Search

High grade gliomas/diffuse midline gliomas (HGG/DMG) historically have a poor prognosis with an overall survival of less than 20% at 5 years. The pathophysiology is under close investigation across the world in efforts to understand this tumor type with aims of increasing effective treatment options. We present our results on the feasibility and outcomes of patients treated on our Molecular Guided Therapy study. Tumor samples were analyzed with whole exome (DNA) and RNA sequencing. Three drug matching algorithms were utilized to generate a report that was reviewed at a multi-institutional tumor board meeting, culminating in a proposed treatment protocol. Eleven patients enrolled, but one did not complete cycle 1 of therapy due to progression of disease, thus ten patients (6-HGG, 4-DMG) were evaluable and received at least 2 cycles of therapy. Time to reports generated and tumor board assembly was (median) 18 and 24 days, respectively. Secondary goals included evaluation of efficacy. Responses showed 50% of patients with stable disease or better at 2 cycles of therapy, but these were temporary with median time to progression of 81 days. In conclusion, we determined that it is feasible to collect individual biological DNA and RNA sequencing information to offer patients individualized treatment plans for this devastating group of diseases. Though data is not statistically significant, we show that there is a suggestion of efficacy in this approach to treatment for patients, indicating a need to expand on this treatment approach with individualized medicine.

Since the Western Roman Empire collapsed, classical, or Greco-Roman, architecture has served as a model to articulate the cultural, artistic, political, and ideological goals of later civilizations, empires, nations, and individuals. The Renaissance marked the first major, widespread re-engagement with classical antiquity in art, literature, and architecture. Debates over classical antiquity and its relation to the modern world continued ever since. One such important debate was that of the quarrel between the Ancients and Moderns, which resulted when Charles Perrault published his Parallèles des anciens et des modernes in 1688. This dispute focused on whether the modern age could surpass antiquity, especially in literature. The Greco-Roman controversy (1750s and 1760s) was another example of Europeans engaging with the classical past; this debate focused on whether Greek or Roman art was of greater historical value; an argument has continued unabated to this day. Figures like Johann Joachim Winckelmann argued (in publications such as Winckelmann 1764, cited under Early Archaeological Publications on Greece and Classical Ruins in the Roman East, on Greek art) for the supremacy of Greek forms, while others like Giovanni Battista Piranesi (whose 1748–1778 views of Rome are reproduced in Ficacci 2011, cited under Early Archaeological Publications on Italy) advocated for Rome’s preeminence. Such debates demonstrate how classical antiquity was an essential part of the intellectual and artistic milieu of 18th-century Europe. This bibliography focuses on the appropriation of classical architecture in the creation of built forms from 1700 to the present in Europe and North America, which is typically called neoclassical or neo-classical, both of which are acceptable. Scholars often define the neoclassical period as lasting from c. 1750 to 1830, when European art and architecture predominantly appropriated classical forms and ideas. The influence of classical architecture continued in popularity throughout the 19th century and early 20th century in the United States. The early 19th century saw the flourishing of the Greek Revival, where Greek forms dominated artistic and architectural production, both in Europe and the United States. The ascendance of Queen Victoria in 1837 marked a shift toward a preference for the Gothic and Medieval forms. Neoclassical forms saw a resurgence in the second half of the 19th century, as Roman architectural forms became increasingly popular as an expression of empire. The term “Neo-classical” was coined as early as January 1872 by Robert Kerr, who used the term positively. It later took on certain negative overtones, when it was used as a derogatory epithet by an unknown writer in the Times of London in 1892. Neoclassical architecture has fared no better with the rise of modernism in the early 20th century onward and since then it has been seen as old-fashioned and derivative. Neoclassical architecture was not a mindless imitation of classical architectural forms and interiors. The interest in classical architecture and the creation of neoclassical architecture was spurred on by important archaeological discoveries in the mid-18th century, which widened the perception of Greek and Roman buildings. The remarkable flexibility of ancient architecture to embody the grandeur of an empire, as well as the principles of a nascent democracy, meant that it had great potential to be interpreted and reinterpreted by countless architects, patrons, empires, and nation states—in different ways and at different times from the 18th to the 20th century. This bibliography is organized thematically (e.g., General Overviews; Companions, Handbooks, and Theoretical Works; Reference Works; Early General Archaeological Publications; The Reception of Pompeii, Herculaneum, and the Bay of Naples; and World’s Fairs and Expositions) and then geographically, creating country- or region-specific bibliographies. While this model of organization has some flaws, it aims to avoid repetition and highlights the interconnected nature and process of the reception of classical architecture in later periods.

The papers in this volume have considered the reception, translation, transcription, and appropriation of Classical and Ancient Egyptian architecture in spaces of dwelling from the mid-eighteenth to late twentieth centuries. A complex picture emerges from these diverse analyses that points to future avenues for research. Most fundamentally, these essays demonstrate that scholars should approach much of the reception of ancient architecture not solely through a Neoclassical or Neo-Egyptian lens, but also through that of the Neo-Antique. Broader in concept, a Neo-Antique framework encourages us to make connections between the silos of knowledge, specifically here the Neoclassical and the Neo-Egyptian, to understand that the processes guiding the reception of Classical and Egyptian architecture were often similar, and part of the larger reception of antiquity in Europe and the United States. The Neo-Antique framework also challenges established conceptions of the Neoclassical’s limitations—an aristocratic and elite, derivative phenomenon—and redefines it as diverse, innovative, and original. These essays demonstrate that interest in ancient architecture was not limited to the civic and/or public sphere, but rather, that ancient architecture appealed to a wide range of patrons, architects, and artists in their creation of dwelling places—from dining rooms and bedrooms to tombs and gardens....

Woodlawn Cemetery in the Bronx, New York City, is home to some of the United States’ most prominent Neo-Antique mausolea, which used Classical and Egyptian motifs in their architecture and decor. Using the lens of Classical archaeology, this paper undertakes a formal analysis of funerary architecture in specific tombs belonging to Jay Gould, Francis Garavan, William Leeds, the Goelet Brothers, Jules S. Bache, and F.W. Woolworth. This discussion examines the architecture of these tombs and their reception of ancient architecture alongside archival material. It also discusses individual patrons’ and architects’ motivations for requisitioning such forms. Finally, this analysis demonstrates that through the appropriation and redeployment of ancient architecture and motifs and through the landscape design of the tombs in Woodlawn, these mausolea were rich nexuses of public and private self-fashioning and place-making, and were an expression of elite culture.

[I am] working on the assumption that our psychical mechanism has come into being by a process of stratification: the material present in the form of memory-traces being subjected from time to time to a re-arrangement in accordance with fresh circumstances—to a re-transcription.(Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fleiss, December 6, 1896, quoted in ...

Gardens were a fundamental feature of the classical world. In ancient Greece, while gardens were not included within houses, sacred groves and plants, especially trees, were ever-present elements of the Greek landscape throughout Antiquity. Much of our knowledge of Greek gardens and cultivated flora comes primarily from literature and paintings; few gardens have been recovered archaeologically. Greek attitudes to plants also helped shape the values and understanding of plants around the Mediterranean. The transformative catalyst in the development of gardens in classical Antiquity was Alexander the Great’s conquests in the East. He visited some of the major palaces and the gardens of the Persian emperors and satraps and saw firsthand the well-established, extensive garden tradition of the Near East. As a result of Alexander’s conquest, considerable horticultural knowledge (and possibly specimen plants) from the East came back to the Mediterranean region, brought there by his armies and successors. These monumental, palatial gardens were created and flourished under the Hellenistic rulers. Gardens associated with philosophers also developed in the late classical and Hellenistic eras, although we lack archaeological evidence for these gardens. Rome, the newest power in the Mediterranean, also had a well-established, indigenous domestic garden tradition in which the ownership of a garden was fundamental to the identity of the Roman citizen. The Romans had one of the most diverse garden traditions in the ancient world, and it included domestic, villa, and palatial gardens as well as public parks and gardens associated with temples or sanctuaries. A rich tradition of garden and landscape painting also existed. Until the second half of the 20th century, the study of gardens lagged behind other fields of classical studies, largely due to a lack of archaeological evidence for gardens. However, the advent of garden archaeology, largely pioneered by W. F. Jashemski at Pompeii and its environs, has greatly increased our knowledge of ancient Roman gardens. Archaeology is vital to the study of Greek and Roman gardens as it expands our knowledge of garden design and plantings, although ancient sources remain essential to the interpretation of these remains. Garden archaeology is now being conducted across the whole Roman world. However, its application in the Greek world has lagged. The new archaeological discoveries have made it possible for scholars to now consider complex questions about design, plants, and horticulture as well as the meaning, purpose, and function of gardens in the ancient world.