All Those Naked Greeks
aeon.co
aeon.co
Its pretty clear that the spread of Christianity had dramatic cultural implications way beyond purely metaphysical and religious aspects. A very large package of customs, morals and behaviors (including any hint of nudity) got summarily junked.
But there is already the intermediate Roman period where it seems to be less significant. Maybe Roman authors offer some clues.
Many Romans revered parts of Greek culture (for a long time Greek was the language of scholars and the elite, which is pretty funny considering that Latin later fulfilled that same role hundreds of years later). Statues and other art were often inspired by Greek masters as well, with references to older Greek art all throughout Roman art. It's not too dissimilar to the artists of the renaissance rediscovering putting their works full of references to Roman and Greek antiquity.
However, when it came to the ideals of clothing. The statues and other art works still contained plenty of visible skin, both a Greek influence and proof of a masterful artist, but the romans themselves were often prudes. There was some public nudity, for example in the baths, but day to day work involved wearing tunics (and sometimes togas,which were status symbols). Defeated tribes and slaves were dressed down to humiliate them.
Somewhere in time the Greek beliefs and practices fell out of fashion, with the social status as a major driver for change. When you walk around in a robe to announce you're a citizen (most weren't), it's easy to associate those without clothes with lack of status.
It is interesting that successor cultures tried to pick and chose elements (for example Byzantines reviving philosophical systems and academies) but in the end it did not stick.
While you would think that scientific or artistic concepts like theater are not a take-it-or-leave-it package with e.g. specific customs around nudity or gender roles, in practice social evolution doesnt work like that...
(Koine) Greek was not particularly "the language of scholars", but mostly the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean; Latin was of the western Med. Though the many (and earliest) scholars in that part of town were the Greeks, so it's no surprise that a lot of stuff was written in it.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_Roman_Empire
Even when they ruled Jerusalem, the Romans probably spoke Greek with the locals. Because of previous empires, Mesopotamia had several over time (including Aramaic):
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8366156-the-last-lingua-...
I can't really think about any of these, at least in Europe; do you have any particular example in mind?
https://www.thehistoricalfictioncompany.com/post/why-did-tud...
The first link does not provide any citation for a couple of paintings, with but one supporting its thesis, and seems to lay most of its assumptions on vague formulations.
Not completely. See the Wikipedia article on "Christian naturism" for examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_naturism
nudity is not just a greek thing, it s natural in many tribes around the world. Some african tribes still perform their dances and fighting naked.
There s a certain undertone in the article that men and women should be dressed for modesty reasons. While modesty and confinement at home was enforced on women, they all had probably seen various men naked
Also in the former East Germany, where FKK (naturism) was encouraged at the time
Yes, in East Germany. There were political nuances to that. FKK very much proclaimed "we are free here in East Germany," much like the no speed limit in West Germany proclaimed, "We are free here too." Hard choice that, nude cavorting in nature or driving fast!
I read the article through and didn’t see that at all. Can you quote some of the parts that indicates that to you?
The question is right there in the title. just by observing all the native tribes the answer could be "why not" . greece is not tropical, but i can't see why always clothed would be assumed to be the default other than for protection. There's no explanation why casual nudity should not be expected , or why nudity signals something. If anything, in most societies it is clothing that singals something
then there is the part about phalluses - but phalluses are not particularly related to nudity nor does greek art create any connection between the two. The connection from nudity to phallus betrays modern biases about nudity.
There's also no mention of baths, another place where nudity is the natural state.
Then there is this which sounds so colossally revisionist:
> It is difficult to deny the elegance of a simple explanation for the prevalence of nude dudes in Greek art: they were the ultimate, high-class sex symbol and – then as now – sex always sells.
Sex was almost free in athens since Solon established public brothels. Relationships with young boys were erotic and long-term, not just sexual. Also notice that greeks use a few different words for love and lovemaking , none of which directly translates to sex. This was not 20th century hollywood
It may also have started with the industrialization and its effects on becoming aware of stuff outside your locale, and ofcourse missionary work in the colonized world.
From local accents, local customs, local dresscodes that pretty disappeared in these two hundred odd years. Only recently do we see lots of reclamations and restoration of that (and sometimes a form neoism where the original as completely disappeared)
Half a century ago, homosexually was outrageous. Today it is heteronormativity which is considered as outrageous. That's a 180° change.
now I'm wondering if David was actually made to stand outside a tunic store, but Michelangelo just got carried away with the simple commission, and the rest of the story about the cathedral was made up
Makes sense, clothes and fashions separate us whereas nudity emphasizes our similarity. And when you are naked you can not hide weapons. You are what you are.
Incidentally naked sports seems to be and has been big in Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freik%C3%B6rperkultur
https://chrisduggleby.com/archive/update-on-german-naked-win...
Considering that, I’m not surprised they would exercise naked instead.
In terms of the Greeks fighting with their genitals exposed, I think the descriptions of the Philistines in the Bible is interesting.
Many scholars think the Philistines were Greeks who migrated to the Eastern Mediterranean during the great Bronze Age collapse.
There are some parallels between Goliath and his armor and his mode of battle challenge to single combat and the Iliad.
In terms of nudity, what I find interesting is that when the Philistines are talked about in the Bible stories, the most common description is “uncircumcised”.
That is normally not the first thing that comes to mind to describe a man, unless he is naked.
Thus, the depictions of naked Greek warriors may actually reflect some actual truth beyond just an idealized representation.
So, unlike the Michelangelo statue, when David and Goliath fought, it may have been Goliath who had his genitals exposed.
http://treyspeegle.com/010113/2021/1/24/for-50-years-the-ymc...
They are building bronze bodies and there are “tools athletes used to scrape oil, mud and sweat from their bodies following a workout”. They mount a new head on a statue, which could symbolize the beneficial effects of sports on the mind.
People of the messianic bent always want to hold up the mythical perfect past, but when you dig into the details, it's always problematic... See also:
“nailed it.”
Reminds me of Shiva in India, which is not surprising since the classical world had much in common: they shared gods and stories freely without the curse of religion.
That said it has always been quite amusing to see the obsession of the West to appropriate the classical Greco-Roman-Egyptian culture as if it were some sort of proto-Western entity. It quite obviously is not, except for anything other than PR purposes.
The obsession in history writing has led to a state where everything good across the old world has been attributed to the Greeks (or at best to the Arabs cf. history of math) to the point that 'serious' people are trying today to gently move Buddha into being 'Greek' or at least 'Persian'. Indeed, like Jesus, Buddha can't not be white, and can't not be proto-Christian.
Irony being that Christianity itself (like Islam) was so terrifyingly destructive that it literally wiped everything but the trace of that culture; Europe continues with this genocidal mania to this day (see all of USs wars). The only reason the Greeks are heroized today is because of their race, and because they were the only people still in Christendom at the dawn of renaissance (Persians were called whiter by the Greeks).
Philosophy-wise and technology-wise, both the Indians and the Egyptians were superior in any case, and the crown-jewel of non-dualism is in (albeit waning) practice today, both in India and across Asia. Hell even the crown jewel of Geometry, that of Euclid, was found in Egypt, and the 'real' trigonometry only starts in India, yet both of them have been turned 'Greek' (aka white).
The schema of racial obsession in history, and its continued application today, reminds us how hollow all this woke power-grab is.
Damn Europeans and their US wars! This line made my day.
With respect, I don't think I've ever seen as much 'racialising' of history as you just wrote in your comment. Perhaps it may be worth reflecting on who has the 'racial obsession' here?