Talk:Laocoön and His Sons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Laocoön and His Sons, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
??? This article has not yet been prioritized.

Contents

[edit] Thanks

My thanks to those who have made improvements to this article. Adam 23:06, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Laocoon page vs Laocoon and his Sons page

Wouldn't the second, third, and fourth paragraphs (and the associated Virgil passage) not be better on the (rather anemic) Laocoon page, rather than here? Given that they're not particularly about the statue, that would (to me) seem the more appropriate place. Equally, the last 2 1/2 paragraphs from Laocoon can die, as the same material is covered (better) here. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:29, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's probably true. I hadn't actually read the Laocoon page when I wrote this. I of course like having it all in my article, but I will try not to be too territorial if you want to reassign some of the content between the two articles. Adam 03:38, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I've moved that stuff over there, and fixed up both articles with modestly sized paragraphs summarising one another. As it was a more painful experience than I'd expected, I'd appreciate it if someone who didn't quit halfway through The Illiad could glance over both and check for nonsensicalities. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:51, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Landmark" Status

The Laocoon is listed as a landmark. It seems to me that landmarks are buildings and piazas and obelisks and such, not individual artworks. Sculptures that might qualify as landmarks might be ones that act as geographical markers or are so strongly tied to a specific location that they define it to some extent. Marcus Aurelius at the center of the Capitoline Piazza might be an example, althought it's probably less of a landmark than the piazza as a whole. I can't think a good example.

[edit] Forgery?

I removed the below paragraph, added by an anonymous user, because it seems a bit iffy. If anyone know anything about this, feel free to add it to the article. -- Ranveig

The Laocoon, the famous ancient Greek sculptural masterpiece depicting a priest and his sons struggling with a sea snake, is a forgery. It is not just any forgery, however. The forger was the famous renaissance artist Michelangelo. The sculpture is said to have been created by the ancient Greeks or Romans between the 4th Century B.C. and the 2nd Century A.D., and subsequently excavated in 1506.
CLick here for more info
There was another article about this in the New York Times this week "An Ancient Masterpiece or a Master's Forgery?" http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/18/arts/design/18laoc.html
Pure speculation, no real evidence at all. Adam 19:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The forgery argument, made by an art history at Columbia University, is supported by evidence and is being taken seriously in the art history academic community. It should of course be mentioned in this article, according to ordinary Wikipedia protocol -- not as a fact -- but as a matter of current controversy. Someone who knows the field well should write a sentence or two -- it's significant and certainly interesting information. Here's a cite to a well-done piece of journalism on the issue -- [1]

[edit] potential mistake at the end of the first paragraph

"Both the Iliad and the Aeneid describe this as Poseidon's wrath for Laocoön's attempt to expose the ruse of the Trojan Horse."

Actually, the Iliad doesn't make any mention of Laocoon, and neither does the Odyssey. [anon comment]

I think that is correct. It's a long time since I did classics but I think the Trojan Horse and Laocoon's warning ("Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes") are in Virgil, not in Homer. Someone should check this. Adam 00:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, the mention that Poseidon's wrath is the reason for Laocoon's fate is an issue of speculation and debate among Classicists, as it is not described as such in the Aeneid. 19 March 2006


PROBLEM-----

doing a little research and i think that some clarity could be in order. this article dates the statue group roughly between 160 BC to 20 BC. with the later 42 BC to 20 BC being most likely based on the lives of the artists who made the statue. then at the end we are discussing that that homer doesnt mention laocoon, virgil does. however, virgils aeneid isnt published until around 19 BC, and even if just slightly before. i think its a big jump to think that artists are carving a monumental statue group before(??) or soon after virgil creates him in text. obviously im ignorant myself. just making a logic point.

we need more research jeff 19.01.2007

[edit] Rhodes copy

The article mentions that the copy in Rhodes still has the arm in the outstretched position. I'm no expert, but I was in Rhodes over the weekend and I have to disagree: http://chadandelisa.parry.org/album/showimg.php?file=/Honeymoon/Rhodes/IMG_0626.JPG.

Fair enough! I hope you enjoyed your honeymoon. Best wishes for the future. Paul B 15:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem in Influence section

The following statement is incorrect: "The influence of the Laocoön is evidenced in Michelangelo's Battle of Cascina: cartoons for this work show that he used several variants of the poses in the Laocoön group." The Laocoön statue group was "discovered" in 1506. Michelangelo was commissioned for the Battle of Cascina in August 1504 and by October he purchased the paper for the full scale cartoon in order to transfer the compostion to the wall, which is to say that by the end of 1504 he had come pretty close to fully realizing the Battle of Cascina. Thus it cannot have been influenced by the Laocoön which was not yet "discovered."Catterson 14:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is proof that M created it after all! I've deleted it. Paul B 18:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
More excellent detective work like this!--Wetman 23:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)