The historian Cassiodorus believed that the selective…
““The historian Cassiodorus believed that the selective destruction of Alaric, as regards the Greek monuments, was of good effect. Alaric had some taste and was awed by really great art. The Greeks were only human, and all their work could not have been excellent. But almost all their ancient work that survived the ravages of Alaric was of unsurpassed excellence. There is abominable and worthless ancient Greek art in Asia Minor, in Constantinople, in Thebes, in Eritrea, in the Cyclades and other islands. There is little or none of this worthless ancient art surviving in the path of the Gothic Greek adventure; not in Athens, or Megara or Corinth or Argos. Sparta does not figure in the account at all; it never had art. It is said that Alaric destroyed half of the art of Greece. It may have been the worst half. He was a critic of unusual effectiveness.””
About This Quote
This interpretation was drafted with AI assistance. It is one reading of the quote, not the author's own explanation.
Alaric's selective destruction left only the finest Greek art, implying that loss can highlight excellence.
In simple terms: Destruction can reveal what truly matters.
Key Takeaway
Value what survives.
Themes
art history
valuation
selective loss
Mood
analytical
thoughtful
Type
critical
historical
When to use this quote
- museum curation
- historical research
- education
- heritage tourism
Key Concepts
cultural preservation
critical assessment
Questions to Reflect On
- What defines 'best' art?
- How do we assess value after loss?
A Different Perspective
Not all loss is beneficial; context matters.