differ in several ways from its Egyptian counterparts. The Greeks abandoned the stone block, wishing to portray motion instead of stability. The other difference is that the statue is nude.
Early Classical times were a period of prosperity for the Greeks. The Persian threat had been defeated and Greeks were therefore superior to other cultures, so they thought. An artistic revolution, with an emphasis on realism, rationalism, and idealized subjects, was one result. The statue of Zeus (or possibly Poseidon) found off the coast at Cape Artemision exemplifies this. Standing at 6’10” high and sculpted around 460-450 BCE, the statue is an example of the Greek hollow-cast bronze statue technique. The focus on realism is shown by how the statue seems to have motion. It also shows the idealized way subjects are portrayed by the perfect body of the man.
Late Classical times are quite different than Early Classical times. The Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta lasted from 431 BCE to 404 BCE, sapping the strength of both and destroying the power of plague weakened Athens. For the next century the Greeks fought against each other and only united when the Macedonians from the north invaded. The century of warfare had weakened the Greeks, however, and as a result they were crushed at the battle of Chaeronea in 338 BCE by Philip II. This political turmoil was reflected in art. The idealism of Early Classical times was abandoned for greater realism and a focus on individual emotions and drama. The Late Classical piece I choose was Apoxymenos (Scraper) by Lysippus. Sculpted around 330 BCE and 6’ 9” high, it is a marble Roman copy of a Greek bronze original. The sculptor Lysippus was one of the masters of his age, the only one deemed talented enough by Alexander the Great to make his statue. He also differed from the ideas of Praxiteles in his 1:8 ratio between the head and body. Apoxymenos is far different than the Doryphros of the last century. Unlike the balanced and serene latter, Apoxymenos has a sort of nervous energy running through him. You expect the statue to at any moment begin scraping the other arm and to start leaning on the other leg. The statue is also unique in how it breaches the imaginary rectangular box surrounding earlier works with its outstretched arm.
The Hellenistic period is the last period in Classical Greek art, stretching from the death of Alexander the Great to the conquest of Egypt and the death of Cleopatra several centuries later. Like earlier periods, the political climate had an effect on art. Alexander’s conquests in the East had introduced many different cultures to the Greeks, making the Hellenistic world very cosmopolitan. Hellenistic art was as a result even more dramatic and emotional than Late Classical art. An emphasis on the unconscious at the expense of the rational and alert was also common. The Hellenistic work I choose was Sleeping Satyr. At 7’11” high and sculpted around 230 BCE, the work exemplifies many of the characteristics of the Hellenistic age. It is blatantly sexual and erotic, as can be seen by his spread legs revealing his genitals. The Hellenistic interest in the unconscious and sleep can be seen in the drunken stupor the satyr is in.This is an essay for my AP Art History regarding some art pieces I enacted in class. I am supposed to explain each statue in detail and explain the circumstances for why they are like that.
Its a lot larger than it looks as the teacher asked for it to be double-spaced.
Hammer & Sickle - Karacharovo
And I drank it strait down.
Even though I am a bit late to the party, I'd like to give some feedback.
Kouros was a general term for male nude statues done in a late Deadalic style. There was not one statue that was called 'Kouros', though it is a class of statues that exhibit similar features. They share the same pose, the shoulder rigid and symmetircal, while the left foot is planted firmly in front of the body. The arms show no momentum or movement and hang lifelessly by the figure's side. The hair is very stylised, again featuring eastern influences, tied with a bow at the back. Later on during the Archaic period some limited facial expression was introduced, this was, like the hair, stylised and has come to be known as the Archaic smile. The anatomy of the figure is another stylised feature, there is a limited attempt to show naturalistic musculature, but this is not follow through in the entirety of the sculpture. There was a gradual evolution from stylised features to more naturalistic and a 'severe' style. This can be seen in the differences between the two most famous Kouroi, the early New York Kouros, and the later, nearly Classical, Kritios Boy.
Specifically note the difference in pose. While the New York Kouros is rigid, and shows no naturalistic movement or weight, the Kritios Boy leans slightly on his right leg, and that is shown in the anatomy of his abdomen, and the asymmetry of his shoulders.
Last edited by Junius; November 11, 2009 at 10:14 AM.
Proud to be under the patronage of Calvin.
Patron of Lysimachus
Hello everyone. I don't need any help as my paper is already done and turned in. I just need some opinions on it since it seems like there are some experts around here. Now, my paper is about the fall of Rome and that internal and external forces both contributed to its demise. The reason for saying it was both was that in class we have a book where you take a side stating yes such n so did that or no they didn't. So, I said it was both . Anyways, this is my first serious research paper with notes, sources, all that jazz. Granted it's obviously nothing perfect (most likely grammar was/is a bit befuddled). I just want opinions on my argument, use of the sources, structure of the paper, etc. I don't need grammar check unless it jumps out and slaps your face. It's my first time covering Rome as well. The paper is 8 pages double-spaced (was supposed to be 3-5 but I couldn't help myself ), this basically means it's well... short. If someone is willing to read it I'd greatly appreciate it
IIRC Louis XIV needed Versailles primarily to keep control of his noblemen. France had some very powerful families that the king needed to balance between, he couldn't simply order people around but had to check if he didn't harm relations with any of these important dynasties. French nobility was still largely independent in this time, so by forcing the nobility to Versailles and follow his rules (ceremonies were very important) he could keep an eye on them so they did not suddenly rebel, and instead of plotting against the king together they had to compete for the king's attention at his ceremonies. Apart from that with the nobility close it was also easier to appease them and cooperate.
Originally Posted by Seneca
thanks Lysimachos11. essay done. also added a bit in about having his ministers near him. got one for my other history one though wich i have no idea about. 'british relationships where still strong with the colonies in 1763 (end of 7 years war). how far do you agree with this statement. i missed that lesson entirely so only have a text book wich isnt realy detailed enough for 4 level. again i dont need any writing or anything. just a list of reasons. thanks everyone. p.s. Lysimachos11 i repped you
Professor Miranda Green for example has written several books on the Celts including Celtic Myths; The World of the Druids; Celtic Goddesses; warriors, virgins and mothers; Exploring the World of the Druids; Dictionary of Celtic Myth and Legend; Celtic Art; Symbols and Imagery and The Celts.
Last edited by Didz; December 03, 2009 at 07:03 AM.