Atef is the white crown worn by many gods in ancient Egyptian mythology, including the pharaohs. Although worn by deities like Ra, Sobek, Thoth, and Heryshaf, the Atef crown is primarily associated with the god of death, Osiris, and it also symbolizes Osiris’ rule over both the earthly realm and the underworld.
The Atef crown is a combination of the white crown Hedjet with two bunches of ostrich feathers curled round on each side. These feathers represent justice, equality, and truth.
Atef has various variations. From the era of the New Kingdom, sometimes a sun disk appears on top of the crown. In front of the crown, it is often adorned with a pair of horns (either from a bull or a ram) accompanied by a sun disk in the middle. Additionally, on the pair of horns, two Uraeus serpents also wear the sun disk.Thoth wearing the Atef in an illustration of the Egyptian Pantheon (1823-1825) by Léon Jean Joseph Dubois (1780-1846).
Sahure was the first pharaoh to wear this Atef crown (5th Dynasty). During the Amarna period, during the reign of Akhenaten, the traditional Atef crown was replaced by the Hemhem crown, with three Hedjets joined together and decorated like the Atef. The sun disk on top of the crown was sometimes replaced with an image of a vulture.
Description
Between the two ostrich feathers lies a white surface of the crown resembling an elongated bulb. The ostrich feathers, lush at the base, form a small curl at the top. Similar single feathers were worn by the goddess of wisdom, Maat. The feathers of the Atef crown are somewhat reminiscent of falcon tail feathers; they also resemble the feathers of the Amun crown, except narrower and straighter, without curling at the top.
” class=”wp-image-50192″/>Profile of Pharaoh Philip III, Karnak.
Osiris can be recognized by the Atef crown in ancient Egyptian frescoes. The Atef crown on Osiris’ head symbolizes his dominion over the afterlife. The feathers symbolize truth, justice, and balance. In appearance, the Atef crown resembles the Hedjet crown worn by the pharaohs of Upper Egypt. The difference between the two crowns is that the Hedjet crown lacked feathers on the sides.
The Hemhem crown is also known as the “triple Atef crown.”
Mythological Connections
In ancient Egypt, the Atef crown was the symbol of the rule of various kings (pharaohs) and deities, such as Khnum, Osiris, Horus, and the child Horus. In the Book of the Dead, it is said that Osiris received the crown of Atef as a sign of his earthly reign.
In addition, since the Atef crown symbolized the rule of Upper and Lower Egypt, it could also replace the double crown (Pschent: The Red and White Crown of Pharaohs) on certain occasions.
The basic version of the Atef crown is a combination of the white crown of the south (one part of the Pschent crown) with a Maat ostrich feather on each side, optionally supplemented with two ram’s horns or, as has been the case since the New Kingdom, with uraeas and sun discs. It is very similar in structure and appearance to the Osiris crown.
The Atef is the crown worn by the god Heryshaf and sometimes by Osiris, as well as by the Pharaoh during certain rituals. It is the attribute of the mythical bird Bennu, representing the soul of Ra. It consists of a central striped mitre, topped by a disk and flanked by two ostrich feathers.
A solar disk is at the base and center of the mitre, and two horizontal ram horns are often added. The crown also represents the hieroglyph S8 from Gardiner’s list, “ȝtf”.
The Pschent is the dual crown of the ancient Egyptian king (pharaoh). Ancient Egyptians typically likened it to the Sekhem scepter, considering them the two items that best represent the pharaoh’s power. Pschent is a combination of the Red Crown of Lower Egypt (Deshret) and the White Crown of Upper Egypt (Hedjet).
The merging of the Red and White Crowns into one symbolizes the unity of Upper and Lower Egypt, symbolizing the pharaoh’s authority over the entire land. Adorning the Pschent are symbols of two animals: a coiled Egyptian cobra ready to strike, representing the protective goddess Wadjet of Lower Egypt, and an Egyptian vulture, symbolizing the protective goddess Nekhbet of Upper Egypt. These two animal symbols are fastened to the front of the Pschent, representing the “Two Ladies” of Upper and Lower Egypt (Wadjet and Nekhbet).
History and Archaeology
Pschent Atum.
Traditionally, the invention of the Pschent is credited to Menes, the founder of the First Dynasty of Egypt, but the first depiction of someone wearing the Pschent wasn’t by Menes. It’s suggested that the first person depicted wearing the Pschent was Djet, who, like Menes, was a pharaoh of the First Dynasty. Evidence of Horus wearing the Double Crown representing his royal authority was found in inscriptions attributed to him. Another theory suggests that the first person to wear the Pschent was Djet’s son Den.
The list of Egyptian kings depicted on the Palermo Stone begins with the kings of Lower Egypt, who are now believed to be semi-divine figures from Egyptian mythology and only wear the Red Crown, indicating that initially Upper and Lower Egypt were not yet unified. However, the kings of the First Dynasty and those that followed, depicted on the king list, all wear the Pschent, indicating the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt during the First Dynasty.
No surviving Pschent has been found in archaeological excavations; it only appears in sculptures, paintings, inscriptions, and ancient legends.
The material for the Red Crown was found in Nekhbet in Upper Egypt, while the material for the White Crown, whether the Scorpion Macehead or the Narmer Palette that followed it closely in time, was also found in Hierakonpolis in Upper Egypt. Therefore, archaeologists believe that the Pschent (both the red and white crown) originated in Upper Egypt and that the notion that the Red Crown represents Lower Egypt is a later tradition. E.J. Baumgart’s conclusion is that “…the indigenous Egyptian tradition is so strong that a legitimate king had to adopt ancient titles and emblems, and all titles and emblems have their origins in Upper Egypt, and in this early period, what came from Lower Egypt couldn’t compare with it.”
Mythology
In Egyptian mythology, Horus and Atum are sometimes depicted wearing the Pschent; they are both symbols of the pharaoh or have a special connection to the pharaoh.
The Unification of Upper and Lower Egypt refers to the emergence or reunification of the Pharaonic central state. The history of Ancient Egypt knows three such events: the initial formation of the state in the predynastic period, attributed to the first Pharaoh Menes, the reunification by Mentuhotep II during the civil war at the end of the First Intermediate Period, and the reconquest of Lower Egypt by Pharaoh Ahmose at the end of the Second Intermediate Period.
Iconography
Iconographically, the union is represented by the symbolic plants of Upper and Lower Egypt, the lotus and the papyrus, which are either wrapped around the trachea or artery of an animal by Horus and Seth or by two Hapi figures. Other symbols of the union are the bee and the bulrush, as well as the gods Wadjet and Nechbet in the royal titulary.
Very few records survive from this period, so very little is really known about unification, but we do know that it happened sometime at the beginning of the third millennium BC, when the king of Upper Egypt invaded and occupied Lower Egypt.
The unified ruler of the two kingdoms bore the title of pharaoh. From a religious point of view, it is important that all of Egypt worshiped Pharaohas a falcon-God Incarnation of Horus. Thus, the title of pharaoh could have been held by a unified ruler over the two countries, and Menes is known to have been the first pharaoh in Egypt, but according to other sources, the name of the first pharaoh is Narmer. Many scientists believe that these two names mean the same person.
Narmer
There is debate among historians about who the unifying warrior king was. There is an argument that the second king of the First Dynasty is Hor-Aha. Others claim that only the last king of the Second Dynasty is Hasehemui, since the empire was not really united, it only became so during his reign, but this is contradicted by the fact that even before him, a king was depicted wearing the unified crown.
According to the Narmer palette, it is clear that Narmer, the first king of the First Dynasty (3150 BC – 2613 BC), already wore the unified crown, so it is generally accepted that the unification took place during his reign.
First Unification
The Three Unifiers of the Empire Menes, Mentuhotep II. and Ahmose I; Depiction of Ramses II in the Ramesseum, west wall.
The first unification of Upper and Lower Egypt is mostly attributed to Menes, who ruled as king around 2980 BC. However, the assessment as the “first unifier of the empire” is unhistorical, as his predecessors already understood themselves as rulers of Upper and Lower Egypt within the framework of the unification festival. The designations of Shemu for “Upper Egypt” and Mehu for “Lower Egypt” were first attested under King Iri in the predynastic period.
Regarding the first unification of the two parts of the country, Upper and Lower Egypt, reference is often made to the time of Menes and Narmer, although it is not yet certain whether Menes is Narmer or Aha. The main source for this is the Narmer Palette, with some Egyptologists interpreting the iconographic motif of “striking the enemy” in Lower Egypt and attributing Narmer as the “conqueror of the enemy” in Upper Egypt. However, it remains unclear whether Narmer achieved a victory over all of Lower Egypt or only over some regions. It is also not certain whether Menes was the first unifier or whether similar unions occurred before. Furthermore, the exact boundaries at that time were disputed, making it impossible to precisely assign the former parts of the country.
For example, Wolfgang Helck refers to archaeological finds in connection with the Horus processions, suggesting that documented exchange deliveries speak to the existence of a centrally governed Egypt even before Narmer. Vessel inscriptions and clay engravings from Girga, Tarchan, and Abydos are among the earliest evidences of trade exchange. Whether these exchanges were trade relations or served as the basis for rituals cannot be determined due to the lack of textual sources. Most of these vessel inscriptions are made of black ink and were subsequently burned. Jochem Kahl also sees the exchanged objects closely linked to the Horus processions as symbolic gifts from the king, associated with ceremonies rewarding high dignitaries. Two picture tablets found in Naqada suggest a connection with festival activities during this ceremony. Thus, the king appeared in front of his palace on the so-called Menes tablet to inspect the deliveries made.
As a rationale for earlier assumptions of Menes as the “first unifier of the empire,” Wolfgang Helck cites the first appearance of documented annals. Additionally, the field of Egyptology has debated whether the unification was achieved peacefully or violently and whether there was even “one unification” at all. The contents of ancient Egyptian sources, pointing to a longer period during which numerous unifications took place, argue against a single act of unification. Thus, there was no central, singular unification. Rather, the merging of both parts of the country took place over several centuries and stages until the Middle Kingdom, marked by intermittent separations.
Execution of the Unifications
Recent research shows that the unifications were not accomplished through military conquests, although occasional military conflicts occurred. For example, the previously often assumed connection between the total number of captives under Narmer in connection with a military conflict can no longer be maintained. An army size of more than 100,000 individuals cannot be evidenced in the Old Kingdom, so Narmer probably counted all inhabitants of a region and then referred to them as “rebels” (“sbj.w”) through the determinative; furthermore, there was no differentiation between men and women. Thus, “Narmer Macehead” describes the overall peaceful takeover of a larger region, simultaneously possessing the character of a census.
In the early phase of the unifications, the number of counted “rebels” in relation to the concurrently mentioned livestock proved notable. Mostly, this ratio during the Predynastic and Old Kingdom periods was about 1:3; in the New Kingdom, it increased to 1:10. The recorded figures under Sneferu represent one of the few exceptions. Usually, the listed tribute payments from regions outside the actual core territory serve as the basis for the mentioned figures. The change in the ratio suggests that in the early phase of unification, larger areas gradually became part of the actual dominion. Additionally, a change in lifestyle as a result of sedentarization is seen as a complementary possibility in this context.
After the death of the last pharaoh of the 6th Dynasty, Pepi II, the Old Kingdom collapsed in the First Intermediate Period along its regional borders into a multitude of regional states. After a century-long civil war, the Theban king Mentuhotep II succeeded in his 14th year of reign in conquering the competing regional state around Heracleopolis and restoring the unity of Egypt in the Middle Kingdom.
Third Unification of Egypt
As a result of the invasions by the Hyksos and Kushites, Pharaonic rule in the Second Intermediate Period was pushed back to a third of its previous territory. Over time, the kings residing in Thebes reconquered the land, with Ahmose I, the founder of the 18th Dynasty, achieving the final expulsion of the Hyksos and the restoration of Egyptian great power status.
Rackham Red, known to Tintin fans as the hero of “The Secret of the Unicorn,” is not a completely fictional character! This pirate, known as Jack Rackham, roamed the seas of Jamaica aboard the Revenge in the company of the two most notorious pirates in buccaneering history: Anne Bonny and Mary Read! An epic legend that has nothing to envy from the “Pirates of the Caribbean” quadrilogy, which indeed uses Rackham’s standard (two crossed swords topped with a skull) to fly at the mainmast of the Black Pearl.
Hergé’s Rackham Red
The Secret of the Unicorn.Red Rackham’s Treasure
Rackham Red is a character who appears in two works by Hergé: ‘The Secret of the Unicorn’ and ‘Red Rackham’s Treasure.’ In 1698, the pirate allegedly seized the Unicorn, the ship of Knight François de Hadoque (ancestor of Captain Haddock), who managed to escape while scuttling his ship, which sank body and soul.
But if Rackham never sank with the Unicorn, it is undeniable that the pirate did indeed exist!
The Mutineers of the Neptune
Jack Rackham, also known as Calico Jack, was an actual pirate from the 18th century who served as a major inspiration for Rackham Red. This nickname ‘calico’ likely originated from the colorful clothes he wore, which were made of calico, a coarse cotton fabric. Jack, not Sparrow, but Rackham, is rumored to have been the helmsman on the British ship The Neptune. The captain of the latter refused to engage in battle with a French ship, leading to a crew mutiny, with Jack assuming control of the Neptune.
As the new master on board, Jack pursued the French ship and successfully boarded it! Basking in the glory of this initial triumph and hailed by the crew who had just plundered the defeated vessel, Jack proposed that the sailors break free from British rule and sail for their own gain. In other words, he invited them to become pirates! The idea was met with approval, but could it have been otherwise, considering the mutineers faced death sentences?
Impossible Love and the Return of the Black Flag
Anne Bonny and Mary Read. An engraving from the book “A General History of the Pyrates” 1724.
Jack eventually accepts a royal pardon (the governor’s clever way of getting rid of pirates) and settles in the Bahamas, where he meets Anne Bonny, a young married woman with whom he carries on an adulterous relationship. A dangerous liaison indeed, as her husband happens to be James Bonny, himself a pirate.
When the betrayal is uncovered, Anne is sentenced to flogging, and Jack flees with her, gathers a crew, and sets sail again aboard a sloop, the Revenge. Of course, having a woman on board a ship wouldn’t sit well with everyone, far from it, which is why Anne disguises herself and takes the name Adam Bonny. Fighting alongside other sea wolves, Anne becomes one of the great female figures of piracy.
Jack isn’t done with surprises concerning his sea she-wolves. He unknowingly recruits another cross-dresser: Mary Read! Anne and Mary allegedly had a homosexual relationship, but as with everything related to piracy, it’s difficult to discern what’s historical fact, legend, or fantasy. When Jack supposedly discovered Mary’s femininity, the two women allegedly continued to live together as a couple. Initially, Jack and his Amazons spread terror in the warm seas; ships are seized, and the booty piles up in the holds. So much so that the Governor of Jamaica eventually launched a major operation to crush these buccaneers.
But Jack’s young she-wolves wield their blades and charms equally; it’s said that Mary would expose her intimacy before dispatching a man. Anne, on the other hand, allegedly managed to seduce the captain of the Royal Queen (which belonged to her ex-husband) to infiltrate the ship and prime the cannon fuses overnight, allowing the pirates to seize it without resistance the next day.
The End of Jack Rackham
A woodcut of Rackham from Charles Johnson’s 1725 edition of A General History of the Pyrates.
Captain Barnet and his men successfully captured the pirates in October 1720. It is rumored that the pirates offered little resistance, possibly due to their advanced state of drunkenness. The sight saddened two women who futilely attempted to encourage the crew to fight, resulting in several wounded comrades, including Jack.
Ultimately, after fierce resistance, the pirates were apprehended and avoided hanging only by feigning pregnancy. Mary succumbed in prison, either from a miscarriage or yellow fever, in 1721. Anne, reportedly pardoned, left her fate open to speculation; whether she returned to her first husband, remarried, or resumed piracy under a different alias remains unknown.
Jack and the remaining crew were transferred on November 16, 1720, to Spanish Town (Jamaica), where they faced trial and were hanged the following day.
Hercules at the Crossroads (Italian Ercole al bivio, Choice of Hercules) — an allegorical plot depicting the hesitations of the ancient hero Hercules between two life destinies — Virtue (Greek αρετε, κακια, Latin virtus), a difficult path leading to glory, and Vice (Greek ηδονή, Latin voluptas), a seemingly easy and attractive path. The expression “Hercules at the crossroads” is applied to a person who struggles to choose between two decisions, one of which is clearly right, while the other is pleasant.
Origins of Iconography
This story was first told by the Greek sophist Prodicus in his speech but has come down to us in the retelling of Socrates, recorded by Xenophon (“Memorabilia of Socrates,” II, 1, 21-34). Prodicus allegorically presented the problem of choice that every person faces at the beginning of their life’s journey, choosing the famous hero as the protagonist of his allegory for greater clarity. An important innovation he introduced into the plot was Prodicus speaking of human free will in choosing one’s life, whereas according to myths, Hercules’ fate was already predetermined by his father at birth — to become a hero.
It should be clarified that this plot is not an ancient Greek myth and does not belong to the list of episodes from the life of Hercules. Although it is placed in a specific period of his life — early service to Eurystheus — it is not justified in ancient sources and is a later invention.
This is further mentioned, in particular, by Cicero in his treatise “On Duties” (I. 118). From a simple episode in Xenophon’s dialogues, the plot, finding parallels in “Scipio’s Dream” from Cicero’s work and Punica by Silius Italicus, where two similar female figures appear, turns into a rich and densely complicated philosophical allegory. Barrell points out that this choice is not just between Virtue and Vice, but between civic, public virtues and personal, private vices (in particular, neglect of civic duty).
Hercules at the Crossroads: Painting by Girolamo Benvenuto, late 15th century.
Interpretations and Studies in the Modern Era
In the Renaissance era, Petrarch created the artistic image of a Christianized Hercules, pondering the choice of life path, in his treatise “De vita solitaria.” In the Renaissance era, the choice of Hercules becomes a symbol of spiritual struggle, “psychomachia,” through which the ancient hero evolves into a wandering knight, and finally into an allegory of Christ. Matteo Palmieri (1406-1475) in Libro della vita civile allegorically constructs this choice as oscillations between active prudentia (prudence, primary satisfaction of daily bodily needs) and contemplative sapientia (highest wisdom, born in solitude through reflection on unearthly, higher, divine matters, “heroic melancholy”).
Sebastian Brant in his “Ship of Fools” describes a fool who, unlike Hercules, cannot make the right choice between two roads; also in 1512-13, a play titled “Tugent Spyl” (“The Play of Virtue”) was written on the same subject, published in 1554.
The plot was widely known in the Renaissance, particularly because this ancient Greek text was a classic translation exercise in textbooks. It is often mentioned in Britain. Thomas Bradshaw in “The Shepherds Star” (1591) presents a simplified version of the Choice of Hercules. It is also worth mentioning Ben Jonson’s work “Pleasure reconciled to Virtue” (1619). The Earl of Shaftesbury in 1713 published “Noticion of the historical draught, or Tablature of the Judgment of Hercules…”: it included instructions to the artist Paolo di Matteis, whom he commissioned to paint a picture on this subject (however, it is considered that the artist did not follow them very closely). This text on art emerged in polemics with French artists and theorists, was widely circulated, and was translated into many languages. Robert Dodsley in 1775 published the poem “The Choice of Hercules.”
Erwin Panofsky shed light on the importance of this plot for the art of the 16th-17th centuries in his work “Hercules am Scheidewege” (1930), while Edgar Wind (“Pagan misteries in the Renaissance,” 1967) analyzed this theme in more detail. The connection with Petrarch was explored by Theodor Mommsen in his article “Petrarch and the Story of the Choice of Hercules.” Ludwig Tieck in his “Poetisches Journal,” Jena, 1800, published his play “Der neue Hercules am Scheidewege” (The New Hercules at the Crossroads), which in his collected works bears the title “Author.”
In 1974, the Dutch poet Hans Warren published a poem on this subject.
Description
The hero is usually depicted sitting under a tree. Before him stand two female figures, between whom he must make a choice (cf. the Judgment of Paris). The woman on the right usually personifies Virtue, while the one on the left personifies Vice (sometimes, usually in literary texts, they may embody Athena and Aphrodite/Circe). As the plot goes on, both women present him with enticing pictures of different characters, and Hercules chooses the first of them, (although in the paintings of the late Baroque period, there may be some initial inclination towards vice).
The figure of Virtue is usually dressed, while Vice is naked or has an exposed chest. Vice (Licentiousness) may have the following attributes: a satyr’s panpipe, a tambourine, masks — symbols of deception, playing cards — a symbol of idleness, a whip and shackles — symbols of punishment. Next to Virtue, there may stand a person with a laurel wreath and a book (a poet who will sing the hero), she may be personified as Minerva in military armor and corresponding attributes — Vice, thus, is personified in the likeness of Venus. Above Minerva, Fame may trumpet (or crown the hero with a wreath), or Father Time may gaze from above (symbolizing that the hero will be remembered forever).
Behind the allegorical female figures, landscapes illustrating the plot may unfold. The Path of Virtue is a narrow rocky path leading up to a mountain plateau. There may stand Pegasus (a symbol of glory). The Path of Vice is an easily accessible road leading to sun-drenched valleys with bathing pools where naked people splash about.
In ancient times, this plot, apparently, was not illustrated, but it became very popular in the Renaissance and Baroque eras. Hercules, according to the text, is usually depicted as young and beardless, and may even serve as an allegorical portrait of some distinguished patron or even a self-portrait. There are reworkings of the plot, where not only Hercules is replaced, but also the two alternative paths between which he must choose — for example, Joshua Reynolds made the great actor Garrick hesitate between two theatrical genres, and Angelica Kauffman painted her self-portrait, choosing between two liberal arts (however, the fact that she painted a self-portrait, not a cantata, clearly indicates her life choice).
The concept of hubris, also known as hybris or ubris (in ancient Greek: ὕϐρις / húbris), is a Greek notion most commonly translated as “excessive pride” or “hybris.” It refers to a behavior or intense emotion driven by passions, especially pride and arrogance, as well as an excess of power and the dizziness that arises from excessive success. The Greeks contrasted it with temperance and moderation, which involve self-awareness and an understanding of one’s limitations.
In ancient Greece, from a legal standpoint, Hubris referred to a violent transgressive act considered a crime. This concept covered violations such as assault, sexual aggression, and the theft of public or sacred property. Two well-known examples are the speeches of Demosthenes, Against Midias and Against Conon, which were pleas dealing with public accusations of “outrages” (γραφὴ ὕβρεως / graphḕ húbreōs). Philosophically and morally, it represents the temptation of excess or reckless folly in humans, tempted to rival the gods. In Greek mythology, such actions often led to severe punishments inflicted by the gods.
Mythology
In Greek mythology, Hybris is an allegorical deity personifying hubris. According to Aeschylus, her mother is Dyssebeia (Impropriety), while Hyginus places her among the children of Night and Erebus.
In Aesop’s fable “The War and His Bride,” recounted by Babrius and indexed as 367 in Perry’s Index, it tells how Polémos, personification of War, drew Hybris as his wife in a marriage lottery. He loves her so much that they are now inseparable. Babrius warns, “Let Hybris never come among the nations or cities of men, finding favor with the crowd, for after her, War will be at hand.”
Some manuscripts of the Library of Pseudo-Apollodorus mention her amorous involvement with Zeus, making her the mother of the god Pan. However, this may result from a misreading of the name of the Arcadian nymph Thymbris. More commonly, Pindar attributes Hybris’s son to Coros, the god personifying Satiety.
Hybris is accompanied by Anaideia, personification of lack of pity and mercy.
The Nature of Hubris
The ancient Greek religion lacked the concept of sin as conceived in Christianity. Indeed, the Greeks did not envision that a god would be concerned with what they thought in the secrecy of their souls: “No teaching, no doctrine capable of giving this affective participation of a moment enough cohesion, consistency, and duration to direct it towards a religion of the soul.”
Nevertheless, hubris remains the fundamental fault in this civilization. It is related to the notion of moira, a Greek term meaning, among other things, “destiny.” The ancients conceived destiny in terms of a division. Destiny is the lot—the share of happiness or misfortune, fortune or misfortune, life or death—that falls to each individual based on their social rank, relationships with gods, and fellow humans. The person who commits hubris is guilty of desiring more than the share allocated to them by destiny’s division. Excess refers to the desire for more than what the just measure of destiny has assigned.
The punishment for hubris, by the gods, is nemesis, which forces the individual to retract within the limits they have exceeded. Herodotus makes this clear in a significant passage:
“Look at animals that are exceptionally large: the sky strikes them with lightning and does not let them enjoy their superiority; but the small ones do not provoke its jealousy. Look at the tallest houses and the trees too: lightning descends upon them, for the sky always lowers what exceeds the measure.”
If hubris is the wrongful movement of exceeding the limit, nemesis signifies the opposite movement of vengeful retraction. Hubris is not limited to characters from mythology, the realm of imagination, or tragic heroes; it was also the fault of real individuals. Socrates accuses Alcibiades of it in Plato’s writings, and Plato discusses it in “The Symposium,” where hubris is considered a characteristic flaw of youth. In Homer’s archaic social organization, when there is a murder, the family or close associates of the deceased personally pursue the accused.
However, the accused can involve their clan and request the abandonment of charges by paying a ransom known as the “blood price.” In his treatise “Laws,” Theophrastus mentions two types of justice altars in Athens: Altars of Vengeance and Altars of Injury, essentially untailored stones serving as platforms in front of the Areopagus. The accuser’s altar was called the “stone of implacability” (ἀναιδεία / anaideía), meaning that of unyielding vengeance that refuses to accept the blood price (αἰδεῖσθαι / aideîsthai, “to have pity”). The accused’s altar was called the “stone of hubris,” meaning the pride that leads to crime.
Literature and Morality
Mythology is replete with tales featuring characters punished for their hubris towards the gods, seen as undue divinization. Figures like Tantalus, Minos, Atreus, and others are all cursed for this reason. In Hesiod’s “Works and Days,” the various races of men (bronze, iron, etc.) that succeed each other are likewise condemned for their hubris. In a sense, Agamemnon’s transgression in the first book of the Iliad can be considered hubris, as he deprives Achilles of the rightful share of booty that should rightfully be his.
In this excerpt from Aristotle, hubris is translated as “outrage”:
“V. He who outrages despises. Indeed, outrage is the act of mistreating and afflicting concerning circumstances that cause shame to the victim, not for the purpose of obtaining something else but to derive enjoyment from it. Those who seek revenge do not commit an outrage but an act of vengeance.
VI. The cause of the pleasure felt by those who commit outrages is that they believe they gain an additional advantage over those they harm.
That’s why young people and the wealthy tend towards insolence. They think their insults give them superiority. Linked to outrage is the act of dishonoring, for one who dishonors despises, and what has no value is not subject to any estimation, neither good nor bad. Hence Achilles’ angry words: ‘He has dishonored me, for by taking her (Briseis) he has stolen the honor that was mine,’ and this one: ‘Like a base outcast…’ These expressions provoke his anger.”
Hubris is often seen as the hamartia (ἁμαρτία / hamartía, “error,” i.e., folly) of characters in Greek tragedies and the cause of the nemesis that befalls them. Albert Camus illustrates this clearly regarding Xerxes in his essay “The Rebel”: “The Ancients, if they believed in fate, believed first in nature, in which they participated. To rebel against nature is to rebel against oneself. […] The height of excess for a Greek is to flog the sea, the folly of a barbarian. The Greeks depict excess, acknowledging its existence, but they assign it its place and thereby a limit.
” However, tragedies represent only a small portion of hubris in Greek literature, and generally, hubris occurs through interactions among mortals. Consequently, it is commonly accepted that the Greeks did not view hubris religiously and even less so as something typically punished by the gods.
The concept of hubris as a fault shapes the Greeks’ morality as one of moderation, temperance, and sobriety, following the maxim pan metron (in ancient Greek: πᾶν μέτρον, literally meaning “measure in everything,” i.e., “never too much” and “always enough”). Humans must remain aware of their place in the universe, considering both their social rank in a hierarchical society and their mortality in the face of immortal gods.
Other Related Myths
The myth of Prometheus
The myth of Icarus
The myth of Lucifer
The myth of Bellerophon
The myth of Arachne
The myth of Niobe
Myths related to the underworld: Tantalus and Sisyphus
The myth of Oedipus
The myth of Iblis
The myth of the Golem
The myth of Laomedon, king of Troy
The myth of Babylon
Modern Usage
In French media, this term is often used to refer to the excessive pride of a leader (political or otherwise). According to historian Vincent Azoulay, this trend may stem from its widespread use in the Anglo-Saxon press for many years.
Proclus Diadochus (Ancient Greek: Πρόκλος ὁ Διάδοχος, Latin: Proclus; February 8, 412, New Rome – April 17, 485, Athens) was an ancient philosopher-neoplatonist, the head of the Platonic Academy, during which neoplatonism reached its culmination.
An Overview of His Life
Proclus’ lifetime is reconstructed from sources as approximately 410–485 AD. His biographer, Marin, provides his horoscope, and based on astronomical data, Proclus’s birthdate is determined as February 8, 412 AD.
Proclus was born in the capital of the Roman Empire, Constantinople, into a wealthy family with a lawyer father from Xanthos. Intending to follow in his father’s footsteps, as a teenager, he traveled to Alexandria, where he initially studied rhetoric and later became interested in philosophy, becoming a disciple of the Alexandrian neoplatonist Olympiodorus the Elder. Under Olympiodorus, Proclus began studying Aristotle’s logical treatises, achieving success at that time, as reported by Marin.
At the age of 20, Proclus moved to Athens, where Plutarch of Athens was leading the Platonic Academy. Plutarch, despite his advanced age, personally engaged with Proclus, studying Aristotle’s “On the Soul” and Plato’s “Phaedo” with him. After two years, Plutarch passed away, handing over the leadership of the school to his student Syrianus, under whom Proclus continued his education.
Marin reports that by the age of 28, Proclus had written one of his major works, a commentary on Plato’s “Timaeus.” Around 450 AD, after Syrianus’s death, Proclus became the scholarch of the Platonic Academy.
Proclus lived during the decline of ancient Greek civilization. Pagan cults were waning due to the rise of Christianity. During this time, the famous statue of Athena by Phidias was removed from the Parthenon, an act perceived as sacrilege by Proclus. In a polemic with Christians, Proclus actively participated, reportedly writing “Arguments Against Christians” in 18 books (the work did not survive). At some point, the conflict between Christians and academics became so intense that Proclus was forced to leave Athens for Lydia for a year.
During his journey through Asia, Proclus encountered some Eastern teachings, which he synthesized into his own system. Religious practices, sun prayers, rituals, and orphic and Chaldean purifications became integral to the educational process at the Academy. Marin notes that Proclus spent “days and nights” in prayer, orphic and Chaldean purifications, and the performance of “various other religious rites.”
In his personal life, Proclus adhered to ascetic principles: he remained unmarried, abstained from meat, and observed fasting according to the guidance of gods revealed in his dreams. According to Marin, excessive asceticism contributed to his relatively early death: “His flourishing body withered from coarse and unbearable food, frequent ablutions, and similar discomforts.” Proclus was not a stranger to public activities; he participated in city assemblies.
He passed away in Athens at the age of 73, leaving Marin as his successor. He was buried in Athens in the same tomb as his teacher, Syrianus.
Works
Proclus’ major philosophical works focus on the consideration of the highest principles of existence and the affirmation of neoplatonism as a theological doctrine. In the treatise “Elements of Theology” (Στοιχείωσις θεολογική), Proclus presents the doctrine of suprasensible principles. The treatise consists of 211 paragraphs, each formulating and then asserting a certain proof.
“Platonic Theology” (Περὶ τῆς κατὰ Πλάτωνα θεολογίας) is a comprehensive work in which Proclus develops the doctrine of the highest principles and gods, citing numerous quotations from Plato to confirm that such a system already existed in Plato’s own teachings and that all of Plato’s works represent a unified sacred text.
Among the numerous commentaries by Proclus on Plato’s dialogues, only five have survived: “Timaeus” (Marin notes that Proclus valued this commentary above all others), “Parmenides,” “The Republic,” “Alcibiades I,” and partially “Cratylus.” Commentaries on “Philebus,” “Theaetetus,” “Sophist,” and “Phaedo” are entirely lost. A part of Proclus’ commentary on Plotinus’ “Enneads” has also survived. All commentaries on Aristotle are lost, but it is known that Proclus interpreted “Categories,” “On Interpretation,” and the First and Second Analytics.
Three small philosophical treatises by Proclus — “On Ten Doubts Concerning Providence,” “On Providence, Fate, and That Which Is Within Us,” and “On the Substances of Evil” — have survived only in the Latin translation by William of Moerbeke (13th century).
In the brief treatise “Elements of Physics” (Στοιχείωσις φυσική), a series of definitions and theorems present Aristotle’s physical system.
His astronomical works include a short treatise of elementary content called “Sphere” (Σφαῖρα), a concise “Outline of Astronomical Hypotheses” (Ὑποτύπωσις ἀστρονομικῶν ὑποθέσεων), a “Retelling of Ptolemy’s ‘Tetrabiblos’” and the book “On Eclipses,” preserved only in Latin translation.
Among Proclus’ mathematical works, the “Commentary on Book I of Euclid’s ‘Elements’” has been entirely preserved. Additionally, Proclus wrote a separate work on parallel lines, which has not survived.
From his religious and magical writings, “Eclogues from Chaldean Philosophy” (Ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς Χαλδαϊκῆς φιλοσοφίας) and the book “On the Hieratic Art of the Greeks” (Περὶ τῆς καθ’ Ἕλληνας ἱερατικῆς τέχνης) have come down to us. Seven hymns to the gods have also survived: to Helios, Aphrodite, the Muses, all the gods, the Lycian Aphrodite, Hecate and Janus, and the wise Athena. These hymns, written in Homeric hexameter, draw attention to orphic content, calling on the gods to “help us avoid the black evil of births.” Such is the hymn addressed to the Muses.
We praise the light, uplifting the sorrow of mortals, singing The nine daughters of the great Zeus with beautiful voices! The souls of people, having filled their lives, plunge into the depths, They can deliver from sorrows inherent to the earthly realm, By the power of pure mystery, awakening the mind with a magical book, They teach us how to swiftly traverse through the deep Lethe, Finding the path leading to a star of the same name — for once, They deviated from it and fell onto the shore of births In a mad thirst to experience the fate of material life. Now, goddesses, I implore you — calm my anxious impulse! Intoxicate me with meaningful tales of the wise! May the godless human race not derail me from the path, From the wondrous, sacred path, radiant and full of fruits! Muses, I pray — from the multitude of the sinful human race, Eternally draw the wandering soul towards the sacred light! Let the honey of your words weigh upon her, strengthening reason, The soul whose glory lies in the enchanting virtue of the mind.
Proclus’ known works that have not survived include:
“Arguments Against Christians” (Ἐπιχειρήματα κατὰ χριστιανῶν) in 18 books,
“On Chrestomathy” (Περὶ χρηστομαθείας) in 2 books,
“On Education” (Περὶ ἀγωγῆς) in 2 books,
“On the Gods in Homer” (Περὶ τῶν παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ θεῶν),
“On the Theology of Orpheus” (Εἰς τὴν Ὀρφέως θεολογίαν),
“Harmony of Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Plato with the Oracles” (Συμφωνία Ὀρφέως, Πυθαγόρου, Πλάτωνος περὶ τὰ λόγια) in 10 books,
“On the Great Mother” (Μητρῳακόν),
“Commentaries on the Whole of Homer,”
“Commentaries on Hesiod’s ‘Works and Days.’”
Teaching on Being
To overview Proclus’ philosophy, it is expedient to turn to his “Elements of Theology” since this treatise succinctly presents the system of neoplatonism in general.
The hierarchy of the Universe, according to Proclus, is constructed based on the scheme of Plato’s “Parmenides”: the supra-being One (also known as the Good and God); next are the henads – supra-being units or gods to whom existing gods, or intellects, are related, representing the intellectual Being that synthetically unites the principles of limit and the limitless.
Being and the intelligible gods are opposed to Mind (Nous) and thinking gods, linked to intellective gods through intellective-thinking gods. The supra-cosmic gods and thinking souls are connected to the intellective gods. The next level is the Cosmic Soul, distinguishing within it: intra-cosmic gods, universal souls, demonic “simple souls”: angels, demons in their own sense, and heroes.
Further down are “partial souls” that animate bodies, including the human soul. At the lowest level, there are inanimate bodies.
In this hierarchical structure, Proclus naturally includes traditional Olympic gods, organizing them into triads and classifying them as transcendent and cosmic. “Nature” mediates between bodies and souls, being bodiless but inseparable from the unconscious forces of bodies, identical to the force of fate. The lowest ontological level, though derived from the highest, is matter.
The treatise establishes the following “canonical” sequence:
The One and the Many (in their statics, their transition, their organic fusion, resulting in actual infinity).
Numbers or gods (provides the definition of numbers and the classification of gods, meaning Proclus’ teaching on supra-mental numbers is simultaneously a teaching on gods; each number Proclus calls a god).
Mind (provides the definition of Mind and its limitation “from above and below”; establishes the self-identity difference of Mind and explores the hierarchy of Mind in relation to its universality).
Soul (provides the definition of the soul, its properties, and types; describes the rotation and hierarchy of souls; determines the carrier of the soul).
Cosmos (provides the definition of the Cosmos as the material realization of the three basic hypostases of neoplatonism).
The One is considered by Proclus as 1) being self-existent, without any multiplicity and before [any] multiplicity; then as 2) the One in which multiplicity has already originated, but in itself, it remains a simple and indivisible meaning of this multiplicity; and finally, as 3) the actual unity of the One and the Many, in which there is not only meaning but also the enumerability of all its components.
A possible key to understanding the One according to Proclus, as well as understanding Proclus’ philosophy in general, is the “Law of Triad”:
The Law of Triad, according to which every being is a limit, the limitless, and a mixture in different proportions of both, is valid not only for the highest hypostases but also for the soul, physical and mathematical objects—in short, for everything without exception… According to Proclus, all levels of reality, from the bodiless to the corporeal, are composed of two essential components: 1) the limit, peras, and the limitless, apeiron, or the infinite, which relates to both form and matter. Every being, as a consequence, is a “mixture,” a synthesis of the two components (this thesis, evidently, is borrowed by Proclus from Plato’s “Philebus” and his unwritten doctrines).
Following the One, Numbers, “supra-being units,” are examined. They are superior to being since they are the principle of being itself and its differentiation. They are also superior to thought because they are the principle of every division and union, without which thought cannot be realized. Number, thus, occupying the first place after the One, is a dissecting and uniting “creative force.”
Proclus’ development of the realm of Numbers, intermediate between the One and Mind, should be particularly emphasized. The clear delineation of the realm of Numbers is unique to Proclus.
Every abstract number, being incorporeal, surpasses every object and thing, in this respect entirely analogous to the One. It is also, being the principle of every differentiation and formation, entirely analogous to Mind. Thus, Numbers are intermediary entities between the incorporeal One and the qualitative Mind.
The realm of Mind begins with being as the first qualitative fulfillment of numbers. Then follows the domain of the energetic fulfillment of being itself, which Proclus calls life. Life, comparing itself with itself, gives us proper thought and knowledge. Thus, the realm of Mind is constituted by three stages—being, life, and knowledge.
Cosmic Soul (the third hypostasis of neoplatonism) is nothing else but the principle of the eternal becoming of the Cosmos. Just as for Proclus, the intellect is the unity of being and thinking, and the soul is the unity of intellect and corporeality.
The soul is invoked to explain the movement in the world, similar to how the intellect is invoked to explain the regularity of the soul’s actions. Accordingly, the intra-cosmic souls are the principles of the formation of individual bodies. Proclus speaks of different types of souls: divine souls, souls of the intellect, and souls of changeable entities. In general, for Proclus, the soul denotes the intermediate realm between the indivisible intellect and divisible bodies. He attributes to the soul properties such as incorporeality, immortality, reflection of all forms of intellect within itself, its connection with that eternal body for which it is the animating principle, and so on.
Proclus asserts the “rotation” of souls and their hierarchy. Here, too, there is the following paradox: the soul itself is incorporeal, and yet there must always exist its own body, the principle of animation of which it is. And since the soul is eternal, this body must also be eternal. Thus, according to Proclus, not only physical, perishable bodies exist but also soulful, intellectual, and divine bodies.
Finally, the Cosmos is nothing else but the material realization of the three fundamental hypostases of neoplatonism. Proclus paints a grand picture of the universal [circular] movement of the Universe. Since there is always a “return to itself” in this movement, an evolution, the Cosmos is “ageless,” eternal. The central position in it is held by the Sun – Helios, maintaining the cosmic equilibrium. Proclus’ mythological triad: Helios – Apollo, intelligent illuminating demiurgy; Athena, intelligent illuminating knowledge; Aphrodite, intelligent illuminating beauty.
From the point of view of logic proper, Proclus’ most remarkable development is the dialectic of Being. Proclus depicts in detail how Being transitions “from its supra-being and indivisible self-enclosure… into divisibly comprehensible otherness and then returns to itself in an enriched form.”
The main principle of concept development in Proclus is clear triadism. He also considers each member of the basic triad also triadically. This triad of categories, initiated by Plotinus, elaborated by Porphyry, and developed and completed by Proclus, is applicable to any process. Essentially, it has a universal methodological significance: 1) self-contained existence, indivisible unity (provoking emanation due to its completeness, emerging beyond this unity); emanation from itself (proper emanation, transition into multiplicity); return to itself (return to the initial wholeness, not canceling the meaning of the process of emanation; “state of the indivisible eidolon”).
An important category for Proclus is the concept of “participation.” It indicates the higher to which the lower adheres and by which it is understood; thus, this category signifies the reverse transition from the many to the One. Proclus distinguishes between that which does not admit participation, that which allows it, and that which properly participates.
Proclus’ theory of knowledge is linked to his ontology of a multilayered being. The clearest knowledge is ensured by theoretical contemplation, corresponding to intelligible entities, where existing objects are perceived directly and entirely. Scientific knowledge is lower in the hierarchy of cognitive methods because it combines reasoning with sensory perception.
Reasoning (διάνοια) uses concepts to determine things and verify the reports of sensory perception. Scientific knowledge is the result of the reasoning activity of the soul, which aligns concepts with opinions derived from sensory data. This is done according to positive criteria of truth, such as syllogistic proof and correspondence to being.
Ethics
At the center of Proclus’ ethics is the concept of “virtue”—as that which reunites us with the gods, bringing us closer to the One. In Proclus’ school, virtues were distinguished as natural, moral, social, and higher, including: purificatory, contemplative, and theistic virtues (the latter were considered superior to human destiny). Marin enumerated among natural virtues: the harmlessness of all external senses, bodily strength, beauty, and health; according to his testimony, Proclus possessed all these virtues in full, ascending to the theistic ones.
As for the problem of Evil, Proclus identifies its cause in canonical accordance with the understanding of evil established by Plotinus—evil arises from human aversion to the higher, intellect-perceived world, from attachment to the sensory and material. Hence, the task of humans is to turn away from the lower world and know the higher power of their soul. Proclus places this power above even the intellect, as, according to him, only it is capable of perceiving the first principle. Therefore, Proclus calls this power the “color of our essence” and “that one thing in the soul which is better even than intellect.” This power can be identified with mystical enthusiasm and sacred madness, leading us to merge with the Divine.
Physics
Proclus’ physics marks a radical departure from Aristotle’s position on two points: the elements of the physical world and the concept of place as space.
Proclus rejects the ether, Aristotle’s fifth element, as redundant. Celestial bodies consist of the same (four) elements as earthly ones. For example, without the element of fire, stars and the sun could not emit light, and without the element of earth, they could not be opaque (as during eclipses). Proclus distinguishes the celestial state from the terrestrial: in the former, the elements are in their highest degrees (for example, fire only illuminates, earth is purely material and impermeable); in the latter, they are “coarse” (for example, fire burns, earth is heavy).
Moreover, Proclus develops a new perspective regarding the primary properties of elements, deriving them from the size, shape, and ability of their particles to move.
According to Aristotle, the place occupied by a body is not its boundary. Proclus, on the other hand, posits that place is a kind of body, but without mass, which causes physical bodies to resist the presence of others. This is space. In a broad sense, there is cosmic space in which all bodies of the Universe are immersed. Space, separate from the bodies residing in it, resembles a body of light.
Philosophy of Mathematics
Proclus follows the traditional Platonic doctrine, according to which mathematical objects occupy a middle position between the world of ideas and the world of sensibly perceptible things. When proving a theorem, a geometer points to a drawn parallelogram, but in their mind, they conceive of a “parallelogram in general,” without specific proportions and dimensions. The theorem about the parallelogram deserves its name only when it is valid for all types of parallelograms.
Where do this type and all other mathematical types originate? In answering this question, Proclus engages in a debate with Aristotle, who believed that mathematical objects arise through the abstraction of the general from sensibly perceived objects and the assembly of this general into a unified definition. According to Aristotle, we first see and draw various sensibly perceived parallelograms and then give a general definition of a parallelogram—a quadrilateral with opposite sides equal and parallel. According to Plato, however, we can see in an imperfect figure like a parallelogram only because our soul already possesses knowledge of the parallelogram, and this knowledge is the ideal unity of definition-logos and image-eidos. Thus:
“It remains for the soul to generate mathematical types both from itself and from the intellect, and for it to be the completeness of types, although based on intelligent patterns, but self-generated by the lot that has befallen them. Therefore, the soul is not like a writing tablet free from inscriptions; it has been inscribed from eternity, writes itself, and is written by the intellect. For the soul is both intellect because it unfolds according to intellect and is the image of intellect and its external impression” (“Commentaries on Euclid,” 16.4—16.13).
According to Proclus, mathematical activity represents a peculiar kind of movement within the world of incorporeal logos. This movement occurs in two directions: on the one hand, it begins with external recollection and ends with the understanding of the principles of mathematical knowledge; on the other hand, it unfolds from these principles to the diversity of results. In mathematical cognition, one transitions from the known to the sought, and at other times, from the sought to the known. Proclus states:
“The cognitive abilities of this science, in general, turned out to be twofold, and one of them directs us towards unity and consolidates the multitude, while the others divide the simple into diverse, the more general into the more specific, and the initial logos into secondary and many steps removed from the initial. And so, starting from the top, mathematics reaches the sensibly perceptible, touches nature, and proves many things in conjunction with the teaching of nature. Similarly, starting from the bottom, it approaches intellectual knowledge and touches the contemplation of the first principles” (“Commentaries on Euclid,” 19.13—19.19).
A particularly interesting aspect is Proclus’ systematically developed doctrine of geometric matter. The subject of geometry is not sensible matter—it is impossible to find a line without width, a point without parts, a surface without thickness, or a circle with equal radii. But it cannot exist outside matter, in pure logos: geometric figures are multiple, divisible into parts, and they can be compared with each other as larger or smaller. So where does it exist?
Addressing this issue, Proclus follows Aristotle’s assertion that, in addition to sensible matter, there is also matter in imagination. It is precisely in this matter of imagination that the geometric forms with which the geometer deals are located.
“Imagination, being the center of knowledge, though stirred by itself and producing what is known, nevertheless, not being outside the body, transforms the known from indivisible life into divisible, extended, and shaped, and thus everything it conceives is an imprint and form of thought” (“Commentaries on Euclid,” 52.20—52.26).
The mental circle is one, for it exists only in definition, and the definition does not distinguish one circle from another, as all of them are circles. Imaginary circles can be many; we can imagine that such circles are concentric, touch each other, or are arranged in relation to each other in some other way. The mental circle is, in a sense, simple, non-extended, and without outlines, whereas extension, outlines, and divisibility characterize the circle with which we deal in imagination.
Astronomy
Proclus was well acquainted with both theoretical and observational astronomy. In his work “Outline of Astronomical Hypotheses,” he describes, among other things, the construction of the armillary sphere. He personally made some of the last reliable astronomical observations in antiquity (475 AD).
Proclus rejects Ptolemy’s interpretation of the precession of the equinoxes as the movement of all fixed stars. For Proclus, such stars cannot precess because it is inherent in their nature to be immovable. Proclus also denies that planets move on nested celestial spheres; the arguments for such a position are of a hypothetical nature and lack clear evidence, while celestial bodies are capable of moving in free space by their nature.
Evaluation
Proclus presents a qualitatively developed dialectic of being and myth, theology and theosophy, theurgy, as well as a unique aesthetics and ethics. Proclus’s ethical perspective is simultaneously cosmological; according to Proclus, one should consider humans exactly as “the entire cosmos because a human represents a small cosmos. Namely, they possess mind, logos, a divine and mortal body, similar to the Universe.”
Proclus is distinguished not so much by originality as by systematicity and detailed analytical thinking. Proclus’s philosophy is considered a “culmination” of ancient Neoplatonism, bringing it to its final “logical maturity.” A.F. Losev called Proclus the “genius of reason”; with reasoning brought “to music, to pathos, to ecstasy.” Losev even placed Proclus above the founder of the Platonic school, Plotinus, “in terms of the enormous analytical power of his mind, the great diversity of his interests in terms of the mastery of microscopic studies of the most abstract logical subject, and in terms of the subtlest philosophical-philological insight into Plato’s text.”
In this regard, the comparison of Plotinus and Proclus conducted by Yu. A. Shichalin is interesting: “What Plotinus saw in an ecstatic rush, Proclus reveals at the tip of the pen. Plotinus first discovered all the splendor of the universe and fully beheld the entire hierarchy of the One, Mind, Soul, and Cosmos. Proclus never saw the intelligible, but accurately described them, indicating their location between the level of the One and the Mind, as well as describing many intermediate steps between the other levels of the hierarchical structure.”
Arguably, the most remarkable assessment of Proclus is that this last great thinker of the ancient world, living in the era of its decline and demise, is seen by Marinus as the happiest of men. It is about “some kind of most perfect and complete happiness,” which consists not only of the happiness of the wise but also of life’s well-being.
“He was exceptionally attractive in appearance, not only due to his good constitution but also because his soul flourished in the body, like some vital light, emitting a marvelous radiance, difficult to depict in words… He was free from base concerns and any pettiness, disturbed only by the greatest and most common questions about the divine and human… He attached no importance to human life or death, as others do; everything that seemed terrifying to others did not inspire fear in him… He was entirely devoid of any aloofness, seclusion, or bias.”
With the name of Proclus, Professor A.F. Losev associates not only the mature completion of Neoplatonism but also the end of the tradition of the entire ancient philosophy.
Proclus’s philosophy enjoyed tremendous influence in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. His direct followers can be considered Maximus the Confessor, Nicholas of Cusa, Pico della Mirandola, John Petreius, and others.
The Nuttall Codex (also known as Tonindeye or Zouche-Nuttall Codex) is a pre-Hispanic pictorial manuscript belonging to the Mixtec culture. It has two sides: side 1, which records the life, conquests, and alliances of Ocho Venado, a prominent Mixtec ruler, and side 2, which deals with the origin of the dynasty and the history of Tilantongo and Teozacoalco. The Zouche-Nuttall codex is one of the six Mixtec codices considered to have pre-Hispanic tradition that survived the conquest of Mexico.
The manuscript consists of 16 pieces of treated deer skin joined at the ends, forming a long strip of 11.41 meters. The sheets are folds made in each of the pieces of skin, resulting in a total of 47 sheets, not all of which are painted. The actual date of the codex’s creation is unknown, but it is estimated to be around the 14th century in the town of Tilantongo. Side 2 may be more recent than side 1, possibly created in Teozacoalco in the early 15th century.
There is no information on how the codex left Mexico. It was likely sent to Spain in the 16th century, shortly after the conquest of the Mixtec people in 1522. It was first identified in 1854 in the Dominican convent of San Marcos in Florence. Five years later, it was sold to John Temple Leader, who sent it to Robert Curzon, the fourth Baron Zouche. A facsimile edition was published by the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University in 1902, with an introduction written by Zelia Nuttall. Today, the codex belongs to the collection of the British Museum.
Name
The British Museum, the current owner of the manuscript, classifies it under the compound name Zouche-Nuttall. The codex received this name from Robert Curzon, the fourth Baron Zouche, and Zelia Nuttall, key figures in its history.
The Zouche-Nuttall codex is an extensive book, folded like a screen and illustrated in color on both sides. It is composed of 16 strips of treated deer skin joined at the ends. When complete, the codex is a long strip measuring 11.41 meters; its sheets or plates are the result of folds and creases in the same strip of skin. Each sheet has an approximate measurement of 24.3 cm in width by 18.4 cm in height. The codex has a total of 94 sheets; 47 on each side. 42 of the 47 sheets were painted on the obverse (side 2), and 44 sheets were painted on the reverse (side 1).
The surface of each sheet is covered with a white base of stucco and plaster, applied before the colors. This white cover was also used for corrections on the already drawn designs. Natural dyes of red, yellow, blue, purple, brown, ochre, and black were used on both sides of the codex.
History
The way in which the Nuttall codex left Mexico is not known, but it is known to have been in the Dominican monastery of San Marcos in Florence, Italy, in 1845. In 1859, the codex was acquired by the prominent English politician John Temple Leader, who also resided in Florence. He bought the document from the monastery to send it to his friend Robert Curzon, who would become the fourteenth Baron Zouche. Curzon lived in England and had a magnificent collection of antiquities. Curzon died in 1873, and the collection was inherited by his son, who, facing a series of difficulties, deposited his father’s collection at the British Museum in London in 1876.
Two pages of the Codex Zouche-Nuttall, as displayed at the British Museum. (Michel Wal, cc by sa 3.0)
The researcher Zelia Nuttall obtained permission to investigate it in 1902. The first facsimile edition of the codex was published under the auspices of the Peabody Museum at Harvard University.
However, the publication consisted of drawings made by an anonymous artist. It was the Peabody Museum that named the Mixtec codex Nuttall in honor of the researcher.
The British Museum acquired the codex in 1912 and gained definitive possession of it in 1917 upon the death of the last possessor of the collection. It is registered under the signature Add.
The Nuttall codex was identified as belonging to the Mixtec area by the researcher Alfonso Caso, dismissing the belief that it was a Zapotec document or from central Mexico. It is difficult to pinpoint the exact place of origin of this codex; it is believed it may have been made in the lordship of Teozacoalco, as the obverse includes a genealogical relationship of the rulers of Teozacoalco and Zaachila. However, other researchers believe it is two different documents (obverse and reverse) made at different times and places for very different reasons.
Side one emphasizes conquests, alliances, political meetings, and acts of obedience and recognition to Ocho Venado more than other codices. Moreover, the place most represented on this side of the Nuttall is Tilantongo, to the extent that the enthronement date of 8 Venado in the coastal lordship of Tututepec, among other events, is ignored. The emphasis on Tilantongo suggests it as the possible place of origin of the great conqueror’s biography. The exact date of the creation of side 1 of the Nuttall codex is unknown, but the events it records can be placed between the 11th and 12th centuries. Probably, the codex’s production responded to a legitimation by the descendants of 8 Venado around the 14th century when the Tilantongo branch began to fade. Several years later, the lordships of Tilantongo and Tezoacoalco were unified by Lord 9, so perhaps the codex changed residence to Tezoacoalco, where the second part of this codex would be painted.
The Aubin Codex, or the 1576 manuscript, is a pictorial work that recounts the Spanish version of the history of the Mexica people, narrating their migration from Aztlán in the 12th century to the Spanish conquest in the 16th century. Throughout its 81 folios or pages, the Aubin Codex records the travels of the Aztec people, including migration, the founding of Tenochtitlán, agricultural cycles, the lineage of kings, eclipses, the arrival of the Spaniards, and other significant events in the history of the Mexicas. It is a mixed codex that contains illustrated images and text written in Nahuatl with the Latin alphabet. The Aubin Codex is one of the few codices that has been transcribed and translated into more than one language.
History of the Codex
It is not precisely known who wrote the Aubin Codex, but it was likely written by various Mexican scribes and painters, known as tlacuilos, over many years. Some historians believe it was written by a compiler of pre-Columbian documents and annals. This iconographic writing system, in which the tlacuilo “inscribes on a support using a brush and ink,” developed and was perfected during the post-classic period in central Mexico.
The Aubin Codex covers the history of Mexico between 1168-1607. At the beginning of the work, it states “written here today in Mexico on the 27th of September 1576,” although it documents history until 1607. The text gets its name, “Aubin Codex,” from Mr. Joseph Marius Alexis Aubin, who purchased the document for his collection of Aztec works. Mr. Aubin lived in Mexico for fifteen years, from 1825, during which he engaged in the study of the Nahuatl language and the ancient civilizations of the region. During this time, Mr. Aubin obtained the codex prepared by the historian-collector Antonio de León y Gama. Joseph Aubin sold it in 1889 to Mr. M.E. Eugene Goupil.
It is likely that Friar Diego Durán supervised the preparation of the codex in the 16th century, as he mentions it in his “History of the Indies of New Spain and Islands of Tierra Firme.” According to historian Alfredo Chavero, who prepares the modern edition of Father Durán’s work, Mr. Aubin was “Intelligent and interested in antiquities, he befriended the Franciscan friars and was able to examine their magnificent library: in it, he found hieroglyphics and manuscripts that the ignorant friars had no qualms about ceding to him.”
Now, the original copy of the Aubin Codex is located in the British Museum in London. There is a copy in the National Library of France, a copy by Antonio Peñafiel in Berlin, and another copy in the library of Princeton University in the collection of Robert Garrett. The Aubin Codex should not be confused with the Tonalámatl Aubin, another work from the Aubin collection.
Organization
The codex consists of 81 folios, each measuring 11 x 15 cm. The codex is read from left to right and from top to bottom, following the customary norms of pre-Columbian codices in America. The codex is the result of the combination of other documents that originally formed independent codices, with its major influence derived from the “Group of the Strip” (according to Castañeda de la Paz), linking it to the Boturini Codex. In our codex, we can identify the following sections:
1) A brief description of the year-counting system; not present in other manuscripts of the group.
2) The migration from Aztlán to the defeat at Chapoltepec (1299) and their subsequent establishment in Colhuacan, a narrative almost identical to the Boturini Codex.
3) The final stage of their wanderings around Lake Texcoco until the foundation of Tenochtitlán.
4) Historical annals from the rule of Acamapichtli to Moteuczoma; closely resembling other pictorial versions such as the Telleriano-Remensis Codex or written ones like in the “History of the Mexicans by their paintings.”
5) The last section is the Spanish conquest of Mexico, narrating relevant events until 1576, with additional data added up to 1591 and others in 1607.
Compared to other Aztec codices, the Aubin Codex is distinctive in its organization. It is a unidirectional codex with a continuous count of years, presented as a timeline. This mechanism effectively controls the order in which the codex is read, as time follows a chronological order throughout the document. The year count is interrupted only to allow the painter to elaborate on a significant event. The imperial years in the Aubin Codex, as painted on European folios, are organized as strips, reflecting the influence of the European style.
The second part of the Aubin Codex is a collective history of migration. This style of grouping and collectivity shows the Aztec painters’ desire to organize visual space efficiently. The fourth part of the Aubin Codex can also be considered an imperial history, which, in terms of style, returns to the standard structure of the record.
The size of the images is used to communicate the importance of the main events of history, as events of equal importance are of the same size. Conversely, a less important event is depicted as smaller. In many cases, there are a series of images side by side, indicating that all the events share the same historical and cultural significance.
Content
The work focuses on the events that the people experienced from their departure from Aztlán, from 1168 to 1607, after the arrival of the Spaniards. It represents important information from various years during this time. The first page shows the Aztec calendar in square form, similar to how it appears in Durán or Tovar.
Folio 1-2 – The first folio of the codex contains Nahuatl text about Mexica’s calendrical system. Translated into Spanish, it says: “Here is written the account of the years of the Mexicas. It is made up of only four pieces that go as follows: the year 1-Acatl ends in 13-Acatl; 1-Técpatl ends in 13-Técpatl; 1-Calli ends in 13-Calli, and 1-Tochtli ends in 13-Tochtli. And when the four parts have come to an end, after 52 years, our years are tied to the year 2 Acatl. This was written in Mexico on the 27th day of the month of September 1576.”
The Mexica calendrical system was divided into four sections, each with thirteen numerals and four bearers. The bearers are reeds, flint, house, and rabbit, which are represented again in the center, next to the Sun. The bearers “were framed by the symbol of the year, usually a square, a diamond, or a circle painted in turquoise blue, or framed in red with blue.” This can be seen in many folios of the codex to mark the years of important historical events.
Folio 3 – Folio 3 represents the beginning of the people’s migration history. This mythical image shows a version of Aztlán, the sacred place that the Mexicas considered their origin. It depicts a figure standing atop a hill on an island. The figure is Huitzilopochtli, the patron god of the Mexicas. The four glyphs surrounding the figure represent houses, symbolizing the four calpullis coming from an island. The eight house glyphs below the island represent the other eight calpullis accompanying the original four lineages during the migration.
Folios 4-22 – The following folios contain a few pictographic descriptions of the places the Mexicas traveled during migration. The folios mainly contain a year count showing how long the Mexicas migrated before reaching the place that would become Tenochtitlán.
Folio 14 – As an example of the Mexica migration route, folio 14 explains that the Mexica spent a period of 20 years in Cohuatitlan. It uses the head of a snake to represent Cohuatitlan, better known in Mexica mythology as the place of snakes. The document then explains that the Mexicas moved to Huixachtitlan, where they lived for 4 years. The use of a tree with thorny roots represents “Huixachtitlan,” a Nahuatl word meaning “place of thorns or acacias.”
Folios 23-25 – This image shows the conclusion of the Mexica migration with the foundation of Tenochtitlán. It illustrates a swampy place where an eagle, perched on a cactus, has caught a snake. This is the traditional representation of Tenochtitlán. It also illustrates the simple principles of the city, as the artist painted a straw hut on each side of the page with various herbs in the background. The text on the next page explains that the Mexica figure is a fisherman. Various historians note that the Aubin Codex is one of the few codices that includes this image in the same way it will later appear in Mexico’s national emblem.
There is a significant format change here. From this folio onwards, the calendar squares are organized in vertical rows. The new-year count starts next to the temple image. This pattern continues throughout the rest of the codex.
The First Dynastic Section
Folios 26-42 – The Aubin Codex, like many other Aztec stories, includes a dynastic section listing the ascensions and deaths of notable rulers of Tenochtitlan. Starting on folio 26, the dynastic section contains pages indicating the year and rulers. These pages lack images and events. Instead, each page covers five years, counted vertically on the left side.
Folio 30 – As an example of the dynastic section, folio 30 shows the ascent of Huitzilíhuitl to the Mexica throne. Huitzilíhuitl ruled from the year 1 Reed to 5 Serpent, according to the codex, corresponding to the years 1395-1417 in the Gregorian calendar. The page on the right shows the passage of the fifth 52-year cycle, symbolized by an image of a grasshopper. This is one of the few times a natural or agricultural event is observed in the Aubin Codex. Some scholars speculate that the grasshopper was somehow linked to the New Fire ceremony that the Mexicas celebrated to commemorate a new 52-year cycle. Others speculate that during this year, there was a famine due to crop damage caused by grasshoppers.
Folio 35 – After a flood, some Mexica families were forced to sell their children as slaves. This folio shows two slaves tied together on their way to be sold. The flood was named “1 Rabbit.”
Folio 42 – The left page illustrates the arrival of the Spanish by boat. Also, this folio declares the death of Moctezuma on the date of Ce Acatl, 1519. A cross on the mast of this image is highlighted. Though not very large, it is an element seen in many images of the Spanish conquest. It is also a symbol representing the arrival of Jesus Christ and Christianity in the New World. Often, the arrival of the Spanish and the death of Moctezuma are depicted together because they symbolize the end of the Mexica empire’s rule and the beginning of the Spanish empire’s history in America.
Therefore, the right page shows a battle scene between a Spanish conquistador and an Aztec soldier. The Spanish conquistador is identified by his armor, spear, and beard. The Aztec can also be identified by his attire. They are fighting in the Templo Mayor, as indicated by its double temples. The Templo Mayor was “the ritual and political heart” of the city of Tenochtitlán. There, according to several Spanish and indigenous chroniclers, including the notable book “Visión de los vencidos,” the conquistador Pedro de Alvarado, also known as “El Sol,” initiated the massacre against “unarmed warriors, priest-musicians, women, children, and the elderly.”
Furthermore, these two pages are significant because they represent the end of the calendrical strip and that “the massacre of the Templo Mayor has stopped time.” The Spanish conquest is depicted on a whole page, a division that reflects its great importance in Mexica history.
History After the Spanish
Folios 43-69 – These pages describe the history of the Mexica after the conquest and return to a style similar to folios 26-42: dense text with few images. They mainly use written text to explain the Spanish conquest and the violence that occurred. Folio 43 details the battle at the Templo Mayor, which was illustrated in folio 42. It is also seen that these folios are different due to the use of Latin characters. The formal elements of the text graphically or visually represent the central theme of the historical moment: that is, the end of the Mexica era and the beginning of the Christian era. However, while narrative writing is associated with Christian culture, the images are associated with Mexica culture.
Folio 59 – Towards the end of the codex, the model of five years per page changes, as here, one year is shown per page. The chronological framework is represented by the singular red square, presented here as a rectangular block. Scholars speculate that the years after the conquest were filled with profound changes in the cultural, political, and economic structures of the Mexica. Therefore, scribes thought it necessary to explain these transformations in more detail with a different visual presentation.
At the top of folio 59, there is news that the list of offenses against the Christian faith that would be punished by the Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, instituted in 1571, was publicly circulated. The gloss mentions Pedro Moya de Contreras as the inquisitor. The following paragraph is accompanied by an image of Jesus Christ, seated beside a cross. The Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene are the two women beside him. The gloss explains that the image represents a Good Friday procession. The tlacuilo set aside his traditional way of painting, planiform and conceptual, to imitate European models that were more perceptual and three-dimensional. This is the only case of this graphic expression in the codex.
The Second Dynastic Section
Folios 70-81 – There is a smaller list of dynastic succession after the final recount in the year 1607. This section was likely illustrated by a different artist. Each page in this section represents a ruler, accompanied by the number of years they reigned, communicated through various blue circles. The list of kings continues beyond the Mexicas and includes Spaniards and conquerors.
Folio 77 – As an example of the second dynastic section, folio 77 shows the election of Diego de Alvarado Huanitzin as ruler. Huanitzin was the grandson of Emperor Axayácatl and the nephew of Moctezuma. The four turquoise discs in front of him represent his four years of reign. He is seated on the tepotzoicpalli, a throne with a high back for kings.
Style and Aesthetics
The Aubin Codex is a mixed codex, meaning a work that combines images and written text in the Nahuatl language. The codex has images in red, brown, turquoise, gray, and black. It is characterized by the paintings of the tlacuilos, translated from Nahuatl to Spanish as “the one who writes by painting.” To the left of most pages, there are red and blue boxes indicating the year in the Mexica calendar. Additionally, there are Latin numbers near many images. The other images and words in Nahuatl describe the events that occurred during these marked years.
Spanish Influence on the Aubin Codex
The Aubin Codex manifests the characteristics of the tlacuilos and, at the same time, the text indicates some influence from European trends and styles of the 16th century. In this way, the Aubin Codex is considered a good example of the format change in pre-Columbian writing after the Spanish conquest of America.
In pre-Columbian times, the Nahuatl language was primarily a spoken language, rather than an alphabetical one, and stories were largely pictorial. In comparison, the Aubin Codex is concise in the pictorial part, emphasizing the role of Nahuatl text, now written in Latin letters, in explaining the main history. These notable changes indicate the increasing importance of the written language and the spread of European methods among indigenous peoples. The Aubin Codex also stands out from other pre-Columbian manuscripts because it follows the European standard of bound pages.
This shows a significant modification of traditional Mesoamerican narration. The textual format perfected by indigenous peoples allowed pages to unfold to display the entire story at once, making it easier to read and visualize the stories. Additionally, storytelling was traditionally a performative and social act, with various speakers recounting stories to an audience or a specific public. The speaker would be able to translate the pictograms in an oral and performative manner.
However, written Nahuatl, influenced by the Spanish, creates a more solitary relationship with narration and the codex. There were no images to show to a group of listeners. Therefore, due to Spanish influence, the Aubin Codex lacks the traditional performative characteristics of indigenous stories in America. It is considered an excellent example of the hybrid literature of the colonial era, integrating various graphic and narrative elements from the New World with European models.
The Relationship of the Aubin Codex with the Codex Boturini
Folio 3 of the Pilgrimage Strip.
There is evidence that describes sections of the Aubin Codex as a summary of the Pilgrimage Strip. The Pilgrimage Strip, also known as the Boturini Codex, is another Mexica codex. The pilgrimage of the Mexicas “begins with the representation of the legendary Aztlán, until the arrival at Chapultepec, a transcendental site in the Valley of Mexico where the spring was located that would later supply water to the entire city of Tenochtitlán.”
The Aubin Codex was probably written shortly after the Pilgrimage Strip and shows changes that the pictographs underwent during the colonial period. At many points, due to Spanish influence, pictographic reading was replaced by alphabetic reading. There was no longer a need to explain in pictographs what could be explained in written characters.
Folio 5 of the Aubin Codex
On folio 5 of the Aubin Codex, only the tree with the deity’s bundle at its feet is visible, and next to it, there appear to be four Aztecs eating. This is known from the pictorial parallel, folio 3 of the Strip. The Aubin Codex does not show the rest of the group or the peoples accompanying them in the Strip. It results in “a much more careless and schematic drawing, whose function seems to be limited to illustrating a long text, or perhaps to entertain it.”
The footprints on the ground, in folio 3 of the strip, represent the path to be followed to understand the strip chronologically. It leads first to a broken tree, and at its feet is the temple of Huitzilopochtli in its hummingbird incarnation. There, the footprints are interrupted, and the Aztecs sit down to eat. The text of the Aubin Codex says:
“And when they came to the foot of a tree, there they sat down. The tree was very thick. Then they formed an altar there, on which they placed the devil. When they had formed the altar, then they took their provisions. But since they were going to eat, then the tree broke over them.”
The footprints continue and lead us to the same Aztecs, but today they cry and speak in front of the god. However, it seems that only one communicates directly with the god. It can be seen through their “tears” touching the god. The text of the Aubin Codex explains what happens:
“Then, because of this, they left what they were eating, for a long time they remained with bowed heads. And then, the devil called them, and said to them: Send to the eight calpulli that accompany you, tell them: we will not go ahead, we will go in another direction.”
The eight calpullis represent the eight villages that the Aztecs encountered in Teoculhuacan, shortly after leaving their original homeland, Aztlan. In the illustration above, the Aztec leader communicates with the lord of Cuitlahuac and begins to cry. The text of the Aubin explains:
“When they had been told this, those eight calpulli became very sad. When they had been ordered, the eight calpulli said: Our lords, where will we go? For we will accompany you. Then they told them again: Do not go. Then first the eight calpulli left. There they left them at the foot of the tree; they remained there for a long time.”
Folio 6 of the Aubin Codex
These figures, in total or summary, are a representation of the ritual involving thorny plants.
On folio 4 of the strip, the footprints lead the chronology of the pictography again. There is also less detail and glyphs in the Aubin Codex again. In the strip, initially, the departure of two different footprints is seen. This indicates the departure of the group from the previous figure.
“Afterwards, when they set out on the road, the owl men came to fall upon them. Among the cacti, they kept falling, and some kept falling at the foot of the mesquite trees. These were called mimixcoa: the first was named Xiuhneltzin, the second was named Mimichtzin, and the third, was a woman, their older sister. Again there the devil Huitzilopochtli called them; he said: Take those among the cacti. They will be the first tribute.”
Compared to the Strip, the size of the cacti in the Aubin Codex is greatly reduced, and they are placed closer together than in the strip. The mesquite loses its thorny outer aspects and appears as a simple tree painted following pre-Hispanic canons.
In the Aubin Codex, none of the sacrificed individuals have a nominal glyph above their heads, and there is no one else besides the sacrificed. The drawing is so altered that the mesquite is placed on top of one of the sacrificed rather than the other way around.
Folio 8 of the Aubin Codex
This is the arrival and stay in Tula of the Mexicas.
The Aubin Codex has pages like this, of reduced size (11 x 15 cm), for each of the places where the group stayed. Rectangular chronicles, representing the years spent in each place, are grouped on it. In the upper left, the arrival year is indicated. Next to it, there is a gloss representing the date they arrived at the designated site. This glyph is drawn at the bottom of the page. Another gloss refers to the group’s arrival at that place, as well as the years of stay.
In the Strip, the groups of chronological rectangles are read from bottom to top, vice versa, and from left to right. But in the Aubin Codex, it is read from left to right and from top to bottom. Also, in the Strip, it is very clear that the departure from one place and the arrival at another occurs on the same date, but it is not as clear in the Aubin Codex. The scribe of the Aubin Codex only marked the year of departure on the page reserved for the new arrival place.
The term “nymphaeum,” or nymphæum in ancient Greek (νυμφαῖον), refers to an architectural structure. In antiquity, it was a small sanctuary dedicated to water nymphs, typically constructed near a water source or reservoir, known as krene (κρηνη in ancient Greek). Among the Romans, it was called “luterium” (Latin: luteris), which denoted a basin for ablutions or a bathing pool.
Ancient Nymphaea
In Ancient Greece, natural sanctuaries for nymphs, deities of natural forces, were considered to be caves, groves, and forests. However, since ancient Greek nymphs patronized not only natural phenomena but also human creative endeavors, temples dedicated to nymphs often shared symbolic significance with magical springs. For instance, the Hippocrene (Ἵππου κρήνη), a sacred spring of poetic inspiration atop Mount Helicon in Boeotia, was believed to have emerged from the hoof strike of the winged horse Pegasus. A similar role was attributed to the Castalian Spring on Mount Parnassus.
Franc Kavčič – Landscape with the motif of the nymphaeum Domitian’s Villa.
P. P. Muratov eloquently described the natural sanctuary of the nymph Egeria in the Roman Campagna:
“Droplets falling from the ceiling in the grotto of Egeria are still audible, like the murmurs of nymphs, once understood by Numa Pompilius… The entire place with the stagnant waters of Almon, reeds, green hills, and mighty oaks of the sacred grove, with the cool shade of the nymphaeum, seems legendary and marvelous. Bosco Sacro comprises several very old evergreen oaks, growing in a perfect circle… Inside, there is a ready space for an altar, but even without one, the spirit of ancient religion dwells here.”
In the Hellenistic and Roman periods, small structures above water sources, such as aediculae, steles, marble fountains, and basins, began to be dedicated to woodland and lake nymphs. Occasionally, a wall or pilaster was adorned with a niche containing a statue of a nymph, a fountain, and a basin. “In the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, separate spaces with fountains, also called nymphaea, were constructed in the homes of Roman patricians and on Pompeian villas.
The fountain provided coolness, and a small altar served as offerings to the household gods: Lares and Penates.”Nymphaeum design. 17th century.
Nymphaea were also built in the form of square or round buildings with columns, sometimes multi-story, or in a tholos-type structure, later stylized as a natural cave: grotto. For example, in Pozzuoli near Naples, the ruins of the Nymphaeum of Diana have been preserved, of which the circular foundation and part of the elevation remain.
In the Hellenistic and Ancient Roman periods, the term “nymphaeum” began to be used for structures adorning water sources, as well as city buildings with reservoirs for domestic needs but consecrated with images of nymphs or allegorical statues. A series of authentic ancient nymphaea remnants have been preserved and discovered during archaeological excavations, particularly in the Middle East, which was previously under the influence of Hellenistic and Roman culture.
A prominent monument of ancient architecture was the Septizonium (Latin: Septizonium, from Latin septem, seven, and Latin zona, belt, framing), a monumental structure in Rome at the foot of the Palatine Hill, constructed in 203 CE by Emperor Septimius Severus. The building had seven tiers with niches and rows of columns, adorned with marble and statues. The nymphaeum was completely demolished by the order of Pope Sixtus V in 1588–1589; the remaining construction material was used for new buildings, including the Sistine Chapel and the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore. Only some remnants of the foundation and Renaissance-era sketches of the Nymphaeum ruins have survived.
In Asia Minor, huge nymphaeas with colonnades, porticos, and statues were constructed. One of the most vivid reconstructions reproduces the appearance of the monumental nymphaeum in Miletus, which adorned the market square of the ancient city (1st–3rd centuries CE). Only the ruins of the structure have survived.
In the early Christian era, nymphaea served as baptisteries.
In the Middle Ages, ancient krene were transformed into “Holy Wells” (Latin: Sacrum Puteus)—”puteals,” reservoirs, sometimes with a fountain in the center and a canopy—ciborium, located in the middle of the monastery’s atrium or courtyard. Such a water reservoir was symbolically reinterpreted as a source of eternal life bestowed by faith in Christ. A comparable medieval monument, though with a different function and composition, is the “Well of the Ancestors” or “Moses’ Well,” a work by the Flemish sculptor Claus Sluter created for the Carthusian monastery in Champmol near Dijon, France.
Fountains and Architectural Structures of the Modern Era, Tracing Back to Ancient Nymphaea
Renaissance and Baroque urban fountains, particularly those in Rome, also draw inspiration from ancient nymphaea. For example, the Fountain of Acqua Felice (Italian: Fontana dell’Acqua Felice), also known as the Fountain of Moses, is a monumental Baroque fountain located on the Quirinal Hill in Rome, Italy. It adorns the endpoint of the ancient aqueduct of the same name, renewed under the direction of Pope Sixtus V. Designed and constructed by Domenico Fontana between 1585 and 1588, the fountain incorporates elements from ancient sources, similar to the renowned Trevi Fountain in Rome.
One of the most famous monuments of the French Renaissance period is the masterpiece by architect Pierre Lescot and sculptor Jean Goujon, the “Fountain of the Innocents” in Paris (1547–1549), which harks back to the traditions of ancient nymphaea.
During the Neoclassical era and the fascination with ancient art, pavilions and nymphaea began to appear in European estates and parks, usually representing architectural fantasies inspired by ancient themes. Such nymphaea can be found in many countries and cities in Western Europe. The “Nymphenbad” (Bath of the Nymphs) is present in the Zwinger, a unique architectural-sculptural ensemble in the German Baroque style in the heart of Dresden, Saxony, created by architect M. D. Pöppelmann and sculptor B. Permoser (1709–1719).
General
Generally, such places were naturally occurring caves from which springs emerged, considered baths and meeting places of the Nymphs. The entire ancient Greek landscape was dotted with such Nymphaea, where Greek civilization flourished. Homer refers to the Nymphaeum of Ithaca, where Odysseus sought refuge and prayed upon his return to his homeland, similar to the cave of Calypso, which was also a Nymphaeum.
Greek Nymphaea
The ancients also referred to artificial structures housing the springs and fountains of cities as Nymphaea, often dedicated to the Nymphs. Examples include the spring of Theagenes in Megara, the springs of Prine and Glauce in Corinth, and the Kallirrhoe spring in Athens. Notable Nymphaea mentioned by historians include:
Nymphaeum of Parnassus (mentioned by Strabo and Pausanias).
Nymphaeum of Sipylos, or the Cave of Sipylos (Iliad).
Nymphaeum of Cithaeron, dedicated to the Sphragitides Nymphs, near Phyle, mentioned by Pausanias, Plutarch, and Aristotle.
Nymphaeum of Helicon, dedicated to the Libathrides Nymphs, mentioned by Strabo.
Nymphaeum of Vari, where numerous votive offerings were found, including a depiction of Pan playing the syrinx while four Nymphs around an altar receive the pious offering of Archander.
Nymphaeum of Penteli, located slightly higher than the Daveli Cave, rich in stalagmites and stalactites, with a paved floor and numerous marble votive reliefs from the 4th century BCE.
Nymphaeum of Delphi, the cave-like Castalian Spring where three carved conches held equally carved statues of Nymphs.
Many times, around the Nymphaea, a distinctive small temple dedicated to the Nymphs was erected, itself called Nymphaeum. Numerous such structures existed in Elis, as testified by Strabo. Thus, the construction of such buildings began to generalize, even within cities, essentially housing public springs also dedicated to the Nymphs. Notable artificial Nymphaea, particularly remarkable for their rich ornamentation, included:
The Spring of Theagenes in Megara.
The Springs of Prine and Glauce in Corinth.
The Spring near the source of Kallirrhoe in Athens.
According to evidence provided by findings (cisterns and aqueduct around the Nymphaeum hill), it is speculated that there was a Nymphaeum on that hill.
Over time, especially in the Hellenistic period, these constructions began to become more imposing and luxurious with columns, reservoirs, colonnades, etc. A significant example of such a construction was the Nymphaeum of Mieza in Macedonia, where Aristotle taught Alexander the Great. This structure, now known as Palaioisotiros at the “Verriotiki spring” near Naousa, was essentially a cave with stalactites, featuring stone benches at its entrance where Aristotle used to teach.
A similar construction was erected in Corinth, with a large colonnade preceding it. In ancient Olympia, the monument known as the platform of Herodes Atticus was, in essence, a Nymphaeum, featuring a large arch (as an architectural entrance to a cave), a semi-circular roof, and marble cladding on the walls, bearing two statues. The Nymphaeum in Ephesus followed precisely this architectural design, which was later adopted by Roman engineers and architects of the time.
Roman Nymphaea
Roman Nymphaea, known as Nymphaeum in Latin, began to be reconstructed around the 4th century BCE. These artificial structures served as sanctuaries, reservoirs, or reception halls. Most were components of imperial residences or thermae, such as the Nymphaeum of the Gardens of Gaius in Rome, Domitian’s Nymphaeum on the Palatine Hill, and others on the Quirinal Hill in Rome. A well-known Nymphaeum in the Hellenistic region was the Nymphaeum of ancient Olympia, also known as the aqueduct of Herodes Atticus, built in 160 CE.
With the parallel development of mosaics, Hellenistic Nymphaea began to be adorned with rich mosaic representations, as seen in Antioch and Constantinople. Gradually, their imposing nature and opulent decorations shifted their purpose to become places for wedding ceremonies.
