Major points of the article

In the suggested article the author discusses an issue of how rulers are
commemorated by looking at the cases of Mesopotamian politicians. Irene J.
Winter states that there are several attributes that representations of rulers have and
that are readable at a glance by the viewer. One of them is the quality of being
well-built, another one – auspiciousness. Finally, life force, vigor, and vitality are
suggested to be the thing that can be read in imagery. All these features, as we can
see, are connected with the ruler’s body and contribute to eroticizing it, which is
problematic for the modern viewer.

Modern forms of commemorating the ruler

As I think, today forms of commemorating the ruler differ from those used
in ancient times. Many years ago the figure of the ruler was almost indisputable,
incredible features were attributed to them by the public. Today, probably due to
the development of science and public consciousness, recent rulers are not
considered that divine and impeccable. Now people debate about the figures of
prominent politicians, whether they are good or bad, that is why (of course, it is not
the only reason) we cannot see so many monuments created to commemorate
rulers of recent years. So, to provide some examples, I’d like to appeal to XVIII-
XIX centuries (moreover, in terms of historical periods it was not long ago).
For instance, in 1873 the monument to Katherine II was erected in Saint-
Petersburg. The empress is depicted great (as she was named at the time of her
reign). There is no eroticizing of her body, but, as I think, some masculine features
are attributed to her: strength, force, power and so on. Although she was not the
first woman to rule Russia, but there still were many gender-based prejudices, so
the ruler of a great country needed to have such characteristics (which usually
could not be found in women).