Tearing a God Apart: New Approaches to Dionysos, Panel at the Celtic Conference In Classics

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11210%2F24%3A10484855" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11210/24:10484855 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://cardiffccc.wixsite.com/cardiffccc2024/panels" target="_blank" >https://cardiffccc.wixsite.com/cardiffccc2024/panels</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Tearing a God Apart: New Approaches to Dionysos, Panel at the Celtic Conference In Classics

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Ever since the publication of Nietzsche&apos;s Birth of Tragedy, the cult and mythology of Dionysus are among the most widely discussed and thoroughly studied aspects of ancient Greek culture. To a large extent following Nietzsche, many scholars - rightly or not - assume that without proper understanding of the nature of this divinity, our familiarity with ancient Greece must be superficial at best. Some influential thinkers (e.g., R. Benedict 1934, R. Girard 1972, J. Kott 1974, K. Kerényi 1976) went so far as to claim that the comprehension of what may be called Dionysian is essential for understanding of the universal human nature and/or various human cultures, including our own. Without addressing the thorny issue of the validity of such claims, it is clear that Dionysus has become a particularly important figure, whose scholarly reception (which is an object of meta-scholarly research in its own right, see e.g., Smith 1964; MacGinty 1978, Henrichs 1984, Konaris 2011) has important implications for the much wider area of the humanities than the narrowly conceived field of classics. Paradoxically, this does not imply that contemporary scholars are closer to the understanding of the phenomena in question than the generations preceding Nietzsche were: the modern overabundance of scholarly works on Dionysus includes many analyses of heuristic ambitions that often exceed the scope of what one can realistically deduce from ancient sources. This contributes to the production of a number of intriguing but not always thoroughly researched works, countless polemics, and syntheses.More than a dozen important monographs on Dionysus have been written by scholars from Otto (1933) to Seaford (2006), each of whom tried to elucidate this divinity from a particular angle at the cost of neglecting some of his important aspects. This is one of the reasons why it became a tradition of speaking of a particular scholar&apos;s &quot;Dionysus&quot; (Nietzsches&apos;, Otto&apos;s, Detienne&apos;s, etc.). What seems quite telling is that since 2006 no monograph on Dionysus has appeared in the mainstream scholarship. Instead, in 2011 and 2013, two monumental collective volumes entitled Dionysus: A Different God? (Schlesier) and Redefining Dionysus (Bernabé et alii), respectively, were published. Both offer glimpses of various aspects of Dionysus, without much hope of providing definite answers to any potential research questions.The aim of the panel proposed herein is to gather scholars who would like to share their more recent research on specific aspects of Dionysus. Many of these aspects have been thus far to a large extent neglected. For example, relatively little has been said about the cognitive aspects of Dionysus&apos; cult; some perspectives on gender aspects of Dionysus have evolved due to the evolution of the field (see Surtees and Dyer 2020) and ecocritical approaches have only recently started to appear, (Bakola 2022) etc. Other issues have been well researched in the past but deserve revision. For example, the problem of gender exclusivity of maenadic rituals is likely to become a hot topic, among other factors, due to forthcoming publications by Scullion and Bednarek. Postcolonial studies gave an impulse for a reinterpretation of processes related to the transmission of religious ideas between Greeks and other peoples, such as Thracians, Etruscans, and Romans. Also, our understanding of the interaction between early Christians and &apos;pagans&apos; has changed radically thanks to such studies as Cameron&apos;s The Last Pagans of Rome (2011). It is natural that these changes in scholarly discourse as such must have an impact on our understanding of Dionysus.The list of possible subjects that can be covered includes but is not limited to:1.Pre-history of Greek Dionysus, including Indo-European, Minoan, Mycenean, and other traditions.2.Dionysus as a Greek god: his identity and relationship with mortals and immortals as it appears in texts, images, performances (including rituals).3.Dionysus in Etruria, Rome, the Hellenistic world and the Roman Empire, such as Egypt, Gaul, etc.4.Christian reception and resistance against Dionysus.5.Reception of Dionysus in later periods, from Medieval to modern.6.Ecocritical approaches to Dionysus&apos; cult and mythologies7.Scholarly reception.The panel will consist of talks by invited speakers and some scholars selected after submissions are received via an open call for papers. Each speaker will be allocated 20 or 40 minutes, according to their preferences. We would like to encourage researchers at every level of their scholarly career, including PhD students and established scholars, to submit their abstracts. Apart from a short Q&amp;A session after each paper, each day of the panel will contain a 40-minute slot for open discussion between the participants and the audience. Ideally, based on the papers presented at the panel, a collective volume (or issue of a journal) will be published. A separate session will be devoted to Richard Seaford&apos;s contribution to the study of Dionysus.Confirmed speakers are: Yulia Ustinova, Sandra Blakely, Pasquale Ferrara, Michael Janda, Kresimir Vukovic, Filip Doroszewski, Bartlomiej Bednarek, Ana Isabel Jimenez san Cristobal.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Tearing a God Apart: New Approaches to Dionysos, Panel at the Celtic Conference In Classics

Popis výsledku anglicky

Ever since the publication of Nietzsche&apos;s Birth of Tragedy, the cult and mythology of Dionysus are among the most widely discussed and thoroughly studied aspects of ancient Greek culture. To a large extent following Nietzsche, many scholars - rightly or not - assume that without proper understanding of the nature of this divinity, our familiarity with ancient Greece must be superficial at best. Some influential thinkers (e.g., R. Benedict 1934, R. Girard 1972, J. Kott 1974, K. Kerényi 1976) went so far as to claim that the comprehension of what may be called Dionysian is essential for understanding of the universal human nature and/or various human cultures, including our own. Without addressing the thorny issue of the validity of such claims, it is clear that Dionysus has become a particularly important figure, whose scholarly reception (which is an object of meta-scholarly research in its own right, see e.g., Smith 1964; MacGinty 1978, Henrichs 1984, Konaris 2011) has important implications for the much wider area of the humanities than the narrowly conceived field of classics. Paradoxically, this does not imply that contemporary scholars are closer to the understanding of the phenomena in question than the generations preceding Nietzsche were: the modern overabundance of scholarly works on Dionysus includes many analyses of heuristic ambitions that often exceed the scope of what one can realistically deduce from ancient sources. This contributes to the production of a number of intriguing but not always thoroughly researched works, countless polemics, and syntheses.More than a dozen important monographs on Dionysus have been written by scholars from Otto (1933) to Seaford (2006), each of whom tried to elucidate this divinity from a particular angle at the cost of neglecting some of his important aspects. This is one of the reasons why it became a tradition of speaking of a particular scholar&apos;s &quot;Dionysus&quot; (Nietzsches&apos;, Otto&apos;s, Detienne&apos;s, etc.). What seems quite telling is that since 2006 no monograph on Dionysus has appeared in the mainstream scholarship. Instead, in 2011 and 2013, two monumental collective volumes entitled Dionysus: A Different God? (Schlesier) and Redefining Dionysus (Bernabé et alii), respectively, were published. Both offer glimpses of various aspects of Dionysus, without much hope of providing definite answers to any potential research questions.The aim of the panel proposed herein is to gather scholars who would like to share their more recent research on specific aspects of Dionysus. Many of these aspects have been thus far to a large extent neglected. For example, relatively little has been said about the cognitive aspects of Dionysus&apos; cult; some perspectives on gender aspects of Dionysus have evolved due to the evolution of the field (see Surtees and Dyer 2020) and ecocritical approaches have only recently started to appear, (Bakola 2022) etc. Other issues have been well researched in the past but deserve revision. For example, the problem of gender exclusivity of maenadic rituals is likely to become a hot topic, among other factors, due to forthcoming publications by Scullion and Bednarek. Postcolonial studies gave an impulse for a reinterpretation of processes related to the transmission of religious ideas between Greeks and other peoples, such as Thracians, Etruscans, and Romans. Also, our understanding of the interaction between early Christians and &apos;pagans&apos; has changed radically thanks to such studies as Cameron&apos;s The Last Pagans of Rome (2011). It is natural that these changes in scholarly discourse as such must have an impact on our understanding of Dionysus.The list of possible subjects that can be covered includes but is not limited to:1.Pre-history of Greek Dionysus, including Indo-European, Minoan, Mycenean, and other traditions.2.Dionysus as a Greek god: his identity and relationship with mortals and immortals as it appears in texts, images, performances (including rituals).3.Dionysus in Etruria, Rome, the Hellenistic world and the Roman Empire, such as Egypt, Gaul, etc.4.Christian reception and resistance against Dionysus.5.Reception of Dionysus in later periods, from Medieval to modern.6.Ecocritical approaches to Dionysus&apos; cult and mythologies7.Scholarly reception.The panel will consist of talks by invited speakers and some scholars selected after submissions are received via an open call for papers. Each speaker will be allocated 20 or 40 minutes, according to their preferences. We would like to encourage researchers at every level of their scholarly career, including PhD students and established scholars, to submit their abstracts. Apart from a short Q&amp;A session after each paper, each day of the panel will contain a 40-minute slot for open discussion between the participants and the audience. Ideally, based on the papers presented at the panel, a collective volume (or issue of a journal) will be published. A separate session will be devoted to Richard Seaford&apos;s contribution to the study of Dionysus.Confirmed speakers are: Yulia Ustinova, Sandra Blakely, Pasquale Ferrara, Michael Janda, Kresimir Vukovic, Filip Doroszewski, Bartlomiej Bednarek, Ana Isabel Jimenez san Cristobal.

Druh

M - Uspořádání konference

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

60101 - History (history of science and technology to be 6.3, history of specific sciences to be under the respective headings)

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2024

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Místo konání akce

Cardiff University

Stát konání akce

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Datum zahájení akce

—

Datum ukončení akce

—

Celkový počet účastníků

35

Počet zahraničních účastníků

33

Typ akce podle státní přísl. účastníků

WRD - Celosvětová akce