Kseniya Polezhaeva
Graduate School (PhD student), SS Cyril and Methodius Theological Institute of Post-Graduate Sktudies.
M.A., Jurisprudence, National Research University Higher School of Economics, cum laude. The thesis: Sacrilege: A Comparative Legal Study. (Advisor - Elena Silvestrova).
M.A., Canon Law and Theology, SS Cyril and Methodius Theological Institute of Post-Graduate Sktudies, cum laude.
Graduate School (PhD student), Department of History of Art, Faculty of History, Lomonosov Moscow State University. The thesis: "Alkamenes and the problems of the Attic sculpture of the 2nd half of the 5th century BC. (Advisor - Nadezhda Nalimova).
В.А., Faculty of Law, Lomonosov Moscow State University. The paper: "Peculiarities of the Fake Art Fraud Investigation" (Advisor - Eugenia Kryukova).
Certificate de civilisation française, Département de littérature, Collège Universitaire Français Université d'État de Moscou Lomonossov. The paper: "I.A.Goncharov and I.I.Oblomov as collectors and readers of French literature (based on the materials of the Catalogue of the Simbirsk Karamzin Public Library and the novel "Oblomov")". (Advisor - Ekaterina Dmitrieva).
Specialist’ degree of History of Art, Department of History of Art, Faculty of History, Lomonosov Moscow State University, cum laude. The paper: "Alkamenes among the Attic sculptors of the 2nd half of the 5th century BC". (Advisor - Nadezhda Nalimova).
M.A., Jurisprudence, National Research University Higher School of Economics, cum laude. The thesis: Sacrilege: A Comparative Legal Study. (Advisor - Elena Silvestrova).
M.A., Canon Law and Theology, SS Cyril and Methodius Theological Institute of Post-Graduate Sktudies, cum laude.
Graduate School (PhD student), Department of History of Art, Faculty of History, Lomonosov Moscow State University. The thesis: "Alkamenes and the problems of the Attic sculpture of the 2nd half of the 5th century BC. (Advisor - Nadezhda Nalimova).
В.А., Faculty of Law, Lomonosov Moscow State University. The paper: "Peculiarities of the Fake Art Fraud Investigation" (Advisor - Eugenia Kryukova).
Certificate de civilisation française, Département de littérature, Collège Universitaire Français Université d'État de Moscou Lomonossov. The paper: "I.A.Goncharov and I.I.Oblomov as collectors and readers of French literature (based on the materials of the Catalogue of the Simbirsk Karamzin Public Library and the novel "Oblomov")". (Advisor - Ekaterina Dmitrieva).
Specialist’ degree of History of Art, Department of History of Art, Faculty of History, Lomonosov Moscow State University, cum laude. The paper: "Alkamenes among the Attic sculptors of the 2nd half of the 5th century BC". (Advisor - Nadezhda Nalimova).
less
InterestsView All (46)
Uploads
Papers by Kseniya Polezhaeva
охраны священных и иных вещей божественного права в каноническом праве. Для достижения цели автор исследует источники на греческом и латинском языках, а также
их переводы. Автор заключает, что толкователи канонов о святотатстве рассматривают
прежде всего 72-е и 73-е правила святых апостолов и дополняющие их 6-е и 8-е правила святого Григория Нисского, 10-е правило Двукратного Константинопольского Собора,
в то время как корпус канонического права содержит и другие упоминания святотатства. Методология, выбранная автором, позволяет расширить перечень исследуемых канонов, следуя за словами ἱεροσῡλία и sacrilegium и однокоренными им. Именно они использовались для обозначения святотатства в Септуагинте и Вульгате. Исследуя тексты
источников, автор обнаруживает и доказывает двуприродность святотатства как наказуемого деяния: как преступления против собственности и преступления против Бога/
. The article is devoted to the study of sacrilege as a punishable act in the canon
law of the Orthodox Church and the determination of the composition of this offense. The purpose
of the study is to conceptualize sacrilege as a way of protecting res sacrae and other res divini
iuris in canon law. The author studies sources in Greek and Latin, as well as translations, and
concludes that interpreters of the canons on sacrilege consider, first of all, the 72nd and 73rd
canons of the holy apostles and, complementing them, the 6th and 8th canons of St. Gregory of
Nyssa, the 10th canon of the Protodeutera, while canons contain other references to sacrilege. The
methodology chosen by the author allows us to expand the list of canons under study, following
the words «ἱεροσῡλία» and «sacrilegium» and its cognates which were used to denote sacrilege
in the Septuagint and Vulgate. Studying the texts of the sources, the author discovers and proves
the dual nature of sacrilege as a punishable act — as a crime against property and a crime against
God, but expressed strictly against specific objects of the material world such as res sacrae and
other res divini iuris which can be both objects and persons.
Ключевые слова: искусство Древней Греции, классические Афины, cкульптура, Алкамен, Афродита, Афродита «в садах», Афродита у колонны
ABOUT THE ATTRIBUTION OF ALKAMENES’ APHRODITE ἘΝ ΚΉΠΟΙΣ
Summary: The article is dedicated to the statue of Alkamenes’ Aphrodite ἐν κήποις. The oeuvre is repeatedly mentioned in the ancient sources. The original of the sculpture has not reach the modern era. The connection of the work with the Roman copies causes an extensive discussion between art historians. Accordingly, the main purpose of this article is to identify a number of specific monuments with the statue of Aphrodite ἐν κήποις. To solve this problem, the author, first of all, carries out a detailed study and review of the messages of the ancient authors. Then, the author studies the historical aspects of creating the statue and some problems of iconography depicting the goddess Aphrodite in the art of the second half of the 5th century BC. The article highlights the main scholar works on both the work of the Alkamenes in general and the statue of Aphrodite ἐν κήποις in particular. The author compares the only original Alkamenes’ statue that has come down to us, the group of Prokne and Itys, with a number of the Roman copies that some scholars associate with the statue of Aphrodite ἐν κήποις. Such a comparison is carried out by applying a formal stylistic analysis. Together, the data collected and analyzed allow
On the one hand, the ancient writers call Alkamenes a talented sculptor and treat him as equal to his teacher, sometimes giving preference to the pupil. For instance, Pausanias affirms (Pausan., V, 10, 8) that Alkamenes was «a contemporary of Pheidias, ranking next after him for skill as a sculptor». At the same time Pliny the Elder calls (Plin., N. H. XXXVI, 16) Pheidias as the teacher of Alkamenes from Athens, the famous of the first, whose works in Athens are very numerous in the temples. Ancient Roman writer considers (Plin., N.H., XXXIV, 72) Alkamenes to be a Pheidias’ discipulus. Also, he tells us (Plin., N. H. XXXVI, 17) about the competition between Alkamenes and Agoracritos, another Pheidias’ disciple, related to the creation of the statue of Venus. Lucian compares (Luc., J. Tr., 7) Alkamenes to Pheidias, Myron, Euphranon and Polykleitos. Quintilian says (Quintil., Inst. Orat., XII, 10, 8) that Alkamenes and Pheidias are equally gifted in depicting the greatness of gods.
On the other hand, ancient authors deliberately oppose these two masters. It becomes evident if we look at the creation of the Athena Lemnia and the story of Tzetz (Tzetz., Chil., VIII, v. 340 segg.) about the rivalry between Alkamenes and Pheidias in the making of the statue of Athena.
охраны священных и иных вещей божественного права в каноническом праве. Для достижения цели автор исследует источники на греческом и латинском языках, а также
их переводы. Автор заключает, что толкователи канонов о святотатстве рассматривают
прежде всего 72-е и 73-е правила святых апостолов и дополняющие их 6-е и 8-е правила святого Григория Нисского, 10-е правило Двукратного Константинопольского Собора,
в то время как корпус канонического права содержит и другие упоминания святотатства. Методология, выбранная автором, позволяет расширить перечень исследуемых канонов, следуя за словами ἱεροσῡλία и sacrilegium и однокоренными им. Именно они использовались для обозначения святотатства в Септуагинте и Вульгате. Исследуя тексты
источников, автор обнаруживает и доказывает двуприродность святотатства как наказуемого деяния: как преступления против собственности и преступления против Бога/
. The article is devoted to the study of sacrilege as a punishable act in the canon
law of the Orthodox Church and the determination of the composition of this offense. The purpose
of the study is to conceptualize sacrilege as a way of protecting res sacrae and other res divini
iuris in canon law. The author studies sources in Greek and Latin, as well as translations, and
concludes that interpreters of the canons on sacrilege consider, first of all, the 72nd and 73rd
canons of the holy apostles and, complementing them, the 6th and 8th canons of St. Gregory of
Nyssa, the 10th canon of the Protodeutera, while canons contain other references to sacrilege. The
methodology chosen by the author allows us to expand the list of canons under study, following
the words «ἱεροσῡλία» and «sacrilegium» and its cognates which were used to denote sacrilege
in the Septuagint and Vulgate. Studying the texts of the sources, the author discovers and proves
the dual nature of sacrilege as a punishable act — as a crime against property and a crime against
God, but expressed strictly against specific objects of the material world such as res sacrae and
other res divini iuris which can be both objects and persons.
Ключевые слова: искусство Древней Греции, классические Афины, cкульптура, Алкамен, Афродита, Афродита «в садах», Афродита у колонны
ABOUT THE ATTRIBUTION OF ALKAMENES’ APHRODITE ἘΝ ΚΉΠΟΙΣ
Summary: The article is dedicated to the statue of Alkamenes’ Aphrodite ἐν κήποις. The oeuvre is repeatedly mentioned in the ancient sources. The original of the sculpture has not reach the modern era. The connection of the work with the Roman copies causes an extensive discussion between art historians. Accordingly, the main purpose of this article is to identify a number of specific monuments with the statue of Aphrodite ἐν κήποις. To solve this problem, the author, first of all, carries out a detailed study and review of the messages of the ancient authors. Then, the author studies the historical aspects of creating the statue and some problems of iconography depicting the goddess Aphrodite in the art of the second half of the 5th century BC. The article highlights the main scholar works on both the work of the Alkamenes in general and the statue of Aphrodite ἐν κήποις in particular. The author compares the only original Alkamenes’ statue that has come down to us, the group of Prokne and Itys, with a number of the Roman copies that some scholars associate with the statue of Aphrodite ἐν κήποις. Such a comparison is carried out by applying a formal stylistic analysis. Together, the data collected and analyzed allow
On the one hand, the ancient writers call Alkamenes a talented sculptor and treat him as equal to his teacher, sometimes giving preference to the pupil. For instance, Pausanias affirms (Pausan., V, 10, 8) that Alkamenes was «a contemporary of Pheidias, ranking next after him for skill as a sculptor». At the same time Pliny the Elder calls (Plin., N. H. XXXVI, 16) Pheidias as the teacher of Alkamenes from Athens, the famous of the first, whose works in Athens are very numerous in the temples. Ancient Roman writer considers (Plin., N.H., XXXIV, 72) Alkamenes to be a Pheidias’ discipulus. Also, he tells us (Plin., N. H. XXXVI, 17) about the competition between Alkamenes and Agoracritos, another Pheidias’ disciple, related to the creation of the statue of Venus. Lucian compares (Luc., J. Tr., 7) Alkamenes to Pheidias, Myron, Euphranon and Polykleitos. Quintilian says (Quintil., Inst. Orat., XII, 10, 8) that Alkamenes and Pheidias are equally gifted in depicting the greatness of gods.
On the other hand, ancient authors deliberately oppose these two masters. It becomes evident if we look at the creation of the Athena Lemnia and the story of Tzetz (Tzetz., Chil., VIII, v. 340 segg.) about the rivalry between Alkamenes and Pheidias in the making of the statue of Athena.