Semisimplicity of the category of coherent sheaves?












8












$begingroup$


The category of coherent sheaves on a locally Noetherian scheme is abelian. Are there some geometric conditions on the scheme that imply that the category of coherent sheaves is semisimple?



Edited in response to posic's comments.






ag.algebraic-geometry







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The category of quasi-coherent sheaves is abelian on any scheme. The category of coherent sheaves, on the other hand, is only abelian on a locally Noetherian (or at best a locally coherent) scheme, I would think. E.g., consider the case of an affine scheme, which is the spectrum of an arbitrary ring. The category of finitely presented modules over such a ring is not abelian. What is "the abelian category of coherent sheaves" over such a scheme?
    $endgroup$
    – Leonid Positselski
    Apr 13 at 13:41
















8












$begingroup$


The category of coherent sheaves on a locally Noetherian scheme is abelian. Are there some geometric conditions on the scheme that imply that the category of coherent sheaves is semisimple?



Edited in response to posic's comments.






ag.algebraic-geometry







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The category of quasi-coherent sheaves is abelian on any scheme. The category of coherent sheaves, on the other hand, is only abelian on a locally Noetherian (or at best a locally coherent) scheme, I would think. E.g., consider the case of an affine scheme, which is the spectrum of an arbitrary ring. The category of finitely presented modules over such a ring is not abelian. What is "the abelian category of coherent sheaves" over such a scheme?
    $endgroup$
    – Leonid Positselski
    Apr 13 at 13:41














8












8








8


1



$begingroup$


The category of coherent sheaves on a locally Noetherian scheme is abelian. Are there some geometric conditions on the scheme that imply that the category of coherent sheaves is semisimple?



Edited in response to posic's comments.






ag.algebraic-geometry







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




The category of coherent sheaves on a locally Noetherian scheme is abelian. Are there some geometric conditions on the scheme that imply that the category of coherent sheaves is semisimple?



Edited in response to posic's comments.






ag.algebraic-geometry




ag.algebraic-geometry






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Apr 13 at 14:23







Stepan Banach

















asked Apr 13 at 11:15









Stepan BanachStepan Banach

29616




29616








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The category of quasi-coherent sheaves is abelian on any scheme. The category of coherent sheaves, on the other hand, is only abelian on a locally Noetherian (or at best a locally coherent) scheme, I would think. E.g., consider the case of an affine scheme, which is the spectrum of an arbitrary ring. The category of finitely presented modules over such a ring is not abelian. What is "the abelian category of coherent sheaves" over such a scheme?
    $endgroup$
    – Leonid Positselski
    Apr 13 at 13:41














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The category of quasi-coherent sheaves is abelian on any scheme. The category of coherent sheaves, on the other hand, is only abelian on a locally Noetherian (or at best a locally coherent) scheme, I would think. E.g., consider the case of an affine scheme, which is the spectrum of an arbitrary ring. The category of finitely presented modules over such a ring is not abelian. What is "the abelian category of coherent sheaves" over such a scheme?
    $endgroup$
    – Leonid Positselski
    Apr 13 at 13:41








2




2




$begingroup$
The category of quasi-coherent sheaves is abelian on any scheme. The category of coherent sheaves, on the other hand, is only abelian on a locally Noetherian (or at best a locally coherent) scheme, I would think. E.g., consider the case of an affine scheme, which is the spectrum of an arbitrary ring. The category of finitely presented modules over such a ring is not abelian. What is "the abelian category of coherent sheaves" over such a scheme?
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 13:41




$begingroup$
The category of quasi-coherent sheaves is abelian on any scheme. The category of coherent sheaves, on the other hand, is only abelian on a locally Noetherian (or at best a locally coherent) scheme, I would think. E.g., consider the case of an affine scheme, which is the spectrum of an arbitrary ring. The category of finitely presented modules over such a ring is not abelian. What is "the abelian category of coherent sheaves" over such a scheme?
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 13:41










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















13












$begingroup$

Let $X$ be a locally Noetherian scheme. Then the abelian category of coherent sheaves on $X$ is semisimple if and only if $X$ is the disjoint union of finitely many reduced points.



The if direction is clear: the category of coherent sheaves on a finite union of reduced points is a direct sum of categories of finite dimensional vector spaces (over fields), so semisimple.



Only if direction. If the category of coherent sheaves is semisimple, then all $Ext^1$ vanish, in particular, for every closed point $x$ of $X$, we have $Ext^1(k_x,k_x)=0$, where $k_x$ is the skyscraper sheaf at $x$. But $Ext^1(k_x,k_x)$ is the Zariski tangent space at $X$ (e.g. see https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/75673/tangent-space-in-a-point-and-first-ext-group ). As $X$ is locally Noetherian, the local ring at $x$ is Noetherian and the vanishing of the Zariski tangent space at $x$ implies by Nakayama lemma that the local ring at $x$ is a field. Using the fact that in a locally Noetherian scheme, every point specializes to a closed point (e.g. see https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01OU), it follows that $X$ is a disjoint union of reduced points.
If this union is infinite, then the category of coherent sheaves is not semisimple (the structure sheaf is not a finite direct sum of simple objects). So $X$ has to be a finite disjoint union of reduced points.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    No, the category of coherent sheaves over an infinite disjoint union of reduced points is semisimple abelian, in fact. It is equivalent to the infinite Cartesian product of the categories of finite-dimensional vector spaces over the related fields. Every object in it is naturally the direct sum of its components sitting at the points, and at the same time it is the infinite product of the same components.
    $endgroup$
    – Leonid Positselski
    Apr 13 at 15:19












  • $begingroup$
    ... So, in particular, the structure sheaf over such a scheme $X$ is the infinite direct sum, and at the same time the infinite product, of the one-dimensional (skyscraper) sheaves $k_x$ sitting at the points $xin X$. These skyscraper sheaves are simple objects.
    $endgroup$
    – Leonid Positselski
    Apr 13 at 15:24






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    The issue is maybe the correct definition of "semisimple". If I look at ncatlab.org/nlab/show/semisimple+category or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-simplicity , the definition is that every object is a direct sum of finitely many simple objects. If we remove the condition "finitely many", I agree with your comments.
    $endgroup$
    – user25309
    Apr 13 at 15:38










  • $begingroup$
    Oh, yes. Then you are right.
    $endgroup$
    – Leonid Positselski
    Apr 13 at 15:40












Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f327961%2fsemisimplicity-of-the-category-of-coherent-sheaves%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









13












$begingroup$

Let $X$ be a locally Noetherian scheme. Then the abelian category of coherent sheaves on $X$ is semisimple if and only if $X$ is the disjoint union of finitely many reduced points.



The if direction is clear: the category of coherent sheaves on a finite union of reduced points is a direct sum of categories of finite dimensional vector spaces (over fields), so semisimple.



Only if direction. If the category of coherent sheaves is semisimple, then all $Ext^1$ vanish, in particular, for every closed point $x$ of $X$, we have $Ext^1(k_x,k_x)=0$, where $k_x$ is the skyscraper sheaf at $x$. But $Ext^1(k_x,k_x)$ is the Zariski tangent space at $X$ (e.g. see https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/75673/tangent-space-in-a-point-and-first-ext-group ). As $X$ is locally Noetherian, the local ring at $x$ is Noetherian and the vanishing of the Zariski tangent space at $x$ implies by Nakayama lemma that the local ring at $x$ is a field. Using the fact that in a locally Noetherian scheme, every point specializes to a closed point (e.g. see https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01OU), it follows that $X$ is a disjoint union of reduced points.
If this union is infinite, then the category of coherent sheaves is not semisimple (the structure sheaf is not a finite direct sum of simple objects). So $X$ has to be a finite disjoint union of reduced points.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    No, the category of coherent sheaves over an infinite disjoint union of reduced points is semisimple abelian, in fact. It is equivalent to the infinite Cartesian product of the categories of finite-dimensional vector spaces over the related fields. Every object in it is naturally the direct sum of its components sitting at the points, and at the same time it is the infinite product of the same components.
    $endgroup$
    – Leonid Positselski
    Apr 13 at 15:19












  • $begingroup$
    ... So, in particular, the structure sheaf over such a scheme $X$ is the infinite direct sum, and at the same time the infinite product, of the one-dimensional (skyscraper) sheaves $k_x$ sitting at the points $xin X$. These skyscraper sheaves are simple objects.
    $endgroup$
    – Leonid Positselski
    Apr 13 at 15:24






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    The issue is maybe the correct definition of "semisimple". If I look at ncatlab.org/nlab/show/semisimple+category or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-simplicity , the definition is that every object is a direct sum of finitely many simple objects. If we remove the condition "finitely many", I agree with your comments.
    $endgroup$
    – user25309
    Apr 13 at 15:38










  • $begingroup$
    Oh, yes. Then you are right.
    $endgroup$
    – Leonid Positselski
    Apr 13 at 15:40
















13












$begingroup$

Let $X$ be a locally Noetherian scheme. Then the abelian category of coherent sheaves on $X$ is semisimple if and only if $X$ is the disjoint union of finitely many reduced points.



The if direction is clear: the category of coherent sheaves on a finite union of reduced points is a direct sum of categories of finite dimensional vector spaces (over fields), so semisimple.



Only if direction. If the category of coherent sheaves is semisimple, then all $Ext^1$ vanish, in particular, for every closed point $x$ of $X$, we have $Ext^1(k_x,k_x)=0$, where $k_x$ is the skyscraper sheaf at $x$. But $Ext^1(k_x,k_x)$ is the Zariski tangent space at $X$ (e.g. see https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/75673/tangent-space-in-a-point-and-first-ext-group ). As $X$ is locally Noetherian, the local ring at $x$ is Noetherian and the vanishing of the Zariski tangent space at $x$ implies by Nakayama lemma that the local ring at $x$ is a field. Using the fact that in a locally Noetherian scheme, every point specializes to a closed point (e.g. see https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01OU), it follows that $X$ is a disjoint union of reduced points.
If this union is infinite, then the category of coherent sheaves is not semisimple (the structure sheaf is not a finite direct sum of simple objects). So $X$ has to be a finite disjoint union of reduced points.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    No, the category of coherent sheaves over an infinite disjoint union of reduced points is semisimple abelian, in fact. It is equivalent to the infinite Cartesian product of the categories of finite-dimensional vector spaces over the related fields. Every object in it is naturally the direct sum of its components sitting at the points, and at the same time it is the infinite product of the same components.
    $endgroup$
    – Leonid Positselski
    Apr 13 at 15:19












  • $begingroup$
    ... So, in particular, the structure sheaf over such a scheme $X$ is the infinite direct sum, and at the same time the infinite product, of the one-dimensional (skyscraper) sheaves $k_x$ sitting at the points $xin X$. These skyscraper sheaves are simple objects.
    $endgroup$
    – Leonid Positselski
    Apr 13 at 15:24






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    The issue is maybe the correct definition of "semisimple". If I look at ncatlab.org/nlab/show/semisimple+category or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-simplicity , the definition is that every object is a direct sum of finitely many simple objects. If we remove the condition "finitely many", I agree with your comments.
    $endgroup$
    – user25309
    Apr 13 at 15:38










  • $begingroup$
    Oh, yes. Then you are right.
    $endgroup$
    – Leonid Positselski
    Apr 13 at 15:40














13












13








13





$begingroup$

Let $X$ be a locally Noetherian scheme. Then the abelian category of coherent sheaves on $X$ is semisimple if and only if $X$ is the disjoint union of finitely many reduced points.



The if direction is clear: the category of coherent sheaves on a finite union of reduced points is a direct sum of categories of finite dimensional vector spaces (over fields), so semisimple.



Only if direction. If the category of coherent sheaves is semisimple, then all $Ext^1$ vanish, in particular, for every closed point $x$ of $X$, we have $Ext^1(k_x,k_x)=0$, where $k_x$ is the skyscraper sheaf at $x$. But $Ext^1(k_x,k_x)$ is the Zariski tangent space at $X$ (e.g. see https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/75673/tangent-space-in-a-point-and-first-ext-group ). As $X$ is locally Noetherian, the local ring at $x$ is Noetherian and the vanishing of the Zariski tangent space at $x$ implies by Nakayama lemma that the local ring at $x$ is a field. Using the fact that in a locally Noetherian scheme, every point specializes to a closed point (e.g. see https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01OU), it follows that $X$ is a disjoint union of reduced points.
If this union is infinite, then the category of coherent sheaves is not semisimple (the structure sheaf is not a finite direct sum of simple objects). So $X$ has to be a finite disjoint union of reduced points.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Let $X$ be a locally Noetherian scheme. Then the abelian category of coherent sheaves on $X$ is semisimple if and only if $X$ is the disjoint union of finitely many reduced points.



The if direction is clear: the category of coherent sheaves on a finite union of reduced points is a direct sum of categories of finite dimensional vector spaces (over fields), so semisimple.



Only if direction. If the category of coherent sheaves is semisimple, then all $Ext^1$ vanish, in particular, for every closed point $x$ of $X$, we have $Ext^1(k_x,k_x)=0$, where $k_x$ is the skyscraper sheaf at $x$. But $Ext^1(k_x,k_x)$ is the Zariski tangent space at $X$ (e.g. see https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/75673/tangent-space-in-a-point-and-first-ext-group ). As $X$ is locally Noetherian, the local ring at $x$ is Noetherian and the vanishing of the Zariski tangent space at $x$ implies by Nakayama lemma that the local ring at $x$ is a field. Using the fact that in a locally Noetherian scheme, every point specializes to a closed point (e.g. see https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01OU), it follows that $X$ is a disjoint union of reduced points.
If this union is infinite, then the category of coherent sheaves is not semisimple (the structure sheaf is not a finite direct sum of simple objects). So $X$ has to be a finite disjoint union of reduced points.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Apr 13 at 15:40

























answered Apr 13 at 15:05









user25309user25309

4,9272340




4,9272340












  • $begingroup$
    No, the category of coherent sheaves over an infinite disjoint union of reduced points is semisimple abelian, in fact. It is equivalent to the infinite Cartesian product of the categories of finite-dimensional vector spaces over the related fields. Every object in it is naturally the direct sum of its components sitting at the points, and at the same time it is the infinite product of the same components.
    $endgroup$
    – Leonid Positselski
    Apr 13 at 15:19












  • $begingroup$
    ... So, in particular, the structure sheaf over such a scheme $X$ is the infinite direct sum, and at the same time the infinite product, of the one-dimensional (skyscraper) sheaves $k_x$ sitting at the points $xin X$. These skyscraper sheaves are simple objects.
    $endgroup$
    – Leonid Positselski
    Apr 13 at 15:24






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    The issue is maybe the correct definition of "semisimple". If I look at ncatlab.org/nlab/show/semisimple+category or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-simplicity , the definition is that every object is a direct sum of finitely many simple objects. If we remove the condition "finitely many", I agree with your comments.
    $endgroup$
    – user25309
    Apr 13 at 15:38










  • $begingroup$
    Oh, yes. Then you are right.
    $endgroup$
    – Leonid Positselski
    Apr 13 at 15:40


















  • $begingroup$
    No, the category of coherent sheaves over an infinite disjoint union of reduced points is semisimple abelian, in fact. It is equivalent to the infinite Cartesian product of the categories of finite-dimensional vector spaces over the related fields. Every object in it is naturally the direct sum of its components sitting at the points, and at the same time it is the infinite product of the same components.
    $endgroup$
    – Leonid Positselski
    Apr 13 at 15:19












  • $begingroup$
    ... So, in particular, the structure sheaf over such a scheme $X$ is the infinite direct sum, and at the same time the infinite product, of the one-dimensional (skyscraper) sheaves $k_x$ sitting at the points $xin X$. These skyscraper sheaves are simple objects.
    $endgroup$
    – Leonid Positselski
    Apr 13 at 15:24






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    The issue is maybe the correct definition of "semisimple". If I look at ncatlab.org/nlab/show/semisimple+category or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-simplicity , the definition is that every object is a direct sum of finitely many simple objects. If we remove the condition "finitely many", I agree with your comments.
    $endgroup$
    – user25309
    Apr 13 at 15:38










  • $begingroup$
    Oh, yes. Then you are right.
    $endgroup$
    – Leonid Positselski
    Apr 13 at 15:40
















$begingroup$
No, the category of coherent sheaves over an infinite disjoint union of reduced points is semisimple abelian, in fact. It is equivalent to the infinite Cartesian product of the categories of finite-dimensional vector spaces over the related fields. Every object in it is naturally the direct sum of its components sitting at the points, and at the same time it is the infinite product of the same components.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:19






$begingroup$
No, the category of coherent sheaves over an infinite disjoint union of reduced points is semisimple abelian, in fact. It is equivalent to the infinite Cartesian product of the categories of finite-dimensional vector spaces over the related fields. Every object in it is naturally the direct sum of its components sitting at the points, and at the same time it is the infinite product of the same components.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:19














$begingroup$
... So, in particular, the structure sheaf over such a scheme $X$ is the infinite direct sum, and at the same time the infinite product, of the one-dimensional (skyscraper) sheaves $k_x$ sitting at the points $xin X$. These skyscraper sheaves are simple objects.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:24




$begingroup$
... So, in particular, the structure sheaf over such a scheme $X$ is the infinite direct sum, and at the same time the infinite product, of the one-dimensional (skyscraper) sheaves $k_x$ sitting at the points $xin X$. These skyscraper sheaves are simple objects.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:24




6




6




$begingroup$
The issue is maybe the correct definition of "semisimple". If I look at ncatlab.org/nlab/show/semisimple+category or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-simplicity , the definition is that every object is a direct sum of finitely many simple objects. If we remove the condition "finitely many", I agree with your comments.
$endgroup$
– user25309
Apr 13 at 15:38




$begingroup$
The issue is maybe the correct definition of "semisimple". If I look at ncatlab.org/nlab/show/semisimple+category or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-simplicity , the definition is that every object is a direct sum of finitely many simple objects. If we remove the condition "finitely many", I agree with your comments.
$endgroup$
– user25309
Apr 13 at 15:38












$begingroup$
Oh, yes. Then you are right.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:40




$begingroup$
Oh, yes. Then you are right.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:40


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f327961%2fsemisimplicity-of-the-category-of-coherent-sheaves%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Plaza Victoria

Image
Plaza Victoria Plaza Victoria en 2017 Otros nombres Plaza de La Victoria Localización El Almendral, Valparaíso, Chile Vías adyacentes Chacabuco, Molina, Plaza Victoria y Edwards Creación 1841 Metro Bellavista Ubicación 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 Coordenadas: 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 [editar datos en Wikidata] La Plaza Victoria , también llamada Plaza de la Victoria , [ 1 ] ​ es una plaza ubicada en el sector El Almendral del plan de la ciudad de Valparaíso, Chile, de importancia patrimonial, que incluye valiosas estatuas y especies vegetales. [ 2 ] ​ La plaza se creó como tal en la primera mitad del siglo XIX, tomando previamente los nombres de Plaza Nueva y Plaza de Orrego . Si bien desde sus inicios tuvo relevancia histórica, no fue sino a partir de fines de los años 1860 cuando comenzó a cobrar mayor importancia y se convirtió en uno de los principales centros sociales de l...
Read more

Puebla de Zaragoza

Image
Para otros usos de este término, véase Puebla (desambiguación). Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localidad De arriba a abajo de izquierda a derecha: Estrella de Puebla, Volcán Popocatépetl, Catedral de Puebla, Monumento a Ignacio Zaragoza, Estadio Cuauhtémoc, Angelópolis y Vista panorámica de la ciudad. Escudo Otros nombres: El relicario de América/ La ciudad de los Ángeles/ La Angelópolis Lema: Muy noble y muy leal ciudad de Puebla de los Ángeles Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localización de Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza en México Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localización de Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza en Puebla Mapa interactivo Coordenadas 19°03′05″N 98°13′04″O  /  19.051388888889, -98.217777777778 Coordenadas: 19°03′05″N 98°13′04″O  /  19.051388888889, -98.217777777778 Idioma oficial Español Entidad Localidad  • País   México  • Estado Puebla  • Municipio Puebla Presidente municipal Claudia Rivera Vivanc...
Read more

Musa

Image
Para el género de plantas, véase Musa (planta). Apolo y la Nueve Musas En la mitología griega, las musas (en griego antiguo μοῦσαι « mousai» ) son, según los escritores más antiguos, las divinidades inspiradoras de las Artes: cada una de ellas está relacionada con ramas artísticas y del conocimiento. Son hijas de Zeus y de Mnemósine, compañeras del séquito de Apolo, dios olímpico de la música y patrón de las bellas artes, quien tuvo romances con cada una de ellas, dejando descendientes. Bajaban a la tierra a susurrar ideas e inspirar a aquellos mortales que las invocaran. En la época más arcaica eran las ninfas inspiradoras de las fuentes, en las cuales eran adoradas. Finalmente, alrededor de los siglos VIII-VII a. C. [ 1 ] ​ prevaleció en todo el territorio de la Hélade la adoración de las nueve Musas, que son Calíope, Clío, Erato, Euterpe, Melpómene, Polimnia, Talía, Terpsícore y Urania. El culto a las musas era originalmente de Tracia y Beocia, y fueron de vital impo...
Read more