Ancient Copies: Contributions to the History of Greek and Roman Art 0814709702, 9780814709702

Citation preview

ANCIENT COPIES CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF GREEK AND ROMAN ART

Margarete Bieber Columbia University

New York · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY PRESS · 1977

Copyright © 1977 by New York University Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 72-95529 ISBN: 0-8147-0970-2 Photo credits

Photographs from the following museums have been used for reproduction: Greco-Roman Museum, Alexandria; National Museum, Athens; Pergamon Mu­ seum, Berlin; Staatliche Museen, Berlin; F.J. Dölger Institute, Bonn; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; Cairo Museum, Cairo; Fogg Art Museum, Cambridge, Mass.; Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland; Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek, Copenhagen; Dresden Mu­ seum, Dresden; Museo Archeologico, Florence; Stadt ische Galerie, Frankfurt; Archaeological Museum, Istanbul; Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Kassel; British Museum, London; Römisches Germanisches Zentralsmuseum, Mainz; J. Paul Getty Museum, Mal­ ibu, Calif.; Minneapolis Institute of Art, Minneapolis; Antikensammlung, Munich; Glyptothek, Munich; Museo Nazionale, Naples; Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Ashmolean Museum, Oxford; Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris; Louvre, Paris; Art Museum, Princeton; Historisches Museum, Speyer; Royal On­ tario Museum of Archaeology, Toronto; Landes­ museum, Trier; Musée du Bardo, Tunis; Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna; National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.; Lawrence Art Museum, Williams College Museum of Art, Williamstown, Mass.; Martin von Wagner Museum, Würzburg; Musée National Suisse, Zurich.

ln addition photographs from the following sources have been used for reproduction: Agora Excavations, Athens; T.A.P. Archaeological Service, Athens; Alinari, Florence; Alison Frantz, Athens; Walther Amelung; American Numismatic Society, New York; Anderson, Rome; Archives Photographiques d’Art et d’Histoire, Paris; Archives Photographiques Caisse Nationale des Monuments Historiques, Paris; Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, Rome; Bard; Brogi; Bruekmann; Brunner; Chauffourier; Chevojon; Chuzeville, Paris; Dept, of Antiq­ uities, Cyrenaica; Direzione Scavi Ostia Antica; Edizione Inalterabile; Fleming, London; Franken­ stein; French and Co., New York; Gabinetto Fotografico Nazionale, Rome; German Archaeological Institutes, Athens, Istanbul, Rome; Giovetti; Giraudon, Paris; ‘Grafia,’ Sezione Edizione d’Arte, Rome; Hirmer, Fotoarchiv, Munich Luckert; Maraghiannis, Crete; Moscioni; Neugass; Nikolanei, Spalato; Premi; E. Richter; Sansaini; Savio; Soprinten­ denza Antichità, Campania-Napoli, Etruria, Firenze, Napoli-Caserta, Rome, Sicily; Tozzi; Vasari, Rome; Warburg Institute, London.

Manufactured in the United States of America

PREFACE I began my research on Greek dress more than half a century ago when I was a student in Bonn, Germany. My studies were dedicated to Greek dress. I tried to uncover the secrets of Greek dress'by dressing living models in imitation of Greek statues. The result was two books: a systematic one on Greek dress, particularly of the Classical and Hellenistic periods (Die griechischen Kleidung, 1928), and one on the history of Greek fashions as developed from the pre-Greek to the Roman periods (Geschichte der griechischen Tracht. Entwicklung von der vorgriechischen bis zur römischen kaiserzeit, 1934, second edition, 1967). In the latter I included already some copies of the Roman imperial period. These I had studied in the museums of Berlin and Dresden, together with Bruno Schröder, director of the sculpture collection in the Alte Museum in Berlin and later of the Albertinum in Dresden. W e draped living models next to statues. Here I conceived for the first time the idea of a book on copies, to be illustrated with drawings particularly of side and back views, comparing the differences between the originals and copies. The drawings were planned by Bruno Schröder who was not only an outstanding scholar, but also a fine artist. I had already written some chapters in German when I had to leave Germany and emigrated to the United States. Bruno Schröder took his life when he was persecuted by the Nazis for his anti-Hitler attitude. For a while this put an end to my study of copies. The side views were never drawn except for my rough sketches which are not included in this book. Somebody would have to draw them clearly and check them against the originals, both of which I am unable to do. Fortunately I found a new home and new friends in the United States of America. Teaching and writing in a new language and on other subjects took all my time until 1951. Then two grants by the American Philosophical Society enabled me to spend 1951 and 1952 in Rome, Naples, and Florence where I collected many of the photographs published in this book. I studied various museum collections and scattered statues and read the German chapters of my old manuscript. I found the latter antiquated and had to discard them or rewrite them entirely. I began a new manuscript, two chapters of which were published in Proceedings o f the American Philosophical Society of 1959 and 1962. They are here repeated, with some omissions V

PREFACE and additions, as Chapters XI and XII with the kind permission of the Society. Finally, the same Society gave me two grants, one in 1963 and one in 1972 which enabled me to continue and finish work on this book. I owe my warmest and sincerest gratitude to the directors and the members of the Committee on Grants of the APS for their decisive help. I also owe sincere thanks to Professor Jacques Barzun, former Provost and Dean of Faculties of Columbia University and to Richard Plaut, then Assistant Provost of the University, for an award which enabled me to pay for copying and recopying the extensive and often changed manuscript. I received in 1971-1973 two special fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities which enabled me to continue my work on the manuscript and to engage two young assistants, Mr. William J. Mayer and Miss Susan B. Schumer, for editing and library work. They were, in turn, assisted by Mr. Michael Nurik and Mr. Jeffrey Ruesch. This enabled us to make the book ready for publication by the New York University Press. I thank most warmly Mr. Wallace B. Edgerton, Mr. R. Emerson, and Mr. Ronald Berman, Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities and Miss Guinevere Griest, Program Officer of the Division of Fellowships and Stipends for their help and support of my project. I also wish to express my gratitude to Mr. Kentera, director and Miss Pamela Brown, editor of the New York University Press for their interest in my book. The publication of the book was made possible by the generous subsidies given to the New York University Press by the following: the Stanwood Cockey Lodge Fund of Columbia University, the Kress Foundation, the Archaeological Institute of America (Dietrich von Bothmer Publication Fund), and the Stiftung der Münzen und Medaillen in Basel. Private contributions were made by Mr, Paul Mellon and Professor Evelyn B. Harrison. I wish to express my most heartfelt gratitude for their unexpected generosity. I am deeply grateful to the following persons who induced these institutions to make contributions: Professor P. O. Kristeller and Professor Jacques Barzun of Columbia University; Miss Mary Davis, director of the Kress Foundation; Professor Rodney S. Young, president of the Archaeological Institute of America; and Dr. Herbert A. Cahn, Professor Karl Schefold and Hans Reinhard of the Stiftung der Münzen und Medaillen in Basel. Other thanks are due to my friends Adolf Plaezek, Director of the Avery Architectural Library, and the late Mary Chamberlain, librarian of the Fine Arts Library in Columbia University who had helped me in every possible way when I used their libraries. In later years, when I was no longer able to come up to the campus, they gave me as much help and information as possible. I also have to thank Mrs. Nancy Waggoner, now assistant curator of Greek coins at the American Numismatic Society, for her help in the first draft of this manuscript. Graduate students at Columbia University, Margaret Coulter and Catherine de Grazia, Department of Art History and Archaeology and William J. Mayer, Department of Greek and Latin, have helped me one after another in reading the second draft of this manuscript, correcting errors, checking footnotes, and making good suggestions. I again thank Miss Susan B. Schumer, student of Ancient History at Queens College, for patiently copying and recopying the manuscript. I thank all these students for their eager and efficient help. New York Margarete Bieber vi

CONTENTS 1

2 3 4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Preface Introduction List of Abbreviations List of Illustrations Problems and Research in Copies (1889-1970) The Author’s Approach to the Problem The Importance of Clothing in Judging Roman Copies Original and Copy Addition of Clothing and Attributes Different Reasons for Denuding in Greek and Roman Art Artemis and the Lares The Fusing of Parts of the Same or of Different Dresses The Shoulder-Back Mantle The Right and Wrong Ways of Draping the Himation Roman Men in Greek Himation (Romani Palliati) and Their Female Counterparts The Copies of the Herculaneum Women Portraits of Roman Ladies as Priestesses of Ceres and of Empresses as Augustae or Divae Typical Mistakes and Mannerisms Found on Roman Copies An Outline of the History of Copying Late Antique and Early Christian Copies Conclusion Bibliography Museums and Sites Index Plates

v ii

V

ix xiii xxi 1

10

20 27 40 59 71 84 104 118 129 148 163 174 181 242 272 275 283 297 303

INTRODUCTION This book deals with a large group of statues, some well or less well-known, some unknown. They are classified somewhere between Greek and Roman art and might be called GraecoRoman. Some have been used by many scholars to reconstruct Greek masterpieces and therefore appear in books on Greek art; they rarely appear in books on Roman art where t l G belong. It is hoped that if my new theory on copies as Roman works is accepted, they will play a greater role in future books on Roman art. This is particularly desireable for the definitive modern book on Roman art, which is a great desideratum for our time and which we hope in the neär future to receive fiom one of our distinguished contemporary scholars, A main clue to the distinction between good and bad copies is the understanding of the Greek dress in the Roman period. While the creative Greek artists understood the organic forms of contemporary Gieek dress, the copyists, even though they were mostly Greeks, saw only the outei lines of the work of art. They tried to imitate the arrangement without understanding it. They could not distinguish between the different garments and sometimes not even between the different parts of the same dress. When the types of the Greek gods were used for the xepresentation of Roman gods and for portrait statues, such misunderstanding and nonsensical draping increased with the passing of time. The already faulty arrangement was more and more neglected in favor of an ornamental arrangement. My book does not deal only with the direct copies of Greek masterpieces in Roman times. It does not repeat lists of copies made from the same original, which have been given by other scholars. It does not try to reconstruct the Greek masterpieces or the life-work of Greek artists. It rather deals with the following question: What did the copyists do in the different periods of Roman art? It tries to make clear the mannerisms of copyists who worked for the Romans. It tries to establish the date of copies by comparing each one not only with Greek originals, but with dated and contemporary, purely Roman works, particularly portraits and historical reliefs which depict contemporary events. Thus, it is a new approach in a large field neglected too much in writings on Roman art and used too much for Greek art. I believe that it will restore many well-known and less-known sculptures to their rightful place in the history of Roman art and help to date many of the remaining mass of copies with which I cannot possibly deal in this book.

INTRODUCTION /CW St f w T rVey 1 What SCholarS have d0ne in this field Furtwängler to the present (Chapter I) I then explain my new approach to the problem of copying I try to give the contrado' Rn °* τ0”^ ^ ° riginals and Sood copies and to discribe Greek art in I n th T l 1 I “ ((; Υ ρί61ί Π)· 1 emPhasize the importance of the study of Greek and Roman clothing, including style and usage. I believe this to be the best clue in distinguishing originals a?d g°;)dfr0!T1bad coPies (Chapter III). Then I investigate the few instances where gnal Greek scuiptural works and their copies are preserved (Chapter IV). We learn that Classical and Hellenistic Greek artists created their works realistically, while the copyist lacked understanding of actual Greek drapery. After we have learned from these examples the characteristics of Greek originals in contrast t0i r r PieS’ W^ WlU bebetter e(IuiPPed t0 study the Roman additions which the copyist * Λ ° ^ origina s, even i we do not possess the originals any longer. I began from a point ich can be easily detected, namely when garments or parts of them and attributes according to oman taste and morals or my misunderstanding of the copyists are added to the Greek originals. These P^cra of clothing are particularly mantles for the men and tunics for the women (Chapter V). This: investigation shows two reasons for changes by the copyists. These later artisans had less feeling for beauty and less sensitivity for subtle details than the earlier crea ive ree artists. e Greeks preferred to make visible parts or the whole of their healthy and ne bodies’ whde the Romans covered parts of theirs to conform to their morality. ere were on t e other hand periods, particularly in the Antonine and Severan ones, when oman women J e to e represented in the guise of a nude Aphrodite or nymphs. When we nd denudation m Greek Classical and Hellenistic art, it is always used in accordance with the situation represented. In Roman adaptation and reinterpretation of Greek types, in contrast, the divesting is sometimes not so reasonably used. Love of symmetry and of decorative arrangement prevails more and more over reason (Chapter VI). This Roman taste also spoiled the beautiful types for the huntress Artemis, created in the Classical and Hellenistic periods and adopted for the Roman Diana. The ignorance of the copyists of the Antonine, Severan and later periods led them to make inorganic and distorted representations of the dresses, which by now they probably no longer knew in the Greek originals but in earlier Roman imperial copies. The Lares as Roman protectors of roads and houses adopted the mantle of Diana and in turn influenced its becoming a long Roman shawl or lana also. A Roman form was given to the personification of Virtue and to Furies (Chapter VII) too. The Roman spirit prevailed more and more in copies as well as in original Roman works. One of the most serious mistakes of disfigurement made by copyists was the melting together of parts of the same or of different dresses, peploi, mantles, and chitons. These misunderstandings are systematically investigated for the peplos of Artemis-Diana and AthenaMinerva, as well as for the chiton of Aphrodite-Venus (Chapter V ili). I found that in rendering Greek statues in copies during the Roman period the same mannerism is used for quite different types. This observation might help to find the workshops where these copies were made. Many can be dated by Roman portrait heads or by comparing them with Roman historical reliefs. The mantle, the draping of which was perhaps most often misunderstood by copyists as well as by modern authors, is worn only in the back, fixed on both shoulders by large fibulae. It was

INTRODUCTION worn by women as well as by musicians, whose god Apollo as a cithara player is often represented wearing this luxurious garment. Maenads used it without attachment as an effective background for their dances. Yet, even in their representations, confusion between chiton and mantle occurs (Chapter IX). The most frequently used piece of clothing for men as well as women outside the house is the large rectangular mantle, the himation. The Romans adopted it under the name pallium for the men, palla for the women. The exceedingly large number of possible uses of this garment by Greek artists in an organic way are first discussed and then the wrong ways of rendering these by copyists are discussed. Work with living models shows how many variations are possible for the different drapings (Chapter X). One form of draping which evolved in the fourth century b .c . and in Hellenistic times is discussed in its application for Roman men, where it was used in art to convey religious and civic moods (Chapter XI). The female counterpart is the so-called Pudicitia type or still more often, the type of the Herculaneum women. These, invented for the Eleusinian goddesses, are traced in chronological sequence through six centuries (Chapter XII). Beside these two most common female types, there are other types of goddesses used for noble Roman ladies, particularly in honorary statues erected after their death (Chapter XIII). After each of the garments used by the Greeks has been investigated in copies of the different Roman periods, the typical mistakes and mannerisms of the copyists are summarized (Chapter XIV). On the basis of the detailed investigations of clothed figures in copies an “Outline of the History of Copying” is attempted (Chapter XV). It is my hope that some younger archeologists will make a similar investigation of heads, nude bodies, perhaps shoes, and other details or the study of the distribution of workshops to supplement my book. Then some future archeologist may write the final “History of Copying”, which will comprise a vast amount of material, far exceeding that which is dealt with here. This will become an important supplement or even parallel to the histories of Greek and particularly of Roman art. This chapter contains several original Roman sculptures. They must be compared with the copies, so that these can find their legitimate place in the development of Roman art. Some art historians may find this useful as the basis for a history of copying from early Christian to Modern art, for there is no end to the tradition of copying (Chapter XVI). A good example of such an investigation is the article by Otto Brendel in the Essays in the History of Art Presented to Rudolf W ittkower I (1967, new ed., 1971), pp. 62-70. He discusses in a masterly way the migration of the motif created in Pergamene art for a kneeling Persian through the ages down to Picasso. Vivat sequentes!

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS The following books and articles, frequently cited in the footnotes, are abbreviated after the first citation as follows: W. Amelung, Führer Florenz

W. Amelung, Führer durch die Antiken in Florenz (Munich 1897).

W. Amelung, Sculpt.Vat.Mus.

W. Amelung, Die Sculpturen des Vaticanischen Museums, I (Berlin 1903), 11 (Berlin 1908).

Antike Plastik.Festschrift Amelung

Antike Plastik. Festschrift für Walther Amelung zum sechzigsten Geburtstag (Berlin-Leipzig 1928).

Arndt-Amelung, E.A.

P. Arndt and W. Amelung, Photographische Einzelaufnahmen antiker Sculpturen (Munich 1893-1941).

Arndt-Bmnn-Bruckmann, Porträts

P. Arndt, H. Brunn and F. Bruckmann, Griechische und römische Porträts (Munich 1891-1942).

S. Aurigemrna, Mus.Naz.RomJ’

S. Aurigemma, Le Terme di Diocleziano e il Museo Nazionale Romano (5th ed., Rome 1963).

Benndorf-Schöne, Bildwerke Lat.Mus.

0 . Benndorf and R. Schöne, Die antiken Bildwerke des Lateranensischen Museums (Leipzig, 1867).

J.J. Bernoulli, Rom.Ikon.

J.J. Bernoulli, Römische Ikonographie, voi. I Die Bildnisse berühmter Römer mit Ausschluss der Kaiser und ihrer An­ gehörigen (Stuttgart 1882); voi. II Die Bildnisse der römischen Kaiser und ihrer Angehörigen, Part 1 Das julisch-claudische Kaiserhaus (Berlin-Stuttgart 1886), Part 2 Von Galba bis Com­ modus (Stuttgart-Berlin-Leipzig 1891), Part 3 Von Pertinax bis Theodosius (Stuttgart-Berlin-Leipzig 1894). Reprinted 1969.

M. Bieber, Cassel

M. Bieher, Die antiken Skulpturen und Bronzen des Kgl. Museum Fridericianum in Cassel (Marburg 1915).

M. Bieber, “Cybele”

M. Bieber, “The Statue of Cybele in the J. Paul Getty Museum,” J. Paul Getty Museum Publication No. 3 (Malibu, Calif. 1968).

M. Bieber, Entwicklungsgeschichte 2

M. Bieber, Entwicklungsgeschichte der griechischen Tracht von der vorgriechischen Zeit bis zum Ausgang der Antike (2nd rev. ed., Berlin 1967).

M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung

M. Bieber, Griechische Kleidung (Berlin-Leipzig 1928)

M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age2

M. Bieber, The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age (2nd rev.ed.. New York 1961).

M. Bieber, Theater2

M. Bieber, The History of the Greek and Roman Theater (2nd rev.ed., Princeton 1961).

H. Blanck, Wiederverwendung

H. Blanck, Wiederverwendung alter Statuen ab Ehrendenkmäler bei Griechen und Römern (Rome 1969).

C. Bliimel, Berlin.Kat.V. Rom.Kopien

C. Blümel, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Katalog der Sammlung antiker Skulpturen, voi. V Römische Kopien griechischer Skulpturen des 4. Jahrhunderts (Berlin 1938).

J. Boardman, et.al., Griech. Kunst

J. Boardman, J. Dörig, W. Fuchs, and M. Hirmer, Die griechische Kunst (Munich 1966).

Br.-Br., Denkmäler

H. Brunn and F. Bruckmann, Denkmäler griechischer und römischer Sculptur (Munich 1888-1950).

D.M. Brinkerhoff, Sculpt. Antioch

D. M. Brinkerhoff, A Collection of Sculpture in Classical and Early Christian Antioch (New York 1970).

H. Bulle, Schöne Mensch

H. Bulle, Der schöne Mensch im Altertum (Munich-Leipzig 1912).

Calza-Squarciapino, Mus.Ost.

R. Calza and M.F. Squarciapino, Museo Ostiense (Rome 1962).

J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre

J. Charbonneaux, La sculpture grecque et romaine au Musée du Louvre (Paris 1963).

M. Collignon, Statues funéraires

M. Collignon, Les statues funéraires dans Vari gree (Paris 1911).

A. Conze, Grabreliefs

A. Conze, Die attischen Grabreliefs (Berlin 1893-1922).

G. Dickins, Cat.Acrop.Mus.

G. Dickins, Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum (Athens 1912).

Encycl.Phot.

Encyclopédie Photographique de VArt (Paris 1936-1949).

B.

B. M. Felletti-Maj, Museo Nazionale Romano, l Ritratti (Rome 1953).

M. Felletti-Maj, Ritratti

W. Fröhner, Sculpt.ant.Louvre 1

W. Fröhner, Notice de la sculpture antique du Musée national du Louvre (4th ed., Paris 1878).

W. Fuchs, Vorbilder

W. Fuchs, Die Vorbilder der neuattischen Reliefs (Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Ergänzungsheft 20) (Berlin 1959).

A. Furtwängler, Einhundert Tafeln

A. Furtwängler, Einhundert Tafeln nach den Bildwerken der Kgl. Glyptothek zu München (Munich 1903).

A. Furtwängler, Ill.Kat.Glypt.

A. Furtwängler, Illustrierter Katalog der Glyptothek Kgl. zu München (Munich 1907).

A. Furtwängler, Masterpieces

A. Furtwängler, Masterpieces o f Greek Sculpture. A Series of Essays in the History of Art. Translated by E.S. Strong and edited by Al.N. Oikonomides (Chicago 1964).

XIV

A. Furtwängler, Meisterwerke

A, Furtwängler, Meisterwerke der griechischen Plastik. Kunstgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Leipzig-Berlin 1893).

Furtwängler-Wolters, Glypt. München2

A. Furtwängler, Beschreibung der Glyptothek König Ludwig’s I zu München (2nd ed. by P. Wolters) (Munich 1910).

A. Giuliano, Ritratti Lat.

A. Giuliano, Catalogo dei Ritratti Romani del Museo Profano Lateranense (Monumenti Vaticani di Archeologia e d’Arte, X) (Vatican 1957).

P. Graindor, Busies et Statues

P. Graindor, Bustes et statues-portraits d ’Egypte romaine (Cairo 1939).

F. Hauser, Neu-att.Reliefs

F. Hauser, Die neu-attischen Reliefs (Stuttgart 1889).

A. Helder, Bildniskunst

A. Hekler, Die Bildniskunst der Griechen und Römer (Stuttgart 1912).

A, Hekler, “Gewandstatuen”

A. Hekler, “Römische weibliche Gewandstatuen,” Münchener Archäologische Studien (Munich 1909), pp. 107-248.

Helbig-Amelung, Führer2 Helbig-Speier, Führer4

W. Helbig, Führer durch die öffent-lichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom (3rd rev.ed. by W. Amelung, Leipzig 1912-1913, 2 vols); (4th completely rev.ed. by H. Speier, Tübingen 1963,1966,1969, 3 vols.).

P. Herrmann, Verzeichnis

P. Herrmann, Kgl. Skulpturensammlung—Dresden. Verzeichnis der antiken Original-Bildwerke (Dresden 1915).

L. Heuzey, Hist.Costume Antique

L. Heuzey, Histoire du costume antique d ’apr'es des études sur le modele vivant (Paris 1922).

H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Mus.Capitol.

H.S. Jones, A Catalogue o f Ancient Sculptures Preserved in the Municipal Collections of Rome. The Sculptures of the Museo Capitolino (Oxford 1912).

H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Pal.Gon.

H.S. Jones, A Catalogue of the Ancient Sculptures Preserved in the Municipal Collections of Rome. The Sculptures o f the Palazzo dei Conservatori (Oxford 1926).

H. Kahler, Welt

H. Kähler, Rom und seine Welt. Bilder zur Geschichte und Kultur (Munich 1958).

S. Karouzou, Nat.Arch.Mus., Sculpt.

S. Karouzou, National Archaeological Museum. Collection of Sculpture. A Catalogue (Athens 1968).

G. Kaschnitz-Weinberg, Scult. Mag.Vat.

G. Kaschnitz-Weinberg, Sculture del Maggazino del Museo Vat­ icano (Monumenti Vaticani di Archeologia e d Arte, IV) (Vatican 1936-1937).

R. Kekulé, Beschreibung ant. Skulpt.

R. Kekulé, Königliche Museen zu Berlin. Beschreibung der antiker Skulpturen mit Ausschluss der Pergamenischen Fundstücke (Berlin 1891).

G. Kleiner, Tanagrafiguren

G. Kleiner, Tanagrafiguren. Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Kunst und Geschichte (Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Ergänzungsheft 15) (Berlin 1942). XV

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS H. Lauter, Chronologie

H, Lauter, Zur Chronologie römischer Kopien nach Originalen des V. Jahrh. (Nürnberg 1970).

A. Levi, Scult.grec.Mantova

A. Levi, Sculture nel Palazzo Ducale di Mantova (Rome 1931).

G. Lippold, Gr.Plastik

G. Lippold, Die griechische Plastik (Handbuch der Archäologie III, 1) (Munich 1950).

G. Lippold, Kopien

G. Lippold, Kopien und Umbildungen griechischer Statuen (Munich 1923).

G. Lippold, Skulpt.Vat.Mus.

G. Lippold, Die Skulpturen des Vaticanischen Museums, voi. Ill, part 1 (Berlin-Leipzig 1936); voi. Ill, part 2 (Berlin 1956).

E. Loewy, Inschriften

E. Loewy, Inschriften griechischer Bildhauer mit Facsimiles herausgegoben (Leipzig 1885).

Lullies-Hirmer, Griech. Plastik

R. Lullies and M. Hirmer, Griechische Plastik von den Anfängen bis zum Ausgang des Hellenismus (Munich 1956).

B. Maiuri, Musée Nap.

B. Maiuri, Le Musée National. The National Museum. Naples (Novara 1959).

G. Mansuelli, Uffizi Scult.

G. Mansuelli, Cataloghi dei Musei e Gallerie d'Italia. Galleria degli Uffizi. Le Sculture, part II (Rome 1958).

J. Marcadé, Mus.Délos

J. Marcadé, Au Musée du Délos. Etude sur la sculpture hellénistique en ronde bosse découverte dans Vile (Paris 1969).

H. Mattingly, BMC Empire

H. Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, voi. I Augustus to Vitellius (London 1923, reprinted 1965); voi. Ill Nerva to Hadrian (London 1936, reprinted 1966).

Mattingly-Sydenham, RIC

H. Mattingly and E.A. Sydenham, The Roman Imperial Coinage, voi. I Augustus to Vitellius (London 1923, reprinted 1948); voi. II Vespasian to Hadrian (London 1926, reprinted 1968).

G. Mendel, Mus.ottomans,Cat. Sculpt.

G. Mendel, Musées imperiaux ottomans. Catalogue des sculptures grecques, romaines et byzantines, voi. I (Constantinople 1912); voi. II (Constantinople 1914); voi. Ill (Constantinople 1914).

A. Michaelis, Anc.Marbles

A. Michaelis, Ancient Marbles in Great Britain. Translated by C.A.M. Fennell (Cambridge 1882).

E. Michon, Cat.Sommaire

E. Michon, Musée national du Louvre. Catalogue sommarie des marbres antiques (Paris 1922).

C.R. Morey, Asiatic Sarc.

C.R. Morey, The Sarcophagus o f Claudia Antonia Sabina and the Asiatic Sarcophagi (Sardis), voi. 5 Roman and Christian Sculpture, part 1 (Princeton 1924).

D. Mustilli, Mus.Mussol.

D. Mustilli, Il Museo Mussolini (Rome 1939).

E. Nash, Bildlexikon

E. Nash, Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Rom, voi. I (Tübingen 1961); voi. II (Tübingen 1962).

H.G. Niemeyer, Stud.Darstellung

H.G. Niemeyer, Studien zur statuarischen Darstellung der römischen Kaiser (Monumenta artis Romanae, 7) (Berlin 1968).

XVI

S. Papaspyridi, Guide Mus.Ath.

S. Papaspyridi, Guide du Musee national d ’Athènes (Athens 1927).

E. Paribeni, Cat. Scult. Cirene

E. Paribeni, Catalogo delle Sculture di Cirene (Rome 1959).

E. Paribeni, Scult.Greche

E. Paribeni, Museo Nazionale Romano. Sculture Greche del V Secolo Originali e Repliche (Rome 1953).

E. Paribeni, Tenne e Museo 2

E. Paribeni, Le Tenne di Diocleziano e il Museo Nazionale Romano (2nd ed., Rome 1932).

Pauly-Wissowa, RE

A. Pauly and G. Wissowa, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart 1893-1963).

F. Poulsen, Cat.Ny Carlsberg

F. Poulsen, Catalogue of Ancient Sculpture in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (Copenhagen 1951).

S. Reinach, Rép.stat.

S. Reinach, Repertoire de la statuaire grecque et romaine, voi. 1 (2nd ed., Paris 1906); voi. 2, part 1 (2nd ed., Paris 1908); voi. 2, part 2 (2nd ed., Paris 1909); voi. 3 (Paris 1904); voi. 4 (Paris 1910); voi. 5, part I (Paris 1924); voi. 6 (Paris 1930).

G.M.A. Richter, Bronzes, Met. Mus.

G.M.A. Richter, The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Bronzes (New York 1915).

G.M.A. Richter, Cat.Gk.Sculpt. Met.Mus.

G.M.A. Richter, Catalogue o f Greek Sculptures in the Metro­ politan Museum of Art (Cambridge Mass. 1954).

G.M.A. Richter, Coll.,Met.Mus.

G.M.A. Richter, Handbook o f the Greek Collection, the Metro­ politan Museum of Art (Cambridge Mass. 1953).

Handbook

Gk.

G.M.A. Richter, Korai

G.M.A. Richter, Korai. Archaic Greek Maidens. A Study of the Kore Type in Greek Sculpture (London 1968).

G.M.A. Richter, Kouroi ’

G.M.A. Richter, Kouroi. Archaic Greek Youths. A Study of the Kouros Type in Greek Sculpture (3rd ed., London 1970).

G.M.A. Richter, Sculpture and Sculptors '

G.M.A. Richter, The Sculpture and Scidptors of the Greeks (4th ed., New Haven 1970).

G.M.A. Richter, Three Critical Periods

G.M.A. Richter, Three Critical Periods in Greek Sculpture (Oxford 1951).

G.M.A. Richter, “Who Made . . . Statues”

G.M.A. Richter, “Who Made the Roman Portrait Statues—Greeks or Romans?,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 95 (1951), pp. 184-208.

B.S. Ridgway, Severe Style

B.S. Ridgway, The Severe Style in Greek Sculpture (Princeton 1970).

C. Robert, Sarkophagreliefs

C. Robert, Die antiken Sarkophagreliefs (Berlin 1890-1952).

E. Rohde, Kunst Mus.Berlin

E. Rohde, Griechische und römische Kunst in den Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin (Berlin 1968).

W. Roscher, Lexik.Myth.

W. Roscher, Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie (Leipzig 1884-1937). Reprinted 1965.

E. Rosenbaum, Cat.Cyren. Sculpt.

E. Rosenbaum, A Catalogue of Cyrenaican Portrait Sculpture (London 1960). xvii

A. Ruesch, Auszug

A. Ruesch, Das Nationalmuseum in Neapel Auszug aus dem Führer (Naples n.d).

A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli

A. Ruesch, Guida Illustrata del Museo Nazionale di Napoli (Naples n.d.).

K. Schefold, Bildnisse

K. Schefold, Die Bildnisse der antiken Dichter, Redner, und Denker (Basel 1943).

B. Schweitzer, Bildniskunst mm. Rep.

B. Schweitzer, Die Bildniskunst der römischen Republik (Leipzig 1948).

A.H. Smith, Cat.Sculpt.Brit. Mus.

A.H. Smith, A Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, voi. 2 (London 1900); voi. 3 (London 1904).

V. Sta'is, Ath.Marb.et Bronzes

V. Sta'is, Marbres et Bronzes du Musee National, voi. I (2nd ed., Athens 1910).

D.E. Strong, Rom.Imp. Sculpt.

D.E. Strong, Roman Imperial Sculpture An Introduction to the Commemorative and Decorative Scidpture of the Roman Empire down to the Death of Constantine (London 1961).

E. Strang, Art Anc.Rome

E. Strong, Art in Ancient Rome, voi. 1 From the Earliest Times to the Principate of Nero (London 1929); voi. 2 From the Flavian Dynasty to Justinian with Chapters on Painting and the Minor Arts in the First Century A.D. (London 1929).

E. Strong, Rom.Sculpt.

E. Strong, Roman Sculpture from Augustus to Constantine (New York & London 1907).

E. Strong, Scult.Rom.

E. Strong, La Scultura romana da Augusto a Constantino. Translated by G. Gianelli (Florence 1923-1926).

G. Traversari, Statue iconiche

G. Traversari, Statue iconiche femminili cirenaiche. Contributi al problema delle copie a rielaborazioni tardo-ellenistiche e romano­ imperiali (Rome 1960).

G. Treu, Olympia

G. Treu, Die Bildwerke von Olympia in Stein und Thon, voi. IH (Berlin 1897).

O. Vessberg, Kunstgeschichte róm.Rep.

O. Vessberg, Studien zur Kunstgeschichte der römischen Republik (Lund 1941).

M. Wegner, Herrscherbildnisse

M. Wegner, Die Herrscherbildnisse in antoninischer Zeit (Das römische Herrscherbild II, 4 (Berlin 1939).

R. West, Rem. Porträtplastik

R. West, Römische Porträtplastik, voi. I (Munich 1933); voi. II (Munich 1941).

L. Wilson, Roman Clothing

L. Wilson, The Clothing of the Ancient Romans (The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology, No. 24) (Baltimore 1938).

xvm

The following periodicals are abbreviated throughout the footnotes in the manner indicated below. This list for the most part is drawn from the standard abbreviations as cited in AJA 69 (1965), pp. 201-206. AA

Archäologischer Anzeiger.

Abh

Abhandlungen (followed by the name of the academy in an abbreviated form, such as Abh.Heidel.Akad.).

ABSA

Annual o f the British School at Athens.

Afrit

Africa Italiana.

AJA

American Journal of Archaeology.

ANSNS

American Numismatic Society, Numismatic Studies.

AntDenk

Antike Denkmäler.

ArchCl

Archeologia Classica.

ArchEph

Archaiologike Ephemeris.

ArtB

Art Bulletin.

ASAtene

Annuario della R. Scuola Archeologica di Atene.

AthMitt

Mitteilungen des deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung.

AttiPontAcc

Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia.

BASOR

Bulletin of the American Schools o f Oriental Research.

BCH

Bulletin de correspondence hellènique.

BdA Beri. Winck.-Progr.

Berliner Winckelmanns-Program.

BMFA

Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

Bonnjbb

Bonner Jahrbücher.

BullComm

Ballerino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma.

CJ

Classical Journal.

CPCP

University of California Publications in Classical Philology.

GBA

Gazette des heaux-arts.

HSCP

Harvard Studies in Classical Philology.

1LN

Illustrated London News.

Jdl

Jahrbuch des k. deutschen archäologischen Instituts.

IMS

Journal of Hellenic Studies.

JIAN

Journal international d ’archeologie numismatique. XIX

JOAl

Jahreshefte des oesterreichischen archäologischen Instituts.

JRS

Journal of Roman Studies.

JWarb

Journal of the Warburg Institute.

MAAR

Memoirs o f the American Academy in Rome.

MdI

Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts.

MemAclnscr

Mémoires presentes par divers savants a ΓAcadémie des inscrip­ tions et belles lettres.

MemPontAcc

Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeolgie, Memorie.

Mfb

Münchener Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst.

MJKW

Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaften.

MonAnt

Monumenti Antichi.

MonPiot

Monuments et mémoires pubi, par ΓAcadémie des inscriptions et belles lettres, Fondation Piot.

NJbb

(Neue) Jahrbücher fur Philologie und Pädagogik Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum Neue Jahrbücher für Wissenschaft und Jugendbildung (All three form a continuous series.)

NSc

Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità.

OpusArch

Opuscula Archaeologica.

ProcBritAc

Proceedings of the British Academy.

ProcPhilSoc

Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society.

RA

Revue archéologique.

REG

Revue des etudes grecques.

RendNap

Rendiconti della R. Accademia Romana di Archeologia, Lettre ed Arti, Naples.

RendPontAcc

Atti della Pontificia Accademia Rendiconti.

RevArtAnc

Revue de Vari ancien et moderne.

RhM

Rheinisches Museum für Philologie.

RivIstArch

Rivista del R. Instituto d ’Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte.

RömMitt

Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung.

ZSchwAKg

Zeitschrift für schweizerische Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte.

XX

Romana

di Archeologia,

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS All illustrations are marble statues except when otherwise described as bronzes, terracottas, reliefs, sarcophagi, etc. All photographs by Faraglia were taken for the author and are now in the German Archaeological Institute in Rome. I wish to thank the many museum directors and museums, who are cited in the list, for permission to order new photographs or have copies made from older photographs. I also owe one or more photographs to the kindness of many friends and colleagues who are also cited in the list. When there is no number indicated after the photograph source, no number was indicated on the photograph. 1. Amazon Doria Pamphili. In the Palazzo Doria-Pamphili, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 69.425. 2. Berlin-Lansdowne Amazon. In the Staatliche Museen, Berlin. Phot. Staatl.Mus., SK 4471. 3. Right side view of Fig. 2. Phot. Staatl.Mus., SK 4473. 4. Model for Amazon Doria Pamphili. Phot. Bieber. 5. Model for Berlin-Lansdowne Amazon. Phot. Bieber. 6. Mattei Amazon. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Gabinetto Fotografico Nazionale, Rome, D 2504. 7. Capitoline Amazon. In the Capitoline Museum. Phot. Anderson. 8. Model for Mattei Amazon. Phot. Bieber. 9. Model for Capitoline Amazon. Phot. Bieber. 10. Mattei Amazon. In the Capitoline Museum. Phot. Gabinetto Fotografico Nazionale, Rome, E 52184. 11. Right side view of Fig. 10. Phot. Faraglia. 12. Lansdowne Amazon. In the Metropolitan Museum of Art; Gift of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Phot. Met.Mus., 167187. 13. Relief with Hermes, Eurydike, and Orpheus. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Brogi, 5204. 14. Fragment of Hesperide Relief. In the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Rogers Fund, 1922. Phot. Met.Mus., 144766. 15. Relief of Medea and the Peliades. In the Lateran Museum. Phot. Alinari, 29909. 16. Livia. In the Louvre. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 1242. 17. Livia. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Alinari, 11105. 18. Sabina. In the Louvre. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 1190. 19. Torso with a cavity for a portrait head. In the Städtische Galerie, Frankfurt. Phot. Hewicker. 20. Flavian bust. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Soprint. Ant. Napoli e Caserta - NAPOLI, 4320. 21. Right side view of Fig. 20. Phot. Soprint. Ant. Napoli e Caserta - NAPOLI, 4321. XXI

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 22. Head from south slope of Acropolis. In the National Museum, Athens. Phot, by Hege, from the German Archaeological Institute, Athens, 1102. 23. Right profile of Fig. 22. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, 1563. 24. Roman copy of Fig. 22. In the Staatliche Museen, Berlin. Phot. Staatl.Mus., 5891. 25. Right profile of Fig. 24. Phot. Staatl.Mus., 5892. 26. Seated Hermes. In the Acropolis Museum, Athens. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, 2370. 27. Seated Mercury. In the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Phot. Kunsthist.Mus., A 4178. 28. The Kritios Boy. In the Acropolis Museum, Athens. Phot. T.A.P. Archaeological Service, Athens, 698. 29. Right side view of Fig. 28. Phot. T.A.P. Archaeological Service, Athens, 698. 30. Copy of Fig. 28. Formerly in the possession of W. Amelung. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 6705. 31. Right side view of Fig. 30. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 8378. 32. Back view of Fig. 30. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 62.1721. 33. Suppliant Barberini. In the Louvre (formerly in the Palazzo Barberini, Rome). Phot. Alinari, 6305. 34. Left hand and back view of Fig. 33. Phot. Chevojon. This photograph was a gift of J. Charbonneaux. 35. Copy of Fig. 33. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Anderson, 24403. 36. The Eleusinian Relief (Demeter, Triptolemos, Persephone). In the National Museum, Athens. Phot, by Hege, from the German Archaeological Institute, Athens, 312. 37. Copy of Fig. 36. In the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Rogers Fund, 1914. Phot. Met.Mus., 103232. 38. Kore from the Erechtheion. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum, B 3641. 39. Kore in situ at the Erechtheion, Athens. Phot, by Hege, from the German Archaeological Institute, Athens, 1542. 40. Three-quarter back view of Fig. 39. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, Akropolis 581. 4L Copy of Fig. 38. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome 62.501. 42. Three-quarter front view of Fig. 4L Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 62.506. 43. Copy of an Erechtheion Kore. In the Villa of Hadrian, Tivoli. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 57.1110. 44. Copy of an Erechtheion Kore. In the Villa of Hadrian, Tivoli. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 57.1106. 45. Copy of an Erechtheion Kore. In the Villa of Hadrian, Tivoli. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 57.1101. 46. Copy of an Erechtheion Kore. In the Villa of Hadrian, Tivoli. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 57.1109. 47. Nike removing her sandal. Fragment of the balustrade of the Temple of Athena Nike. In the Acropolis Museum, Athens. Phot. Alinari, 24626. 48. Two Nikes and a bull. Fragment of the balustrade of the Temple of Athena Nike. In the Acropolis Museum, Athens. Phot. Alinari, 24625. 49. Model in thin chiton, based on Fig. 47. Phot. Bieber. 50. Nike with a bull. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 7115. 51. Two girls decorating a henn. In the Glyptothek, Munich. Phot. Antikensammlungen, Munich, GL 264. 52. Two women with a bull. In the Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Phot. Alinari, 29351. 53. Fleeing Niobid. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Anderson, 1427. 54. Three-quarter back view of a cast of Fig. 53. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. 55. Fleeing Niobid. In the Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Phot. Alinari, 1275. 56. Right side view of Fig. 55. Phot. R. Soprintendenza-Firenze, 22082. 57. Three-quarter back view of Fig. 55. Phot. R. Soprintendenza-Firenze, 22080. 58. Painting of the fleeing Myrrha. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Alinari, 29823.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 59. Son of Niobe. In the Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Phot. Edizione Inalterabile, 5226. 60. Son of Niobe, fragment. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, XXX-16-45. 61. Athena of Piraeus. In the National Museum, Athens. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, 70/ 1310. 62. The Nile. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Alinari, 6626. 63. Copy of the Nile (in basalt). In the Palazzo Doria-Pamphili, Rome. Phot. Alinari, 29763. 64. The Nile (in dark grey marble). In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, 1.1.20. 65. The Nile. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, XXXII.8.2. 66. The Nile. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 34.14. 67. The Nile. In the Louvre. Phot. Giraudon, 2100. 68. The river god “Marforio.” In the Capitoline Museum. Phot. Brunner & Co., 6349. 69. The Tiber. In the Louvre. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 593. 70. A river god. In Ostia. Phot. Direzione Scavi Ostia Antica, 81. 71. Left side of rear base of Fig. 62. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 31.105. 72. Center of rear base of Fig. 62. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 31.706. 73. Right side of rear base of Fig. 62. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 31.707. 74. “Octavianus” by Kleomenes of Athens. In the Louvre. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 1207. 75. Back view of Fig. 74. Phot. Giraudon, 28863. 76. Left side view of Fig. 74. Phot. Giraudon, 28868. 77. Denarius of Augustus. Obverse: Head of Augustus. Collection Bieber. Phot. American Numismatic Society, New York. 78. The Ludovisi Hermes. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Anderson, 1946. 79. Three-quarter back view of the Hermes from Anzio. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Anderson, 40836. 80. Mercury from Thalwil. In the Landesmuseum, Zurich. Phot. Musée National Suisse, 12529. 81. Mercury. In the Historisches Museum, Speyer, Germany. Phot. Museum Speyer. 82. Right side view of Fig. 80. Phot. Musée National Suisse, 12531. 83. Back view of Fig. 80. Phot. Musée National Suisse, 12530. 84. Left side view of Fig. 80. Phot. Musée National Suisse, 12528. 85. Meleager. In the Villa Borghese, Rome. Phot. Bruckmann, 2714. 86. Meleager. In the Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University. Phot. Fogg Art Mus., 1926.48.13. 87. The tragic poet Moschion. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Alinari, 19062. 88. The comic poet “Menander” or “Plautus.” In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, XIII.1.23. 89. Statue by Zenon of Aphrodisias, In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Alinari, 20121. 90. The Augustus of Primaporta. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Anderson, 1318. 91. Three-quarter front view of Fig. 90. Phot. Moscioni, 431-A. 92. Claudius as Jupiter. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Alinari, 6535. 93. Claudius as Jupiter. In the Villa Borghese, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 72.2246. 94. Hadrian as hero or god. In the Pergamon Museum. Phot. Pergamon Museum. 95. Three-quarter front view of Fig. 94. Phot. Pergamon Museum. 96. Head of Fig. 94.1 owe the photographs for Figs. 94-96 to the kindness of President K. Bittel and Dr. Jessen of the German Archaeological Institute in Berlin. 97. Balbinus as Jupiter. In the Piraeus Museum, Athens. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, PIR 124. 98. Three-quarter front view of Fig. 97. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, PIR 124. 99. Dresden Zeus. In the Dresden Museum. Phot. Dresden Museum. 100. Back view of Fig. 99. Phot. Dresden Museum. XXlll

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140.

Left profile view of Fig. 99. Phot. Dresden Museum. Venus of Capua. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Alinari, 11156. Three-quarter front view of Fig. 102. Phot. Alinari, 11156a. Ares Borghese. In the Louvre. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 866. Venus and Mars. In the Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Phot. Alinari, 1256. Venus and Mars with Cupid. In the Villa Borghese, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 72.2253. “Crispina and Commodus.” In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Alinari, 38255. Married couple (of the late Antonine period). In the Capitoline Museum. Phot. Alinari, 27120. “Sabina and Hadrian.” In the Louvre. Phot. Giraudon, 1404. Venus of Palermo. In the Louvre. Phot. Giraudon, 2220. “Tyehe” and child. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 31.2258. Madonna and child over the tomb of Raphael. In the Pantheon, Rome. Phot. Gabinetto Fotografico Nazionale, Rome, E 58084. Victory from Brescia. In the Museo Bresciano, Brescia. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 62.223. Victory from Brescia, a restoration. In the Louvre. Phot. Giraudon, 15331. Sestertius of Trajan. Obverse: Head of emperor. Reverse: Victory with shield. Phots. American Numismatic Society, New York. Nemesis. In the Villa Albani, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 55.718. Victory with shield from Column of Trajan, Rome. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, X1X.45.2. Victory, with barbarian from Arch of Constantine, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome. Muse. In the Villa Albani, Rome. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, XXXI.53.24. Muse. In the Dresden Museum. Phot. Dresden Museum, 1307. Victory, on the sarcophagus of M. Sulpicius Pylades. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 767. Apollo with two Muses, on a sarcophagus. In the Villa Borghese, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 8204. Aphrodite from Cyrene. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. Venus Genetrix. In the Louvre. Phot. Alinari, 22752. Venus Genetrix. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Alinari, 11155. Venus Genetrix. In the Villa Borghese, Rome. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, XIX.34.5. Venus Genetrix. In the Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Phot. Alinari, 1331. Three-quarter front view, right side, of Fig. 127. Phot. Alinari, 1331b. Three-quarter front view, left side, of Fig, 127. Phot. Alinari, 1331a. Venus Genetrix. In the Metropolitan Museum of Art; Funds from various donors, 1932. Phot. Met.Mus., 151614. Left side view of Fig. 130. Phot. Met.Mus., 151616. Back view of Fig. 130. Phot. Met.Mus., 151615. Statuette of Venus Genetrix. In Ostia. Phot. Direzione Scavi Ostia Antica, 194. Left side view of Fig. 133. Phot. Direzione Scavi Ostia Antica, 194. Venus Genetrix (with left breast exposed). In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Anderson, 4944. Venus Genetrix. In the Royal Ontario Museum of Archaeology, Toronto. Phot. R.O.M.A. 631. Right side view of Fig. 136. Phot. R.O.M.A. 552. Back view of Fig. 136. Phot. R.O.M.A. 550. Venus Genetrix. In the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Phot. Mus.Fine Arts, C 14402. Three-quarter front view, right side, of Fig. 139. Phot. Mus.Fine Arts, C 5605. XXÌV

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181.

Three-quarter back view, left side, of Fig. 139. Phot. Mus. Fine Arts, C 5603. Three-quarter front view, left side, of Fig. 139. Phot. Mus. Fine Arts, C 5604. Sabina as Venus Genetrix. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Alinari, 11797. Denarius of Hadrian. Obverse: Head of Sabina. Reverse: Venus Genetrix. Collection Bieber. Phots. American Numismatic Society, New York, Denarius of Hadrian. Reverse: Venus Genetrix. Phot. American Numismatic Society, New York. Venus Genetrix. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Alinari, 34323. Sabina as Venus Genetrix. In Ostia. Phot. Direzione Scavi Ostia Antica, 24. Left side view of Fig. 147. Phot. Direzione Scavi Ostia Antica, 24. Statuette dedicated by C. Attilius Euplus. In Ostia. Phot. Direzione Scavi Ostia Antica, 166. Left side view of Fig. 149, Phot. Direzione Scavi Ostia Antica, 166. Late Roman adaptation of Venus Genetrix. In Ostia. Phot. Direzione Scavi Ostia Antica, 1268. Left side view of Fig. 151. Phot. Direzione Scavi Ostia Antica, 1268. Roman adaptation of Venus Genetrix. In the Museo Archeologico, Florence. Phot. Soprint. Ant. d’Etruria, 1363. Roman adaptation of Venus Genetrix. In the Palazzo Colonna, Rome. Phot. Bruckmann, 1153. Roman adaptation of Venus Genetrix. In the Villa Borghese, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 72.2247. Roman adaptation of Venus Genetrix with a Flavian head and two belts. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 1394. Roman adaptation of Venus Genetrix with garment in black marble. In the Glyptothek, Munich. Phot. Antikensammlungen, Munich. Flora Farnese. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Brogi, 5172. Head and bust of Fig. 158. Phot. Alinari, 34240. Hera Barberini. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Anderson, 1390. Three-quarter front view, left side, of Fig. 160. Phot, by Faraglia, from the German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 8040. Hera from the Palatine. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Richter, 389. Left side view of Fig. 162. Phot. Faraglia, from the German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 7964. Hera from Ostia. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Anderson, 1336. Three-quarter front view, left side, of Fig. 164. Phot, by Faraglia. Hera from Otricoli. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Anderson, 23832. Lucilla in the guise of Hera. In the Capitoline Museum. Phot. Anderson, 1722. Three-quarter front view, left side, of Fig. 167. Phot. Faraglia, from the German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 8140. Portrait statue of the Flavian period. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Faraglia. Left side view of Fig. 169. Phot. Faraglia. Back view of Fig. 169. Phot. Faraglia. Bronze coin of Lucius Verus. Reverse: Hygieia and Asklepios. Collection Bieber. Phot. American Numismatic Society, New York. Hygieia. In the Cassel Museum. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsammlungen Kassel. Right side view of Fig. 173. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsammlungen Kassel. Left side view of Fig. 173. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsammlungen Kassel. Relief with nymphs, dedicated by Turranius Dionusius. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Soprint. Ant. Campania-Napoli, A 43. Venus Marina. In Ostia. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 8150. Venus Marina. In the Staatliche Museen, Berlin. Phot. Bard. Model of the Venus Marina type. Phot. Bieber. Venus Marina from Rome. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Naples Mus., 1166. Three-quarter front view, left side, of Fig. 180. Phot. Naples Mus., 1167. XXV

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219.

Venus Marina. In the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Phot. Frankenstein, 17646. Lower part of a Venus Marina torso. In Ostia. Phot. Direzione Scavi Ostia Antica, 1118. Venus Marina, with chiton added. In Ostia. Phot. Direzione Scavi Ostia Antica, 1121. Venus Marina, with chiton added. In the Villa Borghese, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 72.2252. Hebe, from the east pediment of the Parthenon. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. Left side view of Fig. 186. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. Niobid. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Chauffourier, 1720. Maenad. In the Dresden Museum. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsammlungen Dresden. Left side view of Fig. 189. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsammlungen Dresden. Nereid. In the British Museum, Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. Terracotta Victory. In the Louvre. Phot. Louvre, 24464. Maenad on the crater by Salpion. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Alinari, 34213. Maenad on a round base. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 3352. Maenad on a candelabrum base. Formerly in the Art Market, Rome. Phot. Bruckmann, 5081. Victory from the Casa Farnesina ceiling. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 550. Another Victory from the Casa Farnesina ceiling. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Moscioni, 1663. Flying Victories on a sarcophagus. In the Campo Santo, Pisa. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 34.566. Standing Victories on a sarcophagus. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 36.238. Flying Victories on a sarcophagus. In the Campo Santo, Pisa. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 34.665. Maenad on a sarcophagus (right end). In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Faraglia. Front view of the sarcophagus in Fig. 201. Phot. Alinari, 6655. Sarcophagus. In the Museo Maffeiano, Verona. Phot. Alinari, 39089. Maenad on a Neo-Attic base. In the Palazzo Doria-Pamphili, Rome. Phot. Sansaini. Victory sacrificing a bull. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. Relief of a Victory sacrificing a bull. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Alinari, 28361. Victory on fragment of a terracotta frieze. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Faraglia. Victory on another fragment of terracotta frieze. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Faraglia. Victories sacrificing bulls. On the Arch of Trajan in Benevento. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 1929.478 (part). Victories on a terracotta puteal. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Alinari, 30181. Dancers from a round base. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Alinari, 29949. Diana Lucifera from Capua. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Soprint. Ant. Campania-Napoli, A/5636. Sarcophagus with Achilles, Penthesilea and the Amazonomachy. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Alinari, 6653. Another sarcophagus with the same scene as in Fig. 213. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Alinari, 11819. Sarcophagus with a wife and husband in a harbor scene. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 1931.1138. Aphrodite of Arles. In the Louvre. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 439. Right side view of Fig. 216. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 439. Left side view of Fig. 216. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 439. Copy of Aphrodite of Arles. In the Museo Nuovo, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 6599. XXVI

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 220. Copy of Aphrodite “Anadyomene.” In the Museo Nuovo, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 35.209. 221. Copy of Aphrodite “Anadyomene.” In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Anderson, 1465. 222. Headless copy of Aphrodite “Anadyomene.” Formerly in the Art Market, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 36.518. 223. Model for Aphrodite “Anadyomene.” Phot. Bieber. 224. Late Hellenistic statuettes of Aphrodite “Anadyomene.” In the National Museum, Athens. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, NM 1111. 225. Nude Aphrodite, arranging her hair. In the Museo Torlonia. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 35.74. 226. Back view of Fig. 225. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 34.1999. 227. Portrait statue of the time of Julia Soaemias. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, XIX.23.7. 228. Venus Urania. In the Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Phot. Alinari, 1339. 229. Lower part of an Aphrodite statuette (with chiton added). In the National Museum, Athens. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, A.V. 18. 230. Headless torso and headless statuette of Aphrodite. In the National Museum, Athens. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, A.V. 201. 231. Lower part of an Aphrodite statuette. In the National Museum, Athens. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, A.V. 146. 232. Headless statuette of Aphrodite. In the National Museum, Athens. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, A.V. 139. 233. Aphrodite of Syracuse. In the Museo Archeologico, Syracuse. Phot. Alinari, 19783. 234. Three-quarter back view of Fig. 233. Phot. Brogi, 12029. 235. Copy of the Aphrodite of Syracuse. In the Collection Stettiner, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 3060. 236. Copy of the Aphrodite of Syracuse. Formerly in the Art Market, New York City. Phot, supplied by French and Co., New York. 237. Three-quarter side view of Fig. 236 (left side). Phot, supplied by French and Co., New York. 238. Nymph with a shell. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 1067. 239. Portrait statue from the Hadrianic period. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, XXVI-3-27. 240. Portrait statue of Sallustia. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Alinari, 11818. 241. Nude portrait statue in the type of the Venus Medici. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Soprint. Ant. Campania-Napoli, Q 535. 242. Nude portrait statue, in the type of the Capitoline Venus. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Soprint. Ant. Campania-Napoli, C 1481. 243. Antonine sarcophagus depicting the triumph of Dionysus. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Alinari, 19097. 244. Portrait statue in the guise of Omphale. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, XXIV-21-17, 245. Omphale and Hercules. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Alinari, 11067. 246. Artemis of Versailles. Three-quarter front view, right side. In the Louvre. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 589. 247. Right side view of Fig. 246. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 589. 248. Three-quarter front view, left side, of Fig. 246. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 589. 249. Relief of Artemis hunting. In the Cassel Museum. Phot. Staatl. Kunstsammlungen Kassel, 774. 250. Vase painting of Artemis present at a sacrifice. In the Würzburg Museum. Phot. M. v. Wagner-Museum der Universität Würzburg Antikenabteilung, 18P2. 251. Model of Artemis in peplos. Phot. Bieber. XXVll

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 252. Artemis. In the Villa Ludovisi-Boncompagni, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 30.954. 253. Girl of Claudian period represented as Diana. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Anderson, 28852. 254. Denarius of Augustus. Obverse: Head of Augustus. Reverse: Diana. Collection Bieber. Phots. American Numismatic Society, New York. 255. Diana. In the Villa Borghese, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 72.2249. 256. Diana. Three-quarter front view, right side. In the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Phot. Ashmolean Museum. 257. Left side view of Fig. 256. Phot. Ashmolean Museum. 258. Torso of Diana. In Ostia. Phot. Direzione Scavi Ostia Antica, 1107. 259. Wall painting of the veneration of Diana. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Alinari, 29818. 260. Statuette of Diana. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 34.6. 261. Diana. In the Villa Borghese, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 72.2251. 262. Diana. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 29.715. 263. Diana. In the Capitoline Museum. Phot. Anderson, 1663. 264. Lictor on the Cancelleria relief. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, XVIII-16-5. 265. Virtus on the Cancelleria relief. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani. 266. Virtus on third century sarcophagus. In the Palazzo Mattei, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 35.1973. 267. Roma on keystone of Arch of Titus, Rome. Phot. Moscioni, 20610. 268. Funerary relief of Aelia Procula. In the Louvre. Phot. Les Archives Photographiques d’Art et d’Histoire, Paris. 269. “Artemis of Gabii.” In the Louvre. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 589. 270. Right side view of Fig. 269. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 589. 271. Left side view of Fig. 269. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 589. 272. Model for the “Artemis of Gabii.” Phot. Bieber. 273. Torso of Diana. In the Louvre. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 3435. 274. Model for Fig. 273. Phot. Bieber. 275. Diana. In the Staatliche Museen, Berlin. Phot. Staatl.Mus., Berlin, 6347. 276. Diana. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 640. 277. Torso of Diana. In Ostia. Phot. Direzione Scavi Ostia Antica, 987. 278. Right side view of Fig. 277. Phot. Direzione Scavi Ostia Antica, 987. 279. Diana. In Ostia. Phot. Direzione Scavi Ostia Antica, 4. 280. Torso of Diana. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 414. 281. Bronze coin of Commodus. Reverse: Running Diana. From Megara. Phot. American Numismatic Society, New York. 282. Bronze coin of Commodus. Reverse: Running Diana in temple. From Tanagra. Phot. American Numismatic Society, New York. 283. Coin of Macrinus and Diadumenianus. Reverse: Running Diana. Phot. Neugass. 284. Statuette of running Diana. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, XXVI-3-29. 285. Running Diana. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Brogi, 5114, 286. Running Diana. In the Capitoline Museum. Phot. Anderson, 1665. 287. Bronze statuette of Artemis. In the Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Buffalo. Phot. Tozzi. 288. Right side view of Fig. 287. Phot. Tozzi. 289. Back view of Fig, 287. Phot. Tozzi. 290. Late second century a .d . tetradrachm. Obverse: Head of Artemis. Reverse: Artemis with a stag. Collection Bieber. Phot. Luckert.

xxviii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 291. Diana. In the Palazzo dei Conservatori. Phot. Moscioni, 11243. 292. Statuette of Diana. In the Vatican Museum (Museo Chiaramonti). Phot. Faraglia, from the German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 8044. 293. Diana. In the Vatican Museum (Galleria dei Candelabri). Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 33.42. 294. Torso of Diana. In the Lateran Museum. Phot. Faraglia, from the German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 32.427. 295. Relief with Diana. In the Vatican Museum (storerooms). Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 796. 296. Diana. In the Vatican Museum (Sala della Biga). Phot. Anderson, 1359. 297. Diana on the Niobid sarcophagus. In the Glyptothek, Munich. Phot. Koppermann, Antikensammlungen, München. 298. Sarcophagus with Atalanta hunting. In the Palazzo dei Conservatori. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, XIX.10.18. 299. Virtus on the Hippolytus sarcophagus. In the Lateran Museum. Phot. Anderson, 24202. 300. Woman. In the Palazzo Doria-Pamphili, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 7399A. 301. Back view of Fig. 300. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 7400. 302. Diana hunting, on fabric. In the Musée Guimet, Paris. Phot. Les Archives Photographiques d’Art et d’Histoire, Paris, G.33. 303. Torso of Diana. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Faraglia, from the German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 8012. 304. Bronze statuette of Diana. In the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. Phot. Cabinet des Médailles, B 8667.1 owe the photograph to the kindness of J. Babelon. 305. Altar of the Lares. In the Museo Nuovo, Rome. Phot. Moscioni, 10466. 306. Statuette of a Lar. In the Palazzo dei Conservatori. Phot. Alinari, 27181. 307. Statuette of a Lar. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Naples Mus., 4054. 308. Second statuette of a Lar. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Naples Mus., 4054. 309. Statuette of a Lar dedicated by Bello. In the Römisches Germanisches Zentralsmuseum, Mainz. Phot. Zentralsmuseum, Mainz. 310. Second Statuette of a Lar. In the Römisches Germanisches Zentralsmuseum, Mainz. Phot. Zentralsmuseum, Mainz. 311. Statuette of a Lar. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. 312. Another statuette of a Lar. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. 313. Lar on the altar of Manlius. In the Lateran Museum. Phot. Anderson, 24113. 314. Artemis on a fragment of a frieze depicting the battle of the gods and the giants. In the Museo Comunale, Rome. Phot. Alinari, 28072. 315. Artemis on another fragment of the same frieze as Fig. 314. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Alinari, 11811. 316. Erinnys on another fragment of the same frieze as Fig. 314. In the Museo Nuovo, Rome. Phot. Anderson, 17871. 317. Right side view of model in open peplos. Phot. Bieber. 318. Three-quarter front view of model in open peplos. Phot. Bieber. 319. Right side view of model in closed peplos. Phot. Bieber. 320. Front view of model in closed peplos. Phot. Bieber. 321. Statuette of girl in peplos. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 8055. 322. Right side view of Fig. 321. Phot. Faraglia. 323. Left side view of Fig. 321. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 8056. 324. Girl in peplos, on a red-figured amphora. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Alinari, 35815. 325. Bronze statue from Herculaneum. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Alinari, 34153. 326. Bronze statuette of Artemis. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. XXIX

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 327. 328. 329. 330. 331. 332. 333. 334. 335. 336. 337. 338. 339. 340. 341. 342. 343. 344. 345. 346. 347. 348. ,349. .350. 351. 352. 353. 354. 355. ,356. 357. 358. 359. 360. 361. 362. 363. 364. 365. 366. 367. 368. 369. 370. 371. 372.

Left side view of Fig. 326. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. Statuette. In the Museo Barraeco, Rome. Phot. Alinari, 34855. Three-quarter front view of Fig. 328. Phot. Alinari, 34854. Torso, of the same type as Figs. 328-329. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, XXII.2.1. Right side view of Fig. 330. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, XXII.2.2. Dresden Artemis. In the Dresden Museum. Phot. Dresden Museum. Right side view of Fig. 332. Phot. Dresden Museum. Back view of Fig. 332. Phot. Dresden Museum. Dresden Artemis. In the Palazzo Doria-Pamphili, Rome. Phot. Sansaini. Right side view of Fig. 335. Phot. Sansaini. Back view of Fig. 335. Phot. Sansaini. Dresden Artemis (correct restoration). In the Cassel Museum. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsammlungen Kassel. Right side view of Fig. 338. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsamml. Kassel. Dresden Artemis (incorrect restoration). In the Cassel Museum. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsammlungen Kassel. Right side view of Fig. 340. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsamml. Kassel. Dresden Artemis (no restoration). In the Cassel Museum. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsammlungen Kassel. Right side view of Fig. 342. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsammlungen Kassel. Dresden Artemis. In the Glyptothek, Munich. Phot. Kopperrnann, Antikensammlungen, Munich. Dresden Artemis (incorrect restoration). In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Moscioni, 4047. Three-quarter front view of Fig. 345. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 8037. Dresden Artemis. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Faraglia. Dresden Artemis. In the Villa Borghese, Rome. Phot, by Faraglia, from the German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 32.438. Dresden Artemis. In the Museo Archeologico, Florence. Phot. Museo Archeologico. Dresden Artemis. In the Staatliche Museen, Berlin. Phot. Staatl.Mus., Berlin, Antikensammlungen, SK 6346. Right side view of Fig. 350. Phot. Staatl.Mus., Berlin, Antikensammlungen, SK 2730. Dresden Artemis (misnamed Erato). In the Louvre. Phot. Giraudon, 1144. Ariadne. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. Right side view of Fig. 353. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. Tyche. In the Glyptothek, Munich. Phot. Bruekmann. The Artemis Colonna. In the Staatliche Museen, Berlin. Phot. Staatl.Mus., Berlin, Antikensammlungen, SK 59. Right side view of Fig. 356. Phot. Staatl.Mus., Berlin, Antikensammlungen, SK 2727. Artemis Colonna. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Alinari, 6553. Artemis Colonna (restored as huntress). In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Anderson, 2390.3. Artemis Colonna. In the Louvre. Phot. Giraudon, 15330. Artemis Colonna (from Saloniki). In the Louvre. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 2190. Artemis Colonna. In the Capitoline Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 1205. Right side view (lower portion) of Fig. 362. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 31.1550. Artemis Colonna. In the Museo Archeologico, Florence. Phot. Museo Archeologico. Artemis Colonna. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 8001. Artemis Colonna. In the Art Market, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 29.320. Right side view of Fig. 366. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 29.322. Back view of Fig. 366. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 29.323. Artemis Colonna. In the Dresden Museum. Phot. Dresden Museum. Right side view of Fig. 369. Phot. Dresden Museum. Left side view of Fig. 369. Phot. Dresden Museum. Athena Hephaistia. In the Louvre. Phot. Alinari, 22661.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 373. 374. 375. 376. 377. 378. 379. 380. 381. 382. 383. 384. 385. 386. 387. 388. 389. 390. 391. 392. 393. 394. 395. 396. 397. 398. 399. 400. 401. 402. 403. 404. 405. 406. 407. 408. 409. 410. 411. 412. 413. 414. 415. 416.

Three-quarter front view of Fig. 372. Phot. Les Archives Photographiques d’Art et d’Histoire, Paris. Right side view of Fig. 372. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 847. Left side view of Fig. 372. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 847. Athena Hephaistia. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 464. Right side view of Fig. 376. Phot. Faraglia. Athena Hephaistia. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Faraglia, from the German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 8035. Athena Hephaistia. In the Villa Borghese, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 6661. Three-quarter front view of Fig. 379. Phot. Faraglia, from the German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 32.437. Athena Hephaistia. In the Villa Borghese, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 72.2254. Right side view of Fig. 381. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 32.436. Athena Hephaistia. In Ostia. Phot. Direzione Scavi Ostia Antica, 1113. Right side view of Fig. 383. Phot. Direzione Scavi Ostia Antica, 1113. Athena Hephaistia. Formerly in the Art Market, Torino. Artemis. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Anderson, 23868. Right side view of Fig. 386. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 55. Hellenistic Artemis. In the Palazzo Doria-Pamphili, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 8179. Artemis (or Athena) from Ariccia. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Soprint. Ant., Rome. Right side view of Fig. 389. Phot. Faraglia, from the German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 8010. Colossal statue (lower portion). In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Courtesy of Signora Felletti-Maj. Relief of “ Mourning” Athena. In the Acropolis Museum, Athens. Phot. Alinari, 24601. Copy of Athena by Myron. In the Städtische Galerie, Frankfurt. Phot. Hewicker. Left side view of Fig. 393. Phot. Hewicker. Athena Lemnia. In the Dresden Museum. Phot. Pfauder, Staatl. Kunstsammlungen, Dresden. Athena Lemnia (reconstruction). In the Berlin University Museum of Casts, Berlin. Phot. Amelung. Athena Lemnia. In the Cassel Museum. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsammlungen Kassel. The Varvakeion statuette. In the National Museum, Athens. Phot. Alinari, 24215. Right side view of Fig. 398. Phot. Alinari, 24216. Cast of right side view of Athena Parthenos. In the Berlin University Museum of Casts, Berlin. Phot. Amelung. Minerve au Collier. In the Louvre. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 91. Right side view of Fig. 401. Phot. Giraudon, 28242. Peplos statue. In the Lateran Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 258. Right side view of Fig. 403. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 259. Torso of Athena Parthenos. In the Acropolis Museum, Athens. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, 570. Three-quarter front view of Fig. 405. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, 571. Copy of Athena Parthenos by Antiochos. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Anderson, 3314. Right side view (lower portion) of Fig. 407. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 30.371A. Maenad. In the Villa Albani, Rome. Phot. Alinari, 27596. Minerva. In the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Phot. Ashmolean Museum. Right side view of Fig. 410. Phot. Ashmolean Museum. Minerva. In the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Phot. Ashmolean Museum. Right side view of Fig. 412. Phot. Ashmolean Museum. Relief on candelabrum base. In the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Phot. Ashmolean Museum. Colossal statue of Minerva. In the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Phot. Ashmolean Museum. Minerva. In the Louvre. Phot. Les Archives Photographiques d’Art et d’Histoire, Paris. XXXI

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 417. 418. 419. 420. 421. 422. 423. 424. 425. 426. 427. 428. 429. 430. 431. 432. 433. 434. 435. 436. 437. 438. 439. 440. 441. 442. 443. 444. 445. 446. 447. 448. 449. 450. 451. 452. 453. 454. 455. 456. 457. 458. 459. 460.

Right side view of Fig. 416. Phot. Les Archives Photographiques d’Art et d’Histoire, Paris. Athena Medici. In the Louvre. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 3070. Right side view of Fig. 418. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 3070. Left side view of Fig. 418. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 3070. Bronze statuette of Minerva. In the Museo di Antichità, Turin. Phot. Anderson, 10785. Running Athena. In the Capitoline Museum. Phot. Alinari, 6005. Running Athena (or Artemis). In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. Herrn of Minerva. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 37.1043. Right side view of Fig. 424. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 37.1046. Back view of Fig, 424. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 37.1044. Adaptation of Athena Parthenos. In the Villa Wolkonski, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 31.1164. Right side view of Fig. 427. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 31.1165. Back view of Fig. 427. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 31.1167. Left side view of Fig. 427. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 31.1166. Bronze Hekateion. In the Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome. Phot. Anderson, 1667. Another view of Fig. 431. Phot. Alinari, 27175. Marble Hekateion. In the Villa Borghese, Rome. Phot. Gabinetto Fotografico Nazionale, Rome, E 9462. Another view of Fig. 433 (lower portion). Phot, by Faraglia, from the German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 32.440. Leaning Aphrodite from Smyrna. In the Staatliche Museen, Berlin. Phot. Staatl.Mus., Berlin, Antikensam­ mlungen, SK 7748. Back view of Fig. 435. Phot. Staatl.Mus., Berlin, Antikensammlungen, SK 7754. Torso of leaning Aphrodite from Gortyn. In Candia, Crete. Phot. Maraghiannis, Leaning Aphrodite (incorrectly restored). In the Louvre. Phot. Giraudon, 1139. Leaning Aphrodite (incorrectly restored). In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Alinari, 34326. Leaning Aphrodite. In the Louvre. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 420. Leaning Aphrodite. In the Staatliche Museen, Berlin. Phot. Staatl.Mus., Berlin, Antikenastellungen, Bard 20. Statue of a girl. In the National Museum, Athens. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, NM 5949. Right side view of Fig. 442. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, NM 5952. Back view of Fig. 442. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, NM 5950. Left side view of Fig. 442. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, NM 5951. Aphrodite. In the Palazzo Doria-Pamphili, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 6530. Aphrodite. In the Palazzo Lazzeroni, Rome. Phot. Bruckmann, 1169. Aphrodite. In the Palazzo Odescalchi, Rome. Phot. Bruckmann. 2061. Statuette of Aphrodite. In the National Museum, Athens. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens. Statuette of Aphrodite. In the Louvre. Phot. Les Archives Photographiques d’Art et d’Histoire, Paris. Seated “Agrippina.” In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Alinari, 34217. Three-quarter back view, right side, of Fig. 451. Phot. Soprint. Ant. della Campania-Napoli, B/665. Three-quarter front view, left side, of Fig. 451. Phot. Alinari, 11030. Three-quarter front view, right side, of Fig. 451. Phot. Soprint. Ant. della Campania-Napoli, C/1466. Seated Roman woman. In the Villa Albani, Rome. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, XXV.5.4. Seated Roman woman (with modern head). In the Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Phot. Alinari, 1258. Seated Roman woman (with late Roman head). In the Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Phot. Alinari, 29345. Seated Roman woman (Helena?). In the Capitoline Museum. Phot. Alinari, 5971. Coin of Helena. Obverse. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. Kore in situ at the Erechtheion, Athens. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, Akropolis 593.

XXXll

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 461. 462. 463. 464. 465. 466. 467. 468. 469. 470. 471. 472. 473.

Muse. In Mantua. Phot. Bieber, Jdl, 32 (1917), p. 79, fig. 45. Three-quarter back view, left side, of Fig. 461. Phot. Bieber. Hellenistic statue from Halicarnassus. In the Louvre. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 2838. Right side view of Fig. 463. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 2838. Left side view of Fig. 463. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 2838. Coin from Pisidia. Reverse: Leto and twins. Phot. Frank O’Sullivan, San Antonio, Texas. Leto with twins. In the Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome. Phot. Savio. Three-quarter front view, left side, of Fig. 467. Phot. Savio. Leto with twins. In the Museo Torlonia. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 34.2003. Back view of Fig. 469. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 34.2004. Kore or Demeter. In the Musée du Bardo, Tunis. Phot. Musee du Bardo. Demeter (back view). In the Staatliche Museen, Berlin. Phot. Staatl.Mus., SK 4689. Athena (left side view, lower part). In the Capitoline Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 8144a. 474. Wall painting of a girl. In the Louvre. Phot. P 31. 475. Caryatid. In the Villa Albani, Rome. Phot. Alinari, 27598. 476. Caryatid wrapped in mantle. In the Villa Albani, Rome. Phot. Alinari, 27597. 477. Caryatid. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. 478. Right side view of Fig. 477. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. 479. Three-quarter back view, left side, of Fig. 477. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. 480. Left side view of Fig. 477. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. 481. Apollo Kitharoidos. In the Glyptothek, Munich. Phot, Bruckmann. 482. Denarius of Augustus. Obverse: Head of emperor. Reverse: Apollo Kitharoidos. Phot. American Numismatic Society, New York, 63-184. 483. Sestertius of Antoninus Pius. Obverse: Head of emperor. Reverse: Apollo Kitharoidos. Phot. American Numismatic Society, New York. 484. Apollo Kitharoidos. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 8048. 485. Three-quarter front view, right side, of Fig. 484. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 8049. 486. Apollo Kitharoidos. In the Museo Nuovo, Rome. 487. Apollo Kitharoidos. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Alinari, 6506. 488. Apollo Kitharoidos on Hellenistic base. In the Louvre. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 679. 489. Apollo Kitharoidos on Neo-Attic candelabrum base. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot.Alinari, 34315. 490. Apollo Kitharoidos on archaistic relief. In the Louvre. Phot. Les Archives Photographiques d’Art et d’Histoire, Paris, 768. 491. Apollo Kitharoidos on archaistic relief. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum, B 4144. 492. Herrn. In the Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome. Phot. Savio. 493. Close-up view of upper portion of Fig. 492. Phot. Alinari, 27179. 494. Three-quarter back view, right side, of Fig. 492. Phot. Faraglia. 495. Maenad with tympanum. In the Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Phot. Alinari, 29353. 496. Complete Neo-Attic relief (of which Fig. 495 is a detail). Phot. Alinari, 29352. 497. Relief of Maenad with knife. In the Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome. Phot. Savio. 498. Relief of Maenad with knife. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. 499. Maenad with knife, on an amphora by Sosibios. In the Louvre. Phot. Les Archives Photographiques d’Art et d’Histoire, Paris. 500. Maenad with knife, on a rhyton by Pontios. In the Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome. Phot. Archivio ■ Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, IX.17,10. 501. Maenad with knife, on round base. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Anderson, 2002. ,502. Relief fragment of Maenad with knife. In the Villa Albani, Rome. Phot. Alinari, 27576.

xxxiii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 503. 504. 505. 506. 507. 508. 509. 510. 511. 512. 513. 514. 515. 516. 517. 518. 522. 523. 524. 525. 526. 527. 528. 529. 530. 531. 532. 533. 534. 535. 536. 537. 538. 539. 540. 541. 542. 543. 544. 545. 546.

Relief of three Maenads. In the Museo Barracco, Rome. Phot. Alinari, 34823. Relief of Maenad with thyrsus. In the Louvre. Phot. Alinari, 22654. Maenad on candelabrum base. Formerly in the Art Market, Rome. Phot. Bruekmann, 5082. Maenad with tympanum, on a vase by Salpion. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Alinari, 34213. Relief of three Maenads. In the Villa Albani, Rome. Phot. Alinari, 27577. Drawing of a loom, combining the looms of Penelope and of Kirke, by Debra Quattrone. Drawing of the form of a himation, when it comes from the loom, by Debra Quattrone. Relief of a charioteer. In the Acropolis Museum, Athens. Phot. Alison Franz, Athens. Three men, on a black-figured hydria. In The Metropolitan Museum of Art; Fletcher Fund, 1956. Phot. Met.Mus., 162111. Warrior leaves home, on a lekythos. In the Staatliche Museen, Berlin. Phot. Staatl.Mus., Berlin. Man visits a woman. In the Staatliche Museen, Berlin. Phot. Staatl.Mus., Berlin. Man with himation on one shoulder. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. Man with himation off shoulders. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. Man wrapped in himation. In the Acropolis Museum, Athens. Phot. Alinari, 24638. Men in himatia, carrying hydriae. In the Acropolis Museum, Athens, Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, 72/2984. -521. Models for draping of the himation. Phots. Bieber. Zeus. In the Museo Nuovo, Rome. Phot. Faraglia. Zeus or Asklepios (with head and eagle restored). In the Staatliche Museen, Berlin. Phot. Staatl.Mus., Antikenabteilungen, SK 4741. Three-quarter front view, left side, of Fig. 523. Phot. Staatl. Mus., Antikenabteilungen, SK 4742. Zeus. In the Palazzo Altemps, Rome. Phot. Bruekmann. Asklepios. In the Museo Nuovo, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 8137. Man in chiton and himation. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Naples Mus. Left side view of Fig. 527. Phot. Naples Mus. Statuette of a boy wrapped in himation. In the Staatliche Museen, Berlin. Phot. Staatl.Mus., Antikensam­ mlung, SK 2738. Left side view of Fig. 529. Phot. Staatl.Mus., Antikensammlung, SK 2738. Model of Fig. 530. Phot. Bieber. Model of Fig. 529. Phot. Bieber. Model of statue of Sophokles. Phot. Bieber. Back view of Fig. 533. Phot. Bieber. Bronze statuette of a philosopher. In The Metropolitan Museum of Art; Rogers Fund, 1910. Phot. Met.Mus., 10730. Back view of Fig. 535. Phot. Met.Mus., 10731. Peplos statue, from Theater at Aphrodisias. Phot. Courtesy of Prof. Kenan Erim. Statue of a girl, preparing to drape her mantle. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Anderson, 1357. Model draping her mantle. Phot. Bieber. Statue of the “Niobid Nurse.” In the Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Phot. Alinari, 1271. Relief of Alkestis, on column drum found in Ephesus. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. Statue of the Muse Polyhymnia. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Anderson, 1418. “Sappho” or Kore Albani. In the Villa Albani, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 6718. Agrippina. In the Lateran Museum. Phot. Anderson, 24110. Left side view of Fig. 544. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 32.429. Julia. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Anderson, 1335.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 547. 548. 549. 550. 551. 552. 553. 554. 555. 556. 557. 558. 560. 561. 562. 563. 564. 565. 566. 567. 568. 569. 570. 571. 572. 573. 574. 575. 576. 577. 578. 579. 580. 581. 582. 583. 584. 585. 586. 587. 588. 589. 590. 591. 592.

Julia Mamaea. In the Louvre. Phot. Alinari, 22634. Vestal Virgin. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Moscioni, 219. Vestal Virgin. In the Atrium Vestae, Rome. Phot. Bruckmann, Fragment of Vestal Virgin. In the Atrium Vestae, Rome. Phot. Bruckmann. Athena of Velletri. In the Louvre. Phot. Alinari, 22664. Left side view of Fig. 551. Phot. Archives Photographiques Caisse Nationale des Monuments Historiques, Paris, 573. Replica of the Athena of Velletri. In the Museo Nuovo, Rome. Phot. Alinari, 28053. Athena Giustiniani. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 42.710. Three-quarter front view, left side, of Fig. 554. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 8038. Replica of the Athena Giustiniani. In the Palazzo Torlonia, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 34.2073. The tree and snake are modern restorations. Replica of the Athena Giustiniani. In the Capitoline Museum. Phot. Alinari, 11747. -559. Models for Athena in himation. Phots. Bieber. Three-quarter front view, left side, of Fig. 557. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 8139. Model with himation draped over one shoulder. Phot. Bieber. Left side view of Fig. 561, Phot. Bieber. Model with himation draped over one shoulder. Phot. Bieber. Model with himation draped over both shoulders. Phot. Bieber. Three-quarter front view, left side, of Fig. 564, Phot. Bieber. Model with himation draped over the head and both shoulders. Phot. Bieber. Statue of the seated Muse Thalia. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Anderson, 1419. Model for Fig. 567. Phot. Bieber. Another seated model. Phot. Bieber. Seated Zeus on an Alexander coin from Sikyon. Reverse. Collection Bieber. Phot. American Numismatic Society, New York. Statue of a girl with a dove. In the Capitoline Museum. Phot. Savio. Right side view of Fig. 571. Phot. Capitoline Museum. Relief of Archelaos. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. Terpsichore. In the Louvre. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 868. Right side view of Fig. 574. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 868. Left side view of Fig. 574. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 868. Terpsichore. In the Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Phot. Alinari, 1278. Terpsichore. In the Dresden Museum. Phot. Pfauder, Staatl. Kunstsammlungen, Dresden. Three-quarter front view, right side, of Fig. 578. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsammlungen, Dresden. Back view of Fig. 578. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsammlungen, Dresden. Sophokles. In the Lateran Museum. Phot. Alinari, 6374. Aischines. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Alinari, 11070. Youth of Eretria. In the National Museum, Athens. Phot. Alinari, 24295. Kleopatra and Dioskurides. In Delos. Phot. Hirmer, Fotoarchiv, Munich, 562.0705. Stele of Meidias. In the Archaeological Museum, Istanbul. Phot. Arch. Mus. Stele of Menophila. In the Louvre. Phot, Giraudon, 2039. Stele of Menander. In the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. Phot. Giraudon, 412-94. Stele of Kornelia. In the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. Phot. Giraudon, 15332. Terracotta statuette of a youth. In the National Museum, Athens. Phot. National Museum, 5045. Terracotta statuette of a man. In the National Museum, Athens. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, N.M. 199. Bronze statuette of a boy. In the Art Museum, Princeton. Phot. Art Museum, Princeton University. Right side view (upper part) of Fig. 591. Phot. Art Museum, Princeton University. XXXV

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 593. Back view of Fig. 591. Phot. Art Museum, Princeton University. 594. Left side view of Fig. 591. Phot. Art Museum, Princeton University. 595. Roman Republican stele. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 37.812. 596. Detail of figure on left side of Fig. 595. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 37.813. 597. Detail of figure on right side of Fig. 595. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 37.814. 598. Tomb relief with two palliati. In the Museo Campana, Capua. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 4685. 599. Tomb relief with five palliati. In the Palazzo Municipale, Avellino. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 38.1246. 600. Tomb relief with Firmius and his wife. In the Villa Reale dOssora, Treviso. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 33.560. 601. Tomb relief with three palliati and a woman. In the Villa Reale d’Ossora, Treviso. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 33.565. 602. Tomb relief with two palliati and a Pudicitia. In Ascoli Piceno. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 37.412. 603. Tomb relief of Vibius. In Trieste. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 37.661. 604. Tomb relief with a Pudicitia between two palliati. In the Villa Borghese, Rome. Phot. Alinari, 27481. 605. Tomb relief with a palliatus and a Pudicitia. In the Museo Nuovo, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 29.172. 606. Fragmentary tomb relief of a Pudicitia. In Naples. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 31.2973. 607. Fragmentary tomb relief with a Pudicitia. In Benevento. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 32.198. 608. Tomb relief of the Furii. In the Lateran Museum. Phot. Alinari, 29910. 609. Tomb relief with Eurysaces and his wife. Outside the Porta Maggiore, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 33.749. 610. Tomb relief with a palliatus and his wife. In the Museo Civico, Trieste. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 37.660. 611. Statue of a palliata. In the Damascus Museum. Phot. Courtesy of II, Ingholt. 612. Statue of Baebia. In the Archaeological Museum, Istanbul. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Istanbul, 68.128. 613. Right side view of Fig. 612. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Istanbul, 68.130. 614. Statuette of a palliata. In the Collection of Henry Seyrig. I owe the photograph to the kindness of Prof. Seyrig. 615. Statue of Saufeia. In the Archaeological Museum, Istanbul. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Istanbul, 68.133. 616. Statue of a Pudicitia from Magnesia. In the Archaeological Museum, Istanbul. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Istanbul, 68.132. 617. Statue of a Pudicitia. In Aphrodisias (found in 1970). Phot. Courtesy of Prof. Kenan Erim. 618. Statue of a Pudicitia. In the Archaeological Museum, Istanbul. Phot. Archaeological Museum, Istanbul. 619. Statue of a Pudicitia. In the Louvre. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 930. 620. Tomb statue of an old woman as a Pudicitia. In Pompeii. Phot. Naples Museum. 621. Flavian statue of a Pudicitia. In the Museum of Apollonia, Cyrene. Phot. Department of Antiquities, Cyrenaica, 2929-249. 622. Antonine statue of a Pudicitia. In Ostia. Phot. Gabinetto Fotografico Nazionale, Rome, E 27/306. 623. Denarius of Sabina. Obverse: Head of Sabina. Reverse: Pudicitia standing. Phot. American Numismatic Society, New York. 624. Denarius of Julia Maesa. Obverse: Head of Julia. Reverse: Pudicitia seated. Phot. American Numismatic Society, New York.

xxxvi

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 625. Statue of the Claudian period. In the Musée Calvet, Avignon. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 33.403. 626. Statue of the Claudian period. In the Palazzo Doria-Pamphili, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 7417. 627. Statue of Julianus from Alexandria. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, XXXII.2.31. 628. Statue of “Marius.” In the Capitoline Museum. Phot. Anderson, 1735. 629. Statue of Hadrian from Cyrene. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum, C 1901. 630. Statue of a priest from Kyzikos. In the Archaeological Museum, Istanbul. Phot. Warburg Inst. Neg. E.R. XVII 94,59,97. I owe the photograph to the kindness of Jale Inan. 631. Statue of the second century A.D. (Antonine). Agora, Athens. Phot. Agora Excavations, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 7-209. 632. Back view of Fig. 631. Phot. Agora Excavations, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, LV-6. 633. Fragmentary statue of the Antonine period. Agora, Athens. Phot. Agora Excavations, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, LV-10. 634. Another statue of the Antonine period. Agora, Athens. Phot. Agora Excavations, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, LV-8. 635. Back view of Fig. 634. Phot. Agora Excavations, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, LV-9. 636. Back view of another Antonine statue. Agora, Athens. Phot. Agora Excavations, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, LV-11. Three fragments, two with bookcases. Agora, Athens. Phot. Agora Excavations, American School of Classical 637. Studies at Athens, LV-7. 638. Back view of another Antonine statue. Agora, Athens. Phot. Agora Excavations, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, LV-22. 639. Statue of Julian the Apostate. In the Louvre. Phot. Giraudon, 1877. 640. Three-quarter front view, left side, of Fig. 639. Phot. Giraudon, 1878. 641. Palliatus on end of a “Sidamara” sarcophagus. In Ostia. Phot. Vasari, courtesy Direzione Scavi Ostia Antica. 642. Bust of a palliatus in a round medallion. In the Palazzo Colonna, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 33.1717. 643. Sarcophagus of Annios Katos. In the Lateran Museum. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, IV. 19.2. 644. Sarcophagus with bust of a woman as a palliata. In the Capitoline Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 34.290. 645. Sarcophagus from Via Salaria, Rome. In the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek, Copenhagen. Phot. Courtesy of Vagn Poulsen. 646. Gate of Hades, on end panel of Fig. 645. Phot. Courtesy of Vagn Poulsen. 647. Genius of death, on other end panel of Fig. 645. Phot. Courtesy of Vagn Poulsen. 648. Sarcophagus from Salona. In the Spalato Museum. Phot. Courtesy of Mladen Nikolanei. 649. Detail of Fig. 648 - the Virgin Mary. 650. Detail of Fig. 648 - the Good Shepherd. 651. Detail of Fig. 648 - Christ. 652. Gate of Hades, on end panel of Fig. 648. 653. Genius of death, on other end panel of Fig. 648. 654. Christ as a palliatus on fragmentary sarcophagus. In the Staatliche Museen, Berlin. Phot. Staatl.Mus., Frühchristi.-byzant. Abteilungen 2430. 655. Central group of the sarcophagas of Junius Bassus. In St. Peter’s, Rome. Phot. Anderson, 20454. 656. Detail of the five arches sarcophagus. In the Church of S. Francesco, Ravenna. Phot. Alinari, 18075. 657. Detail of the seven arches sarcophagus. In the Palazzo dell’Universita, Perugia. Phot. Alinari, 21401. XXXVll

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 658. Detail of Fig. 659. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Istanbul. 659. Sarcophagus from Ephesus. In the Archaeological Museum, Istanbul. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Istanbul, 64/158. 660. Cover of the Endymion sarcophagus. In the Capitoline Museum. Phot. Anderson, 1766. 661. Detail of Fig. 660 (left end of cover). Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 62.797. 662. Detail of Fig. 660 (right end of cover). Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 62.798. 663. Togaed statue of Julius Caesar. In the Lateran Museum. Phot. Anderson, 24142. 664. Statue of the large Herculaneum woman from Herculaneum. In the Dresden Museum. Phot. Skulpturensam­ mlung Dresden, 21. 665. Left side view of Fig. 664. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsammlungen, Dresden, B 22. 666. Right side view (upper part) of Fig. 664. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsammlungen, Dresden, 723. 667. Front view (upper part) of Fig. 664. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsammlungen, Dresden, 723. 668. Statue of the small Herculaneum woman from Herculaneum. In the Dresden Museum. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsammlungen, Dresden, 737. 669. Right side view of Fig. 668. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsammlungen, Dresden, 725. 670. Left side view of Fig. 668. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsammlungen, Dresden, 734. 671. Front view of head of Fig. 668. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsammlungen, Dresden, 728. 672. Left side view of head of Fig. 668. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsammlungen, Dresden, 732. 673. Another small Herculaneum woman from Herculaneum. In the Dresden Museum. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsammlungen, Dresden, 738. 674. Fig. 673 with a cast of a head. Phot. Staatl.Kunstsammlungen, Dresden, 739. 675. Small Herculaneum woman from Delos. In the National Museum, Athens. Phot. National Museum. 676. Right side view of Fig. 675. Phot. National Museum. 677. Left side view of Fig. 675. Phot. National Museum. 678. Praxitelean head. In the J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, California. Phot, J. Paul Getty Museum. 679. Back view of Fig. 678. Phot. J. Paul Getty Museum. 680. Right side view of Fig. 678. Phot. J. Paul Getty Museum. 681. Left side view of Fig. 678. Phot. J. Paul Getty Museum. 682. Large Herculaneum woman of the Augustan period. In the National Museum, Athens. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, NM 5299. 683. Daughter of Balbus as a small Herculaneum woman. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Alinari, 34353. 684. Left side view of Fig. 683. Phot. Soprint. Ant. Napoli e Caserta-NAPOLI, 6867. 685. Other daughter of Balbus as a small Herculaneum woman. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Alinari, 11112.

686. Left side view of Fig. 685. Phot. Naples Museum, 6248. 687. Viciria, wife of Balbus, as a palliata. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Alinari, 11160. 688. Flavian woman as small Herculaneum woman. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, XXXII.47.9. 689. Another Flavian woman as small Herculaneum woman. In the Archaeological Museum, Istanbul. Phot. Archaeological Museum, 1014. 690. A third Flavian woman as small Herculaneum woman. In the Archaeological Museum, Istanbul. Phot. Areh.Mus., 1033. 691. Trajanic woman as small Herculaneum woman. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Alinari, 11041. 692. Hadrianic woman (Sabina?) as small Herculaneum woman. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum, 6375. 693. Hadrianic woman as large Herculaneum woman. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 676. 694. The older Faustina as a large Herculaneum woman. In Olympia. Phot, by Hege; from the German Archaeological Institute, Athens, 723. XXXV111

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 695. Sestertius of Antoninus Pius. Obverse: Head of the older Faustina. Phot. American Numismatic Society, New York. 696. The older Faustina as a large Herculaneum woman. In Ostia. Phot. Gabinetto Fotografico Nazionale, Rome, F 14586. 697. The older Faustina as a large Herculaneum woman. In the J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, California. Phot. J. Paul Getty Museum. 698. Right side view of Fig. 697. Phot. J. Paul Getty Museum. 699. Left side view of Fig. 697. Phot. J. Paul Getty Museum. 700. The younger Faustina as a small Herculaneum woman. In Olympia. Phot, by Hege; from the German Archaeological Institute, Athens, 722. 701. Left side view of Fig. 700. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, OL 541. 702. Antonine woman as a small Herculaneum woman. In Ostia. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 7111. 703. Three-quarter front view, right side, of Fig. 702. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 7335. 704. Antonine woman as a large Herculaneum woman. In the Louvre. Phot. Giraudon, 30464. 705. Statue from Cyrene of a large Herculaneum woman. In the Louvre. Phot. Giraudon, 28188. 706. Old woman as a small Herculaneum woman. In Cairo. Phot. Cairo Museum. 707. Left side view of the head of Fig. 706. Phot. Cairo Museum. 708. Obverses of two denarii - heads of Julia Paula and Salonina. 709. Vestal Virgin as a large Herculaneum woman. In the Atrium Vestae, Rome. Phot. Bruckmann, 3222. 710. Vestal Virgin as a small Herculaneum woman. In the Atrium Vestae, Rome. Phot. Bruckmann, 3223. 711. Statue from Ostia of a large Herculaneum woman. In the Lateran Museum. Phot. Alinari, 29940. 712. Funerary statue of a large Herculaneum woman. In Ostia. Phot. Courtesy of Raissa Calza. 713. Model for the large Herculaneum woman. Phot. Bieber. 714. Left side view of Fig. 713. Phot. Bieber. 715. Model for the small Herculaneum woman (arm position reversed). Phot. Bieber. 716. Funerary stele of Smyrna from Miletos. In the National Museum, Athens. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, G.R. 651. 717. Funerary stele of Hermione. In the National Museum, Athens. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, G.R. 709. 718. Funerary stele of mother and daughter. In the Small Metropolis, Athens. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, VAR 1271. 719. Funerary stele of Hieronis. In the Archaeological Museum, Istanbul. Phot, Arch.Mus., 1306. 720. Funerary stale of Stolos and family. In the Archaeological Museum, Istanbul. Phot. Arch.Mus., 2119. 721. Back side of sarcophagus of third century A.D. In the Palazzo Colonna, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 31.676. 722. One end panel of sarcophagus Fig. 721. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 31.676. 723. Other end panel of sarcophagus Fig. 721. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 31.676. 724. Bronze statuette. In the Dresden Museum. Phot. Dresden Museum. 725. Left side view of Fig. 724. Phot. Dresden Museum. 726. Statue of Antonia. In the Louvre. Phot. Giraudon, 1363. 727. Relief of Antonia with her family. On the Ara Pacis, Rome. Phot. Alinari, 3563. 728. Statue of Marciana. In the Glyptothek, Munich. Phot. Munich Glyptothek. 729. Left side view of Fig. 728. Phot. Munich Glyptothek. 730. Statue of Matidia. In the Archaeological Museum, Istanbul. Phot. Arch.Mus., 1031. 731. Statue of a priestess of Ceres (Trajanic period). In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. 732. Statue of Sabina. In Ostia. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 7112. 733. Three-quarter front view, left side, of Fig. 732. Phot, by Faraglia, from the German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 3148.

xxxix

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 734. Headless statue (Antonine period). In Ostia. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 7109. 735. Left side view of Fig. 734, Phot, by Faraglia, from the German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 8149. 736. Left side view of headless statue (Hadrianic period). In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot, by Faraglia, from the German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 8000. 737. Left side view of headless statue (Antonine period). In the Museo Nazionale delle Tenne, Rome, 8002. 738. Statue of the older Faustina. In the Louvre. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 1139. 739. Statue of a woman from Carthage (Antonine period). In the Musée du Bardo, Tunis. Phot. Musée du Bardo. 740. Statue of Julia Domna. In Ostia. Phot. Gabinetto Fotografico Nazionale, Rome, F 5708. 741. Left side view (upper part) of Fig. 740. Phot. Direzione Scavi Ostia Antica, 21. 742. Statue of a woman (Severan period). In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, XXXII.76.24. 743. Another statue of a woman (Severan period). In the Villa Borghese, Rome. Phot. Gabinetto Fotografico Nazionale, Rome, F 6089. 744. Three-quarter front view, left side, of Fig. 743. Phot. Faraglia. 745. Marriage scene on an Antonine sarcophagus. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. 746. Statue of Marciana. In the Loggia dei Lanzi, Florence. Phot. Alinari, 2509. 747. Statue of Matidia. In the Loggia dei Lanzi, Florence. Phot. Alinari, 2508. 748. Statue of Plotina. In the Loggia dei Lanzi, Florence. Phot. Alinari, 2506. 749. Statue of Livia. In the Loggia dei Lanzi, Florence. Phot. Alinari, 2510. 750. Dupondius of Tiberius. Obverse: Head of Livia. Phot. American Numismatic Society, New York. 751. Dupondius of Tiberius. Obverse: Head of Livia. Reverse: Temple. Phot. American Numismatic Society, New York. 752. Statue of a Vestal Virgin. In the Atrium Vestae, Rome. Phot. Faraglia. 753. Another statue of a Vestal Virgin. In the Atrium Vestae, Rome. Phot. Moscioni, 220. 754. Right side view of Fig. 753. Phot. Faraglia. 755. Left side view of Fig. 753. Phot. Faraglia. 756. Headless statue from Cyrene. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. 757. Three-quarter front view, right side, of a portrait statue. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Faraglia. 758. Three-quarter front view, left side, of Fig. 757. Phot. Faraglia. 759. Statue by Ammonios. In the Greco-Roman Museum, Alexandria. Phot. Alexandria Museum; Courtesy of Dr. Henry Riad and Prof. Dawson Kiang. 760. Statue of Ilygieia. Formerly in the Art Market, Rome. Phot. Bruckmann. 761. Statue of “Hera Campana.” In the Louvre. Phot. Les Archives Photographiques d’Art et d’Histoire, Paris. 762. Three-quarter front view, left side, of Fig. 761. Phot. Les Archives Photographiques d’Art et d’Histoire, Paris. 763. Statue of Ilygieia. In the Glyptothek, Munich. Phot. Staatl. Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek, Kaufmann 225. 764. Statue of Fortuna or Concordia. In the Musée du Bardo, Tunis. Phot. Musée du Bardo. 765. Arehaistic statue with a Trajanic head. In the Villa Borghese, Rome. Phot. Gabinetto Fotografico Nazionale, Rome, Η 209. 766. Classical statue with a Flavian head. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Anderson, 1344. 767. Medusa on amphora by the Berlin Painter. In the Glyptothek, Munich. Phot. Staatl.Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek, Η 3150. 768. Model with the archaic Greek mantle. Phot. Bieber. 769. Statue of a leaning Aphrodite. In Ostia. Phot. Direzione Scavi Ostia Antica, 989. 770. Left side view of Fig. 769. Phot. Direzione Scavi Ostia Antica, 989. 771. Statue of Juno or Venus. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome, Phot. Alinari, 27344. 772. Statue of “Drusilla.” In the Lateran Museum. Phot. Anderson, 24149. 773. Left side view of Fig. 772. Phot, by Faraglia, from the German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 32.428.

xl

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 774. 775. 776. 777. 778. 779. 780.

Design of mantle of Fig. 773 by Debra Quattrone. Statue of Domitia. In the Lateran Museum. Phot. Anderson, 24150. Design of mantle of Fig. 775 by Debra Quattrone. Etruscan bronze statuette of a Icore. In The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Phot. Met.Mus., 143416. Back view of Fig. 777. Phot. Met.Mus., 143418B. Portrait statue of a Roman magistrate or athlete. In the National Museum, Athens. Phot. Alinari, 24221. Statuette of a young girl. In the Archaeological Museum, Istanbul. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Istanbul, 68/142. 781. Three-quarter front view, left side, of Fig. 780. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Istanbul, 68/141. 782. Statuette of Polla Valeria. In the Archaeological Museum, Istanbul. Phot. Arch.Mus. 783. Bronze statue of a boy, probably Lucius Caesar. In The Metropolitan Museum of Art; Rogers Fund, 1914. Phot. Met.Mus., 26433. 784. Right side view of Fig. 783. Phot. Met.Mus., 26436. 785. Left side view of Fig. 783. Phot. Met.Mus., 26434. 786. Bronze statuette of a Hellenistic Greek. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. 787. Statue of Augustus. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 3275. 788. Statue of Augustus in toga. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome, Phot. Alinari, 30157. 789. Altar of the Lares. In the Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Phot. Alinari, 1163. 790. Procession of senators and high officials from the north frieze of the Ara Pacis. In the Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Phot. Alinari, 3577. 791. Procession with Drusus, Antonia, and children from the Ara Pacis. In the Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Phot. Alinari, 3563. 792. Procession with Agrippa and Julia from the south frieze of the Ara Pacis. In the Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Phot. Alinari, 3576. 793. Statue of “Marcellus” or “Drusus.” In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Alinari, 11063. 794. Statue found in the Villa of Voi conias Pollio, In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Anderson, 2496. 795. Kore of Florence. In the Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Phot. Alinari, 1323. 796. Relief with Eleusinian goddesses. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Alinari, 44826. 797. Relief of Kore from Kyzikos. In the Louvre. Phot. Les Archives Photographiques d’Art et d’Histoire, Paris. 798. Statue of Plotina. In the Louvre. Phot. Les Archives Photographiques d’Art et d’Histoire, Paris. 799. Statue with modern head and arms. In the Louvre. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 485. 800. Right side view of Fig. 799. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 485. 801. Left side view of Fig. 799. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 485. 802. Torso of a woman. In Sardis. Phot. Courtesy of Prof. George Hanfmann. 803. Torso of a woman. In Cyrene. Phot. Department of Antiquities, Cyrenaica, 1326-508. 804. Statue of “Didia Clara.” In the Louvre. Phot. Giraudon, 36301. 805. Statue of Poppaea Sabina. In the Olympia Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, OL 2136. 806. Three-quarter front view, left side, of Fig. 805. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Athens, OL 592. 807. Statue of Livia praying. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, VIII.39.22. 808. Statue of Livia sacrificing. In the Capitoline Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 8143. 809. Statue of the praying woman type. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Soprint. Ant., Rome. 8Ϊ0. Porphyry statue of a praying woman. In the Louvre. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 2228. 811. Basalt statue of a praying woman. In the Museo Nuovo. Phot. Alinari, 28065. 812-817. Statues in the type of the praying woman, with cavities for portrait heads. In Cyrene. Phots. Department of Antiquities, Cyrenaica. 818. Torso of a Vestal Virgin. In the Atrium Vestae, Rome. Phot. Faraglia.

xli

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 819. Statue of an Antonine woman. In the Museo Nazional delle Terme, Rome. Phot. “Grafìa,” Sezione Edizione d’Arte, Rome. 820. Statue of a Vestal Virgin. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Vasari, 218 (taken soon after discovery). 821. Statue of an old woman. In the Musée du Bardo, Tunis. Phot. Musée du Bardo. 822. Statue of a priestess. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. 823. Torso of the Trajanic period. In Cyrene. Phot. Department of Antiquities, Cyrenaica. 824. Bronze statue in the Claudian style. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Naples Museum. 825. Statue of Euterpe. In the Louvre. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 483. 826. Statue of Livia as Fortuna. In the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek, Copenhagen. Phot. Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek. 827. Statue of Eumachia. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Alinari, 11938. 828. Statue of an Antonine woman. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Anderson, 28851. 829. Left side view of Fig. 828. Phot. Faraglia. 830. Statue of Fundilia. In the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek, Copenhagen. Phot. Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek. 831. Torso of Vestal Virgin. In the Atrium Vestae, Rome. Phot. Faraglia. 832. Late statue of a woman. In the Villa Borghese, Rome. Phot. Bruckmann. 833. Statue of “Messalina.” In the Glyptothek, Munich. Phot. Munich Glyptothek. 834. Another statue of “Messalina,” holding a child. In the Louvre. Phot. Les Archives Photographiques d’Art et d’Histoire, Paris. 835. Statue of “Agrippina the Younger,” but probably Poppaea Sabina. In the Minneapolis Institute of Art. Phot. Minneapolis Institute. 836. Domitian. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Alinari, 6560. 837. Statue of a Flavian woman. In the Archaeological Museum, Istanbul. Phot. Arch.Mus., 1033. 838. Relief of Trajan sacrificing. On the Arch of Trajan, Benevento. Phot. Alinari, 11497. 839. Late Antonine statue of a woman. In the Archaeological Museum, Istanbul. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Istanbul, 68/48. 840. Right side view of Fig. 839. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Istanbul, 68/47. 841. Left side view of Fig. 839. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Istanbul, 68/46. 842. Statue of Trajan. In Ostia. Phot. Gabinetto Fotografico Nazionale, Rome, E 49899. 843. Relief of Antinous as Vertumnus. In the Villa Albani, Rome. Phot. Anderson, 1879. 844. Head of Antinous. In the Louvre. Phot. Alinari, 22535. 845. Statue of Plotina. In the Louvre. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 1037. 846. Right side view of Fig. 845. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 1037. 847. Left side view of Fig. 845. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 1037. 848. Relief of a youth subduing his horse. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. 849. Relief of the sleeping Ariadne. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 2381. 850. Hermes on the first candelabrum. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 1931.711. 851. Zeus, the main panel on the first candelabrum. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Moscioni, 3074. 852. Hera on the first candelabrum. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Faraglia. 853. Aphrodite on the second candelabrum. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 1931.709. 854. Ares, the main panel on the second candelabrum. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Moscioni, 3075. 855. Athena on the second candelabrum. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 1931.710. 856. Sarcophagus depicting the story of Orestes, In the Cleveland Museum of Art. Phot. Cleveland Museum of Art, 8099. 857. Sarcophagus depicting the triumph of Dionysus and Ariadne. In the Lateran Museum. Phot. Anderson, 24196.

xlii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 858. Sarcophagus depicting the story of Alcestis. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 3244. 859. Statue of Aelius Verus. In the Louvre. Phot. Chuzeville, MA 1167. 860. Statue of Aelius as a young boy. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, II.11.7. 861. Statue of Lucius Verus. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Soprint. Ant. Campania-Napoli, B 2916. 862. Bust of Antoninus Pius. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Soprint. Ant. Campania-Napoli, 12649. 863. Right side view of the head of Fig. 862. Phot. Soprint. Ant. Campania-Napoli, 12643. 864. Heroic statue of Antoninus Pius. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Anderson, 2038. 865. Statue of Commodus. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Anderson, 1348. 866. Statue of a young priestess. In the Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Phot. Brogi, 9231, Fot. R. Soprintendenza Firenze. 867. Statue of an old priestess. In the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Phot. Mus. of Fine Arts, 6033. 868. Detail of the lower part of Fig. 867. Phot. Museum of Fine Arts, C 7112. 869. Statue of Septimius Severus as a warrior. In the Lawrence Art Museum, Williamstown, Massachusetts. Phot. Williams College Museum of Art. 870. Statue of Severus Alexander. In the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Phot. Soprint. Ant. Campania-Napoli, C 352. 871. Statue of “Julia Domna.” In the Capitoline Museum. Phot. Faraglia. 872. Statue of a Severan woman. In the Palazzo Lazzeroni, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 315. 873. Statue of a “priestess.” In the Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Phot. Alinari, 1295. 874. Funerary statue of Publia Maxima. In the British Museum. Phot. Fleming, 1907, 12-11.1. 875. Hadrianic sarcophagus of a sleeping Bacchante. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Alinari, 27003. 876. Antonine sarcophagus of a sleeping woman with two Cupids. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Alinari, 27005. 877. Severan sarcophagus depicting the story of Adonis. In the Lateran Museum. Phot. Alinari, 6393. 878. Sarcophagus of the emperor Balbinus. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, XXXI-64-1. 879. Detail of Fig. 878 - head of Balbinus’ wife. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, XI-2-18. 880. Detail of Fig. 878 - head of Balbinus. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, XXI-16-31. 881. Battle sarcophagus. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Anderson, 3302. 882. Wedding sarcophagus. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 36.540. 883. An Antonine sarcophagus with the nine Muses. In the Louvre. Phot. Giraudon, 1055. 884. Another sarcophagus with the nine Muses. In the Staatliche Museen, Berlin. Phot. Staatl.Mus., Antiken­ sammlung, SK 1274. 885. Statue of the Muse Polyhymnia. In the Museo Nuovo, Rome. Phot. Richter. 886. Sarcophagus with five Muses. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Richter. 887. Fragment of a sarcophagus depicting a philosopher and a Muse. In the British Museum. Phot. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. 888. Sarcophagus with eight Muses. In the Vatican Museum. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, XXVIII.2.402. 889. Sarcophagus of Lucius Publius Peregrinus. In the Villa Torlonia, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 31.958. 890. Sarcophagus of Plotinus. In the Lateran Museum. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 35.1981. 891. Sarcophagus with Good Shepherd and Orans between seated couple. In the Lateran Museum. Phot. Archivio Fotographico Gallerie Musei Vaticani, XVIIL5.10. 892. Fragment of a sarcophagus depicting deceased woman as Orans. In the F.J. Dölger Institute, Bonn. Phot. Courtesy of the Director, Dr. Klausner, of the F.J. Dölger Institute, 893. Sarcophagus with seated philosopher between Orans and Good Shepherd. In the Church of Santa Maria Antiqua, Rome. Phot. German Archaeological Institute, Rome, 1542.

xliii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 894. Bronze statue of Trebonianus Gallus. In The Metropolitan Museum of Art; Rogers Fund, 1905. Phot. Met.Mus., 139906. 895. Left side view of head of Fig. 894. Phot. Met.Mus., 123512. 896. Portrait statue of woman in the type of “Aspasia.” In the Staatliche Museen, Berlin. Phot. Staatl.Mus., Antikenabteilungen, 4528D. 897. Head of Aspasia. Phot. Staatl.Mus., Antikenabteilungen, 2699. 898. Headless statuette of “ Europa.” In The Metropolitan Museum of Art; Fletcher Fund, 1924. Phot. Met.Mus., 58525. 899. Back view of Fig. 898. Phot. Met.Mus., 58526. 900. Sarcophagus of Caecilius Vallianus. In the Lateran Museum. Phot. Anderson, 24199. 901. Funerary relief depicting woman having her hair arranged. In the Landesmuseum, Trier. Phot. Landesmuseum, RD 60.46. 902. Funerary relief depicting three boys and their teacher. In the Landesmuseum, Trier. Phot. Landesmuseum, RD ,56.46. 903. Mosaic of the rhinoceros hunt. In the Villa of Piazza Armerina, Sicily. Phot. Soprint. Ant. Sicilia Orientale. 904. The Good Shepherd. In the Lateran Museum. Phot. Anderson, 4024. 905. Mosaic depicting the presentation of the Virgin Mary. In the Monastery of Daphne. Phot. T.A.P. Archaeological Service, Nat.Arch.Mus., Athens, 5653-A35/E. 906. The Good Shepherd. In the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome. Phot. Moscioni,24449. 907. Painting of St. James Minor. In the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. Phot. National Gallery of Art, Samuel H. Kress Collection, 810. 908. Painting of St. John the Evangelist. In the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. Phot. National Gallery of Art, Samuel H. Kress Collection, 811. 909. Tomb of Pietro Strozzi. In San Andrea, Mantua. Phot. Giovetti. 910. Detail of Fig. 909 - head of Caryatid based on Muse of Mantua. Phot. Premi. 911. Detail of Fig. 909 - head of Caryatid based on Venus Genetrix. Phot. Premi.

xliv

1

PROBLEMS AND RESEARCH IN COPIES (1889- 1970) From Wmckelmann to Furtwängler, Roman copies were used without hesitation as direct sources for our knowledge of Greek art. In his Mas terpiece,s ' Furtwängler considered all copies as building stones o be used without any further investigation to reconstruct the main works of the great Greek sculptors His attitude, which was indeed far too optimistic in this regard, drew sharp criticism. from Kekule.- This induced Furtwängler to treat in a special paper' problems con cerning the nature of existing copies, their reliability, their period, the art schools to which they be ong and their relation to the Greek originals. In this paper, however, he unfortunately did not solve these probkms; but at least he pointed them out. He restricted his task to answering one question.· When did copying m a narrower sense, that is, the exact imitation of o ld e fa n d celebrated works, begin? He thereby excluded everything that was done before the first centm y B.c such as replicas made in he same workshop as the original by pupils who intentionally used contemporary or older models, major works of art used in the minor arts and handicrafts, and archaistie art. He distinguished rightly between the Hellenistic, particularly Pergamene, copyists im dthegen, in te ra c t, and unselfish Roman copyists. The artists of the Venus de Milo and of the Youth from Eretna as well as the Athenian artists Eubulides, Dionysios, and Timarchides H all working in the second century b . c . , took their inspiration from older works, but they were not yet real copyists. The faithful imitation of works of art which the ancients acknowledged as outstanding was not begun until after the first century b . c . Furtwängler was of the opinion that this was the consequence of the exact working, probably from models in equal scale introduced into Rome from southern Italy by Pasiteles. Thereto must be added casts and the pointing process as additional expedients. In addition to mosaic pavements, the luxurious buildings of the Romans were decorated with numerous statues most of which were copies of Greek originals With the 1

PROBLEMS AND RESEARCH IN COPIES (1889-1970) spread of Roman civilization, such luxurious establishments as baths, theaters, and amphitheaters, decorated with statues and reliefs, were erected in the provinces, particularly in Asia Minor and Africa, but also in Gaul and Germany. Furtwängler, unfortunately, broke off his investigation before attacking his main task: the examination of the Roman copies and their relation to the originals. His principal accomplish­ ment was to set down very good outlines and rules for these tasks. He intended to start with those rare cases where the original as well as copies had been preserved. In other cases he intended to compare the copy with other preserved originals belonging to the same epoch as the lost original of the existing copy. The copy was to be dated as exactly as possible, with the help of Roman portraits and Roman historical reliefs. Furtwängler thus intended to give first an historical grouping of the preserved copies, He then intended to investigate their similarity to the lost originals, the different degrees of faithfulness, and the additions and transformations brought about by the taste of the times in which the copy was made. Furtwängler saw the problem in its full extent and laid out the borderlines of the field yet to be investigated. The archaistic art excluded by Furtwängler was studied energetically by two of his pupils, Heinrich Bulle and Eduard Schmidt. Bulle4 treated systematically and chronologically all archaizing plastic art in the round, that is, statues based on Archaic art but with contemporary elements added. He tried to distinguish in each piece the old and the new elements. I am of the opinion that he incorrectly assigned a series of Roman eclectic pieces to the fifth century b . c . The archaism of the fifth century, however, combined only a very few older features with many more from contemporary art. Proof of this is the Hermes of Alkamenes, where the hair is the only really archaistic feature. Eduard Schmidt,5however, and contradictory to the comprehensive title of his small book (.Archaistic Art in Greece and Rome), treated, in the main, just the decorative reliefs and Panathenaic amphorae. He advanced the thesis that the manneristic archaistic style was created around 400 b .c . by Kallimachos. His distinction between Greek and Roman archaism is convincing. Evelyn Harrison, though, has given us the best discussion of archaistic sculpture.“ Another pupil of Furtwängler, the Hungarian Anton Hekler,7 chose a more central field, the copying of Greek draped female figures. He treated the essential elements of the Greek styles of clothing, their evolution and historical sequence, and then the Roman copies in three chronological groups: Augustan to Claudian, Flavian to Trajanic, and late Empire. However, he was interested less in these periods than in the underlying Greek types which he divided into those of the fifth century, the fourth century, and the Hellenistic period. The main task which he set for himself was to make a definite contribution to our knowledge of the relationship between Greek and Roman art. He denied that Roman art had any independent creative power or its own formative ability. He saw nothing but a downward trend, and he even denied an individual sense of form to the Augustan age. However, he developed new, important points of view for the history of copying and for the dating of copies. Thus, he attributed the linear and delineated copies to the Augustan age, the baroque copies to the Claudian-Neronian-Flavian age, the massive and careless ones to the Hadrianie-Antonine period. He stated that the art of the fourth century b . c . was always the most popular with the copyists. He was of the opinion that 27 types of Greek draped statues preserved in Roman copies were taken from originals of the fourth century, as opposed to only 13 types from the fifth century and 11 from the Hellenistic period. These and the other results of Hekler’s investigation were modified considerably by the 2

PROBLEMS AND RESEARCH IN COPIES (1889-1970) researches of Georg Lippold.* He put the criticism of copies on an absolutely new basis. He first investigated the method of artists in copying heads, and showed how in different styles the hair of the same type was rendered and how the hair or the beard was lengthened by a row of curls; how a beard was added; how different headdresses, a petasos or a Phrygian cap, were invented by the copyist; how the pose of the head was changed; and how even the same type of head was used for different bodies. We find almost unbelievable caprice and eclecticism during the Empire. One may ask how Lippold nevertheless recognized the same original underlying the different copies. It often seems impossible to me to state without doubt which of the numerous variations among the heads really can be attributed to one Greek original. Lippold, following in the direction indicated by Furtwängler, investigated the copies of Greek masterpieces. Thus, he was prepared better than anybody else to undertake, using Furtwängler’s method, the large and systematic task set by the Bavarian Academy of Science in Munich: “The stylistic and other changes which ancient copyists and schools of art have made in the works of art rendered or used by them are to be systematically and chronologically arranged, stated and critically discussed.” Lippold did not treat the given subject absolutely according to the letter. In his book on copies and adaptations of Greek statues, he gave not a history of copying, but a statement of the most important conditions of copying and the material for a history of copying. He presented the phenomena and the problems, but his strongly critical mind prevented him from giving a solution or even seeking a solution except when it offered itself naturally. Lippold preferred to point cautiously to the future, when perhaps a large museum of casts might acquire enough large series of copies from the same originals (which we need badly) to offer a sufficient foundation for research in this difficult field. Lippold analyzed well the different conceptions of copy, replica, repetition, type, original, change of stylization, transformation, change of creation, development, contamination, use and reuse—all of which one ought to apply in the same sense Lippold gave them. Lippold indicated that the shape and arrangement of the single parts of hair and drapery can be the most easily imitated. He dated the bulk of the copies from 50 b . c . to 250 a . d . or even 200 a . d ." I am of the opinion that the art of copying did not yet become extinct at the period indicated by Lippold. It is true that in late antiquity decorative statues could be transferred occasionally from older to newer buildings. Most of the richly adorned buildings of the early imperial period, however, remained in use; and for such important buildings as the Baths of Caracalla (211-217), Diocletian (284-305), and Constantine (323-337) or the palace of Diocletian at Spalato, many new copies and adaptations surely were demanded. I consider the Farnese Bull, Flora and Hercules from the Baths of Caracalla, which Lippold regards as much older spoils,1" and even the Dioscuri on the Piazza del Quirinale from the Baths of Constantine, to be works of the same age as the buildings which they adorned. Several statuettes copying Athena and Asklepios types are dated by inscriptions to the years 304 and 308." Lippold rightly warned against the belief that most of the sculptures of the Empire are to be regarded as copies. Much more often, older forms from the Classical period, which were regarded as ideally perfect, were borrowed but not imitated in every respect. The method was similar to that used later during the Renaissance in regard to the Graeco-Roman period. It is significant that Lippold could, with good reason, reduce the 51 types, which Hekler believed to be exact copies from Greek draped figures, to only about 20. Moreover, a large number of these do not belong 3

PROBLEMS AND RESEARCH IN COPIES (1889-1970) before the Antonine period. Most of the earlier portrait statues are adaptations or new creations. Despite these important results, Lippold’s point of view was essentially the same as that of Furtwängler and Hekler. He was much more interested in Greek art, with its much higher artistic standard, than in Roman art. He believed that the Romans, by conquering the Greek lands, destroyed creative art and culture. Therefore, Lippold sought above all the underlying Greek prototype, even in inferior and disfigured copies and transformations. Roman creations as well as new Roman inventions in the Greek style lay outside the scope of his research. The result was his final remark of resignation that the knowledge of what Greek art is can be learned but not taught, and that only with this knowledge can one decide what part of the copies is to be regarded as a Roman addition or a Roman change. Johannes Sieveking, another pupil of Furtwängler, sharply opposed Lippold. He was of the opinion that copies have to be regarded first of all as works of their own period, that is, as Roman works of art.12 Unfortunately, Sieveking never has pursued this point of view systematically. Eugenie Strong told me that she agreed with him absolutely. However, she omitted copies completely from her Roman Sculpture (1907), her A rt in A ncient Rome (1929), from the Cambridge Ancient History volume of plates, IV (1934), while Rodenwaldt, in the last volume of plates, V (1939), p. 170 f., included the Farnese Hercules and Bull from the Baths of Caracalla. Indeed, it may have been better to omit the copies since those elements which are Greek and those which are Roman have not been exactly defined, and, therefore, the question of attribution, either to the history of Greek or Roman art, remains open. The question is important for Greek as well as for Roman art history. What we need are objective criteria, with the help of which we can separate Greek and Roman elements. Something of this kind has been done in literature, as for example, for Plautus by Eduard Fränkel in his book Plautinisches in Plautus (1922). While formerly this poet was regarded primarily as a source for the underlying Greek originals and was investigated as such, Fränkel pointed out the original Italian and Latin elements in his comedies. Such investigations, based on objective criteria, might be attempted with regard to bases and plinths,12 but they have been employed up to now in only two limited fields: with regard to supports and to the heads of Zeus and Hermes. The first investigation, by Fritz Muthmann, had been suggested to him by his teacher, Ludwig Curtius, who himself was the author of the second investigation. Curtius may thus be regarded as a pioneer in this difficult field. He gave Muthmann the task of comparing the supports preserved in copies of the imperial period with dated Roman monuments, thus obtaining a chronological grouping of the copies. Portrait statues dated absolutely were to be the main object of the investigation, and the decoration of their supports was to be compared with similar decorative elements in Roman art. Unfortunately, the subject is limited by the fact that most supports are added to nude statues, not to draped statues. Muthmann narrowed the limits of the subject still more by confining himself to the tree trunk and palm tree supports of the Hadrianic and Antonine periods." In a larger treatise, Muthmann pursued a more ambitious goal.'2 The supports and decorative additions in Greek and Roman statues were investigated not only for the whole imperial period, but also for Greek and Roman Republican art. Nevertheless, here also the Hadrianic-Antonine period was the center of interest to the author. He emphasized the Roman character of the copies and tried to gain from their supports the dating of at least some Roman statues. He treated them rightly as decorative works created to fill niches, rooms, and courtyards of the colossal buildings 4

PROBLEMS AND RESEARCH IN COPIES (1889-1970) of the Romans. In his opinion, the supports and additions belong, in most cases, not to the originals but are creations of the copyists reflecting the decorative art of the imperial period. Muthmann treated these in chronological sequence, which yields interesting results with regard to the first appearance of definite schools. He preferred mostly the Eastern ones and admired, particularly, the landscape elements in Antonine copies, which he regarded as little masterpieces. However, he gave too much emphasis to the influence of painting on these landscape elem ents. Nevertheless, the paper is a valuable, although one-sided, contribution to research on copies. The work of Muthmann’s teacher, Curtius, is of considerably higher value.1” In accordance with the ideas of Furtwängler, he started with two cases in which the original and a copy of the head are preserved, thus producing tangible evidence for the alterations made by the Roman copyists. He explained in much more detail than Lippold did some cases in which variations of the same prototype are preserved for us by copyists of different periods. This is the case for the type of the Zeus in Dresden and for some herms of the fifth century b . c . Curtius gave a full and ingenious account and analysis of hair and beard, demonstrating how the copyists dealt with the different motifs. They left some motifs out, or exaggerated others, and in different periods conceived them in different ways. Thus, in the late Flavian period, the copyists amplified or simplified the motifs, designed them in a linear method, toned them down in a classicizing manner, made them dry, and stretched them out. With these means, Curtius tried to reconstruct the Roman schools or workshops of copying; this is, indeed, the prerequisite for building up a history of Greek art from Roman copies. The Roman copyists worked in the same manner as the Pompeian wall painters. Curtius himself wittily described in his W andmalerei Pompejis (1929) how these painters put together new compositions from pattern books. In the same manner, the copyists used the same type of head for different gods, although they changed the shape of the eye and the expression, alternating between tense and dissolved forms, altering the headdress, and shifting the hair strands around or squeezing them together, twisting them into curls or loosening them. Several contemporary schools of copying used the same motifs, but one in an eclectiearchaistic, the other in a classicizing transformation. One copyist worked in a grandiose and fluent manner, another in a pictorial and restless manner. One copyist conceived the character of the subject as excited and passionate; another saw in it a calm benevolence. I admire the audacity of Curtius, who dared to ascribe the prototypes underlying these widely divergent copies to definite Greek artists. Thus, in his last chapter he attributes the herm A (figs. 1-12, pis. 11-16) to Polykleitos, the herm B (figs. 13-16, pi. 17) to Phidias, the herm D (figs. 19-24) and the Zeus in Dresden to Agorakritos. Curtius regarded the head of Asklepios in the Villa Borghese as a replica of the “king in Munich.” 17 Previously Friedrich Matz had given it to Phidias together with the Apollo of Cassel. Afterwards José Dörig considered it as the Iphitos of Kalamis.18 How can we, in such circumstances, conceive of the genuine original? Shall w e recognize it in the Asklepios Borghese, which is more spiritual but simpler and coarser in detail, or in the Munich statue, which is more mechanical and severe? Where do w e find here any objective criteria which would enable us to distinguish between Greek and Roman elements? W here is the Greek spirit and where is the Roman eclectic imitation? In such a case, only a master like Curtius was able to decide how the prototype looked, whether the face had broad cheeks or whether it was elongated, whether the expression was cordial and sensual or serious and sublime. Lippold had already stated rightly that it is impossible to give rules for such cases. Very rare indeed are the cases indicated by 5

PROBLEMS AND RESEARCH IN COPIES (1889-1970) Salomon Reinach,19 in which the archeologists can by comparing the copies reconstruct the prototype of a statue, just as the philologists, by comparing handwritten manuscripts, can reconstruct the archetype. Arnold Sehober’s attempt to construct such a “Stammbaum” for the copies of the head of the Cassel Apollo was a failure.2"How can we help ourselves along when we possess only one copy? Evamaria Schmidt has done a much better job by investigating all the traits of the whole head of the Cassel Apollo.21 Hans Lauter has based his investigation of Roman copies,22 as did Sieveking and Buschor before him,23 on the study of pieces of Roman sculpture. He compared their style with the style of the copies and thus derived a more solid base for the dates of the copies. He rightly considered them to be sources for Roman art. Lauter limited his investigations to copies made from statues of the fifth century, and in most cases he studied only the heads, particularly the hair. His two main chapters deal only with the copies of the Korae from the Ereehtheion and the male figures of Polykleitos. He studied the heads also from the sides and from the back. His sound principles ought to be applied to larger samples of copies. Also dating from the late 1960s is the monograph by Dorothea Arnold, in which she uses copies to reconstruct the work of the school of Polykleitos. She also uses copies as sources for the Greek originals.21 I am, nevertheless, of the opinion that we can make progress only by choosing the way opened by Curtius and Lauter. A long time before I knew of their works, I had set for myself the task of looking for objective criteria with which to judge Roman copies of Greek draped statues. Here, with draped figures, is the place to find such criteria for judgment, for the types of Greek and Roman dress were fundamentally different from each other. This fact is neglected by many writers, even by Gisela Richter in her excellent, concise, and richly illustrated paper on the subject of Greek artists and the creation of statues of Roman men and women in Greek types.25 Most valuable is her collection of the names of Greek artists in the service of Romans, which here, and in her book on critical periods in Greek art,2"is much more complete than that appearing in the collection of inscriptions of Greek sculptors made by Loewy in 1885 and now supplemented by Marcadé.27 Gisela Richter is interested neither in epochs nor in schools. She believes that the copies were made mechanically by the pointing process, and therefore they seem to look alike to her. I hope to be able to distinguish the periods, not only by the portrait heads, but also by the different renderings of the drapery. The Swiss scholar Waldemar Deonna was the first to observe some typical errors made by copyists.28 In contrast to Gisela Richter, he did not believe in mechanical reproductions. Ac­ cording to Deonna, the copyists added drapery, as in the Apollo Belvedere; they misunderstood the costume which was no longer worn in their era. The heads were bent differently; the attitudes changed; and different attributes and motifs were included. Several motifs were combined; figures—often Eros—were added. The fifth century Spinario became a street urchin. Eyes, mouth, and draperies were rendered differently, as can be seen on the corner figures which replaced the lost ones in the west pediment of the Zeus temple at Olympia. Deonna also distinguished the character of copies made in different regions; elegant in Egypt, heavy in Syria, deformed and stout in Gaul, dry in Greece, careful and artistic in Italy. When marble was used instead of bronze, supports had to be added. Gold and ivory cult statues, could only be reproduced in smaller, inexact copies, and polychrome statues could not be copied at all. The Italian scholar Carlo Anti had much greater confidence in copies.29 In a lengthy article he

PROBLEMS AND RESEARCH IN COPIES (1889-1970) built up the chronology of the works of Polykleitos from copies. He believed that accurate copies all have small details of the head, including eyes and hair, in agreement with the original. He found that 15 copies of the Doryphoros agree with each other, and therefore must be exact. Anti recognized, of course, that there are bad copies with elements of later periods, which have to be discarded. The different purposes for which the copies were to be used, whether for cult worship, or for the decoration of villas, palaces, or public buildings influenced the different styles of copies. The eclectic artists who replaced the name of the original creative artist with their own, such as Antiochos in his copy of Phidias’ Athena Parthenos, may have been inexact intentionally. Thus proportions, expressions of the face, attributes, and dress could be changed. If w e want to reconstruct the story of Greek art not only from decorative and lower class art, we must use copies. Anti was of the opinion that if no foreign elements appear, we could use the copies with full confidence. The German scholar Richard Hamann made excellent observations on the difference between the originals and copies, in painting as well as in sculpture.10 According to Hamann, an original was a creative achievement. The artist invented or chose the object, the lines, the distribution of color. The copyist lacked the creative spirit. Sometimes his material and his technique were different. For example, an easel painting might be copied as a wall painting. Hamann considered the evaluation of copies for the recognition of style and period of Roman art as one of the most difficult and urgent tasks in art history. Chr. Blinkenberg described well the different copies and variations of Praxiteles’ Aphrodite of Knidos. Hans Oehler, in his excellent investigation of Roman statues with a mantle bunched on the shoulder, clearly distinguished the styles of the different periods of Roman art.11 He warned against the attempt to find Greek prototypes for Roman honorary statues. The importance of the critical use of copies has recently been very well explained by Walter-Herwig Schuchhardt.12 The extensive activity of the workshops of copyists, whose works were spread over three centuries through the whole Western Empire, transmitted to the ancient world definite conceptions of the Classical art of the Greeks through their copies, transforma­ tions, and adaptations. They alone can give us a concept of the great Classical artists of the fifth and fourth centuries. Without the products of the copyists, it would be impossible to gain an idea of the celebrated works, the opera nobilia. A survey of the whole development of Greek sculpture would be incomplete and incoherent without copies and research on copies. In a special investigation of the transformation of the type of the Diomedes by Kresilas into a Roman Hermes, or Mercury, of which the best bronze copy has been found in Thalwil, in Switzerland, Schuchhardt still follows Furtwängler in his method. He studies particularly the head, face, and hair. Schuchhardt confesses that from faces alone one cannot decide the rela­ tionship between copies; however, he does believe that one can do it with hair, which he considers to be exactly rendered. In the Hermes of Thalwil the composition, the attitude, and the artistic form of the mantle are like the original. Only meaning and attributes are changed. Werner Fuchs, in his excellent book on Neo-Attic reliefs, is not interested in the Roman elements, but only in the Greek models, which he finds in manneristic periods.11 The Italian scholar Gustavo Traversari, in his discussion of the 45 female portrait statues found in Cyrene,14 makes clever attempts to date the copies and adaptations of the same Greek types. His main contribution is a comparison with Roman dated historical monuments. He 7

PROBLEMS AND RESEARCH IN COPIES (1889-1970) realizes that the study of all available copies and variations cannot be undertaken by one person or perhaps not even by one generation. In the meantime, the problems involved can be helped toward a solution by investigating the technical and stylistic characterizations of each statue or group of statues in order to determine not only the Greek prototype but also the stylistic value and the time of execution. Traversari has made a long stride forward in this intricate research by distinguishing between the techniques and styles of the different periods in Cyrene. I agree wholeheartedly with Traversari that this is the right method to use in order to gain more and more answers in this difficult field and to lay the foundations for a definitive history of copying.

Footnotes to Chapter 1

1. A. Furtwängler, Meisterwerke der griechischen Plastik (Leipzig 1893); translated into English by E. Strong, Masterpieces o f Greek Sculpture (New enlarged ed., prepared by Al. N. Oikonomides, Chicago 1964). 2. R. Kekule von Stradonitz, review of Furtwängler, Meisterwerke, in Göttinger gelehrter Anzeiger (1895), pp. 625-643. 3. A. Furtwängler, “lieber Statuenkopien im Altertum,” Abh.Bayr.Akad.K l.l, Bd. 20, 3 (1896), pp. 525-588. 4. H. Bulle, “Archaisierende griechische Rundplastik,” Abh.Bayr.Akad. K l.l, Bd. 30, 2 (1917), pp. 3-36. 5. E. Schmidt, Archaistische Kunst in Griechenland und Rom (Munich 1922). 6. E.B. Harrison, The Athenian Agora, Voi. XI—Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture (Princeton 1965), pp. 51-61. See review by M. Bieber in AJA 70 (1966), pp. 382-386. 7. A. Hekler, “Römische weibliche Gewandstatuen,” Münch.Stud.Furtwängler (Munich 1909), pp. 109-248. 8. G. Lippold, “Zur Arbeitsweise römischer Kopisten,” RömMitt 32 (1917), pp. 95-117; idem, “Musengrappen,” RömMitt 33 (1918), pp. 64-65; idem, “Zur florentiner Niobidengruppe,” MJb 8 (1913), pp. 243-249; idem, Kopien und Umbildungen griechischer Statuen (Munich 1923); idem, Die griechische Plastik (Handbuch der Archäologie im Rahmen des Handbuchs der Altertumwissenschaft, Voi. Ill, part I) (Munich 1950), pp. 364-387. 9. G. Lippold, Kopien, pp. 83-86. 10. Ibid., pp. 82-84. 11. H. von Schönebeck, “Die christliche Sarkophagplastik unter Konstantin,” RömMitt 51 (1936), pp. 333-336. He dates the Varvakeion statuette of Athena to the second half of the third century a .d . and the Lenormant statuette of Asklepios to the period of Constantine the Great (p. 334, note 1). Thus, according to Schönebeck, the art of copying does not end before the beginning of the fourth century. I believe that it did not end even then (see Chapter XVI). See also W.H. Schuchhardt in Antike Plastik 2 (1963), pp. 31-54, figs. 1-3, pis. 20-37, where he dates the Varvakeion statuette to the Hadrianic-Antonine periods. 12. See particularly the following papers of J. Sieveking and E. Buschor: “Niobiden,” MJb 7 (1912), pp. 111-146, and “Die Oxforder Niobe, MJb 9 (1914), pp.191-206. 13. Cf. G. Lippold, Kopien, pp. 95-103. 14. F. Muthmann, Hadrianische und antoninische Statuenstützen, Beiträge zur Geschichte der römischen Kopis­ tentätigkeit (Diss. Heidelberg) (Freiburg 1927). 15. F. Muthmann, “Statuenstützen und dekoratives Beiwerk an griechischen und römischen Bildwerken,” Abh. Heidel.Akad. 3 (1951), pp. 7-228. See review by M. Bieber in Gnomon 24 (1952), pp. 200-203. 16. L. Curtius, “Zeus und Hermes, Studien zur Geschichte ihres Ideals und seiner Ueberlieferung,” RömMitt Ergänzungsheft 1 (1931); idem, “Die klassische Kunst Griechenlands,” in Die antike Kunst, 2, part 1 (Berlin 1938), pp. 203-208.

8

PROBLEMS AND RESEARCH IN COPIES (1889-1970) 17. L. Curtius, “Zeus und Hermes,” pp. 38-41, figs. 1-4. 18. F. Matz, “Ein Zeuskopf in Villa Borghese,” Jdl 46 (1931), pp. 1-31, Pis. I-II; J. Dörig, “Kalamis-Studien,”/d / 80 (1965), pp. 138-265. 19. S. Reinach, “Copies de chefs-d’oeuvre,” RA 34 (1931), pp. 289-299. 20. A. Schober, “Die Kopfreplik des ‘Kasseler’ Apollo in Wien,” JOAI 18 (1915), pp. 79-93, pi. I; G. Lippold, Kopien, p. 254, note 48. 21. E. Schmidt, “Der Kasseler Apollon und seine Repliken,” Antike Plastik 5 (1966), pp. 7-43, figs. 1-9, pis. 1-56. 22. H. Lauter, Zur Chronologie römischer Kopien nach Originalen der V Jahrh. (Diss. Bonn 1966) (Berlin 1970). See review by M. Bieber in AJA 76 (1972), pp. 96-98. 23. See supra, note 12. 24. D. Arnold, Die Polykletnachfolge. Untersuchungen zur Kunst von Argos und Sikyon zwischen Polyklet und Lysipp (Jdl, Ergänzungsheft XXV) (Berlin 1969). See especially her list of replicas, pp. 247-281. See the review by M. Bieber in AJA, 74 (1970), pp. 306-309. 25. G.M.A. Richter, The Sculpture and Sculptors o f the Greeks (New Haven 1929, 4th ed. newly revised 1970), pp. 136-148; eadem, “Who Made the Roman Portrait Statues—Greeks or Romans?,” ProcPhilSoc 95 (1951), pp. 184-208, figs. 1-64. 26. G.M.A. Richter, Three Critical Periods in Greek Sculpture (Oxford 1951), pp. 37-64. See also J.M.C. Toynbee, “Some Notes on Artists in the Roman World,” Latomus 6 (1951). For the pointing process and the use of casts by the copyists, see G.M.A. Richter’s excellent descriptions in The Portraits o f the Greeks, I (London 1965), pp. 24-28 and “An Aristogeiton from Baiae,” AJA 74 (1970), pp. 296-297. 27. E. Loewy, Inschriften griechischer bildhauer (Leipzig 1885); J. Marcade, Recueil des Signatures de Sculpteurs Grec, 2 vols. (Paris, 1953-1957). 28. W. Deonna, LArchéologie, sa valeur, ses méthòdes, I (Paris 1916), pp. 318-345, figs. 21-22. 29. C. Anti, “Monumenti Policletei,” MonAnt 26 (1920), cols. 501-784; on copies, see esp. cols. 665-670. 30. R. Harnann, “Original und Kopie,” Marhurger Jahrb. 15 (1949-50), pp. 135-156. 31. C.S. Blinkenberg, Knidia, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der praxitelischen Aphrodite (Copenhagen 1933), pp. 118-189; H. Oehler, Untersuchungen zu den männlichen römischen Mantelstatuen, voi. I (Der Schulterbauschtypus) (Berlin 1961). 32. W.H. Schuchhardt, Die Epochen der griechischen Plastik (Baden-Baden 1959), pp. 134, 136; idem, “Der Merkur von Thalwil,” ZSchwAKg 20 (I960), pp. 163-175, pls. 77-84; idem, “Bronzestatuette des Merkur von Thalwil,” Antike Plastik 1 (1962), pp. 33-38, pls. 22-29. 33. W. Fuchs, Die Vorbilder der neuattischen Reliefs,(JdI, Ergänzungsheft XX) (Berlin 1959). See Review by M. Bieber in AJA 64 (1960), pp. 392-393. 34. G. Traversali, Statue iconiche femminili cirenaiche, contributi al problema delle copie e rielaborazioni tardoellenistiche e romano-imperiali (Rome 1960). See review by M. Bieber in AJA 65 (1961), pp. 208-209.

9

2 THE AUTHOR’S APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM When I study a work of art, I ask myself the following four questions: What or who is represented? How is the subject represented? When was it made? How well has the artist succeeded in reaching his goal? For the first question, one finds an answer particularly on the basis of the attributes of the statue or the place where the statue was set up. For the second, third, and fourth questions, a knowledge of anatomy, physiognomy, and clothing is necessary. By using our knowledge and examining the forms, we can arrive at splendid results like those of Gisela Richter in her Kouroi and KoraV By taking account of the proportions and structure of the figures in general and of the features of anatomy in particular, the representation of which underwent evolution, Gisela Richter could assign each statue to its period and thus establish a chronological sequence. She has, indeed, laid the groundwork for the history of Archaic sculpture. Others, such as Lippold, Anti, Curtius, Schuchhardt, and Lauter, have worked more with the physiognomy of the face and the rendering of the hair (see Chapter I). Knowledge of all these can be gained by studying living human forms. It is different with clothing. As a student more than 60 years ago, I found that many of my male colleagues had a very defective knowledge of Greek and Roman dress. Following the example of Léon Heuzey,21 began to make practical studies of Greek costumes on living models. Later I draped them near the actual statues in the museums of Berlin and Dresden. I was able to correct the assertions of various authors, as well as wrong restorations, particularly of the edges and corners of the costume. Sometimes the wrong interpretations of the clothing led to incorrect dating and attribution. The most flagrant example of this is Ferdinand Noack’s attribution of the three Amazons to the wrong artists, because he believed they wore the Archaic form of the chiton,3 well described by Franz Studniczka.' The three artists named by Pliny (Historia Na­ turalis, XXXIV, 53), however, did not use the Archaic form, which was made of two squares of cloth sewn together with an opening in the center of the upper edges for the head and two openings at the uppermost end of the side edges for the arms. This chiton was occasionally worn 10

THE AUTHOR’S APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM by men in the Classical period. In this time, however, women as well as young men wore a wider chiton which allowed for openings for the arms in the upper edge. This gives much more beautiful forms, as can be best seen in the Parthenon frieze, where parallel curved lines appear in the pouch drawn out between two belts and at the lower edge. This is the chiton, worn also by Amazons as warriors, as I have shown.3 My practical studies have convinced me that the three or rather, four Amazons (the Doria-Pamphili, Figs. 1,4; the Berlin-Lansdowne, Figs. 2 -3 ,5 ,1 2 ; the Mattel, Figs. 6, 8, 10-11; and the Capitoline, Figs. 7, 9) all wear the same simple form of the chiton. They are draped according to the requirements of the motif and the style of the artists, not arbitrarily and artificially, with exaggeration and without reason, as Noack assumed. In the case of the Berlin-Lansdowne Amazon (Figs. 2 -3 , 12),6 the upper edge is fastened only on the right shoulder. The rest of the edge falls in broad curved lines around the body, the left part lower with a little overfold. The folds are pushed together betw een the breasts. Since these folds run from the shoulder to the center of the belt, the overhanging pouch betw een the two belts is narrower in the center than over the hips, and it forms the beautiful curved line, which is one of the most characteristic features of Classical art. A little extra bunch of folds is drawn up over the center so that radiating folds form in the center between the legs. This motif is repeated at the sides and in the back. Parallel garlandlike folds originate quite naturally from these fixed bunches, as one can see when a long bedsheet is hung with clothespins on a clothesline. It is not true that parts of the dress are missing and others displaced, as Noack claims, in order to uncover as much as possible of the body. The Amazon in the Palazzo Doria-Pamphili (Fig. I)7 has the same arrangement of the lower part of the chiton, while both shoulders and breasts are covered. As a consequence the pouch between the two belts is straight in line and equal in width. In the case of the Mattel Amazon (Figs. 6 ,1 0 -1 l)s also, the chiton is fastened only on the right shoulder, but more folds from the right side are gathered high on the shoulder so that the right breast is covered. Noack believed that the corner between upper and side edges is missing. Such a corner cannot be found, however, as the side edges are sewn together with this corner included. Part of the lower edge is lifted and tucked in at the belt, in order to relieve a wound in the left thigh. The Capitoline Amazon (Fig. 7)!) looks more complicated than the other three types. Her chiton is fastened on her left shoulder. The corner between upper and right side edges can be seen because, apparently, the seam is open on her right side. She may have torn it open in order to free the wound in her right breast. She holds up the front part of the chiton and pulls it forward. The visible corner comes from its original place below the armpit. It does not come from the shoulder, as Noack assumed, blaming the artist for having destroyed the unity of the representation. Also, he incorrectly believed that the rear edge was fixed under the belt. It is, however, the actual continuation of the side edge which runs on down below the belt. Noack also misunderstood the motif of the left edge of the heavy mantle, which is pulled down through the upper belt. The left corner of the mantle, therefore, does not hang down as far as the right corner. The lower edge of the chiton is straight because the pouch between the belts has been pulled out further at the sides than in the center. The whole arrangement is not a momentary one, as Noack assumed, but a permanent and meaningful one, explained by the Amazon’s care of her wound. Perhaps some scholar might believe these observations irrelevant, but they have important consequences for art history. Furtwängler correctly assigned the Berlin-Lansdowne Amazon to 11

THE AUTHOR’S APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM Polykleitos (the winner in the contest), the Mattel Amazon to Phidias, and the Capitoline Amazon to Kresilas.10 Noack believed that the Capitoline Amazon was created by Polykleitos. He gave it to the Peloponnesian-Argive school because he thought it represented, in an artistic way, the square form characteristic of that school, which employed methods contrary to the meaning of the work of art. His contention was that the artist first worked the front, then added the motif of the torn chiton at the sides, which interrupts the unity of the representation. He wanted to gain a pure profile view.11 Noack thus believed that the Capitoline Amazon was one of Polykleitos’ signa quadrata. In contrast, I am convinced that a signa quadrata figure had four equal sides, as we see in the Berlin-Lansdowne Amazon. Such a symmetrical arrangement belongs to the Peloponnesian school, as is seen also in peplos figures. Four-sided (quadratus) does not mean that one has to look at all four sides in order to understand the conception of the artist. Rather, a look at the front side discloses all the main forms and movements of the body. However, it is different with the Capitoline Amazon. We need at least two views in order to understand the action of both hands which relieve the wound. Kresilas sculptured a wounded Amazon, and he was interested in the motif, to which the form was subordinated. Polykleitos, in contrast, was interested in the form, to which the motif was subordinated. In the Berlin-Lansdowne Amazon, the right arm is laid on the head in a beautiful movement, but without regard to the wound below the right armpit, which must be painfully strained by this movement. Thus, the Capitoline is the vulnerata of Kresilas (Pliny, HN, XXXIV, 75). It is to be regretted that some scholars still accept Noack’s wrong attributions.12 The Mattei Amazon, with the stylization of her chiton closely related to the Athena Medici (Figs. 418-420), has an harmonic unity of form and content in her whole figure, as well as in her chiton. As with some Parthenon pediment figures, the different motifs of the folds are gathered at the side to give a unified impression (see Fig. 11, a side view of the replica of the Mattel Amazon in the Capitoline Museum). The lower edge is lifted to relieve the wound and adds to the variety of motifs assembled in a unified frame. Thus, research in regard to clothing has given new support to Furtwängler’s attributions of the Amazons to various artists. For my research, I assembled a whole wardrobe in different forms and sizes with which I was able to imitate all forms of dress in the Classical period. As with the Amazons, one simple dress could be used for many different drapings. I have set forth the results of my studies in a systematic book on Greek dress using many examples, mostly from the fifth and fourth centuries b . c . and similarly draped models.13 I then extended my studies to the whole history of Greek costume, including pre-Greek and Archaic dress, as well as Greek clothing in the time of the Roman Empire.14 This led to a study not only to determine which costumes the Romans took over from the Greeks, but also to understand how the copyists in the Roman Empire represented Greek dress. I have pointed out the value of the study of clothing in connection with the judging of Roman copies in a short article.15 There are an inexhaustible number of possible ways to drape Greek dress, despite its simple basic form; the Greek artists of the Classical and Hellenistic periods accordingly never had to invent motifs, but could choose them from the many possibilities to suit their artistic intentions. In their work, the costumes are as organically rendered as the bodies. There are no mistakes in depicting any part of the dress. During the Archaic period as well no 12

THE AUTHOR’S APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM single motifs were chosen which would be unreal. In accordance with the inclination of the Archaic artists toward abstract stylization we often find repetition of the same motifs, particularly the decorative accumulation of zigzag folds at the edges and near the corners. Otherwise, even these early attempts at rendering the dress are true to nature, as experiments with living models have shown.“* It is different in archaistic art, which exaggerates elegance and is exceedingly repetitive. When copyists imitate dress which is no longer worn in their time, they are apt to make mistakes. The comparative study of Greek and Roman costume, each fundamentally different, gives objective criteria for judging copies. Statues which show Roman forms of dress that were not worn by the Greeks and all those copies which show mistakes in the rendering of Greek dress are to be considered inexact. The creative Greek artist always had a clear conception of the clothing, and he rendered it clearly in organic draping. Thus, criticism of costume is much more objective than that of anatomy or physiognomy, both of which remained relatively unchanged in real life, in contrast to the ever-changing forms of fashion. Even the rendering of folds is not as clear an indication of original or copy as is the general draping of the dress all around the figure. Mistakes are mostly made at the sides, where the edges of peplos, chiton or mantle meet. The copyist often did not understand the complicated arrangements of clothing, particularly of the mantles of female statues of the fourth to second centuries b . c ., which the Romans liked to use for their portrait statues. Just as some scholars today misunderstand Greek dress, so did the copyists in their day. When the same mistake is repeated in several copies, we must learn not to ascribe these mistakes to the original. Just as a manuscript is copied with mistakes by a scribe and then later copied by other scribes with the same and additional mistakes, so lazy or careless copyists automatically repeated the mistake of a predecessor who, for example, gave a fifth corner to a square mantle. The criterion of dress can be used not only for the evaluation of copies, but also to determine if a work is an original or a copy. When a statue does not show any mistakes in the dress, it might be an original or a good copy. When it shows a misunderstanding of the drapery, then it cannot be an original, but must be a copy (for specific examples, see the later chapters). The study of Campanian wall paintings presents problems similar to the study of Roman copies of sculpture. Can they be used only for reconstructing original Greek paintings, or do they have Roman elements which show creative power and formative ability? What in them is Greek, and what is Roman? The old belief that all four Pompeian styles are reflections of four different styles which developed in Greek lands must now be restricted to the first style. The second style of the first century b . c ., when stucco walls were replaced by painted walls and large figures inserted into the architecture, was certainly created in Rome, where Greek artists, such as Timomachos, worked in the service of the Romans. I have shown for the frescoes in the Villa of the Mysteries in Pompeii that the frieze must have been designed by a contemporary artist for the room in which it was found.17 In contrast, many of the single figures and groups are taken from older Greek art. The center of the whole representation, Ariadne holding Dionysos in her arms, is known from Greek gems. The girl on the left wall bringing a sacrificial dish and the dancing girl on the right wall are purely Hellenistic creations. The bride betw een the window and front wall (whose hair is arranged in six braids according to Roman style), the young domina seated on her couch to the left of the door leading to the bridal chamber, and the matron to the right of the door, who seems to come forward to join the group around the bride (probably her daughter) are all so 13

THE AUTHOR’S APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM well adapted to the room that they must have been created specifically for it. Easel paintings and cartoons may have inspired the single figures, but the arrangement of the whole is contemporary work of the first century b .c . In the third style we find still more adaptations of Greek pictures to an overall Roman decoration. In slender central pavilions, pictures of landscapes are seen from an elevated perspective, and the size of the Greek figures is reduced in relation to their Roman setting. The framework in wall paintings is thoroughly Italian. During the time of the fourth style, from the first century a . d ., more reproductions of Greek pictures were made than during the earlier styles. The originals range in date from the fourth century to the first century b .c . Thus the Medea, created by Timomachos for Caesar, was copied about a century later as a single figure in Herculaneum, but in Pompeii as part of a group, with her children and their teacher in the courtyard before a Roman architectural background. Orestes and Iphigenia, also by Timomachos, are shown near each other with Pylades, Thoas, and their bodyguard in the Casa del Citarista (House of the Cither Player). However, in the Casa di Pinarius Cereales (House of the Goldsmith), they are far apart, placed in a most elaborate imitation of an architectural setting, probably a Roman scaenae frons. There is nothing comparable to these Campanian paintings in Greek lands, except in a much later period. When we study wall painting, we also must expect to see Greek elements used for Roman purposes. It is Graeco-Roman art in a narrower sense. During the second Pompeian style, discussed above, wall painters used copies of Greek masterpieces surrounded by or inserted into Roman landscapes or architecture. Therefore, in sculpture of this same period, the first century b .c ., we may expect to find a similar combination of copies of Greek masterpieces with Roman additions. This is indeed true. The Romans knew Greek art from the earliest period of their cultural history. First, they had seen the archaic lively provincial adaptations of Greek art made by the Etruscans. Sixth-century Rome was an Etruscan city under the rule of Etruscan kings. Even when the last Etruscan king, Tarquinius Superbus, was thrown out of Rome, Etruscan artists continued to work in Rome. When the Romans conquered the cities of Sicily and southern Italy in the third century b . c ., they plundered the art treasures and brought them to Rome. They did the same when they conquered Macedonia, Corinth, Sicyon, and other cities on the Greek mainland in the first half of the second century. They inherited Pergamon with its art collections in 133 b . c ., These collections, however, were not brought to Rome. Athens, when conquered by Sulla in 80 b . c . also was not plundered out of respect for that city as spiritual capital of the Greeks. The Romans became interested in the Greek artists in the second century b . c ., when a classicizing revival developed on the Greek mainland. Between 170 and 165 b . c . Damophon of Messene was commissioned to repair the Zeus of Phidias and probably the figures in the west pediment comers of the temple of Olympia that had been damaged by an earthquake.18 Other commissions were given him in Messene, Megalopolis, Aigion, and Lycosura.1” In the new cult statues, Damophon had occasion to show his great ability and technique in dealing with the most diverse subjects. The fragments of the group at Lyeosura show, on the one hand, the influence of the grandiose style of Phidias and, on the other hand, the influence of the Pergamene-Asiatic school. That means that his style was eclectic, mingling Classical and baroque elements. 14

THE AUTHOR’S APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM Eukleides and Eubulides of Athens developed a similar style in the second half of the second century b.c .211 The beginning of Roman domination of Greece coincided with this period of classicizing revival. The mixture of grandeur and baroque appealed to the taste of the Romans. During this period they took not only works of art, but Greek artists themselves to Rome, where they were to make cult statues, portrait statues, and decorative sculpture for the Romans. They regarded this eclectic style as a revival of art. That explains a passage in Pliny, HN XXXIV, 52. After having mentioned the pupils of Lysippos in the 121st Olympiad (between 296 and 293 b.c .), he continues with the following statement: “cessavit deinde ars ac rursus olym piade C L V l revixit" [“Then art ceased and was revived in the 156th Olympiade” (that is, betw een 156 and 153).] This is the time when the leading Greek artists took up classicizing tendencies.21 This art served as a foundation for Roman art, and for many later adaptations. In Graeco-Roman art, which was developed in Rome, the artists blended Greek types with Roman portraits and accessories and adapted them to Roman buildings as a purely decorative element. In decorative reliefs, Greek artists combined older with contemporary styles. The degree of exactness of the copy was less important than the close adaptation of the work to its purpose and use. No exact copies of Greek statuary were made in the Classical and Hellenistic periods. There are, however, many variations of the same subject, sometimes made by the artists themselves, sometimes by their pupils and followers. But there was no mechanical repetition. Even when copies were demanded by the Hellenistic rulers who wanted to decorate their capitals with Classical masterpieces, they turned out to be influenced by the style of the period. The best example is the copy of the Athena Parthenos by Phidias, which adorned the library of the Attalids in Pergamon and which in the expression of the face and in the rendering of the hair and drapery reflects the Pergamene baroque style, not the serenity of the Classical style. It is only in the Roman period that more exact reproductions were demanded and delivered by the Greek artists in the service of the Romans. Almost every type which was repeated in the Hellenistic as w ell as in the Roman periods shows this differentiation between adaptations to Hellenistic style and to a mixture of Greek and Roman elements by the copyists in the Roman period. However, Roman copies, too, always show something of the style of their period, particularly in the rendering of the drapery. I have demonstrated these facts in four independent investigations, which have been published from 1949 to 1962 by the American Philosophical Society (see below, Chapters XI and XII).22 First, in the portraiture of Alexander the Great, the developm ent of the different types from his lifetime to the late Roman period is connected with literary sources, with the growth of the Alexander myth, and with the changing ideas about the great conqueror in later antiquity. The monuments are assigned not only to various periods, but also to different Hellenistic schools. The influence of classicism and of Hellenistic emotionalism on the portraits of the Empire is clearly visible. A second investigation dealt with the draped male statue formerly called the “Sophokles” type or togatus, which is really the representation of men in the Greek himation (Latin pallium). First used by Aischines, it was restyled in the Hellenistic manner in the Dioskurides of Delos and 15

THE AUTHOR’S APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM the boy from Eretria. From the first century b . c . on, the type was used for over a hundred funerary monuments and portrait statues of Greek as well as Roman men, until at last even Christ and the apostles were shown in the same guise. The female counterpart to the palliati is the so-called Pudicitia, used for female portrait statues. Even more common is the use of the types of the large and small Herculaneum women, originally Demeter and Kore, for portrait statues of matrons and young women. They appear in Hellenistic adaptations and in Roman copies from about 300 b . c . to 300 A .D ., and penetrated into most of the Roman provinces.25 The reasons for the frequency with which the Romans used these Greek types are several, namely the religious significance of the originals, their pleasant appearance, and the fact that the Greek mantle was more convenient and comfortable compared to the stiff and complicated Roman toga. Finally, a similar development took place in the Asklepios types, used by both Greeks and Romans. Two main types, created in the Classical period, were combined in the Hellenistic period with two new creations of the Hellenistic style. The Romans, however, went back to the conception of the Asklepios type created by Alkamenes, the pupil of Phidias, for their cult statue of the Roman Aesculapius, on the island in the Tiber. Occasionally, they also used this type for portrait statues of physicians. Among the many Roman copies, there are some which are careless or inexact in the rendering of the left side. For example, the two side edges of the himation, which originally hung down side by side, are made exactly parallel or made to melt together in an impossible way. It is clear from the investigation of these four types during the different periods that Hellenistic artists resorted to Classical originals but changed them into Hellenistic creations, while in the Roman period Greek originals of the Hellenistic, Classical, and even Archaic periods were exactly copied for use as Roman cult statues, portrait statues, or for decoration. Two important questions, however, remain to be answered: W here is the borderline between Greek and Roman art? Has Roman art its own creative power and formative ability? I have tried to answer these questions in the new chapter added to the second edition of my Sculpture o f the Hellenistic Age.24 There was certainly Hellenistic art in Italy before the Romans founded their Empire. There was Hellenistic-Etruscan art in the north, before the former Etruscan lands were Romanized. The so-called Brutus and the so-called Arringatore show that blending of Etruscan and Hellenistic art which occurred in the late second century b .c .. The Arringatore wears the toga exigua, the forerunner of the Roman mantle.25 South of Rome, at Palestrina, where metalworking had been continued from the time of the Etruscans, mirrors and caskets, for example, the Ficoroni Cista, were engraved with Hellenistic designs. The Oscans in Campania, who built Pompeii and Herculaneum, were Hellenized very early. When the Romans conquered Sicily and southern Italy, they encountered for the first time pure Classical Greek art, which they plundered and brought to Rome, already before they plundered and looted on the Greek mainland and in the Hellenistic kingdoms. Not before the second half of the second century b .c . did the Romans come upon an art which appealed to them as a living art to be appropriated for their own needs, namely the classicizing, eclectic art of Damophon, Timarchides, Polykies, and Dionysios. They invited these artists to Rome, and from then on Greek artists made Roman cult statues and Roman portrait statues. For cult statues the Romans preferred Classical types of nude men, but for portrait statues of

THE AUTHOR’S APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM both men and women, they preferred the men to be heroic types and the women to be goddesses. The Romanized Etruscan style of the portrait heads was softened and assimilated to Greek forms. The sober and intelligent but often ugly heads are sometimes in contrast to the deified forms of the statues themselves. Not before a Greek artist created his masterpiece in the Augustus of Primaporta do we find a real alloy of Greek and Roman elements, a truly Roman art. The same is true for the female statues, with the copies of the Herculaneum women having Roman features, but with the hairdo and the style of execution adapted to the Greek model. Besides portraits, the Romans wanted exact copies of Greek masterpieces. The taste for Greek art was expanding to all cultivated circles. Not all could have the originals which wealthy Romans of the first century continued to loot or began to buy and collect. The works of Phidias, Polykleitos, and Praxiteles were in great demand and were therefore reproduced in great numbers, more or less exactly rendered. Often the significance was changed, attributes were added, the dress misunderstood. When we compare the few cases in which original and copies are preserved, we often find the copies lifeless in comparison w ith the originals. Sometimes the artists who settled in Rome tried to create new masterpieces in the Archaic style (like the walking Artemis), in the Classical style (like the Stephanos athlete), or the Hellenistic style (like the torso of Belvedere). One main task of Greek sculptors in the service of the Romans was to create ostentatious and showy marble vases, fountains, candelabra, statue bases, and the like. They imitated late Classical and early Hellenistic vases, often enlarging them to a monumental size and decorating them in a pleasant, although eclectic manner, with figures from Hellenistic, Classical, and Archaic art. They did not hesitate to make some whimsical variations. In the lower part, they added beautiful acanthus ornaments which were enriched with flowers. They were pedantic workers and knew how to please the eclectic taste of their luxury loving customers. The most typical Roman creation of the first century b . c . is the historical relief, where the transition from Greek to Roman can be seen most clearly. The subject was new for the Greek artists. For them events of the historical past were most important, while the Romans preferred to represent current events. The Romans in an early period had begun to represent their wars in a very realistic way in painting. The Greeks idealized them by alluding to them in mythological battles. On the base or altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus,2(i w e have both the idealistic allusion to a victory at sea in the symbolic representation of Poseidon, Amphitrite, and sea monsters on three sides, and the realistic representation of sacrifice and procession after the victory on one long side. A great step forward in the amalgamation of styles is seen in the Ara Pacis (from betw een 13 and 9 b . c .).27 Four panels at the sides of the two entrances depict legendary scenes. The ones on the west side deal with the divine ancestry of Augustus and the legendary origin of Rome and the Roman people. The two on the east side depict the blessings which resulted as a consequence of the Augustan peace. The small reliefs on the altar itself show the actual religious ceremony connected with the founding of the altar. The decorative garlands with the greatest variety of flowers and fruit and the system of acanthus scrolls ending in leaves and flowers with animals interspersed show through the clever combination of a tapestry-like arrangement and the use of realistic details the luxurious and ostentatious spirit of the Romans. Thus everything is Roman in subject matter as well as in spirit. Thus, I believe that the Romans made a real contribution to art. They contributed their

THE AUTHOR’S APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM reverence for national tradition and national heroes as well as their conviction that the great past continued into the great present and on into a greater future. They gave new greatness and seriousness to Hellenistic art, and Greek artists had to adapt themselves to Roman ethical and social values. The Greek love of beauty and knowledge for its own sake was used to represent Roman ideals. Contemporary events, new decorative uses, and new moral values transformed thß Hellenistic into a true Roman art. The historical and decorative art in the time of Augustus became a veritable Roman art. The wall paintings with their Roman organization and the copies with their new meaning we may best call Graeco-Roman art.

Footnotes to Chapter 2

1. G.M.A. Richter, Kouroi, Archaic Greek Youths (London 1960); eadem, Korai, Archaic Greek Maidens (London 1968). 2. L. Heuzey, Histoire du costume antique, d'apres des etudes sur le modele vivant (Paris 1922). 3. F. Noack, “Amazonenstudien,” Jdl 30 (1915), pp. 131-179. 4. F. Studniczka, “Beiträge zur Geschichte der altgriechischen Tracht,” Ahh. archäol.-epigr. Sem.Wien 6 (1886), p. 13, fig. 7. Unfortunately other archeologists, like W. Amelung (s.v. “Chiton,” in Pauly-Wissowa, RE, III, 2, 2317 ff.), also misunderstood the Archaic for the Classical chiton. Studniczka himself saw the difference, as his model of a Classical chiton proves in “Das Gegenstück der Ludovisischen ‘Thronlehne’,” Jdl 26 (1911), p. 115, figs. 43-44. 5. M. Bieber, “Der Chiton der ephesischen Amazonen,” Jdl 33 (1918), pp. 49-75, figs. 1-15, pis. I-III. 6. On the Berlin statue (our Figs. 2-3,5), see E. Rohde, Griechische und römische Kunst in den staatlichen Museen zu Berlin (Berlin 1968), p. 101, fig. 77; R. Kekulé, Königliche Museen zu Berlin. Beschreibung der antiken Skulpturen (Berlin 1891), pp. 8-9, No. 7; H. Lauter, Chronologie, p. 117, g,2. On the Lansdowne statue in New York City (our Fig. 12), see G.M.A. Richter, Handbook o f the Greek Collection, The Metropolitan Museum of Art (Cambridge Mass. 1953), pp. 91-92, pi. 72a; H. Lauter, op.cit., pp. 117-118, g, 3. 7. M. Bieber, “Chiton,” pp. 61-62, fig. 10, pi. I. 8. Ibid., pp. 64-65, pi. II; W. Helbig, Führer durch die öffentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom, voi. I (Die Päpstlichen Sammulungen im Vatikan und Lateran), 4th ed. by H. Speier (Tübingen 1963), pp. 92-94, No. 126 (Inv. 748); H. Lauter, op.cit., p. 116, f,5. 9. M. Bieber, “Chiton,” pp. 66-69, pi. Ill; W. Helbig, Führer, voi. II (Die Städtlischen Sammlungen-Kapi~ tolinische Museen und Museo Barracco; Die Staatlichen Sammlungen-Ara Pacis, Galleria Borghese, Galleria Spada, Museo Pigorini, Antiquarien auf Forum und Palatin), 4th ed. by H. Speier (Tübingen 1966), pp. 197-199, No. 1393 (Inv. 651); H. Lauter, op.cit, pp. 116, f,4, p.125, pl. 8; 10. A. Furtwängler, Meisterwerke, pp. 291-303; idem, Masteipieces, pp. 128-141, figs. 52-57, XIX-XXI. S. Aurigemma, Villa Adriana (Rome 1962), pp. 121-122, figs. 115-117, follows Furtwängler. 11. F. Noack, op.cit., supra note 3, p. 150. 12. W.H. Schuchhardt, “Der Merkur von Thalwil,” ZSchwAkg 20 (1960), pp. 164, 174, pls. 77-81. Yet the chlamys of the Capitoline Amazon is much closer to the chlamys of his Mercury than to the artificial arrangement on the Berlin-Lansdowne Amazon. Also, H. Lauter, op.cit., pp. 116-118, pis. 7-9, follows Noack’s attribution. 13. M. Bieber, Griechische Kleidung (Berlin 1928). 14. M. Bieber, Entwicklungsgeschichte der griechischen Tracht von der oorgriechischen Zeit bis zur römischen Kaiserzeit (Berlin 1934); eadem, Entwicklungsgeschichte. . . Zeit bis zur Ausgang der Antike, 2nd rev. ed. by F. Eckstein (Berlin 1967).

THE AUTHOR’S APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM 15. M. Bieber, “Der Wert von Traehtstudien für die Beurteilung römischer Kopien,” FuF 6 (1930), pp. 157-159 (Also in the Spanish edition of the same periodical). 16. A. von Netolizka, “Die Mantletracht der archaischen Frauenfiguren,” J O A I15 (1912), pp. 253-264; M.Bieber, “Die Herkunft des tragischen Kostüms,” Jdl 32 (1917), pp. 15-104 (see esp. Exkurs I, pp. 99-104); E. Pfuhl, “Bemerkungen zur archaischen Kunst,” AthMitt 48 (1923), pp. 137-153 (IV, “Der schräge Mantel der archaischen Koren”); G.M.A. Richter, Korai, pl. 3a-b. 17. M. Bieber, “Der Mysteriensaal der Villa Item,” Jdl 43 (1928), pp. 298-330; eadem, “The Mystery Frescoes in the Mystery Villa of Pompeii,” Review of Religion 2 (1937), pp. 3-11. See also J.M.C. Toynbee, “ The Villa Item and a Bride’s Ordeal,” JRS 19 (1929), pp. 67-87; O.J. Brendel, “Dionysiaca,” RomMitt 48 (1933), pp. 153-181, pis. 22-24; E. Simon, “Zum Fries der Mysterienvilla bei Pompeji,” Jdl 76 (1961), pp. 111-172, figs. 1-32; O.J. Brendel, “Der grosse Fries in der Villa dei Misteri,” Jdl 81 (1966), pp. 206-260. 18. W.B. Dinsmoor, “An Archaeological Earthquake at Olympia,” AJA 45 (1941), pp. 399-427; M. Bieber, “Damophon and Pliny 34, 52,” AJA 45 (1941), pp. 94-95; eadem, “Pliny and Graeco-Roman Art,” Hommages a Joseph Bidez et Franz Cumont, Collection Latomus 2 (1949), pp. 39-42. 19. Pausanias, Graeciae Descriptio IV, 31, 6-7; VII, 23, 5-7; Vili, 31, 1-8 and 37, 2-7; J.G. Frazer, Pausanias’s Description o f Greece (trans, and comm. by Frazer) (London 1913), IV, pp. 161-162, 371-379; G. Dickins, “Damophon of Messene, I and II,” ABSA 12 (1905-06), pp. 109-136 and 13 (1906-07), pp. 357-404. 20. O. Walter, “Ein Kolossalkopf des Zeus aus Aigeira,” JOAI 19-20 (1919), pp. 1-14, figs. 1-7, pis. I-II. 21. M. Bieber, “Damophon and Pliny 34, 52” pp. 94-95. For a different opinion, see R. Carpenter, Greek Sculpture. A Critical Review (Chicago 1960), pp. 185-197. 22. M. Bieber, “The Portraits of Alexander the Great,” ProcPhilSoc 93 (1949), pp. 373-426; eadem, “Romani Palliati, Roman Men in Greek Himation,” ProcPhilSoc 103 (1959), pp. 374-417 (and below, Chapter XI); eadem, “The Copies of the Herculaneum Women,” ProcPhilSoc 106 (1962), pp. 111-134 (and below, Chapter XII); eadem, “A Bronze Statuette in Cincinnati and its Place in the Development of the Asklepios Types,” ProcPhilSoc 101 (1957), pp. 70-92. 23. Eadem, “Copies of Greek Statues in the Roman Provinces,” Hommages à Albert Grenier, Collection Latomus 18 (1962), pp. 288-293, pis. LXI-LXII, figs. 1-8. 24. Eadem, The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age (2nd rev. ed. New York 1961), pp. 167-191, figs. 713-818. 25. T. Dohrn, “Der Arringatore in Florenz,” AA 80 (1965), cols. 123-142. 26. J. Charbonneaux, La sculpture grecque et romaine au Musée du Louvre (Paris 1963), pp. 130-132, No. 975. 27. Helbig-Speier, Führer1, II, pp. 673-695, No. 1937; G. Moretti, The Ara Pacis Augustae (Guidebooks to the Museums and Monuments of Italy, No. 67) (trans, by V. Priestley) (Rome 1967); M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen. Age%pp. 187-189, figs. 811-818 (with full bibliography on p. 187, note 117).

19

3 THE IMPORTANCE OF CLOTHING IN JUDGING ROMAN COPIES Really inexact copies seem to me to be all those in which there are mistakes in the rendering of Greek dresses. There are no mistakes in the Greek originals, because the Greek sculptor considered the dress, like the body, as an indivisible whole. The dress is always draped organically on Greek statues. There are no mistakes in the rendering because the artist knew the form of the costume and accounted for every turn and fold in the cloth, just as he knew and accounted for the organic build of the human body. The Greek statues are without mistakes, not because they imitate a definite model slavishly and soberly, but because the original artist is keenly aware of the significance of all parts of his work. Even if he executes the back and sometimes the sides only superficially, he does not design any of the parts incorrectly. H ence, the organic or inorganic draping of the dress is the best criterion for distinguishing betw een the originals and good, clearly perceived copies on the one hand, and bad, often incorrect copies on the other hand. One may say that this criterion is not to be applied to all periods. There are indeed exceptions even in Greek art. Archaic art with its strong stylization som etim es has incorrect syntheses, particularly an exaggerated accumulation and repetition of the same motifs. Ends, points, edges, and folds are multiplied, where one or two would have been sufficient. But the single motif, when dissolved and relieved of its archaic formality, is always credible. Mistakes in strokes of lines do occur (although rarely) on Greek vase paintings and in terracottas, which are intended to be seen from just one side.1W e must remember, however, that these artisans did not always create freely,

20

THE IMPORTANCE OF CLOTHING IN JUDGING ROMAN COPIES but they sometimes tried—as for example around 460 b . c .— to make use of the new inventions of great art for their more modest aims. W e never find anything unclear or untrue in the rendering of the dress of the really good and independent painters and sculptors. Their creations are always organically draped, so that one can imitate them in every detail on living models. Drapery is often used in Classical art to help us interpret the character or the action of the person who wears the dress. I have tried to show this for several works of Classical art,2 and I want to add another excellent example of organic and meaningful draping: the Attic three-figure reliefs. Among the reliefs of the fifth century that involve three figures in a quiet position used to tell a whole story and to express, at the same time, the character and the mood of the personalities shown, four have rightly been grouped together as originally belonging to the same monument: the Orpheus-Eurydike, the Theseus-Peirithos, the Medea-Peliades, and the Hesperides-Herakles reliefs.3 Among these, the Theseus relief has male figures only. Each of the others has one female figure in a peplos, which is always draped with an overfold and a pouch drawn out of the belt at the waist. Two of these, the Eurydike and one Hesperide, have the rear part of the overfold drawn over the head. Eurydike (Fig. 13)4 originally had her face veiled to hide it from Orpheus, who was forbidden to look at her. But since he is afraid that he has been deceived, he turns around, draws her veil away from her face, and looks at her. His gesture causes the overfold to ascend on the left side in a diagonal line and to uncover the curved line of the pouch on Eurydike’s left side, while it still covers the part of the pouch on the right hip. The result of the unveiling—beside this effect on the drapery—is that Hermes, the figure on the left side of the relief, w ill take Eurydike back to Hades. He takes her arm with his left hand, while his right hand grasps the folds of his chiton in a tense gesture, expressing his dislike of the task. In a fragmentary relief, the Hesperide standing behind the back of Herakles5has gathered the apples for him. She lifts the overfold in which she has put the apples forward and upward; therefore, a large part of the pouch becomes visible. This gesture indicates her willingness to help the visitor. The other Hesperide, standing before the hero, shows her lively concern through the gesture of her arms, as well as by the many curved lines in her dress (Fig. 14).(i She has in her left arm a branch with apples. The right hand gathers together many folds of her mantle. Other curved folds lie below the elbow. The upper ends of the mantle hang down below the lower arm. Her right hand is lifted to the shoulder. The Peliad on the Lateran relief (Fig. 15) and on its replica in Berlin7 has her left hand under the elbow of the right hand. She holds the sword in the right hand, against which she leans her head. The left hand and the right elbow are crossed by the lower edge of the overfold. In the covered left hand she holds the sheath for the sword. The right elbow and the left hand rest in the cavity of the overfold, which is held by a pin on the left shoulder and by the pressure of the left hand against the right elbow. An S-curve of the overfold goes around the right elbow, the left wrist, and then around the lower left arm to the long, pocketlike curve hanging below the left elbow. This S-curve is clearer on the Berlin relief than on the Lateran relief, where the differen­ tiation between the pouch and the overfold is blurred, probably more by time than by a mistake of the copyist.3 In any case, the disorderly and restless arrangement reflects masterfully the anxious meditation of the daughter who hesitates to slaughter her father according to the advice

21

THE IMPORTANCE OF CLOTHING IN JUDGING ROMAN COPIES of Medea who doubts that her father will be resurrected as a young and healthy man. The layer of curves around the arms and left hip do not leave enough material to cover the head as well; this is why the Peliad, alone among the peplos figures of the three reliefs, has her head uncovered. The eagerness of the other Peliad in the center is also depicted not only by her action but also by the arrangement of her chiton. It falls from her right breast as a consequence of her busy movement, by which she prepares the kettle for boiling her father. This causes her to neglect her appearance at this moment. Thus, a Greek artist of the fifth century had a clear knowledge of correct draping and appreciation of the relation of all parts of the dress not only to each other, but also to the body of the wearer, with her character, her mood, and her situation. The fact that all copies of these reliefs have the same unity of form and content confirms the assertion by Heinz Goetze1' that these four must have been members of an artistic unit made in the same workshop from the design of one great artist of the school of Phidias, around 420 to 410 b . c . The copies were probably made for the Romans and in Rome, in the best workshops of the Greek copyists. Several (like the Lateran relief and the Hesperides in Leningrad and New York) are worked so well that they have been considered parts of the originals themselves."’ They show a clear insight into the interconnection of all parts of the drapery, an insight which many copyists lacked, particularly those of the later imperial period. The best copies of the three-figure reliefs probably were made during the first century b . c ., and not later than the Augustan period. During the Hellenistic period the Greek draped figure often showed very complicated motifs.11 Often the too large number of folds make the form unclear. The motifs are drawn in large masses; they show many contrasts in wide curves and harsh straight lines, between a mighty swing of rounded rolls and flat surfaces. Yet, even here there is never a motif which would conflict with the nature of real draped cloth. Mistakes were made in copies, mostly at the sides, where, in unsymmetrical Greek dress, the vertical edges meet, often resulting in very complicated motifs. In the peplos these edges are most often found on the right; in the himation, they are at the left side of the figure. (The mistakes found at the sides will be the subject of Chapters VIII through XIV.) The copyists made mistakes at the sides because they always began carving the front of the statues from cartoons or casts. The back might be carved next, but the sides were the last to be carved. Wherever we find mistakes at the sides, w e may be sure that w e have a copy, usually an unreliable one. Such a copy certainly was not one made with the pointing process, but perhaps from a cast of the front or from cartoons. The problem of determining the quality of the copies we possess and their value could not be solved as long as our knowledge of Greek and Roman dress was incom plete. Formerly, a few scholars investigated single pieces of clothing; they restricted themselves for the most part to a definite period and then only to actual, not stylistic, shapes. Thus, Studniczka examined the Classical peplos,12 Ada von Netolizka the Archaic oblique m antle,11 Kalkmann the late Archaic chiton," Heuzey the Classical chlamys,13 and Lillian W ilson the Roman toga.1(1 Heuzey was the first to publish a systematic book on a number of different kinds of Greek dress. Later, I covered all of the kinds of clothing worn by the Greeks, in two books (one systematic and one historical); the clothing of the Romans was described in an excellent book by Lillian W ilson.17 Thus, the foundations were laid for distinguishing Greek and Roman dress. If a statue is clothed in Roman

22

THE IMPORTANCE OF CLOTHING IN JUDGING ROMAN COPIES dress, it is to be withdrawn from the category of copies of Greek art. The most easily'recognized Roman dress is the tunica, later replaced by the dalmatica, that is a tunic with wide sleeves added separately. The tunic was worn by Roman men and women alike, as was the chiton by Greek men and women.18 The Roman tunic, worn by women, however, was longer than that worn by men, but both consist of a tube open at both ends. The chiton, furthermore, is sewed together entirely on both sides. The upper edges are folded over and pinned on the shoulder. They fall in graceful curved or zigzag lines below the armpits. Only when the chiton is too narrow to be wrapped around the arms, usually the case in dresses for children and slaves, is an opening made at the side. (The Roman tunic was made with sleeves.) The most important parts of Lillian W ilson’s second book are her chapters on Roman cloaks.’9 Until now these garments have been puzzling for most scholars who have incorrectly identified them.20 We must distinguish the pallium, which is the Greek himation;21 the paenula, with its hood, used since the time of Plautus by citizens of all classes; the paludam entum and the sagum used by the military, the first for the emperor and generals, the second for the equites and other soldiers; the heavy woolen laena, fastened with a brooch; the lighter lacerna; and in later times, the birrus for cold and rainy weather. When these garments appear in art, they are taken from Roman life, not from Greek art. The woman’s tunic with buttoned sleeves that the Romans took over appears not only in Roman art, but also in their culture. Miss Wilson gives an excellent reconstruction of the tunic, but unfortunately she gives it the name stola, the dress of honor conceded to matrons for marital fidelity.221 have tried to demonstrate that the upper tunic worn over the sleeved or sometimes sleeveless tunic was the stola.22 As the stola was a badge of honor, it must have been worn as the outer garment in order to be more visible. That is the case, for example, in the excellent statues of Livia or Octavia in the Louvre and in Naples (Figs. 1 6 -17).24 The upper edge of the stola hangs from the shoulders, like a woman’s slip today. The rounded folds of fabric hanging between the shoulders and below the neck belong to the lower tunic. These shoulder straps (institae) of the stola can be clearly seen on a torso with a cavity for a portrait head in the City Gallery of Frankfurt and on several busts (Figs. 19, 20-21).2:i An older explanation of these institae has been proposed, that they are flounces in the lower part of the dress. This goes back to Porphyrion (Scholia to Horace, for Sat. 1, 2, line 29—quarum subsuta tales tegat instita veste, “whose feet are covered by the dress suspended from the sewed-on straps”). But subsuta only means that the dress has been joined or tacked together with the strap and has nothing to do with the flounces. Horace, in line 99 of the same satire, says the following: ad tales stola demissa et circumdata palla, “the stola is let down to the ankles and surrounded by the cloak.” This also shows that the stola was worn directly under the mantle, thus above the tunic. Ovid, in book one, line 31 of his Ars Amatoria, also describes this garment as long and with straps in the following way: quaeque tegis medios instita longa pedes, “you who cover to the middle of your feet with a long, strapped dress.” Statues which show the stola are those of important matrons; they are Roman, not Greek creations. Examples are the early Augustan statues in the Louvre and Naples and the statue of Sabina in the Louvre (Fig. 18) from the Hadrianic age.2BThe artist also had a clear conception of the arrangement of the mantle, since the edges at the side are w ell separated and the corners clearly marked. The artists were certainly Hellenistic Greeks in the service of the Romans. I would call these works Graeco-Roman in the sense that they follow organic Greek conceptions.27 23

THE IMPORTANCE OF CLOTHING IN JUDGING ROMAN COPIES However, they are not copies from a Greek model, but rather are interpretations of the real appearance of a Roman lady. One might, of course, assume that, in some cases, the artist, who had to represent a Roman, used a Greek type and only added a Roman dress, like the stola, or, for men, a cloak in Roman form. But as far as I know, the added cloak for w om en is mostly in the Greek form of the square palla, not the bow-shaped Roman mantles.

Footnotes to Chapter 3

1. Examples can be found on vases of the Polygnotan-early Phidian period—for example, Eriphyle in A. Furtwängler and K. Reichhold, Griechische Vasenmalerei (Munich 1904-32), pi. 66. Here, indeed, we do not have free inventions of the vase painters, but motifs of monumental wall painting adapted to the minor art. There are three edges coming from one point, similar to the Barracco statuette. See below, Chapter VIII, on the peplos of Artemis and Athena. 2. See Chapter II, note 5, for the Amazons. Also M. Bieber, Griech. Kleidung, pp. 77-84, pis. XLIII-LVIII. 3. H. Goetze, “Die attischen Dreifiguren-Reliefs,” RömMitt 53 (1938), pp. 189-280; II. Thompson, “The Altar of Pity in the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 21 (1952), pp. 47,60-74; E.B. Harrison, “Hesperides and Heroes: A Note on the Three-figure Reliefs,” Hesperia 33 (1964), pp. 76-82. 4. On the Orpheus-Eurydike relief in Naples, see H. Goetze, op.cit., pp. 191-200, with extensive bibliography, pis. 32-33; B. Maiuri, Le Musée National. The National Museum. Naples (Novara 1959), pp. 14-15. 5. On the Hesperides-Herakles relief, see H. Goetze, op.cit., pp. 220-231, with extensive bibliography, pis. 36-37; idem, “Die Deutung des Hesperidenreliefs,” Jdl 63-64 (1948-9), p. 94, fig. 5; W. Amelung, “Herakles bei den Hesperiden,” Berl.Winck-Progr. 80 (1923). See E.B. Harrison, op.cit., pi. XI, a and d, for the Hesperide in front of Herakles, now in Leningrad. 6. G.M.A. Richter, Metropolitan Museum o f Art. Catalogue o f Greek Sculpture (Cambridge Mass. 1954), No. 61 (22.139.21), pi. 53a for the Hesperide behind Herakles (our Fig. 14), in New York City. The Hesperide on the Kertsch vase in New York (G.M.A.Richter, Red-Figured Athenian Vases in the Metropolitan Museum o f Art (New Haven and London 1936), No. 166, pis. 162-163 and H. Goetze, op.cit., pi. 36, fig. 1) is not, as Goetze assumed (p. 228), derived from the same original. The position of the hands holding the edge of the overfold is quite different. The overfold does not cover the head, and there is no pouch. It is the same motif of gathering apples in an overfold, but with quite different drapery and in a quite different mood. There is nothing of the tense eagerness to help, so characteristic of the Leningrad relief. 7. On the Medea-Peliades reliefs, see II. Goetze, op.cit., pp. 200-207, with extensive bibliography, pi. 38. For the Lateran relief (our Fig. 15), see Helbig-Speier, Führer1, I, pp. 761-762, No. 1060 (Inv. 9983); O. Benndorf and R. Schöne, Die antiken Bildwerke des Lateranensischen Museums (Leipzig 1867), pp. 61-64, No. 92; R. Carpenter, “Observations on Familiar Statuary in Rome,” MAAR 18 (1941), pp. 62-70, pi. 21a. For the Berlin relief, see C. Bliimel, Museen Berlin.Katalog der Sammlung antiker Skulpturen, voi. V (Römische Kopien griechischer Skulpturen des IV. Jahrh.) (Berlin 1938), No. K186, pl. 78; R. Kekulé, Beschreibung ant.Skidpt., pp. 375-376, No. 925. 8. Carpenter has convinced me that the blurred differentiation between the overfold and the pouch is due not to the misunderstanding of the copyist, but to the breaking off of the edges of the folds and of the overfold. 9. H. Goetze, op.cit., pp. 231-236, figs. 3-6. 10. Carpenter is convinced that the Lateran relief is the original from which the copy in Berlin is taken. The design of the Lateran relief, however, is certainly copied, since it is out of balance. The Peliad crowds too close to the

THE IMPORTANCE OF CLOTHING IN JUDGING ROMAN COPIES

11. 12. 13.

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

25.

edge of the slab, while Medea leans away from it. This imbalance must be attributed to the copyist, not to the original artist. The Berlin copy appears disfigured by the modern restorer who changed the sword into a laurel branch and added a fold outside the left leg which has no organic connection with the peplos. But this is due to the repairs of the much damaged surface. As a whole this was originally a clear and reliable copy from the same original of which the Lateran one is probably a freer, older, and more artistic copy. Goetze suggested (op.cit., pp. 224-225, pi. 37, fig. 2) that the fragment of the Hesperide in New York (our Fig. 14) is also part of the original; but the possibility that it comes from the same relief as the Hesperide in Leningrad (W. Amelung, op.cit., supra note 5, pi. I; H. Goetze, op.cit., pi. 36, fig. 2), also conceded by Goetze (p. 227), makes this impossible. How fortunate it would be if we had two other examples of the existence of Greek original and Roman copy. I am afraid that here we have only very good Greek copies from the early Roman period. See the excellent chronological survey of Hellenistic draped figures by R. Horn, “Stehende weibliche Gewandstatuen in der hellenistischen Plastik,” RömMitt, Ergänzungsheft II (Munich 1931). F. Studniczka, “Beiträge zur Geschichte der altgrieehishen Tr acht,”Abhandlungen des archäologisch­ epigraphischen Seminares der Universität Wien 6 (Vienna 1886). A. von Netolizka, “Die Manteltracht,” JOAl 15 (1912), pp. 253-264; M. Bieber, “ Die Herkunft des tragischen Kostüms,” Jdl 32 (1917), pp. 99-101; E. Pfuhl, “Bemerkungen zur archaischen Kunst” AthMitt 48 (1923), pp. 137-153 (IV, “Der schräge Mantel der archaischen Koren”). Also, on archaistic dress, see E.B. Harrison, Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture, pp. 51-61. A. Kalkmann, “Zur Tracht archaischer Gewandfiguren,” Jdl 11 (1896), pp. 19-52. L. Heuzey, Hist. Costume antique, pp. 115-141. L. Wilson, The Roman Toga (The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology, No. 1) (Baltimore 1924). M. Bieber, Griech. Kleidung; eadem, Entwicklungsgeschichte-; L. Wilson, The Clothing o f the Ancient Romans (The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology, No. 24) (Baltimore 1938). M. Bieber, Griech. Kleidung, pp. 49-54, pi. XVII, figs. 3,4, pi. XVIII, figs. 1-3, pi. XIX, fig. 1, pi. XXI, pi. XXII, fig. 1; L. Wilson, Roman Clothing, pp. 55-69, figs. 47-8, pp. 130-137, figs. 83-90. L. Wilson, Roman Clothing, Chaps. VI-IX, pp. 76-129. Even G.M.A. Richter, “Who Made . .. Statues,” p. 184. The Romans do not wear “the Greek himation or chlamys.” They wear the tunic with pallium, paludamentum, sagum, or laena. M. Bieber, “Romani Palliati, Roman Men in Greek Himation” ProcPhilSoc 103 (1959), pp. 374-417. See below, Chapter XI. L. Wilson, Roman Clothing, pp. 155-161, fig. 99. M. Bieber, in Pauly-Wissowa, RE, s.v. “stola,” cols, 56-62. On the statue in the Louvre (our Fig. 16), see J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt. Louvre, pp. 142-143, No. 1242; J.J. Bernoulli, Römische Ikonographie, voi. II (Die Bildnisse der römischen Kaiser und ihrer Angehörigen), part 1 (Das julisch-claudische Kaiserhaus) (Stuttgart 1886, reprinted 1969), pp. 101-102. On the statue in Naples (our Fig. 17), see J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.Ikon; II, 1, pp. 90-91, No. 2, pi. V; A. Ruesch, Das Nationalmuseum in Neapel. Auszug aus dem Eührer, (Naples n.d.), pp. 177, No. 692 (6041); idem. Guida illustrata del Museo nazionale di Napoli (Naples 1908), pp. 241-242, No. 998 (6041); A. Hekler, Die Bildniskunst der Griechen und Römer (Stuttgart 1912), pi. 204a (also appears in an English translation, Greek and Roman Portraits, London 1912); idem, Gewandstatuen, p. 133; L. Wilson, Roman Clothing, p. 159, fig. 100; R. West, Römische Porträtplastik, voi. I (Munich 1933), pp. 232-233, pi. LXV, fig. 276 (identified as Octavia the younger). Cf. the gem in Vienna showing Livia holding the portrait of Augustus, in J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.Ikon., II, 1, pp. 94-95, pi. XXVII, fig. 2. He remarks incorrectly that the shoulder straps carry the chiton. On this same gem, see also M. Bieber, “The Statue of Cybele in the J. Paul Getty Museum,” J. Paul Getty Museum Publication No. 3 (1968), p. 12, fig. 27. The torso, our Fig. 19, is in the Städtische Galerie in Frankfurt. For a replica found recently in Ephesus, see H. Vetters, Ephesos: Vorläufiger Grahungshericht 1970 (Oesterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Kommissions) (Vienna 1971), p. 16, pl. 20. For a Claudian bust in the Vatican, see G. Lippold, Die Skulpturen des Vaticanischen Museums III, 2 (Berlin 1956), Ambulacro No. 5, pp. 4-5, pl. 4. For a Flavian bust in Naples (our Figs. 20-21), see A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, No. 992 (6062: and J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.Ikon., II, 2 (von Galba bis Commodus) (Stuttgart 1891, reprinted 1969), p. 41, pi. XIII. For other clear examples of these straps on busts.

THE IMPORTANCE OF CLOTHING IN JUDGING ROMAN COPIES see A. Hekler, Bildniskunst, p. 321, No. 202b (Hekler calls the stola “an Schnüren hängenden Brustlatz”), and p. 323, No. 244a; M. Bieber, in Pauly-Wissowa, RE, s.v. stola, cols. 56-62; F. WickhofF, Roman Art (tr. and ed. from EHe Wiener Genesis by E. Strong) (London and New York 1900), p. 62, fig. 21. 26. J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt. Louvre, p. 164, No. 1190; J.J. Bernoulli, Rom.Ikon., II, 2, p. 129, No. 8. 27. See the excellent description of the way Greek sculptors in Roman times worked, completing one side after the other (in contrast to earlier Greek sculptors, who in each state of the work went around the statue before they began the next layer) in C. Bliimel,1Griechische Bildhauerarbeit, Jdl, Ergänzungsheft XI (1927), pp. 10-12; idem. Der Hermes eines Praxiteles (Baden-Baden 1948), pp. 12-17, figs. 2-5.

26

4 ORIGINAL AND COPY It ought to be of great interest and profit to compare an original creation with its later copies. Unfortunately, the cases in which both are preserved are few, and up to now only heads have been satisfactorily compared with each other. The best example that has been discussed by various scholars is the beautiful head from the south slope of the Acropolis in Athens (Figs. 22-23) and its replica in Berlin (Figs. 24-25).' Another is the “Eubouleus,” identified by Evelyn Harrison as Alexander the Great while crown prince. The original is in Eleusis. Copies were found in Eleusis itself, in Athens, and in Italy.2 A third case is the portrait of the youthful Alexander on the Acropolis, copies of which are in Erbach and Berlin (from Madytos)/ The fourth case is represented by two herms in Copenhagen and their many copies in Italy, discussed in masterly fashion by Ludwig Curtius. ' In all four cases, the outlines of the features and the arrangement of the hair and the beard are rather faithfully copied. Yet much of the beauty of the originals is missing. The copies often lack the subtlety and delicacy of the transitions which characterize the original creations. The original and copies are preserved of the statue of the Kritios Boy, from the Acropolis (Figs. 28-29). One copy exists in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme/’ Another, formerly in the possession of W. Amelung, was taken to Germany in 1944 (Figs. 30-32). Both are excellent copies, although the artist has reversed the attitude of the body; that is, in the bodies of the copies the right flank and buttock are higher than the left and the left leg is advanced instead of the right, as in the original Kritios Boy. It also seems that in the copies, the right arm reached forward instead of hanging down at the side. The Terme copy is supported by a big strut. The copyist of the Amelung replica added a heavy trunk behind the right leg. Both replaced the small strut on the left thigh of the Kritios Boy with a large square one. Instead of using the subtle dividing lines that the sculptor of the Acropolis statue incorporated, the copyists used sharply incised lines, particularly between the buttocks, where the groove ends in a point at the top. Perhaps the copyist had as his model not the Kritios Boy, but a similar contemporary statue. The original statue of the youthful Hermes on the Acropolis (Fig. 26) is only partially preserved. There are copies of the work in Florence and in the Hermitage as well as from the provinces/' A good example is the complete bronze Mercury found inside a lararium in Montorio 27

ORIGINAL A N D COPY near Verona, now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna (Fig. 27). It belongs to the second century a .d . Little figures of a goat, a turtle, a lizard, and Eros riding a ram have been added. An inferior copy of the relief of armed dancers in the Acropolis Museum, dated to the second half of the fourth century b .c . is in the Vatican.7 In these tw o cases, as w ith the Kritios Boy, the copyists have made the lines and forms harsher, less subtle, and less natural. The corner figures of the w est pedim ent of the tem ple of Zeus at Olym pia are copies made to replace damaged originals.8 Thus, w e can compare them w ith the other early Classical statues of both pedim ents w hich are only related, but not identical. H ow ever, w e possess both originals and copies for the lion heads from the tem ple roof, the originals of w hich were partly dam aged by the same earthquake. If w e compare the originals with the replacem ents, w e can see clearly how the artisan changed the hairs of the mane. On the original heads, strands of hair hang down naturally from the corner b etw een the mane and the ears. On the copies these strands begin unnaturally at the ears and have been turned down and forward. In the latest replacem ents the lion’s locks have becom e coarse ornamental curved lines around the ears. However, the best examples for comparison of original and copy, in my opinion, are the following six sets of draped figures:

1. THE SUPPLIANT BARBERINI This statue, called “one of the most beautiful works in R om e,” by Lippold, was sold by Mussolini to the Louvre (Figs. 33-34) where it now is the central piece in the room containing originals from Olym pia and the Parthenon.” Copies of lesser quality are in the Vatican (Fig. 35)'° and in the Hermitage." The originality of the Barberini statue has always been recognized, particularly w ith regard to the head. But a study of the drapery contributes much to strengthen the conviction that w e have here, indeed, a precious original of the period of Phidias. The Greek artists of the fifth century clearly perceived the integral relationship of all parts of the com posi­ tion, particularly the drapeiy. The clothing is not merely a realistic copy of that worn in daily life. It is a delicate, and yet strong, artistic imitation, or rather the creation, of a chiton and mantle, organically conceived and interrelated on all sides. The folds are rich and yet unified, just as they are on the Parthenon sculptures. The selvages (that is, the edges of the cloth where the horizontal threads turn and are w oven so that the cloth cannot unravel, often drawn in lightly) are carefully rendered on the Barberini statue, as they are on the Parthenon figures, on other original works, and on very good copies. The selvage of the Barberini statue is best seen where the m antle falls at the left thigh. Especially w ell rendered are the folds which fall naturally to the ground, w ith tw o corners lying in front and one at the side behind the left hand (see detail, Fig. 34). The delicate material of the chiton and the heavier material of the him ation are treated differently and w ith great subtlety. The pouch, the curved portion, and the edges of the material are clearly and distinctly indicated. For example, where the chiton is bunched at the armpit below the left shoulder, the curving, gathering, and swelling of the folds is correctly rendered. T he back is treated more simply than the front, w ith all superfluous details om itted, just as on the pedim ent figures of the Parthenon. W hen w e turn to the copies, w e do not find the selvage. W e can see the ends of the m antle on 28

ORIGINAL AND COPY the ground, but they are flattened and lack subtlety. The materials of the undergarment and the dress over it are hardly distinguishable. The chiton below the shoulder looks as if it has an edge which runs into the sleeve. The sleeves of the original Barberini statue have five fastenings on the right, six on the left sleeve. The copyist of the Vatican replica increased the number on the right to eight, a large number, rarely used. The back is quite flat. The copy in the Vatican is the work of an artisan who had no knowledge of the organic forms of Greek dress.

2. THE ELEUSINIAN RELIEF This unusually large relief, probably used originally to decorate the Telesterion built by Iktinos for Pericles and now in Athens (Fig. 36), has been compared thoroughly by Gisela Richter with the copy found in Rome and now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Fig. 37).12 She has used a cast of the original relief to complete the Roman fragments, and it is indeed encouraging to see how well the cast of the original and Roman fragments fit together, matching almost line for line and area for area. Yet even here, the inferiority of the copyist is clearly seen in the details, particularly of the dress. His inorganic conception of the Greek dress betrays itself in three places. Below the pouch, the peplos of Demeter shows two harsh curved lines, while the original has natural cavities. The left sleeve of Persephone is drawn in the copy with vertical folds, while the original has curved lines following the form of the arm. The two vertical edges of the mantle of Persephone meet under her left arm, while the sculptor of the original rightly and clearly separated them. There are small fragments of terracotta copies of figures from the Eleusinian relief in the storerooms of the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, the largest of which is a replica of both lower legs; another is of the feet of Demeter, and there are two copies of the right foot of Triptolemos.11 These appear to be real copies: a cast apparently was taken and then filled with clay and baked to terracotta. During this process the replica shrank, and therefore the dimensions are somewhat smaller than those of the original.11These mechanical copies are of great importance, since they explain the fact why sometimes the copies are absolutely identical. (For another example, see the raving Maenads, Chapter IX, Figs. 495-507.) The two copies of the feet and legs of Triptolemos are, however, not quite identical, the legs probably having been taken from the mold when it had already been used several times and was worn. Therefore, the folds of the mantle hanging behind the back, although identical, clearly have been redrawn.

3. THE KORAE FROM THE ERECHTHEION The Kore now in the British Museum (Fig. 38) originally stood next to the corner figure (Figs. 39-40), in the front row of the south porch of the Erechtheion.15 The best-known copy is in the Vatican (Figs. 41-42), while another is in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek.10 The two Korae in the center of the front row have been copied several times, as we know from the fragments from the Forum of Augustus and in the four examples from the Villa of Hadrian at Tivoli (Figs. 43-46).17 The six figures on the Erechtheion porch form a kind of baldachin over the Mycenean tomb of

ORIGINAL AND COPY the hero Kekrops, which can be reached from the porch by a staircase.Is They carry the capitals like sacred baskets on their heads, which are broadened and reinforced by their heavy braids. The strands of the hair continue like dowels down their backs. The very wide peplos has a long, drawn-out overfold, which adds to the impression of the elasticity of these caryatids. A long mantle is attached to the shoulders and hangs down the back, with an overfold which is about one-third of the length of the whole mantle. Its edge is drawn forward with one hand. This mantle has been misunderstood by ancient copyists and modern archeologists alike. The author of the description of the British Museum statue in the catalog confuses this overfold of the mantle with the overfold of the peplos. The same was done in the Munich catalog in the description of the Eirene of Kephisodotos, whose type and dress were probably derived from these Korae.19 The same error was made by the copyist of the Vatican statue (Figs. 41-42). He continued the upper part of the mantle in the back without interruption onto the left side and into the overfold of the peplos in front, while he separated the lower part of the mantle from the peplos only by a deep groove. In general, the same heavy folds are continued all around, while in the original the mantle is clearly distinguished from the peplos below it. The copyist also made a mistake at the right side. Because he did not realize that the mantle was to be differentiated from the overfold of the peplos, he gave it a horizontal step where the overfold might have been. But this step should have been made further in front for the real overfold. It is clear that the copyist lacked understanding of the organic arrangement of the drapery (cf. Chapter IX, on the merging of the peplos and the shoulder-back mantle). The two groups of dated copies of the Erechtheion Korae, the Augustan and the Hadrianic, have been recently identified as having been made from earlier copies of the two central Korae on the Erechtheion porch. The fragments scattered in the Forum of Augustus probably stood as decorations on the attic of the colonnade in the Forum. They were carved by an Italian artist named Gaius Vibius Rufus and are in a style similar to the heads and hair on the Ara Pacis. (This proves that the belief that all copyists were Greeks must be revised.) The four Hadrianic examples made for the villa of the emperor (Figs. 43-46) are decorative copies also, but they were carved in a different style than the Augustan ones. They have a smooth surface, and the folds were cut straighter and more parallel to each other than they were in the originals. They are drilled without subtlety. Like the two center figures of the front row of the Korae on the Erechtheion, they formed the center of the row of statues along the west side of the canopus of the villa, where they were flanked by Silenus. They apparently were executed between 130 and 138 a . d . by different artisans, for they differ from each other in their measurements, particularly of the eyes. They are of Pentelic marble and may have been worked in Athens. It is remarkable that most copies are based on the two central figures of the Erechtheion porch, and are repeated several times.

4. THE NIKE BALUSTRADE This balustrade, originally erected around the temple of Athena Nike on the southwest bastion of the Acropolis is the finest representative of the late fifth-century style.20 Although the lovely Victories in their diaphanous dresses have been called manneristic, they do not represent 30

ORIGINAL AND COPY mannerism in the sense that the style of execution has become exaggerated and untrue. The thin and loosely woven chitons follow in a subtle way and in delicate waves the forms of the breast and the upper arms. On the celebrated “Sandal Binder” (Fig. 47), thin curved folds of the himation connect the two legs which are raised to different heights. The drapery of the dresses can actually be imitated on a live model if a thin tricot silk is used (Fig. 49). Here also, the body and the limbs show through the cloth. There is no motif on the original balustrade which is untrue to the plastic and artistic reality and the stylistic ideal of that time. The copies which we have are not as exact as those of the first three examples discussed. The meaning of the original is changed because the copyists have all dropped the wings of the Nikes. The girl on the Munich relief (Fig. 51)21 clearly is modeled on the “Sandal Binder” (who, in reality, takes off her sandal to enter the sanctuary with bare feet). But how the figure is corrupted! The right foot is not lifted to the hand, as in the original, but is hovering in the air, lifting a headband (taenia). Thus, the right hand, holding a sandal strap on the original, hangs empty in the air. The fine curves of the folds have become exaggerated. Rather than the beautiful, light curves of her mantle beside the left leg of the original, the copyist has used stiff straight folds. He also does not differentiate the buttoning of the sleeves as much. On the original the right sleeve, insofar as it is visible, has three buttons, the left four. The copyist shows only one button on the right arm. He also lets the dress slip down from the right shoulder, which was covered in the original. There are copies based on the balustrade relief which depict two Victories leading a bull (Fig. 48). Fluttering pieces of baroque drapery take the place of the Victories’ wings. These copies are found in the Vatican, in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme (Fig. 50), and in the Uffìzi (Fig. 52).22 On the original, the figure on the left, next to the bull bends forward toward the animal, while in the copy she vigorously leans away from it. The animal strains forward and downward in the copy, instead of rearing upward like in the original. On the copies, the woman’s mantle flutters behind her in a large arch, as we also can see on the Ara Pacis and other Roman monuments. The lower folds of the chiton which spread out in a fanlike fashion are executed according to Hellenistic-Roman taste. In the original the folds of the chiton and mantle are clearly distin­ guished; there is no such differentiation on the copies. The folds of the mantle drawn over the upper part of the advancing right leg are treated in the original with a subtle differentiation, while in the copy they are treated exactly like the folds of the chiton over the lower part of the same leg. While the chiton on the original has fine curves and zigzag folds, the chiton on the copy has the same long, pointed, and drawn-out folds as the mantle. The copyist did not understand that he ought to have separated chiton and mantle between the first and second folds above the knees. The woman on the right, at the head of the bull, is changed still more in the copies. She wears only a peplos, instead of a chiton in the peplos form and mantle in the original. The rear part of the overfold flutters behind, where the original had wings which formed a curve like a mantle. The copyist cannot have been trying to represent a small mantle in the back, for he has connected this part of the peplos with the front part of the overfold below the right arm. The two parts of the peplos on the copies touch in the bent part of the folds, just as they do in some copies of the Praxitelean “Dresden” Artemis (see below, Chapter VIII, Figs. 332-352). The advancing left leg is also inspired by the figure from the balustrade.23 But according to Roman taste, the right leg on the Uffìzi copy is exposed almost to the hip (see below, Chapter XI, Fig. 209, for a description of

ORIGINAL AND COPY this in the Victories on triumphal arches). The heavy peplos billow s over the back of the left foot, as does, more understandably, the light chiton on the original. In addition, many of the rich and charming motifs of the original have been simplified. A broad fillet of light material hangs over the left arm; in the original, the mantle has many flowing folds. Thus, here again w e see that the Greek master of the fifth century followed the laws of nature, but the copyists showed a com plete lack of understanding of the organic forms of Greek drapery.

5. THE FLEEING NIOBID This work, found in the Villa of Hadrian and displayed in the Museo Chiaramonti and then in the Belvedere of the Vatican (Fig. 53),24 is generally considered to be an original. But its date, as w ell as its relation to the fleeing daughter of Niobe in the group in Florence (Figs. 55-57), has been w idely disputed by various scholars.251 believe that Amelung and Rodenwaldt have com e closest to the truth in their assertion that the Vatican statue is an independent H ellenistic reworking of an earlier statue (represented by the Florentine copy) and was made in the Pergamene (Amelung) or baroque (Rodenwaldt) style of the second century b . c . The date given by Lippold (the first century b . c .) is also still possible, since that century was by no means merely a period of copying. The works of the painter Timomachos and the wall paintings of the Villas Item and Boseoreale2'1 attest to a vital and creative spirit at that time. H owever, I cannot follow Curtius, w ho dated the Vatican statue to the Claudian period, comparing it to the statues from Velleji.27 W hile these Velleji statues have carefully rendered, lineated draperies, the Vatican N iobid shows very plastic and dramatic treatment, with more interest in the drapery than in the body under the dress. This is decidedly H ellenistic in style, or more accurately, Asiatic-Hellenistic. Yet Curtius brought the problem of its relationship to the Florentine copy nearer to a solution by comparing the draperies and illustrating his research with detailed photographs of the Vatican statue. The similarities and differences of the front were thoroughly investigated. The different forms of the sleeves and of the curve of the belt, and the use of a cord to separate the sleeves from the dress have been discussed. However, w e must look at the backs of the tw o statues in order to understand the major differences not only in the dress, but also in the overall conception (Figs. 54, 57).2>i There hardly seems to be any similarity betw een them. The Vatican Niobid was carved with large surfaces and few folds, w hile the Florentine Niobid was carved with an abundance of small, superficially engraved folds. The mantle is draped quite differently on the tw o statues. On the Vatican statue, the tw o corners, w hich in a normal draping w ould hang down at the left hip, are distinctly separated from each other. The front part of the mantle is turned over and floats around the body in such a way that the corner appears in the back behind the right leg, w hile the rear part can be seen close behind the left hip with the corner hanging down below the left elbow. On the Florentine statue, the rear part is thrown directly backward over the left shoulder, w hile the front part flutters beside and behind the right hip. The lower edge of the mantle in the Vatican Niobid is rendered so that its right half lies in beautiful, plastic windings over the right hip w hile the left half describes only flat wavy lines. On the Florentine Niobid, in contrast, the lower edge is all at the right hip, where w e can see both corners w ith the tassels or little w eights, one at the height of the hip, the other further down behind the middle of the right thigh; betw een them the lower

ORIGINAL AND COPY edge lies in deep intricate curves. The result is beautiful, sweeping curved lines in the back of the Vatican Niobid while the Florentine Niobid has only straight slanting folds which run from the left arm down to the right side. With these observations of the back and sides, we can return to the front, where it becomes evident that here also there are more differences between the two figures. Curtius already remarked that the fluttering mantle of the Vatican Niobid has three large folds of equal size, while the Florentine has only two large folds at the edges.2" This is because the lower part of the mantle on the Vatican statue is more complex and is rolled together, flying behind more vigorously than on the Florentine statue. It is interesting to compare the painting of Myrrha in the Vatican library (Fig. 58)30 with these fleeing Niobids. Here, the lower edge of the mantle, which flies behind, is turned up only a little; on the Florentine Niobid it is turned up more and on the Vatican Niobid it is turned down more. The Myrrha painting shows the girl running. The folds of the lower part of her dress show this clearly, in that they all run down to the garment’s lower edge and flutter backward. The two Niobids, in contrast, seem to have just stopped running, since the lower edges end with vertical folds on the ground and curve in the opposite direction. In summary, the figure of the Vatican Niobid was not copied for the Florentine statue. Both probably were copied from a lost original of around 300 b . c . The Vatican one is a free Hellenistic adaptation of the motif. It is a self-sufficient closed figure, as the profiled base made for the statue testifies. The Florentine one is an actual copy of the original, but certainly of lesser quality. The copyist seems to have belonged to the late Hellenistic, Roman Republican, or even early imperial period. He was not an artist, but an artisan or stonecutter who tried to be exact, but in my estimation, seems rather second-rate. The copies of the Niobid group are certainly not all similar to the original. This is shown by the fact that three copies of the kneeling Niobid (those in the Palazzo dei Conservatori, the Capi­ toline Museum, and the Uffizi Gallery) have a mantle different from each other, while a fourth (also in the Uffizi) does not have any mantle." The chlamys of another son of Niobe in Florence (Fig. 59), who strides forward as he tries to protect his dying sister (also seen in the fragment in the Vatican (Fig. 60), shows a typical mistake of copyists: In both cases, the side of the chlamys, indicated by the upper and lower corner, is much too short; the Greek chlamys had a much longer edge. Only a few zigzags connect the two corners with each other.32 Either the copyist did not understand the motif or he changed the original purposely. The Hellenistic master of the Vatican Niobid, in contrast, developed the earlier motifs according to the best style of his time.

6. THE ATHENA PIRAEUS A fine original bronze statue (Fig. 61), found in the Piraeus, has been recognized as an original of Kephisodotos, mentioned by Pliny (IIN, XXXIV, 74) as Minervam mirabilem in portu Atheniensium. (“The wondrous Minerva in the port of the Athenians”.) Pausanias (I, 1, 3) also praised this statue as one of the most important works in the Piraeus. The diagonal arrangement of the overfold of the peplos and of the aegis which hangs down from the right shoulder, as well as 33

ORIGINAL AND COPY the overall fine execution, cause us to date it to the period 3 50-340 b.c . The best copy in marble is in the Louvre, but it is a rather harsh work from the time of the Antonines.31 To these six examples of draped figures copied from works of the Greek period might be added those modeled on works created originally for the Romans, such as their cult statues and their portraits. In this group I include both the Jupiter Capitolinus of Apollonios created for Rome and used in copies in the Roman provinces, and the relief in Carthage, copying the Ara Pacis.34 One may also consider the copies made of the reclining Nile statue in the Vatican (Fig. 62),35 certainly made as an original for Rome in Alexandria, perhaps at the tim e of Augustus when Egypt became a Roman province. It was set up in the garden of the tem ple of Isis. Later a statue of the Tiber was added, now in the Louvre (Fig. 69).3tt W hile these two are in w hite marble, a copy carved in basalt, also showing the Nile with 16 children (representing the yards which the Nile rose during its inundation), was set up by Vespasian in the Forum Pacis (Pliny, HN, XXXVI, 58). This material was used for the copy in the Palazzo Doria-Pamphili (Fig. 63), too, w hile a dark grey marble was used for a replica in the Egyptian Museum of the Vatican (Fig. 64). Another copy in w hite marble is on the staircase of the Vatican (Fig. 66).37 Another replica of the Nile surrounded by small children is in the Louvre (Fig. 67) ;Mthe base has also been copied, but how poorly when compared to the original Vatican group! The base of the Nile in the Vatican (Fig. 62) has only water along the front; on the right side of the base, near the head, there are tw o bulls and a crocodile opposite an ichneumon; on the left side, near the feet, three hippopotami are placed opposite crocodiles and one crocodile faces a bird. Along the back, there are shown a single hippopotamus biting into the tail of the crocodile on the left side (Fig. 71), two boats of pygmies, one attacked by a hippopotamus, the other by a crocodile (Fig. 72), and one crocodile who attacks a bird (Fig. 72), then two hippopotami who attack crocodiles, and betw een these tw o groups another bird (Fig. 73). Everywhere are finely designed rushes. In the Louvre copy (Fig. 67), we have on the left side of the front only one crocodile, one hippopotamus on the right, one small animal, perhaps an ichneumon, in the center, along with tw o birds and five coarsely designed plants. Yet the choice of the animals leaves no doubt that this small group is based upon the large Vatican group. The copyist did not have the artistic feeling for balance possessed by the Augustan artist. This copyist probably worked in the Severan period, on the basis of the schem atic and dull technique. Another adaptation exists in the small Nile of w hite marble, in the Egyptian Museum of the Vatican (Fig. 65).39 There are seven cavorting children and one crocodile with this Nile, who is leaning on the sphinx and holding a cornucopia in his arm. Along the front of the narrow base, some water is indicated, while real water came out of a tube below the sphinx. Many other river gods were m odeled on the Vatican statue. Thus, the celebrated river god “Martorio” in the courtyard of the Capitoline Museum (Fig. 68), the statues of the Nile and the Tiber in the Louvre (Figs. 67, 69), and the one in Ostia used as a fountain figure (Fig. 70)'° are certainly adaptations of the Graeco-Roman statue of the Nile. Another replica of the reclining Nile, together with one of the Tiber (characterized by the she-wolf nourishing Romulus and Remus), was found in the Villa of Hadrian.41 It is interesting to note that the style of the copies is that of their time, not merely the style of the originals. It makes no difference whether these originals were Greek or Roman. The only significant difference is the change of meaning, which is more often changed in copies from a Roman original, as has been seen with the Nile statue and its various adaptations and copies.

ORIGINAL AND COPY

Footnotes to Chapter 4

1. For the head of a goddess or Ariadne in Athens (our Figs. 22-23), see S. Karouzou, National Archaeological Museum. Collection of Sculpture. A Catalogue (Athens 1968), pp. 165-166, No. 182, pi. 53; S. Papaspyridi, Guide du Musée nationale dAthènes (Athens 1927), pp. 51-52, No. 182, fig. 5; V. Stai's, Marbres et Bronzes du Musée National I (2nd ed. Athens 1910), pp. 33-35, No. and fig. 182; H. Brunn and F. Bruekmann, Denkmäler griechischer und römischer Sculptur (Munich 1888-1900), No. 174; G.M.A. Richter, Sculpture and Sculptors4, p. 139, fig. 547. For the copy in Berlin (our Figs. 24-25), see C. Blümel, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.Katalog der Sammlung antiken Skulpturen, V (Römische Kopien griechischer Skulpturen des 4 Jahrh. (Berlin 1938), pp. 32-33, K251, pls. 71-72; R. Kekulé, Königliche Museen zu Berlin.Beschreibung der antiken Skulpturen (Berlin 1891), pp. 237-238, No. 610; G.M.A. Richter, op.cit., p. 139, fig. 548. 2. E.B. Harrison, “New Sculpture from the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 29 (1960), pp. 383-389, pi. 85, figs, c-d (an unfinished copy of the “Eubouleus” found in the Athenian agora), and especially note 57a for a list of the other replicas. G.M.A. Richter, op.cit., p. 203, hesitates to accept Harrison’s identification of Alexander, while M. Bieber does accept it in Alexander the Great in Greek and Roman Art, p. 26. For an early consideration of original and copy in this instance, see G. Lippold, Kopien, pp. 116-117. For the “Eubouleus,” probably the original which was found in Eleusis and is now in Athens, see S. Karouzou, op.cit., pp. 168-169, No. 181, pi. 59; S. Papaspyridi, op.cit., pp. 50-51, No. 181; V. Stai's, Ath.Marb.et Bronzes, pp. 32-33, No. and fig. 181; G.M.A. Richter, op.cit., p. 203, fig. 551; M. Bieber, op.cit., p. 26, pi. IV, fig. 9; G.E. Rizzo, Prassitele (Rome 1932), pp. 103-108, pi. CLVI; E.B. Harrison, op.cit., p. 382, note 57a, No. 1. For a copy from Eleusis also in Athens, see S. Karouzou, op.cit., p. 169, No. 1839; E.B, Harrison, op.cit, p. 382, note 57a, No. 2. For a copy found in Athens, see S. Karouzou, op.cit., p. 169, No. 2650; E.B. Harrison, op.cit., p. 383, note 57a, No. 5. For a restored copy in Rome, see G.E. Rizzo, op.cit., pp. 103-108, pis. CLVII-CLVIII. 3. For the head of Alexander in Athens, see J.J. Bernoulli, Die erhaltenen Darstellungen Alexanders des Grossen (Munich 1905), p. 40, pi. Ill; A. Hekler, Bildniskunst, p. XVIII, pi. 63; M. Bieber, op.cit., p. 25, pi. Ill, fig. 5. For the copy in Erbach Castle, see J.J. Bernoulli, op.cit., pp. 39-40, pi. II; M. Bieber, op.cit., p. 25. For the copy from Madytos in Berlin, see C. Blümel, Berlin,Kat.V.Röm.Kopien, p. 7, K203, pi. 17; J.J. Bernoulli, op.cit., pp. 40-41, fig. 9; M. Bieber, op.cit., p. 25. 4. L. Curtius, “Zeus und Hermes,” RömMitt, Ergänzungsheft I (1931), pp. 1-78, figs. 1-34, pis. 1-22; F. Poulsen, Catalogue o f Ancient Sculpture in the Nij Carlsberg Glijptotek (Copenhagen 1951), pp. 183-184, No. 241 (Inv. 445), pp. 359-360, No. 514 (Inv. 447); Ny Carlsberg Glypototek. Billedtavler til Kataloget over Antike Kunstvaerker (Copenhagen 1907), pi. XVII, fig. 241, pi. XXXIX, fig. 514. 5. For the Kritios Boy in Athens (our Figs. 28-29), see G. Dickens, Catalogue o f the Acropolis Museum I (Cambridge 1912), pp. 264-266, No. 698; W.H. Schuchhardt, in H. Schrader, Die archaischen Marmorbild­ werke von der Akropolis (Frankfurt 1939), pp. 191-195, No. 299, pls. 120-123; H. Payne and G.M. Young, Archaic Marble Sculpture from the Acropolis (2nd ed. London 1950), pp. 44-45, pls. 109-112; R. Lullies and M. Hirmer, Griechische Plastik von den Anfängen bis zum Ausgang des Hellenismus (Munich 1956), p. 50, pls. 85-87; G.M.A. Richter, KouroP, p. 149, No. 190, figs. 564-569; eadem. Sculpture and Sculptors', pp. 32,156, fig. 34; J. Boardman, J. Dörig, W. Fuchs, and M. Hirmer, Die griechische Kunst (Munich 1966), p. 129, pi. 162; B.S. Ridgway, The Severe Style in Greek Sculpture (Princeton 1970), pp. 31-33, 42, figs. 41, 43-44; W. Amelung, “Schraders Answahl archaischer Marmor-Skulpturen im Akropolis Museum,” NJbb 35 (1915), pp. 88-89, figs. 1-2. For the copy in Rome, see Helbig-Speier, Führer', III, pp. 129-130, No. 2212 (Inv. 652); S. Aurigemma, Le Terme di Diocleziano e il Museo Nazionale Romano (5th ed. Rome 1963), No. 448; E. Paribeni, Museo Nazionale Romano.Sculture Greche del V Secolo Originale e Repliche (Rome 1953), p. 17, No. and fig. 10. 6. On original and copies of the Hermes, see M. Bieber, “Drei attische Statuen des V. Jahrhunderts,” (part III,

35

ORIGINAL AND COPY

7.

8.

9.

10. 11. 12.

13.

14. 15.

16.

“Sitzender Hermes als Brunnenfigur”), AthM itt37 (1912), pp. 174-179. For the original in Athens (our Fig. 26), see S. Casson, Cat.Acrop.Mus.il (Cambridge 1921), pp. 250-252, No. 1346; M. Bieber, op.cit., pi. XIII. For the copy in the Palazzo Corsini in Florence, see P. Arndt and W. Amelung, Photographische Einzelaufnahmen antiker Skulpturen (Munich 1893-1947), No. 318; S. Reinach, Répertoire de la statuaire grecque et romaine, II, 1 (2nd ed., Paris 1908), p. 169, fig. 4. For the copy in Leningrad, see M. Bieber, op.cit, p. 174, fig. 4; S. Reinach, Rép.stat., Ill (Paris 1904), p. 52, fig. 1. For the relief in Athens, see O. Walter, Beschreibung der Reliefs im kleinen Akropolismuseum in Athen (Vienna 1923), pp. 198-199, Nos. 402, 402a; W. Fuchs, Vorbilder, p. 41, No. Ilia. For the copy in Rome, see Helbig-Speier, Führer1, 1, pp. 47-48, No. 58 (Inv. 321); G. Lippold, Die Skulpturen des Vaticanischen Museums, III, 1 (Berlin and Leipzig 1936), pp. 4-7, Sala delle Muse No. 489, pi. 28; W. Hauser, Die neu-attischen Reliefs (Stuttgart 1889), pp. 22-24, No. 30; W. Fuchs, op.cit., p. 41, No. M b; F. Weege, Der Tanz in der Antike, p. 51, fig. 57; H. Bulle, Der schöne Mensch im Altertum (Munich and Leipzig 1912), fig. 9. G. Treu in F. Adler, et.al, Die Baudenkmäler von Olympia (Olympia II) (Berlin 1892), pp. 22-27, pls. XVI-XVII. Here B. Graef, p. 26, remarks that “these locks on the temples have almost crystallized to independent decorations.” Also, F. Willemsen, “Die Löwenköpf-Wasserspeier vom Dach des Zeustempels,” Olympische Forschungen 4 (Berlin 1959). J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, p. 21, No. and fig. 3433; ]. Boardman, et.al, Griech.Kunst, p. 148, pl. 201; Helbig-Amelung, Führer', II (Leipzig 1913), pp. 393-395, No. 1820 (when the statue was in the Palazzo Barberini); G. Lippold, Kopien, pp. 118-119; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, No. 415; M. Collignon, Les statues funéraires dans l ’Art grec (Paris 1911), pp. 124-125, fig. 66; E. Michon, “La Suppliante Barberini au Musée du Louvre,” MonPiot 35 (1935/36), pp. 93-124, figs. 2-7, pi. VI; J. Dörig, “Kalamis-Studien," Jdl 80(1965), pp. 143-166, figs. 1-7 (believes statue to be a copy of the Alkmene by Kalamis). This view is repeated in Griech.Kunst mentioned above. The stature is of Pentelic marble, thus an Attic work. Helbig-Speier, Führer*, I, pp. 99-100, No. 133 (Inv. 582); W. Amelung, Die Sculpturen des Vaticanischen Museums II (Berlin 1908), pp. 584-588, Galleria delle Statue No. 393, pl. 57; E. Michon, op.cit., fig. 9. O. Waldhauer, Die antiken Skulpturen der Ermitage III (Berlin and Leipzig 1936), p. 28, pi. 20. The statue is of Carrara marble, thus made in Italy. For the Eleusinian relief in Athens (our Fig. 36), see S. Karouzou, Nat.Arch.Mus.,Sculpt., p. 38, No. 126, pl. 20; S. Papaspyridi, Guide Mus.Ath., p. 32, No. 126; V. Stai's, Ath.Marb.et Bronzes, pp. 27-29, No. and fig. 126; Lullies-Hirmer, Griech.Plastik, p. 60, pis. 170-171; G.M.A. Richter, Sculpture and Sculptors', pp. 85, 139, 176, fig. 520. For the copy in New York City (our Fig. 37) see G.M.A. Richter, Cat.Gk.Sculpt.Met.Mus., pp. 27-28, No. 34 (Acc. No. 14.130.9), pl. XXXIIa; eadem. Handbook Gk.Coll.,Met.Mus., pp. 136-137, 276, pl. 116a; eadem, “A Roman Copy of the Eleusinian Relief,” ArchEph (1937), pp. 20-26, figs. 1-3, pis. 1-4. T. Dohrn, in Attische Plastik vom Tode des Phidias bis zum Wirken der grossen Meister des IV. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Krefeld 1957), pp. 40-48, dates the original to the late fifth century b .c ., perhaps a votive of Alcibiades, and ascribes the copy to some Roman emperor who was initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries. G.M.A. Richter, “A Newly-Acquired Relief in the Metropolitan Museum of Art,” AJA 40 (1936), pp. 11-20, fig. 10 (She identified the feet of Triptolemos, Inv. 4371, as those of Dionysos of which copies have been found together with the copy of the Eleusinian relief). The new fragments were published by E. Paribeni, “Ancora delle Menadi di Kallimachos,” BdA 37 (1952), pp. 97-101, fig. 5; T. Dohrn, op.cit., p. 48. For this process, see E. Jastrow, “Abformung und Typenwandel der antiken Tonplastik" (Acta Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae, V) OpusArch 2 (1938), pp. 1-28. A.H. Smith, A Catalogue o f Sculpture in the Department o f Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, voi. I (London 1892), pp. 233-235, No. 407, fig. 19; L. Caskey and J.M. Platon, The Erechtheum (Cambridge Mass. 1927), pp. 232-233, fig. 145, pi. XXXVIII, 3-4; cf. pi. XXVIII; II. Lauter, Chronologie, pp. 8-9, and for the copies, pp. 9-43; G.M.A. Richter, Sculpture and Sculptors', pp. 67, 71, fig. 541; J. Boardman, et.al, Griech.Kunst, p. 160, pl. 219. For the Vatican copy (our Figs. 41-42), see Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, p. 312, No. 407 (Inv. 2296); W. Amelung, Sculpt. Vat.Mus., I (Berlin 1903), pp. 9-11, Braccio Nuovo No. 5, pi. II; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pis. 176-177; H. Lauter, op.cit., pp. 36-37, No. lie; G.M.A. Richter, op.cit., p. 138, fig. 542. For the copy in Copenhagen, see F.

ORIGINAL AND COPY

17.

18. 19. 20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

Poulsen, Cat.Ny Carlsberg, pp. 212-213, No. 286 (Inv. 1291); Billedtavler, pi. XX, fig. 286; H. Laiiter, op.cit., p. 36, No. la. For the fragments from the Forum of Augustus, see H. Lauter, op.cit,, pp. 9-19. For the copies from the Villa of Hadrian (our Figs. 43-46), see H. Lauter, op.cit., pp. 20-36; S. Aurigemma, Villa Adriana, pp. 102, 109, 113-117, figs. 95-99, 103-106, pis. VI-VII. For copies of the third Kore in the front row in Leuchtenberg, Florence, and Copenhagen, see H. Lauter, op.cit., pp. 36-37, Nos. Ib, lid, Ile; F. Poulsen, op.cit., pp. 220-221, No. 301 (Inv. 1942); Billedtavler, pi. XXI, fig. 301 (the Copenhagen copy of the third Kore). Caskey-Platon, op.cit., supra note 15, p. 132. For excellent photographs of the south porch and the Erechtheion, see J. Boardman, et.al, Griech.Kunst, p. 50, figs. 85-86, pis. 22-23, 25. A. Furtwängler, Beschreibung der Glyptothek König Ludwig’s I zu München (2nd ed. by P. Wolters) (Berlin 1910), pp. 216-220, No. 219. R. Kekule von Stradonitz, Die Balustrade des Tempels der Athena-Nike in Athen (Leipzig 1869); idem, Die Reliefs an der Balustrade der Athena Nike (Stuttgart 1881); R. Carpenter, The Sculpture o f the Nike Temple Parapet (Cambridge Mass. 1929). For the “sandal binder” (our Fig. 47), see R. Carpenter, op.cit., pp. 62-63, No. 12, pi. XXVII; Lullies-Hirmer, Griech.Plastik, pp. 65-66, pi. 189; W. Fuchs, Vorbilder, pp. 7-10, No. la; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age1, p. 183, fig. 797; J. Boardman, et.al., Griech.Kunst, pp. 160, 172, pi. 221; G.M.A. Richter, Sculpture and Sculptors', p. 67, fig. 543. For the two Nikes leading a bull to sacrifice (or a Nike restraining a bull and a Nike fleeing toward the right) (our Fig. 48), see G. Lippold, Gr.Plastik, p. 194, pi. 69, fig. 4; R. Carpenter, op.cit., pp. 18-19, No. 11, pi. V, pp. 22-23, No.11, pi. VII; Lullies-Hirmer, op.cit., p. 65, pis. 187-188; W. Fuchs, op.cit., pp. 12-17, No. 3a; M. Bieber, op.cit., p. 184, fig. 796; G.M.A. Richter, op.cit., pp. 67, 68, fig. 545. Furtwängler-Wolters, Glypt.München1, pp. 273-276, No. 264; R. Kekulé, Reliefs an der Balustrade, p. 9; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 342; F. Hauser, Neu-att.Reliefs, p. 70, No. 99; W. Fuchs, Vorbilder, pp. 7-10, pi. la; G.M.A. Richter, Sculpture and Sculptors', p. 138, fig. 544. A better copy of the “sandal binder” is known through a cast in Alexandria—H. Möbius, “Zu Ilissosfries und Nike Balustrade,” AthMitt 53 (1928), pp. 6-8, Beil. Ill, 1. For the Vatican copy, see Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, p. 173, No. 227 (Inv. 1010); W. Amelung, Sculpt. Vat.Mus., II, pp. 270-272, Cortile del Belvedere No. 94, pi. 7; F. Hauser, op.cit., p. 71, No. 100b; W. Fuchs, op.cit., pp. 13-17, No. 3c; G.M.A. Richter, op.cit, p. 138, fig. 546. For the Terme copy (our Fig. 50), see E. Paribeni, Scult.Greche, p. 67, No. 122; L. Poliak, Catalogue de la Collection Woodyat (1912), No. 263, pi. XI; W. Fuchs, op.cit, pp. 13-17, No. 3d, pi. 2a; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age1, p. 184, fig. 799. This piece is probably the left half of the Vatican fragment. For the copy in Florence (our Fig. 52), see G. Mansuelli, Cataloghi dei Musei e Gallerie d ’Italia.Galleria degli Uffizi.Le Sculture Part I (Rome 1958), pp. 41-42, No. and fig. 16 (Inv. 330); W. Amelung, Führer durch die Antiken in Florenz (Munich 1897), pp. 99-101, No. 158; Br.-Br., op.cit, pi. 342b; F. Hauser, op.cit., p. 70, No. 100a; R. Carpenter, op.cit., supra note 20, p. 68, fig. 12 (printed in reverse); W. Fuchs, op.cit, pp. 12-17, No. 3b, pi. 2b; M. Bieber, op.cit., p. 184, fig. 798. Another replica, now lost, appears in J. Barbault, Recueil de divers Monuments anciens répandus en plusieurs endroits de Vltalie (Rome 1770), pl. 78 R. Heberdey, “Die Komposition der Reliefs an der Balustrade der Athena Nike,” JO AI21-22 (1922-24), p. 21, fig. 16, also pp. 41-43, pi. I r; R. Carpenter, oj).cit., pp. 66-68, pi. XXX. Carpenter considers the Florentine work a copy of fragments Nos. 16 and 3, not of the more complete balustrade figure (our Fig. 48). Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, pp. 463-464, No. 598 (Inv. 1035); W. Amelung, Sculpt.Vat.Mus., I, pp. 422-426, Museo Chiaramonti No. 176, pl. 44; idem, Führer Florenz, fig. 35; Br.-Br„ op.cit., pl. 313; H. Weber, “Zur Zeitbestimmung der Florentiner Niobiden,” Jdl 75 (1960), pp. 114-115, 129-133; S. Aurigemma, Villa Adriana, p. 193, fig. 199; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age1, pp. 76, 179, fig. 265; G.M.A. Richter, Sculpture and Sculptors', p. 138, fig. 537. G. Mansuelli, Uffizi Scult.,1, pp. 112-113, No. and fig. 72 (Inv. 300); W. Amelung, Führer Florenz, pp. 126-127, No. 184, fig. 35; M. Bieber, op.cit., pp. 76,179, figs. 264, 761, 762. Also, Sieveking-Buschor, “Niobiden,” MJb 7 (1912), pp.119-129; E. Buschor, “Die oxforder Niobe,” MJb 9 (1914), pp. 199-202; G. Lippold, Kopien, pp. 155-156; idem, “Zur florentiner Niobidengruppe,” MJb 8 (1913), pp. 246-249; G. Rodenwaldt, “Zu den Niobiden,” RömMitt 34 (1919), pp. 53-73; F. Studniczka, “Artemis und Iphigenie,” Abh.Sächs.Akad. 37 (1926),

37

ORIGINAL AND COPY

26.

27. 28.

29. 30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

pp. 85-86; L. Curtius, “Ikonographische Beiträge zum Porträt der römischen Republik und der julischclaudischen Familie,” RömMitt 47 (1932), pp, 253-256, pls. 68-70; K. Schefold, “Tochter der Niobe,” Phoebus I (1946), pp. 49-59; Ch. Picard, Manuel d ’archeologie grecque, La Sculpture, III (Paris 1948), p. 757, fig. 340; E. Gabrici, “La Niobide di Taormina,” MonAnt 41 (1951), cols. 677-698. These three believe to have found the head of the Chiaramonti Niobid, which I doubt. We need quite a different head to match the torso, with its strong contrasts of light and shade and with its expressive curves. M. Bieber, “Der Mysteriensaal der Villa Item,” Jdl 43 (1928), pp. 298-330; A. Maiuri, La Villa dei Misteri (Rome 1931), pp. 164-174; E. Simon, “Zum Fries der Mysterienvilla bei Pompeji,” Jdl 76 (1961), pp. 133-172; O.J. Brendel, “Der grosse Fries in der Villa dei Misteri,” Jdl 81 (1966), pp. 206-260. L. Curtius, op.eit., supra note 25, pp. 251-261, pis. 60-63. The back view (Fig. 54) is actually from the cast of the Vatican Niobid which is in the British Museum. This photograph was taken with the kind permission of the British Museum directors. The photograph of the back view of the Niobid in the Uffizi (Fig. 57), was taken with the kind permission of the Superintendent of Art. To obtain both photographs involved difficult turning of the statues. For the same photographs, see M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age2, figs. 761-763. L. Curtius, op.cit., supra note 25, p. 259. Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, pp. 353-355, No. 464; B. Nogara, Le Nozze Aldobrandini, i Paesaggi con Scene dell’Odissea e le altre Pitture murali antichi conservate nella Biblioteca Vaticana e nei Musei pontifici (Milan 1907), pp. 58-59, pi. XXX; idem, “La presunta Byblis di Tor Marancia,” Ausonia I (1906), pp. 51-54, pi. HA. For the copy of the kneeling Niobid in the Palazzo dei Conservatori, see Ilelbig-Speier, Führer', II, pp. 553-554, No. 1783 (Inv. 3027); B.M. Felletti-Maj, “Una Statue di Niobide rinvenuta a Monteverde,” BullComm 76 (1956-58), pp. 143-154, fig. 4, pis. I-IV; H. Weber, op.cit., supra note 24, p. 113, fig. 1. For the copy in the Capitoline Museum, see Helbig-Speier, Führer1, II, p. 90, No. 1236 (Inv. 254); H.S. Jones, A Catalogue o f the Ancient Sculptures Preserved in the Municipal Collections o f Rome.The Sculptures o f the Museo Capitolino (Oxford 1912), p. 121, No. 48, pi. 21; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age1, pp. 178-179, fig. 760. For the Uffizi copy with the mantle crossing over the right leg, see G. Mansuelli, Uffìzi Scult., I, p. 117, No. 77 (Inv. 290), fig. 78; W. Amelung, Führer Florenz, p. 123, No. 179; M. Bieber, op.cit., pp. 178-179, fig. 759. For the Uffizi copy without the mantle crossing over the right leg, see G. Mansuelli, op.cit., I, pp. 117-118, No. 78 (Inv. 289), fig. 79; W. Amelung, op.cit., pp. 122-123, No. 178; M. Bieber, op.cit., pp. 178-179, fig. 758. For the older son of Niobe in Florence (our Fig. 59) see G. Mansuelli, op.cit., pp. 114-116, No. and fig. 74 (Inv. 302); W. Amelung, op.cit., pp. 124-125, No. 182; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 315b; M. Bieber, op.cit., p. 75, figs. 253-254; Sieveking-Buschor, op.cit., supra note 25, MJb 7 (1912), p. 114, fig. 1 (for reconstruction of Niobid figures, as reproduced in Bieber, fig. 254). For the Vatican fragment (our Fig. 60) see Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, pp. 104-105, No, 139 (Inv. 567); W. Amelung, Sculpt. Vat.Mus., II, pp. 608-611, Galleria delle Statue No. 401, pi. 57; idem, Führer Florenz, fig. 34; M. Bieber, op.cit., p. 75, fig. 255. Compare the diagrams and models of the chlamys in L. Heuzey, Hist. Costume Antique, pp. 122-129, figs. 61-66, and M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, pp. 22-23, fig. 24, pis. XXXV, LV. For the Athena of Piraeus, see K. Schefold, “Die Athene des Piräus,” Antike Kunst, 14 (1971), pp. 37-41, pls. 15-16. For the copy in the Louvre, see W. Fröhner, Notice de la sculpture antique du Musée national du Louvre (4th ed. Paris 1878), p. 121. For abronze statuette copy of the Jupiter Capitolinus in New York City, see G.M.A. Richter, The Metropolitan Museum o f Art.Greek, Etruscan and Roman Bronzes (New York 1915), pp. 110-111, No. and fig. 200 (with reference to other bronze statuettes of the same type); eadem, Ancient Italy (Ann Arbor 1955), p. 61, fig. 200; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age.2, p. 180, fig. 768. For other replicas, in Rome, Naples, Syracuse, and Istanbul, see M. Bieber, op.cit., p. 180, figs. 770-778. The head of the Jupiter Capitolinus is in the type of the so-called Zeus of Otricoli in the Vatican: Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, pp. 27-28, No. 33 (Inv. 257); G. Lippold, Skulpt. Vat.Mus., Ill, 1, pp. 110-113, Sala Rotonda No. 539, pi. 36. For the relief found in Carthage and now in Paris, see J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, pp. 92-94, No. and fig. 1838 (said to represent an allegory of Egypt); E. Michon, Musée National du Louvre. Catalogue sommaire des marbres antiques (Paris 1922), pp. 92-93, no. 1838; G.M.A. Richter, Three Critical Periods in Greek Sculpture (Oxford 1907), p. 62, fig. 141; J. Charbonneaux, L ’art au

ORIGINAL AND COPY

35.

36.

37.

38. 39.

40.

4L

siede d ’auguste (Laussanne 1948); M. Bieber, op.cit, pp. 189-190, fig. on p. 192; Encijdopèdiephotographique de l ’art III (Le Musée du Louvre Grèee, Rome) (Paris 1938), pi. 255b (Here the relief is assigned to Alexandria. But it is unlikely that the fertility figure represented in the center is set in the Nile valley, where rocks like that on which this figure sits do not exist). On the Ara Pads relief, see M. Bieber, op.cit., pp. 187-189, fig. 812; G.M.A. Richter, Three Critical Periods, fig. 142, and supra Chapter II, note 27 (on the Ara Pacis itself). For the reclining Nile statue in the Vatican, see Helbig-Speier, Führer1, 1, pp. 338-339, No. 440 (Inv. 2300); W. Amelung, Sculpt.Vat.Mus., I, pp. 124-134, Braccio Nuovo No. 109, pi. 18; A. Adriani, Repertorio d ’arte dell’Egitto greco-romano, serie A, voi. II (Palermo 1961), p. 52, No. 194, pls. 89-95 (including replicas); Μ. Bieber, op.cit, pp. 100-101, figs. 407-409. J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, pp. 108-110, No. and fig. 593; E. Michon. Cat. sommaire, p. 36, No. 593, pi. XX; E. Coche de la Ferté, La sculpture grecque et romaine au Musée du Louvre (Paris 1951), p. 55, No. 593; A. Adriani, op.cit., p. 56, No. 197, pi. 94, fig. 308. For the copy of the Nile on the staircase of the Vatican (our Fig. 66), see Helbig-Speier, Führer1, 1, p. 13, No. 14 (Inv. 168); G. Lippold, Skulpt.Vat.Mus., Ill, 2, Scala No. 600, pp. 36-38, pi. 23; G. Botti and P. Romanelli, Le Sculture del Museo Gregoriano Egizio (Monumenti Vaticani di Archeologie e d’Arte, IX) (Vatican 1951), pp. 116-117, No. 186, pi. LXXX. J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, p. 110, No. 3092; E. Michon, Cat.sommaire, p. 40, No. 3092. Botti-Romanelli, op.cit., pp. 117-118, No. 187, pi. LXXIX; F.W. Freiherr von Bissing, “Eine Statuette des Nils aus Alexandrien,” Antike Plastik.Festschrift Amelung (Berlin and Leipzig 1928), pp. 25-30, fig. 1; A. Adriani, op.cit., p. 57, No. 198, pl. 94, fig. 309. The river god called “Marforio” (our Fig. 6 8 ), carved in the first century a . d ., is made of Luna marble; thus it was certainly made in Rome. See Helbig-Speier, Führer ‘, II, pp. 41-42, No. 1193; H.S. Jones, Sculpt. Mus.Capitol, pp. 21-22, Cortile No. 1, pi. I. The two river gods used by Michelangelo for the decoration of the Palazzo dei Senatori are also modeled on the Nile: see Helbig-Speier, Führer‘, II, pp. 4-6, No. 1162. For the statues of the Nile and the Tiber in the Louvre, see supra notes 38 and 36, our Figs. 67,69. The adaptation of the Tiber made in Ostia is life-size (our Fig. 70). The god is reclining on rocks; his left arm holding a cornucopia leans on an urn: see R. Calza and E. Nash, Ostia (Florence 1959), p. 9, fig. 3; L. du Jardin, “Del Simulacre tiberino di Marforio e delle Statue affini,” AttiPontAcc, Ser. Ill, Memorie III (1932/33), pp. 35-78, pis. I - VII, figs. 1-21. He lists (pp. 41-54) twenty replicas derived from the Nile in basalt set up by Vespasian in the Templum Pacis. He also lists thirty other river gods derived from the Nile (pp. 54-59) and four personifications of the Ocean (pp. 59-66). A figure of the Nile was used as a table fountain, now in Cobham Hall, Kent, England: A. Michaelis, Ancient Marbles in Great Britain (Cambridge 1882), No. 15; C. Vermeule, “Notes on a New Edition of Michaelis: Ancient Marbles in Great Britain,” A]A 59 (1955), p. 13.3, pl. 42, fig. 10. S. Aurigemma, Villa Adriana, pp. 110, 120, figs. 111-112.

39

5 ADDITION OF CLOTHING AND ATTRIBUTES W e possess a number of copies of the same type, some of w hich are nude like the originals, while others wear some clothing. The men, for the most part, are shown wearing a mantle, a chlamys, or a paludamentum, and rarely a chiton, tunic, or cuirass. The wom en in the copies often wear a chiton, or part of a chiton, and sometimes a mantle, according to Roman taste. Most of these copies represent Roman men and women and sometimes gods and goddesses in Greek types. What is the meaning of these portrait statues, and why were the underlying Greek creations changed?

1. MEN Pliny indicates why Greek types were used by the Romans for the nude male figures (HN, XXXIV, 18): Placuere et nudae tenentes hastam ah epheborum e gym nasiis exemplaribus, (pias Achilleas vocant. “Pleasing also are the nude statues holding a spear, modeled on the ephebes [young men] of the outstanding gymnasiums, which they call ‘A chilles’.” That is, the Romans were trying to represent the men as heroes. The Doryphoros of Polykleitos also was adopted for the same purpose, and many Romans were represented in the Polykleitan stance, including the Augustus of Primaporta (Figs. 9 0 -9 1 )1 who, however, is fully draped and wears a cuirass decorated with Roman symbolic representations. According to Pliny, loc.cit., Graecia res nihil velare, at contra Romana ac militaris thoraces addere, “Greek sculpture covered nothing, but as a contrast Roman sculpture added military cuirass.” Frequently the Romans wanted to portray men, particularly of the imperial house, as gods, and the Greek figure of Hermes was most often copied in the earlier period. The best-known and the earliest is the statue, sometimes called Germanicus, by Kleomenes of Athens, in the Louvre (Figs. 74-76)2 It probably represents the young Octavianus, later Augustus, for the head agrees 40

ADDITION OF CLOTHING AND ATTRIBUTES with that on some of his coins (Fig. 77).! (The head that is preserved on all the other replicas is executed as an ideal type of the early Classical period.) During this period probably the chlamys was draped over the left arm, with its momentary movement, since the early Classical artists liked it. But in the detail of the chlamys, particularly at the sides and in the back, there are so many differences that one is inclined to believe that many different copyists produced these figures. W e can compare, for example, the opening which was to go around the neck. It is small on a copy in the Palazzo Colonna and on the Ludovisi copy in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme (Fig. 78),4 largest in the copy found in the sea near Anzio (Fig. 79),5 and of intermediate size on the Kleomenes statue (Figs. 74-76). The folds of the garment at the sides and in the back are completely different on each replica. The best and mos^organic arrangement seems to be the one by Kleomenes, although the Ludovisi statue also has a clear arrangement at the sides of the chlamys. On the Kleomenes statue, the full and deep folds hang down to the ankle ending on the back of a turtle, so that no tree trunk is visible. In the case of the Ludovisi statue, the trunk certainly was added by the copyist. While on the Ludovisi statue, the two corners of the chlamys with the little weights at the lower edge lie in front against the ugly, broad tree trunk, hiding it. The corner on the Ludovisi statue opposite the left leg lies on the Kleomenes statue at the back. The mantle seems to hang down freely, almost until it reaches the turtle, sacred to Hermes, on which Kleomenes has inscribed his name. Originally the chlamys certainly hung free. The folds hanging down from the wrist are straight in the Ludovisi statue, while long and broad zigzag folds in the style of the fifth century enrich the edges of the chlamys of the Kleomenes statue. In the back, the statues in the Palazzo Colonna and from Anzio are more simplified than the Kleomenes statue. In the Colonna replica two corners hang inside and one outside a big oval tree trunk. I believe, therefore, that if the chlamys was carved on the original, Kleomenes has made the most faithful copy. This is also borne out by the execution of the body, which is much more detailed and more meticulously executed than in the other copies. It is clear that only the best Greek artists were commissioned to work portrait statues of the members of the ruling family, to which the “Germanicus,” whether it is Octavianus or not, certainly belonged. A chlamys in the Roman style with the end wrapped around the left arm was added to a statue of the Meleager type in the Villa Borghese (Fig. 85), while the nude Meleager in the Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University, a finer work, lacks this Roman addition (Fig. 86)." The beautiful bronze statuette of Mercury from Thalwil in Switzerland (Figs. 80, 82-84),7 with a chlamys hanging down over the left shoulder, has been considered a Roman adaptation of an original by Kresilas or Polykleitos. Here, the chlamys is well-rendered; the side views in particular show the sharp corners of a Classical Greek chlamys, in contrast to the Hellenistic-Roman form seen on the Meleager copy. The original, without a chlamys, seems to be represented in the fine bronze found in Odenbach, now in Speyer, Germany (Fig. 81)." The Roman emperors liked to be represented as Greek gods, such as Zeus, and Hermes, or as Greek heroes. However, they made the copyist add Roman attributes to the nude statues. Frequently a cuirass is added as a separate piece. It is placed next to the right leg of the figure of Hadrian found in the Asklepieion of Pergamon (Figs. 94-96)9 and next to the right leg of the Antoninus Pius statue in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme (Fig. 864).111 The latter also has a helmet below the cuirass. The buttoned mantle on these two works certainly is not the Greek chlamys but the paludamentum, which distinguishes a Roman general. Hadrian’s paludamentum 41

ADDITION OF CLOTHING AND ATTRIBUTES is bunched on his left shoulder, fastened by a large button w hich ought to be on the right shoulder (as on the Antoninus Pius statue, Fig. 864). The opening w hich hangs from the button ought to go around the neck. The correct arrangement is shown on the statue of Antoninus, as w ell as on his bust found in Baiae and now in the Museo Nazionale in Naples (Figs. 862-863)." The statue of Antoninus reminds one somewhat of the Augustus of Primaporta (Figs. 90-91) because the movement of both is similar (and similar as w ell to that of Polykleitos’ Doryphoros), except that Augustus makes the gesture of adlocutio—the emperor addressing his troops—and wears full Roman armor. In contrast to this Augustan statue, Antoninus is naked except for the chlamys and extends his left hand in address. Young Aelius Verus, who died when still Caesar, also is represented in heroic Polykleitan stance in a statue in the Vatican (Fig. 860).12 However, he also makes the characteristically Roman gesture of adlocutio with his right arm. His paludamentum is thrown to the back over both shoulders, so that the button is in the middle of his chest. His son Lucius Verus, who was co-regent with Marcus Aurelius is shown wearing the paludamentum heaped on the left shoulder (Fig861),13 similar to the Hadrian statue discussed above. The main portion of the garment, however, is not wrapped securely around the left arm but laid over it, w ith the lower edge resting on the bent arm. If the lower arm were to hang down, the mantle w ould slip off. This is also the case on the statue of Severus Alexander in the Museo Nazionale in Naples (Fig. 870)." The mantle hangs in the back and is buttoned on the left shoulder, not fixed in front as on the statue of Aelius Verus. Any movement of the heroic body would cause the mantle to fall from the left shoulder backward to the ground. This is another example of how the Romans, in making such additions, did not consider realities or possibilities, as the Greeks did, for every detail of their statues. A tunic is added to Greek types used to represent learned men. The best-known Greek model is the statue of the tragic poet Moschion in Naples (Fig. 87), copied, for example, by Zenon of Aphrodisias for a portrait in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme (Fig. 89), in the so-called Marcellus in the Capitoline Museum, and in a statuette in the Uffizi.15 Another example seems to be the statue of the Roman comic poet in the Vatican (Fig. 88).18 Furthermore, two seated philosophers from the Hadrianic or Antonine period were found in the Athenian Agora and probably belonged to the decoration of the Odeion.17 These two philosophers w ere represented in Greek types, but with a tunic added. Another example of a tunic added is seen on the god or personification on a frieze from Aphrodisias.18 He is bearded and holds a cornucopia similar to the figure of the Nile (Fig. 62). The Romans seem to have used Greek figures of Zeus or Jupiter only to represent emperors and princes. The best-known examples are the statues of Claudius in Rome and Olympia, of which the former, from Cività Lavinia and now in the Vatican, is by far the better one (Fig. 92).19 A poor replica exists in the Villa Borghese (Fig. 93).20 All three wear the rounded Roman mantle draped in an effective and decorative manner, with long deep folds arranged around their hips and lower legs, and then back up to their left arms. One may assume on the evidence of the first two, that the best artists worked in Rome, while Philathenarios and Hegias of Athens, the sculptors of the Olympia statue, had to copy the Roman model, including the ugly face and rounded Roman mantle. Statues of two other Julio-Claudian princes, one in Naples (Fig. 793) and the other in the Vatican (Fig. 787), also show this type of draping.21 All these rounded mantles are purely Roman additions in order to enhance the appearance of the godlike rulers. 42

ADDITION OF CLOTHING AND ATTRIBUTES It is interesting to compare with these statues a statue of an Augustan prince in the Met­ ropolitan Museum of Art (Figs. 783-785).22 The work looks Hellenistic, and the mantle is the Greek himation, adopted as the pallium by the Romans (see Chapter XI, Romani Palliati). The lower edge is straight, not rounded as on the Roman mantles. It is decorated with a narrow border, and the two lower corners end in tassels. The boy, about 12 years old, may be either Gaius Caesar or Lucius Caesar, Augustus’ beloved grandsons, who were adopted as his successors but died before him. The mantle contributes to the impression of the classicizing Augustan style. Another example of an emperor portrayed as Zeus is the statue of Balbinus in the Piraeus Museum (Figs. 97-98).23 The figure was carved in the third century a .d . Balbinus wears a Greek himation in the Classical arrangement, which can be seen on the Dresden Zeus (Figs. 99-101).24 The triangular overfold also was popular on statues of Athena and other goddesses made in the fifth century b.c . But the Roman eagle and the poorly executed details are in sharp contrast to the harmonious and balanced arrangement of the himation or pallium. The Greek figure of Dionysos was used as a model for the portraits of private Roman citizens. It was used on sarcophagi, probably to indicate that the deceased was initiated into the Dionysiae Mysteries. A fine example is on the sarcophagus, found near Frascati, in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme. The heads of those who would have been Dionysos and Ariadne were left unfinished, to be worked out as portraits.25 A particularly grotesque example has been found in the Praetex­ tatus Catacomb. An ugly old man leans on a Satyr, in the same position assumed by Dionysos in many well-known groups.26 Heroic or divine Greek statues with realistic Roman portrait heads often look divested rather than nude, as G. Becatti has rightly remarked.27 The addition of a mantle or even of a baldric helps to alter this impression of nudity. Both have been added in cases where the so-called Ares Borghese has been used for portraits, beginning with Hadrian. The original, as Brigitte Freyer has stated, was created by Alkamenes for the Temple of Ares in the Agora of Athens. According to the best copies in the Louvre (formerly in the Borghese Collection) (Fig. 104)28 and Leptis Magna,29 it had a helmet and a shield. The replica of the upper part in Dresden and the careful, although rather lifeless, adaptation for Hadrian as Mars in the Capitoline Museum gives him a broad baldric from the right shoulder to the left hip.30 The same is true for the Hadrian, probably shown with Sabina, in the group in the Louvre (Fig. 109),31 and for the “Commodus” with “Crispina” from Ostia in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme (Fig. 107).32 In both cases, the copyist has added a cuirass to the tree trunk as a strengthening support and to indicate his rank of general. In the group in the Capitoline Museum from Isola Sacra near Ostia, which may represent Septimius Severus or a late Antonine-early Severan general, a paludamentum is laid over the shoulders and hangs in the back (Fig. 108).33 2. WOMEN The type of the Ares (Mars) Borghese is sometimes used together with an Aphrodite in the type of the so-called Venus of Capua, best represented in the statues from Capua in Naples (Figs. 102-103) and in the Villa Albani.34 The sculptor of the groups representing these tw o deities together, in the Uffizi (Fig. 105) and in the Villa Borghese (Fig. 106)35 did not know that they were not married but instead lovers, according to Greek mythology. They may, however, have been 43

ADDITION OF CLOTHING AND ATTRIBUTES venerated together in some Roman temple. They were certainly worshipped together in Athens (Pausanias, 1,8,4), in a sanctuary on the the road from Argos to Mantinea (Pausanias, II, 2 5 ,1), and in Latus and Hieropytna on Crete, where men took public oaths by them (CIG. 2554-5). There are three groups in which emperors or rich persons and their wives are represented together in this type of Venus and Mars (Figs. 107-109). Instead of the shield of Ares which the Venus of Capua holds, the ladies hold their husbands, in the guise of Mars. The best group is the one of “Commodus and Crispina” from Ostia, in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme (Fig. 107). Here the empress or the lady with the hairdo like that of the younger Faustina has her himation or mantle in the very same arrangement as the Venus of Capua. That is, the mantle is wound around the hips in such a way that one end hangs down behind the left leg, which rests on a helmet in the Capua figure and on a low rock in the copies. The other end of the mantle crosses the leg on the left thigh and hangs on its inside in the front. The roll formed by the upper edge suggests that the garment is held firmly in place. Rich and variegated folds encircle the legs. The naked torso emerges from the drapery like a flower from a calyx. The copyists of the replicas in the Capitoline Museum (Fig. 108) and in the Louvre (Fig. 109) have changed this arrangement, and they display no feeling for the beauty of the original design. They have placed one end of the mantle on the left shoulder, then wrapped it around the back to the right hip and then across to the left hip, from which the end must be turned back to hang in the front along the left thigh. The resulting arrangement is loose and inorganic. In the Capitoline group, in general, the upward curve of the mantle roll is retained, while the sculptor of the example in the Louvre curves the roll downward, thus adding to the feeling of insecurity. This inexact rendering, which at the same time manages to be superficially harmonious, is characteristic of the Hadrianic period. The sculptors of the Capitoline and Louvre replicas have added a tunic underneath the mantle because, as Lippold in particular has shown,5“ members of the imperial house or of noble families were not supposed to appear nude. Both ladies are dressed in w ide and full tunics with broad buttoned sleeves. The main difference between the two is that the dress of the Antonine lady in the Capitoline Museum has two belts. The two belts are in the Roman fashion, for the lower one has no other purpose than to repeat in a decorative manner the interruption of the vertical folds. In Greek art a second belt always has the function of shortening the long dress (see Chapter II on the different form and spirit of Greek and Roman dress and Chapter VII on the dress of Artemis). Sabina in the Louvre group has no belt. As a consequence her sleeve is not separated from the main part of the tunic, but continues in pleasant zigzag folds to the roll of the mantle on the right hip. This Hadrianic copy has another m otif which the others lack. The folds of the tunic are seen through the mantle. They continue in a vertical direction and cross the curved lines of this mantle, as they do on many Hellenistic statues. 57 Thus, the mantle appears to be made of thin material where it is covering the right leg, while it is quite heavy in the roll and in the hanging folds. The Hadrianic copy in the Louvre is the most pleasing and most smoothly worked of the copies, but also the most nonfunctional as far as the dress is concerned. In contrast, the early Antonine copy with “Commodus and Crispina” (Fig. 107) is the best and the one closest to the original, even if the work is coarser than in the Hadrianic copy. The late Antonine or early Severan copy in the Capitoline Museum (Fig. 108) is overladen with details added by the copyist. Many harsh and deeply cut folds dissolve the surface into small dark and light areas. The Venus of Capua and Mars Borghese types, together signifying specific human couples, are

ADDITION OF CLOTHING AND ATTRIBUTES shown together also on medallions of Marcus Aurelius and the younger Faustink,38 and on sarcophagi for married couples.3" The Venus of Capua with a tunic added is also repeated in single statues, as the Ares Borghese was. The best example was found in Palermo and is in the Louvre (Fig. 110).4HIt has wide sleeves and a single belt. The arrangement of the mantle is the same as in the original. Other examples are in the Giardino Boboli of Florence, in the Prado," in Smyrna, in the Villa Albani, and in the Vatican (Fig. 111).'2 Since the latter holds a child carrying a horn of plenty, it may not be a portrait statue, but a Tyche or Fortuna or another personification, if these additions are not at all modern.43 Her dress is held together by ribbons which cross in the back. It seems to me that this or a similar statue may have been the model Lorenzetti used, when, after the death of Raphael (1520), he created the Madonna set up over Raphael’s tomb in the Pantheon (Fig. 112).44 Here the mantle covers both shoulders and head, and the tunic has long sleeves reaching to the wrists, so that the mother of Christ is completely covered. Thus, gradually the goddess of love, draped only around the legs, develops to more fully draped figures in the Roman period, and ends as the severely covered Madonna. Instead of the shield of Ares or a husband, the child Jesus is held. The revival, continuation and transformation of ancient dresses in the Renaissance is an interesting and fascinating subject.45 It is not possible to say with certainty whether headless female statues represented a per­ sonification, a goddess, or a mortal, since the type of the Venus of Capua was very popular among the Romans for all these representations. The best-known adaptation with wings added is the type of Victory, the personification of Victoria Romana, also fully dressed. She was developed from this Venus type in the time of Vespasian. The Victory in the Museo Civico in Brescia is the finest example (Figs. 113-114).4(i Here, however, the tunic does not have sleeves. There is only one small button on the shoulder, and this has slipped down from the right shoulder, in a motif similar to the “Venus Genetrix” (see below. Figs. 124-142). The end of the mantle does not hang inside but outside the left leg. Her left foot stands on a helmet. The arms grasp the shield, as was certainly the case with the original. This figure of Victory inscribing military deeds on a shield was used on coins issued by Domitian and Trajan (Fig. 115).47 This figure also appears betw een the two main parts of both the Column of Trajan (Fig. 117) and the Column of Marcus Aurelius.48 It is even used on the column bases of the Arch of Constantine, at both sides of the northern main entrance. Here Victory places her foot on the leg of the defeated barbarian (Fig. 118).49 The types of Victory with and without a chiton are used on sarcophagi, as for example, on that of M. Sulpicius Pylades (Fig.

121) . 5,) Another adaptation of the Capua type, with a tunic added, is found in the Muse Terpsichore with a large cithara. She appears on a sarcophagus in Munich, on one made for Eutychia, now in Berlin and on sarcophagi of the Sidamara type in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, as w ell as on sarcophagi in the British Museum, in the Louvre, and on one in the Campo Santo in Pisa. On all of these, Terpsichore stands at the end of the row of Muses to the far right.51 Statues in the Villa Albani (Fig. 119) and in Dresden (Fig. 120) probably are Muses of the same type.52 The mantle has the same arrangement on the left shoulder, with the direction of the upper roll changed, and it is wrapped around the legs in an illogical manner, as it was on the Hadrianic group in the Louvre (Fig. 109) discussed earlier. Not only mortals but also divine personalities were veiled by adding a tunic or chiton. An

ADDITION OF CLOTHING AND ATTRIBUTES example is the type of “Aphrodite Urania” (so-called because the statue w ith this name by Phidias is shown with her foot on a tortoise).53 There are many adaptations of this type in the Hellenistic and Roman period. There is one in Oxford and other examples exist from Athens and Syria (Figs· 435-436).54 None of these statues or statuettes is preserved w ith a portrait head. Thus, all may represent Venus herself. The Venus of Melos (in the Louvre) is derived from the Venus of Capua, but the drapery lacks stability, conforming to the taste of the later Hellenistic age.55 The Romans adopted the subject in the late first century a .d . to portray Nemesis. A typical example is on her altar in the Villa Albani (Fig, 116), with her foot on a w heel instead of a helmet. She is wearing a thin chiton which slips from her right shoulder. She appears in the same guise on a sarcophagus in the Louvre writing with a stylus on a roll, and standing at the left corner next to Althea, who throws the wood to which the life of her son Meleager is bound into the fire.56 W e find the same lack of stability in the mantle on the Psyche of the well-known group in the Capitoline Museum.57 On a sarcophagus in the Palazzo Corsini, the group of Amor and Psyche is mechanically repeated at the sides. In both cases, Psyche has a mantle knotted in front and a chiton added, probably because a mortal is represented. Sometimes the left leg is uncovered, as for example, on a statue of a woman from Cyrene in the British Museum (Fig. 123).5S The little Eros identifies her as Aphrodite. A variation of the Apollo Kitharoidos, attributed to Timarchides, shows this same arrangement of the himation. Replicas from Cyrene in the British Museum and the one in the Capitoline Museum have a very loose arrangement over the left leg.59 The statue in Naples has all the folds gathered over the left thigh while leaving the left knee and lower leg uncovered. In like manner, Apollo appears among the Muses on sarcophagi in the Museo Torlonia and in the Villa Borghese (Fig. 122).60 On the original of the often-copied “Venus Genetrix” (so-called because Venus was con­ sidered to be Caesar’s ancestress, and a statue of this type was presumably set up in the Forum or Julius Caesar in 46 b.c .) the fastening of the thin chiton slipped down from the left shoulder, so that the left shoulder and breast are bare. This was followed on the best copies, in the Louvre (Fig124), in the Museo Nazionale in Naples (Fig. 125), in the Villa Borghese (Fig. 126), in the Uffizi (Figs. 127-129), and in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Figs. 130-132).S1 Many statuettes, for example, five in the Museum in Ostia (Figs. 133-134 for one of these), also follow thi$ arrangement.62 They were probably used as votive offerings to the goddess. However, on the graceful statue in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, the right shoulder and breast instead of the left are exposed (Fig. 135).63 The Genetrix type is also used for a priestess w ith sacrificial dish on a triangular base in the Uffizi. This motif may have been considered to be too coquettish and flippant to use to portray Roman ladies. Thus, the breast is covered on a Roman statue formerly in the Palazzo Brancaccio in Rome, now in the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto (Figs. 136-138).64 On a statue of Sabina in Ostia, the breast is similarly covered by drawing the chiton upward (Figs. 1 4 7 -148).65 The statue of Sabina not only has a Trajanic hairdo, but also is carved in the Trajanic style, as can be seen from the sober and dry rendering of the drapery. It may, therefore, represent Sabina soon after her marriage to Hadrian in about 100 a .d ., before he becam e emperor in 118 and long before her death in 136. The mantle is lengthened and expanded to broaden and stabilize the figure with 46

ADDITION OF CLOTHING AND ATTRIBUTES long, zigzag edges. Many parallel vertical folds are interrupted by these zigzags. In a later period the left breast and shoulder of Sabina were still more fully covered, as seen on her coins minted during Hadrian’s rule (Figs. 144-145).“ On the obverse is a portrait of Sabina w ith the inscription SABINA AVGVSTA. On the reverse the statue of Venus has the inscription VENERI GENE­ TRICI. It is remarkable that on the coins the left breast of the goddess is also covered. Later, Faustina was associated with Venus in a similar guise during the reign of Antoninus Pius. On the statue of Sabina in the Vatican (Fig. 143), however, the nude areas are not covered by pulling up the thin chiton or by a second chiton, but rather the left breast is covered by a small piece of cloth, a kind of inset.'" It fills the curved line made by the upper edge of the chiton. This may be an indication that Sabina is a matron, wearing a stola over the inner chiton. The same patchwork can be seen on statues in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, where it appears also under the right armpit and in the back (Figs. 139-142),1,8 in the Museo Nazionale in Naples (Fig. 146),69 in the Palazzo Colonna70 and in the Villa Albani.71 A statuette in Ostia, dedicated by C. Artillius Euplus (Figs. 149-150),72 has sleeves added to the chiton. The left shoulder is covered not only by the chiton but also by the mantle, which in the original was laid not much higher than the elbow (see Fig. 124). The diademed head seems to indicate that in this case the goddess herself is represented. Besides the covering of the left breast, the sculptor altered or disfigured the original com­ position in other ways. On several statues the mantle is not lifted over the right shoulder by the right hand, but is laid in a rounded bundle on the right shoulder and hangs down with a zigzag ending in the back. Also a Roman belt is sometimes laid loosely over the hips. These two changes are found on works in the Museo Archeologico in Florence (Fig. 153), in the Palazzo Colonna (Fig. 154), in the Villa Borghese (Fig. 155), and in the Hermitage.73 A statue formerly in the Roman art market74has this loose hip belt, but also shows the woman in the process of drawing her mantle up and over the right shoulder with her right hand. On a statue in Munich with the garment carved in black marble, the loose belt is again seen, but the woman’s right hand is lowered to hold the edge of the mantle (Fig. 157).75 On the statues in Munich and in the Villa Borghese, the left breast is covered. On the statue with a Flavian hairdo in the Vatican (Fig. 156),76 the right hand is lifted to the head, and the mantle hangs down over the upper right arm. The left breast and shoulder are covered, and two belts are added. In all these cases, the belts interrupt the beautiful flow of the folds. Most of these adaptations of the Venus Genetrix were probably portrait statues of mothers. The details of the clothing correspond more closely to the actual dresses they wore. The original type, however, was accurately copied for a portrait in a tomb relief in the Villa Medici.77 The lady, who embraces a military officer, probably her husband, has her right breast bare. Late Roman adaptations of the belted type are the broad-shouldered women in Ostia (Figs. 151-152), the Antiope added by a copyist to the Farnese group, and the ugly Flora Farnese, with her right shoulder bare and her right hand holding up the lower part of the mantle (Figs. 158-159). These last two statues were found in the Baths of Caracalla, and for this reason probably were worked in a coarse style for the enormous building in the early third century a .d .78 A type created for Hera about 420 b .c . and probably attributed rightly to Agorakritos, on account of the similarity to the style of the sculptures from the base of Nemesis at Rhamnus, found much favor with the Romans. It was used for statues of gods, personifications, and portraits.79 It is named Hera Barberini from a statue found on the Viminal, formerly in the possession of the 47

A D D IT IO N OF C LOTH ING A N D ATTRIBUTES Barberini family and now in the Vatican (Figs. 160-161).110 It m ay have served as a cult statue in sanctuary of Juno. It is greater than life-size (2.83 meters) and probably has been restored correctly w ith a scepter and sacrificial bow l. The head has a broad diadem . T he Hera Jacobson„ crhese nam ed after a statue formerly in the possession of the Borghese fam ily and now in the N Carlsberg G lyptothek,81 is badly restored but it has a beautiful head w ith a Greek hairdo without a Roman diadem. There is another replica, found on the Palatine, now in the Museo Nazionale delle Term e (Figs. 162-163).82 It seems to be the best cop y o f the original and was carved in the Augustan period, probably for a sanctuary on the Palatine. T he Barberini as w ell as the Borghese copies seem to be of the A ntonine period. Another Augustan copy was found at Baiae near N aples, w here m any elegan t villas w ere built as summer residences for rich Romans. One of these com m issioned an A thenian artist to copy the Hera for him. The Greek artisan proudly inscribed his nam e on the statue: “Aphrodisios from Athens made it.” 83 A second copy found in Baiae is signed by the artist Karos. It probably belongs to the Flavian period.84 Karos has not made an exact copy, but has adapted the typ e to create a Tyche-Fortuna by adding a cornucopia to the left arm. This results in a change of the folds of the upper edge of the chiton, as w ell as of the him ation. Both are extended upw ard to cover more of the bare shoulder. Torsos found in A pollonia in the C yrenaica and in G ortyn on C rete, both probably of the Trajanic period,85 continue this same tradition. Another torso of Juno-Hera that is greater than life-size (2.20 m eters) was found in Ostia and now is in the Vatican (Figs. 164-165).8fl It has been restored w ith head, arms, feet, attributes and parts of the drapery to resemble the Barberini statue. Since the head and neck w ere added, it might have been the portrait of an im perial lady. It is, how ever, a rather distorted version. The upper edge of the chiton has becom e a broad band. The him ation on the left arm goes higher up. It shows many parallel and equal folds, instead of the subtle alternations of high and low folds on the mantle of the Borghese type. Instead of the rich, zigzag folds at the side of the m antle near the left foot, the Vatican torso has parallel straight folds, m any o f w hich are tubular. T he proportions are changed to accom m odate a fatter stom ach and broader hips, em phasized by the flat, horizontal curved lines in the bend of the overfold. Certainly a portrait of the Antonine period is the statue w ith the head of L ucilla in the C apitoline Museum (Figs. 167-168).87 T he head, neck, and nude parts of the left breast and shoulder form one p iece that was inset; but it m ay belong to the original, since it was customary to put heads of imperial persons on prefabricated statues. T he arms are m odern. T he style of the drapery closely resembles that of the Hera Barberini. The breast and shoulder are com pletely veiled in another transformation of the Hera Barberini type (Fig. 166).88 Found in Otricoli, it is now in the V atican. T he torso has an ancient head of the Praxitelean Aphrodite w hich does not belong to it. T he restorer, in the eighteenth century, added a diadem like that on the Barberini statue. H e also added the forearms and many parts of the dress. The breast is narrower, and the triangular overfold has b een changed to a more rounded one. The copyist has added a second chiton, the sleev e of w hich covers the upper right arm and the uppermost part of the breast. Since the upper part of the outer chiton m ay be the stola and since the head is inset, this statue, like the torso in the V atican, could be an im perial portrait statue. That the scale of the original was large like these cop ies is show n by a coarse provincial copy from C yrene.811 48

ADDITION OF CLOTHING AND ATTRIBUTES Another statue which was certainly a portrait statue was found in Udine and now is in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek.’10 It is restored there as Hera, but the cavity probably held the portrait of a lady of the Flavian period originally. Breast and shoulder are com pletely veiled by the chiton drawn up to the neck. A variation for a portrait statue of the Flavian period is in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme (Figs. 169-171).”' We have here rather interesting patchwork used to cover the parts which were nude in the original. The broad upper edge which on the original and several copies curves from the right shoulder over the left breast to the left shoulder is clearly seen. But there is an inset which covers the remaining parts of the breast up to the cavity for the head. There is also a sleeve covering the upper left arm above the folds of the himation which is slung around the left arm (Fig. 170). The side view shows the sleeve fastened by three buttons with the loops between them, as on many Classical statues. When, however, we turn to the back (Fig. 171), w e find all of the folds of the himation and chiton have been simplified; there are no actual folds at all on the left shoulder, upper back, and upper left arm. The copyist has made his patchwork only on the front and side! Thus, the back reflects the original, without additions; there is no pretense of showing two chitons. In the front, however, the body shows through both layers of cloth. Thus, the modesty demanded by the client did not extend to all parts of the copy. The Hygieia, or rather Salus, found in Ostia and now in the Cassel Museum, is another adaptation in the original colossal size (2.23 meters) (Figs. 173-175).”2The head is of better marble than the body and is inset together with the nude parts of neck, breast, and left shoulder. It is impossible to say whether the head is idealized or lifelike, since nose, mouth, chin, and part of the forehead are modern. She is identified as Hygieia, or Salus, by the snake whose hind part is ancient. She is shown not only alone but also with Asklepios on many Roman coins (Fig. 172).”3 Since empresses like Livia and Domitia were closely associated with Salus,”4 the inserted head could be an empress of the first century a . d . The style of the Cassel Hygieia is somewhat simplified, and a second chiton is indicated by the sleeve with five buttons on the right upper arm (Fig. 174). Thus Hygieia is veiled like a portrait statue, and this leaves the question open as to whether the goddess herself or an imperial personality in her guise was portrayed here. The veiling almost completely covers the body when the type of Hera Borghese is used for a statue of Athena, found in Rome inside an ancient aedicula, and now in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme.”5 The aegis covers all of the breast, and the himation is drawn up from the left arm onto the shoulder. The fine chiton has been made coarser, and a heavy sleeve covers the upper right arm. Thus, in this late transformation the Greek original is com pletely changed by the veiling. Of great interest and importance are the observations made by K. W eitzmann concerning similar patchwork in Byzantine art. In the Joshua Roll, the artist used Io as the model for the personification of a city. The type was probably invented by Nikias and is preserved in eight copies, one in the House of Livia on the Palatine and seven in Pompeii. The Christian painter, however, has added an inorganically fitted piece of drapery to cover the second breast.”" A chiton was added to a half-draped Greek type, the so-called Venus Marina, probably a sea goddess like Ino Leucothea, a nymph, or Mater Matuta. That a nymph is meant is clear because the type was used on reliefs from Ischia, dedicated to Apollo and to the nymphs as protectors of the sanitary sources. On the relief dedicated by Turranius Dionusius in Naples (Fig. 176), two such nymphs, one in reversed position, flank another holding a shell.”7 There are five statuary 49

A D D IT IO N OF C LO TH ING A N D ATTRIBUTES copies in Ostia alone (Figs. 177, 183, 184) w here the goddess was venerated. W e have three different versions of this Venus Marina type. On one version, the m antle is arranged in a natura w ay around the legs. The vertical ends cross each other in a m anner w h ich can b e im itated on living models (Fig. 179). T he best exam ples are a statue from R om e in N aples (Figs. 180-181) an a statue leaning on a water jar above a pillar, found in the theater of O stia (Fig. 177). Other replicas have survived, among them the low er part of a torso in O stia (Fig. 183), a headless statue in Vienna (Fig. 182), and a rather bad statuette in the V atican w h ich show s a herm next to her right side.98 On a second version, a chiton is added either w ith a high b elt, as on one of the statues in Ostia (Fig. 184), or w ithout a belt, as on a statue in the V illa Borghese (Fig. 185) and on one frorn Pom peii in Naples.99 Finally, on the third version of this typ e, no chiton covers the upper part o the body. The folds of the m antle do not cross each other, and there is a gap b etw een the two vertical edges. One w ould expect to see the bare legs. Instead, w e see vertical folds w hich loo like those of a chiton, but there is no chiton. The best exam ple is in Berlin (Fig. 178).100 H ow can w e explain this state of affairs? I b elieve w e must presuppose an original in w hich the vertical folds w ere separated, as in the Berlin statue, w here one saw not part of a chiton, but rather the bare legs. The copyist certainly did not add a part of the chiton out of prudery, for then he w ould have added a w hole chiton. H e did so because it is difficult to represent the nude body betw een the folds. Inspired, perhaps, by the added chiton in other copies, he thus closed the gap w ith a few folds. It may be that this in its turn caused the other copyists to com pose a full chiton· It may also be that both versions w ere derived from a com m on original w h ich had open edges o the mantle. In this case, therefore, the copyist’s lack of skill, not prudery, m ay have been the reason for the change. A similar reason m ay b e given w hen folds o f a nonexistent chiton are set in betw een the vertical edges of peplos figures (see C hapter V II, on the peplos and the melting together of different dresses). This investigation of additional clothing shows one of the reasons w hy th e artists in the Rom»11 period distorted their Greek models. The Romans—in contrast to th e G reeks—had less feeling f°* beauty, particularly of the human body, but more feelin g for d ecen cy and m odesty as personihe in Pudicitia. There was also less skill and less eagerness on the part of the copyists to execute subtle details in the dress w hich in the Greek originals added to their artistic beauty.

Footnotes to Chapter 5

1. Helbig-Speier, Führer1, I, pp. 314-319, No. 411 (Inv. 2290); W. Amelung, Sculp.Vat.M us., I, 1, PP· 1®' ’ Braccio Nuovo No. 14, pi. 2; J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.Ikon., II, 1, pp. 24-27, fig. 2, pi. I; H.G. Niemeyer, Studien statuarischen Darstellung der römischen Kaiser (Monumenta Artis Romanae, 7) (Berlin 1968), ρρ· 91-92, ' 36, pi. 10, fig. 2; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 225; G.M.A. Hanfmann, Rom an Art: A Modern Survey o f the Art °J Imperial Rome (Greenwich Conn. 1964), pp. 82-83, 160, No. 50, pp. 92-93, 173, No. 72; E. Strong, Romän Sculpture from Augustus to Constantine (London 1907), pp. 44, 355-356, pi. Ill; A. Helder, Bildniskunst, pP XXXIV-XXXV, pis. 170-171; G. Rodenwaldt, K unst urn Augustus (2nd ed. Berlin 1943), pp. 10-18, figs- 3"^ J. Charbonneaux, V a ri au siede dA uguste, fig. 71; R. West, Röm.Porträtplastik, I, pp. 111-112, 154-155, P XXVIII, fig. I l l , pi. XXXVIII, fig. 163; E. Simon, Der A ugustus von Prima Porta (Opus Nobile, 13) (Bremer» 1959); H. Kähler, Die Augustusstatue von Primaporta (Monumenta Artis Romanae, 1) (Cologne 1959), PP-

50

ADDITION OF CLOTHING AND ATTRIBUTES 7-36, pis. 1-32; M. Bieber, Sculp.Hellen.Age2>p. 175, fig. 740; T. Kraus, Das römische Weltreich (Berlin 1967), No. and fig. 288; H. Kahler, Welt, pis. 117-118; C. Vermeule, “Hellenistic and Roman Cuirassed Statues,” Berytus 13 (1959), p. 34, No. 13, pis. III-1V, figs. 11-12. For an explanation of the reliefs on the cuirass, see F. Studniczka, “Zur Augustusstatue der Livia,” RömMitt 25 (1910), pp. 27-55; A. Alföldi, “Zum Panzerschmuck der Augustusstatue von Primaporta,” RömMitt 52 (1937), pp. 48-63, pls. 15-17; G. Rodenwaldt, op.cit., pp. 16-18, fig. 5; G.M.A. Richter, “Who Made . . . Statues,” pp. 190, 205, fig. 51. 2. J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, pp. 147-149, No. and fig. 1207; W . Fröhner, Notice de la sculpture antique du Musée du Louvre (4th ed. Paris 1878), pp. 213-215, No. 184 (with inscription); E. Michon, Cat. sommaire, p. 69, No. 1207; A. Hekler, op.cit., pp. ΧΧΧΙΙ-ΧΧΧΠΙ, pi. 156b; J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.Ikon., I (Die Bildnisse berühmter Römer) (Stuttgart 1882, reprinted 1969), pp. 227-233, fig. 33, pi. XXI; R. West, op.cit., I, pp. 89-90, pi. XXI, figs. 84-85; Encycl.Phot., Louvre 3 (1938), pp. 270-272; J. Charbonneaux, L a ri au siede d ’Auguste, p. 50-51, fig. 59 (He identifies it correctly as Octavianus); M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen. A g e 2 pp. 174-175, Fig. 739; O. Bréndel, “Novus Mercurius,” RömMitt 50 (1935), ρρ. 248-259, pis. 27-28; J. Inan, “Three Statues from Side,” Antike Kunst 13 (1970), p. 30, pi. 21, fig. 1; G.M.A. Richter, “Who Made . . . Statues,” pp. 187, 195, fig. 10. 3. For this denarius (15-12 b.c.) of Augustus, with Diana on the reverse (our Fig. 77), see H. Mattingly, Coins o f the Roman Empire in the British Museum, voi. I (London 1923, reprinted 1965), p. 80, No. 464, pi. 11, figs. 10-11. For Octavianus’ portraits on earlier coins, (36-29 b.c.), see B. Schweitzer, Die Bildniskunst der römischen Republik (Leipzig 1948), pp. 110-111, fig. 167; O. Vessberg, Studien zur Kunstgeschichte der römischen Republik (Lund 1941), pp. 164-165, pi. XI, 5-9; R. West, op.cit, pl. LXVH, figs. 29 and 30a. For another coin with the portrait of Augustus, see Chapter IX, Fig. 482. 4. On the Ludovisi copy (our Fig. 78), see Helbig-Speier, Führer4, III, pp. 246-247, No. 2326 (Inv. 8624); S. Aurigemma Mus. Naz. Rom.5, No. 170, pi. XX; E. Paribeni, Scult.Greche, pp. 26-27, No. and fig. 28; H. Bulle, Der schöne Mensch im Altertum (Munich 1922), pl. 44; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age2, p. 174, No. 738; R. Carpenter “Two Postcripts to the Hermes Controversy,” AJA 58 (1954), pp. 1-2, 10-11, pi. 2, fig. 4 a-c; S. Papaspyridi-Karusu, “ΕΡΜΗΣ 'EY ΧΟΠΟΜΠΟΕ,” AthMitt 76 (1961), pp. 94-106, suppl. pis. 58-71; J. Inan, op.cit, Antike Kunst 13 (1970), pp. 28-32, pl. 18, fig. 1, pl. 19, fig. 2, pl. 21, fig. 3. 5. Helbig-Speier, Führer«, III, pp. 205-206, No. 2291 (Inv. 124479); S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.Rom.% No. 55; P.E. Arias, Anzio-Scoperte,” NSc 15 (1939), pp. 79-82, fig. 1, pi. V; E. Paribeni, Scult. Greche, p. 27, No. and fig. 29; J. Inan, op.cit, Antike Kunst 13 (1970), p. 30, pi. 21, fig. 2. 6. On the Meleager statue in the Villa Borghese (our Fig. 85), see Helbig-Speier, Führer\ II, pp. 706-707, No. 1946; Amdt-Amelung E.A., No. 2714; H. Sichtermann, “Das Motiv des Meleager,” RömMitt69 (1962), pp. 43-51, pis. 18-21, with list of replicas and bibliography. For the Meleager at Harvard (our Fig. 86), see M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age2, p. 25, figs. 54,56-57. 7 W H Schuchhardt “Der Merkur von Thalwil,” ZSchwaKag 20 (1960), pp. 163-175, pls. 77-84; idem, “Bronzestatuette des Merkur von Thalwil,” Antike Plastik I (1965), pp. 33-38, pls. 22-27 (He compares it to the Diomedes by Kresilas, pls. 28-29); J. Inan, op.cit., Antike Kunst 13 (1970), pls. 25-26. 8 . Dated to the first century a . d . N o w in the Historisches Museum der Pfalz, in Speyer. 9. O. Deubner, Das Asklepieion von Pergamon (Berlin 1938), pp. 43-44, pl. 32; M. Wegner, Hadrian (Das römische Herrscherbild II, 3) (Berlin 1956), pp· 39,59,66,105, pl. 14b. 10. S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.Rom\ No. 238 (8653); B.M. Felletti-Maj, Museo Nazionale Romano, 1 Ritratti (Rome 1953) pp. 106-107, No. and fig. 204; M. Wegner, Die Herrscherbildnisse in antoninischer Zeit (Das römische Herrscherbild II, 4) (Berlin 1936), pp. 141,279. 11. A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, p. 237, No. 982 (6031); idem, Auszug, p. 173, No. 676; J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.Ikon., II, 2 (Die Bildnisse der römischen Kaiser und ihrer Angehörigen von Galba bis Commodus) (Stuttgart 1891, reprinted 1969), p. 143, No. 37. 12. W. Amelung, Sculpt. Vat.Mus., I, pp. 469-470, Museo Chiaramonti No. 240, pl. 48. 13. A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, p. 248, No. 1028 (6095); idem, Auszug, p. 183, No. 722; J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.Ikon., II, 2, p. 207, No. 6. 14. A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, pp. 21-22, No. 74 (5993), fig. 2; idem, Auszug; p. 18, No. 45; H.G. Niemeyer,

51

A D D IT IO N OF C LO TH ING A N D ATTRIBUTES

15.

16.

17. 18. 19.

20. 21.

22.

Stud.Darstellung, p. 112, No. 124, pi. 44, fig. 2; E. Strong, Art in Ancient Rome, II, (London 1929), p. 159, fig. 500; J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.Ikon., II, 3 (Die Bildnisse der römischen Kaiser und ihrer Angehörigen von Pertinax bis Theodosius) (Stuttgart 1894, reprinted 1969), p. 100, No. 7, pi. XXVIII; P. Mingazzini, “Sulla statua colossale di Alessandro Severo del Museo Nazionale di Napoli,” Antike Plastik. Festschrift Amelung, pp. 146-151, figs. 1-3; A. Giuliano, “Due Ritratti di Alessandro Severo del Museo lateranense,” ArchCl 3 (1951), p. 183. On the statuette of Moschion in Naples (our Fig. 87), see A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, p. 269, No. 1132 (6238); idem, Auszug, p. 202, No. 811; J.J. Bernoulli, Griechische Ikonographie, II (Munich 1901), pp. 55-56; A. Hekler, Bildniskunst, pi. 112a; G.M.A. Richter, The Portraits of the Greeks, II (London 1965), p. 242, No. 1, figs. 1666-1667; G. Lippold, Kopien, p. 198; K. Schefold, Die Bildnisse der antiken Dichter, Redner und Denker (Basel 1943), p. 209. On the statue by Zenon of Aphrodisias in Rome (our Fig. 89), see Helbig-Speier, Führer', III, p. 289, No. 2362 (Inv. 8641); S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.Rom\ No. 233; B.M. Felletti-Maj, Ritratti, pp. 59-60, No. and fig. 92; M.F. Squarciapino, La scuola di Afrodisia (Rome 1943), pp. 26-27, pi. 4; J.J. Bernoulli, op.cit, p. 56; G.M.A. Richter, op.cit., p. 243, No. 3, fig. 1668; G. Lippold, op.cit., pp. 105,198; E. Loewy, Inschriften, p. 268, No. 365. On the Marcellus statue in Rome, see Helbig-Speier, Führer', II, p. 181, No. 1370 (Inv. 603); H.S. Jones, SculptMus.Capitol., p. 258, Stanza dei Filosofi No. 98, pi. 73; J.J. Bernoulli, op.cit., II, p. 56; G.M.A. Richter, op.cit., p. 243, No. 2, fig. 1669. On the statuette in Florence, see G. Mansuelli, Uffizi Scult., II (Rome 1958), pp> 62-63, No. and fig. 52; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pis. 682-685; J.J. Bernoulli, op.cit., II, p. 56; G.M.A. Richter, op, d t , p. 243. For the statue of the comic poet in the Vatican (our Fig. 88), see Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, pp. 96-97, No. 130 (Inv. 558); W. Amelung, Sculpt.Vat.Mus., II, pp. 577-582, Galleria delle Statue No. 390, pi. 54; A. Hekler, Bildniskunst, pis. 110b, 111b; K. Schefold, op.cit., pp. 164-165, fig. 2 (identifies the figure as Plautus); B. Schweitzer, Bildniskunst röm.Rep., pp. 86,88, FI, figs. 119,122. For a statue of Poseidippos of the same type, see Helbig-Speier, op.cit., I, p. 96, No. 129 (Inv. 735); W. Amelung, op.cit., II, pp. 469-472, Galleria delle Statue No. 271, pi. 54; A. Hekler, op.cit., pp. XXVI-XXVII, pis. 110a, l i l a ; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, p). 494. H.A. Thompson, “The Odeion in the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 19 (1950), pp. 124-125, pis. 78-80. G. Mendel, Musées impériaux ottomans. Catalogue des Sculptures grecques, romaines et byzantines, II(Constantinople 1914), pp. 187-188, No. 495(2270); M.F.Squarciapino, op.cit., supra note 15, pp. 65-66, pi. 21. For the Vatican statue (our Fig. 92), see Helbig-Speier, Führer4, I, pp. 37-38, No. 45 (Inv. 243); G. Lippold, Skulpt.Vat.Mus., Ill, 1, pp. 137-140, Sala Rotunda, No. 550, pis. 40-42; J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.Ikon., II, 1, p. 332, No. 5, pp. 349-350,353-354; pi. XVII; A. Hekler, Bildniskunst, p. XXXVI, pi. 180; R. West, Röm.Porträtplastik, I, p· 206, pi. 56, fig. 239; H.G. Niemeyer, Stud.Darstellung, p. 107, No. 95, pi. 34, fig. 1. For the statue in Olympia, see G. Treu, Die Bildwerke von Olympia (Olympia III) (Berlin 1897), pp. 244-245, pi. 60, fig. 1, pi. 61, fig. 3; W. Dittenberger and K. Purgold, Die Inschriften von Olympia (Olympia V) (Berlin 1896), No. 642; P. Graindor, Athènes de Tibere h Trajan (Cairo 1931), pp. 182-184, figs. 22-23; H.G. Niemeyer, op.cit., p. 107, No. 96, pi. 34, fig. 2 (Niemeyer calls it the Jupiter type). Villa Borghese, No. 39; Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 2713. For the statue in Naples (our Fig. 793), see A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, pp. 240-241, No. 997 (6044); idem, Auszug, p. 176, No. 691; J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.Ikon., II, 1, pp. 171-172, No. 14, pp. 179, 205, pi. VIII (head); A. Hekler, op.cit., p. XXXVI, pi. 184b; R. West, Röm.Porträtplastik, I, pp. 234-235, pi. LXV, No. 277 (considers the statue Neronian); A. Mau, Pompeji in Leben und Kunst (Leipzig 1900), pp. 88-89, fig. 39. For the Vatican Statue (our Fig. 787), see G. Lippold, Skulpt.Vat.Mus., Ill, 1, pp. 154-155, Sala a Croce Greca No. 559, pi. 55; R. West, op.cit, p. 151, pi. 39, fig. 165; H.G. Niemeyer, op.cit., p. 102, No. 73 (he calls it the hip mantle-Hüftmantel). G.M.A. Richter, Bronzes, Met.Mus., pp. 149-152, Frontispiece, and No. 333; eadem. Handbook of the Classical Collection, The Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York 1930), pp. 296-298, No. 32, fig. 209; eadem, Roman Portraits, The Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York 1948), No. and fig. 29; R. West, op.cit., I, pp. 136-137, pi. XXXIV, fig. 147; L. Curtius, “Nero Claudius Drusus der Ältere,” RömMitt 50 (1935), pp. 299-300, fig. 22 (Curtius is wrong in recognizing Tiberius. Tiberius was adopted by Augustus and made crown prince only after the death of both grandsons, when Tiberius was already a mature man); K. Kluge and K. Lehmann-Hartleben, Die antiken Grossbronzen, II (Berlin 1927), p. 93 fig. 1; G.M.A. Hanfmann, Roman Art, pp. 83, 160, No. 51.

52

ADDITION OF CLOTHING AND ATTRIBUTES 23. M. Gütschow, “Das Museum der Praetextat-Katakombe,” MemPontAcc, Ser. Ill, 4 (1938), pp. 87-88, figs. 18-19; A. Gräfin von Schlieffen, “Eine römische Kaiserstatue im Piraeus-Museum,” JO A I29 (1935), pp. 97-108, pls. IV-VII; C. Vermeule, Roman Imperial Art in Greece and Asia Minor (Cambridge Mass. 1968), pp. 310-313, fig. 167; H.G. Niemeyer, Stud.Darstellung, p. 112, No. 125, pl. 46. 24. P. Herrmann, Verzeichnis der antiken Original-Bildwerke (Dresden 1915), p. 22, No. and fig. 68; G. Treu, “Der Dresdener Zeus,” Festschrift für Otto Benndorf zu Seinem Sechzigsten Geburststag (Vienna 1898), pp. 99-110; H. Sehrader, Phidias (Frankfurt 1924), pp. 55,57-60, figs. 36-37; B.S. Ridgway, Severe Style, p. 21, fig. 20. 25. Helbig-Speier, Führer1, III, pp. 20-22, No. 2127 (Inv. 124682); S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.Romr, No. 53, pl. XVIa. 26. M. Gütschow, op.cit, supra note 23, pp. 110-111, pi. XVII, fig. 1. She calls it an example of human vanity, uncritical and without taste. For the original groups, see P. Arndt in Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pl. 620 and text with figs. 1-5. 27. G. Becatti, Arte e Gusto negli Scrittori latini (Florence 1951), text to pl. LXII, fig. 120. Cf. other examples, pl. LXI, fig. 119, pl. LXII, fig. 121. 28. In general, see B. Freyer, “Zum Kultbildund zum Skulpturenschmuck des Arestempels auf der Agora in Athen,” Jdl 77 (1962), pp. 211-220. For Ares Borghese in the Louvre (our Fig. 104), see J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, pp. 28-29, No. and fig. 866; E. Miehon, Cat. Sommane p. 50, No. 866; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pl. 63; EncycLPhot., III, p. 179; J. Boardman, et.al.,Griech.Kunst, p. 154, fig. 213 (right). 29. R. Bartoccini, Le Terme di Lepcis (Bergamo 1929), pp. 119-121, fig. 118; P. Romanelli, Leptis Magna (Rome 1925), pl. 30; G.M.A. Richter, “Who Made. . . Statues,” pp. 187,195, fig. 11. 30. For the bust in Dresden, see P. Herrmann, Verzeichnis, p. 25, No. 91. For the Capitoline statue, see Helbig-Speier, Führer‘, II, p. 191, No. 1384 (Inv. 634); H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Mus.CapitoL, p. 284, Salone No. 13, pl. 68; R. West, Rom.Porträtplastik, II (Munich 1941), p. 120, pl. XXXIII, fig. 123; A. Hekler, Bildniskunst, pl. 246b; G.M.A. Richter, op.cit., pp. 187,195, fig. 12. 31. J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, pp. 173-174, No. and fig. 1009; E. Michon, op.cit., p. 62; W. Fröhner, Sculpt.ant.Louvre', I, pp. 161-162; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pls. 133-134; J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.Ikon., II, 2, p. 123, No. 3. 32. Helbig-Speier, Führer1, III, pp. 30-31, No. 2132 (Inv. 108522); S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.Rom.\ No. 66; B.M. Felletti-Maj, Ritratti, pp. 119-120, No. and fig. 236; G. Becatti, op.cit., supra note 27, pp. 489-496, pl. LIX, fig. 117; G. Moretti, “Ostia-Scoperte,” NSc (1920), pp. 59-66, fig. 11; G. Bendinelli, “Gruppo Statuario di Asklepios e Igea nel Palazzo reale di Torino,” BdA 23 (1929), p. 497, fìg. 9 (His main subject is the group with Asklepios-Hygieia in the Palazzo Reale in Turin, figs. 1-3, 6, and pl. I); G.M.A. Richter, “Who Made . . . Statues,” pp. 187,196, fig. 14. 33. Helbig-Speier, Führer', II, p. 199, No. 1394 (Inv. 652); H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Mus.CapitoL·, pp. 297-298, Salone No. 34, pl. 73; G.M.A. Richter, Ancient Italy, p. 43, note 15, fig. 131. 34. For the Venus of Capua in Naples (our Figs. 102-103), see B. Maiuri, Musée Nap., pp. 30-31; A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, pp. 76-78, No. 251 (6071), fig. 27; idem, Auszug, p. 54, No. 155, fig. 18; J.J. Bernoulli, Aphrodite.Ein Baustein zur griechischen Kunstmythologie (Leipzig 1873), p. 160; A. Furtwängler, Meisterwerke, pp. 628-638, figs. 127-128; idem. Masterpieces, pp. 384-391, figs. 170-171; H. Bulle, Schöne Mensch, col. 531, fig. 169; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, No. 297; G. Calza, “Afrodite armata,” Ausonia 9 (1919), p. 172; O. Broneer, “The ‘Armed Aphrodite’ on Acrocorinth and the Aphrodite of Capua,” CPCP1 (1930), pp. 71-74, fig. 1. For the Venus Albani in Rome, see Helbig-Amelung, Führer', II, pp. 451-452, No. 1918 (733); A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, pp. 77-78, fig. 28; Br.-Br., op.cit., No. 593 (W. Amelung in the text to 593, fig. 5, shows the two ends of the draping cross over the left thigh). 35. On the over life-size group in the lower entrance hall to the Uffizi (our Fig. 105), see G. Mansuelli, Uffizi Scult., I, pp. 177-178, No. and fig. 160 (Inv. No. 4); J.J. Bernoulli, Aphrodite, p. 144. On the small Hadrianic group in the Villa Borghese (our Fig. 106), see M.F. Ravaisson, “La Venus de Milo” MémAcInscr 34 (1892), pp. 210-211, pi. VII; G. Lippold, in Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 2782. For a list of replicas, see D. Mustilli, II Museo Mussolini (Rome 1939), p. 128. Also for the relief with this group and Eros from the Nymphaeum in Side, see K. Lanckoronski, Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens, I (Vienna 1890-1892), p. 141, fig. 102.

A D D IT IO N OF C LOTH ING A N D ATTRIBUTES 36. G. Lippold, Kopien, pp. 42,172,196. 37. See D.B. Thompson, “Bronze Dancer from Alexandria,” A/A 54 (1950), pp. 371-385, figs. 1-3, 9-11, and M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age2, pp. 130-132, figs. 510-521. 38. F. Gnecchi, I Medaglioni Romani, II (Milan 1912), pis. 67-68; G. Moretti, op.cit., supra note 32, fig. 12. 39. M.F. Ravaisson, op.cit., supra note 35, pi. VII, fig. 3; C. Robert, Die antiken Sarkophagreliefs (Berlin 1890-1952), III, 2, pp. 235-236, No. 192, pi. 61 (in the Palazzo Mattel). For a sarcophagus in Athens, see C. Robert, op.cit., Ill, 2, pp. 140-141, pi. 50 (with Eros). 40. Louvre No. 1737. E. Michon, CatSommaire, p. 22, No. 398; G. Bendinelli, op.cit., supra note 32, p. 495, fig. 7. 41. On the Florence statue, see Arndt-Amelung, Ε,Α.,Νο. 3452 (with one belt). On the Madrid statue, see Amdt-Amelung, E.A., No. 1533; M.F. Ravaisson, op.cit., supra note 35, p. 48, pi. VI, fig. 3; S. Reinach, Rép. stat., II, 1, p. 338, No. 3 (with two belts). 42. On the Smyrna statue, see Asiarat Müzes No. 646. On the Villa Albani statue, see Amdt-Amelung, E.A., No. 3280. On the Vatican statue, see M.F. Ravaisson, op.cit, supra note 35, p. 72, pi. VI, figs. 1-2; H. Egger, Codex Escurialensis (Vienna 1906), p. 95; S. Reinach, Rép.stat., II, 1, p. 338, fig. 2. The work is not in the catalog of Amelung because it came to its place near the entrance to the Braccio Nuovo in 1910 and into the Giardino or Cortile della Pigna only in 1935, as B. Nogara and H. Speier kindly informed me. Yet S. Reinach saw it there in 1908. The heads of both figures—the goddess and the child she holds—are restored; the child looks modern and may replace an ancient one. The goddess wears two belts. 43. For the Tyche on the relief from a column in Melos and the coins compared with it, see A. Furtwängler, Meisterwerke, pp. 623-628, figs. 124-125 and Masterpieces, pp. 381-384, figs. 167-168. 44. For this development, see M. Bieber’s summary of a paper read at the 37th Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, “Aphrodite in Roman Copies of Greek Statues,” A/A40 (1936), p. 126. For the statue by Lorenzo Lotti, called Lorenzetti, see A. Venturi, Storia dell’Arte italiana (Milan 1901-1939), X, “La scultura del Cinquecento,” pp. 312-315, fig. 2 3 5 .1 owe the reference to David Coffin of Princeton. 45. See A. Meyer, Renaissance und Antike (Reutlingen 1933), where there are observations on the beginning of the imitation of ancient drapery in the art of the Italian Renaissance. 46. H. Bulle, op.cit., col. 531, fig. 168, pi. 252; Kluge-Lehmann-Hartleben, Grossbronzen, II, pp. 105-106, figs. 1-2, III, pi. XXXIII; K. Lehmann-Hartleben, “Ein Siegesdenkmal Domitians,” RömMitt 38-39 (1923-24), ρρ· 185-192; O. Broneer, op.cit., supra note 34, pp. 74, 76-77, fig. 3; M. Wegner, “Die Kunstgeschichtliche Stellung der Marcussäule,” Jdl 46 (1931), pp. 62-71, figs. 1-3; T. Hölscher, “Die Victoria von Brescia,” Antike Plastik 10 (1970), pp. 67-79, pls. 54-58. 47. For the coin of Trajan, our Fig. 115, see H. Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, Voi. Ill (Nerva to Hadrain) (London 1936, reprinted 1966), p. 172, Nos. 812-815, pi. 30, fig. 1. 48. For the Victory on the Column of Trajan, see W. Fröhner, La Colonne Trajane (Paris 1872-1874), pi. 107; K. Lehmann-Hartleben, Die Trajanssäule (Berlin 1926), III, pi. 37. For the Victory on the column of Marcus Aurelius, see E. Petersen, A. von Domascewski, and G. Calderini, Die Marcussäule auf Piazza Colonna in Rotti (Munich 1896), p. 71, pi. 64; G. Becatti, La Colonna di Marco Aurelio (Milan 1957), fig. 29; idem. La Colonna coclide istoriata (Rome 1960), p. 75, pi. 44b. 49. H.P. L’Orange and A. von Gerkan, Der spätantike Bildschmuck des Konstantinsbogens (Berlin 1939), pp· 125-126, relief Nos. 17 and 20, pls. 29-30. 50. Galleria Lapidaria No. 159. W. Amelung, Sculpt.Vat.Mus., I, pp. 282-283, pl. 29 (second century a .d .) . Cf. the sarcophagus of Melfi: R. Delbrueck, “Der römische Sarkophag in Melfi,” Jdl 28 (1913), pp. 277-308; C.R· Morey, The Sarcophagus of Claudia Antonia Sabina and the Asiatic Sarcophagi (Sardis V) (Princeton 1924), pp· 34-35, fig. 40, p. 61, fig. 114. 51. For the Munich sarcophagus, see Furtwängler-Wolters, Glypt.München1, pp. 347-348, No. 326; A. Furtwängler, Einhundert Tafeln nach den Bildwerker der Kgl.Glypt.zu München (Munich 1903), fig. 79. For the Berlin sarcophagus, see E. Rohde, Kunst Mus.Berlin, p. 122, Inv. SK 844; R. Kekule von Stradonitz, Beschreibung ant.Skulpt., pp. 329-331, No. 844. For the sarcophagus in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, see Helbig-Speier, Führer‘, III, pp. 12-13, No. 2123 (Inv. 80711); S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.Rom.', No. 13, pi. VIII·

54

ADDITION OF CLOTHING AND ATTRIBUTES

52. 53.

54.

55.

56.

57. 58. 59.

60.

61.

For the sarcophagus in the British Museum, see A.H. Smith, Cat.Sculpt.Brit.Mus., Ill (London 1904), pp. 316-317, No. 2305. For the Louvre sarcophagus, see W. Fröhner, Sculpt.ant.Louvre*, pp. 350-354, No. 378. For the Pisa sarcophagus, see G. Rodenwaldt, “Sarkophage aus Aphrodisias,” AA 48 (1933), col. 48, fig. 1. For the Villa Albani statue (No. 39) (our Fig. 119), see Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 3280. For the Dresden statue (our Fig. 120), see P. Herrmann, Verzeichnis, pp. 47-48, No. 191. For the Aphrodite with tortoise by Phidias, see R. Kekule von Stradonitz, Über eine weibliche Gewandstatue aus der Werkstatt der Parthenon-Giebelfiguren (Berlin 1894); C. Blümel, Museen zu Berlin. Katalog der Sammlung antiker Skulpturen III (Katalog der griechischen Skulpturen des 5. und 4. Jahrh) (Berlin 1928), pp. 56, No. K5, pls. 6-7. Our Figs. 435-436, Chapter Vili, found in Sarihych in Syria (C. Anti, “Afrodite Urania,” A frit 1 (1927), pp. 41-52, figs. 1-8) and another Aphrodite statuette from Doura-Europos in the Mesopotamian department of the Louvre No. 20216, fully dressed, with traces of red on the mantle, are both of the late Hellenistic type. See F. Cumont, “L’Aphrodite à la Tortue de Doura-Europos,” MonPiot 27 (1924), cols. 1-43; idem, Fouilles de Doura-Europos (Paris 1926), pp. 206-216, pis. LXXX-LXXXI, figs. 1-2; Ch. Picard, “Bulletin archéologique—Sculpture Statuaire,” REG 42 (1929), pp. 71, 80, figs. 7-8; S. Reinach, “Courrier de l’Art antique,” GBA (1929), pp. 221-223. See also the statuette in the Palazzo Doria-Pamphili, Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 2288. J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, No. 399; idem. Die Venus von Melo (Bremen 1959); A. Furtwängler, Meis­ terwerke, pp. 601-628, fig. 116; idem, Masterpieces, pp. 367-384, figs. LVII, 158; Encycl.Phot., Ill, pis. 200-203; A. della Seta, Il Nudo nell’arte (Milan 1930), p. 92, fig. 249; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age1, pp. 159-160, figs. 673-675; Lullies-Hirmer, Griech.Plastik, pp. 29,82-83, pis. 254-255; J. Boardman, et.al, Griech. Kunst, p. 214, pi. 291. For the Nemesis on the Villa Albani altar (our Fig. 116), see Helbig-Amelung, Führer\ II, pp. 445-446, No. 1906 (276); B. Schweitzer, “Dea Nemesis Regina,” Jdl 46 (1931), pp. 175-246, esp. 194-214; Arndt-Amelung, E.A., Nos. 3625-3626. For the Nemesis on the Louvre sarcophagus, see J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, pp. 229-231, No. 539. Helbig-Speier, Führer1, II, pp. 238-239, No. 1434 (Inv. 408); H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Mus.Capitol, pp. 185-186, No. 3, pi. 45; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 375; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age2, p. 150, fig. 638. A.H. Smith, Cat.Sculpt.Brit.Mus., II (London 1900), p. 257, No. 1483. For the Apollo in the British Museum, see A.H. Smith, Cat.Sculpt.Brit.Mus., II, pp. 222-223, No. 1380; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age2, p. 160, figs. 678-679; G.E. Rizzo, Prassitele, p. 83, pi. 128; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 593. For the Capitoline Apollo, see Helbig-Speier, Führer*, II, pp. 190-191, No. 1383 (Inv. 628); H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Mus.Capitol., pp. 279-280, No. 7, pi. 67; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age2, p. 160, fig. 680; G. Becatti, “Timarchides e l’Apollo qui tenet citharam,” BullComm 63 (1935), pp. 111-131; idem, “Attika—Saggio sulla Scultura attica dell’Ellenismo,” RivIstArch 7 (1940), pp. 33-36, figs. 9-12. There is also an Apollo Kitharoidos, without a head in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme: Helbig-Speier, Führer*, III, p. 132, No. 2215 (Inv. 107681); S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.Rom.3, No. 465. For the Apollo in Naples, see M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age2, p. 160, fig. 681. Fòr the sarcophagus in the Museo Torlonia, see E.Q. Visconti, I Monumenti di Sculture antiche. Museo Torlonia (Rome 1884), pp. 213-214, pi. CVII, No. 423. For the sarcophagus in the Villa Borghese (our Fig. 122), see C.R. Morey, Asiatic Sarc., pp. 38-39, fig. 56. For the copy of the Venus Genetrix in Paris, (our Fig. 124), see, J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, pp. 28-29, No. 525; Ch. Picard, Manuel d ’Archéologie Grecque, La Sculpture, II (Paris 1939), pp. 247-248, 620-621; G. Lippold, Kopien, pp. 206-207; Encycl.Phot., Ill, p. 176; G.M.A. Richter, “Who Made . . . Statues,” pp. 189, 202, fig. 38. For the copy in Naples (our Fig. 125), see B. Maiuri, Musée Nap., p. 12 (calls this type “Aphrodite of the Gardens”). For the copy in Rome (our Fig. 126), see Helbig-Speier, Führer1, II, p. 715, No. 1953 (Inv. 626). For the copy in Florence (our Figs. 127-129), see G. Mansuelli, Uffizi Scult., I, pp. 38-40, No. and fig. 13 (Inv. 27). For the copy in New York City, (headless statue) (our Figs. 130-132), see G.M.A. Richter, op.cit., pp. 189, 203, fig. 43; eadem, Cat.Gk.Sculpt.Met.Mus., p. 39, No. 57 (32.11.3) pi. XLIX; eadem. Handbook

A D D IT IO N O F CLO TH IN G A N D ATTRIBUTES Gk.Coll.,Met.Mus., p. 92, pi. 72b. Cf. A.D. Frazer, “A New Venus Genetrix in Washington,” AJA 39 (1935), pp. 454-457, figs. 1-3. On the type see also W. Fuchs, “Zum Aphrodite-Typus Louvre-Neapel und seinen neuattischen Umbildungen,” Festschrift B. Schweitzer (Stuttgart 1954), pp. 206-217. 62. The five statuettes were found in a sanctuary of Attis at Ostia, and are dated 140-160 a . d . : R. de Chirico “Ostia. Sculture provenienti dall’edificio degli Augustali,” NSc, Ser. VII, 2 (1941), pp. 230-233, figs. 7-9; R. Calza, “Ostia—Sculture rinvenute nel Santuario,” MemPontAcc 5 (1946), pp. 225-226, Nos. 18-20, figs. 27-29; R. Calza, M.F. Squarciapino, Museo Ostiense (Rome 1962), p. 27, No. 36 (Inv. 66). Other small replicas exist in the Museo Nuovo and in the storerooms of the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, see D. Mustilli, Mus.Mussol., pp. 39-40, No. 12, pi. XXVII, fig. 92 with list of replicas; E. Paribeni, Scult.Greche, p. 65, No. and fig. 117. 63. Helbig-Speier, Führer1, III, p. 199, No. 2284 (Inv. 607); S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.Rom.*, No. 287 (Inv. 607), pi. LVIa; W. Klein, Vom antiken Rokoko (Vienna 1921), pp. 72-73, fig. 30; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 474; Ch. Picard, Manuel d ’Archéohgie Grecque III, p. 621, fig. 250. The statue was found behind the temple of Magna Mater on the Palatine: A. Bartoli, “Il culto della Mater Deurn Magna Idaea e di venere Genetrice sul Palatino,” MemPontAcc 6 (1947), pp. 231-238, figs. 11-12. It is often called Charis, i.e. Grace. G.E. Rizzo, Thiasos (Rome 1934), p. 40, fig. 26, considers it a Roman copy, while it has sometimes been considered a Greek original of the fourth century b . c . Indeed, it seems to be a Greek variation of the creations of the late fifth century, whether it was by Alkamenes or Kallimachos. Similar calligraphic folds are found on the woman who moves abruptly near a cult statue, as depicted on the frieze of Phigalia (British Museum No. 524). 64. Amdt-Amelung, E.A., No. 5015; C. Harcum, “A Statue of the Type called the Venus Genetrix in the Royal Ontario Museum,” AJA 31 (1927), pp. 141-152, pi. VII (Cf. p. 150 for other examples); G.M.A. Richter, “Who Made . . . Statues,” pp. 189,203, fig. 41. 65. Calza-Squarciapino, Mus.Ost., pp. 56-57, No. 14 (Inv. 24); G.M.A. Richter, “Who Made . . . Statues,” pp. 189, 202, fig. 39; eadem. Three Critical Periods, p. 59, fig. 134; M. Wegner, Hadrian, p. 127 (doubts the identification as Sabina). It is, however, unlikely that an unknown woman was represented in this over life-size statue. 66. H. Mattingly, BMC Empire, III, p. 360, Nos. 944-949, pi. 65, figs. 19-20 (our Figs. 144-145), p. 538, Nos. 1883-1884, pi. 99, fig. 4 (Sabina); H. Mattingly and E.A. Sydenham, The Roman Imperial Coinage (London 1926, reprinted 1968), II, pp. 387, 477, No. 287, pi. 14; A. Bartoli, op.cit., supra note 63, p. 238, fig. 13; P.L. Strack, Untersuchungen zur römischen Reichsprägung des 2. Jahrh. (Stuttgart 1931-37), II, pp. 179, 180, pl. VII, No. 381; R. West, Röm.Porträtplastik, II, p. 123, pi. LIV, fig. 66; G.M.A. Richter, “Who Made . . . Statues,” pp. 189, 202, figs. 36-37. 67. Helbig-Speier, Führer*,1, pp. 147-148, No. 204 (Inv. 816); W. Amelung, Sculpt.Vat.Mus., II, p. 686, Gabinetto delle Maschere No. 429, pl. 75. The head may be modera. 68. C. Vermeule, Greek, Etruscan and Roman Art: The Classical Collection of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (Boston 1963), pp. 119,128, fig. 106; L.D. Caskey, “A Statue of Aphrodite,” BMFA 28 (1930), pp. 82-89, with four illustrations; G.E. Rizzo, Thiasos, p. 39, fig. 25; G.M.A. Richter, “Who M ade. . . Statues,” pp. 189,203, fig. 42; G. Gullini, “Kallimachos,” ArchCl 5 (1953), pp. 133-162, pi. LVII. 69. A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, p. 38, No. 120 (Inv. 5998); G.M.A. Richter, op.cit., pp. 189,203, fig. 40. This example shows clearly the borderline of the inset. 70. Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 1131. 71. Ibid., Nos. 95 and 1106. 72. W. Van Buren, “New Items from Rome,” AJA 46 (1942), pp. 433-434. The statuette (height 1.03 meters) was found in the edifice of the Augustales. 73. Florence (our Fig. 153): Museo Archeologico Giardino, Inv. No. 13712. Palazzo Colonna, No. 95 (our Fig. 154): Amdt-Amelung, E.A., No. 1153. Villa Borghese (our Fig. 155): Helbig-Speier, Führer', II, pp. 714-715, No. 1952 (Inv. 624); Amdt-Amelung, E.A., No. 2718 and No. 2853. Hermitage: O. Waldhauer, Die antiken Skulpturen der Ermitage, III (Berlin-Leipzig 1936), p. 8, Nos. 225-226, pl. IX, and p. 10, No. 228, pi. XI. 74. For the statue formerly in the Roman art market, see Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 5016. 75. Furtwängler-Wolters, Glypt.Münch2, p. 395, No. 449; A. Furtwängler, Einhundert Tafeln, pl. 92, idem, Illustrierter Katalog der Glyptothek König Ludwig’s I zu München (Munich 1907), pl. 70. 76. W. Amelung, Sculpt.Vat.Mus., II, pp. 672-673, Gabinetto delle Maschere No. 423, pl. 74. See also J. Marcadé,

56

ADDITION OF CLOTHING AND ATTRIBUTES “Sculptures Argiennes,” BCH 81 (1957), pp. 435-437, fig. 18, pi. VIII. The statue has a high belt added, and the shoulder is covered. It was found in the Bath of Argos. 77. C. Pietrangeli, “Rilievo Funerario di Villa Medici,” BullComm 71 (1943-45), pp. 117-122. 78. The statue in Ostia (our Figs. 151-152) is unpublished. For the Farnese Bull in Naples, see A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, pp. 80-83, No. 260 (6002), fig. 29; idem, Auszug, pp. 56-57, No. 163, fig. 19; B. Maiuri, Musée Nap., p. 26; F. Studniczka, “Der Farnesische Stier,” Zeitschrift Bild.Kunst 14 (1903), pp. 171-182; Br.-Br., Denkmäler p. 367; G.M.A. Richter, Sculpture and Sculptors\ p. 240, fig. 849. For other replicas, see Arndt-Amelung, E.A No. 350 (Uffizi, Florence), 386 (Giardino Boboli, Florence), 551 (in reverse position, Palermo) (cf. list of replicas to No. 1153 in E.A., Serie IV, pp. 44-45). For the Flora Farnese (our Figs. 158-159), see A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, pp. 71-72, No. 242 (6409), fig. 25; idem, Auszug, pp. 50-51, No. 145, fig. 17; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 360; A. Furtwängler, Meisterwerke, p. 553; idem. Masterpieces, p. 323. For Lippold on the Farnese statues, see supra Chapter I, note 10. 79. P. Zancani-Montuoro, “Repliche romane di una Statua fidiaca,” BullComm 61 (1933), pp. 25-58 figs 1-19 pis. I-III. 80. Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, pp. 32-33, No. 40 (Inv. 249); G. Lippold, Skulpt.Vat.Mus., Ili, 1, pp. 126-128, Sala Rotonda No. 546, pls. 37-39. 81. F. Poulsen, Cat.Ny Carlsberg, pp. 186-188, No. 247 (Inv. 473); Billedtavler, pi. XVII, fig. 247; P. ZancaniMontuoro, op.cit, figs. 1-3; V.H. Poulsen, “Phidias und sein Kreis,” From the Collections o fth e N y Carlsberg Glyptotek 3 (1942), pp. 65-72. 82. Helbig-Speier, Führer1, III, pp. 170-171, No. 2262 (Inv. 51); S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.Rorn.'', No. 265, pi. XL; E. Paribeni, Scult.Greche, p. 63, No. I ll, fig. 94; P. Zancani-Montuoro, op.cit., p. 38, No. 6, figs. 10-11. 83. P. Zancani-Montuoro, op.cit, pp. 41-43, pi. II, suppl. pi. A., fig. 14 (inscription). 84. Ibid., pp. 44-45, pi. Ill, figs. 15-16 (inscription). 85. Ibid., pp. 45-47, figs. 17-18; L. Pernier, “L’Odeum” nell “Agora”,” di Gortina presso il Leteo,’ ASAtene 8-9 (1925-26), p. 52. 86. Helbig-Speier, Führer1, 1, p. 336, No. 436 (Inv. 2246); W. Amelung, Sculpt. Vat.Mus., I, p. 98, Braccio Nuovo No. 83, pi. 13; G. Lippold, Kopien, p. 203; P. Zancani-Montuoro, op.cit., pp. 34-35. 87. H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Mus.Capitol., pp. 282-283, Salone No. 11, pi· 68. 88. Helbig-Speier, F ü h re rI, pp. 94-95, No. 127 (Inv. 745); W. Amelung, Sculpt. Vat.Mus., II, p. 464, Galleria delle Statue No. 268, pi. 50; C. Pietrangeli, “Sulla provenienza della ‘Afrodite Braschi’ di Monaco e delle ‘Cnidie’ del Vaticano,” ArchCl 1 (1949), p. 179, pi. 52; P. Zancani-Montuoro, op.cit., p. 48. 89. E. Paribeni, Catalogo delle Sculture di Cirene. Statue e Rilievi di Carattere religioso (Rome 1959), p. 146. No. 423 (14.363), pi. 183. 90. F. Poulsen, Cat.Ny Carlsberg, p. 188, No. 248 (Inv. 1802); Billedtavler, pi. XVIII, fig. 248; P. Zancani-Montuoro, op.cit., pp. 38-39, figs. 12-13. 91. S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.Rom/, No. 65 (Inv. 124501). 92. M. Bieber, Kassel. Die antiken Skulpturen und Bronzen des Kgl. Museum Fridericianum in Cassel (Marburg 1915), pp. 29-31, No. 48, pl. 30; G. Lippold, Kopien, pp. 203-204. 93. Our Fig. 172, a large bronze coin of Severus Alexander from Cremna in Pisidia, is in the collection of the author. This particular type is not mentioned for this city in B.V. Head, Historia Numorum, nor in G.F. Hill, BMC, Lycia, Pamphylia, Pisidia. This same group (but seen inside a distyle temple) is on a bronze coin of Lucius Verus from Cos; see M. Bieber, “A Bronze Statuette in Cincinnati and its Place in the Development of the Asklepios Types,” ProcPhilSoc 101 (1957), pp. 75-76, fig. 12. A coin of Lucius Verus from Corinth also has this Salus (Hygieia)—Asklepios type on the reverse; see F. Imhoof-Blumer and P. Gardner, Ancient Coins Illus­ trating Lost Masterpieces o f Greek Art. A Numismatic Commentary on Pausanias (JHS 6-8 (1885-87), new enl. ed. prepared by AI.N. Oikonomides (Chicago 1964), p. 25, pl. F, fig. CXVII. 94. J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.Ikon., II, 1, p. 86, pi. XXXII, fig. 12(a coin of Tiberius with bust of Livia, inscribed Salus Augusta); H. Mattingly, BMC Empire, I, p. 131, Nos. 81-84, pl. 24, fig. 2. On Livia, see Chapter XIII. 95. Helbig-Speier, Führer1, III, p. 252, No. 2334 (Inv. 8626); S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.Rom/·, No. 178; E. Paribeni Scult-Greche, pp. 63-64, No. and fig. 112; Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 257.

A D D IT IO N O F C LO TH IN G A N D ATTRIBUTES 96. K. Weitzmann, The Joshua Roll, A Work o f the Macedonian Renaissance (Studies in Manuscript Illumination, Voi. Ill) (Princeton 1948), pp. 65-66, 78-79, pi. XI, fig. 37, pi. XIX, figs. 65-66; (cf. pi. XX, fig. 67, pi. XXIII, fig. 82). 97. For the reliefs from Ischia in Naples, see A. Ruesch, Auszug, pp. 130-132, Nos. 500-510 (our Fig. 176 is “d” or No. 503 [Mus. No. 6720]); also see C.I.L., X, No. 6798. The text, note 1, to Br.Br., Denkmäler, pi. 675 right lists the statue replicas of this relief type. 98. Naples: A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, p. 69, No. 233 (6301); idem, Auszug, p. 48, No. 136. Ostia: Calza-Squarciapino, Mus.Ost., p. 31, No. 7 (110) (here are mentioned other statues of this type—Inv. 1119, 1120, 1121, 3197), fig. 13; Br,-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 675. Vatican: W. Amelung, Sculpt.Vat.M us., I, pp. 607-608, Museo Chiaramonti No. 451, pi. 63. 99. Ostia (our Fig. 184): Calza-Squarciapino, Mus.Ost., pp. 83-84, No. 15 (Inv. 1221). Villa Borghese (our Fig. 185): Helbig-Speier, Führer4, II, pp. 728-729, No. 1971 (Inv. 738); Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 2744; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 675. Naples: A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, p. 343, No. 1446 (6292); idem, Auszug, p. 275, No. 1135. The mantle has brown stripes parallel to the edges. The thin chiton is pink with a vertical and central stripe of yellow. It is held by a cord under the breast, and around the shoulders. Cf. the drawing in Codex Escunalensis, Amdt-Amelung, E.A., No. 1496, with added chiton. 100. E. Rohde, K unst Mus.Berlin, p. 115, Inv. Sk276; R. Kekulé, Beschreibung A n t.S k u lp t, pp. 117-118, No. 276; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 675. Another replica with a part of a chiton added between large folds of a himation is in the National Museum, Athens, storeroom No. 706.

58

6 DIFFERENT REASONS FOR DENUDING IN GREEK AND ROMAN ART The Roman feeling for decency was strong only in the upper classes. The middle and lower classes did not feel as strongly about this, nor were they so enthusiastic for personifications, mythological figures, or gods. Therefore, in contrast to the cases of veiling, w e find many instances in which parts of the clothing are divested from what was originally a fully dressed body. Such cases were, of course, quite frequent in the Classical and in the Hellenistic periods of Greek art. Then, however, they always had a definite meaning in accordance with the subject represented. For example, the fastenings on the shoulders of the Lapith women in the w est pediment of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia have been torn off by the rude hands of Centaurs. On an Attic vase in the Vatican, similar to the north metopes (XXIV-XXV) of the Parthenon, the body of the beautiful Helen appears between the edges of her dress, revealing that beauty which induces her husband Menelaos to drop the sword with which he intended to kill her. W hen Hebe on the east pediment of the Parthenon runs to announce the miraculous birth of Athena to the Eleusinian goddess, her simple peplos with an overfold, under which the garment is belted, opens naturally at the side (Figs. 186-187) and shows most of her left leg.1 W hen the Niobid from the Gardens of Sallust (now in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme) is represented almost com pletely naked, the artist carefully shows how this denudation came about (Fig. 188).2 It is clear that a peplos originally covered the body. In appreciation of the actual appearance of the dress, the artist carefully indicated the selvage of the vertical edges. The upper edge of the back part of the overfold hangs with a double-bent or tubular fold from the hand which presses the dress to the wound in her back. The cloth hangs down to the left lower leg and then to the ground. The front part of the overfold falls from the right thigh to the ground, and, at about the middle of the base, 59

D IFFE R E N T REASONS FOR D E N U D IN G IN GREEK A N D ROM AN ART below the bent left leg, it m eets the other vertical edge lyin g in zigzags. This edge then m eets the other corner near the right foot. T he Atalanta in T egea and the M aenad of Skopas in the Dresden copy (Figs. 189-190) have nearly the w hole left side nude, as do several A m azons in the frieze of the Mausoleum, probably designed by Skopas.3 H ere it is the liv ely m ovem ent of the hunt, the D ionysiae ecstasy, and the fervor of battle that cause the drapery to open on these figures. On the Berlin dancer, most probably a copy of the drunken flute player of L ysippos, and on the replica of this dancer from the Villa of Hadrian and now in the M useo N azionale delle Term e, the passionate dance under the influence of w ine is reflected in the peplos, w hose edges are turned back,thus leaving most of the breast bare.' The N ike of Paionios, the N ereids of Xanthos (Fig. 191), and many H ellenistic terracotta V ictories (Fig. 192) are show n in quick flight com ing down from heaven or dancing through the air, all w ith one leg protruding naked from the drapery w hich flutters backward due to the force of the air.5 In good Roman work, of course, the m otif of denuding is also used rationally. T he frieze o f the Basilica Aemilia,” dated to the tim e of the building’s restoration, w h ich was co m p leted in 22 a .d ., shows divesting due to different reasons. W hen the Sabine w om en, in spite of their vigorous resistance, are carried off forcibly by the Latin youths, their breasts and other bod y parts are exposed. A fleeing Sabine w om an loses her drapery from her right shoulder and breast. As the traitress Tarpeia is buried under the shields of the Sabine soldiers, quite understandably her dress flutters and her right breast is laid bare. This frieze is an im portant contribution to our knowledge of the art in the early period of Tiberius. It dem onstrates an ex cellen t H ellen istic tradition which, com bined w ith Roman content, forms a new and original style. W hen Maenads on N eo-A ttic reliefs rave in ecstasy, th e right sides of their bodies are naturally unveiled, as can be seen, for exam ple, on the crater by Salpion in N aples (Fig. 193), on the round base in the Vatican (Fig. 194), and on a candelabrum base, form erly in the art market at Rome (Fig. 195).7 T he vertical edges of the peplos flutter backw ard, w ith the low er front corner, marked by a little round w eight, hanging b etw een the feet and w ith the low er back corner, marked by a similar w eight, behind the right foot. T he m ovem en t of the drapery is quite similar on the terracotta V ictory from Myrina (Fig. 192) m entioned above, w here the front part of the dress is blow n back betw een the advancing left leg and the right le g w h ich is extended backward. However, the Victories on the stucco ceilin g o f the early Augustan house o f the Farnesina show the same m otif (Figs. 196-197),8 but there is no real reason for it. T heir m ovem ent is not stormy, but restrained and graceful, in Augustan style. A lthough each carefully carries the helm ets in a dignified attitude, the fastening has slipped dow n from the shoulder and the top edge o f the peplos has glided dow n b elow the breast. B etw een the op en side edges, one le g is uncovered up to the knee, the other up to the m iddle of the thigh. T he figures are show n in reverse, one seen from the right side, the other from the left. Thus, the op en in g o f th e p ep los is also reversed. On one figure it opens on the right, on the other on the left. T he b egin n in g o f the openin g on both figures has been shifted toward the front of the leg. In the later im perial period, this senseless divesting of the V ictories b ecom es m ore prevalent, as can be seen best on trium phal arches and sarcophagi. T h e V ictories in the spandrels of the arches and the Victories on the sarcophagi are alw ays arranged in pairs in a heraldic fashion. The Romans are fond of sym m etry and of decorative arrangem ent. Both the m ovem ents and the drapery of the Victories are repeated in mirror im age. W hen one V ictory has th e left le g exposed, 60

DIFFERENT REASONS FOR DENUDING IN GREEK AND ROMAN ART her counterpart exposes the right. Yet as a rule, the peplos worn by all these Victories should open only at the right side. In all cases the leg is unveiled up to the edge of the overfold of the peplos, which means almost to the hip. On the Arch of Titus,® the nude leg is the nearer one resting on the globe, while the nude breast is that farthest from the viewer. On the Arch of Trajan in Benevento,10 it is the leg farthest from the viewer which is uncovered. On the Arch of the Severi in Leptis Magna," the whole body is laid bare except for the right leg. The mantle is draped around the waist in the back and held between the legs. This adds to the inharmonious appearance of the spandrel figures. But at least on these arches, the drapery flows around the figures in harmony with their action, thus laying bare their legs. On the Arch of Septimius Severus,12 however, the rendering of the peplos is definitely misunderstood. The lower edge is doubled above the inner veiled leg and also doubled behind the nude leg. The side edges behind this nude leg are not divided from each other, while the connection of the lower edge behind this leg with the part before the inner leg has not been indicated. Still further disfigured are the peploi of the Victories on the Arch of Constantine.13The parts before and behind the nude leg are com pletely separated. The lower edge does not go around the figure but is laid before the figure. It is clear that this is a copy of a traditional motif which was not understood and therefore has been disfigured. Although the two sides of the Arch of Constantine are stylistically different, with the north flat and linear and the south more pictorial, with much light and shade, this mistake has been made on both sides. The misunderstanding, therefore, must be of the designer, not of the artisans executing the reliefs. The Victories on sarcophagi who carry the portrait medallions of the deceased have the outer leg and breast laid bare with the same mechanical, and sometimes senseless symmetry. Good examples of this exist on sarcophagi in the Palazzo Doria-Pamphili and in Ostia (from the Via Ostiense before the Porta Romana). On the latter sarcophagus, the group of Eros and Psyche also appears in a mechanical, reversed attitude.14 On other examples in the Campo Santo in Pisa (Fig. 198) and in the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Victories holding tablets with inscriptions have the outer shoulder and the upper leg uncovered. On another example, in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, they show the inner leg bare, although they stand quietly (Fig. 199);15 thus the motif is used without reason. On a sarcophagus in Santa Maria Antiqua with a portrait medallion of the early third century a . d ., the Victories in the rear, holding a wreath betw een them, are the ordinary type, with the upper leg exposed up to the overfold. But on the front, they divest in an unusual manner the upper parts of their bodies with their outer hands. They do the same on another sarcophagus in the Campo Santo in Pisa (Fig. 200). This divesting of the body continued during the Severan period.

1. DIVESTING OF THE LEGS In general, Roman sarcophagi are based on a good Greek tradition. There must have been very reliable cartoons or sketchbooks for the stories from Greek mythology which the Romans reinterpreted as symbols of resurrection and eternal life. Dionysiae scenes were particularly popular, since the Dionysiae Mysteries had come to Italy and Rome, despite the resistance of the Senate, by the second century b .c . Thus, as we have seen, the Hellenistic types of Maenads, often 61

D IFFE R E N T REASONS FO R D E N U D IN G IN GREEK A N D ROM AN ART w ith open dresses, are found on N eo-A ttic works in the first centuries b . c . and a . d . , 1(1 and on sarcophagi of the second and third centuries a . d . W hen, h ow ever, only th e legs and buttocks are laid bare, it seems to b e a Roman variation. Thus, on the sarcophagus in the V atican (Figs. 201-202)17 the Maenads near the left and right ends are fully covered, w ith th e ends of the overfold fluttering sym m etrically in accordance w ith typ ical Rom an taste (see C hapter VII, Fig. 249). The M aenad in the center, how ever, reveals her buttocks and legs, as seen from behind, w hich seems a coarse Roman adaptation. On a sarcophagus in V erona (Fig. 203), a similar contrast is seen betw een the fully dressed, flute-playing M aenad and tw o other M aenads w ho are nearly naked, one seen from the back, the other from the front. This typ e is still used on the beautiful silver plate from M ildenhall in the British M useum, as Tobias D ohrn has p oin ted out.18 This fourth-century silver treasure is rightly recognized as the property of som e Roman officer or official w ho buried it w hen the Roman army had to leave the British Isles in 4 0 1 -0 2 a . d . A clear Hellenistic-Roman tradition is apparent in this treasure, w h ich show s that the art of copying older models did not die out in the Late Antique period. On a round N eo-A ttic base in the Palazzo D oria-Pam phili, a M aenad, seen from behind, has the lower part of her body exposed by the w ide separation of both vertical edges of her peplos w hich flutter before and behind her (Fig. 204).Hi But by m istake, only the left leg and foot are fully shown; the lower right leg is hidden behind the peplos, w h ich seem s to b e drawn b etw een the legs. This kind of mistake could not have been m ade in the original. This unnecessary baring of the buttocks in these artistic presentations argues against the idea of a general feelin g for decorum among the Romans. The numerous representations of V ictory sacrificing a bull show all kinds o f veiling and divesting. In marble groups and terracotta friezes of the early im perial period, the V ictory is nude, w ith only a small m antle over the left arm and around th e low er right side, as is the case w ith the group in the British Museum (Fig. 205).20 She m ay also appear fully dressed, w ith only the left leg showing, bare up to the small Roman shawl around th e w aist. T he V ictory on a relief in the Museo N azionale delle T erm e is shown in this m anner (Fig. 206). H er peplos opens on the left, that is, on the w rong side, as in the case on those V ictories w h o face to th e left on fragments of a terracotta frieze (Fig. 207), in the same m useum .21 T he V ictories facing to the right show the correct opening of the peplos (Fig. 208). T he desire for balance and sym m etry caused the Roman artists to disregard the actual form of the drapery. On the Arch of Trajan in B enevento, w e find a sacrificing V ictory w ith a nude upper body and a fully draped low er body next to a nude V ictory w ith only a sm all m antle over her kneeling leg (Fig. 209).22 One kneeling V ictory w ith a tunic and one w ith ou t a tu nic occur on a Trajanic frieze in Munich.23 In most cases there m ight b e a reason for th e openin g of the dress on flying or sacrificing Victories to show one or both legs in lively m ovem ent. But the m otif has b een used for purely decorative purposes in a terracotta puteal in the M useo N azion ale d elle T erm e (Fig. 210).21 Six w inged w om en w ith thyrsi in their hands stand in frontal attitudes, each dressed in a peplos w hich is opened in front to reveal their stiffly standing legs. T h e artisan has cut aw ay the central portion of the peplos so that the low er edge m ounts over th e knees in the center, w h ile the sides hang down to the ground. The edge of the overfold follow s this m ovem en t a little less steeply. Although the dress is doubled, the body can b e seen through it. T he b elt is laid very high, an

DIFFERENT REASONS FOR DENUDING IN GREEK AND ROMAN ART unusually broad ribbon gathers together the upper band of the overfold. Here too, one may speak of misunderstanding on the part of the copyist. The six antefixes with Athena, found in the Lateran, are similar to the figures of Victory, but without the senseless denudation of the legs.25The edge of the overfold has a similar arrangement, but the sculptor carved a comer at each side to appeal to the Roman love for symmetry. It looks as if the peplos has been hung before, not around the figure—the work of a decorator, not an artist. We might ask why divesting, which might make sense in regard to a thin and light chiton, has been used for figures wearing the heavy peplos. Perhaps the answer is due to the fact that the Victories, dancers, and Maenads who are represented in violent motion are dressed in peploi which do not open but closely adhere to the body. Examples of this are the Victories on the balustrade of the Nike Temple, which Neo-Attic artists liked to imitate (see supra, Chapter IV, Figs. 47-48 and the dancers from a round base in the Museo Nazionale delle Terrae, Fig. 211).2β The dancers to the right and left of the girl in front view move forward, and the peploi cling so tightly to their lower legs that, apart from the curving bottom edge, they appear to be nude. These figures of dancers can be dated by the mantles which billow up behind their heads, a motif which closely resembles the A u rae V elificantes of the Augustan Ara Pacis. The left leg of the Diana Lucifera from Capua (Fig. 212) is treated in the same way.27 The rather unnatural and illogical stylization of the dress of Roman Victories is due in part to a misunderstanding on the part of the artisans doing the copying. They thought that the leg to which the fabric clings like a veil was nude. Furthermore, they preferred the nude to the draped limb.

2. DIVESTING OF THE BREAST The divesting of one breast is a well-known Greek motif, used since the fifth century b . c . to represent Amazons and Aphrodite (see supra, “Venus Genetrix,” Chapter V, Figs. 124-148). Thus, we find it in mirror image on the corner figures of Amazons and Penthesilea herself on two sarcophagi showing Achilles and Penthesilea and the Amazonomachy (Figs. 213-214). The motif also occurs on the figure of a deceased woman shown with her husband in a harbor scene on another sarcophagus (Fig. 215).2S All these women are dressed in a short tunic, belted in the Roman manner. That is, in addition to the belt below the breast, a second is added over the hips without drawing out a pouch. In each case one breast is left free, not covered by the tunic. The same was probably true of the small Amazons who support the bust of Commodus dated around 190 A .D ., now in the Palazzo dei Conservatori.20 Although only the left figure is preserved, we may assume that the right one also had the outer breast uncovered. In other cases this contrived exposure of body parts in mirror image is not used, and it appears that these examples are closer to the Greek models. On the sarcophagus of Artemisia from the Via Praenestina, in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme,30 the corner figures of Victories, who carry garlands, have their inner legs laid bare, that is, the right leg of the Victory in the left corner and the left leg of that in the right corner. But in both cases the right breast is exposed, probably in imitation of a Greek model. This type of divesting was accepted by workshops producing Christian sarcophagi, as for examples on a sarcophagus in the Museum of San Sebastian on the Via Appia. Here, of course, the Victories have been transformed into angels.31 63

D IFFE R E N T REASONS FOR D E N U D IN G IN GREEK A N D ROM AN ART

3 . D IVESTING O F T H E U PPER BODY After Praxiteles created the types of the sem idraped A phrodite of Arles (Figs. 216-218), a good copy of w hich exists also in the M useo N uovo (Fig. 219), and the nude A phrodite of Knidos, H ellenistic Greek artists created many different forms adhering to both ty p es.52 T he so-called Anadyomene is probably an early H ellenistic creation. She w as m isnam ed, since she is not rising from the sea but rather arranging her hair, lifting w ith each hand a thick bunch o f hair in order to tie the tw o together on the crow n of the head in the knot so fashionable in that period. The original m odel was a good, sensible creation. T he hands m ust b e free so she can arrange her hair; therefore, the m antle has b een firmly knotted around the hips; th e figure accordingly does not have to hold her hand before the lap in a gesture of m odesty as is th e case w ith th e Aphrodite of Knidos (see the m odel w ith the knotted m antle, Fig. 223). A co m p lete co p y of the Anadyomene is in the Museo N uovo (Fig. 220). A good copy w ith restored arms exists in the V atican (Fig. 221), and another good headless cop y was on the art market in R om e (Fig. 222). This ty p e33 continued to be used throughout H ellenistic tim es. In the late H ellen istic period, m arble and terracotta adaptations in great number w ere made in Epidauros and in A thens, w here unfinished statuettes also have been found in a workshop b elow the w estern slope of the A cropolis (Fig. 224).34 They are of poor quality and m ay have been dedications of poor A thenians to A phrodite Pandem os, whose sanctuary was in this area. More sensible and beautiful are statues of a nude A phrodite binding up her hair, as in the Museo Torlonia (Figs. 225-226) and in the Palazz'o C olonna. T hese are probably exam ples of an older type.35 This type also w as follow ed for a baroque Roman com position o f the Antonine period. The woman holds in her right hand a long, thick bunch o f hair; in her raised left hand she grasps a perfume alabastron handed to her by a sm all Eros, standing on the back of a kneeling Triton. On her right side another Eros rides a dolphin. H er diad em ed head is too b ig for her slender body.38 The type w ith only the m antle rem ained popular through th e Rom an period. A portrait statue in the Vatican, attributed w rongly to Julia Soaem ias but probably o f her tim e, originally had the same m otif of a wom an arranging the locks of her hair w ith both hands, before it was incorrectly restored (Fig. 227).37 An Eros rides a dolphin outside her right leg. H er m antle is firmly knotted around her legs. On other variations o f this type, one hand m ay be lifted to th e hair w hile the other holds up the drapery in front of her lap, as on a statue in the Uffizi (Fig. 228).3S M antles loosely draped around the low er body are frequently encountered in H ellenistic art.39 There are many different exam ples am ong the statuettes from th e sanctuary o f Aphrodite Pandemos in Athens (Figs. 229-232).40 O ne o f these A thenian statuettes (Fig. 229) and several pieces in D elos have a chiton added. T he Romans used this ty p e for portrait statues too. Such loose draping around the legs is often used to represent A pollo in both H ellenistic and Roman art. Thus, the drapery on the A pollo from C yrene, probably a cop y o f th e A pollo by Timarchides, appears to have a rather harmonious and stable arrangem ent, w h ile in reality it is very precarious, since it is only lying on the left shoulder in a sm all pad, and then over the left thigh. The copyist has lengthened the ends w ith tassels so that th ey reach th e ground as a means of support. In reality, these ought to hang free. Others w h o have co p ied this ty p e have fastened an 64

DIFFERENT REASONS FOR DENUDING IN GREEK AND ROMAN ART end of the mantle under the lyre, set on a support.41 On sarcophagi of the Sidamara type, the drapery hangs to the ground, but the leg is also exposed, appearing betw een the folds hanging from the thigh (see Chapter V, Fig. 122, a sarcophagus in the Villa Borghese).42 Aphrodite appears in Hellenistic and Roman art with her drapery knotted before her lap, on types that do not show her arranging her hair. The Roman copyists liked to show Venus with the motif introduced by the school of Praxiteles in the Aphrodite Medici. Here, the goddess covers her breast with one hand, and with her other her lap, in a gesture of modesty. Occasionally the Roman copyists combined this Hellenistic gesture with the fully closed mantle. The hand lies on the knot in the center of the mantle.43 More often, however, Aphrodite is represented holding the open mantle together over her lap, as on the Aphrodite from Syracuse (Figs. 233-234), known also in many copies (Figs. 235-237).44 The drapery serves as a frame for her naked legs. The Syracuse statue has been dated by some to the second century b .c ., by others to the first century b .c ., and by others even as late as the Hadrianic period.45 The first of these three dates appears most likely. In the Hellenistic original, Aphrodite’s mantle is not knotted. She prevents it from slipping off her body by holding it with her left hand, while with her right she covers her breasts. The combination of the slipping drapery and the gesture of modesty appealed to the Romans, but the copyists added an extra measure of security by knotting the drapery held over the lap. They did not realize that either the mantle must be knotted to leave the hands free or that the hands, not the dress, are to cover the parts which Aphrodite does not want to expose. Like other Aphrodite types, the Syracuse version was used for portraits, as is illustrated by an example found in the Villa of Hadrian, now in Stockholm.45 The motif of opening the mantle in the center of the front was followed also on statues of nymphs holding shells out of which water poured, used as decorations for gardens and fountains (Fig. 238).47 The drapery on the lower part of the body of the Aphrodite signed by Menophantes in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme (known as the Aphrodite from Troas)48 is more natural than that on the Syracuse type. The drapery (not a towel, as it has been called) is drawn up from one side to the lap, parallel to the right hand’s gesture of modesty. This motif was used at least once on a portrait statue, a piece from the Hadrianic period found in Veii, now in the storerooms of the Vatican (Fig. 239) .49 A variation of this motif occurs on a portrait statue of Sallustia, dedicated to Venus Felix (Fig. 240) .50 A Cupid near her left leg looks up to her. Her hairdo suggests a date in the time of the younger Faustina (155 to 176 a . d .). Her fringed drapery is thrown over the bend of the left arm and hangs down, behind, and around her. Her right hand draws a bunch of folds in front of her lap. A statue of an Antonine lady with the hairstyle of the younger Faustina, in the garden of the Villa Medici, shows the same motif in reverse, with the fringed mantle hanging over the right arm and the left hand drawing it before the lap.51 A similar motif is used for the Maenad next to Hercules on an Antonine sarcophagus in Naples which depicts the triumph of Dionysus (Fig. 243).52 A similar motif was used for the statue of a lady dressed as Omphale from the early third century a . d ., now in the storerooms of the Vatican (Fig. 244).53 Her type is found on gems, on a torso, now lost, and on a fine torso in the Louvre.54 A lion’s head covers her hairdo, which is in the style of Julia Domna. Two paws are knotted before her breast, and the other tw o are held by her right hand before her lap. The rendering of the features as w ell as of the body is rather individual and realistic. W e would like to know who this domineering lady was, and who may have been her 65

D IF FE R E N T REASONS FOR D E N U D IN G IN GREEK A N D ROM AN ART Hercules. Omphale w earing only the lion skin, w ith H ercules in a w om an ’s dress, is represented in a group in N aples (Fig. 245).55 More com m on than any of these representations of futile attem pts to cover part of a nude body w ith drapery is the com pletely nude type of the “C apitoline V enus” used for portraits of Roman ladies from the late first to the third century a . d . (Fig. 242). A m ong th e m ore than one hundred replicas listed by Signora Felletti-M aj, there are over half a dozen w ith portrait heads, and many of the torsos m ay also have belonged to portrait statues.59 For m ost of these ladies, we may cite again the remark of Becatti that they look more divested than nude (see Chapter V, note 27). This is certainly the case w ith the statues in Copenhagen,57 Oxford,58 Dresden,59 the storerooms of the Vatican (w ith an idealized head),80 and the Palazzo D oria-Pam phili.81 In any case an elaborate and fashionable hairstyle on a naked body (as on Fig. 241) looks incongruous. The other lady in N aples (Fig. 242)82 is certainly not M arciana or M atidia. Trajan is represented nude like a seated Jupiter,83 but the ladies of th e im perial house (as L ippold has rightly asserted) w ere not allow ed to appear nude in their statues. This, how ever, was not so strictly adhered to outside the imperial house and the patrician circles. T he puritanical spirit does not seem to have penetrated deeply in the portraits of com m oners. In these portrait statues, as in other cases of Roman copies, w e m ay speak rather of eclecticism and a taste w hich one accustom ed to Classical art m ay find questionable. It is interesting to note, as a result of the exam ples that have been discussed above, that these qualities o f Roman art are particularly evident in the late Antonine and Severan periods.

Footnotes to Chapter 6

1. Olympia: G. Rodenwaldt, Olympia (Berlin 1936), pis. 50,52,57,62. Vatican vase: Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, pp· 700-701, No. 977 (Inv. 16535); Furtwängler-Reichhold, GriechVas., pis. 170-171, Text to III, pp. 307-308. Parthenon: C. Praschniker, Parthenon-Studien (Augsburg 1928), pp. 98-103, figs. 74-76; F. Brommer, Die Metopen des Parthenon (Mainz 1967), pp. 50-51, North 25, pis. 105-108 (Helen); idem. Die Skulpturen der Parthenon-Giebel (Mainz 1963), pp. 45-47, N, pis. 111-113. 2. Helbig-Speier, Führer', III, pp. 195-197, No. 2279 (Inv. 72274); S. Aurigemma, M us.N az.Rom .\ No. 272, pi. XLV; E. Paribeni, Scult.Greche, p. 14, No. and fig. 4; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pis. 706-709; Lullies-Hirmer, Griech-Plastik, pp. 60-61, pis. 172-175; J. Boardman, et.a l, Griech.Kunst, p. 131, pi. 171. 3. For the Atalanta from Tegea, see M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age1, p. 24, fig. 58; C. Dugas, J. Berchmans, and M. Clemmensen, Le Sanctuaire d ’A léa Athéna à Tégée au IVe Siècle (Paris 1924), pp. 80-84, pi. XCVI-XCVIIIa; G.M.A. Richter, Sculpture and Sculptors', pp. 208-209, fig. 743. For the Dresden copy of the Maenad, see P· Herrmann, Verzeichnis, p. 35, No. and fig. 133; M. Bieber, op.cit., p. 25, figs. 59-60; G. Treu, “Zur Maenade des Skopas,” Melanges Perrot (Paris 1903), p. 322, fig. 5; P.E. Arias, Skopas (Rome 1952), pp. 83-89,126-127, pi. X» figs. 34-36; K.A. Neugebauer, Studien über Skopas (Leipzig 1913), pp. 51-75, pls. III-IV. For the Amazons on the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus frieze in the British Museum, see A.H. Smith, Cat.Sculpt.Brit.Mus., II, pp· 106-107, Nos. 1014-1015, pi. XVII; M. Bieber, op.cit., p. 27, fig. 61; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pis. 96-97; P.E. Arias, op.dt., pp. 108-110, pi. IV, figs. 13-14. 4. For the Berlin dancer, see E. Rhode, K unst Mus.Berlin, p. 115, Inv. Sk 208, fig. 84; R. Kekule, Beschreibung ant.Skulpt., pp. 90-91, No. 208; F.P. Johnson, Lysippos (Durham 1927), pp. 249-250; H. Bulle, Schöne Mensch, col. 294, pi. 138. For a copy in Rome, see Helbig-Speier, Führer*, III, pp. 200-201, No. 2286 (Inv. 108596); S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.Rom.% No. 288, pi. LVIb; G.M.A. Richter, Three Critical Periods, p. 20, fig. 33; M.

DIFFERENT REASONS FOR DENUDING IN GREEK AND ROMAN ART

5.

6. 7.

8. 9.

10.

11. 12.

13.

14.

15.

16. 17. 18.

Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age1, p. 39, figs. 90-91; L. Morpurgo, “La Danzatrice di Villa Adriani, le Figure a Spirale, e l’Arte in Roma antica,” RivIstArch 2 (1930), pp. 178-205, pls. I-VII. This replica has a strut below the right breast, which testifies to there having been a left arm with a flute lifted to the mouth. For a copy in Dresden, see L. Alscher, Griechische Plastik III (Nachklassik und Vorhellenismus) (Berlin 1956), pp. 108-110, figs. 37a-d. For a copy in Frankfurt, see F.P. Johnson, op.cit., p. 249, pl. 61. For a copy in Paris, see M. Bieber, op.dt., p. 39, fig. 92. For the Nike of Paionios in Olympia, see G. Treu, Olympia III, pls. XLVI-XLVII; G. Rodenwaldt, Olympia, p. 49, fig. 29, pls. 82-84; G.M.A. Richter, Sculpture and Sculptors', pp. 39, 67, 133, 138, 186-188, figs. 493-494 (reconstruction), 682, 687; Lullies-Hirmer, Griech.Plastik, p. 61, pl. 176; J. Boardman, et.al., Griech.Kunst, p. 160, 171-172, pl. 220. For the Nereids of Xanthos in London (our Fig. 191), see A.H. Smith, Cat.Sculpt.Brit.Mus., II, pp. 33-38, Nos. 909-923; M. Bieber, Entwicklungsgeschichte, p. 34, fig. 7, pis. 24-26. For the terracotta Victories from Myrina (our Fig. 192), see E. Pottier and S. Reinach, La Nécropole de Myrina (Paris 1887), pp. 351-353, pi. XX, figs. 1,3, pis. XXI-XXIII. D.E. Strong, Roman Imperial Sculpture (London 1961), pp. 17-18, 90, fig. 29; A. Bartoli, “Il Fregio figurato della Basilica Emilia,” BdA 35 (1950), pp. 289-294. For the crater in Naples (our Fig. 193), see B. Maiuri, Musée Nap., p. 36; A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, pp. 92-93, No. 283 (6673) (similar Maenads also on Nos. 281-282; cf. M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age1, p. 184, figs. 802-803); idem, Auszug, p. 66, No. 189; F. Hauser, Neuatt.Reliefs, pp. 8-9, No. 3, pi. II, type 24; W. Fuchs, Vorbilder, pp. 140-142, pl. 29. For the base in the Vatican (our Fig. 194), see Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, pp. 425-426, No. 534 (Inv. 2576); G. Lippold, Skulpt.Vat.Mus., Ill, 2, Galleria dei Candelabri III No. 16, pp. 240-244, pis. 112-113; W. Fuchs, op.cit., p. 140, note 113. For the base in the art market in Rome (our Fig. 195), see Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 5081 (for another side of the same base, see Chapter IX, Fig. 505). Helbig-Speier, Führer1, III, pp. 430-438, No. 2482; S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.Rom.5, Nos. 355-357, PI. LXXVII. The stucco and paintings from the Villa Farnesina have been restored very well. For the Arch of Titus, see E. Nash, Bildlexikon zur Topographie des Antiken Rom (Tübingen 1961), I, pp. 133-135, figs. 145-147. On the Victory, see D.E. Strong, Rom.Imp.Sculpt., pp. 78,104, fig. 141b; E. Strong, La Scultura romana (Florence 1923-26), I, p. 106, pl. XXI. D.E. Strong, Rom.Imp.Sculpt., pp. 78, 104, fig. 141c; E. Strong, Scult.rom., II, p. 199, fig. 116; P.G. Hamberg, Studies in Roman Imperial Art (Uppsala 1945), pl. 5; F.J. Hassel, Der Trajansbogen in Benevent (Mainz 1966), pl. 2. M.F. Squarciapino, La Scuola di Afrodisia, p. 95, pl. S; R.B. Bandinelli, Leptis Magna, pl. 30, pp. 67-70 (on the arch); R. Bartoccini, “L’arco quadrifronte dei Severi a Lepeis,” A frlt 4 (1931), pp. 38,65-68, figs. 6,36,38. D.E. Strong, Rom.Imp.Sculpt., pp. 78,104, fig. 141d; E. Strong, Scult.rom., II, pp. 303-309, pl. LX; Ch. Hülsen, Das Forum Romanum (Rome 1904), pp. 78-82; E. Nash, Bildlexikon, I, pp. 126-130, figs. 133, 135, 138; R. Brilliant, “The Arch of Septimius Severus in the Roman Forum,” MAAR 29 (1967), pp. 107-113, pis. 2 2 ,35a, 36,37. D.E. Strong, Rom.Imp.Sculpt., pp. 78, 104, fig. 141e; E. Strong, Scult.rom., II, pp. 331-342; L’Orange-von Gerkan, Der spätantike Bildschmuck des Konstantinsbogens, pp. 150-152, pl. 35, figs, a, c, d, f; E. Nash, Bildlexikon, I, pp. 104-112, figs. 108-109. For season sarcophagi with Victories with bare outer legs and holding a medallion, see G.M.A. Hanfmann, The Season Sarcophagus in Dumbarton Oaks (Cambridge Mass. 1951), II, pp. 176, 179, Nos. 468-471, 496, figs. 44-47,68. For a duplication of the group of Eros and Psyche, see Helbig-Speier, Führer*, III, p. 312, No. 2385 (Inv. 124735); S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.Rom.5, No. 404. Campo Santo in Pisa (our Fig. 198): No. XXVI. Detroit: C. Vermeule, “Roman Sarcophagi in America: A Short Inventory,” Festschrift fü r Friedrich Matz (Mainz 1962), p. 102, pl. 28, 2. Museo Nazionale delle Terme (our Fig. 199): Helbig-Speier, Führer1, III, p. 32, No. 2133 (Inv. 23894); S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.Rom.5, No. 71. See supra note 7 and Figs. 193-195. Helbig-Speier, Führer1, 1, p. 176, No. 231 (Inv. 987); W. Amelung, Sculpt.Vat.Mus., II, 1, Cortile del Belvedere No. 28, p. 76, pl. 6. T. Dohrn, “Spätantikes Silber aus Britannien,” MdI 2 (1949), pp. 67-139, pl. 4 (especially pp. 71-77).

67

D IFFE R E N T REASONS FOR D E N U D IN G IN GREEK A N D ROM AN ART 19. Amdt-Amelung, E.A., Nos. 2320-2322. 20. A.H. Smith, Cat.Sculpt.Brit.Mus., Ill, pp. 75-76, Nos. 1699-1700; H.B. Walters, Catalogue o f the Terracottas in the Dept, o f Greek and Roman Antiquities, British M useum (London 1903), Nos. 569-579; H. von Rohden, Die architektonischen römischen Tonreliefs der Kaiserzeit, IV (Die antiken Terrakotten) (Berlin-Stuttgart 1911), pp· 82-88. 21. Helbig-Speier, Führer*, III, pp. 309-310, No. 2383 (Inv. 236, 239, 72291); S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.RomJ, No. 402; G.M.A. Richter, “Who Made . . . Statues,” p. 207, fig. 61. Cf. W.R. Agard, The Greek Tradition in Sculpture (Baltimore 1930), figs. 29-30, for a similar figure on the monument for Adam Mickiewicz by Bourdelle, in Paris. 22. For the Arch of Benevento, see supra note 10. On the sacrificing Victories on the pylons, see F.J. Hassel, op.cit, p. 21, pis. 6-7,22, fig. 2; E. Strong, Rom.Sculpt., pp. 215-218, pi. LXIV. 23. F.W. Goethert, “Trajanische Friese,” Jdl 51 (1936), pp. 72-73, figs. 1-2. 24. Museo Nazionale delle Terme No. 59536. This type is greatly favored for angels in modern Italian stucco decorations. 25. Helbig-Speier, Führer1, I, p. 735, No. 1022 (Inv. 9665, 9666, 9671, 9776, 9777, 9782); Benndorf-Schöne, Bildwerke Lat.Mus., pp. 315-316, Nos. 449, 452,456,468, 471, pi. VIII, fig. 1 (471), fig. 3 (468); W. Amelung, Sculpt.Vat.Mus., I, p. 604, No. 448, pi. 62 (Inv. 9671) (was once in the Museo Chiaramonti, now in the Lateran). 26. For the Victories on the balustrade of the Nike Temple in Athens, see Chapter IV, notes 20-23, Figs. 47-48. For the dancers on the round base in Rome (our Fig. 211), see Helbig-Speier, Führer1, III, pp. 49-50, No. 2148 (Inv, 54746); S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.RomJ, No. 83, pi. XV; W. Fuchs, Vorbilder, pp. 116, 153-154,174, No. 19; E. Paribeni, Scult.Greche, pp. 141-142, No. 307; G. Cultrera, “Le ‘Danzatrici’ della Via Prenestina,” BdA 4 (1910), pp. 245-268, No. 89, fig. 1, pis. 1-7; E. Loewy, “Roma-Nuove Scoperte,” NSc (1908), pp. 445-459, figs. 1-8. This base, found on the Via Praenestina, seems to be late Hellenistic or early Roman. 27. A. Ruesch, Auszug, p. 124, No. 472 (6280). 28. For the sarcophagus in the Vatican showing Achilles and Penthesilea (our Fig. 213), see Helbig-Speier, Führer1, I, p. 189, No. 244 (Inv. 933); W. Amelung, Sculpt. Vat.Mus., II, pp. 120-126, Cortile del Belvedere No. 49, pi. 13; C. Robert, Sarkophagreliefs, II, p. 113, No. 92. For the sarcophagus in the Vatican showing the Amazonomachy (our Fig. 214), see W. Amelung, op.cit., II, pp. 138-142, Cortile del Belvedere No. 54, pi. 7. For the sarcophagus in the Vatican with the harbor scene (our Fig. 215), see Helbig-Speier, op.cit., I, pp. 176-178, No. 232 (Inv. 973); W. Amelung, op.cit., II, pp. 49-63, Sala del Meleagro No. 20, pi. 5. 29. Helbig-Speier, Führer*, II, pp. 306-307, No. 1486 (Inv. 1120); H.S. Jones, The Sculpture o f the Palazzo dei Conservatori (Oxford 1926), p. 139, Sala degli Orti Lamiana No. 20, pi. 48; E. Strong, Scult.rom., II, p. 385, fig. 233; eadem, Rom.Sculpt., pp. 315,374, pi. CXXI; P. Arndt, H. von Brunn, and F. Bruckmann, Griechische und römische Porträts (Munich 1891-1942), pl. 230; H. Kähler, Welt, pl. 228. 30. S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.RomJ’, No. 68 (10844). 31. A. Beck, Genien und Niken als Engel in der altchristlichen K unst (Diss. Giessen 1933). 32. On the two types, see A. Furtwängler, Meisterwerke, pp. 547-552; idem. Masterpieces, pp. 319-322; G. E. Rizzo, Prassitele, pp. 24-27, pis. XXXIV-XL (“Arles” type), pp. 45-59, pis. LXX-LXXXIV (“Knidos” type); J. Marcadé, Am Musée de Delos. Etude sur la Sculpture Hellénistique en Ronde Bosse Découverte dans Vile (Paris 1969), pis. XLIII-XLIV (“Arles” type), XLV-XLVI (some examples of “Knidos” type). For the copy of the Aphrodite of Arles in the Museo Nuovo (our Fig. 219), see Hplbig-Speier, Führer*, II, pp. 504-505, No. 1725 (Inv. 2139); D. Mustilli, Mus.Mussol., p. 89, No. 11, pl. LII, fig. 212; G.E. Rizzo, op.cit., p. 25, pi. XXXIX. 33. For the copy of the Aphrodite Anadyomene in the Museo Nuovo (our Fig. 220), see H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Pal.Con., pp. 304-305, Galleria Superiore IV, No. 19, pl. 119; D. Mustilli, Mus.Mussol., p. 38, No. 8, pi. XXVII, fig. 91 (Mustilli has a list of replicas. He dates the original to the late Hellenistic period, while most copies were made in the Roman imperial period). For a copy in the Vatican (our Fig. 221), see Helbig-Speier, Führer*, I, pp. 155-156, No. 211 (Inv. 807); W. Amelung, Sculpt.Vat.Mus., II, pp. 696-698, Gabinetto delle Maschere No. 433, pl. 75; M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, p. 57, pi. XXIV, fig. 3. For a similar statue in the Vatican, but with a different arrangement of the arms, see G. Kaschnitz-Weinberg, Sculture del Maggazino del Museo Vaticano (Vatican 1936-1937), p. 128, No. 272, pl. LV. For a second copy in the Roman art market (similar to our Fig.

68

DIFFERENT REASONS FOR DENUDING IN GREEK AND ROMAN ART

34.

35.

36.

37.

38. 39. 40. 41.

42. 43.

44.

222), see Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 5021 (This example has a cavity probably for a portrait head. It is a variant, with both arms lowered.) Furthermore, there is a well-preserved colored statuette from the temple of Isis in Pompeii: A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, No. 926 (6298). Also in the Naples Museum is a statue of the Venus of Sinuessa, with a similar arrangement of the garment: B. Maiuri, Musée Nap., pp. 32-33. For the fragmentary copy in the Louvre mentioned in the text, see J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, pp. 186-187, No. and fig. 1787. V. Stai's, Ath.Marb. et Bronzes I, p. 105, No. 284 (found in Epidauros), pp. 105-106, Nos. 678-679 (found in Athens). One similar to Athens No. 678 with a dolphin beside the goddess has been found in the Agora: T.L. Shear, “Excavations in the Athenian Agora—The Sculpture found in 1933,” Hesperia 4 (1935), pp. 394-395, figs. 19-21 (Shear dated it in the imperial period because of the mediocre execution, but the late Hellenistic statuettes are hardly any better. As so often, it is difficult to draw an exact borderline between the late Hellenistic and Graeco-Roman art). For a similar statuette of Aphrodite, a copy of the first century b .c . (with the original dated to the second century b .c .) in the collection of M. Bodmer, Zurich, see H. Bloesch, Antike Kunst in der Schweiz (Zurich 1943), pp. 112-113,195-196, No. 37, pi. 64. For a related type of statuette, see also E. Paribeni, Cat.Scult.Cirene, pp. 94-95, Nos. 242-244, pi. 125. Museo Torlonia (our Figs. 225-226): E.Q. Visconti, Mon.Scult.Mus.Torlonia, pi. XXVII. Palazzo Colonna, No. 110: Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 1144; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age2, p. 144, fig, 604. For the nude Aphrodite type in Delos, see J. Marcadé, Mus.Délos, pi. XLVI, figs. 5-7. See also M. Bieber, op.cit, p. 144, fig. 605 for a statuette of a lady binding her hair, similar to the Aphrodite type, in the Walters Art Gallery (No. 23.83), Baltimore. J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, p. 183, No. and fig. 3537; F. Braemer, L ’art dans Voccident romain (Tresors d ’argenterie Sculptures de bronze et de piene) (Paris 1963), pp. 174-175, No. 789, pi. LXI; D.M. Brinkerhoff, A Collection o f Sculpture in Classical and Early Christian Antioch (New York 1970), pp. 36-37,54, fig. 47 (dates it to 4th century Gaul). Helbig-Speier, FühretΛ, I, p. 240-241, No. 310 (Inv. 1306); W. Amelung, Sculpt. Vat.Mus., I, pp. 743-744, Museo Chiaramonti No. 639, pi. 80; J.J. Bernoulli, RömJkon., II, 3 (Stuttgart 1894, reprinted 1969), pp. 93-95, pi. XXVII. The left lower arm and the strut (see our Fig. 227) are wrongly restored; the lower left arm was lifted in the same way as the right arm. G. Mansuelli, Uffizi Scult., I, pp. 97-98, No. 65 (Inv. 251), figs. 65a-c. For example, W. Klein, Vom antiken Rokoko, pp. 88-89, pi. Ill (Statue in Louvre. Loose drapery around nude body); J. Marcadé, Mus.Délos, pi. XXXVIII (loose drapery around body with chiton). H. Schrader, “Die Ausgrabungen am Westabhange der Akropolis,” AthMitt 22 (1896), pp. 265-286, pis. VII-X; C. Watzinger, “Die Ausgrabungen am Westabhange der Akropolis,” AthMitt 26 (1901), pp. 205-332. O. Deubner, Hellenistische Apollogestalten (Diss. Munich 1934), pp. 30-40,63-64 (twelve replicas are known). For the Apollo in the British Museum and in the Capitoline Museum, see Chapter V, note 59. For the Apollo in the Naples Museum, see Chapter V, note 60. For variations of draping on statues of Apollo (or Dionysos) in Delos, see J. Marcadé, Mus.Délos, pi. XXXI, figs. 1-3. On the sarcophagi in the Museo Torlonia and in the Villa Borghese, see Chapter V, note 60, Fig. 122. For examples, see S. Reinach, Rép.stat., I, p. 321, fig. 6; p. 322, fig. 7; p. 323, fig. 1; p. 324, figs. 5-7; G. Kaschnitz-Weinberg, Scult.Mag.Vat., pp. 131-132, No. 279, pi. LV; E. Paribeni, Cat.Scult.Cirene, pp. 99-100, Nos. 258-265, pis. 130-131; A. di Vita, “L’Aphrodite pudica da Punta delle Sabbie ed il Tipo della Pudica drappeggiata,” ArchCl 7 (1955), pp. 9-23. Aphrodite in Syracuse (our Figs. 233-234): W. Klein, Vom antiken Rokoko, pp. 88, 92-93, fig. 36; H. Bulle, Schöne Mensch, col. 340, fig. 84, pi. 157; G. Säflund, Aphrodite Kallipygos (Stockholm Studies in Classical Archaeology, No. III) (Stockholm 1963), pp. 48-49, fig. 33. Copy in Rome (our Fig. 235): Collection Stettiner (the cavity in the neck was certainly prepared for a portrait head). Copy in a private collection (our Figs. 236-237), was auctioned in 1934 by French and Co., New York City (the company kindly gave me photographs and permission to publish the statue—Catalogue Fine Arts Exposition, Rockefeller Center Forum, November 1934, pp. 16-17). Replica in the Villa Borghese, No. CCXL. Others exist in the magazines of the Vatican: G. Kaschnitz-Weinberg, op.cit., pp. 128-129, No. 272, pi. LV; cf. pp. 126-127, No. 269, pi. LVII. For a fragmen­ tary copy in the Louvre, see J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, pp. 186-187, No. and fig. 1787.

69

D IFFE R E N T REASONS FOR D E N U D IN G IN GREEK A N D ROM AN ART 45. The Aphrodite of Syracuse is dated by J.J. Bernoulli, Aphrodite, p. 255, to the second century b.c., by W. Klein, Vom antiken Rokoko, p. 92, to the first century b .c ., and by A.W. Lawrence, Classical Sculpture (London 1929), pp. 367-68, fig. 145, to the Hadrianic period. An Antonine adaptation is shown in a bronze statuette from Augst, with the garment having fluttering ends: K. Schefold, and P. Tschundin, “Ein Venus Statuette aus Augst,” Urschweiz—La Suisse primitive 25 (1961), pp. 21-29, figs. 13-16. 46. H. Brising, A ntik Konst i Nationalmuseum. Stockholm (Stockholm 1911), p. 129, No. LVI; S. Reinach, Rép.stat., I, p. 333, fig. 8. There was an Eros on a dolphin at the side. I owe a drawing and information to Mr. Oscar Antonsson. A replica in Mantua is believed by Alda Levi to be a portrait: Sculture greche e romane del Palazzo ducale di Mantova (Rome 1931), pp. 45-46, No. 75. 47. Our Fig. 238 is in the Vatican: W. Amelung, Sculpt. Vat.Mus., II, p. 213, Cortile del Belvedere No. 77, pi. 8. Other replicas exist in the Museo Torlonia (E.Q. Visconti, Mon.Scult.Mus.Torlonia, pi. LXXXIX, No. 361), and in the Casino of the Villa Borghese, No. CLXX (Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 2746; cf. No. 2765). There is a fragment of a replica in the entrance hall of the American Academy in Rome. Only the legs down to below the knees are preserved. A tube for water to fill the shell is still recognizable in the upper break. 48. Helbig-Speier, Führer', III, p. 146, No. 2236 (Inv. 75674); S. Aurigemma, M us.Naz.Rom.1, No. 489; C.S. Blinkenberg, Knidia, pp. 51-52, fig. 10; E. Loewy, Inschriften, p. 264, No. 377; B.M. Felletti-Maj, “Afrodite Pudica,” ArchCl 3 (1951), pp. 54-56, pi. XIII, fig. 1; G.M.A. Richter, Three Critical Periods, p. 47, fig. 79. 49. G. Kaschnitz-Weinberg, Scult.Mag.Vat., p. 126, No. 268, pi. LVI. The statuette is Trajanic or Hadrianic. 50. Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, p. 186, No. 241 (Inv. 936); W. Amelung, Sculpt. Vat.Mus., II, pp. 112-115, Cortile del Belvedere No. 42, pi. 12; C.S. Blinkenberg, Knidia,p. 141-142, No. 14, pi. 5; M. Wegner, Herrscherbildnisse, II. 4, p. 222. 51. M. Cagiano de Azevedo, Le Antichità di Villa Medici (Rome 1951), pp. 108-109, No. 264, pi. XLVII, figs. 99-100. Cf. a statue in Dresden: S. Reinach, Rép.stat., I, p. 326, fig. 4. 52. A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, p. 10, No. 18 (6776); idem, A uszug p. 11, No. 11. 53. G. Kaschnitz-Weinberg, Scult.Mag.Vat., pp. 295-296, No. 727, pi. CXIII; W. Amelung, “Di Alcuni Sarcofago Colossai Conservati nel Museo Vaticano,” AttPontAcc (1910), pp. 8-9, pi. XV, fig. 1. 54. Lost torso: E. Bielefeld, “Analecta Archaeologia,” Wiss.Zeitschrift der Universität Greifswald 4 (1954-55), ρρ· 92-94, figs. 2-4 (He describes the type as probably Pergamene of the early second century b.c.). Louvre: H. Lechat, “Omphale,” RevArtAnc 32 (1912), pp. 5-22; L. Curtius, “Die Aphrodite von Kyrene,” Die Antike 1 (1925), p. 52, fig. 13 (Curtius also recognized the Pergamene origin of the type). 55. A Ruesch, Guida Napoli, pp. 98-99, No. 299 (6406); idem, Auszug, pp. 69-70, No. 202. 56. B.M. Felletti-Maj; “Afrodite Pudica,” ArchCl 3 (1951), pp. 62-65 (The statues with portrait heads are her Nos. 1 0 ,1 6 ,4 4 ,45,50,62,82). For the Capitoline Venus, see Helbig-Speier, Führer', II, pp. 128-130, No. 1277 (Inv. 409); H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Mus.Capitol., p. 182, No. 1, pi. 45; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 373; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age1, p. 20, figs. 34-35; G.M.A. Richter, “Who Made . . . Statues,” pp. 189, 204, fig. 44. 57. F. Poulsen, Cat.Ny Carlsberg pp. 375-376, No. 541 (Inv.711); Billedtavler, pi. XXXXI, fig. 541; A.H. Lawrence, Classical Sculpture, p. 347, pi. 136b; R. West, Röm.Porträtplastik, II, p. 92, No. 5, pi. XXVII, fig. 96; G.M.A. Richter, op.cit., pp. 189, 204, fig. 46. 58. R. Chandler, Marmora Oxoniensia (Oxford 1763), pi. IV; A. Michaelis, Anc.Marbles, No. 26; J.J. Bernoulli, Aphrodite, p. 323, No. 42. 59. P. Herrmann, Verzeichnis, No. 308; J.J. Bernoulli, op.cit., p. 232, No. 36; S. Reinach, Rép.stat., I, p. 333, fig· 4. 60. G. Kaschnitz-Weinberg, Scult.Mag.Vat., p. 125, No. 267, pi. LVI; J.J. Bernoulli, op.cit., p. 229, No. 19. 61. J.J. Bernoulli, op.cit., p. 230, No. 22; S. Reinach, op.cit., I, p. 337, fig. 8. 62. For the portrait statue of the so-called Marciana or Matidia in Naples, see A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, p. 249, No. 1030 (6299); idem, A u szu g p. 184, No. 724; J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.lkon., II, 2, p. 99; idem. Aphrodite, p. 230, No. 25; S. Reinach, Rép.stat., I, p. 331, fig. 2; R. West, Röm.Porträtplastik, II, pp. 81-82, No. 8, pi. XXII, fig· 79; G.M.A. Richter, “Who Made . . . Statues,” pp. 189, 204, fig. 47. For a second portrait statue of the Capitoline Venus type in Naples, see A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, p. 249, No. 1031 (6291); idem, A u szu g p. 184, No. 725. 63. W.H. Grosse, Bildnisse Trojans (Berlin 1940) (in M. Wegner, Das römische Herrscherbild, II, 2), pp. 112-113. pi. 32b; R. West, op.cit., II, pp. 65-66, No. 2, pi. XVI, figs. 57, 57a (dated ca. 105 a.d.).

70

7 ARTEMIS AND THE LARES

1. ARTEMIS-DIANA A beautiful image of Artemis, a creation of the fourth century b .c ., is best-known from the statue formerly in Versailles and now in the Louvre (Figs. 246-248).' Her pose is similar to that of the Apollo Belvedere, but she moves in the opposite direction. Both works have been ascribed to Leochares, the younger contemporary of Lysippos. This Artemis has often been described as wearing a short chiton and a small shawl. In reality, she wears a long chiton and a large mantle. This incorrect interpretation is due to a misunderstanding of the beautiful, yet practical, draping of both garments, a misunderstanding which modern scholars share with the copyists. The chiton is in fact just as long as the peplos worn by the hunting Artemis on the relief of the late fifth century b . c . in Cassel (Fig. 249), the Artemis on a vase in Würzburg (Fig. 250),2 and a similar Artemis on a vase in Karlsruhe, or the Artemis Colonna and Dresden Artemis attributed to the early period of Praxiteles.3 A high belt often lies above the long overfold and in Greek clothing divides the peplos into three harmonious parts (see model, Fig. 251). Such a belt was used frequently in the Classical period for Artemis as well as for Athena. The chiton was worn originally without a mantle, whereby the draping with two belts could be seen clearly. A long pouch was drawn out of the second belt by which the dress could be shortened at will. If w e add the double layer of the pouch to the length of the chiton, it would reach to the ankles. In exact copies the pouch is thick and loose, comprising two layers above a third layer formed by the skirt. As such it appears clearly on a bronze statuette in Cassel,4 on a statue in the Villa Ludovisi-Boncompagni (Fig. 252), and on the charming portrait statue of a young girl of the Claudian period, in the guise of Artemis-Diana, found in Ostia and now in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme (Fig. 253).5 The harmonious arrangement may have been taken from a Greek statue of Artemis, perhaps brought to Rome during the Republican period. The original belonged to the fourth century b . c ., and we know from Pliny (HN, XXXVI, 24) that a statue of Artemis by the younger

ARTEMIS A N D TH E LARES Kephisodotos stood in Rome in the Porticus Octavia. Thus, Rom an copyists had occasion to see Greek originals in Rome itself. The D iana of the Romans had many very old sanctuaries, as for exam ple on the Aventine and at Nemi. There w ere no Italian cult statues, how ever, until artists began to im itate and adapt the statues o f the Greek Artemis to the needs of the Italic Diana. T he adaptation of the Greek Artemis to the Roman D iana must have occurred before the Augustan period. An A ugustan denarius (Fig. 254)6 shows a D iana in the same attitude, w ith a bow in her low ered left hand and a spear in her raised right hand. These attributes may be restored to several of the statues, along w ith the hound near her right leg. The coin was m inted w hen Augustus w as im perator for the tenth tim e (the inscription reads IMP X). Thus, it can be dated 15 -1 2 b . c . T he obverse show s his portrait, similar to the portrait by K leom enes in the Louvre (su p ra . C hapter V, Figs. 7 4 -7 6 ). In statuary, too, w e find exam ples o f this adaptation of the C lassical D iana, but the artist changed, or rather misunderstood, the draping of the chiton. Instead of the thick pouch held by a hidden belt around the waist, th e pouch is short and thin, h eld by a loose, visible belt. This arrangement was particularly senseless for Artemis, the liv ely goddess of th e hunt, since she needed a firmly fastened belt, w hich, during rapid m ovem ent, w o u ld prevent her chiton from slipping. There is, how ever, no surplus material in the copies of this typ e, as the b elt lies very low over the hips and is visible in front. T he best copies are in the N y C arlsberg G lyptothek,7 in the Villa Borghese (Fig. 255),s in the Ashmolean M useum (Figs. 2 5 6 -2 5 7 ), and in O stia (Fig. 258)." On the statues in the V illa Borghese and in O stia both b elts are carefully knotted w ith decorative bows. All these figures have a pigskin tied over the right shoulder, laid b etw een th e tw o breasts, and covering the left side. From the Hadrianic m edallion on the Arch of C onstantine, w e know that w ild boars w ith hairy skin w ere sacrificed to D iana on th e P alatin e.10 It m ay b e that the tame pig was easier to catch and use than the w ild animal. T he same D iana wearing a pigskin appears in a painting from O stia in the V atican (Fig. 259)," dated to the Augustan period. T he tw o large flam ing torches plan ted next to the cult statue and the small ones held by four boys standing before it rem ind us of the fact that the Romans identified Diana w ith Lima, the goddess of the moon. T he procession of five m ore boys rem inds one of Horace’s C a rm e n S a ecu la re, w hich was addressed to D iana as the m istress of th e forest and to A pollo and was sung in 17 b .c . before the tem p le of A pollo on the Palatine. But th e D iana of the painting and the statues do not represent the one on the Palatine, w hich is show n on the Hadrianic m edallion. Instead she m ay be the one venerated in the old sanctuary on the w ooded A ventine.12 A decidedly Roman addition to the costum e consisting of a short chiton (or rather, tunic) with double belt is a second chiton under the b elted one. O nly the sleeves show at the upper arms, as on a statuette in the Vatican (Fig. 260),13 or at the upper arms as w ell as b elow the hem of the outer chiton (like a slip showing), as on the Arch of B en evento and on a statue in the Museo N azionale delle Term e (Fig. 262).11 This kind of small chiton b elon gs under the peplos, as can be seen on a statue in the V illa Borghese (Fig. 261),15 w hich m ay not ev en be D iana, but w hich is certainly a good copy of a Greek original of the fourth century b . c . T he other tw o exam ples (Figs. 260,262) are certainly Artem is-Diana, w ith a dog seated next to her right leg. T he second chiton may also be worn under a sim ple tunic w ith one belt, as on the D iana in the C apitoline Museum (Fig. 263).18 72

ARTEMIS AND THE LARES The second, lower belt, the one which is visible, is a purely Roman arrangement, due to the Roman love of repetition (which is in contrast to the Greek love of variation). In reality the second belt has no function here, because these dresses of Diana are short and do not need to be tucked up. This form is also used for men and for purely Roman personifications, like the lictor and the Virtus holding the arm of the emperor on the Cancelleria relief in the Vatican (Figs. 264-265).17 Other examples of Virtus placed near the emperor to personify his courage and valor in battle are on the Arch of Titus, on the gems copied from this Flavian relief, and on the relief of a Trajanic frieze and on an Antonine panel on the Arch of Constantine. Virtus, in this Amazonian dress, leads Trajan through the gate into the city when he returns from his travels. She also is depicted leading Marcus Aurelius when he returns from war. Both reliefs are on the Arch of Constantine.18 Another good example is on a sarcophagus from the time of Philippus Senior (244 to 249 a .d .) (Fig. 266).19 This figure of Virtus, often shown accompanying the emperor, is identified by inscriptions on coins and an altar found in Cologne, now in the Museum of Darmstadt.20 She is distinguished from Diana by a naked right breast, reminiscent of Amazons. The same type is also used occasionally for Roma, who, however, is more often represented seated. Good examples of Roma standing in Amazonian dress are on the keystones of the Arch of Titus (Fig. 267) and on coins.21 Both Virtus and Roma wear a short mantle hanging from the left shoulder. That this Amazonian type refers back to an Artemis type is shown in the figure in the Louvre of the young Aelia Procula on the gravestone erected by her father, a freedman of Augustus, named P. Aelius Asclepiacius, and her mother Priscilla (Fig. 268).22 She wears a peplos which leaves the right breast free in Amazonian fashion. But her attitude is that of the running Artemis-Diana, holding a bow in the left hand and lifting the right to the quiver. A dog is running beside her left leg. She wears a small mantle over the left shoulder, the ends of which flutter before and behind her. In contrast to including this Roman shawl, sculptors carved the Greek Artemis, since the fourth century b .c ., with a large mantle worn over her chiton. W hen Praxiteles made a statue of Artemis Brauronia for her sanctuary on the Acropolis, where young mothers dedicated valuable dresses to her, he represented her in the act of putting on a heavy mantle. The Artemis found in Gabii, now in the Louvre, is dressed in a wide chiton with two belts, over which die arranges a dipiax, that is, a mantle with a broad overfold like a peplos (Figs. 269-271, cf. model. Fig. 272).23 She is in the act of fastening it on her right shoulder. Most Greek statues of Artemis and Roman statues of Diana already have a draped mantle firmly fastened around their waists, as does the Artemis of Versailles (Figs. 246-248). There are no other exact copies of this work, but there is a closely related type, which appears in complete form on the medallion depicting Hadrian sacrificing to Diana on the Arch of Constantine.24 A torso in the Louvre (Fig. 273)25 looks like a Hellenistic original of the same type. The draping of the mantle is here very clear and can be imitated on a live model (Fig. 274).2e The mantle is a rectangular piece of soft material about 2 meters long and 1 meter broad. It is folded lengthwise and laid on the left shoulder so that the end hangs down on the left thigh. The folded mantle is drawn diagonally over the back from the left shoulder to the right hip. It is then wrapped firmly around the waist, like a broad Turkish sash, often with a slight turning to make a kind of roll. It is crossed over the end hanging down to the left thigh, around the back, and is drawn at the right hip above the waist roll, then through the roll, so that the end hangs down over the right thigh. This arrangement has the same function as the second belt, to keep the dress 73

ARTEMIS A N D THE LARES undisturbed despite the lively m ovem ent of the huntress. This com p licated draping cannot have been invented before the H ellenistic period. Therefore, it cannot be con n ected w ith the Artemis Laphria of the fifth century, as has b een suggested.27 The Artemis of Versailles to m e seems to be a fourth century b . c . forerunner o f the typ e on the Hadrianic m edallion, and the Greek original may w ell have b een a late work of Leochares. The type on the m edallion and of the torso in Paris (Fig. 273) is distinguished from the Artemis of Versailles by a clearer arrangement of the ends, w hich in the latter hang nearer side by side. In most copies, in contrast, the tw o ends are pushed farther outside, as in the statue in Berlin (Fig. 275),28 w hich otherwise is very similar to the Louvre torso. It was found in a villa outside Porta del Popolo in Rome. O ften the end is shifted from the front of the right thigh to the outside over the right hip, as in the statue in the Vatican (Fig. 276),29 and on tw o torsos in O stia (Figs. 277-279).30 Sometimes both ends are pushed outside the hips, for exam ple, in a torso in the V atican (Fig. 280).31 All these statues of D iana w ere probably accom panied by a seated dog. T hey are in a rather quiet stance, lifting the right hand to take an arrow from the quiver. T he original m ight have been a statue on the Palatine.32 Another group of Artemis or D iana shows m uch more vigorous m ovem ent. T he standing and the running figures have the same dress and the same attitude of the arms, w ith the right hand lifted to pull an arrow out of the quiver on the back and the left m oved forward w ith the bow . The difference is that the runner causes the end hanging dow n over the right hip to flutter backward. Both types appear on coins, side by side for exam ple on different coins of A egira.33 Pausanias (VII, 2 6 ,3 and 2 6 ,1 1 ) describes an Artemis statue at Aegira in w hich the goddess takes an arrow out of her quiver. T he statue was made of bronze in the technique o f the second half of the second century a .d . Indeed, most of the coins w hich represent the running D iana b elon g to this or a later period. A bronze coin m inted in Megara in the tim e of C om m odus show s her running in a short fluttering dress and holding a torch and a scepter (Fig. 281). A coin from Tanagra show s her in a distyle tem ple w hich must have been in her sanctuary on the Euripus. A ccording to Pausanias (IX, 19,6), this statue was of w hite marble. It is represented on coins of A ntoninus Pius and Commodus (Fig. 282).34 The Artemis D ictynna at Las (Pausanias, III, 24, 9) is represented on the coins of Septimius Severus35 and the Artemis of Phlius on coins of G eta.38 A sim ilar coin, in the possession of the author (Fig. 283), was m inted in M arciapolis in M oesia by M acrinus and D iadum enianus in 217 a . d . On all these coins a dog is depicted at the feet of Artem is. The marble copies of this running Artem is indeed seem to b elon g to the sam e period as the coins, the late second and the early third century a . d . T he statuette in the storeroom s of the Vatican (Fig. 284),37 the statues in N aples (Fig. 285),38 and in the C apitoline M useum (Fig. 286)3B are all of late workmanship. They are similar to each other and to the coins in regard to the draping of the mantle: T he end from the left shoulder, crossed by the w aist roll, hangs dow n over the left thigh, w hile the other end flutters behind the right hip. T he low er left arm and the lower legs are in varying positions because all three are m odern restorations. W hile the copies on coins and in marble sculpture are certainly late Rom an, the original, with its lively m ovem ent of body and dress, is certainly H ellenistic. Artem is, on the altar of Zeus at Pergamon, is shown shooting an arrow at her lover Otos and m ercilessly striding over fallen bodies. The im petuous m ovem ent and fluttering drapery far surpassed th e d epiction of m ovem ent that w ould be possible in any statue in the round.40 But the thick roll of her m antle over 74

ARTEMIS AND THE LARES a tucked-up chiton and the fluttering ends of the mantle at both sides are principally the same as on the statues. A large bronze statuette that is related in style but conveying less violent movement was found in a private villa at Rome and now is in the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo, N.Y. (Figs. 287-289)." It is 36 inches (ca. 0.90 meter) high and stands on an ancient base 12 inches (0.30 meter) high. It has been carefully cleaned and set on the ancient solder marks of the base made for the two feet of the goddess and the four feet of the stag. There are two more marks for the front feet of the missing dog, who probably sat on his haunches. The statue can be considered a Hellenistic original work not only because of its good workmanship in general, but also because of such subtle details as the selvage edge at the bottom of the chiton. The fluttering folds in the lower part of the chiton have their closest parallels in the garment of the running King Teuthras of Mysia on the Telephos frieze. This was the last part of the sculpture on the great altar of Pergamon to be completed; work was stopped with the death of Eumenes II in 159 b . c . or early during the reign of Attalos II between 159 and 138 b . c .42 The ends of the mantle which are drawn through the roll are unfortunately broken off on the Artemis statuette. They could possibly be restored like those of the rolled mantle around the waist of Artemis on the large frieze. The rich deep folds of the pouch and the part of the mantle which crosses the back (Fig. 289) can be compared to those on the back of Hekate next to Artemis on the large frieze.431 thus believe that the Buffalo Artemis can be dated around the middle of the second century b . c . , a period which the Antonine age with its taste for baroque and flamboyant style preferred to the Classical period, which had been the favorite of the artists of the Augustan, Claudian, and Hadrianic periods. The moment represented is a transitional one, also characteristic of the Hellenistic spirit. The arrow has already left the bow, but the left arm, still stretched forward, holds the bow, while the right arm, after sending the arrow, is moving down and backward. The head follows the movement of the arrow. A similar grouping of Artemis with a stag, who turns his head and looks at the goddess, is found on a tetradrachm minted in Perga, Pamphylia about 190 b . c . , now in private possession in Berlin (Fig. 290).44 In the reverse inscription she is called Artemis Pergaia. Thus, there is a close association here, too, with Pergamon. The adaptation of a Hellenistic type for a quietly standing Artemis-Diana with a similar arrangement of chiton and mantle probably belongs to the Antonine period. Five copies are known:45 one in the Antiquarium on the Palatine; a colossal example restored as Roma formerly on the roof of a tower of the Palazzo dei Senatori on the Capitoline, now in the Palazzo dei Conservatori (Fig. 291);4(i one in the Villa Chigi at Centinale near Siena; and two in the Archaeological Museum of Seville, both found in Italica.47 The right arm is hanging down and the left hand is laid on the hip. The baldric, from which the quiver hangs in the back, is attached to the belt with a goat’s head pin in the middle of the front. This is one change that was made to conform to the Roman love of symmetry. The other change, more significant, was made in the two ends of the mantle. One end is shown coming from the left shoulder and the other from the roll around the waist; they are of equal length and are broadened as well as thickened in a baroque way. In the other types (especially Fig. 273), the ends of the mantle were always sharply differentiated. Particularly deep windings of the tubular folds at the two ends appear on the large torso restored as Roma in the Palazzo dei Conservatori. While the sculptors of all these statues still understood the original drapery, the sculptor of the statuette in the Vatican (Fig. 292)48 did not understand the drapery of the chiton and mantle. 75

ARTEMIS AND THE LARES The baldric or quiver strap here goes over instead of under the end hanging from the left sh o u ld er. The ends of the mantle continuing below the roll are blended on both sides with the folds of th e ; pouch as well as of the lower part of the tunic. Mantle and tunic m elt together, and the organio continuation of all parts of the mantle is interrupted. There is no connection between the part of the mantle hanging from the left shoulder and t h e end of the mantle over the left thigh on the statue in the Vatican (Fig. 293).1,1 Both ends of t h e mantle are parallel and near each other in the front. The one over the right thigh is a little sh o rter, because the knot of folds drawn over the roll is not only shifted from the right hip almost to t h e center of the front, but is drawn over it in a much broader and longer bow than usual. The harst* folds engraved with the running drill seem to me to date this adaptation to the third century a . o . In other Roman adaptations one end of the mantle is left on the right hip, but the end c o m in g from the left shoulder crosses the left breast and hangs down in the center betw een the legs, as o n the statue in the Capitoline Museum (supra. Fig. 286).50 The coil of the roll is very large on the l e f t hip. On a small torso from Ostia in the Lateran (Fig. 294),51 this large coil is a continuation of t h e end, with tassel, which hangs down from the left shoulder; it is brought up from the back to t h a t shoulder and then drawn under the roll in the center. The second end comes out of the roll at t h e right hip. The sculptor has not made clear how it could be placed there, since there is n o connecting part from the left shoulder to the right hip. Thus, w e have here a m isunderstood variation or an arbitrary arrangement by the copyist. Another consequence of Roman love for symmetry is that both ends of the shawl, to which the; mantle has been reduced, are fluttering outside the hips. W e find this arrangement in the Diarn^. on a relief in the storerooms o f the Vatican (Fig. 295).52 It is a superficial work in Italian marble o f the late second century b .c . The mantle on the left shoulder is repeated on the right shoulder. T h e best example for such a strictly symmetrical arrangement is the Diana in the Vatican (Fig. 296).51 This arrangement would require a very long piece of material. The two parts cross each other ir\ the back and are rolled together in front at the waist. There is no roll in the back. The two en d s coming from both shoulders and drawn through the roll flutter down in very baroque folds fron* both hips. This is an impractical and loose draping. The lively m ovem ent of the figure, in reality, would bring the whole arrangement into disorder. Love of symmetry has won over truthfulness and practicability. Perhaps this symmetrical arrangement was created originally for reliefs or paintings, because it occurs on sarcophagi for which the artists may have used sketchbooks. Artemis, seen shooting the children of Niobe on sarcophagi, as for example, one in Munich (Fig. 297), and another in th e Vatican,54 has a mantle laid around her waist like a shawl the ends of which flutter far from b oth sides. Both sarcophagi are of Antonine workmanship. In a group depicting Atalanta hunting next to Meleager on a late Roman sarcophagus in th e Palazzo dei Conservatori (Fig. 298) Atalanta wears the same dress that the personification o f Virtus does, who appears next to Hippolytus, on a sarcophagus in the Lateran (Fig. 299).55 In both cases the ends of the mantle are even longer than before and flutter almost horizontally, blown up by the strong movement. The end coming from the left shoulder does not fall vertically at the side but crosses diagonally over the breast and is drawn through the roll on the right side, as on the statue in the Capitoline Museum (Fig. 286); in the same manner, the end from the right shoulder

ARTEMIS AND THE LARES crosses the breast to the left side. The workmanship, involving the profuse use of the running drill, seems to date these sarcophagi to the third century a . d . W hen such a design was copied for a statue in the round, the back part of the arrangement could easily be rendered incorrectly, since there was no model for the back on the reliefs. Thus, it could happen that parts of the mantle around the waist and over the shoulder might be regarded as separate parts. This certainly is the case in the statue of a woman stepping upon a rock, in the Palazzo Doria-Pamphili (Figs. 300-301).* The thick rolled sash at the waist has no connection with the shawl hanging from the left shoulder. It crosses the breast diagonally, and the end is spread out like a fan below the sash. In the back it hangs vertically and terminates in a small end below the sash. Neither in front nor in back is there any connection of the shawl with the sash which makes a thick and independent roll at the waist. The original organic connection betw een the two parts has been ignored. The arrangement of the mantle of the hunting Diana on a piece of fabric from Antinoe in the Musée Guimet in Paris, dating from the third century a . d . , is quite fantastic (Fig. 302). Her red shawl has long fluttering baroque ends at both sides, but only the one near her right side comes from the sash or roll. The other comes from behind the left shoulder and hangs down over the left arm. Another part crosses from the right shoulder, betw een the breasts to the sash on the left side; that is, it has taken the place of the baldric. The picture is decorative, but does not make sense. The artists of the third century have no interest in organic draping. The sculptors had becom e illogical and confused when they rendered drapery, as, for example, on a late Roman torso in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme (Fig. 303).57 The com posi­ tion is dominated by the sash at the waist. It is no longer twisted, but rather laid in horizontal folds. On both sides there are symmetrical loops drawn up over the sash, and the ends are tucked under it. Below the sash they continue to terminate in hanging ends, which, however, m elt completely into the folds of the tunic. The part coming forward from the left shoulder is laid in a broad strip slanting to the right side and seems to continue below the sash, mingling on the right thigh with the folds of the tunic and of the end of the sash. It has no connection with the end hanging over the left thigh. The artist seems to have believed that there are two separate pieces, one hanging from the left shoulder forward and backward, and the other comprising the sash around the waist. W e thus have in one place the separation of what belongs together and in another the melting together of what does not belong together. Tunic and m antle are confused in this inorganic draping. The technique is coarse and seems to belong to the late third or early fourth century a . d . W e have here a clear case of how bad copying and nonsensical draping go hand in hand, in contrast to organic draping and good workmanship on originals and careful copies. While tunic and mantle are m elted together into an unintelligible w hole on the torso in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme (Fig. 303), on a bronze statuette in the Cabinet des Médailles of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris the two ends of the same shawl are m elted together (Fig. 304).58 A broad strip similar to that on the torso comes from the left shoulder and is laid under a high narrow belt as well as under the sash. The sash itself lies lower than usual. The second end is drawn up into a big knob near the place where the end com ing from the left shoulder is tucked under the sash. Both parts m eet below the sash in the center betw een the hips and merge into one zigzag end. 77

ARTEMIS AND THE LARES We can thus see how the large and practically draped mantle of the Artemis of Versailles (Figs. 246-248) and other fourth-century and Hellenistic statues of Artemis was developed eventually into the small and symmetrically arranged shawl of the Roman Diana.

2. THE LARES It may be that the small shawl-like mantle of the Roman Lares, the guardians of houses and crossroads, influenced a development which in the end led to confusion. The cult of the Lares was old, as was that of Diana. However, the cult of the Lares did not acquire a stabilized service before the time of Augustus, who introduced and reorganized it in 7 b . c . m Many of the older represen­ tations of the Lares have no mantle, but only a belt. Such is the case with a fine bronze in the Loeb Collection,“ and an altar in the Uffizi, dated by the names of the consuls to the year 2 αϊι>.ηι When the Lares are represented wearing a mantle, they are not wearing the large rectangular one, as on the Artemis of Versailles (Figs. 246-248). They have a scarf or shawl-like mantle which seems to consist of a long, narrow piece of material, probably woven as a half-ellipse similar to the toga, but flatter. It therefore may have only two corners marked by little weights, instead of the four comers of the mantle. A sash with only two fluttering ends first appears on the altar dated 2 b .c ., found in the Campo di Marte, formerly in the Palazzo dei Conservatori, and now in the Museo Nuovo (Fig. 305).“ The two Lares at the sides are characterized as statues, standing on square bases, and holding large laurel branches. The sash is wound tightly around the waist, and tw o knobs apparently are formed from the winding of the ends around the sash, above the place where the ends flutter to the sides. The two ends of the sash taper to one point and terminate with a small weight. The altar was erected by the four vico m a g istri who are shown sacrificing on the front side. This and many other altars were erected at crossroads (com pita), where the L ares c o m p ita le s were venerated. A different type of Lares was venerated inside and outside private houses. In Pompeii they were painted on both sides of Vesta or of the genius of the master of the house.“ The genius was believed by the Romans to be man’s permanent spiritual or psychic part, in contrast to his mortal body. The Lares are seen in lively movement, often dancing. They lift a drinking horn in one hand, from which sometimes wine flows into a little pail held by the other hand. The same type is followed in many bronze statuettes which probably stood in private chapels, together with the genius and the other gods venerated by the family. Excellent examples with a very small sash, from an early period, are in Madrid and in Rome in the Palazzo dei Conservatori (Fig. 306).e' The ends here are quite short, but the knobs or rather loops above them at the sash are always indicated. Here the loops seem to result from the pulling up of the material above the sash. The pail is sometimes replaced by a bowl. The same is true for pairs of dancing Lares, found in Italy as w ell as in all the Roman provinces. A pair found in the Casa degli Amorini dorati in Pompeii, now in Naples, holds elaborate horns and pails (Figs. 307-308).65 They belong to the Flavian period. The shawl crosses in front, the two knobs are near the center, from which the long, broad ends then flutter to the side. A pair in Mainz with sacrificial bowls instead of pails seem also to belong to the Flavian period (Figs. 309-310).“ They were dedicated by a U bertus, Bello, when he was m a g iste r in the 78

ARTEMIS AND THE LARES service of the domestic Lares for the second time. The two knobs are further apart, but the broad ends flutter in the same way to both sides and seem to mingle with the lively folds of the lower part of the tunic. A confusion between tunic and mantle as a result of the Roman preference for a decorative arrangement has certainly happened in the case of the Lar in the British Museum, found in Paramythia (Fig. 31 l).(i? He has two large symmetrical oval loops or bows pulled up above the sash at the sides. They are not, however, continued in fluttering ends below the sash. In place of the fluttering ends are the corners of the overfold of the peplos, which the Lar wears over the tunic. The tunic is visible only at the arms; this addition is also known from statues of Diana (see supra. Fig. 260). The artist completely merged the ends of the shawl with the peplos. He has drawn out a third bow in the center, to lift the center of the overfold into a decorative group of folds. They end in corners with round weights, a duplicate of the corners hanging on the right side, where they belong. Here the artisan wanted to emphasize the center of the statue, a purely Roman tendency. The folds of the lower parts of the peplos continue this emphasis on the center. I would like to attribute this pleasant, decorative but senseless arrangement to the Hadrianic period. A group of statuettes of quietly standing Lares have no fluttering ends to the mantle. Instead, the ends hang down in front in the center between the thighs. Examples are in museums in Cassel and Florence, as well as in the Bibliothèque Nationale, the British Museum (Fig. 312),BS and elsewhere. The sash around the waist is very tight and narrow, sometimes even replaced by a belt. The shawl hangs loosely in a large loop from the left shoulder, and the end is drawn through the sash. The end in front then extends downward in zigzag folds, which make a pattern of diamond shapes. We will find this pattern on vases and again on Roman copies of peplos figures (see below Chapter VIII, Figs. 402, 404, 425). A purely ornamental arrangement has replaced the sensible and realistic draping. A combination of a shawl coming from the left shoulder and a sash with fluttering ends can be seen on the Lares between laurel trees on two sides of the altar dedicated by the censor Caius Manlius, which was found in Caere and is now in the Lateran (Fig. 313).“ Each wears a bulla which was dedicated to the Lares by youths when they reached manhood and took the toga virilis (Persius, V, 31). The Lares have the roll around the waist with large drawn-out loops at both hips and the fluttering ends at both sides. But there is a third end hanging with simple zigzag folds in the center between the thighs, clearly the continuation of the broad shawl coming from the left shoulder. The explanation for this can only be that there were two shawls, one hanging from the left shoulder and one knotted around the waist. Thus, we have here a combination of the sash around the waist and the small mantle over the shoulder. No one shawl could have three ends. From this we can understand the draping of the torso in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme (Fig. 303). This is pure surface decoration without logic. Why should anybody wear two small shawls? Three different forms for the draping of the mantle are found on a frieze representing the battle of the gods against the giants, fragments of which are scattered among the Museo Comunale (Fig. 314), the Vatican (Fig. 315), the Lateran, the Museo Nuovo (Fig. 316), and the Museum in Basel.™ This frieze belongs to the Antonine period. Artemis on the fragment in the Vatican, shown just as she shoots an arrow, has the drapery of the Artemis of Versailles (Figs. 246-248). On the part of the frieze in the Museo Nuovo which depicts the preparation for the fight, the mantle of the winged goddess taking an arrow from the quiver does not end on her

ARTEMIS AND THE LARES shoulder; instead tw o ends fall down at a length equal to that of the overfold, similar to t h e drapery of the Lares. An Erinnys with a torch on another fragment in the same place (Fig. 3 1 6 ) , has, in contrast, only the thick roll with the symmetrical large loops drawn over the sash a n d broad fluttering ends. This latter arrangement is definitely a Roman form, w hich is also found o n statuettes and coins representing the dancing Mars Juvenis or Ultor, copied from an original o f about 20 B .c .7' It is also used for Sol on the breastplate of the Augustus of Primaporta.72 It is i n d e e d well adapted for dancing figures such as the Lares. It may also have a religious meaning. T h e : expressions L ares in c in c ti (Ovid, F asti, II, 634) and L a res s u c c in c ti (Persius, V, 31) w ell d e s c r ib e the early Lares. Thus, w e see how the artists of the imperial period could use different forms of Greek a n d Roman draping. They combined and arranged them according to the Roman preference f o r symmetry and emphasis on the center, without regard to functional and reasonable a rran gem en t. A leading principle of Roman art was to give decorative form to m ythological or h is to r ic a l content. This investigation of Artemis-Diana and the Lares clearly shows the relationship and t h o difference betw een the Greek originals and their adaptations in Roman statues. It also shows hovv^ the artisans—whether Greek or Roman—moved further and further away from Greek p r o to ty p e s, and how in the later periods took earlier Roman adaptations as their models.

Footnotes to Chapter 7

1. J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, pp. 68-69, No. 589; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 420; Encycl.Phot., Ill (Louvre pp. 198-199; W. Fröhner, Sculpt.ant.Louvre', pp. 122-125, No. 98. 2. For the Cassel relief (our Fig. 249): see M. Bieber, Cassel, p. 36 (ef. the earlier bibliography), No. 74, pi. XXXI1 , For the Würzburg vase (Archaeologische Sammlung der Universität Würzburg No. 4533), (our Fig. 250), see ElI, Langlotz, Würzburg Universität. Griechische Vasen (Munich 1932), p. 503, pi. 170; E. Simon, Opfernde G ó tta *(Berlin 1953), pp. 13-14, pi. I; M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, pp. 36, 72, pi. IV, fig. 4, pi. XXXVIII, fig. 2. 3. G.E. Rizzo, Prassitele, pp. 13-14,84, pis. XVI-XVIII; M. Bieber, Cassel, pp. 18-19, Nos. 17-19, pi. XXL See o n ,Chapter V ili, Figs. 332-352 (Dresden Artemis) and Figs. 356-371 (Artemis Colonna). 4. M. Bieber, Cassel, p. 59, (other replicas listed here), No. 147, pi. XLII. 5. Helbig-Speier, Führer', III, pp. 116-117, No. 2195 (Inv. 108518); S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.Rom.’, No. 439, p f le; B.M. Felletti-Maj, Ritratti, pp. 70-71, No. and fig. 119; R. Calza, Scavi di Ostia. I Ritratti (Parte I: R itr a tti Greci e Romani Fino al circa 160 D.C.), voi. 5 (Ostia 1964), pp. 38-39, No. 46, pis. XXVII-XXVIII; M. Biche Entwicklungsgeschichte2, p. 51, pi. 53, fig. 2; E. Strong, Scult.rom., II, pp. 371-372, fig. 222. 6. For the Augustus coins with Artemis, see H. Mattingly, BMC Empire I, p. 80, Nos. 463-464, pi. 11, figs. 10-11 . Mattingly-Sydenham, RIC, I (London 1923), p. 88, No. 329, pi. Ill, fig. 42. 7. F. Poulsen, Cat.Nij Carlsberg, pp. 86-87, No. 89; Billedtavler, pi. VII,fig. 89. 8. Helbig-Speier, Führer', II, pp. 729-730, No. 1973 (Inv. 705); Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 2742. 9. Calza-Squarciapino, Mus.Ost., p. 35, No. 1 (1107); R. De Chirico “Sculture provenienti dall’edificio d eg l j Augustali,” NSc, Ser. VII, 2 (1941), pp. 241-245, figs. 17-18. 10. A. Giuliano, L ’A rco di Constantino (Milan 1955), fig. 12 (sacrifice to Artemis); L’Orange-von Gerkan, Konst^ tantinsbogens, pi. 40; E. Strong, Scult.rom., II, p. 221, fig. 134; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 559, fig. 2 (Artemis), p f 560, fig. 1 (boar hunt); S. Reinach, “Les Tètes des Médallons de l’Arc de Constantin à Rome,” RA 15 (1910), pj- χ

80

ARTEMIS AND THE LARES

11. 12.

13. 14.

15. 16. 17.

18.

19.

20. 21. 22. 23.

24. 25. 26.

27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

32. 33. 34.

1 18-129, No. 7, fig. 1, pi. XVI, fig. 29; M. Bieber, “Die Medallions am Konstantinsbogen,” RömAJitt-26 (1911), p. 228. Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, pp. 366-367, No. 467; B. Nogara, Le Nozze Aldobrandini, pp. 72-73, pi. XLVII; E. Strong, Art Anc.Iiome, II, pp. 27-28, figs. 291-292. S.B. Platner and T. Ashby, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (London 1929), pp. 149-150; F. Altheirn, Griechische Götter im alten Rom (Giessen 1930), pp. 105, 134-135; Th. Birt in W.H. Roscher, Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, voi. I (Leipzig 1884, reprinted 1965), s.v. “Diana,” eols. 1002-1011. G. Lippold, Skidpt.vat.Mus., pp. 188-189, Sala a Croce Greca No. 584, pi. 51. For Diana on Arch of Benevento, see F.J. Hassel, Trajansbogen, pi. 12; E. Strong, Scult.rom., II, pp. 194-195, pi. XXXIX. For the statue in the Museo Nazionale delle Tenne (No. 161), found near the monument for Victor Emmanuel, see L. Curtius, “Winckelmann und unser Jahrhundert,” Die Antike 6 (1930), pp. 97-98, figs. 7-8 Helbig-Speier, Führer', II, p. 730, No. 1974 (Inv. 714); Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 2743. H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Mus.Capitol., p. 328, No. 24 (Inv. 720), pi. 82. Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, pp. 8-12, No. 12; F. Magi, I Rilievi flavi del Palazzo della Cancelleria (Rome 1945), pp. 13-26, pis. I-III, VI; J.M.C. Toynbee, The Flavian Reliefs from the Palazzo della Cancelleria in Rome (London 1957); T. Kraus, Das römische Weltreich, No. and pi. 198. I.S. Ryberg, Panel Reliefs of Marcus Aurelius (New York 1967), pp. 62-63, pi. XXIII, fig. 19, pi. L, fig. 68; A. Giuliano, L ’Arco Const., No. and fig. 8; E. Strong, Scult.rom., I, pp. 143-145, figs. 87, 91, wrongly named Roma; M. Bieber, “Honos and Virtus,” AJA 49 (1945), pp. 25-34, figs. 1-4, 15. G. Rodenwaldt, “Zur Kunstgeschichte der Jahre 220 bis 270,” Jdl 51 (1936), p. 96, pi. IV, fig. 6; R. Brilliant, “Gesture and Rank in Roman Art,” Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 14 (1963), p. 187, fig. 4. 65. M. Biel >er, A]A 49 (1945), figs. 8-10. The coins: M. Bieber, AJA 49 (1945), figs. 12-13. E. Michon, Cat.Sommaire, p. 112, Galerie Denon No. 1633; M. Bieber, Entwicklungsgeschichte-, p. 51, pi. 53, fig. 1. Gf. our Fig. 253, supra note 5. J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, pp. 39, 41, No. 529; W. Fröhner, Sculpt.ant.Louvre', pp. 120-122, No. 97; E. Michon, Cat.Sommaire, p. 30, No. 529, pi. XV; M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung pp. 58-59, pi. XXV, fig. 3, p. 83, No. 3, pi. LIV, fig. 3; G.E. Rizzo, Prassitele, pp. 63-66, pis. XCIV-XCVIII; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 59. See supra note 10. J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, p. 46, No. 3435; idem, “Un nouveau Torse d’Artemis chasseusse au Musée du Louvre,” MonPiot 31 (1930), pp. 9-18, pi. II. M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, pp. 82-83, pi. LIV, fig. 2. The model clarifies the draping by showing the different colors of chiton and himation. It is certain that the same was done by coloring the dresses or at least by giving them painted borders on Cheek as well as on Roman statues. C. Anti, “ L’Artemis Laphria di Patrai,” ASAtene 2 (1916), pp. 181-199. See for the Artemis Laphria by Menaechmus and Soidas, Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner, Ancient Coins, pp. 76-78, pi. Q. R. Kekulé, Beschreibung Ant.Skulpt., p. 33, No. 63; G. Bliunel, Berlin.Kat.V.Röm.Kopien, pp. 31-32, K. 250, pi. 70; M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, p. 82, pi. LIV, fig 1. W. Amelung, Sculpt.vat.Mus., I, pp. 123-124, Braccio-Nuovo No. 108 (now No. 105), pis. 15, 31. The torso, Fig. 277, is now in the Magazzino del Piccolo Mercato (No. 987). It is unpublished. The headless statue, Fig. 279, was found in the Domus of Protiro: see Calza-Squarciapino, Mus.Ost., p. 37, No. 9 (4). W. Amelung, Sculpt.Vat.Mus., I, pp. 391-392, Museo Chiaramonti No. 125, pi. 41. For other less wellpreserved torsos of the same type, again see Amelung, pp. 389-390, No. 123, pi. 41, as well as E. Paribeni, Cat.Scult.Cirene, p. 70, Nos. 157-158, pi. 93 and A. Levi, Scult.grec.Mantova, p. 25, No. 56 (She believes this torso to be a copy of the Artemis of Versailles, but I believe that it is nearer to our Figs. 277-280). See supra notes 10 and 12. Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner, Ancient Coins, pp. 89-90, pi. S, figs. 4-5. Ibid., p. 113, pi. X, figs. 3-5; B.V. Head, Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. Central Greece

81

ARTEMIS AND THE LARES (London 1894, reprinted 1968), p. 66, No. 61, pi. X, No. 16. In these and other examples she holds a t o r o t i instead of the bow in her left hand. For Artemis Soteira, with a torch in each hand, by Strongylion on coins o f Megara, see Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner, op.cit., p. 4, pi. A, fig. 1; G. Brans, Die Jägerin Artemis (Diss. M u n io ti 1929), pp. 59-63. For the Artemis, with bow in right hand and torch in left, by Praxiteles at Anticura, s e e Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner, op.cit., pp. 124-125, pi. Y, fig. 17. 35. Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner, op.cit., p. 65, pi. O, fig. 21. 36. Ibid., p. 158, pi. FF, fig. 19. 37. G. Kasehnitz.-Weinberg, Scult.Mag.Vat., p. 61, No. 108, pi. XXVIII. 38. A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, p. 70, No. 239 (6276). 39. H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Mus.Capitol., pp. 44-45, Atrio, No. 52, pi. 6. 40. H. Winnefeld, Die Friese des grossen Altars (Altertümer von Pergamon III, 2) (Berlin 1910), pp. 43-44, pi. V I H ; A. von Salis, Der Altar von Pergamon (Berlin 1912), p. 72, fig. 8; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age1, pp. 116-117, f i g . 463. 41. Albright-Knox Art Gallery No. 5 3 ,1.E. Schenk and P.K. Kelleher, “Diana and the Stag—a Hellenistic Bronze.** Gallery Notes 18, No. 2 (1954), pp. 3-6, with technical analysis by W.J. Young, pp. 6-7, figs. 1-13.1 am g ra te fu l to Mr. Tozzi and the director, Mr. Edgar C. Schenk, for a series of good photographs and the permission t o publish them. For a small bronze of the hunting Diana with dog and stag, similar to the Buffalo Diana, see P .G . Sestieri, “Diana Venetrix,” RivlstArch 8 (1941), pp. 107-128, esp. fig. 6. 42. H. Kahler, Pergamon in Bilderhefte antiker Kunst, herausgegeben vom deutsch.Arch.lnstitut, voi. IX (B e rlin 1949); H. Winnefeld, op.cit., supra, note 40, pp. 157-208, pis. XXXI-XXXV. 43. H. Winnefeld, op.cit., pp. 41-42, fig. 5, pi. VIII; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Heilen.Ager, p. 117, fig. 465. 44. A. Greifenhagen, Griechische Götter (Berlin 1968), p. 32, fig. 12; B.V. Head, A Guide to the Principal Coins i> f' the Greeks, VI, A 17. I owe the permission to publish this coin to the owner, Ameisdorfer in Berlin. T h i s permission was obtained by Prof. Greifenhagen, Berlin-Charlottenburg. 45. M.F. Squarciapino, “L’Artemide del Palatino,” BdA 38 (1953), pp. 105-111, figs. 1-8. 46. Ibid., fig. 5; Helbig-Speier, Führer1, II, pp. 312-313, No. 1493 (Inv. 774); H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Pal.Con., p. 1 4 , Secondo portico No. 2, pi. VII. 47. A Garcia y Bellido, Escultura Romana de Espafia y Portugal (Madrid 1949), Nos. 154-155, pis. 155-117. 48. W. Amelung, Sculpt.vat.Mus., I, p. 721, Museo Ghiaramonti No. 609, pi. 77. 49. G. Lippold, Skulpt.vat.Mus., Ill, 2, pp. 203-204, Galleria dei Candelabri No. 68 (111), pi. 96. 50. See supra, note 39. 51. Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, p. 721, No. 1004 (Inv. 9567). 52. W. Amelung, Sculpt.vat.Mus., I, p. 882, Giardino della Pigna No. 219, pi. 115. The upper part was found in t h ^ storerooms of the Vatican: G. Kaschnitz-Weinberg, Scult.Mag.Vat., p. 192, No. 424, pi. LXXIX. 53. G. Lippold, Skulpt.vat.Mus., Ill, 2, pp. 99-100, Sala della Biga No. 622, pi. 45. 54. Munich: Furtwängler-Wolters, Glypt.München1, p. 356, No. 345; A. Furtwängler, III.Kat.Glypt.Münch., p i. 43; idem. Einhundert Tafeln, pi. 79. Vatican: Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, pp. 438-439, No. 555 (Inv. 2635); G . Lippold, Skulpt.vat.Mus., Ill, 2, pp. 340-348, Galleria dei Candelabri No. 85 (204), pi. 149; C. R obert. Sarkophagreliefs, III, 3, pp. 377-380, Nos. 312-313, pi. 99; J.M.C. Toynbee, The Hadrianic School (Cam bridge 1934), pp. 185-186, pi. 38, 4. The Niobid sarcophagus is dated around 150-160 a.d. 55. Conservatori: Helbig-Speier, Führer', II, pp. 339-340, No. 1526 (Inv. 917); H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Pal.Con., p p . 99-100, Galleria No. 42, pi. 36; C. Robert, Sarkophagreliefs, III, 2, p. 285, pis. LXXIV-LXXV; F. Gerke, DieChristlichen Sarkophage der vorkonstantinischen Zeit (Berlin 1940), pp. 14-15. Lateran: Helbig-Speier. Führer', I, pp. 802-803, No. 1121; Benndorf-Schöne, Bildwerke Lat.Mus., p. 269, No. 394; C. Robert, op.cit., IH . 2, p. 208, No. 167, pi. LIV. 56. Unpublished as far as I know. 57. R. Paribeni, Terme e Museo', No. 433. Formerly in the Chiostro di Michelangelo, now in Aula X. 58. A. Caylus, Recueil d ’A ntiquités égyptiennes, ètrusques, grecques et romaines (Paris 1756-1767), p. 283, pi. LXXX, 3; E. Babelon and J.A. Blanche!, Catalogue des Bronzes antiques de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris

ARTEMIS AND THE LARES

59.

60.

61. 62.

63.

64.

65. 66.

67. 68.

69.

70.

71. 72.

1895), I, pp. 60-61, No. 130; J. Babeion, Choix des bronzes de la Collection Cai/lns (Paris and Brussels .1928), p. 53, No. 34, pi. XI. G. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer (Munich 1902), pp. 166-169; G. Wissowa in W.H. Roscher, Lexik.Myth., II, 2, (Leipzig 1894-1897, reprinted 1965), s.v. “Lares,” cols. 1868-1897, figs. 2-6; Boehm in Pauly-Wissowa, R.E., XII, cols. 806-833; J.A. Hild in C.V. Daremberg-E. Saglio, Dictionnaire des Antiquités greccjues et romaines, pp. 941 ff. ]. Sieveking, Die Bronzen der Sammlung Loeh (Munich 1913), pp. 36-40; Others in S. Reinach, Rép.stat., II, p. 493, figs. 6-8, p. 494, figs. 2-5, 7-9 p. 495, figs. 2, 4-5, p. 496, figs. 5-6; IV, p. 303, fig. 8; V, p. 232, figs. 2-3, 6-7, p. 234, figs. 2, 5. G. Mansuelli, Uffizi Scult., I, pp. 203-206, Να. 205 (Inv. 972), figs. 198a-d; W. Amelung, Führer Florenz, pp. 73-74, No. 99; W, Altmann, Architektur und Ornamentik der antiken Sarkophage (Berlin 1902), p. 175, No. 231. Helbig-Speier, Führer', II, pp. 518-520, No. 1741 (Inv. 855) H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Pal.Con., pp. 74-75, No. 2, pl. 26; D. Mustilli, Mus.Mussol., pp. 102-103, Sala VI No. 10, pl. 59, figs. 236-237; W. Altmann, op.cit., p. 176, No. 232, fig. 141a; E. Strong, Scult.rom., I, pp. 55-56, fig. 34; eadem, Rom.Sculpt., p. 74, pi. XXIV; W.H. Roscher, Lexik.Myth., II, 2, col. 1895, fig. 6. L. Wilson, The Roman Toga, p. 53, fig. 22; A. Ippel, Pompeji (Leipzig 1925), pp. 99-100, fig. 90; A. Maiuri, Pompei (Novara 1951), p. 57, pl. 80; idem, Pompei, Herculaneum, Stabiae (Novara 1961), p. 60; W.H. Roscher, LexìkMyth., II, 2, col. 1894, fig. 5. Madrid (found in Sevilla): F. Alvarez-Ossorio, Museo Arquelogico nacional (2nd ed. Madrid 1925), pp. 215-216, pi. XXIV. Rome (found on the Viminal, Of the Claudian period); Helbig-Speier, Führer', II, p. 382, No.1579 (Inv. 2174); H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Pal.Con., pp. 286-287, Galleria Superiore III, No. 3, pl. 115. For others, see S. Reinach, Rép.stat., I, p. 452, fig. 5; II, p. 493, figs. 3, 9, p. 495, figs. 6-8; IV, p. 301, figs. 5, 9, p. 302, figs. 3, 8, p. 303, figs. 1-6. See also M. Bieber, Cassel, pp. 68-69, Nos. 201-210, pl. XLIII. Naples M ils., Nos. 13328 and 13330. S. Reinach, Rép.stat, IV, p. 302, fig. 8. F. Behn, “Ausgewählte Neuerwerbungen des römisch-germanischen Centralsmuseums an Original-Alter­ tümern von 1914-1926,” Festschrift zum 75 jährigen Bestehen des rörn.-gerrn. Centralsmuseums z. Mainz (Mainz 1927), pp. 106-107, pl. 10, fig. 3. H.B. Walters, Catalogue o f the Bronzes, Creek, Roman and Etruscan, in the Dept, o f Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum (London 1899), p. 37, No. 278, pi. VII (Here named Ganymede). Kassel: M. Bieber, Cassel, p. 69, No. 207, pl. XLIII. Florence: Museo Archeologico, No. 2502. Bibliothèque Nationale: E. Babelon and J. Blanchet, op.cit., supra note 58, I, pp. 327-328, No. 746-747. British Museum: H.B. Walters, op.cit.. No. 1565. See other examples in S. Reinach, Rép.stat., II, p. 498, figs. 7-8, p. 499, figs. 3-5, 7-8, p. 500, figs. 2,6-7, p. 502, fig. 3; III, p. 143, fig. 8; IV, p. 302, figs. 2,5-7, p. 303, fig. 7, p. 304, fig. 2; V, p. 231, figs. 1, 4, 6-8, p. 232, figs. 1, 5, p. 233, figs. 5, 7. Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, pp. 759-760, No. 1058 (Inv. 9964); Benndorf-Schöne, Bildwerke Lat. Mus., p. 134, No. 216; W. Altmann, Arch.und Ornam., pp. 177-178, No. 235, fig. 143a; E. Strong, Scult.rom., I, p. 58, fig. 36; L.R. Taylor, “Altar of Manlius in the Lateran,” A/A 25 (1921), pp. 387-395, fig. 1, 2. Vatican: Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, pp. 184-185, No. 240 (Inv. 915, 940); W. Amelung, Sculpt.vat.Mus., II, pp. 94-97, Cortile del Belvedere No. 38, pl. 10; idem, “Zerstreute Fragmente römischer Reliefs,” RömMitt 20 (1905), pp. 121-130, pl. V. Museo Nuovo on the Capitoline: Helbig-Speier, Führer', II, pp. 488-489, No. 1703 (Inv. 1570, 2817); D, Mustilli, Mus.Mussol, pp. 62-64, Sala IV Nos. 2-3, pl. 40, figs. 164-165; G. Kleiner, “Das Nachleben des pergamenischen Gigantenkampfes,” Berl.Winck-progr. 105 (1949), pp. 5, 15, figs. 2, 4, 6, 9. Basel: E. Berger, Antikenmuseum Basel (Basel 1967-68), p. 124, pl. 40. M. Bieber, Cassel, pp. 56-57, No. 135, pi. XXXIX; G.C. Picard, Les trophèes remains (Paris 1957), pp. 127-128, pl. L fig. I· See Chapter V, supra note 1, Fig. 90.

83

8 THE FUSING OF PARTS OF THE SAME OR OF DIFFERENT DRESSES

1. ARTEMIS-DIANA IN PEPLOS The peplos is the oldest Greek dress for women, and was worn exclusively in the Archaic period until it was replaced in the later sixth century b . c . by the Ionic chiton. In the early Classical period, it again became the favorite dress of women and children and continued as such during the fifth and fourth centuries, and again becoming less popular in the Hellenistic period. It was no longer worn in the Roman period, except by children.1However, since it was worn by the great goddesses in the fifth century, particularly Artemis and Athena, it was handed down together with other art forms to the copyists of the Roman period. This process may be seen in the case of the Pudicitia, the Herculaneum women, and several Aphrodite types (see Chapters XI and XII). The form of the peplos is simple. It is a large rectangular piece of woolen material, the size of which is adapted to the wearer. The breadth of a narrow peplos is equal to the distance between one’s outstretched elbows and that of a wide peplos to the distance between one’s outstretched fingers. The length equals the height of the wearer with the addition of an overfold (apoptygma). The material is folded over horizontally as much as necessary so that the lower edge does not touch the ground. Then the peplos is folded vertically in two equal halves. To put it on, the two upper corners are grasped with the right hand, while with the left the center of the bend of the overfold is grasped. Two 84

THE FUSING OF PARTS OF THE SAME OR OF DIFFERENT DRESSES corresponding points of the upper bend are then drawn from the front and the back to both shoulders and there fixed in such a way that there is more space in front than in the back, to allow for the larger extension of the female breast. Thus the rear part is drawn forward over the front part (see model, Fig. 318)3 The ends are usually fixed over the shoulders with round brooches, large and strong enough to gather a few folds together. These folds make pleasing patterns under the arms and on the breast (see model, Figs. 319-320 and Fig. 325)3 The rest of the upper bend at the closed side is placed around the left arm, resulting in rounded folds, which hang like fine garlands (Fig. 319).' On the open side, which in Classical statues is almost always the right one, the upper bend hangs open, falling outside the open vertical edges of the peplos. From the shoulder falls a broad fold with symmetrical inward curves where the edge of the overfold turns over to the horizontal side edges. We can see this very clearly on vase paintings, as for example the girl with phiale and oinoehoe on the back of an amphora by the Achilles painter, dated around 450 B . c . (Fig. 324).5 It also occurs on a statuette in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme (Figs. 321-323)," on the bronze statue from Herculaneum in Naples (Fig. 325),7 and the bronze statuette of Artemis found in Sicily, now in the British Museum (Figs. 326-327),8 all belonging to the early Classical period from about 480-450 b .c . The most difficult part for a copyist to render is the open side, where he must represent two vertical edges in the lower part and two bends of the overfold and four free edges in the upper part. As experiments with models (Fig. 317) have shown, these edges fall in zigzags in the most diverse ways. The most extreme cases are those in which zigzag folds of both edges run parallel to each other so that they form a kind of diamond pattern. In most cases a mixed pattern occurs. Thus, the model (Fig. 317) shows by accident parallel lines in the upper part, a diamond pattern in the lower part. It is clear that there must be four corners, two in the upper and two in the lowest part. As they are often marked by little weights or tassels, they can be easily found in the sculptures (Figs. 323-327). We can say with certainty that a statue on which the peplos is open on the wrong side cannot be a Classical original, but must be an inexact copy. A statuette in the Barracco Collection (Figs. 328-329)8 was considered a Greek original until Amelung discovered a replica in the storerooms of the Vatican (Figs. 330-331).10 We might have recognized the work as Roman from the rendering of the peplos. It is folded in half not only vertically but also horizontally, so that two equally long edges fall parallel to each other from the end of the bend to the ground. This might be an extreme form of the overfold, since the overfold was always made long for little girls. (The overfold could be shortened and thus the dress lengthened so that it would still fit as the girl grew.) But there is also a real overfold of the proper length in front and back. This could have been sewn on as an extra feature. But why should such a warm dress be given a third layer? The broad fold which comes from the right shoulder does not bend to join the edge of the overfold. It ends decidedly at the back of the large zigzag fold of the front vertical edge. The copyist did not know or did not realize, as a Classical Greek artist would have, that a square piece of material can have only one overfold in the upper part. A second overfold would demand two upper edges and six corners, which no square piece can have. The copyist’s lack of understanding shows also in the way in which the backs of the folds along the side are laid in a straight line against each other without showing the leg which appears inside the opening edge of the peplos (see Fig. 328). Another point which betrays the copyist is the use of the Roman tunic with the openings for the arms at the upper part of the side edges, while in the Greek chiton the arms would emerge from

THE FUSING OF PARTS OF THE SAME OR OF DIFFERENT DRESSES the upper edges. The copyist may have known the contemporary Roman dress, while the Greek peplos was transmitted to him only through art. The simple peplos was given to children without a belt because it was thought that the belt would impede growth. However, the simple peplos was also worn by young unmarried girls. That is the reason why Artemis, the virgin goddess, wears it often, as for example on the bronze statuette from Sicily (Fig. 326). The most widely known type of Artemis dressed in an ungirt peplos, and the one most often copied, is the Dresden Artemis, so named after the most famous, although not the best, copy which is located in Dresden (Figs. 332-334)." A much smaller but better copy is in the Palazzo Doria-Pamphili (Figs. 335-337).12 Three different replicas are in Cassel: one (Figs. 338-339) has been restored according to the Dresden replica; the second (Figs. 340-341) still has the restorations of the eighteenth century; the third (Figs. 342-343) has been freed of all restorations.13 Other copies are in the Vatican, wrongly restored as Athena (Figs. 345-346),11 in the storerooms of the Vatican (Fig. 347),15 in the Villa Borghese (Fig. 348),1,1 in the Museo Archeologico in Florence (Fig. 349), in Munich and in the Berlin Museum (Figs. 344, 350-351),17 and in the Louvre, named Erato and restored with a wrong head and modern arms (Fig. 352).18 When we compare the front views, there seems to be a good tradition in evidence. The length of the whole peplos and the overfold, as well as the middle and the side parts of the overfold, are carefully balanced with each other. The central part has beautiful curved folds and catenaries. The folds coming from the upper edge continue under the baldric in a clear and logical way. No wonder this beautiful creation has been attributed to Praxiteles by both Furtwängler and Amelung, the latter dating it between 356 and 353 b . c ., the time when Praxiteles probably worked for Ephesos.19 Such an attribution to a great artist has been denied by Brommer, who thinks the back views are not worthy of a great sculptor.21’ Indeed, most of the back views are coarse and superficial. When, however, we compare the backs of the Dresden and Palazzo Doria-Pamphili replicas (Figs. 334, 337), we find, in the case of the latter, the same principle of arrangement as on the front, with the emphasis on the center and the differentiation of the folds over the legs. In most other replicas the backs are executed summarily, as on the Dresden copy. The reason is that the Romans, for whom the copies were made, put statues in niches or against walls as decorations. Therefore the copyists and the owners were not interested in the back views. (The three copies in Cassel [Figs. 338-343], found by Jenkins or Hamilton in Rome, were sold to the Landgraf of Hessia in 1776. Although from the same shop, the three works were probably executed by different artisans, with different ability and taste.) The difference between all these copies is particularly evident when we look at the open side of the peplos, the most difficult part for the copyist to understand and to render accurately. All show the rather charming motif of the toes on the right foot appearing between the front vertical edge of the peplos, which lies on the instep, and the rear vertical edge, which hangs over the outside of the foot and the heel. The two corners of the lower edge of the peplos can be seen on all these copies, although they are more distinct on some than on others. Only on the copies in the Palazzo Doria-Pamphili (Figs. 335-337), in the Villa Borghese (Fig. 348), and in the Berlin Museum (Figs. 350-351) are even one of the tassels or weights on these lower corners visible; in all three of these cases, it is the weight on the lower rear corner that we can see. The other weight, attached to the lower front corner of the peplos, can be most clearly seen on one of the copies. 86

that in the Palazzo Doria-Pamphili (Fig. 336), where it appears below the little toe, towards the side of the statue. This detail is also rendered on the Dresden copy (Fig. 333), but it is far less distinct, On the other copies, it is not clearly seen. The large zigzag folds of the front and rear edges in the lower part of the peplos overlap one another, generally with the rear one drawn forward. But in the case of the Villa Borghese replica (Fig. 348), the two side edges are separated near the bottom and between them part of a chiton is seen. The statue in the Vatican also has a chiton, but it is only visible at the arm. The two corners of the overfold of the peplos are clearly marked by little weights only on the copies in the storerooms of the Vatican (Fig. 347) and in the Berlin Museum (Fig. 351); on the Dresden copy (Fig. 333), only one weight of the overfold is seen, that on the front corner. This detail is not clearly rendered on the other copies. The front and rear edges of the overfold are either laid side by side in a continuous line or are separated slightly. In the case of the statue in the Palazzo Doria-Pamphili (Figs. 335-337), the lower edge of the overfold appears to be continuous from the front along the side to the back, without any indication of front and rear vertical edges for the overfold. There is further confusion when we come to the part below the lifted right arm. On most replicas the edges of the overfold come together from the front and rear as if they had been sewn together at a particular point. However, on the copy in the Palazzo Doria-Pamphili (Fig. 336) and on the copy in the Berlin Museum (Fig. 351), there is no clear indication of the edges of the overfold coming together at such a point. Rather, there is a continuous piece of cloth with upper and lower edges distinctly seen. This is an impossible and unnatural arrangement, since a distinct vertical line should be seen that would indicate the opening on this side. On all the copies, though, the uppermost edge appears as a continuous curve, which would be impossible in reality. The copyist probably thought that under the peplos in each case there was a chiton, causing this curve under the arm. On the Dresden copy (Fig. 333), the part below the arm is hidden by a strut, added by the copyist to support the lifted arm. Because there is evidence of confused rendering below the arm, I would like to propose that the copyist used an earlier copy as a model which had such a strut, such as the Dresden copy, which hid the complicated part below the shoulder. The great differences among all these copies show that the artisans who worked for the Romans could not have had an exact model that had been made from a cast or by the pointing process. Just as the monks making copies of manuscripts also copied the mistakes of an earlier copy, so these copyists of sculpture in the imperial period copied and sometimes magnified the mistakes of their predecessors. The mistakes are compounded when the Dresden Artemis is adapted and varied to represent other goddesses. The Ariadne in the British Museum (Figs. 353-354),21 said to have been found along with the three Cassel replicas, seems also to have been modeled on a secondary copy which had a stmt supporting the right arm. The subject matter of the statue was changed by adding the Dionysiae panther at her lower right side and the thyrsos on her shoulder. Furthermore, the copyist added a chiton. This undergarment appears not only between the two long side edges but also in the form of a wide sleeve between the two short hanging edges of the overfold. This sleeve separates the upper edges more than is necessary. Another adaptation appears in the form of Tyche, now in Munich (Fig. 355).22 The long edges are widely separated by the inset chiton. The upper part of the overfold of the side is hidden by the right upper arm held against the body. 87

THE FUSING OF PARTS OF THE SAME OR OF DIFFERENT DRESSES The Artemis Colonna is sometimes called an “older sister” of the Dresden Artemis. The name “Colonna” for this type is taken from the Artemis formerly in the possession of the Colonna family; the statue is now in the Rerlin Museum (Figs. 356-357).2;) She wears the same dress as the Dresden Artemis, but her movement is much more vigorous. The original type is generally dated to the first half or the middle of the fourth century b . c ., while Lippold has dated it to the last third of that century. There are about 20 known copies, of which the one in Rerlin is the best preserved but not the best worked. The side edges of the peplos (Fig. 357) have a form which can hardly be that of the original. The rear edge is drawn forward and disappears under the back of the first round fold of the front edge, while part of it runs upward in a way which does not make sense. The two edges of the overfold, as well as the edges of the main part underneath them, are separated and between them are folds which seem to indicate a chiton. The best-worked replica seems to be a statue in the Vatican restored as Diana Lucifera (Fig. 358).·24 D eep hollow folds accompany the strong forward movement. The corners of the front edges of the peplos are clearly indicated by little weights (unfortunately the rear edges are mostly restored). A second replica in the Vatican has been made into the huntress Diana by the addition of a dog (Fig. 359) A’ It is a superficial copy, but in general an exact one. The long side edges are just barely separated from each other by a slight groove. Of two replicas in Paris, one is extensively restored (Fig. 360).2,i The other, a torso found in Saloniki (Fig. 361),27 is very superficially worked, and the motifs of the right side are misunderstood. There are two vertical edges of the overfold in the front and none in the back, and only one long vertical edge going to the ground. The back is so flat that an inscription in Hebrew was easily inscribed on it. A statue in the Capitoline Museum (Figs. 362-363) 28 is a simplified copy, with the position of the legs reversed. The backs of the long vertical edges are laid side by side and separated only by a flat groove. The two parts of the overfold are distinctly separated (a triangle under the armpit is a modern addition). A torso in the Museo Archeologico in Florence (Fig. 3 6 4 )29 is broken and restored. The lower part up to the knees is modern. The side edges of the overfold are separated, but the upper parts come together below the arm as on the Dresden Artemis replicas in Cassel, the Vatican, and the Villa Borghese (Figs. 3 3 2 -3 3 4 ,3 3 8 ,3 4 3 ,3 4 5 -3 4 8 ). This arrangement is, therefore, a manner of copying, not an original feature. On one of two torsos of the Artemis Colonna in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme (Fig. 365),·10 the head and neck were inserted into a deep cavity. Thus, the type may have been used for a portrait statue of a Roman lady. Definitely, one of the two replicas in the Villa Borghese !l is a portrait statue, since it bears a head of the early Antonine period, with a hairdo similar to that of Sabina. On this copy in the Terme the cloth below the right arm is gathered as if a belt were laid below the breast, producing curves similar to those under the left arm (cf. Figs. 339,343). The same is true for a torso, formerly in the Roman art market, which may be a replica of the Artemis Colonna. However, the quiver and its baldric have been omitted (Figs. 366-368).12 It is rather simplified but otherwise of good workmanship. Particularly good is the back with the fine garlandlike folds on the overfold anti the pattern of the lower folds moving from right and left to the center emphasizing Artemis’ strong forward action (Fig. 368). A variant of the Artemis Colonna in Dresden is similar (Figs. 369-371). *’ The folds under the left armpit are very numerous, while the folds under the right armpit are rather difficult to understand with the exception of the lower corners which lie next to each other on the ground. The vertical edges are parallel to each other, separated by a shallow groove as on

the Dresden Artemis. Again we have the same mannerism the copyists used on the copies of different types.

2. ATHENA-MINERVA IN PEPLOS The so-called Athena Hephaistia, or rather, the variations, are also closely related to the Dresden Artemis. The name is taken from the cult statue of the Hephaisteion in Athens, a bronze by Alkamenes, erected between 421 and 416 b .c . together with a statue of Hephaistos. A statue in Cherchel seems to be an exact copy, with a shield set up on an acanthus calyx next to her left side. This detail is mentioned in connection with the bronze statue in the inscriptions referring to the Hephaisteion." In a fine variation in the Louvre (Figs. 372-375),35 the left hand does not lie on the edge of the shield, but holds the aegis, in which a small box lies; therefore it is named “Minerve au ciste.” This adaptation was found in Crete. There are also two adaptations in the Vatican (Figs. 376-378),™ and two in the Villa Borghese (Figs. 379-382)." Another exists in Ostia (Figs. 383-384),™ and one was formerly on the art market (Fig. 385). On most of these adaptations the aegis is smaller and in most cases is laid across the breast like a scarf, and the left hand hangs down at the side or rests on the hip. In the rendition of the peplos, the shape of the folds in the rear part of the long vertical edge is related clearly to that of the front part, much as the shapes are on the Artemis in the storerooms of the Vatican (Fig. 347).™ The edges of the overfold are separated in the lower part. The material under the arm, however, is treated as if it were sewn together (Fig. 377), similar to the treatment on some copies of the Dresden Artemis (cf. Figs. 364-365).40 The copy in the Villa Borghese (Figs. 381-382) and the one in the Vatican (Figs. 376-377) have a chiton sleeve set in at the armpit. On the latter, a high belt is added below the aegis. These observations prove that the same motifs which were used to make changes in the side edges of Greek dresses, were used by different copyists and adapters for different types. We cannot make inferences concerning the Greek originals, from which the copies were made, because of the changes the copyists made. The original types mostly were the creations of quite different artists, periods, and schools. The only conclusion we can draw in some cases is that the copies and adaptations come from the same workshop. A statue of Artemis in the Vatican is very close to the Dresden Artemis, with the exception of the belt (Figs. 386-387).*1 Lippold has assigned this statue to Kephisodotos, the father of Praxi­ teles. This well-worked copy is probably Trajanic. The additional pouch of the overfold under the raised right arm is a modern copy of the folds under the left arm. The copyist believed that there was a chiton under the peplos, and therefore he has set in a kind of sleeve under the armpit and one fold between the two long vertical edges. We will find this motif again on the Phidian Athenas (below, Figs. 395-397). A Hellenistic adaptation, belted directly below the breast, exists in the Palazzo Doria-Pamphili (Fig. 388) '2 Two bronze statuettes, found together with a bronze copy of the Dresden Artemis, also have this high belt.4* A large statue wearing this belted peplos, perhaps representing Athena or Artemis, was found in the apse of a villa at Ariccia and is now in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme (Figs. 389-390)." It is an ugly but an effective Antonine copy of a creation of the fifth century b . c . Originally the 89

THE FUSING OF PARTS OF THE SAME OR OF DIFFERENT DRESSES head, feet, and lower right and left arms were attaehed separately. The back was not carved to any degree because the statue stood in an apse. A small mantle is laid over the left shoulder and across the back, and hangs over the right lower arm. No chiton is visible in the upper part, but a fold appears between the long bends of the peplos’ vertical edges (Fig. 390), in this case broader below than above. The rear corner of the peplos is marked with a little weight lying on the ground. The uniform repetition of the deeply carved vertical folds is also certainly the invention of the copyist, not of the original artist. A still more unpleasant work is the counterpart of the Artemis of Ariccia, standing next to her and formerly in the Villa Mattel (Fig. 3 9 1).45 The peplos is open on the left side, which is unusual. There are five corners, because an extra end has been added between the short edges of the overfold and the long edges reaching to the ground. The front and back parts of the overfold are clearly separated, and all edges are deeply cut and arranged in the popular schematic, symmetrical way. The peplos with a belt over a long overfold was used during the fifth century b . c . not only for Artemis but above all for Athena. The series begins in the early Classical period with the so-called “mourning” Athena on the Acropolis (Fig. 392).48 The Athena by Myron, from the group of Marsyas and Athena originally on the Acropolis, belongs to the middle of the fifth century. The best copy is now in Frankfurt (Figs. 393-394).17 Both of the celebrated statues of Athena by Phidias have this arrangement. The bronze one was dedicated about 450 b .c . on the Acropolis by the Lemnian colonists; the two best replicas are in Dresden where a good reconstruction has been attempted (Figs. 395-396). A lesser copy is in Cassel (Fig. 397),48 on which small folds and creases are added. The second statue, the often copied Athena Parthenos, a colossal gold and ivory statue, was set up in the Parthenon where it was dedicated in 438 b .c . (Figs. 398-399).'“ The Lemnia wears her aegis over her breast like a sash, the Parthenos wears hers like a breast ornament. Noack had concluded that the Lemnia and the Parthenos had been created by the same artist, because the folds at the right side of the Dresden copy (Fig. 395) and the Minerve au Collier in the Louvre (Figs. 401-402) are of the same type. Noack used for his demonstration side photographs of casts taken by Amelung in the Museum of Casts at the Berlin University (Fig. 400).50 It seems, however, most unlikely that a great master like Phidias should repeat himself in such a manner in two creations differentiated not only by the overall motif and the material—bronze for one, gold and ivory for the other—but also by a dozen years. Schrader had already seen that the similarity is due to the fact that they are both copies. In both copies the two vertical folds of the side edges lying parallel to each other form large curved lines (cf. Figs. 399, 402). The backs of these folds are laid against each other, separated only by a deep groove. We find this motif again on a peplos statue in the Lateran (Figs. 403-404).51 However, the last bend of the zigzag at the bottom in all these cases (Figs. 399,400,402,404) leaves a wide gap between the two vertical edges. This gap is filled in with one or two broad folds which have no right to be there. It is an inset which may indicate a chiton, but which has the same stylization as the folds of the peplos in front. The rather coarse, but exact copy in a torso on the Acropolis (Figs. 405-406) does not have this inset. We find it again in the mantle (not a peplos) of the Athena of Velletri in the Louvre (see below Chapter X, Fig. 552), This again proves that the motif is used by a manneristic copyist, not by an original artist. The large replica of the Athena Parthenos signed by the copyist Antiochos, in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme (Figs. 407-408), has great richness and shows that Antiochos had a clear 90

THE FUSING OF PARTS OF THE SAME OR OF DIFFERENT DRESSES understanding of the drapery. We do not find definite patterns and insets, but rather sharply separated edges and clearly indicated corners. The selvage and the richly curved folds of the overfold, where it is drawn out of the belt are also shown. Smaller copies like the Varvakeion statuette (Figs. 398-399), the torso on the Acropolis (Figs. 405-406), and the copy in Madrid 52 have only a groove between the side edges of the peplos and the lower edge runs around the figure without separation. They do not agree in detail with each other, but that is not to be expected. The colossal scale of the original in gold and ivory forced the copyists who worked in marble to make a choice among the many motifs which Phidias certainly used. Everywhere the tubular folds, rounded or bulging, show great variety, hut they have the same character throughout. We may assume that the richness of the Antiochos copy and of the small copies is nearer to the original than is the Minerve au Collier (Figs. 401-402), which in contrast is simpler. While the cult statue as a whole appeared simple and grandiose, at the sides rich details were added. On the right side, a small Nike was placed on the goddess’ extended right hand; on the left side stood the shield; on Athena’s head rested the elaborate helmet; and below were the decorated sandals, All show a great variety not only in content but also in form. Each copyist could choose from the great variety of motifs, as the copyist did with the shield.51 The same variety we must expect to find in the rendering of the open side of the peplos. We may assume that the broad, flat, zigzag folds of the original Lemnian Athena were like those on the Dresden and Cassel replicas (Figs. 395, 397), with the exception of the interpolated folds of the chiton, which the copyists have added on the Dresden replicas, as on some replicas of the Parthenos. We also find the same arrangement in the Maenad statue in the Villa Albani (Fig. 409), which is an adaptation of the Lemnia.51 The restorer has combined it with the head of a caryatid inscribed by Kriton and Nikolaos, while the copyist has made it into a Maenad by changing the aegis to a nebris, the skin of a fawn. He opened the peplos on the left instead of the right side because he wished to add a companion statue. He treated the bend of the long sides as if they were edges and put the two little weights on them, instead of directly at the corners of the vertical and horizontal edges. He misunderstood the differences between bends with their bulging folds and edges. The weights lie on the ground close together, marking the end of little triangles formed where the side edges meet the lower edge. These edges the copyist has merged with the bulges of the folds and thus confused the folds and the edges. A torso in Oxford (Figs. 410-411)55 seems to be derived from the Lemnia, but also has elements of the Dresden Artemis, particularly in front. The right arm must have been lifted, since there is a fragment of a strut near the right hip. Below this strut there are two little weights at the clearly separated corners of the overfold. The long edges of the peplos are also clearly separated by a deep groove. The weights are again placed at the bend of the edges and lie on the ground. These curved edges of the peplos form the same triangle at the bottom, as on copies of the Parthenos (Fig. 398-408). Again this motif was created by a copyist and not by the original artist. Because the statue also is similar to the Hephaistia (Figs. 372-375), it has been assigned to Alkamenes; on account of its similarity to the Dresden Artemis (Figs. 332-334), it has been assigned to Praxiteles. I believe rather that it is the eclectic adaptation of Greek types to a Roman Minerva. The same is true of another torso of Athena in Oxford (Figs. 412-413),r>e as can be seen from the formal patterns of the edges and the upper part of the overfold, joined below the armpit and below the belt to form a thick continuous border.

THE FUSING OF PARTS OF THE SAME OR OF DIFFERENT DRESSES The Athena with a high belt and small aegis is also represented in relief on a base found in the Villa of Hadrian, now in Oxford (Fig. 414).57 The same type was used for a statuette of Athena in the storerooms of the Vatican and for a colossal Athena (2.70 meters high), also in Oxford (Fig. 415).58 This last figure was carved in the Antonine period, according to the drawing of the folds. The edges at the side are wide open and between them are vertical folds. From the middle on these vertical folds merge with vertical folds of the peplos. Thus peplos and chiton are fused together into an impossible unit. This inorganic conception of drapery explains the disagreeable and inharmonious impression which this over life-size statue transmits to a sensitive viewer. It may be compared to the Artemis of Ariccia (Figs, 389-390), dating from the same period. A bronze statuette of Athena in Turin can provide further comparison between original and copy (Fig. 421).59 That she also belongs to the Antonine baroque period is indicated by three helmet crests framing her head and by the broad and deep double tubular fold at the center of the horizontal edge of the overfold. The statue is simplified in harmony with its smaller size, and the peplos is closed all around. An Athena, formerly in the Borghese Collection, now in the Louvre (Figs. 416-417),,i0 has very ugly straight vertical folds all around. They are even continued as zigzag folds of the vertical edges of the overfold at the right side, as well as on the horizontal edges. This destroys the rich and varied pattern which the Phidian Athenas had once introduced into art. The third large Athena statue attributed to Phidias is the Athena Medici, formerly in the École des Beaux Arts, now in the Louvre (Figs. 418-420).01 This grandiose creation may explain why so many copyists tried to interpolate a chiton between the open edges of the peplos. Here we have a broad opening at the side, because the edge of the peplos is hanging in front on the inside of the right leg standing far to the side. There is a clear distinction between the crinkly material of the chiton and the thick tubular folds of the peplos, while the copyists, nevertheless, generally adapt the folds of the chiton to the style of the peplos folds. There is also a clear differentiation between the folds near the edges and the edges themselves, while the copyists confuse the two. The running Athena in the Capitoline Museum (Fig. 422) and the running Athena (or perhaps Artemis) in the British Museum (Fig. 423)62 also wear a chiton under the peplos. In both cases, the vertical edge of the peplos has been shifted further to the front between the legs, as a consequence of their vigorous movement. Between the edges of the peplos appears the chiton, also visible on the upper left arm of the statue in the British Museum (the right arm with the hanging sleeve is restored). The Romans liked decorative symmetry. Therefore, the copyists transformed the Creek creations of the fifth and fourth centuries b . c . into herms like the six in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, of which the Athena may go back to an original even earlier than the Athena Parthenos (Figs. 424-426).® The zigzag folds at the right side make a clear diamond pattern and, in the upper part, the shallow groove between the two edges widens to expose one fold of a chiton added, as on the Lemnia and Parthenos copies. The back is greatly simplified. The lowest part of the aegis covers the buttocks in such a way that the heavy folds of the peplos shine through it like flat lines, in contrast to the thick and deep parallel folds of the lower part. An adaptation of the Athena Parthenos in the Villa Wolkonski in Rome is still more subject to the love of decorative symmetry (Figs. 427-430).® The two vertical edges are separated by a shallow groove as on the Dresden Artemis and on the Artemis of Ariccia (Figs. 389-390). In the 92

THE FUSING OF PARTS OF THE SAME OR OF DIFFERENT DRESSES lowest part, however, the edges melt together with a shallow fold between, as on the' Minerve au Collier and on the Lemnia (Figs. 395-397, 401-402), so that the lower edge runs around the feet without any separation. The overfold at the right side has been drawn forward by the belt in a sling, similar to the Artemis of Arieeia (Fig. 390). The copyists and artisans of the Roman imperial period made no distinction between the peploi of Artemis and Athena. Everything else has been arranged as symmetrical decoration: the long curly locks falling forward on the shoulders, the snakes surrounding the head of Medusa in front as well as those in back on the edge of the aegis, the ends of the locks falling in a bunch on the back, the snakes of the belt, even the folds of the peplos in the front as well as in the back. Another example of how the copyists ignored the real forms of the peplos in favor of decoration and symmetry is found on copies of the triple Hekate. Originally created by Alkamenes, this group was often imitated and varied in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. While the face remained Classical, the dress became archaistic. The bronze Hekateion in the Palazzo dei Conservatori is the best example (Figs. 431-432).83 There are only faint indications of the separation between the peploi of the three figures. The vertical edges slide one above the other, and there is only one weight for two edges of the overfold. There is also a second short overfold above the long one, which is quite inorganic. This Hekateion is the product of syncretism. The attributes prove that Hekate is here conceived at the same time as the underworld goddess, the moon goddess Luna or Diana Lucifera, and as an Erinnys. A marble Hekateion in the Vatican has only shallow grooves in the upper part.™ An example in the Villa Borghese (Figs. 433-434)07 has some weak zigzag folds at the side edges, but the edge of the overfold and the lower edge of the peplos, as well as the pouch which appears below the overfold, go around each of the three figures without distinct separation. This artisan certainly did not understand what he was rendering. Just as the Romans liked architectural facades, building them up high even when there were no upper stories behind, so also the Romans hung the peplos as a decoration before the figure without relating it to the body.

3. APHRODITE-VENUS IN CHITON AND HIMATION The first nude Aphrodite, created by Praxiteles and called Knidia after the sanctuary on the island of Knidos, had the greatest number of variations of any Aphrodite type during the Hellenistic period and was the most copied type in the Roman period.® The latest Hellenistic type, the Capitoline Aphrodite, was used for portrait statues particularly in the Flavian and Antonine periods, when her realistic and fleshy character was appealing.® The semi-draped Aphrodite of Praxiteles of the type found in Arles, the best copies of which are in the Louvre and in Athens, was probably, from the beginning, a portrait statue of Phyrne, the mistress of the artist.70 The lightly clad Aphrodite, the so-called Genetrix, created perhaps by Kallimachos in the late fifth century b .c ., was used for portrait statues in the early imperial and Hadrianic periods.'1 The most beautiful type created for Aphrodite from the Periclean age was never used to my knowledge for humans, but only for Hellenistic Aphrodites and Roman Venuses. It is the leaning Aphrodite, attributed to Phidias because of its close stylistic relationship to the reclining

THE FUSING OF PARTS OF THE SAME OR OF DIFFERENT DRESSES Aphrodite in the east pediment of the Parthenon. Kekulé was the first to see that this statue, brought from Smyrna to Berlin (Figs. 435-436),72 must have been an original work from the workshop of Phidias, and from the same period (438 to 435 b . c . ) when the so-called sisters of the D ew were carved there. Hans Schrader, while a student of Kekulé, was the first to exclaim; “One of the Dew-sisters has risen” (Eine der Thauschwestern hat sich erhoben). He and Kekulé saw that the artistic rendering of the clothing in the pediment as w ell as in the Berlin statue is of the highest quality, demanding the greatest admiration. The dress is neither a second skin following the body, nor a thick draping which hides its form. Rather, it has its own life w ithout disturbing the organic forms of the body. The folds play over the mighty forms of the goddess’ body like clear water which ripples in small waves over the sand when the tide begins to rise. Particularly beautiful is the part where the body swells and seems to emerge from the garment framed by the curve of the pouch above and the upper bend of the overfold of the mantle below . Inside this frame of horizontal curves, the folds are laid in delicate, vertical curves, opening at the center to emphasize the rounding of the body. W e find such subtlety only in Greek originals. I would like to attribute this Periclean creation to Phidias himself. It may be a variation of his Aphrodite placing her foot on a tortoise, erected in Elis (Pausanias, VI, 25.1). There is no exact replica, but there is a somewhat later creation which has been attributed to Alkamenes, the pupil of Phidias and his successor as the leading artist in Athens. Som etimes this statue is identified as the cult statue of the sanctuary of Aphrodite in Daphne, on the sacred way which leads from Athens to Eleusis. It is indeed represented on a votive relief found in D aphne.73 A torso in Smyrna is still similar, but not equal to the leaning Berlin Aphrodite.7' The vertical curves are arranged in harmonious proportions with the openings near to the left side of the body. A series of betterpreserved copies, not quite life-size, stand with crossed feet and lean on a pillar.75 On an otherwise good torso found in Gortyn, now in Candia on Crete (Fig. 437),7fi delicate vertical folds are crossed by folds running parallel to the curves in the bend of the mantle on the oval betw een the pouch and the upper part of the himation. This spoils some of the beauty of the original arrangement. In a replica in the Capitoline Museum,77 these curves are almost parallel to the horizontal curves of the mantle and are cut more harshly through the vertical folds. In the Louvre two replicas of this later creation have been restored incorrectly as the Muse Euterpe. The one (Fig. 4 3 8 )78 has the horizontal folds over the left side in the stomach area that are engraved only slightly, while the vertical folds on the right side are rendered as pointed and sharply protruding ridges. One diagonal fold, slanting down to the left, separates the two parts. Otherwise this copy, probably of the Claudian period, is still quite good. The beginning of confusion is indicated by two copies in Naples. One, with an ancient head, has the vertical folds on the right side and the horizontal folds on the left side of her stomach area, all worked out in equally sharp curves. In the second copy, w hich has a modern head (Fig. 439),7,1 the vertical and horizontal folds in the lower part of this area m elt together into horizontal curved folds which follow the upper curve of the himation. The worst replica is the second one in the Louvre (Fig. 440).80 All folds below the pouch have here been carved parallel to the folds of the overfold of the mantle. A similar inclination to parallel lines is also com bined on other parts of the statue with the blurring of finer distinctions, as for example in the low est folds of the chiton. This copy with its deep shadows seems to belong to the Antonine period. Thus, w e can observe on a series of copies derived from an original of the late fifth century b . c . the m elting together of a 94

THE FUSING OF PARTS OF THE SAME OR OF DIFFERENT DRESSES chiton and a draped himation to the point that chiton and mantle can no longer be distinguished. The copyists often lack feeling for the beauty and subtlety of the impressive Classical inventions and spoil them by careless imitation. A statue of Aphrodite, found in Corneto and now in the Berlin Museum (Fig. 441),81 is still another variation of the Aphrodite from the workshop of Phidias, The goddess stands with her feet slightly apart, the left foot forward. She leans on an idol, and she holds with her right hand the mantle drawn over her head like a veil. The overfold of the chiton and the upper curve of the himation form an oval similar to that seen on the Phidian creation, but the folds in this stomach area all run in almost straight vertical lines. This beautiful type of Aphrodite is used on the cheek-piece of a helmet, preserved only in a mould in the Akademische Kunstmuseum at the University of Bonn and in a cast formerly in England, now lost.82 The right hand of the goddess is laid around the neck of Eros; her left hand holds the veil. The attribution to a helmet for Alkibiades gives the right date, the late fifth century b . c . Similar in style is the original Greek statue of a girl found in the Piraeus (Figs. 442-445).8:! The beautiful Aphrodite in the Palazzo Doria-Pamphili (Fig. 446),81 another original creation with chiton and mantle, is related to the Aphrodite of the Parthenon’s east pediment and to a beautiful torso from the Agora, but it is somewhat later, dating from the end of the fifth century b . c . The movements of the body are more lively and varied. Lippold believes the statue to be an example of Ionic art from Asia Minor. I believe that it can hardly be separated from the style of the figures on the Nike balustrade in Athens. The mantle has baroque folds on the right hip. The bend of the overfold does not lie in a curve but goes straight up to the left side. The beautiful motif seen on the stomach of the statue of Aphrodite from Smyrna (Fig. 435) is reduced on the Doria-Pamphili statue to vertical curves covering like shading in a drawing the center and the right side of the narrowed area. Another variation of the Periclean Aphrodite is preserved in three large Roman copies in the Palazzi Valentini,85 Lazzeroni (Fig. 447),8B and Odescalchi (Fig. 448)87 in Rome. It seems, therefore, that this was the type of Aphrodite chosen by the Romans for their draped Venus. They agree with each other much more than with the other copies and variations of Greek originals. The style dates the original creation of this Aphrodite type to the period between the Erechtheion frieze and the art of Timotheos. There is a strong contrast between the veil-like quality of the himation where it covers the left leg and the heavy folds which surround the right leg and cross the thighs in an S-curve. The thin chiton follows the forms of the body, as it does in the other copies and variations, but the contrast with the heavy himation is stronger, emphasized par­ ticularly by the small baroque folds of the mantle on the right hip. The belt and the overfold of the chiton are missing. The style seems too mannered to be attributed to Alkamenes, to whom this type has been ascribed.88 While the Greek artisans working for the Romans made exact copies of the ValentiniLazzeroni type, the earlier Hellenistic artists made adaptations in the style to conform to the tastes of their own time. These, in turn, were copied for Roman customers who wanted votive statuettes or reproductions of celebrated works for their own religious or other particular needs. In the Hellenistic adaptations the curves connecting the breasts in the Classical ValentiniI ,azzeroni type are replaced by a tight belt directly under the breasts. This helps to change the harmonious Classical forms to the elongated Hellenistic figures with broad hips and narrow upper 95

THE FUSING OF PARTS OF THE SAME OR OF DIFFERENT DRESSES body. A statuette in Alexandria of about the second century b .c . still has one horizontal curve above the belt.“1 In most other cases, particularly the variations in Athens (Fig. 449), there are only vertical folds which run downward from the upper edge of the chiton and continue below the belt to the bend of the mantle/1" Some of these statuettes lean on an archaistic idol of Aphrodite/11 Others are identified as Aphrodite by the small Eros seated on the goddess’ left shoulder.92 The best Roman copy of this Hellenistic adaptation is the statuette found in Dura, now in the Louvre (Fig. 450).™ Sometimes the very thin chiton on the breast is omitted altogether.'1' The loose, unstable draping of the himation found on these Aphrodite statues is also seen on the Roman copies of the Apollo Kitharoidos attributed to Timarchides, the best from Gyrene in the British Museum, others in Rome and in Naples/15 The unbalanced and unrealistic character of these Hellenistic adaptations did not disturb the pious Romans, since they wanted adaptations of important religious subjects for their worship, not exact copies of Greek masterpieces. Two Classical Greek creations are preserved in seated portrait statues with portrait heads of the Roman imperial period. One is the so-called Agrippina, the portrait of a woman about 50 years of age, leaning back and with folded hands (restored) and crossed feet, which is in Naples (Figs. 451-454)/1BAccording to its hairdo it belongs to the Claudian period. Another variation has been used more often in later periods for portrait statues. The original has been identified as the Aphrodite in the gardens near the Ilissos, created by Alkamenes. This assertion by Langlotz seems convincing and invalidates all older attributions of Aphrodite types to Alkamenes. There are nine copies known/17The best seems to be the one found near the Circus of Maxentius, during the time of whom it may have been made/18 It is now in the Museo Torlonia. Another good replica, in the Villa Albani (Fig. 455),™ now has a head with a Claudian hairdo which does not at all belong here. Two replicas are in the Uffizi, one (Fig. 456) with a modern head and one (Fig. 457) with a late Roman head.'011 This statue, with many parallel lines and the strong play of light and shade over the deep folds, seems to be of the Antonine or Severan period. Torsos without heads are in Verona, probably of the Antonine period,10' and in the Musée Rodin in Paris.102 A replica in the Capitoline Museum (Fig. 458) and one in Ostia1115belong to the time of Constantine the Great. On the basis of coins (Fig. 459) Raissa Calza has suggested that the inset heads probably represent Helena, the mother of Constantine and the first Christian of the imperial house.1"' Thus, this type was popular for honorary or funerary statues of aristocratic ladies in the later imperial period, and was used for many years in faithful copies. The overfold coming not only from the shoulders and neck, but also from the upper arm is always rendered in genuine fifth-century style. Such a comfortable reclining position with the left arm hanging over the back of the chair is seen in many vase paintings,1"5 some marble reliefs,"1" and on coins of Prusias and Olympus minted for Sabina Tranquillina, the wife of Gordianus III (238 to 244 a . d .), Trainus Decius (249 to 251), and Trebonianus Gallus (251 to 253).11,7 Perhaps Tranquillina or one of the other empresses of the mid-third century a .d . is represented among the statues of this type, and the coins may have been sketched from the statues. The original head has been assumed to be the beautiful “Sappho” of which many copies exist."18This idea of Schmidt and Langlotz is attractive, but cannot be proved since the head is too large to fit the preserved torsos. We could only accept the attribution if w e assume that the divine Aphrodite in the gardens, created by Alkamenes, was somewhat reduced in size when adapted for portrait statues of mortals. 96

THE FUSING OF PARTS OF THE SAME OR OF DIFFERENT DRESSES The investigation of copies of draped figures shows that we may often distinguish between original and copy by deciding whether or not the drapery is correctly rendered. Later copyists tended to misunderstand the Greek original. Furthermore, copies of different originals show common mistakes and stylistic details characteristic of a certain period and can, therefore, be dated as Claudian, Flavian, Antonine, Severan, or Constantinian. Since the same misunder­ standings of peplos, chiton, and mantle are evident in copies of different types of statues made at the same time, we may assume that they were not present in the Greek originals, but were products of the copyist’s workshop during the Roman imperial period.

Footnotes to Chapter 8

1. F. Studniczka, “Beiträge zur Geschichte der altgriechischen Tracht,” Ahh.archäol.-epigr. Semin Wien 6 (Vienna 1886), pp. 6-10, figs. 1-6; pp. 141-142, figs. 45-47; M. Bieber, Griech. Kleidung, pp. 13,15-16, figs. 1415, pp. 17-18, pp. 33-38, pis. I-VI; L. Wilson, Roman Clothing, pp. 133-137, figs. 87-90 (Her model wrongly has the armhole in the side edge, just like the Roman tunic, but not like the Greek peplos). Cf. also for the form of the peplos, Chapter III, supra. Figs. 13-15 and Chapter VII, supra. Figs. 269-270, the Artemis-Diana in short peplos. 2. M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, pp. 77-78, pi. XLIII; A. Ruesch, Giada Napoli, pp. 210-211, No. 847 (5619), fig. 52 (rear view of a statue putting on a peplos). 3. M. Bieber, op.cit., p. 78, pi. XLV, figs. 1-2 (model of a chiton in peplos form clearly showing the folds). 4. See supra, note 1. 5. Our Fig. 324 in the Vatican: Helbig-Speier, F ü h r e r I, p. 691, No. 960 (Inv. 16571); J.D. Beazley, Attic Red-figure Vasepainters (2nd ed. Oxford 1963), p. 634, No. 1. For other vase paintings, see G.M.A. Richter, Korai, p. HO, pi. XXI, figs. a-e. 6. Helbig-Speier, Führer', III, pp. 125-126, No. 2208 (Inv. 114247); S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.RomP, No. 451; E. Paribeni, Scult.Greche, pp. 51-52, No. and fig. 86. Similar is Paribeni, op.cit.. No. 87, of which the right arm with the hydria is now removed, Cf. for other peplos statues, Paribeni, Nos. 79-85, 88-89, see Helbig-Speier, Führer', II, pp. 125-128, Nos. 2208-2210. 7. B. Maiuri, Musée Nap., pp. 56-57; L. Forti, La Danzatrici di incoiano (Naples 1959), pp. 56-58 (She doubts that the originals belong to the early Classical period and considers them works commissioned by the Roman owner of the Villa dei Pisoni); A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, p. 212, No. 852 (5603); Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pl. 294, fig. 1. 8. H.B. Walters, Bronzes, Brit.Mus., p. 18, No. 199. 9. Helbig-Speier, Führer', II, p. 627, No. 1866; G. Barracco and W. Helbig, La Collection Barracco (Munich 1893), p. 31, pls. 28, a-b; C. Pietrangeli, Museo Barracco di Scultura Antica, Guida (3rd ed. Rome 1963), p. 66, No. 77, pi. XI, fig. 2; G. Kleiner, “Tanagrafiguren,” Jdl, Ergänzungsheft XV (1942), p. 201, pl. 59a. 10. G. Kaschnitz-Weinberg, Scult.Mag.Vat., pp. 32-33, No. 50, pi. XVI. 11. P. Herrmann, Verzeichnis, p. 32, No. 117; A. Furtwängler, Meisterwerke, pp. 554-556, tig. 105; idem. Master­ pieces, pp. 324-326, fig. 139; W. Klein, Praxiteles (Leipzig. 1898), pp. 307-310, fig. 55; G.E. Rizzo, Prassitele, pp. 13-17, 84, pis. XVI-XVIII; F. Brommer, “Zur Dresdener Artemis,” Marh. Winck.-Progr. (1950-51), pp. 312, pis. 1-4. 12. F. Matz and F. von Duhn, Antike Bildwerke in Rom (Leipzig 1881-82), I, No. 671. 13. M. Bieber, Cassel, pp. 18-19, Nos. 17-19, pi. XXL I have regretfully heard that the director, von Butlar, has taken off the restorations of the other two copies, thus destroying the educational point I tried to make. See M. Bieber, “Bericht über Arbeiten im Museum von Kassel,” AA 24 (1914), cols. 1-32 for the report on this author’s work in Cassel.

97

THE FUSING OF PARTS OF THE SAME OR OF DIFFERENT DRESSES 14. W. Amelung, Sculpt.vat.Mus., I, pp. 773-774, Museo Chiaramonti No. 681, pi. 83 (now in section LVII, No. 1). Cf. also the mediocre torso of Artemis restored as a Muse with lyre: W. Amelung, op.cit., I, pp. 324-325, pi. 33. 15. G. Kaschnitz-Weinberg, Scult.Mag.Vat., p. 55, No. 93, pi. XVI. 16. Helbig-Speier, Führet", II, p. 729, No. 1972 (Inv. 702). 17. C. Blümel, Berlin.Kat.V.Rom.Kopien, pp. 36-37, K 242, pi. 58. 18. J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, p. 209, Grande Galerie No. 606; W. Fröhner, Sculpt.ant.Louvre*, p. 361, No. 390. 19. W. Amelung, Die Basis des Praxiteles aus Mantinea (Munich 1895), pp. 21-24. 20. See F. Brommer, supra, note 11. 21. A.H. Smith, Cat.Sculpt.Brit.Mus., Ill, pp, 51-52, No. 1638. Found by Hamilton in 1776 at La Storta (Roman Vecchia), eight miles from Rome. 22. Furtwängler-Wolters, Glypt.München2, pp. 231-233, No. 227; A. Furtwängler, Einhundert Tafeln, pi. 44; idem, Ill.Kat.Glypt.Münch., pi. 33; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 123; W. Klein, Praxiteles, pp. 312-313, fig. 56. For other adaptations, see A. Furtwängler, Collection Somzée. Monuments d ’A rt antique (Munich 1897), pp. 24-25, No. 32; C. Blümel, Berlin.Kat.V.Rom.Kopien, p. 46, K 241, pi. 57. 23. R. Kekule, Beschreibung ant.Skulpt, pp. 30-31, No. 59; C. Blümel, Berlin.Kat.V.Rom.Kopien, pp. 27-28, K 243, pi. 59; G. Lippold, Gr.Plastik, p. 291, pi. 110, fig. 4 (Lippold dates it 340-310 b.c.); T. Dohrn, Attische Plastik (Krefeld 1957), pp. 214-215; B. Schroeder, “Artemis Colonna,” Jdl 26 (1911), pp. 34-48, figs. 1-2; idem, “Mikon und Paionios,” Jdl 29 (1914), p. 155. For the replicas of the Artemis Colonna, see W. Klein, Praxiteles, pp. 310-312, note 2. 24. Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, pp. 336-337, No. 438 (Inv. 2240); W. Amelung, Sculpt.vat.Mus., I, pp. 106-109, Braccio Nuovo No. 92, pi. XV. 25. W. Amelung, Sculpt.vat.Mus., II, pp. 378-379, Sala degli Animali No. 210, pi. 39 (now Museo Chiaramonti XL, 3). 26. Louvre No. 559. 27. E. Michon, CatSommaire, p. 21, No. 2190. 28. H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Mus.Capitol, p. 291, Salone No. 26, pi. 71. 29. L.A. Milani, Il R. Museo archeologico di Firenze (Florence 1912), p. 329, No. 180, pi. CLX, fig. 4. Not identical with Amdt-Amelung, E.A., No. 337. 30. Helbig-Speier, Führer*, III, pp. 135-136, No. 2219 (Inv. 107682); S. Aurigemma, M us.Naz.Rom .’, No. 470; R. Paribeni, “Roma-Scoperte,” NSc 2 (1926), pp. 279-280, pi. V. 31. For the two replicas in the Villa Borghese, see Helbig-Speier, Führer4, II, pp. 704-705, No. 1943 (Inv. 558,605). 32. Formerly in the possession of Jandolo, Rome. G. Lippold, in Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 5017. 33. P. Herrmann, Verzeichnis, p. 32, No. 118. 34. On the “Athena Hephaistia” type, see M. Bieber, Cassel, pp. 15-16, text to No. 13, pi. XIX; B. Sauer, Das sogennante Theseion und sein plastischer Schmuck (Leipzig 1899), pp. 239-246, fig. on p. 242; E. Reisch, “Athene Hephaistia,” JOAI 1 (1898), pp. 55-93, fig. 35 on p. 72 (statue in the Louvre, from Crete); S. Papaspyridi-Karusu, “Alkamenes und das Hephaisteion,” AthM itt 69-70 (1954-55), pp. 77-79, with a recon­ struction on p. 83, fig. 3. On the Cherchel statue, see P. Gauckler, Musée de Cherchel (Paris 1895), pp. 139-140, pi. XV, fig. 1. 35. J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, pp. 34, 36, No. 847; E. Coche de la Ferté, Sculpt.Musèe Louvre, pp. 23-24, No. 847. 36. W. Amelung, Sculpt.vat.Mus., I, pp. 352-354, Museo Chiaramonti No. 63, pi. 37 (head does not belong), and pp. 575-576, Museo Chiaramonti No. 403, pi. 88; E. Reisch, op.cit., supra note 34, pp. 69-70, pi. Ill; Helbig-Speier, Führer*, I, pp. 288-289, No. 377 (Inv. 2082) (Museo Chiaramonti No. 63; our Figs. 376-378). 37. Villa Borghese No. CLXXXIII (our Figs. 381-382): Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 2751; Villa Borghese No. CCXVII (our Figs. 379-380): Helbig-Speier, Führer*, II, pp. 742-743, No. 1991 (Inv. 794); Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 2766; B. Sauer, op.cit., supra note 34, p. 241, No. 3. 38. Ostia No. 1113: G. Becatti, “Osservazioni sul Maestro di Olimpia,” Critica d A rte 4 (1939), p. 74, pi. 29. 39. See supra, note 15.

98

THE FUSING OF PARTS OF THE SAME OR OF DIFFERENT DRESSES 40. See supra, notes 11 and 17. 41. Helbig-Speier, Führer\ I, pp. 446-447, No. 5Θ7 (Inv. 2834); formerly W. Amelung, Sculpt.vat. Mm., I, pp. 51-55, Braccio Nuovo No. 38, pi. V; now G. Lippold, Skulpt.vat.Mus., Ill, 2, pp. 407-408, Galleria dei Candelabri No. 1; M. Bieber, Entw icklungsgeschichte p. 33. pi. 20. 42. No publication known to the author. 43. F. Brommer, op.cit., supra note 11, p. 5, pi. IV, figs. 1-2. According to the kind of information provided by Dr. Friedrich Hiller, the statuette, fig. 1 on pi. IV, is now in Athens (National Museum No. 7569), and the statuette, fig. 2 on pi. IV, is now in Vienna (Kunsthistorisches Museum No. 44151). 44. Helbig-Speier, Führer1, III, pp. 25-27, No. 2130 (Inv, 80941); S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.Rom Λ No, 49, pis. XII-XIII; E. Paribeni, Scult.Greche, p. 62, No. and fig. 108 (he lists the replicas and variations); Ch. Picard, Manuel, II, 2, pp. 611-612, figs. 245-246; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pis. 756-757; G. Lugli, “Ariccia-Statua colossale di Artemis,” NSc (1921), pp. 385-410; S.N. Dean, “Archaeological News, 1922-Ariccia: a Colossal Statue of Artemis,” A]A 27 (1923), pp. 85-86, fig. I; E. Pfuhl, “Artemis von Ariccia, Athena von Velletri, und die Amazonen,” Jdl 40 (1926), pp. 8-9, fig. 4; P.C. Sestieri, “Alla Ricerca di Phradmon,” ArchCl 3 (1951), pp. 31-32, pi. X, fig. 1. 45. S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.Rom.'1, No. 50 (Inv. 80732). 46. G. Dickens, Catalogue o f the Acropolis Museum (Cambridge 1912-21), pp. 258-261, No. 695; H. Schrader, Phidias, pp. 90-92, fig. 75; M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, p. 35, pi. IV, fig, 1; G. Lippold, Gr.Plastik, p. 110, pi. 35, fig. 1; A. Furtwängler, Meisterwerke, pp. 36-39; idem. Masterpieces, pp. 21-24, fig. 4; G.M.A. Richter, Sculpture and Sculptors', pp. 52, 85,144, fig. 216. 47. G.M.A. Richter, op.cit., p. 163, figs. 627-629; G. Rodenwaldt, Die Kunst der Antike: Hellas und Rom (Propyläen-Kunstgeschichte III) (Berlin. 1927), p. 288; G. Lippold, Gr.Plastik, p. 139, pl. 49, fig. 3; H. Bulle, Schöne Mensch, cols. 243-247, figs. 53-55, pi. 119; K. Schefold, Die Griechen und ihre Nachbarn (Berlin. 1967), pl. and No. 78; V. Poliak, “Die Athena der Marsyasgruppe Myrons,” JOAI 12 (1909), pp. 154-165; E. Pfuhl, op.cit., supra note 44, pp. 13-14, 46-48. The peplos was misunderstood by B. Sauer, “Die Marsyasgruppe des Myron,” Jdl 23 (1908), p. 135. He described it as a chiton and believed it to be arranged wrongly. 48. Dresden: P. Herrmann, Verzeichnis, pp. 17-18, Nos. 49-50; G.M.A. Richter, op.cit., pp. 173-174, fig. 655; G. Lippold, Gr.Plastik, p. 145, pl. 51, fig. 3; H. Bulle, op.cit., col. 247, fig. 56a-e, pl. 120; A. Furtwängler, Meisterwerke, pp. 4-43; idem. Masterpieces, pp. 4-26, figs. 1-5, pis. I-III. Cassel: M. Bieber, Cassel, pp. 5-8, fig. 2 and pi. IX. 49. G.M.A. Richter, op.cit., pp. 169-171; G. Lippold, Gr.Plastik, pp. 145-147; A. Furtwängler, Meisterwerke, pp. 16-22; idem. Masterpieces, pp. 10-13; Ch. Picard, Manuel, II, pp. 374-390; H. Schrader, Phidias, pp. 25-28; G. Becatti, Problemi Fidiaci (Milan 1951), pp. 109-124; C.J. Herington, Athena Parthenos and Athena Polias (Manchester 1955); F. Brommer, Athena Parthenos (Bremen 1927); Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pis. 39-40; D. Mustilli, Mm.Mussol., p. 113 (list of replicas); T. Schreiber, “Die Athena Parthenos des Phidias und ihre Nachbildun­ gen,” Abh.Sächs.Akad. 8 (1883), pp. 543-642; W.H. Schuchhardt, “Athene Parthenos,” Antike Plastik 2 (1963), pp. 31-54, pls. 20-37. On the shield, see E.B. Harrison, “The Composition of the Amazonomachy on the Shield of Athena Parthenos,” Hesperia 35 (1966), pp. 107-133; V.M. Strocka, Piräusreliefs und Parthenosschild (Bochum 1967). 50. I owe the photograph Fig. 400, to the kindness of the late Walter Amelung. His photos were used by F. Noack, “Ein Gewandmotiv der Parthenos,” Jdl 45 (1930), pp. 198-217. Against Noack, see H. Schrader, “Eine neue Statuette der Athena Parthenos,” AA 47 (1932), col. 95. For a good design of the side view of the Parthenos, see D.K. Hill, Ancient Greek Dress, Illustrated from the Collections o f the Walters Art Gallery (Baltimore 1945), p. 8. On the “Minerve au Collier,” see J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, pp. 18-19, No. 91; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pl. 512. 51. Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, pp. 719-720, No. 1002 (Inv. 9569); Benndorf-Schöne, Bildwerke Lat.Mus., p. 3, No. 6; Amdt-Amelung, E.A., Nos. 2101-2103. 52. On the Athena by Antiochos, see Helbig-Speier, Führer1, III, pp. 248-249, No. 2328 (Inv. 8622); S. Aurigemma, Mm.Naz.Rom.1, No. 172, pi. XXI; E. Paribeni, Scult.Greche, pp. 59-60, No. and fig. 103; G. Lippold, Gr.Plastik, p. 146, pl. 51, fig. 4; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pl. 253. For the Varvakeion statuette, see G.M.A. Richter, Sculpture and

99

THE FUSING OF PARTS OF THE SAME OR OF DIFFERENT DRESSES Sculptors4, p. 170, figs. 638-639; S. Karouzou, Nat.Arch.Mus.,Sculpt., pp. 68-69, No. 129, pi. 31; S. Papaspyridi, Guide MusAth., pp. 46-47, No. 129; Br.-Br., op.cit., pis. 39-40; H. Bulle, op.cit., col. 247, fig. 57. For the statuette in Madrid, see Br.-Br., op.cit., pi. 511; Arndt-Amelung, E.A., Nos. 1510-1511. Furthermore, for a torso in the manner of the Athena Parthenos in the Villa Borghese, see Helbig-Speier, Führer', II, pp. 734-736, No.

1980 (Inv. 546). 53. See F. Brommer, op.cit., supra note 49, figs. 5-6. A better reconstruction of the shield is by E.B. Harrison, op.cit., supra note 49. See also H. Schrader, “Zu den Kopien nach dem Schildrelief der Athena Parthenos,” Corolla Ludwig Curtius (Stuttgart 1937), pp. 81-88, pis. 17-21; G. Becatti, op.cit., supra note 49, pp. 111-116, 246-260, pls. 66-68, 103-112; W. Fuchs, Vorbilder, pp. 186-192, pls. 34-38. 54. Helbig-Amelung, Führer’, II (Leipzig 1913), No. 1830 (Inv. 19); Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 254; G. Lippold in Amdt-Amelung, E.A., Nos. 3263-3265; idem, Kopien, pp. 167-168; H. Bulle, “Die Karyatiden von der Via Appia,” RömMitt 9 (1894), pp. 134-161; K. Neugebauer, “Herodes Atticus ein antiker Kunstmäzen,” Die Antike 10 (1934), pp. 112-114, fig. 17, pls. 14-15; G. Lippold in Pauly-Wissowa, R.E., s.v. Kriton; M. Bieber, in Thieme-Becker, Künstlerlexikon, s.v. Nikolaos. 55. A. Michaelis, Anc.Marbles, No. 20; Ch. Waldstein, Alcamenes and the Establishment o f the Classical Type in Greek Art (Cambridge 1926), p. 183; G, Lippold, Gr.Plastik, p. 240, note 1; J.A.R. Munroe and H.A. Tubbs, “Excavations in Cyprus, 1890, Third Season’s Work,” JHS 12 (1891), p. 129, No. 7. 56. A. Michaelis, op.cit.. No. 21; S. Reinach, Rép. stat., I, p. 238, fig. 3. 57. A. Michaelis, op.cit., p. 594, No. 242; P. Gusman, La Villa imperiale de Tibur (Paris 1904), p. 256, fig. 420; G.B, Piranesi, Vasi, Candelabri, Cippi, Sarcophagi, Triposi, Lucerne ed Ornamenti antichi (Rome 1791), II, pls. 96-97. 58. Vatican: G. Kaschnitz-Weinberg, Scult.Mag.Vat, pp. 50-51, No. 88, pi. XXV. Oxford: A. Michaelis, op.cit.. No. 19; R. Chandler, Marmora Oxoniensia, I, No. 2; S. Reinach, Rép.stat., I, p. 236, fig. 7 (the restorations indicated here are now removed, except for the arms). 59. C. Carducci, Il Museo di Antichità di Torino (Rome 1959), p. 66, fig. 3. 60. J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, p. 209, No, 325; W. Fröhner, Sculpt.ant.Louvre', p. 149, No. 119. Perhaps the latest Athena in this group is the torso used in the nymphaeum at Side, from the third century a . d .: see A.M. Mansel, Die Ruinen von Side (Berlin 1963), pp. 68-69, fig. 51. 61. J. Charbonneaux, op.cit., pp. 25-26, No. and fig. 3070; G. Lippold, Gr.Plastik, pp. 155-156, pi. 56, fig. 3; H. Schrader, Phidias, pp. 76-78, figs. 63-64; E. Langlotz, Phidiasprohleme (Frankfurt 1947), pp. 69-72, pls. 19,21; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 171; W. Amelung, “Athena des Phidias,” JOAI 11 (1908), pp. 169-211; E. Langlotz, “Die Repliken der Athena Medici in Sevilla,” Madrider Mitt 1 (1960), pp. 164-173, pls. 44-51. For a head of the Athena Medici type (called the Athena Carpegna) in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, see Helbig-Speier, FühreP, III, pp. 171-173, No. 2263 (Inv. 55051); S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.Rom.', No. 266; E. Paribeni, Scult.Greche, p. 59, No. and fig. 101. For this Athena on a relief in the Acropolis Museum, Athens, see O, Walter, Beschreibung Reliefs, p. 35, No. 49 (Inv. 2426); Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 1275; E. Langlotz, Phidiasprohleme, pp. 69-70, pi. 21. 62. Capitoline: Helbig-Speier, Führer1, II, pp. 199-201, No. 1395 (Inv. 654); H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Mus.Capitol,, p. 299, No. 36, pi. 73; P. Gusman, Villa de Tibur, pp. 287-288, fig. 499. British Museum: ATI. Smith, Cat.Sculpt.Brit. Mus., Ill, p. 20, No. 1558. 63. Helbig-Speier, Führer', III, p. 251, No. 2331 (Inv. 8621); S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.Rom. ’, No. 175; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 330; E. Paribeni, Scult.Greche, p. 60, No. and fig. 104; G. Becatti, in Enc.Arte Ant., IV, 2, s.v. Hermathena. 64. Villa Wolkonski, near the Lateran, formerly the German Embassy, now the British Embassy. See T. Schreiber, op.cit., supra note 49, pi. Ill, fig, D 2. 65. H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Pal.Con., p. 228, No. 33, pi. 85; Helbig-Amelung, Führer', I (Leipzig 1912), p. 573, No. 1004. For copies of the Hekataia, see T. Kraus Hekate (Studien zu Wesen und Bild der Göttin in Kleinasien und Griechenland) (Heidelberg 1960), pp. 113-115, 119-165, pls. 3-23; E.B. Harrison, The Athenian Agora, voi. Xl-Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture, pp. 53, 86-107, Nos. 134-155, pls. 32-39.

THE FUSING OF PARTS OF THE SAME OR OF DIFFERENT DRESSES 66. W. Amelung, Sculpt.oat.Mus., I, pp. 435-436, Museo Chiaramonti No. 181, pi. 45. 67. Villa Borghese No. CXC, room VIII. 68. G.E. Rizzo, Pressitele, pp. 45-59, pis. LXX-LXXXVIII; C.S. Blinkenberg, Knidia, pp. 118-189 (he has 50 replicas); M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age1, pp. 18-20, figs. 24-35; A. Adriani, Repertorio d ’A rte dell'Egitto greco-romano, II, pp. 21-26, Nos. 76-101, pis. 53-57, figs. 150-178; S. Aurigemma, Villa Adriana, p. 44, pi. 2; G. Mansuelli, Uffizi Scult., I, pp. 69-74, No. and fig. 45 (Venus de Medici); B.M. Felletti-Maj, “Afrodite Pudica,” ArchCl 3 (1951), pp. 44, 60. 69. G.M.A. Richter, “Who Made . . . Statues,” p. 189, figs. 44-47, (fig. 46 in Copenhagen is Flavian; fig. 47 in Naples is Antonine. None are Trajanic, as Richter assumed). For the Capitoline Aphrodite, see Helbig-Speier, Führer\ II, pp. 128-130, No. 1277 (Inv. 409); II.S. Jones, Sculpt.Mus.Capitol., p. 182, No. 1, pi. 45; M. Bieber, SculptH eilen.Age1, p. 20, pis. 34-35; G. Lippold, Gr.Plastik, p. 291, pi. 104, fig. 1; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 373. 70. See Chapter VI, supra Figs. 216-218, note 32. 71. See for Venus Genetrix Chapter V supra Figs. 143, 147-148, 154, 156, notes 64-77. 72. R. Kekule, Uber eine weibliche Gewandstatue aus der Werkstatt der Parthenon-Giebelfiguren; E. Schrader, Phidias, pp. 71-75, figs. 57-59, pp. 266-272, figs. 243-244, 246, 248; Br.-Br,, Denkmäler, pl. 537; C. Blümel, Berlin.Kat. IIl.Griech.Skulpt., pp. 5-7, No. K 5, pls. 6-7; E. Langlotz, Phidiasprobleme, pp. 83-95, pl. 26, fig. 1; A. Frickenhaus, “Phidias und Kolotes,” Jdl 28 (1913), pp. 341-369. For the lying Aphrodite on the east pediment, see F. Brominer, Die Skulpturen der Parthenon-Giebel, pp. 17-21, 155-156, pis. 45-51. Some scholars doubt that the Berlin Aphrodite is an original. 73. S. Karouzou, Nat.Arch.Mus.,Sculpt., p. 96, No. 1601; J.N. Svoronos, Das Athener Nationalmuseum (Athens. 1908-1937), No. 1601, pl. CLXV; P. Arndt in text to Br.-Br., op.cit., pl. 673, fig. 4; H. Schrader, op.cit., pp. 205-208, fig. 189; E. Langlotz, Aphrodite in den Gärten (Heidelberg. 1954), p. 15. For a similar motif found on the belly of the Nike leading a bull, see R. Carpenter, The Sculpture o f the Nike Temple Parapet, No. 11, pp. 18-21, pis. V-VII (cf. Chapter IV supra. Figs. 47-48 notes 20-23). 74. Found in ancient Philadelphia, now Ammon in Jordan. H. Schrader, op.cit., pp. 208-209, fig. 190; E. Pottier, “Torse de Femme an Musée de Smyrne,” BCH 5 (1881), pp. 279-282, pl. 13. 75. H. Schrader, op.cit., pp. 203-207, figs. 185-188; P. Arndt in text to Br.-Br., op.cit., pl- 673. 76. H. Schrader, op.cit., pp. 268, 270, figs. 245, 247; S. Reinach, Rép.stat., IV, p. 199, fig. 5 (the statue in Gortyn, not another replica, as Schrader assumes); E. Pernice, “Nuovi Studii e Scoperte in Gortyna,” MonAnt 18 (1907) cols. 264-267. 77. H.S. Jones, Scidpt.Mus.Capitol., pp. 125-126, Galleria No. 52, pl. 21 (now No. 251); E. Langlotz, Phidiasprobleme, pp. 87-88, pl. 28, fìg. 2. 78. J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, pp. 29-30, No. 414; W. Fröhner, Sculpt.ant.Louvre1, pp. 354-355, No. 379; H. Schrader, Phidias, pp. 204-206, fig. 185; P. Arndt in text to Br.-Br., op.cit., pl. 673, fig· 5. 79. A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, Nos. 132 (6395) and 136 (6396); H. Schrader, op.cit., pp. 204-205, 207, figs. 187-188; E. Langlotz, ojt.cit., pp. 87-88, pl. 28, fig. 3; P. Arndt, in text to Br.-Br., op.cit., pl. 673, fig. 3. Both copies are said to have been found in the theater of Herculaneum, but they seem to me to be later than the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 a .d . 80. J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, pp. 29-30, No. 420; W. Fröhner, Sculpt.ant.Louvre*, p. 355, No. 380; H. Schrader, (rp.cit., pp. 204-206, fig. 186. 81. C. Blümel, Berlin.Kut.IlI.Griech.Skulpt., pp. 7-8, No. K 6, pl. 8; M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, pp. 61-62, pl. XXVII, figs. 2-3 (Cf. the draping on pl. LI); Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pl. 673. 82. E. Langlotz, et al., Antiken aus dem Akademischen Kunstmuseum Bonn (Bonn 1969), pp. 52-53, No. 59, fig. 34; H. Schrader, op.cit., pp. 208-210, fig. 191; E. Langlotz, op.cit., pp. 85-86, pl. 30; H. Bulle, Schöne Mensch, cols. 268-269, fig. 62; G. Rodenwaldt, op.cit., supra note 47, p. 348; P. Arndt in text to Br.-Br., op.cit., pl. 673, fig. 3; W. Amelung, “Aphrodite und Eros,” Bonnjbb 101 (1897), pp. 153-164. 83. S. Karouzou, Nat.Arch.Mus.,Sculpt., pp. 57-58, No. 176, pl. 26; M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, p. 60, pi. XXVI, figs. 2-3; S. Papaspyridi-Karusu, “Das Mädchen vom Piraeus und die Originalstatuen in Venedig,” AthM itt 82 (1967), pp. 158-169, pis. 85-86 (she believes that the statue represents Persephone holding torches).

THE FUSING OF PARTS OF THE SAME OR OF DIFFERENT DRESSES 84. G. Lippold, Gr.Plastik, p. 207; W. Klein, Rokoko, pp. 124-125, fig. 54; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pis. 538-539; W. Amelung, “Statue der Aphrodite,” RömMitt 16 (1901), pp. 264-267. On the torso found in the Agora, see E.B. Harrison, “New Sculpture from the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 29 (1960), pp. 373-376, pi. 82. 85. A. Furtwängler, Meisterwerke, p. 654, figs. 129-130; idem, Masterpieces, p. 400, figs. 175-176; M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, p. 44, pi. XII, fig. 1; G. Lippold, Gr.Plastik, p. 213, pi. 70, fig. 4; Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 2386; P. Arndt, in text to Br.-Br., op.cit., pis. 538-539. 86. Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 1169. This one, although restored to a great extent, is the best replica. 87. Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 2061. 88. E. Langlotz, Aphrodite in den Gärten, pp. 25-27. 89. A. Adriani, Repertorio d ’arte dell’Egitto greco-romano, series A, voi. I (Palermo 1961), pp. 35-36, No. 43, pi. 36, fig. 103. 90. For one statuette in Athens, National Museum No. 1885 (our Fig. 449), see R. Horn, “Stehende weibliche Gewandstatuen in der hellenistischen Plastik,” RömMitt, Ergänzungsheft II (1931), p. 89, pl. 37, No. 2. For another statuette in Athens (but with a different arrangement of the drapery over hips and legs), see S. Karouzou, Nat.Arch.Mus.,Sculpt., p. 184, No. 2585; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age*, p. 166, figs. 710-711; R. Horn, op.cit, p. 89, pl. 37, No. 3. 91. For the statuette leaning on an idol in Athens, National Museum No. 1889, found by T.L. Shear in the Agora, see T.L. Shear, “Discoveries Helping to Map the Athenian Agora,” ILN 84 (1934), p. 863, fig. 9; idem, “Excavations in the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 4 (1935), pp. 371-374, figs. 1-3; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age1, p. 166. For other replicas and variations, see E. Paribeni, Cat.Scult.Cirene, pp. 94-95, Nos. 242-244, pl. 125; C. Anti, “Afrodite Urania,” A frit 1 (1927), pp. 41-52, figs. 1-8; also Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 735e (Thera), No. 2528 (Venice). 92. For the statuette in Athens, National Museum No. 680 found in Chaeronea in Boeotia, see T.L. Shear, op.cit., ILN 84 (1934), p. 863, fig. 8; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age1, p. 166, fig. 712. 93. F. Cumont, “L’Aphrodite à la Tortue de Doura-Europus,” MonPiot 27 (1924), pp. 31-43, pl. 3; C. Anti, op.cit., supra note 91, p. 50, fig. 7. See supra Chapter V, note 54, and Figs. 435-436, for other pertinent works by F. Cumont and Ch. Picard. 94. For two such copies in Cyrene, see E. Paribeni, Cat.Scult.Cirene, Nos. 242-243, pl. 125; C. Anti, op.cit., p. 41, fig. 1. Also, a torso in the Chiostro di Michelangelo in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, where Aphrodite leans on the figure of Pan. Furthermore, for such loose draping of the mantle, see the Apollo on the Sidamara sarcophagi, supra Chapter V, note 60, Fig. 122. 95. M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age1, p. 160, figs. 678-681. For the Apollo Kitharoidos, see supra Chapter V, note 59. 96. B. Maiuri, Musée Nap., p. 54 with fig. above; A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, p. 235, No. 977 (6029); idem, Auszug, No. 671, fig. 50; J.J. Bernoulli, Róm.Ikon., II, 1, pp. 186-187, No. 23, pp. 250, 381, pi. XXII; Amdt-Brunn-Bruckmann, Porträts, pis. 713-714. 97. E. Langlotz, “Zur Ueberlieferung der sitzenden Aphrodite-Olympias,” Festschrift A. R u m p f (Krefeld 1952), pp. 101-106, pis. 24-26, and fig. 7; idem. Aphrodite in den Gärten, pp. 15-27, passim, fig. 3, pis. 9-10; A. Hekler, “Gewandstatuen,” pp. 143-145, 198-199, 226, Type XIII; G. Lippold, Griechische Porträtstatuen (Munich 1912), p. 43; idem, Kopien, pp. 200-201; idem, Gr.Plastik, p. 155; R. Calza, “Chronologia ed identificazione del “Agrippina” Capitolina,” MemPontAcc 8 (1955), pp. 107-136. 98. W. Amelung, Führer Florenz, p. 60, fig. 13; R. Calza, op.cit., fig. 2. 99. Helbig-Amelung, Führer3, II, p. 400, No. 1828 (Inv. 79); A. Hekler, op.cit., pp. 143,238, fig. 10; Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 3521; R. Calza, op.cit., fig. 3. 100. G. Mansuelli, Uffizi Scult., II (Rome 1958), pp. 63-64, No. 53, figs. 52a-b, p. 131, No. 171, figs. 168a-c; W. Amelung, Führer Florenz, pp. 56, 59-61, Nos. 80 and 85; M. Collignon, Les Statues funéraires dans l’A rt gree, pp. 137-138, fig. 76; R. Calza, op.cit., figs. 6,11. 101. Verona, Museo archeologico. P. Marconi, Verona romana (Bergamo 1937), p. 146; E. Langlotz, op.cit., supra note 97 (article in Festschrift Rumpf), p. 102, pl. 25, fig. 2; idem, Aphrodite in den Gärten, pp. 44, note 2 (Langlotz uses this torso for his reconstruction, pp. 22-24, pis. 9-10); R. Calza, op.cit., fig. 10.

THE FUSING OF PARTS OF THE SAME OR OF DIFFERENT DRESSES 102. Musée Rodin No. 403. E. Langlotz, Aphrodite in den Gärten, p. 44, note 3; idem, op.cit., supra note 97 (article in Festschrift Rumpf), p. 102, pi. 25, fig. 3; R. Calza, op.cit., fig. 4; V. Poulsen, “Die Verhülte aus Hama und einige Vermutungen,” Berytus 6 (1939-1940), p. 14. 103. Helbig-Speier, Führer', II, pp, 153-154, No. 1326 (Inv. 496); H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Mus.Capitol., pp. 214-215, No. 84, pl. 53 (Jones wrongly describes the edge of the short overfold, which comprises also the sleeves, as a high belt); J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.Ikon., II, 1, pp. 245-247, fig. 44; R. Calza, op.cit., pp. 107-108, figs. 1, 12-13, 21; H. Blande, Wiederverwendung alter Statuen als Ehrendenkmäler bei Griechen und Römern (Rome 1969), pp. 56-57, A 35, pl. 25 (he believes that the head has been reworked). 104. G. Becatti, Problemi Fidiaci, p. 201, fig. 298, pl. 53; R. Calza, op.cit., fig. 9, cf. pp. 116-119. The coin, Fig. 459 has the inscription FLAVIA HELENA AVGVSTA. For the coins of Helena, see R. Delbrueck, Spätantike Kaiserporträts von Constantinus Magnus zum Ende des Weltreichs (Berlin 1933), pp. 46-47, pl. 10, figs. 11, 13-14. 105. E. Langlotz, Aphrodite in den Gärten, pp. 9-15, 39-41, figs. 1-2, 8, pl. 1, figs. 1-5, pl. 2, figs. 1-7, pl. 3, figs. 1 and .3, pl. 4, figs. 1-2. 106. Ibid., pp. 23, 26-27, pl. 7, figs. 2-3. 107. Ibid., p. 46, pi. 8, fig. 2; F. Imhoof-Blumer, Porträtköpfe a u f römischen Münzen der Republik und der Kaiserzeit (Leipzig 1897), pp. 12-13. 108. E. Schmidt, “Zur Erzplastik des Phidias,” Corolla L. Curtius (Stuttgart 1937), pp. 72-80, pls. 12-16; E. Langlotz, Aphrodite in den Gärten, pp. 20-22, fig. 4, pls. 8-10; G. Becatti, Problemi Fidiaci, p. 201, pi. 56.

103

9 THE SHOULDER-BACK MANTLE A form of Greek mantle which was more frequently used than has been realized in modern literature is that which hung only in the back,1 fastened on both shoulders by brooches at two corresponding points of the upper edge or sometimes at the bend of the overfold. This overfold could be tucked inside or outside of the mantle. Part of the overfold was often drawn forward in a bunch of folds over the shoulders in the front. It could also be lifted to cover the head. The mantle differs from the chlamys, which is laid around the neck and fastened only on the right shoulder at corresponding points of the upper edge, and from the himation, which is freely draped and wrapped around the body. Nor must this mantle be confused with the overfold of the peplos. The name may be haplois, a single mantle, or diplois, a double mantle draped with an overfold.2 The latter was laid on and fastened like the peplos. Both may have been forms of the chlaina. This shoulder mantle was frequently used on figures of women and goddesses and almost always for Apollo Kitharoidos.

1. WOMEN The draping of the mantle is clearly seen on the Eirene of Kephisodotos, both on the best-preserved copy in Munich and on the best-worked copy in the Metropolitan Museum.1Yet two great scholars, A. Furtwängler and P. Wolters, described the drapery of the Munich statue incorrectly (Beschreibung der G lyptothek zu München,2 p. 217): . . . die Enden des Peplos sind auf den Schultern zusammengeheftet, und der grosse Überschuss des Stoffes fällt als Überfall nach vorne wie hinten herab; der Überfall im Rücken reicht bis zu den Kniekehlen. . . The ends of the peplos are fastened on the shoulders and the great excess of the material falls 104

THE SHOULDER-BACK MANTLE down as an overfold in front as well as in the back; the overfold in the back reaches to the hollow of the knees. Side and rear views show clearly that the lower edge of the overfold is covered in back by the mantle (cf. below, Figs. 462, 468, 470, 471, 478). In reality the overfold in front and in the back comes from the same piece of material and cannot be of unequal length. If that were the case, there would also be a corresponding differentiation in the length of the lower part over the feet. But such a form occurs neither in reality nor in art. There is never a difference in length either of the overfold or of the lower edge. The Eirene is rightly dated around 375 b .c . The same form of the shoulder mantle used for this figure, however, can be seen in a side view of the maidens on the east frieze of the Parthenon (dated between 442 and 438 b . c .) and on the Korae (Fig. 460) from the Erechtheion porch (dated from 421 to 413 b . c . ) . ' Thus the shoulder mantle must have been in vogue in the second half of the fifth and the early fourth century b .c . The six Korae from the Erechtheion wear a long mantle in the back with an overfold which is about one-third of the length of the mantle. The lower edge of the mantle forms a curved line, because one hand draws it forward. The Kore which was taken to the British Museum has been copied in a figure now in the Vatican r>(see Chapter IV, supra. Figs. 38, 41-42). The copyist has not only rendered the refined folds of the original in a leaden and simplified style, but he has also left out the overfold of the mantle. He further omits one of the little weights at the lower corners of the mantle coming from the right shoulder, while he indicates one on the left side. The back is quite neglected. The overfold in front of the peplos ought to end where the bend of the last vertical edge of the shoulder mantle runs down in the rear, but it crosses this last fold instead of being crossed by it. This means that the distinction between the overfold of the peplos and the mantle is disregarded. The heavy folds of the peplos are indeed not differentiated from the similar heavy folds of the mantle. The two garments are separated from each other only by a thick vertical groove, similar to the copies of some types of Artemis and Athena (see Chapter VIII, supra, Figs. 358-360). The Muse in Mantua is also a copy of one of the Erechtheion Korae adapted to portray a Muse holding a tragic mask in her right hand (Figs. 461-462).6 She draws the shoulder mantle forward with her left hand. This movement, however, does not change the lower horizontal edge into a curved line as it does on the Korae from the Erechtheion. The mantle hangs undisturbed in the back. The vertical edges of the mantle are laid in zigzag folds as if they were part of a separate shawl. The back is otherwise quite flat with only a few garlandlike folds in the center. From the end of the zigzag folds three edges radiate: one up to the zigzags, a second straight upward, and a third as the lower edge of the mantle. The second edge actually cannot exist, since a square mantle cannot have six edges. A Hellenistic statue found in Halicarnassus, now in the Louvre, is a good example of how a clear distinction is made between the short overfold of the peplos and the long shoulder mantle in the back (Figs. 463-465).7 The two vertical edges of the overfold are sewn together and their corners are marked by two small weights side by side. The shoulder mantle has long fringes at the lower edge, while the corners have small weights. The statue of Leto carrying her infant twins Apollo and Artemis on her shoulders is another good, clear example of the differentiation between the overfold of the peplos and the mantle in 105

THE SHOULDER-BACK MANTLE the back. Copies exist in the Palazzo dei Conservatori (Figs. 467-468) and in the Museo Torlonia (Figs. 469-470).8 The ends and corners of the overfold are clearly indicated at her left side with zigzags and small weights. Weights can be seen as well at the corners of the lower edges behind the right foot (Fig. 470). The mantle hangs evenly in the back with the fine curved garlandlike folds and with weights at the two lower corners. The right corner hangs a little higher than the left one, because little Artemis is seated quietly on the right shoulder on the upper end of the mantle, the comer of which is drawn forward; little Apollo however sits farther down on the left shoulder and stretches out his arms probably trying to shoot an arrow at the snake Python. Both copies are carved of polished, rather soapy marble. They seem to have been made in the Antonine period, which is a period of good marble workers and many copyists. This conclusion is further supported by coins faithfully representing this group of Leto and the twins that were minted in different provinces of Asia Minor (Lycia, Pamphilia and Pisidia) beginning with Caracalla (211 to 217 a .d .). One coin (Fig. 466) was issued in Cremna, Pisidia, in the time of the emperor Lucius Domitius Aurelius (270 to 275 a .d .).9 The large shoulder mantle is often used for goddesses who wear a peplos with a long belted overfold. It is well separated from the overfold and provides a good background for the majestic figures. Thus, the statue of Kore or Demeter found in Carthage (Fig. 471) 10 and a statue of Demeter or Hera in the Vatican11 are good examples. Perhaps the finest is the Demeter in Berlin, clad in a peplos with short overfold and a mantle which is drawn forward evenly on both shoulders (Fig. 472).12 The result is that the mantle in the back is spread out and falls in straight vertical tubular folds on both sides, while forming beautiful, rich, and variegated garlandlike folds in the center. On the grandiose Athena in the Capitoline Museum, the shoulder mantle is also clearly separated from the long overfold of the peplos (Fig. 473).11 The original of this Athena statue is sometimes attributed to Agorakritos, and it certainly belongs to his time. The differentiation between the peplos and the mantle must have been clarified originally by color. We can learn this with the help of wall paintings like the unpublished one in the Louvre, formerly in the Campana Collection (Fig. 474). The dress of the girl has an overfold with a border which matches those around the neck and the lower edge. The mantle is clearly differentiated from the dark dress by a lighter color. (We must always remember that pieces of Greek and Roman sculpture were painted in different colors to distinguish different dresses.) Two caryatids, one in the Villa Albani (Fig. 4 7 5 )14 and the other in the British Museum (Figs. 477-480),15 wear peploi with overfolds (but without belts) and shoulder mantles. The pair was found together in the seventeenth century on the Via Appia somewhat beyond the tomb of Caecilia Metella. The Maenad in the type of the Athena Lemnia now in the Villa Albani, but incorrectly restored with the head of a caryatid, also was found at the same place. This head is inscribed with the names of the artists Kriton and Nikolaos."' Also found was another pair of caryatids wrapped in large mantles, one now in the Villa Albani (Fig. 476), the other in the Vatican.17 It is most likely that these two pairs, together with the statue to which the head with the inscription originally belonged, at one time decorated a building which Herodes Atticus erected between 161 and 171 a.d. as a memorial to his deceased wife Regilla and to the empress Faustina, wife of Antoninus Pius. Regilla was a priestess of Demeter, and Faustina was venerated as a new Demeter. The caryatids thus are priestesses or servants of Demeter, and the kalathoi on

THE SHOULDER-BACK MANTLE their heads are the baskets which they carried in the sacred processions. In the same way the maidens of the Erechtheion bear the baskets in honor of Athena. Two caryatids similar to those from the Via Appia have been found in Athens in the sanctuary of Isis-Demeter.lfi This Athenian pair is certainly an earlier work, and Herodes Atticus may have had them copied for the statues of his building. The original of the whole series must have been created in the early fourth century b . c . However, the copyists whom Herodes employed were second-class artisans and eclecticists and so may have used, among others, the caryatids of the Erechtheion as their models. The six statues were probably arranged in a manner similar to that of the maidens on the Erechtheion—three to the right and three to the left in front of the porch. While, in the case of the caryatids from the Erechtheion, the change of position is indicated only by a natural change of the supporting and the relaxed leg, Kriton and Nikolaos also changed, although incorrectly, the opening of the peplos from the right to the left side. They certainly did not have a sound understanding of the Greek dresses which they had been trying to reproduce. The pair wrapped in mantles vary in so far as one draws the mantle edge forward with the left hand, the other with the right hand. We find the same differentiation in figures in the Villa Albani and British Museum. Here, the peplos ought to have a belt over the long overfold. Only children and very young girls wore the unbelted dress, so that their growth would not be hampered. These two statues differ in the treatment of the overfold of the mantle. On the copy in the Villa Albani it lies on the outside and is pulled over the kalathos on her head (Fig. 475). On the statue in the British Museum, the overfold lies on the inside, underneath the mantle, as can be seen at her right side (Fig. 478). Here the short overfold of the mantle can clearly be seen between the longer overfold of the peplos and the shoulder mantle, against which the lower edge of the peplos overfold ends. The lower corner of the mantle on the ground and the corner of the mantle’s overfold are marked by small weights. The rendering of her left side (Fig. 480), however, is very unclear and partly misunderstood. The ends of the inner overfold of the mantle and the overfold of the peplos hanging down from the left arm are connected near the weight of the inner overfold of the mantle by a line with two tubular folds, which might indicate the overfold of the peplos. But in the upper part of the arm all these folds run together to one area hanging from the left shoulder. When we look at the lower part of the figures, there is hardly any differentiation between the folds of the peplos and those of the shoulder mantle. What does the left hand really hold so loosely? Is it the peplos or the mantle? The few superficial curved lines running out of the fingers of the hand do not have any influence either on the peplos or the mantle. Which did the artists want to show? They probably did not know and did not care. Their figure is created to take the place of a square pillar and therefore they render the human figure like a square. They absolutely neglected the back (Fig. 479), which has only a few engraved curved lines. They do not distinguish between edge and fold, or bend and fold, or peplos and mantle. In contrast we find good examples of the Classical shoulder mantle on a statue in Berlin, on the Persephone and Alkestis from the Ephesos column in London, on a female lyre player in Munich, and on a statue in Florence.19

107

THE SHOULDER-BACK MANTLE

2. APOLLO KITHAROIDOS Apollo Kitharoidos, the god of music is often represented performing on a large cithara in a heavy peplos with a long belted overfold and a long shoulder mantle. The mantle provides a solemn background for his festive appearance. The best-known example is the large statue in Munich (Fig. 481).20 The mantle reaches down below the knees. Holes on the shoulders indicate that large bronze brooches originally were used to fasten the mantle together to the overfold of the peplos. The statue has been identified with the Apollo by Skopas, which in the time of Augustus was set up on the Palatine. It is represented on coins of Augustus (Fig. 482) and of Antoninus Pius, the latter with the inscription Apollini Augusto (Fig. 483).21 It is also identical to the figure of the god on a base in Sorrento. The Munich copy does seem to be a good work of the Augustan age; however, I believe that the style suggests that the original belonged to the school of Phidias and that Agorakritos is its possible creator. The Apollo with a cithara in the Vatican (Figs. 484-485) 22 seems to be a creation of the fourth century B.c. The shoulder mantle hangs from large brooches, holding that as well as the overfold of the peplos. It reaches down to the ankles. It is a careful copy of the second century a . d . , as shown by the selvage at the vertical edges, which results from turning the horizontal threads around on a loom. The mantle and the peplos are very clearly distinguished from each other. Another excellent copy of an Apollo Kitharoidos of the Classical period is a torso in the Museo Nuovo (Fig. 486).23 The inside part of the mantle is smooth, while its vertical edges form large and deep curves. Similar wave patterns appear at the horizontal edges of the overfold of the peplos. The corners of the overfold are clearly marked with small weights. The zigzag folds of the vertical edges of the peplos are almost parallel, with the two folds separated by a deep groove, or rather two grooves. A tubular fold forms the rear vertical edge of the peplos. A similar fold is found on statues of Athena (see supra, Fig. 473). The rather baroque stylization seems to belong to the Antonine period. The original may have been created in the late fifth century b . c . , when such curves in the folds were popular (see below, Chapter IX, the Maenads). All three examples of Apollo are good copies of works from the great Classical age, the late fifth and early fourth century. A very effective long shoulder mantle also appears on another statue of Apollo with the cithara, in the Vatican (Fig. 487).21 However, the artist has fused the folds of the mantle with those of the flowing chiton. The cithara is decorated with a representation of the hanging Marsyas, a reminder of Apollo’s victory over the impudent satyr. The strong forward movement is in contrast to the solemn stance of the kitharoidoi in Figs. 481, 484-486. A late Hellenistic marble base in the Louvre (Fig. 488)23 depicts Apollo holding a cithara in his arms and leading a procession. His long dress is held together by a broad belt high on his chest. A long shoulder mantle hangs down his back, fluttering behind him. The mantle and the dress are separated from each other by a long strip of cloth which begins at the belt and ends almost on the ground. Since this strip flows from underneath the belt, it must be the outermost part of the dress. Two corners of the mantle are clearly marked by a pair of small weights, one at the corner of the end of the overfold which flutters behind him and one at a corner between the first and second of the three tubular folds at the lower end of the mantle. The lowest edge runs against the strip 108

THE SHOULDER-BACK MANTLE which separates mantle and dress. When we look, however, at the lower edge of the dress across the right foot, it seems to be a direct continuation of the lower edge of the mantle. The artist did not have a clear conception of the clothing of a kitharoidos, for he did not differentiate between the two parts of the costume. Neo-Attic artists, the last Greek creative artists in the service of the Romans,26 used the shoulder mantle for decorative purposes. On a candelabrum base in Naples (Fig. 489),27 Apollo wears a peplos with an overfold, belted high, just below the armpits. The long mantle with a distinct overfold of its own flutters outward not only in the back but also in the front of the figure. The zigzag folds of the mantle are very regularly drawn. Two of the four corners are carefully marked with small weights. The decorative quality is still more enhanced on archaistic reliefs in Berlin, in the Louvre (Fig. 490), and in the Villa Albani.28 These show Nike pouring a libation to the god, next to an altar and before a temple. The arrangement of the mantle is similar to the one on the candelabrum base but more manneristic. The two lower corners in front and back are marked by small weights, as is the corner of the mantle overfold in front, below the cithara. The corner of the overfold in the back is held in the hand of Artemis, who follows her brother. Her shoulder mantle is similar, only shorter and more wavy than that of Apollo. Their mother Leto, who follows Artemis, wears her mantle folded double so that the overfold and the remainder of the cloak with the edges marked by the corner weights, are of equal length. The mantle is not fastened to her shoulder but is held by her right hand above and behind her right shoulder. The material then slants down in back and falls over the left arm. In the Villa Albani relief the overfold of the mantle is not indicated. These manneristic artists used the motifs of the Classical period only for show. The worst of the group is a relief in the British Museum with only Apollo, the pouring Nike, and the altar (Fig. 491).29 The lower edge of the mantle runs without clear separation into the lower edge of the peplos. A shallow groove outlines the figure, and it may be that originally color differentiated the peplos and mantle more clearly. The sculptor, however, seems not to have been aware of the separation of the garments. Furthermore, there is no separation in front between the mantle and its overfold, which extends far out in the front below the cithara, as if it were one broad piece. There is a weight at the corner of the overfold. In the center of the mass of material below the cithara, there appears to be an inset of two vertical folds, which could belong neither to the mantle near the peplos nor to the overfold. This front overfold of the mantle is also longer than that on the back. There is a much simpler representation of the same group in Augustan style in Cleveland.30 On a sarcophagus representing Apollo playing the lyre between the nine Muses,31 the god is seen from his right side. The festal mantle, like his belted tunic, reaches to the ground. The mantle is, however, not the shoulder mantle fastened on both shoulders, but only a mantle hanging on the right shoulder both in back and in front like a chlamys. In the back it is distinctly separated from the tunic. In the front, however, the vertical edge is merged with the two long vertical folds of the tunic which come from the belt. It makes a splendid background for the god of music, particularly since the tunic and the mantle, both inside and out, were differentiated by color. This is a good example of how a Roman producer of sarcophagi in the Antonine period transformed Greek motifs into new compositions. One of the characteristics of the Roman copyists is that they neglected the back. This is due partly to the fact that the statues were put against an architectural background, such as in niches. 109

THE SHOULDER-BACK MANTLE They could also be used as architectural supports in place of pillars or columns (see the caryatids supra. Figs. 475-480). Four herms now in the Palazzo dei Conservatori (Figs. 492-494) ap­ parently were used as pillars.32 Two have a short overfold and two a long one. A belt is worn in Roman fashion very low over the hips and only a shallow pouch is drawn out (cf. the Diana, Chapter VII, Fig. 255). Symmetrical curved lines radiate from the center of the belt. The side and back view (Fig. 494) shows the dress fitted to the form of a herm or pillar shaft. Two tubular folds are at the center of parallel folds running diagonally to the edges. The upper part of the back is covered by curved folds framed by vertical tubular folds, while a rather regular herringbone pattern covers the lower portion. It is unclear whether the artisan meant to depict a long overfold or a shoulder mantle. There are two weights at the two lower corners, so that a shoulder mantle seems more likely. We have here a pleasing decoration for architectural sculpture, but not a reliable indication of the dresses that were worn in daily life.

3. THE MANTLE OF THE NEO-ATTIC MAENADS Eight dancing Maenads among the many types of the so-called Neo-Attic reliefs have been frequently discussed in modern literature. They are clothed in thin fluttering chitons, draped in the various forms originally used for the peplos, with short or long overfolds. A mantle is always added. It is not pinned to the shoulders, but is held by one or both hands, so that it accompanies the figures with manneristic curves in front as well as in the rear. The Maenads are drawn in front or three-quarter front view or in back or three-quarter back view. Hauser was the first to propose that there were eight original types (his types 25-32). This number was accepted by Winter, Rizzo, Richter, Caputo, and others, but was raised by Carpenter to nine, to ten by Gullini, and reduced to six by Fuchs.331 believe that Fuchs is right. The two types seen from the back (Hauser types 30 and 32) have, in contrast to the others, only small shawls, which fail to frame the full figures, as they do in the other six original Greek types. The six Maenads (Hauser types 25-29, 31) must have been imitated from a Greek original of the late fifth century b . c . This original has been attributed with great likelihood to Kallimachos, the sculptor and metalworker, whose exaggerated diligence and overelaboration of petty details earned him the nickname of “niggler” (katatexitechnos) (Pausanias, I, 26; Pliny, HN, XXXIV, 92; Vitruvius, IV, 1, 10). His calligraphic mannerism is well illustrated in these Maenads. The so-called Venus Genetrix (see supra, Chapter V, Figs. 124-132) is also attributed to him. This statue was well-known in Rome, as many adaptations to Roman portrait statues show. One of the most beautiful of the six Maenads, who carries a tympanum (Hauser type 27), is indeed closely related to his Aphrodite. Eight replicas of this type are known, the most beautiful and probably the oldest being on a relief in the Uffizi (Figs. 495-496). “ It belongs to the Augustan period. This dancer wears a chiton with a short overfold. Her body shows through it as if seen through a diaphanous veil. A series of softly curving folds with narrow backs—similar to the drapery of the Nike temple parapet (see supra. Chapter IV, Figs. 47-48) glides over the body surface and accompanies the movement. The chiton slips from the left shoulder, as it does on the Venus Genetrix. The Maenad’s mantle is also arranged similarly to that of the Aphrodite. The right hand lifts one part above the shoulder, while another part is wrapped around the lowered left arm. The 110

THE SHOULDER-BACK MANTLE stylization of the dress, however, differs from that of Aphrodite and may have been still more exaggerated by the Neo-Attic artists. That part of the overfold which hangs from the right upper arm falls in tubular folds, as does the lower edge of the chiton between the feet. Only a few long and sharp folds break up the surface of the inside of the mantle, but its edges are rendered with bold, exaggerated curves, similar to those on the Apollo Kitharoidos in the Museo Nuovo (Fig. 486). There are similar curves above and before the left foot. The mantle hangs lower in front, because it falls from the lowered left arm. It is higher in back because it is lifted by the right hand. It is clearly dissociated from the chiton on both sides, although it falls in parallel curves opposite the outermost fold of the chiton. There is an S-curved space between the chiton and mantle, which certainly in the original was made more distinct by the color of the background. The Maenad in the Villa Albani is a later copy derived from the tympanum player, but without the effective background mantle.35 She still has the part of the shawl-like mantle around her arm, but it does not continue below the arm, as an actual mantle would. This is a typical example of a copyist’s misunderstanding. The Maenad carrying a tympanum, on the Florence relief, is accompanied by two Maenads who certainly belong and act together (Hauser types 25 and 28). Each holds a part of a goat they have torn asunder. The Maenad in front (type 25) (Fig. 496) has cut the animal in two with the knife which she now swings with her right hand over her head. She holds the rear half of the slaughtered animal, grasping his hind legs with her left hand. She strains forward, while her companion pulls backward. This second Maenad holds the front half of the animal which she grasps by the front feet. She throws her head back and leans on the thyrsos in her right hand. A small fur, probably of a doe, is knotted on her left shoulder, together with the overfold of the chiton and her long mantle. The mantle flutters forward and backward from her hip. In front it hangs behind the little goat. This figure (Hauser type 28) is known in eight replicas.3* The most popular of the Maenads is the one with the knife (Hauser type 25).37 There are 25 replicas with slight variations. This Maenad wears a chiton with short overfold which billows out in a strong curve. The pouch is drawn out of the belt with irregular, wavy folds. The left breast is uncovered, while the right also appears as if nude under the diaphanous linen of the dress. She is represented in side view, in contrast to the three-quarter back view of her companion and the front view of the tympanum-bearer. The same narrow undulating folds glide over her body, framing it, as they do in the case of the other two Maenads. She holds the mantle with both hands along with the knife in her right hand and with the hind legs of the kid in her left hand. The upper end flutters backward from the right hand, while the main part of the mantle swings out in far-flung curves. The lower end is separated from the chiton by a small curved segment of the background, viewed between the parallel S-folds of chiton and mantle. The interior of the mantle is indicated by long curved folds, which begin behind the shoulder, continue under the left arm, and terminate near the last tubular fold of the chiton. This fold of the chiton emerges from the belt and is more distinctly carved than the mantle folds. The outer edge of the mantle is rendered in diverse windings. When we turn to some of the other replicas we can see changes in design and style. The largest replica (about 1.30 meters) is the Maenad in the Palazzo dei Conservatori (Fig. 497).38 Winter regarded this as the original from which other copies were subsequently made. This, however, cannot be so because of a mistake in the drapery, which would never have been made in a Greek 111

THE SHOULDER-BACK MANTLE original: The separation of chiton and mantle behind the right foot is missing. The last fold of the chiton coming out of the belt does not just turn inward behind the right foot to join the rear edge of the chiton between the feet. Rather, it also turns outward and with a tubular fold joins the lower edge of the mantle. It ought to have been drawn like the big curved fold in front of the left foot, which goes behind the ankle of the left foot and then joins the lower rear edge. Here in the back, however, the tubular fold is used to bridge the original gap between the edges of the mantle and chiton. We find the same mistake, made even more obvious, on a relief in the British Museum (Fig. 498).3“ The last fold of the chiton coming from the belt sweeps down to the edge of the chiton ending in a large tubular fold. Instead of bending inside, however, the edge continues straight upward to the outer edge of the mantle. No rear edge of the chiton is indicated between the feet or in front of the left foot. The chiton terminates in front with a corner, as if this were the end of the mantle. The copyist neither understood the differentiation between mantle and chiton, nor did he distinguish pouch and overfold, since they run together in front of the waist. Otherwise most motifs of the original figure are there, although somewhat simplified. We can understand how this fusing of chiton and mantle came about when we study the small figures on the amphora of Sosibios in the Louvre (Fig. 499)'° and on the rhyton by Pontios in the Palazzo dei Conservatori (Fig. 500)." On both only the upper and vertical edges of the mantle are plastically shaped. The inner surface is indicated by delicately undulating lines, while the lower edge is almost indistinguishable as it melts into the background. A copyist may have thought that the lower edge was missing and thus supplied it. Another follower then joined this line to the lower edge of the chiton. The simplification of the swirling drapery is continued in another replica of Hauser type 25, on a round base in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme (Fig. 501).42The folds do not undulate to such an extent, and they are more parallel to each other, particularly on the inside of the mantle. Diagonal folds of the mantle run against the outermost tubular fold of the chiton which falls behind the buttocks. The design of the pouch looks more like a wavy pattern than like the lively curves of the original. The artisan who copied the same Maenad on a relief fragment in the Villa Albani (Fig. 5 0 2 )43 sharply distinguishes between the deep folds of the chiton and the flat folds of the inner part of the mantle. However, he merged the lower edge of the mantle in the back into the last tubular fold of the chiton. He also simplified the folds. While the earlier examples (Figs. 496-501) belong to the early period of Neo-Attic art in the first century b . c . , this poorer replica is certainly a copy made in the first century a . d . , but derived from an earlier copy. Thus, it is a secondary copy. The artisans of two reliefs, one of the Flavian period in the Museo Barracco (Fig. 503) 44 and another of a later period in the Villa Albani (Fig. 507),45 completed this trend to simplification during the imperial period. The Barracco relief still retains zigzag folds at the edges, while in the Albani relief most curves have disappeared. The many parallel folds of this latter piece are so tiresome and so stiff that the relief has been suspected to be a modern forgery. The pouch on all three figures looks more like frills than natural folds. On the Barracco relief, the Maenad holding the knife and the hind part of the kid (Hauser type 25) is followed by a variation of the Maenad holding the forepart of the animal and a thyrsos (Hauser type 28), as on the Florence relief (Fig. 496). She, however, is turned to the other side (like 112

THE SHOULDER-BACK MANTLE Hauser type 29); that is, to the right instead of to the left (like Hauser type 32). On the Albani relief she shows her back, while her legs are turned in profile to the right and her head turns back to the left. Her mantle is replaced by a narrow shawl which is placed over her breast, hangs down over her right arm and flutters in regular waves to the side of her left arm. A replica in Paris (Fig. 504) is still further simplified. This certainly is a later adaptation and an addition to the original group of Maenads. The same can be said for the Maenad in front of the knife-bearer on both reliefs (Hauser type 30) (Figs. 503, 507). She wears the same type of shawl, laid in parallel folds in the back, hanging forward over the left shoulder and backward over the right arm. She holds a knife in her right hand; in her left hand, and slung over her left shoulder, she holds the whole body of a kid by one of its hind legs. On the Barracco relief an animal fur flutters backward from her right shoulder. Fuchs has rightly eliminated this type from the original group and considers it a later addition. There are only five replicas. Thus, Hauser’s types 30 and 32 46 are later additions that should not be included in the original group. Another new Neo-Attic invention is the Maenad holding a tympanum in her right hand on one side of a candelabrum base (Fig. 505). She dances wildly as she holds a small mantle with her left hand which passes behind her legs, while the other end is slung around her right wrist. This monument was formerly on the art market at Rom e/7 Still another variation of the tympanum player, here moving with the thiasos, is on the marble vase in Naples which depicts the birth of Dionysus (Fig. 506). She plays the tympanum with both hands. The right side of her body is fully denuded between the two vertical edges of her chiton. She has no mantle. This certainly is a purely Roman invention. In contrast, on the round base in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme (Fig. 501), the Maenad holding the knife (Hauser type 25) is flanked by two of the other Maenads: the Maenad with the wreath and with the lively whirl of curly folds flying up from the left shoulder (Hauser type 31), of which we know nine replicas or adaptations,18 and the Maenad holding a thyrsos, with her head thrown back (Hauser type 29), of which there are ten replicas or adaptations. This latter appears also on the rhyton of Pontios. Her counterpart is the other Maenad with a thyrsos (Hauser type 26), who goes in the opposite direction, her head bowed down as if tired (“la stanca”). The best replica is the large relief in the Metropolitan Museum (about 1.30 meters),51’ but there are six other replicas known, one on the amphora of Sosibios. Only one of these replicas equals the size of the New York “stanca.” It is one of four slabs in the Prado, which also contain the counterparts to the Maenad with thyrsos, the one with a thyrsos and the front part of the kid, and the one with the tympanum.51 These four slabs show an exaggerated elegance and a manneristic style with virtuoso rendering of the drapery and rather lifeless bodies. Richter believes that these large slabs have been copied mechanically and exactly from Greek originals by the pointing process.52 Fuchs, to the contrary, has dated the Madrid reliefs to the classicizing Hadrianic period.53 The great difference in scale of the many replicas seems to indicate that sketches in model or pattern books existed, which could be enlarged or reduced at will. The many differences in style and the many mistakes in the replicas make it impossible for me to believe that these are exact copies from the Greek originals. I believe that in the Maenad reliefs we possess classicizing Hellenistic creations made by Attic artists of the first century b .c . They patterned their figures after works of Kallimachos or another late fifth-century master. These types were copied and adapted by many other Greek artists who 113

THE SHOULDER-BACK MANTLE in the imperial period came from all parts of the Roman world to decorate vases, altars, fountains, and bases for their Roman patrons. They used the pleasing figures in the most diverse arrangements, the same way as printers use movable type. Often, in copying from older copies, they were apt to make many mistakes, particularly in the sophisticated arrangement of the drapery, in which they failed to distinguish between the chiton and the large mantle. The mantle frequently worn by the Greeks was little known to the copyists and therefore often misunderstood and confused with the overfold of a peplos or chiton by ancient artisans as well as by modern scholars.

Footnotes to Chapter 9

1. For some examples of this back mantle, see M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, p. 38, pi. VI, fig. 4 (a maiden from the east frieze of the Parthenon), p. ,39, pi. VII, fig. 3 (a Kore from the Erechtheion), pp. 51-52, pi. XIX, figs. 1-2 (relief of Sosias and Kephisodoros; Orpheus relief), p. 57, pi. XXIV, fig. 1 (statue of Hera or Demeter); eadem, Entwicklungsgeschichtel, p. 34, pis. 23-28 and 31, fig. 2. 2. For haplois, see Homer, Iliad XXIV, 230 and Odyssey XXIV, 276 (the same phrase as in the Iliad). For diplois or diple, see Homer, Iliad X, 133-134. For both, see Pollux 7,46-47. 3. Munich: Furtwängler-Wolters, Glypt.München 2, pp. 216-220; Br.-Br,, Denkmäler, pi. 43; A. Furtwängler, III. Kat. Glypt.Munch., p. 30; idem. Einhundert Tafeln, pi. 38; H. Bulle, Schöne Mensch, cols. 275-277, pi. 130; G.E. Rizzo, Prassitele, pp. 4-7,112-113, pis. I-III, IV, VI-VIII; G.M.A. Richter, Sculpture and Sculptors4, pp. 197-198, fig. 704; cf. supra, Chapter IV, note 19. New York: G.M.A. Richter, Cat.Gk.Sculpt.Met.Mus., p. 65, No. 98, pi. LXXX; eadem. Sculpture and Sculptors4, pp. 197-198, fig. 705; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Agé , pp. 14-15; G. E. Rizzo, op.cih, pi. IX. 4. For the maidens on the east frieze of the Parthenon, see M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, p. 38, pi. VI, fig. 4; A.H. Smith, The Sculptures o f the Parthenon (London 1910), pi. 38; H. Schrader, Phidias, pp. 289,291, fig. 266. For the Kore from the Erechtheion porch, see supra. Chapter IV, note 15 and Fig. 38; G.M.A. Richter, Sculpture and Sculptors\ pp. 67, 71,138, fig. 541. 5. For the Kore in the Vatican, see supra. Chapter IV, note 16; G.M.A. Richter, Sculpture and Sculptors4, p. 138, fig. 542. See for the differences between original and copies Chapter IV, note 13. 6. A. Levi, Scult, gree. Mantova, pp. 21-22, No. 11, pi. XXVI; Amdt-Amelung, E.A., No. 9; M. Bieber, The History o f the Greek and Roman Theater (2nd ed. revised and enlarged Princeton 1961), pp. 82-83, fig. 303; eadem, “Die Herkunft des tragischen Kostüms,” Jdl 32 (1917), pp. 79-80, fig. 45. 7. J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, pp. 46-47, No. 2838; E. Michon, Cat.Sommaire, p. 165, pl. LXIII; M. Bieber, Entwicklungsgeschichte2, pp. 33-34, pl. 23. 8. Palazzo dei Conservatori: Helbig-Speier, Führer4, II, pp. 317-318, No. 1501 (Inv. 993) (here, original is considered early Classical); H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Pal.Con., p. 227, No. 31, pl. 85; P.E. Arias, Skopas, p. 112, M8, No. 4. Museo Torlonia No. 68: Ch. Picard, Manuel III, p. 866, fig. 390; P.E. Adas, op.cit., p. 112, No. 3, pi. VI, fig. 23. For this group on coins, see P.E. Arias, op.cit., p. 112, Nos. 1-2, pi. VI, figs. 21-22. 9. The coin (Fig. 466) is in the possession of Frank O’Sullivan, San Antonio, Texas and was published in The Voice o f the Turtle, voi. V, No. 7 (1966), pp. 203-204. It was issued at Cremna in Pisidia, according to the inscription COL CREMNE. The portrait of the emperor Aurelianus (270-275 a .d .) on the obverse is accompanied by the inscription IMP: C.S.L. DOM. AURELIANO. The use of the Leto group on coins, beginning with Caracalla in Asia Minor (see G.F. Hill, Catalogue o f Greek Coins o f Lycia, Pamphylia, and Pisidia, London 1897, pi. XXXV, fig. 5) seems to indicate that the original group stood in the Roman province of Asia.

114

THE SHOULDER-BACK MANTLE 10. Musée du Bardo in Tunis, Catalogue des Musèes et Collections archéologiques de ΓAlgerie et de la Tunisie, Voi. XV, Musée Alaoui, Suppl. 1 (1910), pp. 50-51, pi. XXX, fig. 3. 11. Helbig-Speier, Führer1, I, pp. 29-30, No. 36 (Inv. 254); G. Lippold, Skulpt.vat.Mus., Ili, 1, pp. 117-120, Sala Rotunda No. 542, pls. 37-38; M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, p. 57, pi. XXIV, fig. L Lippold did not understand the shoulder mantle, which he describes as double. Actually it is a single mantle with an overfold. 12. C. Blümel, Berlin.Kat.V.Röm. Kopien, pp. 33-36, No. K 172, pis. 61-62; M. Bieber, Entwicklungsgeschichte2, p. 34, pi. 27. See also the short shoulder mantle of the Demeter of Cherchel: P. Gauckler, Musée de Cherchel, p. 102, pi. 5, and her replica in Berlin, R. Kekulé, “Ueber Copien einer Frauenstatue aus der Zeit des Phidias,” Berl.Winck-Progr. 57 (1897), pls. I-IV; C. Blümel, op.cit., pp. 29-31, No. K 168, pls. 55-57. 13. Helbig-Speier, Führer1, II, pp. 19-20, No. 1169 (Inv. 37); H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Mus.Capitol., pp. 26-27, Atrio No. 4, pl. 3; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pls. 669-670; A. Furtwängler, Meisterwerke, p. 119; idem. Masterpieces, pp. 87-88, fig. 37; W. Amelung in Thieme-Becker, Künstlerlexikon 1, s.v. Agorakritos, p. 125. 14. Helbig-Amelung, Führer\ II, p. 451, No. 1917 (Inv. 725); Arndt-Amelung, E.A., Nos. 4342-4343 (head of caryatid) (cf. Nos. 3264-3265, and 4118-4120); K.A. Neugebauer, “Herodes Atticus, ein antiker Kunstmüzen,” Die Antike 10 (1934), pp. 112-114, pl. 15. 15. A.H. Smith, Cat.Sculpt.Brit.Mus., III, pp. 99-102, No. 1746. The side and back view were made possible through the kindness of Sir John Forsdyke, who ordered the over life-size statue to be turned around in order to be photographed. 16. For the Maenad with the head of a caryatid in the Villa Albani, see supra, Chapter VIII, note 54, Fig. 409. 17. Villa Albani: Helbig-Amelung, Führer3, II, p. 451, No. 1915 (Inv. 628). Vatican: Helbig-Speier, Führef, I, pp. 327-328, No. 424 (Inv. 2270); W. Amelung. Sculpt.vat.Mus., I, pp. 65-68, Braccio Nuovo No. 47, pl. 7. For the copies from the Villa of Hadrian, see supra Chapter IV, note 17, Figs. 43-46. 18. Amdt-Amelung, text to E.A., No. 4342-4343. 19. C. Blümel, Berlin.Kat.V.Röm.Kopien, p. 25, No. K 163, pl. 49. Ephesos column in British Museum: A.H. Smith, Cat.Sculpt.Brit.Mus., II, pp. 171-172, 174-176, Nos. 1200, 1206; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pls. 52 and 173; M. Bieber, Entwicklungsgeschichte2, p. 49, pl. 31, figs. 2-3. Female lyre player in Munich: Furtwängler-Wolters, Glypt.München2, p. 204, No. 213a (now No. 472); M. Bieber, Entwicklungsgeschichte 2, p. 34, pl. 28. Florence: G. Mansuelli, Uffizi Scult., I, p. 42, No. 17, figs. 17 a, b. 20. Height 2.42 meters, Furtwängler-Wolters, Glypt.München2, pp. 194-200, No. 211; A. Furtwängler, Ill.Kat.Glypt.Münch., pl. 25; idem. Einhundert Tafeln, pl. 32; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pl. 465; Arndt-Amelung, E.A., Nos. 836-837 (head only); O. Deubner, Hellenistische Apollogestalten, pp. 71-75; P.E. Arias, Skopas, pp. 101-102, list of replicas of the Apollo Palatino), No. 11; L. Savignoni, “Apollon Pythios,” Ausonia 2 (1907), pp. 16-66; G. E, Rizzo, “La Base di Augusto,” BullCornm 60 (1932), pp. 7-109 (cf. the coins on pl. D); idem. La Base di Augusto (Naples 1933), p. 62. 21. Apollo Kitharoidos on coins of Augustus: H. Mattingly, BMC, Empire, I, p. 79, Nos, 459-462, pl. 11, figs. 7-9 (our Fig. 482) pp. 82-83, Nos. 478-486 (Nos. 481-486 have Apollo standing facing right); pl. 12, figs. 1, 3-8; Mattingly-Sydenham, RIC, I, pp. 88-89, No. 328, pl. Ill, fig. 41, Nos. 331, 336, 339-340; P.E. Arias, Skopas, p. 101, No. 1; on coins of Antoninus Pius: H. Mattingly, BMC, Empire, IV, p. 197, No. 1229, pl. 28, fig. 2; P.E. Arias, op.cit., p. 101, No. 2, pl. I, figs, la-b; P.L. Strack, op.cit., supra Chapter V, note 66, III, p. 85, No. 822, pi. VIII, fig. 83. For Nero dressed as Apollo Kitharoidos, advancing right, see H. Mattingly, op.cit., pp. 245-246, Nos. 234-238, pl. 44, figs. 7-10, pp. 249-250, Nos. 254-258, pl. 44, fig. 12, pl. 45, fig. 2, p. 274, Nos. 376-377, pl. 47, fig. 7; Mattingly-Sydenham, op.cit., pp. 169-171, Nos. 349-375. For Apollo Kitharoidos on coins of Trajan, minted in Hierapolis, see W. Gross, Bildnisse Traians, p. 28, pl. 46, fig. “i.” 22. Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, pp. 19-20, No. 23 (Inv. 229); G. Lippold, Skulpt.vat.Mus., Ill, pp. 184-186, Sala a Croce Greca No. 582, pl. 51; O. Deubner, op.cit., supra note 20, pp. 9, 72; P.E. Arias, op.cit., p. 102, No. 8; L. Savignoni, op.cit., pp. 27-28, fig. 8, pl. 8; G. E. Rizzo, op.cit., p. 57, fig. 7. 23. Helbig-Speier, Führer', II, pp. 556-557, No. 1787 (Inv. 893); H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Pal.Con., p. 116, No. 69, pl. 42; D. Mustilli, Mus.Mussol., pp. 143-144, No. 8, pl. 87, fig. 328; O. Deubner, op.cit., p. 75; P.E. Arias, op.cit., p. 102, No. 9; L. Savignoni, op.cit., p. 21, pls. VI-VII.

THE SHOULDER-BACK MANTLE 24. Helbig-Speier, Führer4, I, p. 64, No. 82 (Inv. 310); G. Lippold, Skulpt.vat.Mus., Ill, 1, pp. 60-63, Sala delle Muse No. 516, pis. 6-7; idem, Gr.Plastik, p. 311, pi. 110, fig. 3; M. Bieber, Theater \ p. 235, fig. 781; D.M. Brinlcerhoff, Sculpt.Antioch, p. 35, fig. 46. For a similar replica (but without head and arms) in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, see Helbig-Speier, Führer1, III, p. 132, No. 2215 (Inv. 107681); S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.Rom Λ No. 465. 25. W. Fröhner, Sculpt.ant.Louvre*, pp. 110-111, No. 88. 26. F. Hauser, Die neu-att.Reliefs; W. Fuchs, Vorbilder; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age2, pp. 182-186; G. Becatti in “Lo stile arcaistico,” La Critica dArte, VI, No. 5 (N.S. 1,1941), pp. 32-48. 27. A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, p. 166, No. 551 (6858). A similar Apollo Kitharoidos is on the altar of the twelve gods in Ostia, dated to the second half of the second century a .d .: see G. Becatti, “Lettura del rilievo con le Cariti nel Museo dell’Acropoli,” ASAtene 20 (1942), pp. 107-114, fìg. 31, pi. IV. 28. E. Schmidt, Archaistische Kunst in Griechenland und Rom, pp. 61-62; T. Schreiber, Hellenistische Reliefbilder (Leipzig 1894), pls. 34-36. For the specific Louvre relief (our Fig. 490), see J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, p. 98, No. 683; W. Fröhner, Sculpt.ant.Louvre*, pp. 42-44, No. 12. For the Berlin relief, see E.D. Van Buren, “Praxias,” MAAR 3 (1919), pp. 91-92, 96-97, pi. 75. 29. A.H. Smith, Cat.Sculpt.Brit.Mus., I, pp. 357-358, No. 774. 30. M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age2, p. 186, fig. 804 (Inv. No. 30522). 31. J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, pp. 214-216, No. and fig. 475. 32. H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Pal.Con., pp. 155,167,169, Sala degli Orti Mecenaziani Nos. 1, 19, 20, 24, pi. 55. 33. F. Hauser, Die neu-att.Reliefs, pp. 7-16, pi. II, figs. 25-32; F. Winter, “Ueber ein Vorbild neuattischer Reliefs,” Berl.Winch-Progr. 50 (1890), pp. 97-124, pis. I-III; G.E. Rizzo, Thiasos, pp. 3-4; G.M.A. Richter, Three Critical Periods, p. 50, figs. 104-105,107; R. Carpenter, Greek Sculpture. A Critical Review, pp. 156-159; G. Gullini, “Kallimachos,” ArchCl 5 (1953), pp. 133-162, pis. LVII-LXX; W. Fuchs, Vorbilder, pp. 72-91; idem. Die Skulptur der Griechen (Hirmer Verlag 1969), pp. 521-524, figs. 609-614. Also see G. Becatti, op.cit., supra note 26; idem, “Revisioni critiche anfore panatenaiche e stile arcaistico,” RendPontAcc 17 (1941), pp. 85-95; E. Paribeni, “Ancora delle Menadi di Kallimachos,” BdA 35 (1952), pp. 97-101; C.M. Havelock, “Archaistic Reliefs of the Hellenistic Period,” AJA 68 (1964), pp. 43-58. 34. G. Mansuelli, Uffizi Scult., I, pp. 40-41, No. and fig. 15 (Inv. 318); F. Hauser, Die neu-att.Reliefs, p. 13, No. 9; W. Fuchs, Vorbilder, pp. 79-80, c) 1 (as well as 17 other replicas), pi. 16c; Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 372; G. E. Rizzo, Thiasos, p. 47, No. 7; F. Weege, Tanz in der Antike, p. 88, fig. 119; F. Winter, op.cit., p. 97, pi. II, fig. 1; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Agé2, p. 183, fig. 793. 35. F. Hauser, op.cit., p. 13, No. 11; W. Fuchs, Vorbilder, p. 79, No. 7; Arndt-Amelung, No. 899; M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, pp. 46-47, pi. XV, fig. 1; A.W. Lawrence, Later Greek Scidpture and Its Influence on East and West (London 1927), p. 49, pi. 84. 36. F. Hauser, op.cit., pi. II, fig. 28; W. Fuchs, Vorbilder, pp. 80-81 (list of 8 replicas). 37. F. Hauser, op.cit., pi. II, fig. 25; W. Fuchs, Vorbilder, pp. 73-78 (list of 25 replicas). 38. Helbig-Speier, Führer4, II, pp. 392-393, No. 1590 (Inv. 1094); H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Pal.Con., pp. 155-156, Sala degli Orti Mecenaziani No. 2, pi. 55; F. Hauser, op.cit., p. 14, No. 14; W. Fuchs, op.cit., pp. 73, 75-76, a) 1; G. E. Rizzo, op.cit., pp. 11-12, fig. 5; F. Weege, op.cit., p. 76, fig. 114; F. Winter, op.cit., pp. 97-124, pi. I; H. Schrader, Phidias, p. 335, fig. 304; G.M.A. Richter, Ancient Italy, p. 42, fig. 137; eadem. Three Critical Periods, p. 50, fig. 105; G. Gullini, op.cit., supra, note 33, p. 143, pi. 62. 39. A.H. Smith, Cat.Sculpt.Brit.Mus., Ill, pp. 256-257, No. 2194; idem. Marbles and Bronzes in the British Museum (London 1914), pi. 37; F. Hauser, op.cit., p. 14, No. 15; W. Fuchs, op.cit., pp. 74, 76, a) 4; H. Philippart, Iconographie des Bacchantes D ’Euripides (Paris 1930), pp. 41-42, No. 100, pi. VI. 40. J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, pp. 88, 90, No. and fig. 442; F. Hauser, op.cit., pp. 7-8, No. 1; W. Fuchs, op.cit., p. 74, a) 3, pi. 20b; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 60; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age2, p. 182, fig. 791. 41. Helbig-Speier, Führer1, II, pp. 395-396, N. 1594 (Inv. 1101); H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Pal.Con., pp. 169-170, Sala degli Orti Mecenaziani No. 25, pi. 58; F. Hauser, op.cit., p. 8, No. 2; W. Fuchs, op.cit., pp. 74-76, a) 6, pi. 15c; G.E. Rizzo, op.cit., fig. 4c; G.M.A. Richter, Ancient Italy, p. 42, fig. 141; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age2, p. 182, fig. 792.

116

THE SHOULDER-BACK MANTLE 42. Helbig-Amelung, Führer5, II, pi 170, No. 1397; R. Paribeni, Le Terme di Diocleziano e il Museo Nazionale Romano (2nd ed. Rome 1932), No. 668; W. Fuchs, op.cit., pp. 74, 76, a) 5, pi. 18; E. Paribeni, op.cit.', supra note 33, p. 97; Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 1683f; G.M.A. Richter, op.cit., p. 42, fig. 138. 43. Villa Albani No. 1007. F. Hauser, op.cit., p. 15, No. 16; W. Fuchs, op.cit., pp. 74, 77, a) 13, pi. 15d; Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 4687. 44. Helbig-Speier, Führer', II, p. 658, No. 1916; G. Barracco and W. Helbig, La Collection Barracco, pp. 50-51, pi. 72; C. Pietrangeli, Museo Barracco', p. 112, No. 124; W. Fuchs, op.cit., pp. 74, 77, a) 16, pi. 19b; G.M.A. Richter, op.cit., p. 42, fig. 139. 45. Villa Albani No. 973. Lippold in Arndt-Amelung, E.A., Ser. XVI B, p. 4, believes this relief to be modern; Fuchs, in Vorbilder, because he accepts this, does not mention it. G. Gullini, op.cit., supra note 33, pi. LXI. 46. For type 30, see F. Hauser, Die neu-att.Reliefs, pi. II, fig. 30; W. Fuchs, op.cit., pp. 83-84 (lists 5 replicas). Fuchs excludes the Albani relief, supra note 43. For type 32, see F. Hauser, op.cit., pi. II, fig. 32; W. Fuchs, op.cit., pp. 82-83 (lists 9 replicas.) 47. This comes from the same triangular candelabrum base as mentioned in Chapter VI, Fig. 105. Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 5082. 48. For type 31, see F. Hauser, op.cit., pi. II, fig. 31; W. Fuchs, op.cit., pp. 84-85 (lists 9 replicas). 49. For type 29, see F. Hauser, op.cit., pp. 81-82 (lists 10 replicas). 50. G.M.A. Richter, “A Newly Acquired Relief in the Metropolitan Museum of Art,” AJA 40 (1936), pp. 11-20, figs. 1-2; eadem, 'Three Critical Periods, p. 50, fig. 104; eadem, Cat.Gk.Sculpt.Met.Mus., pp. 39-40, No. 58, pis. L, LI; eadem. Sculpture and Sculptors', pp. 139,186, fig. 683; F. Hauser, op.cit., pi. II, fig. 26; W. Fuchs, op.cit., p. 78, b) 6 (as well as 6 other replicas); G.E. Rizzo, Thiasos, pis. 1-2. 51. W. Fuchs, op.cit., p. 78, b) 5 (type 26), p. 79, c) 6 (type 27), p. 80, d) 6 (type 28), p. 82, e) 7 (type 29); Amdt-Amelung, E.A., Nos. 1683-1686; F. Winter, op.cit., pis. II-III; H. Schrader, op.cit., pp. 335, 337-340, figs. 305-308. 52. G.M.A. Richter, Three Critical Periods, p. 50; eadem. Ancient Italy, p. 115. 53. W. Fuchs, op.cit., pp. 79, 81.

117

10 THE RIGHT AND WRONG WAYS OF DRAPING THE HIMATION The freely draped mantle, the himation, was the main article of outdoor clothing for men and women alike. It was worn from Archaic up to Roman times; the Romans adapted it as a pallium for men and a palla for women. The Christians also adopted it, and so it became the dress of Christ and the Apostles. In the late Archaic period it was drawn forward symmetrically over both shoulders as in the case of a charioteer (Fig. 510). In the Classical period it became a symmetrical shoulder mantle, hanging only in the back. It was given as a festival dress to goddesses and to Apollo Kitharoidos (see Chapter IX, Figs. 481, 484-485, 487). Already in the sixth century b . c ., the mantle was draped symmetrically beginning on the left shoulder. In the Classical and Hellenistic periods it was arranged in the most diverse forms. Heuzey and I both have draped mantles on living models to prove that indeed in real life the mantle could be worn in many different ways, and the artists could choose the one best suited to their purpose1 (see models, Figs. 518-521). The form of the himation was detei'mined by the shape and size of the loom (Fig. 508). It could hardly be broader than 2 meters, since the arms of the weaver could not reach much further. The length was not really limited because the vertical threads (the warp) stretched by little weights could be pulled from the spools to whatever length the weaver wanted. It was, however, seldom more than 3 meters long, so that the width and length of the mantle were in the relation of about 2:3, or seldom more than 1.80 by 2.80 meters. (I have marked on Fig. 509 the four corners with the numbers 1 ,2,3, and 4. )2 On the loom, the sides between corners 1 and 2 above and 3 and 4 below were the two horizontal edges made by the threads of the woof, which were woven horizontally at right angles to the vertical warp. A selvage was formed at the vertical edges between corners 118

THE RIGHT AND WRONG WAYS OF DRAPING THE HIMATION 1 and 3 and 2 and 4, where the threads of the woof turn around. An indication of the selyage on the garment of a statue is always a sign of an original work or a good copy. The edges between corners 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 were woven as broad as the desired width of the mantle demanded. The length of the edges between corners 1 and 3 and 2 and 4 was as long as the height of the wearer and the desired length of the mantle. Corner 1 always hangs from the left shoulder of the wearer. The edge between corners 1 and 2 was wound around the body and returned to the left side. The edge between corners 3 and 4 was wound around the lower part of the body. The corners 3 and 4 hang near each other near the left leg. The horizontal edges between corners 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 often have woven borders, while the edges between corners 1 and 3 and 2 and 4 have the selvage (Fig. 509).

1. MEN The mantle worn by men and women in Homeric times was called the M aina, which also could be used as a blanket according to Homer. Women also wore the linen pharos, which served also as a blanket. The mantle was usually worn symmetrically over both shoulders and sometimes the arms. Thus we see it on vases of the orientalizing seventh century b .c . and on monuments of the sixth century,* including the charioteer from the frieze on the Acropolis (Fig. 510). Men continued to wear the equal arrangement on both shoulders in the Classical period, as can be seen on a white-ground lekythos in the Berlin Museum (Fig. 512), where a warrior takes leave of his wife and child, a scene executed in about the middle of the fifth century b . c . The freely draped himation began to replace the symmetrical chlaina already occasionally in the sixth century b .c . This can be seen on a white-ground, black-figured hydria, dated about 560 b . c . in the Metropolitan Museum (Fig. 511). A good example is the white-ground lekythos of about 470 b . c . in the Berlin Museum (Fig. 513).1The man who visits a lady in her room on this latter vase wears his himation in the most common arrangement. It begins and ends on the left shoulder, where end 2 hangs down in the back, while end 1 cannot be seen, since it is covered in the front. The edge between corners 1 and 2 crosses the back, goes around the right side at the waist to the front and back across to the left shoulder. The selvage is indicated at the beginning of the edge between corners 2 and 4. The lower edge between 3 and 4, which goes around the legs has a woven border. Corners 3 and 4, marked by small weights, hang at the left side. This general arrangement can have numerous variations. One corner (1) of the himation usually is just draped from behind to the front of the left shoulder. The himation is then draped behind the back to the right side, crossed to the front, and returned to the left side. However, there are four main variations in the draping. The upper edge first can be (1) laid around the right hip, (2) drawn under the right armpit, (3) laid over the right shoulder so that both shoulders are covered, or (4) drawn over the head like a veil. After any of these first four steps the forms can be combined with three different arrangements. The end at the left side then can be laid (1) over the left shoulder, (2) over the left arm, or (3) over the left hip. W e thus find 12 possible forms of draping. But these twelve forms can again be varied by (1) an overfold of the upper edge, (2) an overfold of the upper corner, (3) a roll of the upper folds, (4) the covering of the hands, (5) the leaving of the hands free, (6) the drawing of corner 1 outward in front of the left shoulder to hang 119

THE RIGHT AND WRONG WAYS OF DRAPING THE HIMATION free over the edge between corners 1 and 2, (7) the crossing of vertical edges betw een corners 1 and 3 and 2 and 4, or (8) the pushing of the folds under the left armpit. This results in 12 times eight, or 96 variations, but there are many more. When we study the many men on the Parthenon frieze (Figs. 514-517),5 we are astonished to find that each one has a different arrangement of the himation. Experiments with living models (Figs. 518-521) show not only that each of these arrangements actually can be made, but also that still more variations can be made. All the artists had to do was to choose among them. Good examples of the different drapings can be seen on the statues and variations of Zeus and Asklepios in Leningrad, Berlin (Figs. 523-524), the Palazzo Altemps in Rome (Fig. 525), the Capitoline Museum (Figs. 522, 526), in Cassel, and in Dresden (Figs. 99-101).ß One of the two Capitoline statues (Fig. 522), identified as Zeus because of the eagle at the left side, shows clearly the edge between corners 1 and 2 crossed over on itself on the left shoulder, while corners 1 and 2 hang on the left side, marked with small weights. It is a moot question whether men really wore just the himation, as on most Classical reliefs and statues, or whether they also wore the chiton (Figs. 527-528 in Naples and the model, Figs. 519, 521). I believe that the hot weather at the time of the Panathenaic festival in the months of July and August and the custom of competing in the religious games without clothing justify the absence of the chiton in the art as well as in real life. Good examples of the mantle wrapped about both shoulders and both arms are the statuettes of boys, which are copies of an early Hellenistic creation; one of them found near Naples and is now in the Berlin Museum (Figs. 529-530).7 Only the head, right foot, and lower left leg are visible. The living model (Figs. 5 3 1 -5 3 2 )Hhas much richer draping and more beautiful folds than the Hellenistic statue. A similar draping for a man is found on the statues of Sophokles, Aischines, and the boy of Eretria (see Chapter XI, Figs. 581-583). Here the rich possibilities of the garment are exploited for the characterization of the noble poet, the conceited rhetor, and the elegant youth. The model (Figs. 533-534) is an imitation of the statue of Sophokles.*' The coarse mantle worn by philosophers was called the tribon, and it was often put on carelessly. A good example is the bronze statuette of a philosopher in the Metropolitan Museum, probably a Stoic, but usually named Hermarchos (Figs. 5 3 5 -5 3 6 ).10 The flabby breast and the slouching shoulders are left bare. The heavy material of the himation has only a few broad folds. This betrays the fact that the mantle is small and that the wearer has little interest in his appearance. All this seems to me to fit the character of a Stoic, not an Epicurean. Young men, warriors, hunters, and travelers most often wore the chlamys, a mantle pinned on the right shoulder." Women only rarely wore a pinned m antle;12 instead, they wore their himatia in an even greater variety of ways than did the men. For example, men covered their heads with the mantle only when they were in mourning, while women wore it most often in this manner. Thus, we find the himation used as a head covering on the “Aspasia,” on the large Herculaneum women (see Chapter XII) and on many Tanagra figurines.11

120

THE RIGHT AND WRONG WAYS OF DRAPING THE HIMATION

2. WOMEN The artists liked to render not only the draping of a woman’s himation, but also the graceful movements by which she draped it. The first step was for a woman to pull the mantle with her right hand over her right shoulder to the front. The beginning of this movement can be seen on Praxiteles’ Artemis Brauronia, on the model (Chapter VII, Fig. 318), and on a peplos statue with an inset portrait head found recently in the excavations of Aphrodisias (Fig. 537). This movement a few moments later can be seen on the lovely girl in the Vatican (Fig. 538).u Her pose has been greatly admired. (Goethe interpreted her as dancing, which earned her the nickname of “Goethe’s dancer.”) Actually she holds one upper end of the mantle with her left hand in order to draw it up to the left shoulder, while her right hand lifts the other end above her right shoulder to draw the cloth over it to the front and then to the left side. Another way of draping the himation is illustrated by the model (Fig. 539) where the left end hangs over the woman’s left arm, while her right hand holds the right end which she is about to draw across her waist to her left arm. Still another way of draping is seen on the so-called Niobid Nurse, found together with the Niobe group in Rome and now with it in the Uffizi (Fig. 540).15 She lifts the left end of her mantle up high in order to place it on her left shoulder. The right hand must have grasped the end hanging over the right thigh, as can be clearly seen from the folds, which originally were gathered in the hand and then hung down in a broad bunch to the inside of the right leg. Thus, the entire right arm is incorrectly restored. Another draping is exemplified by the Alkestis on the column drum from the temple of Artemis at Ephesos, now in the British Museum (Fig. 541).18 She has already laid the one end of her mantle on her left shoulder, while her right hand lifts the other end with a short overfold across her waist, in order to throw it back on the left shoulder. A large bunch of folds hangs down from her right hand. In this scene Alkestis prepares to follow Hermes who stands at her left side waiting to take her back to the upper world from Hades, where Thanatos, on her right, had brought her. The last step in this process of putting the mantle on is shown on the statue of the Muse Polyhymnia (Fig. 542). She brings the end of the mantle to the left shoulder, which hangs down in a bunch of straight folds from her left hand. In the Classical period the most popular arrangement was that in which the mantle was brought around the hip and lifted in soft curved lines either to the left shoulder, or to the left arm, or the left hip (Figs. 415-426). A good, clear example is the so-called Sappho, or Kore Albani (Fig. 543).17 It is probably a statue of Persephone (Kore) created around 440 b . c ., perhaps by Phidias. She is similarly represented on the celebrated Eleusinian relief (see Chapter IV, Fig. 36) where she stands with Demeter and Triptolemos. The side view shows all four corners of the mantle. The first corner of the edge between corners 1 and 2 is drawn out and laid over the front in a large overfold, so that the second, upper corner instead of being thrown back over the left shoulder, hangs in front above the left knee. The two lower corners (3 and 4) are hanging near each other outside the left leg. The upper part of the front edge between corners 1 and 2 and 3 is pushed under the left arm, which holds it firmly in place. From beneath the lower left arm zigzag and tubular folds hang down to corner 2 of the overfold and to the lower corner 3. This is the side edge 121

THE RIGHT AND WRONG WAYS OF DRAPING THE HIMATION between corners 2 and 4. The side edge between corners 1 and 3 hangs over the shoulder front and back. The lower edge between corners 3 and 4 goes around the lower body, so that the edges between comers 1 and 3 and 2 and 4 meet and mingle at the left side. A similar draping appears on statues of noble Roman ladies, such as Agrippina in the Lateran (Figs. 544-545), Julia, the daughter of Titus, in the Vatican (Fig. 546), and a statue in the Louvre representing most likely Julia Mamaea (Fig. 547).18 This kind of draping is also seen with slight variation on two Vestal Virgins from the Roman Forum, one now in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme (Fig. 548) and the other still in situ (Fig. 549). That this lady is a Vestal Virgin is shown by the six crines around her head and the heavy fillets hanging down on her breast. W e see the same fillets on a fragment found in the Atrium Vestae (Fig. 550). All three statues are to be dated to the early third century a . d . 1!) The drapery, although following the lines of the Kore Albani, is much more stylized. The Athena of Velletri in the Louvre (Figs. 551-552) and the better replica in the Museo Nuovo (Fig. 553) 20 show a similar arrangement with the difference that the first corner is not visible but hidden by the bend of the big overfold of the edge betw een corners 1 and 2 in front. The side view (Fig. 552) shows the two bunches of zigzag folds falling from the bend of the edge between corners 2 and 3, from below the elbow down to corner 2 of the overfold in front, and also down to lower front corner 3 outside the left foot. The rear corner is hanging a little higher behind it. Between these two side edges is a large tubular fold similar to the one found on the copies of the Athena Parthenos and Athena Lemnia (see Chapter VIII, Figs. 395-397, 399-400, 402, 406, 408). In the case of the Athena of Velletri, though, it does not indicate a peplos but rather another tubular fold behind the rear edge between corners 1 and 4. B etw een it and the last bend of the side edge between corners 2 and 4 in the upper part is a small opening which marks the place where the bends of the two side edges meet. It cannot be the peplos, w hich ends above the back of the feet in similar but less broad folds. The selvage on the zigzag edges indicate that this is a good copy. The original has been attributed to Kresilas, but it was probably made later than his time. The Athena formerly in the Palazzo Giustiniani and now in the Vatican (Figs. 554-555), the much-restored replica in Palazzo Torlonia (Fig. 556), and the best replica in the Capitoline Museum (Figs. 557,560),21 the original of which was created at the end of the fifth or beginning of the fourth century b . c . , again show a variation of this arrangement. The overfold of the himation is short. The end with corner 1 hanging from the left shoulder is fully visible. The edge betw een corners 2 and 4 held by the elbow hangs in bundles of small zigzag folds, which becom e larger further down. All four corners,are clearly visible: 1 and 2 below the left arm, 3 and 4 not far from each other outside the left lower leg. The Capitoline replica of the Athena Giustiniani (Fig. 557) is distinguished from the others by the lack of an aegis on the breast. It is likely that the aegis on the other two is an addition of the copyists. This replica is less ornate, for there is no aegis and no sphinx on the helmet. It seems to be nearer to the simple grandeur of the Classical original. The contrast between the finely rippled chiton and the heavy mantle was very marked in the fifth and fourth centuries b . c . , particularly in the time of Praxiteles.22 This contrast is destroyed by the baroque aegis. Living models (Figs. 5 5 8 -5 5 9 )23 show the numerous possibilities for this way of draping the himation. Draping over both shoulders was particularly popular in the late fourth century b . c . , and in the early Hellenistic period. Again experiments with living models illustrate the many possibili-

122

THE RIGHT AND WRONG WAYS OF DRAPING THE HIMATION ties which this motif offered to the artists (Figs. 564-566).24 A particularly charming example is the Muse Polyhymnia in the Vatican (Fig. 542).27 She is named after the Muse with cithara in the second row on the relief of Archelaos of Priene (Fig. 573). The himation is of a thin material, like the pharos of the Homeric period. This type of diaphanous mantle was commonly worn in the time after Alexander the Great. Here the right arm and the left hand clearly show through the mantle in which they are wrapped. The right hand, with a graceful movement, lifts the upper edge between corners 1 and 2 to the left shoulder. Corner 1 is covered, corner 2 hangs in the back on a level with the left hand. Corners 3 and 4 lie near each other on the ground. The edges between corners 1 and 3 and 2 and 4 hang in zigzag folds opposite each other on the left side and touch each other, although they fall separately from the two hands. The same arrangement can also be made with the sides reversed and with a heavy material (Fig. 561-563). Seated figures also provide endless possibilities for draping the himation. From the same group as the Polyhymnia comes a statue of the Muse of Comedy, Thalia (Fig. 567),26 identified by a comic mask that lies next to her. She wears a chiton with buttoned sleeves; then over it there is a peronatris (the Hellenistic form of chiton) fastened with large brooches (perone) on the shoulders; finally there is a mantle draped in a rather complicated manner. It hangs down in front from the left arm, is wrapped in front around the right leg, and hangs down from the left thigh. The lower edge of the mantle is lifted to the left hip with a broad overfold. Experiments with living models (Figs. 568-569)27 show similar draping, as well as other possibilities, such as wrapping the mantle only around the legs, with the ends crossing each other on the lap. The different garments were originally distinguished by different colors, as they were in real life. A simpler draping is shown for the seated Zeus on a Sikyonian coin, minted in the time of Alexander the Great, in the Collection of the American Numismatic Society (Fig. 570).2S In the left field is the Herakles by Lysippos. While copies of Classical statues were often clearly rendered and of good workmanship, copyists found Hellenistic drapery sometimes confusing and difficult to render correctly. They were as helpless as modern scholars tend to be with complicated drapery. A good example is the statue of a little girl holding a dove in the Capitoline Museum (Figs. 571-572).2“ She protects her pet bird against a foe, probably a cat, although it is restored as a snake. This charming work has been considered Hellenistic, which is certainly correct as far as the invention goes. It is, however, a Roman copy, which is indicated by the fact that the chiton and mantle are blended together at her right side. In front and at the left side and back everything does appear to be correct. The child wears a chiton of crinkly material, held on the shoulders by a broad ribbon. The strap on the left shoulder slips down as a result of the strong movement of the arm which holds the pet to her breast and away from the enemy attacking from the back. A belt holds the dress in place below the armpits. The linen of the chiton is rendered with narrow folds in the back and in the front on the ground between the widely placed feet. So far, everything is in order! The heavy material of the himation lies in broad folds around the back. It is drawn from both sides forward over the lower left arm and the upper right arm, in order to protect the bird. The two comers of the upper edge are seen hanging below the left hand on the right side. When we look for the linen chiton between the two vertical side edges ending at the right foot, we find instead a continuation of the mantle, stylized like a peplos and held by the high belt. The lower edge between corners 3 and 4 of the himation is drawn up over the right foot and runs in large curves into the lower edge 123

THE RIGHT AND WRONG WAYS OF DRAPING THE HIMATION of the chiton. The copyist did not realize that the chiton with narrow folds ought to appear between the two side edges of the mantle; he did not understand the dresses and their draping which the artist who created the original certainly depicted and differentiated in the correct way. There is only one copy of this graceful creation. Since it is carved in Luna marble, it certainly belongs to the imperial, perhaps Antonine, period. In contrast, there are many copies of another H ellenistic work, Terpsichore, the Muse of Dance. She is known in 16 copies in the round10 and four replicas in relief.11 She is Terpsichore on the relief of Archelaos of Priene in the British Museum (Fig. 573).12 She dances on a slope leading down from the uppermost terraces of Parnassos, on which are depicted the parents of the Muses, Zeus and Mnemosyne, to the lower terraces where her eight sisters are. She lifts her mantle with her right hand in order to free her advancing right leg for the dance. Sometimes the type is named “Anchyrrhoe” from an inscription on a replica in Ince Blundell Hall in England.13 Here she is indeed a nymph, for she carries a water jar. A jar appears also on the statues in the Louvre (Figs. 574-576) and in Tegel near Berlin.34 In both cases, though, the left arm with the jug is a modern addition. The same is true of the right foot which the Terpsichore in the Louvre replica rests on a globe. The toes of the foot of the Muse in the Tegel copy are set lightly on the ground, while the heel is lifted. The Muse dances downward on rocky ground, as she does on the relief of Archelaos. The right foot of Terpsichore on a replica in the Uffizi (Fig. 577) 35 assumes the same position as the copy at Tegel, but the rock is indicated only at the front of the base; the top surface of the base is smooth. The rock has altogether disappeared in the replica at Dresden (Figs. 578-580),3(1 and the foot is set flat upon the ground. The movement of the left arm here must have been upward to balance the dance step, but its exact form cannot be determined as it is also missing on the relief of Archelaos. It may have been similar to the position of the left arm on the Uffizi statue. All the replicas, as well as the good torso found in the Faustina Baths at M iletos,17 wear a peplos w ith a long overfold visible at the left side and belted high below the breasts. The peplos spreads out on the ground in the Hellenistic manner betw een and behind the feet. Both ends of the mantle are placed above each other on the left shoulder. The mantle hangs low in the back. The rolled upper edge crosses the breast from the right armpit to the left shoulder. While most copies show a similar arrangement of the garment, the representation of the material differs. The sculptors of the statues in the Louvre and in Tegel distinguish sharply between the horizontal curves of the mantle and the vertical folds of the peplos. This differen­ tiation is not made in the replicas at Florence and Dresden. The copyists probably were not familiar with the Hellenistic dresses, but merely copied the motif. They have stylized the mantle and peplos in the same way. The copyist of the Florence statue has enriched and deepened the folds of the mantle, as well as those of the peplos betw een the legs. His copy seems to have been made in the Antonine period, like the torso in Miletos, and is otherwise probably true to the original. The original of this type, like that of the other Muses appearing on the relief by Archelaos, has been attributed to Philiskos of Rhodes who lived, according to Amelung, in the first century b . c ., according to Sieveking, in the middle of the second century b . c ., and according to Lippold, around 50 b . c . The date of the relief, according to the inscription, is about 125 b . c . The original types of Muses, therefore, must belong to a period shortly before they w ere used on this relief of Archelaos.1’1 The replicas show many variations. Thus, the sculptor of the copy in Dresden, in contrast to the one in the Louvre, has om itted many motifs, particularly the curved 124

THE RIGHT AND WRONG WAYS OF DRAPING THE HIMATION lines which are drawn over the middle of the body. This copyist preferred straight lines which he gave even to the folds coming from the left shoulder, instead of the rich variety of folds as on the Louvre and Uffizi copies. While the lower edge of the mantle is lifted only so that the dancing movement of the right foot would be unhindered, the copyist of the Dresden statue believed that the right hand also drew up the peplos. Therefore, he gave to the lower edge of the peplos a fantastic curve behind which the straight vertical folds of the peplos continue. The right hand indeed grasps not only the mass of mantle folds, but also a group of folds which seem to belong to the peplos. I believe that the Dresden replica with her simplified lines belongs to the Trajanic period. The Tegel replica also has this fantastic curve of the lower edge of the peplos on the outside of the right foot, but not the group of peplos folds under the right hand. I believe that this replica belongs to the Hadrianic period. It has a delicate and polished surface. (Wilhelm von Humboldt has praised its beauty in a sonnet.™) The sculptors of the small replicas, like the statuette in the pergola of Lorentius Tiburtinus in Pompeii,"1dated to the first century a .d . before the destruction of Pompeii, simplify the original richness even more than the Dresden replica. In the replica from Kos in Vienna, the distinction between the heavy peplos and the thin mantle is absolutely lost. " The same deep, broad, straight folds or only slightly curved folds are engraved on the peplos as well as on the mantle. This copy probably belongs to the third century a .d . A late Roman adaptation of Terpsichore is the statuette of a nymph in a black mantle in Munich.'234Although the head and arms are restored, she certainly carried an urn and lifted her mantle in order to step down to the water. This charming movement obviously appealed to the copyists of the Roman period. The great differences among the copies make it difficult to date the original exactly, except that it was a Hellenistic creation. A full set of the 20 replicas in casts or photographs would probably teach us much about the history of copying. We would learn that we must not draw conclusions from any copy as to the style of the Greek originals, but must distinguish between originals, exact copies, and inexact copies.

Footnotes to Chapter 10

1. L. Heuzey, Hist, costume antique , pp. 85-113, figs. 45-48; M. Bieber, Griech. Kleidung, pp. 21-24, 54-77, 80-84; pis. XXIII-XLII, LI-LVIII; J. Répond, Les sécrets de la draperie antique , de Vhimation gree au pallium remain (Paris 1931). This book by Répond is richly illustrated with 130 figures, but is quite unscientific. The author was a captain of the Swiss guard in the Vatican. He knew very little about the history of art, and he recognized only seven variations for the draping of the Greek mantle [see the review by M. Bieber in Gnomon 10(19.34), pp. 57-58]. 2. M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, p. 15, fig. 20a; for the loom, see p. .3, figs. 5-6 (the loom of Penelope on the vase in Cologne, and the loom of Kirke on the vase found in the Kabirion). 3. L. Heuzey, Hist.costume antique, pp. 96-97, pi. II; M. Bieber, Greich.Kleidung. pp. 21, 23-24, 73, pl.XXXIX, figs. 1-2; H.L. Lorimer, Homer and the Monuments (London 1950), pp. 372-373, pi. XXX, 1; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 21; G. Dickins, Catalogue o f the Acropolis Museum, I, p. 275, No. 1342 (the charioteer). 4. W. Riezler, Weissgrundige attische Lekythen (Munich 1914), pp. 89-90, pi. I, pp. 97-98, pi. 15. For the hydria in the Metropolitan Museum (Fig. 511), attributed to the Ptoon Painter, see D. von Bothmer, Attic Black-

THE RIGHT AND WRONG WAYS OF DRAPING THE HIMATION figured Amphorae, Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, U.S.A., Fase. 12; Metropolitan Museum o f Art, Fase. 3 (1963),

pis. 38-44,46-47. 5. A. Michaelis, Der Parthenon (Leipzig 1870-1871), p. 243, pi. 12, Slab V-VI; A.H. Smith, The Sculpture o f the Parthenon, p. 56, fig. 106, pi. 42; M. Collignon, Le Parthenon (Paris 1914), pp. 181-182, figs. 71-72 (our Fig. 517); M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung p. 77, pi. XLII, fig. 4 (our Fig. 516); L. Heuzey, Hist.Costume antique, pp. 89-90, figs. 46-47. The selvage often visible at the side edges proves the realistic rendering of the actual clothing despite the idealistic style. 6. Leningrad: O. Waldhauer, Die antiken Skulpturen der Ermitage, No. 3, pi. 3; A. Furtwängler, Meisterwerke, pp. 366-370, fig. 50; idem. Masterpieces, pp. 186,188-190, fig. 79. Berlin: C. Blümel, Berlin.Kat.V.Röm.Kopien, p. 8, K 132, pi. 15 (our Figs. 523-524); M. Bieber, Entwicklungsgeschichte2, pp. 32-33, pi. 16, fig. 2; R. Kekulé, Beschreibung ant.Skulpt., pp. 123-124, No. 290. Palazzo Altemps: Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 2368 (our Fig. 525). Capitoline Museum: H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Pal.Con., p. 231, No. 7, pi. 90 and p. 239, No. 46, pi. 95; D. Mustilli, Mus.Mussol., pp. 25-26, No. 20, pi. XX, fig. 71 and pp. 82-83, No. 3, pi. L, fig. 202 (our Figs. 522,526). Cassel: M. Bieber, Cassel, p. 16, No. 14, pi. XXII; eadem, “Asklepios: A Bronze Statuette in Cincinnati and its Place in the Development of the Asklepios Types,” ProcPhilSoc 101 (1957), pp. 77-78, fig. 13. Dresden: supra, Chapter V, note 24; also M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, p. 74, pi. XL, figs.2-3. Museo Nazionale delle Terme: G. Annibaldi, “Roma-Scoperta,” NSc 13 (1935), p. 81, No. 6, fig. 5. 7. Berlin: R. Kekulé, Beschreibung ant.Skulpt., pp. 189-190, No. 488; M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, pp. 83-84, pi. LVII, figs. 1-2. For replicas in the British Museum, see A.H. Smith, Catalogue Sculpt.Brit.Mus., Ill, No. 2020; in the Louvre, see W. Fröhner, Sculpt.ant.Louvre', No. 176; in the Palazzo Spada, Rome, see Helbig-Speier, Führer1, II, p. 777, No. 2020; F. Matz and F. von Duhn, Antike Bildwerke in Rom, I, No. 149; and in the Hermitage, see O. Waldhauer, op.cit, II, No. 196, pi. 49, and W. Klein, Rokoko, p. 135, fig. 59, and p. 186, note 169 (a list of replicas). 8. M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, p. 84, pi. LVII, fig. 3, pi. LVIII, fig. 1. Although modeled after the boy in Berlin, the result resembles the Classical Parthenon frieze more than the Hellenistic statue (cf. Fig. 516, for the side view of the frieze figure). The material used for the himation was Chinese silk from Shantung. 9. L. Heuzey, Hist.Costume antique, pp. 100-101, figs. 53-56; M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, pp. 76-77, pi. XLII, fig. 2, p. 84, pi. LVIII, figs. 2-3. The material used for the model’s himation was a rectangle (2 by 3 meters) of heavy cashmir wool, dyed purple. 10. G.M.A. Richter, Bronzes, Met.Mus., pp. 70-74, No. 120; eadem. Handbook Gk.Coll.,Met.Mus., pp. 124-125, pi. 103a; eadem. The Portraits o f the Greeks, II, p. 199, fig. 1220 (tentatively identifies this statuette as Epikouros); M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age1, p. 68, figs. 230-231; R. Delbrueck, Antike Porträts (Bonn 1912), pp. XXXVIII-XXXIX, No. 26, figs. 13 a, b, pi. 26; K. Schefold, Bildnisse, pp. 124-125, fig. 4. 11. L. Heuzey, Hist.Costume antique, pp. 116-141, figs. 59-71, pi. Ill; M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, pp. 22-23, fig. 24, pp. 69-72, pis. XXXV-XXXVIII, p. 83, pis. LV-LVI. 12. L. Heuzey, op.cit., pp. 212-217, figs. 109-122; M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, p. 78, pi. XLIV, fig. 3. 13. M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, pp. 64-66, pi. XXIX, fig. 4 (Vibia Sabina), pi. XXX (Herculaneum women), pi. XXXI, fig. 1 (Tanagra figurine), pi. XXXI, figs. 2-3 (“Aspasia”), for models of himation as head covering, see pp. 81-82 below, pi. LII, figs. 3-4, also see Chapter XII, “The Copies of the Herculaneum Women” (which first appeared as an article in ProcPhilSoc 106 (1962), pp. 111-134; G. Kleiner, “Tanagrafiguren,” Jdl, ErgänzungsheftXV (1942), pis. I, V-VI, IX, XI, XVII, XIX, XXI, XXIV-XXV, XXVII, XXX-XXXI, XXXIII-XXXV, XXXVII, XLI, XLIII, XLV passim. 14. Helbig-Speier, Führer \ I, p. 149, No. 206 (Inv. 813); W. Amelung, Sculpt, vat. Mus., II, pp. 673-676, Gabinetto delle Maschere No. 425, pi. 75, fig. 2; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 252; Goethe, Italienische Reise (Weimar Ed., Voi. XXXII, 1788), pp. 328-329; M. Wegner, Goethes Anschauung antiker Kunst (Berlin 1949), pp. 49, fig. 20; M. Bieber, Cassel, p. 61. 15. W. Amelung, Führer Florenz, pp. 114-117, No. 173; G. Mansuelli, Uffizi Scult., I, pp. 130-131, No. and fig. 94; M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung pp. 57-58, pi. XXV, fig. 1; Arndt-Amelung, E.A., Nos. 364-365. 16. A.H. Smith, Cat.Sculpt.Brit.Mus., II, pp. 174-176, No. 1206, pi. XXIII; M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung p. 58, pi. XXV, 2; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 52. For similar studies of men preparing to drape the himation, see L. Heuzey, Hist, costume antique, pp. 97-99, figs. 49-59, taken from vasepaintings.

THE RIGHT AND WRONG WAYS OF DRAPING THE HIMATION 17. Helbig-Amelung, F ü h r e r II, p. 454 No. 1922 (Inv. 749); Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 255; Arndt-Amelung, E.A., Nos. 115-116 (head); II. Schrader, Phidias, pp. 49-56, figs. 21-24, 26, 28-30, pp. 77, 79, figs. 62, 65. For Persephone (Kore) on the Eleusinian relief, see supra. Chapter IV, Fig. 36, note 12. 18. Agrippina; Helbig-Speier, Führer1, I, p. 752, No. 1043 (Inv. 9959); Benndorf-Schöne, Bildwerke Lat.Mus., pp. 127-128, No. 207; A. Hekler, “Gewandstatuen,” pp. 151, 239, fig. 12; J.J, Bernoulli, Röm.Ikon., II, 1, pp. 183-184, 376, No. 10, pi. XIX; R. West, Röm. Porträtplastik, I, p. 199, pi. LII, fig. 229; A. Giuliano, Catalogo dei Ritratti Romani del Museo Profano Lateranense (Monumenti Vaticani di Archeologia e d’Arte 10) (Vatican 1957), p. 23, No. 24; Julia: Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, p. 342, No. 447 (Inv. 2225); W. Amelung, Sculpt.vat.Mus., I, pp. 134-136, Braccio Nuovo No. 111, pi. 18; J.J. Bernoulli, op.cit., II, 2, pp. 45-46, pi. XV; R. West, op.cit., II, pp. 30-31, pi. VIII, fig. 22; Julia Mainaea: J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt,Louvre, pp. 175-176, No. and fig. 1075; E. Coche, Sculpt.Musée Louvre, p. 68, No. 1075. Originally in the Borghese Collection, Rome. 19. Vestal Virgin in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme; Helbig-Speier, Führer', III, p. 220, No. 2303 (Inv. 639); S. Aurigemma, Mus.Naz.Romd, No. 312; B.M. Felletti-Maj, Ritratti, No. 214; M. Bieber, in Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 3218. Vestal Virgin in Atrium Vestae: M. Bieber in Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 3224-3225. Fragment of a Vestal Virgin in the same place: M. Bieher in Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 3230. On the Atrium Vestae, see E. Nash, Bildlexikon, I, pp. 154-159, figs. 167-171. 20. Louvre: J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, pp. 31-33, No. and fig. 464; W. Fröhner, Sculpt.ant.Louvre', pp. 144-146, No. 114; E. Michon, Cat.Sommaire, p. 27, No. 464, pi. XII; A. Furtwängler, Meisterwerke, pp. 303-311, figs. 41-42; idem. Masterpieces, pp. 141-146, figs. 58-59; G. Lippold, Gr.Plastik, p. 173, pi. 62, fig. 3; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 68. Museo Nuovo (formerly in the Museo Comunale): Helbig-Speier, Führer*, II, pp. 546-547, No. 1773 (Inv. 1902); D. Mustilli, Mus.MussoL, p. 120, No. 8, pi. 77, fig. 292; Arndt-Amelung, E.A., Nos. 4858 and 4922; T. Dohrn, Attische Plastik (Krefeld 1957), pp. 62-63. 21. Vatican: Helbig-Speier, Führer',· I, pp. 343-344, No. 499 (Inv. 2223); W. Amelung, Sculpt.vat.Mus., I, pp. 138-143, Braccio Nuovo No. 114, pi. 18; A. Furtwängler, Meisterwerke, pp. 593-595; idem, Masterpieces, pp. 359, 361-363, fig. 157; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 200; M. Wegner, op.cit., supra note 14, p. 48, fig. 13; M. Bieber, Cassel, pp. 14-15. Palazzo Torlonia: E.Q. Visconti, Mon.Sculpt.Mus.Torlonia, No. 298. Capitoline Museum: Helbig-Speier, Führer', II, pp. 98-99, No. 1246 (Inv. 278); H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Mus.Capitol., pp. 103-105, No. 29, pi. 20. 22. G.E. Rizzo, Prassitele, passim. 23. L. Heuzey, Hist.Costunw antique, pp. 218-219, figs. 114-115; M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, pp. 80-81, pis. LI-LII. 24. L. Heuzey, op.cit., pp. 221-224, figs. 116-118 (statues and model in the manner of Tanagra figurines); M. Bieber, op.cit., pp. 62-66, pis. XXVIII-XXXI (various statues), pp. 81-82, pi. LII, figs. 3-4, pi. LIII, figs. 1-3 (various models). See below, Chapter XII for Herculaneum Women with mantle over both shoulders. See supra. Figs. 529-530, notes 7-9 for male statues with mantle over both shoulders. 25. Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, p. 53, No. 68 (Inv. 287); G. Lippold, Skulpt.vat.Mus., Ill, L pp· 40-42, Sala delle Muse No. 508, pi. 4 (here incorrectly numbered 503), pi. 6; H. Bulle, Schöne Mensch, cols. 282-283, pi. 133. 26. Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, p. 50, No. 63 (Inv. 295); G. Lippold, Skulpt.vat.Mus., Ill, 1, pp. 27-30, Sala delle Muse No. 503, pi. 4 (here incorrectly numbered 508, pi. 5); M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, p. 48, pi. XVI, fig. 2; eadem, Entwicklungsgeschichte2, p. 35, pi. 34. 27. M. Bieber, Entwicklungsgeschichte', p. 35, pl. 54, fig. 1. 28. S.F. Noe, “The Alexander Coinage of Sicyon,’’ ANSNS 6 (1950), p. 17, No. 27, 1-2, pl. Vili. I owe this information to the kindness of Margaret Thompson and Nancy Waggoner. 29. Helbig-Speier, Führer', II, p. 122, No. 1268 (Inv. 738); H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Mus.Capitol., p. 349, Sala del Gladiatore No. 9, pl. 87; W. Klein, Rokoko, p. 100, fig. 42; M. Bieber, “Der Wert von Trachtstudien für die Beurteilung römischer Kopien,” FuE 6 (1930), pp. 157-159, figs. 1-2. 30. D. Mustilli, Mus.MussoL, pp. 165-166, No. 15, pl. LIX, fig. 415 as well as p. 167 for a list of replicas. 31. M. Bieber, “Späthellenistische Frauenstatuen aus Kos,” Antike Plastik Festschrift Amelung, pp. 18-19, note 3 (a list of replicas). 32. A.H. Smith, Cat.Sculpt.Brit.Mus., Ill, pp. 244-245, No. 2191, fig. 30; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pl. 50; M. Bieber,

127

THE RIGHT AND WRONG WAYS OF DRAPING THE HIMATION

33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

38.

39. 40.

4L 42.

Sculpt.Helien.Agez, pp. 127-128, fig. 97; G.M.A. Richter, Sculpture and Sculptors \ p. 234, fig. 828; C. Watzinger, “Das Relief des Archelaos von Priene,” Berl.Winck.-Progr. 63 (1903), pi. I; D. Pinkwart, “Das Relief des Archelaos von Priene,” Antike Plastik 4 (1965), pp. 55-56, pis. 28-35. A. Michaelis, Anc.Marbles, p. 349, No. 37; B. Ashmole, A Catalogue o f the A ncient Marbles at lnce Blundell Hall (Oxford 1929), p. 37, pi. 23; S. Reinach, Rep.stat, I, p. 436, pi. 750, No. 1828. Louvre; S. Reinach, op.cit,, I, p. 164, pi. 324, No. 1834 (Nymphe No. 73). Tegel: Arndt-Amelung, E.A., Nos. 2980-2981 (the head, neck, both arms, and the base are said to have been added by Thorwaldsen). W. Amelung, Führer Florenz, p. 112, No. 170; G. Mansuelli, Uffizi Scult., I, pp. 131-132, No. and fig. 95 (Inv. 303). P. Herrmann, Verzeichnis, p. 69, No. 319. G. Mendel, Mus.ottomans,Cat.Sculpt., I (Constantinople 1912), pp. 326-327, No. 119 (2007); K.A. Neugebauer in T. Wiegand, ed., Milet: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899 (Berlin 1906-1928), I, part 9 (Die Skulpturen aus den Faustina-Thermen zu Milet), pp. 107-108, pi. XXX; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Helien.Age,2p. 128, fig. 498; G. Lippold, Gr.Plastik, p. 334, pl. 120, fig. 4. There are traces of differently colored borders on the peplos and mantle. Here, Terpsichore also dances on rocky ground. For the lists of replicas, see supra, notes 30-31. W. Amelung, Die Basis des Praxiteles aus Mantinea, p. 79; idem, in Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 1150, (the replica in Palazzo Colonna); J. Sieveking, “Das Relief des Archelaos von Priene,” Röm M itt 32 (1917), pp. 74-79 (Mingazzini in E.A., No. 2802 follows Sieveking); G. Lippold, “Musengruppen,” RömM itt 33 (1918), pp. 77-82; idem, Gr.Plastik, pp. 333-334. Lippold assumes that the originals were in bronze and not by Philiskos, whom he dates to the period around 50 b .c . See also D. Pinkwart, Das R elief des Archelaos von Priene und die ‘Musen des Philiskos’ (Kallmünz 1965); M. Schede, “Zu Philiskos Archelaos und den Musen,” RömM itt 35 (1920), p p . 65-82. The author follows Schede in dating the relief to about 125 b .c . W. von Humboldt, Gesammelte Werke III (Berlin 1943), p. 400, XXX. Poem 17, ‘Die Nymphe.’ D. Mustilli, “Nuova Copia della statua di Polymnia,” Bull Comm 56 (1928), p. 174, fig. 1; A. Ippel, Pompeji, p. 112, fig. 105; A. Maiuri, La Casa di Loreio Tiburtino e la villa di Diomede in Pompei (Rome 1947), figs, on pp. 5, 6,8, and pl. III. M. Bieber, op.cit., supra note 31, pp. 18-19, fig. 4. Vienna Mus. No. 438. Furtwängler-Wolters, Glypt.München2, p. 401, No. 459; A. Furtwängler, Einhundert Tafeln, pl. 97.

128

11 ROMAN MEN IN GREEK HIMATION (R O M A N I P A L L I A T I ) AND THEIR FEMALE COUNTERPARTS 1. THE PROBLEM Draped statues of Roman women in Greek types have often been investigated, and lists of replicas have been compiled for several of them, such as the Pudicitia. There is, however, one male Hellenistic Greek type which was copied with greater frequency in Roman statues than any of the female counterparts. Until now, this type has not been treated fully as a unique and definite series of copies, but only in a limited way with respect to time and content. Joseph Strygowski, Charles Morey, and Marion Lawrence refer to such replicas as the Sophokles type.1 The latter two have treated this type only in relation to the Sidamara sarcophagi, classifying it as No. 1 and listing No. 17 as a variation. Ernst Buschor has called it the Aischines type.2 Friedrich Goethert and Robert W est identified the mantle as the toga exigua.3 Others, including West, preferred to see the men wrapped in the mantle as depicting philosophers or orators. In the light of the available evidence, these interpretations appear neither adequate nor

ROMAN MEN IN GREEK HIMATION AND THEIR FEM ALE COUNTERPARTS comprehensible. Figures of men wearing the pallium, copied again and again by the Romans, did not represent the Sophokles or Aischines types. Nor was the m antle a toga exigua. Nor were all the men garbed in such clothes philosophers or orators. Nor w ere such artistic representations confined to sarcophagi made since the second century a . d . Rather, this distinct art form had a long and continuous history which spanned more than six centuries. Transposed from Greek to Roman culture during the Hellenistic period, it persisted right up into the early Christian era.

2. THE GREEK M ODEL The statues of Sophokles (Fig. 581) and Aischines (Fig. 582) are distinguished by a proud and self-sufficient attitude. It is expressed particularly by the left hand placed on the hip and the right hand laid before the breast. Both statues were created about 340 to 330 b .c . T hey are thus art forms of the late Classical period. The statue of Sophokles was not created during his lifetime. Rather, it was erected in the Theater of Lykurgus at Athens as an ideal conception of how Sophokles must have looked 100 years earlier. He is represented as the ideal of a man w ho is both handsome and good. In contrast, Aischines is represented in a contemporary statue, probably made at the height of his career as a partisan of Philip and Alexander of M acedon. H e strikes a pose w hich borders on conceit. While the right hand of Sophokles is laid loosely and relaxed on the right side of his chest, the right hand of Aischines hangs stiffly in the middle of his chest. The tw o statues have quite different characters, and w e never find exact repetitions in any Classical creations. N either the Sophokles nor the Aischines statue is the direct model for the main Roman type. While the Hellenistic Greeks and the Romans adopted the general Classical models, they failed to maintain the ideal art of the Classical period. They kept only the outward form, but the content was altered. They used the Classical prototypes for w holly different purposes, expressing new ideas and breathing new meanings into their artistic creations. This can best be illustrated by the Youth of Eretria (Fig. 583).4 Its artist has reshaped the Aischines type in the H ellenistic style. Like its predecessors Sophokles and Aischines, the Youth of Eretria has the right arm in a sort of sling made by the upper edge of the mantle. The hand grasps the folds running down from the left shoulder. The left arm—in contrast to the Classical type—is hanging at the side and the hand is gathering up some of the lower folds of the mantle. The date of the statue can be deduced from the similar torso of Dioskurides, a magistrate on the island of D elos (Fig. 584).5 An inscription dates him to 138 b .c . Along with this torso was found the torso of his w ife Kleopatra. She is represented in the type called Pudicitia, personifying m odesty through a restrained attitude, which resembles the pose of her husband and the Youth of Eretria. This fem ale type has the mantle wrapped tightly about the body—much more so than the Sophokles and Aischines statues—giving the figure a closed form and modest attitude in contrast to the proud one of the Classical statues.

130

ROMAN MEN IN GREEK HIMATION AND THEIR FEMALE COUNTERPARTS

3. REPLICAS ON GREEK FUNERARY STELAE OF THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS The Eretria type has been repeated on more than a hundred H ellenistic and Roman funerary stelae. About 80 or more were made in Attica.” About three dozen examples found in Asia Minor are now in Istanbul.7 They seem to have been made from the beginning of the second century b . c . and to have continued without interruption into the Roman period. Most of the replicas com ing from Attica belong to the Roman period, while the eastern stelae are mostly from the H ellenistic period. The stele of Menander, for example, now in the Bibliothèque Nationale, belongs to the second century b . c . (Fig. 587). At the same time, w e find the Pudicitia type used in the same way. The stelae of Menophila, daughter of Artemidoros of Ephesos, and of Kornelia, daughter of Leukios, both showing the deceased in the type of Pudicitia (Figs. 586, 588), are contemporary with the one of Menander. An example dating from the first century b . c ., from Panderma and now in Istanbul, shows Meidias in the Eretria type as a votary at the altar of Zeus (Fig. 585).8

4. FABULA PALLIATA The Hellenistic New Comedy depicted the oldest youth (Fig. 589) in the same pose and draping as the Eretria youth, and sometimes the father in a similar pose but w ith the hand higher up and with the head veiled.’' The terracotta statuette in the National Museum in Athens (Fig. 590) testifies that this draping and attitude was taken from daily life just as the subject matter of N ew Comedy was a mirror of Athenian life. The Roman comedy adopted the characters and situations of Greek N ew Comedy along with the Greek outdoor dress, the himation. The Latin name for this mantle is pallium and therefore, the Latin comedy is named fabu la palliata. Plautus used the “man in the pallium” (palliatus) to represent his Greek characters. In line 288 of his Curculio, produced in Rome shortly after 194 b . c ., Plautus used the phrase Graeci palliati.'" The tradition of wearing the pallium in comedy persisted for many years. The manuscripts of Terence, in the Vatican and in the Bibliothèque Nationale, show Lucius Ambivius Turpio dressed in a pallium while speaking the prologues of the Heautontimorumenos (The Self-Tormentor) and the Hecyra (The Mother-in-Law). In my opinion, this constitutes evidence that the reliability of the manuscripts is excellent and that the original for the manuscripts may be of an earlier period than is now generally assumed.11 Thus, the type representing a man draped tightly in his him ation certainly came to Italy during the Hellenistic period. Plautus, while alluding to the palliati in rather derisive and mocking tones, acknowledges at the same time that they are familiar persons in the streets of Rome. Even Cato, originally an enemy of Greek achievem ents, becam e imbued with them, learned Greek and assumed the pallium, as Tertullian tells us (De Pallio, III, 7): . . . hoc pallium etsi Graecum magis, sed lingua iam Latinum est. Cum voce vestis

ROMAN MEN IN GREEK HIMATION AND THEIR FEM ALE COUNTERPARTS intravit. A tque adeo ipse Graecos praeter urbem censebat, litterarum eorum vocem que senex iam eruditus, idem Cato iuridicinae suae in tempore hum erum exertus, haud m inus palliato habitus Graecis favit. Although the pallium is more Greek, it is almost Latin. W ith the w ord cam e the dress. Even the old Cato, who censored the Greeks, studied their literature and language and favored the Greek pallium. The Etruscans had taken over the Greek types before the Romans had, as E m eline Richardson has shown in her study of Etruscan bronzes, and Larissa W arren w ill show in her book on Etruscan dress.12 An example is the bronze statuette of a boy, about tw elve years old, in the Art Museum of Princeton University (Figs. 591-594)." Richardson believes the latter to be Hellenistic-Roman, while George Hanfmann, who describes it rightly as “transition from late Etruscan to early Roman,” prefers to classify it as Hellenistic-Etruscan. T he left arm is brought back further than in the earlier Greek and later Roman examples.

5. PALLIATI AND PUDICITIAE ON FUNERARY STELAE AND IN STATUARY GROUPS The type of man tightly wrapped in a pallium appears frequently on Roman Republican and early imperial tomb reliefs. Vessberg has collected a number of these, but many others also exist." Roman stelae represent old and young men alike who have the draping and the pose of the palliatus. Sometimes the men wear the toga, but it is draped and the arms are held in the same manner as the palliati. Many examples were found on the Via Appia. H ow ever, most of the men on the tomb reliefs actually wear the pallium. A number of exam ples are on display in the outer courtyard of the Museo Nazionale delle Terme (Figs. 5 9 5 -5 9 7 ),15 w hile many also are found in the districts outside of Rome. As already noted, some of these show men in the toga, w hich is arranged in imitation of the pallium. Examples of the palliatus include the full figures on the tom b relief in the Museo Campana in Capua (Fig. 598) and the busts on tom b reliefs in A vellino (Fig. 599), Treviso (Figs. 600-601), Ascoli Piceno (Fig. 602), and Trieste (Fig. 603). Others also are built into the campanile of the Cathedral at B enevento.Ie Fem ales often appear w ith the men, but the Pudicitia type shows up only rarely on tomb reliefs, as in the Villa Borghese (Fig. 604), in the Museo Nuovo (Fig. 605),17 in Naples (Fig. 606), and in B enevento (Fig. 607). Perhaps the latest example of Pudicitia is an early Augustan relief in Aquila. She is surrounded by five men, all in the same type of the palliatus.18 The Pudicitia was probably too com plicated for the hum ble artists working on tomb reliefs. The Pudicitia type so used gives w ay gradually to other Greek types, especially the two women from Herculaneum (see Chapter XII) and free variations of other Greek types, as for example the palliata (see below). The tomb relief of the Furii family in the Lateran Museum, dated around 30 b . c ., affords an example of the trend that already was developing during the early Augustan period (Fig. 608).19 The two men are presented in the familiar pose of the palliatus. But the three w om en, w ith hair knots over their foreheads, in imitation of the hairstyles worn by O ctavia and Livia, have freer and more diversified poses than the men. Similarly, the tomb relief found outside of Porta M aggiore

ROMAN MEN IN GREEK HIMATION AND THEIR FEMALE COUNTERPARTS (Fig. 609),20 which probably depicts the baker Eurysaces, pictures the wife drawing up her dress with her right hand which is inside the mantle, a motif reminiscent of the so-called Livia, or rather Julia, on the Ara Pacis (Fig. 792.) However, the man maintains the severe unchanged attitude of the palliatus, though the mantle may be the toga. Again, a tomb relief in Trieste (Fig. 610)21 has the wife turning to embrace her husband, who, clothed in the pallium, stands stiffly in a frontal position. On several of these stelae the women imitate the position of the right hand of their husbands (cf. Figs. 600, 601, 603). There are also statues and statuettes of this palliata type. One was foimd by G.M. A. Hanfmann in Sardis along with the torso of a palliatus. Another comes from Palmyra (Fig. 611), while a bronze statuette in the private Collection of Henry Seyrig (Fig. 614) provides a third good example.22 The two types of palliatus and Pudicitia are used together in statuary groups. One good example is the set of portrait statues from Magnesia which belongs to the late Republic. One of the statues is an over life-size torso of a palliatus, with a cavity for the head, supposedly of Lucius Valerius Flaccus, who was a hypatos or proconsul of the province of Asia in 62 b . c . Together with this palliatus, and represented in the same size, were statues of his wife Baebia (Figs. 612-613) and his daughter-in-law Saufeia (Fig. 615), the wife of his son Lucius Valerius Leukios.23 Both statues display variations of the Pudicitia type with the difference that Baebia supports the left and Saufeia the right elbow with the other hand. Both variations were also used for other Roman statues, most of them in the attitude of Saufeia. Examples are another statue from Magnesia (Fig. 616), a newly found statue from Aphrodisias (Fig. 617), another statue from Aphrodisias (Fig. 618), a statue in the Louvre (Fig. 619), and one in the Vatican.21 The artists of the imperial period used this type particularly for statues of older women, as for example the tomb statue on the Via delle Tombe in Pompeii (Fig. 620).25 A headless statue found in Apollonia in Cyrene is probably of late Flavian workmanship and certainly had a portrait head, which has been broken off (Fig. 621).2,i An adaptation of the Pudicitia type is used for the statue found in Ostia (Fig. 622).27 The Antonine hairdo of the portrait head dates it to this period. It can hardly be as late as the time of Constantine the Great, although Raissa Calza tentatively identified it as Fausta, the wife of Constantine. The statue type of Pudicitia continued to be used at least into the second century a .d . The name Pudicitia, which means Modesty, appears on coins minted by the emperor Hadrian. On the obverse appears the bust of Hadrian’s wife Sabina, still with the Trajanic hairstyle characteristic of her early years as empress. The inscription reads SABINA AVGVSTA. The reverse bears the personification of Modesty in the type used for statues; the inscription reads PVDICITIA (Fig. 623). In the period of the Severi, this standing type was supplanted by a seated Pudicitia. On coins of Julia Maesa, we have on the obverse her portrait bust inscribed IVLIA MAESA AVG. The reverse shows the personification of Modesty seated, spreading out her veil with her right hand. The inscription again names her PVDICITIA (Fig. 624).2S It is interesting to note that the type of Pudicitia apparently was not used in Athens, while it appears in Asia Minor as well as in Rome and in many cities of Italy.

ROMAN MEN IN GREEK HIMATION A N D THEIR FEM ALE COUNTERPARTS

6. ROMAN STATUES OF PALLIATI Besides many tomb reliefs, there are also many statues of the palliatus. There are nine examples from Rome collected in the Museo N azionale delle T erm e.20 One torso is in the Vatican.30 Others can be seen in the Museo N uovo,31 on the Largo Argentina near the Republican temples, and on the viale leading from the Spanish steps to the Pincio. There are tw o such statues in the Villa Celimontana, one dated about 100 b . c . and the other to the period betw een 80 and 50 B . c .32 Another is in the courtyard of the Palazzo Rospigliosi, dated about 50 b . c .,33 w hile another is in a private collection at Rome.31 The Museo C ivico of Chiusi has four statues, belonging to the second half of the first century b . c .33 Four statues are in C openhagen, tw o of w hich are products of the early part of the first century b . c . , while the rem aining tw o are of the period betw een 70 and 40 b . c .36 A statue in the Louvre dates from the tim e of Caesar.37 To the Claudian period belong a statue in Avignon (Fig. 625) and another in Rome in the Palazzo D oria-Pam phili (Fig. 626). Torsos with cavities in which portrait heads w ere to be inserted are located in the Garden of the Chiostro di M ichelangelo of the Museo Nazionale delle T erm e.33 T w o statues are in the upper court of the Naples Museum, also without heads. They have boxes for books next to the left legs. From Alexandria probably comes the statue of Julianus, now in the E gyptian Museum of the Vatican (Fig. 627).39 This statue, carved in the Claudian period, holds a scroll in his left hand. It bears the inscription EIOLYIANOS, the Greek form for Julianus. Another statue, carved in basalt, was found in Erment, south of Luxur, and is now in Cairo. It has been w rongly labeled “a person in a toga.”40 All these statues wear w ide mantles w ith many folds. There can be no doubt that this m antle is the pallium and not the toga. W hile the garment worn by Aulus M etellus, the “Arringatore,” has the rounded Roman Republican form of the toga exigua (an elongated half-ellipse with only two comers), the examples enumerated above have the square Greek shape w ith four corners.41 The emperor Augustus prescribed the use of the toga for public appearances of the im perial family and of officers in high positions. But the decree was not always follow ed. Thus, in the early second century a .d . Trajan would wear the pallium, as is indicated by a statue found above T ivoli. It is now in Wannsee, near Berlin, in the possession of Hugo V ogel.42 The Greek letters betw een the feet indicate the work of a Greek artist. To the same period probably belongs the statue of a man with a modern head, the so-called Marius, in the C apitoline M useum (Fig. 628).43 A box containing scrolls stands behind his left foot. The philhellenic em peror Hadrian, or perhaps one of his priests, is shown wearing a pallium in a statue from C yrene, now in the British M useum (Fig. 629).44 The left hand, w hich holds a sprig, is not correctly restored; the original hand probably held a scroll. The treatment of the drapery, particularly as seen from the side, is typically Hadrianic. The costume looks pleasant, but there is no sharp, clear-cut division b etw een the folds running from both the inside and the outside of the arm. Similar in style and probably of the sam e period is the statue of an imperial priest wearing a diadem decorated w ith small busts, from Kyzikos in Istanbul (Fig. 630).45 A statue in Cairo portraying a lean man w ith curly hair may belong to the late Hadrianic or early Antonine period.46 134

ROMAN MEN IN GREEK HIMATION AND THEIR FEMALE COUNTERPARTS A palliatus found in Anapis, a small town on the north coast of the Black Sea, shows a bearded man with a torque around his neck.17 The inscription testifies that he is Neokles, the son of Herodoros, and that he was ruling in Georgippias as an archon or prefect in 187 a . d . Also to the second century and probably the Antonine period belong the six torsos of palliati from the Athenian Agora, of whom five have cavities for inserting portrait heads (Figs. 631-636, 638).48 Interestingly, the folds on the fronts agree with each other, but those on the sides and backs are arranged differently (cf. Figs. 632, 635, 636). This shows that only the fronts were copied exactly, probably with the help of the pointing process and casts. In many cases, the artists worked out the sides and backs more or less arbitrarily. This evidence suggests that Greek copyists did not use casts of the whole statue as has been assumed by G.M.A. Richter.49 Two of these statues, as w ell as two very fragmentary torsos (Fig. 637), have a bookcase beside the left foot. Two statues in the Louvre are thought to represent Julian the Apostate, the renegade, who was proclaimed emperor in Lutetia (Paris) in 360 a . d . (Figs. 639-640).5(1It has also been suggested that both works represent priests and belong to the beginning of the third century a . d .51 I believe, however, that the style of the second statue is of a later period than that shown in our Fig. 639. At the same time, both statues, which I believe are of Julian, are important examples of the Classical revival which, under the leadership of the old Roman nobility, symbolized a return to pagan religion and Graeco-Roman art forms.52 The execution is less baroque than it is on statues of the Antonine period: it is dry, but exact. The arrangement at the left side of the statue of Julian is much better and more exact than that of the Hadrianic statues (Figs. 629-630). The ends of the himation are clearly separated from each other. The two lower corners, marked by tassels, appear one above the other. The one originally in the rear hangs higher than that originally in the front, because the folds running from the back are laid over the left wrist. One of the upper corners hangs down from the left shoulder in the back. The other upper corner, coming down in front from the same shoulder, is covered by the bulk of the mantle. Besides these there are only a few full statues of palliati coming from the late Roman period. The best is the well-preserved statue in the National Museum of Bucharest, dated from about 370-380 a .d . by L’Orange.53 The pallium may have been worn infrequently in public life because the toga was favored. Four late statues of palliati have been found in Ostia. Two of them represent the regular type with simple folds.51 The other two are variations, with both hands veiled, feet bare, and a small altar instead of a bookcase at the side.55 The altar and the covered hands suggest that the figures represent priests. The rich folds seem to give the impression of the actual mantles worn in life. The general arrangement, however, reminds one of the conventional type.

7. PALLIATI AND PALLIATAE ON SARCOPHAGI The “Sidamara” sarcophagi show many examples of the palliatus, which Morey called the “Sophokles” type. They first were carved in the second century a . d . and continued to be made into the early fourth. The sarcophagus of Claudia Antonia Sabina58 and a sarcophagus in Ostia (Fig. 641) 37 are two of more than a dozen examples.58 But the same type was also used on many other Roman sarcophagi in full figures of men as well as of boys.59 Busts of the same type were often fitted into round medallions. An example is in the Palazzo

ROMAN MEN IN GREEK HIMATION AND THEIR FEM ALE COUNTERPARTS Colonna (Fig. 642).“ Rounded busts of this type, w ith cavities for portrait heads of the deceased, have been found in great numbers on the island of Thera.61 An early exam ple from about 50 b .c . is in Oslo, while a late one from the fourth century a . d ., found in Chichester, Sussex, is in Princeton.62 On the sarcophagi of the third century, the m edallions w ith such busts are often held by flying Cupids, like the one of Annios Katos in the Lateran Museum (Fig. 643).6! This type was also used for women on many tomb reliefs and sarcophagi. Thus, a sarcophagus in the Capitoline Museum (Fig. 6 4 4 )64 is almost identical w ith that of Annios Katos. It has the same medallion carried by flying Cupids, w ith the same masks below the medallion, the same Oceanus and Tellus in reclining positions, and the same mourning genii of sleep and death at the comers. The portrait, however, is that of a woman in the attitude of the palliatus and with the hairstyle of the third century a . d . The type of the palliata also was used for statues.65 The palliata becom es the counterpart to the palliatus rather late. Its forerunners are Greek figures like the statuette of Persephone found in the sanctuary of Dem eter at Knidos, now in the British M useum.66 This figure was created in the same period as the Sophokles and Aischines, the forerunner of the palliatus. She holds her right hand higher and more to the right than the Eretria type. As noted above, she does not take the place of the Pudicitia type on tomb reliefs before the late Republican or Augustan period. The palliata was rendered in the most diverse ways, in contrast to the palliatus w hich remained the same through the centuries. The palliata also came to be used instead of the Pudicitia for portrait statues, such as those of Livia in the Villa of the Mysteries67 and of Viciria, the w ife of Balbus (Fig. 687).6S An example from about the tim e of Julia Dom na (193 to 217 a . d .) is a bronze statuette found in Syria in the Collection of Henry Seyrig (see supra. Fig. 614).“ Christian sarcophagi, like other pieces of early Christian art, illustrate the attitude and draping of the pallium, together with many other features of the contem porary pagan art. Tertullian, who converted to Christianity in the year 190, could aptly praise the pallium as the dress of the Christians and contrast it w ith the toga (De Pallio, VI).7HN ot only the pallium but also the traditional attitude of the Eretria youth is used for Christians, as on a sarcophagus found on the Via Salaria in Rome and now in Copenhagen, dated to around 300 a . d . (Figs. 645-647).71 The main side shows the deceased in the drapery and attitude of the palliatus, w ith a bundle of books beside him to characterize him as a learned man. On the other side of the central aedicula stands his wife in the attitude and dress of the large Herculaneum w om an (ef. Chapter XII). The position and drapery of the Eretria youth was also used for Christ, as on a sarcophagus found in Salona, carved in the first quarter of the fourth century (Fig. 648). Christ appears as a divine teacher, clad in a pallium and surrounded by many children as w ell as some men in the background (Fig. 651).72 They represent the Christian com m unity. His counterpart is the Virgin Mary (Fig. 649), representing Ecclesia, in a slightly altered version of the large Herculaneum woman. She holds the Christ child on her arm, which may have caused the alteration from the standard type. She also is surrounded by men and children of the Christian com m unity. Christ is also shown in a pallium on the well-known Berlin sarcophagus (Fig. 654),71 as are the Apostle Paul to the left on the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus (Fig. 655) and an A postle to the far right on the five arches sarcophagus in the Church of S. Francesco at Ravenna (Fig. 656). The seven arches sarcophagus in the Palazzo dell’Università in Perugia (Fig. 657) 71 has a figure of a wom an in the attitude and draping of the palliata standing betw een five m en and next to the seated Christ.

ROMAN MEN IN GREEK HIMATION AND THEIR FEMALE COUNTERPARTS The two sarcophagi from the Via Salaria and from Salona both show on one of the small sides the gate of Hades. On the former (Fig. 646), it is decorated with scenes of animal baiting: one hunter fights a lion, the other a boar, certainly a pagan entertainment. On the side of the sarcophagus from Salona (Fig. 652), the door has only four lion heads. The lion has becom e a symbol of death or a purely decorative motif. On the other small sides of both sarcophagi the conventional allegory of death is represented (Figs. 647, 653), which like the pallium, was taken over by the Christians. Thus, the tradition persisted through six centuries from the second century b .c . to the fourth century a .d ., with some earlier and some later sarcophagi being carved over a period of almost a millennium. Social upheavals, political changes, wars for empire, promises of peace, the fall of ancient gods, and the rise of a new religion had no influence on this representation of a man draped in a tightly fitted mantle with a definite attitude of his hands. W hat is the meaning of this conservatism?

8. THE MEANING OF THE ROMAN PALLIATI W hy is the type of palliatus repeated again and again through the centuries, and why is even the female counterpart adapted to the same type in the later period? It has been said that these men were orators, based on a description of rhetors by Quintilian in his De Institutione Oratoria.1'*It, however, has to be read in connection with what precedes and follows it (XI, 3,137-138): Cultus non est proprius oratoris aliquis, sed magis in oratore conspicitur. Quare sit, ut in omnibus honestis debet esse, splendidus et v irilis.. . . Est aliquid in amictu, quod ipsum aliquatenus temporum condicione m utatum est. Nam veteribus nulli sinus, perquam breves post illos fuerunt. Itaque etiam gestu necesse est usos in principiis eos alioquorum brachium, sicut Graecorum, veste continebatur. Sed nos de praesentibus loquimur. W ith regard to dress, there is no special garb peculiar to the orator, but his dress comes more under the public eye than that of other men. It should, therefore, be distinguished and manly, as, indeed, it ought to be with all men of position. . . . There are also details of dress which are altered to some extent by successive changes in fashion. The ancients, for example, wore no folds, and their successors wore them very short. Consequently, it follows that in view of the fact that their arms were, like those of the Greeks, covered by the garment, they must have employed a different form of gesture in the exordium from that which is now in use. However, I am speaking of our own days. Quintilian continues (138-149) with a detailed description of the toga, how to hold it in place, how Cicero wore it long on account of his varicose veins, and so forth. T w ice in these paragraphs Quintilian explicitly compares and contrasts the toga and the pallium: togam rotundam esse et apte caesam velint. (XI, 3, 139) The toga itself should, in my opinion, be round (half-elliptical) and cut to fit. 137

ROMAN MEN IN GREEK HIMATION AND THEIR FEM ALE COUNTERPARTS togam veteres ad calceos usque dem ittebant, u t Graeci Pallium. (XI, 3, 143) The ancients used to let the toga fall to the heels as the Greeks w ere in the habit of doing with their cloak, the pallium. It cannot be doubted that, like Cicero, all Roman orators, being public speakers, had to wear the toga, but that the many Romans discussed above could not all be orators. It has also been said that these men were philosophers or literati, m en of the learned class, because some are shown holding book scrolls or are standing beside a case containing such scrolls. But such a receptacle might also hold documents belonging to a magistrate. The type was certainly used for physicians, as proved by the tomb relief of Clodius Tertius and his father, Aulus Clodius Metrodorus, two physicians from Frascati, now in the Louvre.™ A funerary stele from Crete, now in the British Museum, portrays the physician Aurelius Alexander and is inscribed with his honorary degree.77 Philosophers, although often portrayed holding a scroll, are more often represented seated rather than standing, because they w ere supposed to be teaching. Even Sokrates (in the later conception of Lysippos), Plato, Epikouros, Metrodorus, Hermachos, Chrysippos, and other Greek philosophers are seated in most representations. The same is true of the seven sages on a sarcophagus in the Palazzo Torlonia, on w hich one of the philosophers has a portrait head of the deceased.™ Even Christ is seated w hen represented as a teacher (Figs. 655-657).79 Thus, the modest citizens on the Attic and Roman funerary stelae w ere neither orators nor philosophers. They are bookish people, whom Plautus described and the Romans im itated. Both Greek and Roman figures were often shown having scrolls in their hands or boxes w ith scrolls standing beside them, just as Plautus described the Graeci p alliati. The scrolls tell us that their bearers were educated men, who could be of any profession. The unassuming and restrained draping of so many m ale palliati and eventually of the female palliata expressed piety and modesty both for men and w om en. Therefore, it becam e the prescribed form for funerary, commemorative, and honorary m onum ents. Men sacrificing, pouring libations, or fulfilling other religious duties had always to be fully clothed. The toga, prescribed by Augustus for public appearance, could m eet this requirem ent, but it was obligatory only for members of the imperial house and high officials. For all others, the pallium-himation served just as well. A sarcophagus from Ephesos, now in Istanbul, exemplifies the use of both these sim ple types of the palliatus and palliata for religious purposes (Figs. 6 5 8 -6 5 9 ).SHA w om an in a palla wrapped tightly around her and a palliatus in the same draping stand together before Pluto and Per­ sephone. Hermes had led them there past the three Fates at the other side. Another palliata stands alone before Pluto and Persephone on a cover worked in the Hadrianic period, reused for the later Endymion sarcophagus in the Capitoline Museum (Fig. 660).81 At the right she is seen seated on a couch with her husband, both in everyday dress (Fig. 662). To the left, again in ordinary dress, she and her husband are kneeling before the three Fates, asking for m ercy so that they w ill not be separated (Fig. 661). But when Hermes (Fig. 662) has taken the w ife to the underworld, she stands before Pluto and Persephone near to their altar, fully w rapped in the ritual manner and in a pose of deep reverence (Fig. 661). The dead must approach the gods w ith hum ility and the drapery reflects this attitude. 138

ROMAN MEN IN GREEK HIMATION AND THEIR FEMALE COUNTERPARTS Besides religious reasons, there were two other reasons why this type was retained through Hellenistic, Roman, and early Christian times. The himation was an attractive garment, and the Hellenistic form in which it was represented must have pleased the Romans. W hen using a general model, whether for a Doric column or a statue, the Greeks always changed details in each new undertaking, trying to improve upon the preceding one. In contrast, the Romans, for the most part, adhered to preconceived forms as the Etruscans and Egyptians did before them. It did not matter what was to be represented, whether a tomb relief, a statue or a dress, for it was executed monotonously down to the last detail. The toga had to have its long end hanging betw een the feet, its deeply curved overfold (sinus), and its knot (umbo) before the breast (Fig. 663). Truly, the toga was a uniform in comparison with the Greek dress, with its unending possibilities for draping/2 W hen the Romans chose figures of the Pudicitia or other Greek types for their portrait statues, they repeated them again and again in a very similar way. Thus, w e might surmise that the artistic form of the palliatus must have pleased them, for they kept it through many centuries with only minor variations. Of course, the stylistic execution was different in different periods. Another reason that the pallium was used over such a long period of time was that it had a pleasant appearance not only for art, but for life. W e see it so frequently in art because it was a popular costume for everyday wear. It was applied to portrait statues and funeral monuments with good reason, for it represented the people as they actually were. The himation was much more convenient than the toga, the folds of which had to be arranged in a prescribed manner and were not supposed to be changed even by movement. Although the high officials, senators, and the emperors were supposed to wear the toga in public, even they sometimes neglected the formal attire in favor of the pallium. Scipio Africanus, when in Sicily, discarded his official dress and walked about in pallium and sandals (Livy, XXIX, 19,12). A senator by the name of Rabirius, when in Alexandria, wore the pallium (Cicero, Pro Rabirio, IX, 27). Verres wore a dark tunic and an himation when he supervised the resetting of the emblemata which he had stolen (Cicero, In Verrem, II, 4, 54 and V, 33, 52). The emperor Tiberius adopted the pallium and sandals w hile in Rhodes (Suetonius, Tiberius, 13). Hadrian donned the pallium at imperial banquets, and when he was agonothetes at the Dionysia (Script.Hist.Aug., Hadrian, XXII, 4-5; D io Cassius, LXIX, 16, 1). This is in agreement with his statue from Cyrene (Fig. 629). Septimius Severus came wearing a pallium to a banquet of Marcus Aurelius, who was then emperor. But, as this was not considered a proper dinner garment, he was given a toga from the imperial wardrobe (Suetonius, Severus, I, 7). In the last quarter of the third century a . d . , the emperors Probus and Carinus occasionally wore pallia of scarlet and purple, interwoven with gold (Script.Hist.Aug., Probus, IV, 5 and Carìnus, II, 5). Both literary and artistic evidence point to the fact that the pallium-himation was widely used in everyday life as well as in art by the Romans from Republican to late Roman times. We may draw an inference from the comparison of the monumental with the literary evidence. The well-known personalities like Scipio, Rabirius, and the emperor Tiberius assumed the pallium when in Greek lands, Magna Graecia, or the Greek islands. Septimius came from North Africa, which also had originally a Greek civilization. Thus, they possibly adopted the pallium when they came in touch with Greek culture. The emperors Hadrian and Julian, who wore the pallium, were outstanding Graecophiles. Yet it seems that most people who are represented in art wearing the pallium were members of the upper middle class, which in every 139

ROMAN MEN IN GREEK HIMATION AND THEIR FEM ALE COUNTERPARTS society cultivates art and literature. To the Romans that included Greek art and Greek literature. As the Christians came mainly from the middle class or from the ranks of the slaves, at least in the beginning, it is understandable that they also adopted the pallium. Tertullian, who became a Christian in 190 a . d . and died in 230, described the pallium as the dress of cultivated men and of the Christians (De Pallio, VI, 2): De meo vestiuntur et primus informator literarum et prim us enodator vocis et primus numerorum harenarius et grammaticus et rhetor et sophista et m edicus et poeta et qui musicam pulsat et qui stellarum coniectat et qui volaticam spectat. Omnis liberalitas studiorum quattuor meis angulis tegitur. Sed ista pallium loquitor.. . . Gaude pallium et exsultatP Melior iam te philosophia dignata est quo Christianum vestire coepisti. In me are dressed the teacher of literature and language and the mathematician and grammarian and rhetor and sophist, and the physician and the poet and musician and astronomer and the observer of birds. All liberal arts are contained in my four corners. But this is spoken by the pallium. . . . Rejoice, o pallium and exult! You are now even more dignified than philosophy, because you have begun to dress the Christians. No wonder that the type persisted long enough to be used for Christ and the Apostles in early Christian times and even in medieval times.83 I suggest calling the type “Romani Palliati” as a parallel to Plautus’ “Graeci Palliati.”

Footnotes to Chapter 11 This chapter is reprinted in revised form from the author’s article in the ProcPhilSoc 103 (1959), pp. 374-417. 1. J. Strygowski, Orient oder Rom (Leipzig 1901), pp. 58-59, fig. 22; C.R. Morey, The Sarcophagus o f Claudia Antonia Sabina and the Asiatic Sarcophagi (Sardis, Voi. V) pp. 12, 37-48, 60, type 1, p. 63, type 17, p. 66, and frontispiece, figs. 9,11, 25,55,105, (type 1) and 120 (type 17), fig. 134 (Christ in Sophokles type, with changed standing leg); M. Lawrence, “Additional Asiatic Sarcophagi,” M AAR 20 (1951), pp. 143-144, cf. pp. 134-135, fig. 19, pp. 141-142, fig. 29, pp. 143-144, fig. 31. For the Lateran Sophokles, see Helbig-Speier, Führer', I, pp. 767—768, No. 1006 (Inv. 9973); Benndorf-Schöne, Bildwerke Lat. Mus., pp. 153-159, No. 237, pl. 24; A. Hekler, Bildniskunst, p. XVI, pl. 52; K. Schefold, Bildnisse, pp. 92-93; G. Lippold, Gr.Plastik, p.271, pl.98, fig. 4; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pl. 427; Arndt-Brunn-Bruckmann, Porträts, pls. 113-115. 2. E. Buschor, Das hellenistische Bildniss (Munich 1949), p. 8. For the statue of Aischines in Naples, see A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, p. 271, No. 1139; J.J. Bernoulli, Griech.lkon., II, p. 62, pi. X; A. Hekler, Bildniskunst, p. XVI, pl. 53; K. Schefold, Bildnisse, pp. 102-103; G. Lippold, Gr.Plastik, p. 81, pl. XLIII, fig. 49; L. Laurenzi, Ritratti Greci (Florence 1941), pp. 108-109, No. 46, pis. XVII-XLVIII, fig. F; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pl. 428; Arndt-Brunn-Bruckmann, Porträts, pis. 116-118. For the herm of Aischines, with inscription, see HelbigSpeier, Führer1, 1, pp. 49-50, No. 62 (Inv. 297); G. Lippold, Sculpt.vat.Mus., Ill, 1, pp. 26-27, Sala delle Muse

140

ROMAN MEN IN GREEK HIMATION AND THEIR FEMALE COUNTERPARTS No. 502, pi. 22; J.j. Bernoulli, op.cit., p. 61, pi. 9; A. Ruesch, op.cit., p. 271, fig. 68; Arndt-Brunn-Bruekmann, op.cit., pis. 641-642. 3. F.W. Goethert, Zur Kunst der römischen Republik (Berlin 1931), pp. 15-22; idem, in Pauly-Wissowa, R.E., Ser. 2, voi. 6, s.v. “toga,” cols. 1651-1661; R. West, Röm.Porträtplastik, I, pp. 41-44, pi. VIII, figs. 27-29. He thinks wrongly that the tunic is identical with the Greek chiton. See also B.M. Felletti-Maj, Ritratti, p. 32. She names the palliatus, No. and fig. 42, ‘statua di togato’. 4. National Museum, Athens, No. 244: A. Hekler, Bildniskunst, pp. XV-XVI, pi. 51; A.W. Lawrence, Classical Sculpt., p. 309, pi. 113; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 519; Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 624; M. Collignon, Les statues funéraires dans Part grec, p. 283, fig. 175; G. Lippold, Kopien, pp. 196-197 (dates it second cent, b . c . ) ; idem, Gr.Plastik, p. 370; J. Fink, “Ein Kopf für viele,” RörnMitt 71 (1964), p. 153, pl. 38, fig. 3 (he dates it first cent. b . c . ) . Fink and Lippold assume that the youth of Eretria is a variation of an older Hermes type, the “ Mercury of Richelieu,” with the addition of a mantle taken from daily life. I do not see the connection between the nude and the perfectly veiled statue. The one with the emphasis on the body is Classical; the one with the emphasis on the drapery is Hellenistic. 5. For the torso of Dioskourides, see J. Marcadé, Mus.Délos, pp. 325-328, pis. LXV, LXVIII; J. Chamonard, Le quartier du Théàtre, voi. V ili in Exploration archéologique de Délos (Paris 1922), pp. 39-40, fig. 14, pp. 218-219, fig. 95; E. Buschor, op.cit, supra note 2, pp. 36, 38, fig. 9. For the torso of his wife Kleopatra, see J. Marcadé, op.cit., p. 134, pis. LXV, LXVI; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age1, p. 132, fig. 511; G. Kleiner, Tanagrafiguren, pp. 163,178,232, pl. 57b-c. For both torsos, see K. Schefold, Die Griechen und ihre Nachbarn, p. 200, No. and fig. 137. The statues are dated through the archonship of Timarchos to 138/7 b . c . 6. P. Brückner, Ornament und Form der attischen Grabstelen (Strassburg 1886), p. 93, pl. II, figs. 7-8; A. Conze, Die attischen Grabreliefs, IV (Berlin 1911-1922), pp. 23-24, Nos. 1820-1822, pl. 387 (He lists many more besides). Conze speaks of the “typische Haltung,” typical attitude of these men on the stelae. For other examples from the first to the third centuries a . d . , see H. Riemann, Kerameikos 2. Die Skulpturen vom 5 Jahrhundert bis in römische Zeit (Berlin 1940), pp. 48-50, No. 46, pl. 15; A. Mühsam, Die attischen Grabreliefs in römischer Zeit (Diss. Berlin 1936) treats the Roman-Attic reliefs from an art historical point of view. This excellent work has been translated, revised and well-illustrated, appearing in Berytus 10 (1952), pp. 51-114, pis. VII-XXIV under the title “Attic Grave Reliefs from the Roman Period.” For the boy in the attitude of the Eretria youth standing between a seated man and a standing man, perhaps his father and grandfather, on the relief from the Athenian olive grove, now in Berlin (No. 1462), see A. Conze, op.cit., IV, pp. 8-9, No. 1743; M. Bieber, “Ikonographische Miszellen” RörnMitt 32 (1917), pp. 130-131 (the Y above may point to a neoPythagorean school); Ch. Picard, “Nouvelles et Correspondence—chez le marchand d’huile, le màitre-eharpentier ou le philosophe?,” RA 23 (1945), pp. 154-155. 7. A corpus of the eastern tomb reliefs will be published by H. Möbius for the German Archaeological Institute in Berlin, based on the material collected by the late E. Pfuhl. Cf. examples of eastern tomb reliefs in the paper of E. Pfuhl, “Das Beiwerk auf den ostgriechischen Grabreliefs,” Jdl 20 (1905), pp. 55-56, fig. 11, p. 128, fig. 22, p. 135, fig. 26. For the tomb reliefs in the Musées Ottomans in Istanbul, see G. Mendel, Mus.ottomans,Cat.Sculpt., Ill (Constantinople 1914), pp. 104,109-110, Nos. 893-894 (He also lists 29 more). For a stele in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, with Pudicitia, see R. Horn, “Stehende weibliche Gewandstatuen in der hellenistischen Plastik,” RörnMitt, Ergänzungsheft II (1931), pp. 66-67, 78, pl. 25, fig. 2. For some of the tomb reliefs with Pudicitia, see E. Pfuhl, op.cit., p. 52, fig. 5, p. 53, fig. 7, p. 54, fig. 8, p. 78, fig. 14, p. 123, fig. 20, p. 129, fig. 23, p. 135, fig. 26. 8. For the tomb relief of Menander in the Bibliothèque Nationale (our Fig. 587), see M. Collignon, Statues funéraires, p. 281, fig. 174. For the tomb relief of Menophila in the Louvre (our Fig. 586), see M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age2, p. 132, fig. 523; EncycLPhot., Ill, No. 252. For the stele with Meidias (our Fig. 585), see G. Mendel, Mus.ottomans,Cat.Sculpt., Ill, pp. 41-42, No. 837 (1503). 9. For a terracotta statuette of the serious youth in Athens (National Museum No. 5045), see M. Bieber, Die Denkmäler zum Theaterwesen im Altertum (Berlin 1920), p. 163, No. 141, pl. 95, fig. 2; eadem, Theater*, pp. 94-95, fig. 338, p. 288, note 30; E. Pottier and S. Reinach, La Nécropole de Myrina, pp. 468-469, pl. XLV, fig. 1. For a statuette of a father, with a similar pose, see M. Bieber, Theater2, p. 150, fig. 554b.

ROMAN MEN IN GREEK HIMATION AND THEIR FEMALE COUNTERPARTS 10. The phrase Graeci palliati appears in the passage in which the parasite asks everybody to get out of his way:

Date viam mihi, noti atque ignoti.. .. Nec quisquamst tam opulentus, qui mi obstat in via Nec strategus, nec tyrannus . . . nec demarchus. .. Tum istic Graeci palliati, capite operto qui ambulant. Qui incedunt suffarcinati cum libris, cum sportulis, Constant, conferunt sermones inter sese drapetae Obstant, obistunt, incedunt cum suis sententiis, . . .

Make way for me, friends and strangers.. .. Nobody is rich enough to stop me, neither a general nor a tyrant nor a major. . . . And then those Greeks in their mantle (pallia) who walk around with their heads covered, laden with books and baskets, who stand together, deliver speeches among themselves, the runaway slaves, stand in our way and walk along with their conclusions. .. .

11. See Codex Terentius Vaticanus Latinus 3868, pis. 35 and 65. Comedies de Terence, 151, Dessins du Manuscript Latin 7899, Bibliothèque Nationale, pis. 56 and 107. L.W. Jones and C.R. Morey, The Miniatures o f the Manuscripts o f Terence prior to the Thirteenth Century (Princeton 1930-1931), figs. 325-326, 328 (Heauton­ timorumenos), figs. 584-585 (Hecyra). See pp. 201-211 on the different dates given to the originals. Jones and Morey on pp. 42-45,113-116 and 203-204 deny the dependence of the miniatures on actual stage represen­ tations, because the archetype of the miniatures is late. But in the early codex, certainly based on earlier prototypes, the masks, garments, and outfits have the right forms used in stage presentations. Cf. K. Robert, Die Masken der neueren attischen Komödie (Halle 1911), pp. 87-108; M. Bieber, Die Denkmäler zum Theaterwesen im Altertum, pp. 170-174, figs. 137-140, pls. 106-107; eadem, Theater2, pp. 153-154, figs. 559-561. 12. L.B. Warren, “Etruscan Dress as Historical Source: Some Problems and Examples,” AJA 75 (1971), pp. 277-284, pis. 65-68. 13. Inv. No. 29-188. Height 0.345 meters. F.F. Jones, Ancient Art in the Art Museum, Princeton University (Princeton 1960), pp. 58-59; G.M.A. Hanfmann, “An Etruscan Bronze,” Record o f the Museum o f Historic Art, II, 1, pp. 4-11, figs. 1-4 (H. 0.346 m.); E.H. Richardson, “The Etruscan Origins of Early Roman Sculpture,” MAAR 21 (1953), pp. 111-112, figs. 21-22. Hanfmann calls the dress toga, although he quotes Isidore, Origines XIX, 24, 17: “Praetexta puerile est pallium quo usque ad sedecim annos pueri nobiles sub disciplines cultu utebantur. ” (“The praetexta of a boy is the pallium which noble boys in school wear until the age of sixteen.”) For two similar terracotta statuettes which were found in Calvi, see A. Levi, Le Terracotte figurate del Museo Nazionale di Napoli (Florence 1926), pp. 139-140, Nos. 628, 630, pls. V-VI. 14. O. Vessberg, Studien zur Kunstgeschichte der römischen Republik, pp. 175-208, pls. XXIV-XLIII passim, dating from about 100-20 b . c . 15. O . Vessberg, op.eit, p p . 1 9 6 - 1 9 7 , p i. XXXVI, fig. 2 ( d a te d c a . 3 0 b . c . ) (M u s . N o . 1 0 5 0 5 4 ). 16. Our Fig. 598 is in the Museo Campana in Capua; Fig. 599 in the Palazzo Municipale in Avellino, depicts four persons in the same attitude, with a boy holding a cock in the center. Probably we have three generations of the same family here. Fig. 601, in the Villa Reale d’Ossora in Treviso, has three men and one woman again in the same attitude. Fig. 600, also in Treviso shows Firmius and wife in the same pose. Fig. 602, in Ascoli Piceno, shows two palliati and a woman, probably wife and mother. She is of the Pudicitia type. On the campanile of the Cathedral in Benevento, we find sixteen half-figures made into a modern frieze, probably from seven or eight tombs. 17. Villa Borghese, No. CLXXXVIII (our Fig. 604): L. Wilson, Roman Clothing, p. 152, pi. LXXXVIII, fig. 96. Museo Nuovo (our Fig. 605); D. Mustilli, Mus.Mussol., p. 102, No. 9, pi. LVI, fig. 255; O. Vessberg,

142

ROMAN MEN IN GREEK HIMATION AND THEIR FEMALE COUNTERPARTS Kunstgeschichte röm.Rep., pp. 186-187, 211-212, 249-250, pis. XXVII-XXVIII; M. Bieber, Entwicklungs­ geschichte, p. 50, pl. 49, fig. 1; B. Schweitzer, Bildniskunst röm.Rep., pp. 80, 85, figs. 110, 114, 120; R. Horn, op.cit., supra note 7, p. 81, pi. 40, fig. 1 (This tomb relief was found on the Via Statilia and is dated 80-50 b . c . ) . 18. P. Romanelli, “Un Rilievo Inedito de l’Aquila,” BullComm 71 (1945), appendix to voi. 14 (1945), pp. 3-8,

19.

20. 21. 22.

23.

24.

25. 26. 27. 28.

29.

figs. 1-3. Romanelli dates it in the right period (early Augustan), although he says that he would date it Republican if it had been found in Rome. The type, though, continues in Rome as well as in the provinces down into the imperial period. For other examples of Pudicitia with the palliatus on funerary monuments, see the list of eastern tomb reliefs, supra note 7. For other Roman examples, see supra note 14. Helbig-Speier, Führer1, I, p. 818, No. 1139 (Inv. 10464); Benndorf-Schöne, Bildwerke Lat.Mus., pp. 330-331, No. 467; O. Vessberg, Kunstgeschichte röm.Rep., pp. 197,232, pi. XXXIX, fig. 2; F.W. Goethert, op.cit., supra note 3, pp. 38-40; R. West, Röm.Portriitplastik, I, pp. 141-142, pi. XXXV, fig. 149. O. Vessberg, op.cit., p. 195, pi. XXXIV, fig. 3 (early Augustan). Trieste, Museo Civico di storia ed arte. The left hand of the man originally held a scroll. A. Conze, Grabreliefs, IV, p. 94, No. 2103, pi. CCCCLIX, considers the relief to be Attic. Palmyra: H. Ingholt, “Inscriptions and Sculptures from Palmyra,” Berytus 3 (1936), pp. 124-125, pis. XXV-XXVI. The torso found in the Agora of Palmyra and now in the Museum of Damascus provided for a dowel to fasten a portrait head. It may be a copy of about 200 a . d . It shows simple but clear workmanship. Bronze statuette in Prof. Seyrig’s Collection: G.M.A. Hanfmann in D.G. Mitten and S.F. Doeringer, Master Bronzes from the Classical World (New York 1968), p. 272, No. 264, fig. on p. 273. K. Humann, J. Kohte, and K. Watzinger, Magnesia am Maeander (Berlin, 1904), p. 209, fig. 212. Watzinger compares Flaccus with Sophokles and Aisehines, dating him to the early imperial period. He refers to the dress as a toga. For the same type, see also fig. 213. For Baebia, Saufeia, and other Pudicitia statues, see pp. 198-201, figs. 198 (Baebia), 199 (Saufeia), 200 (with head preserved, now in Berlin), 202, 209; G. Mendel, Mus.ottomans,Cat.Sculpt., II, pp. 273-275, No. 550 (Baebia); III, pp. 23-25, No. 822 (606) (Saufeia); A. Hekler, “Gewandstatuen,” pp. 123-125, 159, 177. For all the statues, the heads, sometimes the hands, and one foot were worked separately in order that the prescribed type could be used for different likenesses, with individual attributes and footwear appropriately used. Magnesia (our Fig. 616): G. Mendel, op.cit.. Ill, pp. 25-26, No. 823 (607); C. Watzinger in Magnesia am Maeander, p. 201, fig. 202; M. Collignon, op.cit., p. 291. The headless Pudicitia (Fig. 617): found in the theater at Aphrodisias in 1970 (Inv. 70-472). Total height, about 2 meters. For another Pudicitia from Aphrodisias, now in Istanbul (Fig. 618), see G. Mendel, op.cit., II, p. 198, No. 505 (2267); M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, pp. 67-68, pi. XXXIII, figs. 2-3. Louvre (Fig. 619): E. Michon, Cat.Sommaire, p. 54, No. 930. Vatican: Helbig-Speier, Führer 4, I, pp. 321-322, No. 415 (Inv. 2284); W. Amelung, Sculpt.vat.Mus., I, pp. 33-36, Braccio Nuovo No. 23, pl. 4. A. Maiuri, Pompeii, pp. 72-73, fig. 113. G. Tra versari, Statue iconiche, pp. 66-67, No. 27, pi. XV, fig. 2; E. Rosenbaum, A Catalogue o f Cyrenaican Portrait Sculpture (London 1960), p. 95, No. 166, pi. LXXV, fig. 1. Calza-Squarciapino, Mus.Ost., p. 49, Sala VI No. 6 (22), fig. 29; R. Calza, “Statua iconica femminile da Ostia,” BdA 35 (1950), pp. 201-207, figs. 1-4. For standing Pudicitia on this coin of Hadrian (Fig. 623), see H. Mattingly, BMC Empire, III, p. 355, Nos. 911-913, pl. 65, fig. 1. For the coin of Julia Maesa with a seated Pudicitia (Fig. 624), see F. Imhoof-Blumer, Porträtkopfe a u f römischen Münzen der Republik und der Kaiserzeit. For the seated Pudicitia, appearing on a coin of Severus Alexander, see R.A.G. Cassou, BMC Empire, VI (Severus Alexander to Balbinus and Pupienus) (London 1962), p. 210, No. 980. In Aula VIII there is a headless torso; in Aula IX there is a statue (Mus. No. 121531) with head and hands inserted; there are two in the upper niches of the facade of the museum looking to the outer garden court, as well as four in the exedrae or niches to the right and left of the entrance to the garden—three torsos and one statue with head (the latter is No. 952). For two of these statues in the garden, see L. Wilson, The Roman Toga, pp. 39-41, figs. 9-10. For the torso with cavity for the head, in the garden of the Chiostro (No. 960), see B.M.

ROMAN MEN IN GREEK HIMATION AND THEIR FEM ALE COUNTERPARTS

30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

37. 38. 39.

40.

41.

42.

43. 44.

45.

Felletti-Maj, Ritratti, p. 32, No. 42, fig. 42; B. Schweitzer, Bildniskunst röm.Rep., pp. 53-56, A 2, figs. 50, 115. This piece is Republican, before the middle of the first century b . c . He holds a scroll in his left hand and has a round bookcase near his left leg. Mrs. Felletti-Maj calls the pallium “ toga-exigua.” W. Amelung, Sculpt.vat.Mus., I, p. 845, No. 91, pi. 99. D. Mustilli, Mus.Mussol., p. 8, No. 15, pi. VI, fig. 20. O. Vessberg, Kunstgeschichte röm.Rep., pp. 175-180, pi. XXIII, figs. 1-2, and p. 186, pi. XXIX, figs. 2-3. Ibid., p. 190, pi. XXXII, fig. 4. L. Wilson, The Roman Toga, p. 41, fig. 11. O. Vessberg, op.cit., pp. 240-241, Nos. 6-9, pi. LXXXV, figs. 1-4. F. Poulsen, Cat.Ny Carlsberg, p. 353, No. 496 (Inv. 1803); Billedtavler, pi. XXXVII, No. 496; R. West, Röm.Porträtplastik, I, p. 43, pi. VIII, fig. 29; Arndt-Amelung, E.A., Nos. 4771-4772. For a second of the four Copenhagen statues, see F. Poulsen, op.cit., p. 367, No. 528 (Inv. 1956); Billedtavler, pi. XXXX; A. Hekler, Bildniskunst, p. XXXI, pi. 129a; R. West, op.cit., I, pp. 41-42, pi. VIII, fig. 27, pi. IX, fig. 28; O. Vessberg, Kunstgeschichte röm.Rep., pp. 193, 220, pi. LVIII; B. Schweitzer, Bildniskunst röm.Rep., pp. 80-85, figs. 109, 113,118; Amdt-Amelung, E.A., No. 2019. E. Michon, Cat.Sommaire, p. 53, No. 920; R. West, op.cit., I, pp. 94-95, pi. XXII, fig. 89; J.J. Bernoulli, Griech.Ikon., II, p. 164, No. 22. See supra, note 29 for the torsos in the cloister garden of the Museo Nazionale delle Terme. G. Botti and P. Romanelli, Le Sculture del Museo Gregoriano egizio, p. 120, No. 192 (Mus. No. 42), pi. LXXXI. Julianus is called “philosopher or orator.” I owe the photograph, Fig. 627 to the kindness of Hermine Speier. Probably also to the first century a . d . belong an unfinished statue with originally a scroll inserted in his left hand in the Entrance Hall of the Museo archeologico in Florence and the two torsos in the upper courtyard of the Museo Nazionale in Naples. All three lack heads, which once were inserted in the cavities of the torsos. For a statuette of the early imperial period in Berlin, with the head crowned with laurel and with book scrolls bound together at his feet, see R. Kekulé, Beschreibung ant.Skulpt., p. 156, No. 387. EncycLPhot., Le Musée de Caire, pp. 15-16, fig. 219 (“Personnage en toge”); P. Graindor, Bustes et statuesportraits d ’Egypte romaine (Cairo 1930), pp. 102-104, No. 47, pi. XLIa. Palliatus wearing the calceus patricius, holding a scroll in his left hand; a bookcase and above it a bunch of scrolls beside his right leg. For the Arringatore, see A. Minto, Il Regio Museo Archeologico di Firenze (Rome 1931), p. 52; W. Amelung, Führer Florenz, pp. 257-258; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 320; A.W. Lawrence, Later Greek Sculpture, pp. 59-60, pi. 97b; R. West, Röm.Porträtplastik, I, pp. 38-40, pi. VIII, fig. 24, pi. IX, fig. 25; O. Vessberg, Kunstgeschichte röm.Rep., pp. 171-172, pi. XIX; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age,1 p. 169, fig. 717; T. Kraus, Das römische Weltreich, pp. 151-152, pi. 3. On the toga of the Arringatore and models of it, see L. Wilson, The Roman Toga, pp. 25-39, figs. 1,3-7; eadem, Roman Clothing, pp. 38-39, figs. 27-30; L. Richardson and E.H. Richardson, “ Ad Cohibendum Bracchium Toga,” AJA 68 (1964), pp. 199-200. On the square himation see M. Bieber, Griech. Kleidung pp. 21-24, 80-84, pis. LI-LIII, LVII-LVIII. C. Blümel in Amdt-Amelung, E.A., Ser. XIV A, No. 3901; W.H. Gross, Bildnisse Traians, p. 131, No. 59; R. West, Röm.Porträtplastik, II, p. 73, No. 5, pi. XVIII, fig. 67. The head and statue were not found together but near each other, and the head fits into the cavity of the statue. H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Mus.Capitol., p. 284, Salone No. 14, pi. 69. The head seems to have been set on the statue in the seventeenth century. A.H. Smith, Cat.Sculpt.Brit.Mus., II, p. 224, No. 1381; R.P. Hinks, British Museum. Greek and Roman Portrait Sculpture (London 1935), p. 29, pi. 35 (cf. the statue, p. 28, pi. 33, possibly Nerva); J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.lkon., II, 2, p. 109, No. 15 (does not accept the head as a portrait); M. W egner, Hadrian, pp. 100-101, pi. 16a; E. Rosenbaum, Cat.Cyren.Sculpt., pp. 51-52, No. 34, pi. XXVI, figs. 1-2; H.C. Niemeyer, Stud.Darstellung p. 90, No. 31, pi. 9, fig. L G. Mendel, Mus.ottomans,Cat.Sculpt., II, pp. 311-313, No. 582 (103); J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.lkon., II, 2, pp. 110, 121, No. 20; J. Inan and E. Rosenbaum, Roman and Early Byzantine Portrait Sculpture in Asia Minor (London 1966), p. 109, No. 111, pi· LXV (see also No. 213, pp. 162-163, pi. CXV, fig. 4 for a palliata in the Sanföl Manisa Museum, probably Trajanic or Hadrianic).

144

ROMAN MEN IN GREEK HIMATION AND THEIR FEMALE COUNTERPARTS 46. Cairo Museum, No. 6022; G. Rodenwaldt, “Zwei römische Porträtköpfe aus Alexandrien,” Antike Plastik. Festschrift Amelung, pp. 209-210, fig. 1; P. Graindor, op.cit, supra note 40, pp. 93-94, No. 42, pi. XXXV. 47. V. Gaidukevich, The Bosporan Kingdom (Moscow-Leningrad 1949), pp. 218-220, fig. 34; Kubylina, The Sculpture o f the Bosporus (Material and Studies in the Archeology o f the U.S.S.R.) (Moscow 1951), pp. 171-172, fig. 1, Nos. 1-3, and fig. 4, No. 1. These two references were translated for me by Irwin Scollar. Also see for the photograph, M. Bieber, “Roman Men in Greek Himation,” ProcPhilSoc 103 (1959), pp. 398-399, fig. 40. 48. Inv. Nos. 849, 859, 936, 1346, 1347, 1354. Found in the Agora by T. Leslie Shear and Homer Thompson. T.L. Shear, “The Athenian Agora. The Campaign of 1937,” Hesperia 7 (1938), p. 323, fig. 8; E.B. Harrison, The A thenian Agora, voi. I—Portrait Sculpture (Princeton 1953), pp. 74-78, Nos. 57-62, pis. 38-40. For a similar torso with a bookcase near the left leg, found in Olympia, see G. Treu, Die Bildwerke von Olympia, III, pp. 251-252, fig. 287, pi. LXIII, fig. 3. 49. G.M.A. Richter, Three Critical Periods, pp. 43-44; eadem. The Portraits o f the Greeks, pp. 24-28. 50. The replica not illustrated here was formerly in the Musée de Cluny, and is now in the storerooms of the Louvre. This example was certainly found in Paris. See J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.lkon., II, 3, pp. 243-244. For the other statue in the Louvre (Figs. 639-640) see J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, pp. 177-178, No. 1121; J.J. Bernoulli, op.cit., II, 3, pp. 243-244, pi. Lllla-b; O. Wulff, Altchristliche und byzantinische K unst (BerlinNeubabelsberg 1914), I, pp. 152-153, fig. 45; H.G. Niemeyer, Stud.Darstellung, p. 90, Nos. 12-13, pl. 9, fig. 2. It has been suggested that this example was not found in Paris but was possibly brought there via Marseilles. 51. The earlier date, that is, the beginning of the third century a . d . , was suggested to me by Harold Ingholt, Professor Emeritus at Yale University. 52. See T. Dohrn, “Spätantikes Silber aus Britannien,” MdI 2 (1949), pp. 126-127. He calls the period the “Theodosianic Renaissance.” 53. H.P. L’Orange, Studien zur Geschichte des spätantiken Porträts (Oslo and Cambridge Mass. 1933), pp. 22-26, 112, No. 17, fig. 47. L ’Orange calls the mantle a toga. A bundle of scrolls is found beside this palliatus. 54. Mus. No. 1233, formerly in the Castello, Scala 46, now in a niche in the Forum; Mus. No. 1208, now in Piazzale delle Corporazioni. 55. Mus. No. 1147, found in the Collegio degli Angustili in 1941 together with a second example, Mus. No. 1111. G. Calza, “Ostia—Il Tempio della Bona Dea,” NSc Series 7, 3 (1942), pp. 153-154, fig. 2. For a statue of a similar type, found in Rome, see L. Morpurgo, “Statua marmorea di tipo greco di Dioniso. Statua marmorea di homo ammantato,” NSc Series 6, 13 (1937), pp. 202-205, figs. 2-3; A. Hekler, Die antiken Skulpturen im ungarischen Nationalmuseum und im budapeste Privatbesitz (Vienna 1929), fig. 102. 56. C.R. Morey, ofi.cit., supra note 1, fig. IL 57. Ostia, Mus. No. 1283; M. Lawrence, op.cit., supra note 1, pp. 141-142, fig. 29, found east of the Caserma dei Vigili. 58. For other palliati on Sidamara sarcophagi, see C.R. Morey, op.cit., supra note 1, types 1 and 17, figs, as given in note 1. Morey calls the type “philosopher” (p. 12) and “type of Sophokles” (p. 68). M. Lawrence, op.cit., supra note 1, pp. 127-128, fig. 9, pp. 133-135, fig. 19 (Beirut), pp. 143-144, fig. 31 (Rome), pp. 151-152, fig. 40 (Ostia), p. 162, No. 1 (Smyrna). She also names the type “standing philosopher” and names as the original the “Sophokles of the Lateran.” 59. Unfinished sarcophagus in Copenhagen: F. Poulsen, Cat.Ny Carlsberg, p. 548, No. 780a (Inv. 2344); 2 Tillaeg til Billedtavler, pi. XII, No. 780a; M. Lawrence, “A Sarcophagus at Lanuvium,” AJA 32 (1928), p. 432, fig. 13; eadem, “Season Sarcophagi of Architectural Type,” AJA 62 (1958), pp. 285-287, pl. 78, figs. 15, 16, 20; G. Rodenwaldt, “Der Klinensarkophag von S. Lorenzo,” AA 45 (1930), cols. 168-178, figs. 1, 3-4. Bellerophon sarcophagus in Athens: C. Robert, Sarkophagreliefs, II, 3, pp. 146-147, No. 138, pl. L; K. Weitzmann, Greek Mythology in Byzantine Art (Princeton 1951), pp. 178-179, fig. 228. Sarcophagus of the Seasons in the National Museum of Bardo in Tunis: G. Ch. Picard, Les Religions de VAfrique antique (Paris 1954), pp. 214-215, pi. IX. Picard rightly explains the child on this sarcophagus as a boy. He is standing before a curtain with a scroll in his hand and a bundle of scrolls at his feet. It cannot be a girl, as others have believed. I do not know of representations of girls with scrolls and scrinium. Also, the dress is too short for a girl.

ROMAN MEN IN GREEK HIMATION AND THEIR FEM ALE COUNTERPARTS 60. A similar medallion in the storerooms of the Vatican: G. Kaschnitz-Weinberg, Scult.Mag.Vat., p. 293, No. 717, pi. CXI (dated to the time of Alexander Severus). 61. For one of the six busts found in the Basilike Stoa, see E. Hiller von Gaertringen, Thera I. Die Insel Thera (Berlin 1904), p. 227, fig. on p. 228. For half figures with sockets for heads, see idem, Thera III. Stadtgeschichte von Thera (Berlin 1904), pi. 23, and pp. 192-193, figs. 207-209. Fig. 207 has three palliati and one Pudicitia (dated to the Antonine period and later). L. Ross, Reisen a u f den griechischen Inseln des ägäischen Meeres (Stuttgart and Tübingen 1840-1852), III, p. 30; idem. Archäologische Aufsätze (Leipzig 1855-1861), I, for busts with inserted heads, from a cemetery near Karterades on Thera. O. Benndorf, “ Bildnis einer jungen Griechin,” JOA I 1 (1898), pp. 1-5, fig. 2. See also the bust of Anima Hilara in the same attitude, on the cover of the Endymion sarcophagus in the Metropolitan Museum (Acc. No. 47.1004), found in Ostia and dated to about 200 a .d .: F. Matz, “An Endymion Sarcophagus Rediscovered,” BMMA 15 (1956-57), pp. 123-128. 62. National Gallery, Oslo: O. Vessberg, Kunstgeschichte ròm.Rep., pp. 188-190, pi. XXXII, figs. 2-3, pi. XXXIII. Art Museum, Princeton: D. Levi, “A Chalk Bust from Chichester,” Record o f the Art Museum III, 2 (1944), pp. 9-18, figs. 1-19. Levi calls the material “chalk,” probably soft limestone, and the position the “usual of the togatus.” It certainly is a palliatus. 63. Benndorf-Schöne, Bildwerke Lat.Mus., p. 68, No. 102 (Mus. No. 290). Found in the Calixtus catacombs. 64. H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Mus.Capitol., pp. 38-39, Atrio No. 36a, pi. 8, fig. 460 (dated to the early third century). 65. For three examples of the palliata in the Musées de ΓAlgerie et de la Tunisie, see Catalogue du Musée Alaoui, 1897 edition, p. 52, pi. 14, No. 39; 1910 edition, pi. 30, No. 1, and pi. 32, No. 3. For the statue from Thasos, see M. Collignon, Statues funéraires, p. 166, fig. 97; for a half figure from Thera, p. 302, fig. 190. For a young girl of the first century a .d . in Egypt, see P. Graindor, Bustes et statues, pp. 117-118, No. 970, pi. L. 66. A.H. Smith, Cat.Sculpt.Brit.Mus., II, p. 205, No. 1302; B. Ashmole, “ Dem eter of Cnidus,” JUS 71 (1951), pp. 25-26, Appendix 2, pi. X, fig. e (cf. similar terracottas, pi. IX, fig. d, pi. X, fig. d); M. Bieber, “Roman Men in Greek Himation,” ProcPhilSoc 103 (1959), pp. 409-410, fig. 56. 67. A. Maiuri, La Villa dei Misteri (Rome 1931), pp. 223-232, figs. 93-98. 68. See Chapter XII, Fig. 687, note 17. 69. See supra, note 22. There it is wrongly described as the “large Herculaneum type.” 70. See text, p. 140, for this passage from Tertullian, De Pallio. 71. On this unfinished sarcophagus in Copenhagen, from the Via Salaria in Rome, see supra, note 59. 72. M. Lawrence, “Columnar Sarcophagi in the Latin W est,” ArtB 14 (1932), p. 178; eadem, op.cit., note 59, p. 431, fig. 12; O. Wulff, Altchrist.und byz.Kunst, p. 172, fig. 167; J. W ilpert, I Sarcophagi cristiani antichi (Rome 1929), I, pi. 132, figs. 1-2. 73. Berlin sarcophagus from Istanbul: J. Strygowski, op.cit., supra note 1, pp. 58-60, pi. II; C.R. Morey, Asiatic Sore., pp. 1, 30, 79, pi. 25; idem, Early Christian Art (Princeton 1942), frontispiece, pp. 25-26, 60, 107 (dated about 400 a .d .) ; O. Wulff, op.cit., p. 171, fig. 166; M. Lawrence, “City Gate Sarcophagi,” ArtB 10 (1927), p. 44, fig. 49; F. Gerke, Christus in der spätantiken Plastik (Berlin 1941), p. 105, fig. 76; idem. Die christlichen Sarkophage der vorkonstantinischen Zeit, pp. 227-228 and 232, notes 4-6 (he wrongly calls the himation the “cynic mantle.”); J. Kollwitz, Oströmische Plastik der Theodosianischen Zeit (Berlin 1941), pp. 166-167, 174, pi. 50. 74. For the Apostles on sarcophagi, see F. Gerke, Der Sarkophag des Junius Bassus (Berlin 1936); C.R. Morey, Early Christian Art, pp. 104 and 278, fig. 110, pp. 134-135, 283, fig. 141; M. Lawrence, The Sarcophagi o f Ravenna (College Art Association, Monograph on Archaeology and Fine Arts II) (New York 1945), pp. 15-16, fig. 25. For the Apostles in book illustrations, see K. Weitzmann, Illustrations in Roll and Codex. A Study o f the Origin and Method o f Text Illustration (Princeton 1947), pp. 201-205, figs. 197, 198, 200, 203, 205. 75. R. West (Rom. Porträtplastik, I, pp. 41-44) bases on this description of Quintilian the interpretation of the palliatus type as rhetor. However, he calls the mantle a toga (cf. supra note 3). In the translation by H.E. Butler, given in the text, sinus is wrongly translated simply as “folds,” which the Greeks of course had. It rather means the specific group of curved folds in the upper portion of the toga. 76. J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, pp. 153, 155, No. 3493; A.N. Josephus Jitta Zadoks, Ancestral Portraiture

146

ROMAN MEN IN GREEK HIMATION AND THEIR FEMALE COUNTERPARTS in Rome and the A rt o f the Last Century o f the Republic (Amsterdam 1932), pp. 57-75, pi. XVI; O. Vessberg, Kunstgeschichte röm.Rep., p. 201, pi. XLI, fig. 2. 77. A.H. Smith, Cat.Sculpt.Brit.Mus., Ill, p. 279, No. 2243, fig. 38. Beside the physician stands a little boy on a

pedestal. Below the physician is his honorary degree inscribed on a circular medallion. 78. For the Palazzo Torlonia sarcophagus, see below Chapter XVI, Fig. 889, note 74. For seated portrait statues of philosophers, see L. Laurenzi, op.cit., supra note 2, pp. 140-141, pi. XLVIII, figs. D (Plato), E. (Sokrates), H. (Chrysippos), I (Metrodoros); M.Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen. A g é , pp. 44-47, figs. 114-115 (Plato), 132-135 (Sokrates), pp. 55-57, figs. 163-166 (Epikouros), 173-174 (Metrodoros), pp. 68-70, figs. 238-242 (Chrysippos); G.M.A. Richter, The Portraits o f the Greeks, I, pp. 109-119, figs. 556-559 (Sokrates), II, pp. 164-170, fig. 960 (Plato), pp. 190-194, figs. 1142-1144, 1148 (Chrysippos), pp. 194-200, figs. 1212-1219 (Epikouros), pp. 200-203, figs. 1258-1267 (Metrodoros). 79. For Christ seated, holding a scroll, as a teacher of divine wisdom, see J. Kollwitz, Das Christusbild des dritten Jahrhunderts (Münster 1953), pp. 12,20-22, pls. 3, 6, 7; G.M.A. Hanfmann, Roman Art, pp. 122-123, 219, No. and fig. 139. 80. J. Keil, “Grabbau mit Unterweitsarkophag aus Ephesos,” JOAI 17 (1914), pp. 133-144, figs. 78-79, pl. 2; L. Curtius, “Redeat narratio,” MdI 4 (1951), pp. 20-29, pl. 9; B. Andreae, Studien zur römischen Grabkunst, M dI Röm.Abt., Supplementary Volume IX (Heidelberg 1963), pp. 26-31; Cf. R. Egger, “Zwei oberitalienische Mystensarkophage,” MdI 4 (1951), p. 35, pl. 17. 81. Helbig-Speier, Führer', II, pp. 213-215, No. 1406 (Inv. 723); H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Mus.Capitol., pp. 314-315, Stanza del Fauno No. 3b, pl. 78 (He assumes that the veiled woman represents the woman’s soul); W. Altmann, Arch.und Omam., p. 98, fig. 16. 82. Cf. L. Wilson, The Roman Toga; eadem, Roman Clothing, pp. 36-54, esp. 46, 78-83. 83. For example for Christ as a palliatus standing before Pilate, from the Codex Purpureus, dated about 500 a . d . or later, (with all the other figures wearing Byzantine robes), see A. Munoz, II codice purpureo di Rossano e il frammento sinopense (Rome 1907), p. 5, pl. XIV; O. Wulff, Altchrist.und byz.Kunst, pp. 302-303, fig. 282. Also, supra notes 72, 79.

147

12 THE COPIES OF THE HERCULANEUM W OMEN 1. THE TW O TYPES The Greek types of draped women which have been m ost often copied in Roman tim es are the so-called large and small Herculaneum women, also nam ed the G r a n d e and the P e tite H ercu la n a ise .More and more copies have becom e known. In 1909 Anton H ekler com piled a list of 13 of the large and 14 of the small Herculaneum women. At about the same tim e Esther Boise Van Deman had already enumerated 26 copies of the large and 41 of the small type. In 1923 Georg Lippold counted 30 of the large and 40 of the small H erculaneum w o m en .1 In 1927 Franklin P. Johnson copied the list of Miss Van Deman, but raised the first to 39 copies, the second to 51. In 1959 Dimitri Tsontchev published five replicas of the large and one of the small Herculaneum women which were found in ancient Thrace, now Bulgaria. In 1960 Gustavo Traversali added three more large and three more small Herculaneum w om en, all found in Gyrene in North Africa.2 This brought the extant number of large Herculaneum w om en to 47 and that of the small Herculaneum women to 55. To these lists, which comprise only statues in the round, must be added many examples on Greek tomb reliefs of the Roman period as w ell as on Roman sar­ cophagi.3 The difference in height of the statues is 25 centim eters (about 10 inches), since the large Herculaneum women measure 1.95 meters, the small ones 1.70 meters. The nam e given to the figures is derived from the beautiful examples which w ere found in the theater of Herculaneum, together with other statues which decorated the s c a e n a e fr o n s . The theater was built by the architect Numisius in the tim e of Augustus, but was decorated after 41 a . d . under Claudius and Nero. The statues (Figs. 664-672) are now in Dresden.* T hey w ere carried off by the Russians to Leningrad in 1945 but were returned in 1958 with other works of art. 148

THE COPIES OF THE HERCULANEUM WOMEN

2. THE DATED STATUES The history of the copies of these statues spans the period from about 300 b .c . to about 300 and therefore gives a good idea of the manner in which copies were rendered in the different periods. We do not possess the two originals, but we have such good copies, in such close agreement with each other (Figs. 664-665, 668-670, 673-677), that we may regard these as exact facsimiles of the lost originals. These latter have been ascribed to Praxiteles, to his school, or to Lysippos.5 It is my opinion that on the basis of the style they must have been created in the early Hellenistic period. The originals certainly represented Demeter and Kore (see below, Figs. 700-701,709-710, 721-723). Statues of those divinities by Praxiteles are known,® while among the many works of Lysippos no representation of the Eleusinian goddesses is known. The heads (Figs. 666-667,671-672) with the melon coiffure remind one in face and hairdo of the early Ptolemaic princesses.7 The head as well as the heavy tubular folds of the chiton with many vertical grooves and with the fine ribs on the breast near the neck already belong to the Hellenistic period.8 The very complicated draping of the large mantle again agrees sufficiently with the best replicas to confirm the early Hellenistic date. It goes far beyond the draping of the Praxitelean period in its lines which cross one another. Yet the drapery does not obscure the forms of the body which are still shown clearly and without the distortion of the outlines found in the later Hellenistic period. The draping is clear, despite the rather artificial arrangement. The older woman (Fig. 664) has drawn the mantle over her head, the younger (Fig. 668) has her head uncovered. Both have arms wrapped in the mantle so that the right hand and the fingers of the left hand are free. The larger woman has grasped with her right hand the upper edge of the mantle and drawn it forward, so that bunches of stretched folds extend on the one side to the left shoulder and on the other side diagonally over the body to the left wrist. The younger woman is in the act of putting the garment’s upper edge over her left shoulder, so that a fold hangs from her right upper arm over her lower right arm to the elbow of her left arm. All this creates a lively play of light and shadow and results in more plasticity than we find in sculpture of the fourth century b . c . This appears particularly in the replicas from Herculaneum (Figs. 673-674), Delos (Figs. 675-677), and Aegion.9 All four replicas make a clear distinction between the ends of the mantle which hang down in the back and those which hang at the side from the left hand, a detail not always seen on copies. We have here statues which are still in the tradition of the late Classical period, when the statue of a goddess or a hero or even a mortal was conceived on the basis of the ideal of eternal truth, and yet filled with details taken from the real appearance. In the later Hellenistic period pure imitation of nature and real life prevailed, instead of the ideal and eternal type, and the emphasis was laid on the individual. Classical types were often reworked in the later Hellenistic period to make them more lifelike. That is the case with the torso of a small Herculaneum woman in Oxford.10 Fashionable fringes are added to the himation, and the veil-like folds of the upper garment allow the heavy undergarment to show through." The proportions are the slender ones of the late Hellenistic period. This statue can be dated to the second century b . c . This is perhaps the earliest example of A .D .

149

THE COPIES OF THE HERCULANEUM W OM EN this type (albeit a Hellenistic reworking, not an exact copy) used for portraits. The head was set into a cavity. The same is true for a second copy of the younger Herculaneum woman located in Dresden (Fig. 674),12 although here a cast of the original head is fitted exactly into the cavity. A beautiful head in the J. Paul Getty Museum in Malibu, California (Figs. 678 -6 8 1 ),13 might belong to the Hellenistic Dresden copy (Fig. 674), for it seems to fit the contour of the cavity. W e may postulate a portrait head instead of the modern idealized head w hich is inserted into the torso of the large Herculaneum woman in the Villa Borghese;14 this also is in the late H ellenistic style and of good workmanship. There are about 30 indisputable portrait statues which w ere made follow ing the types of the Herculaneum women. They are nearer to the originals than to the H ellenistic variations. The series begins with the fine statue in Athens, in the type of the large Herculaneum woman (Fig. 682).15The hair is parted in the center and laid in fine wavy lines to the sides. The style of the folds as well as the head reminds one of the so-called Julia and Antonia of the Ara Pacis, dated between 13 and 9 b .c .16 (Figs. 791-792). The execution is in the elegant style of the Augustan age. The oldest dated replica of the small woman is the daughter of Balbus (Figs. 683-684) in Naples. The other daughter of Balbus, also in Naples, is represented in another type used frequently for portrait statues (Figs. 685-686). Their mother Viciria wears a thin pallium in the arrangement and with the attributes of the palliata (Fig. 687).17 Balbus dedicated the theater at Herculaneum and played a leading role in that community in the first half of the first century a . d . He, therefore, could set up the portraits of his wife and daughters in the theater. The hairdo of the girls is similar to the melon coiffure, with the addition of the Claudian chignon at the nape of the neck. The execution of the statue in Fig. 683 is much simpler and perhaps nearer to the original than the Athens statue (Fig. 682). In the Flavian period the folds became much deeper and had much more play of light and shade. The date of three statues, one in the Vatican (Fig. 688)18 and tw o in Istanbul (Figs. 689-690, from Aptera and Aphrodisias)19 is assigned on the basis of the headdress, a large w ig built over the forehead, with small curls attached to a wire frame. The shape is oval on the Vatican statue and rounded on the Istanbul statues. In the time of Domitian (81 to 96 a . d .), to w hich the examples belong, the rendering had become rather schematic; the surface was riddled with holes, around which tight ringlets were carved, making the coiffure look like a honeycom b or sponge.20 The complicated headdress of the Trajanic period (98 to 117 a . d .) is used on a statue of a mature woman in the type of the small Herculaneum woman in Naples (Fig. 691).21 Behind a tripartite headband there are two big puffs of hair which are certainly wound around a wire, and the rest of the hair is braided in thin tresses which are drawn backward. A similar headdress is worn by Plotina, the wife of Trajan.22 In all these copies the com plicated side edges of the mantle are clearly distinguished: the end of the upper edge held by the right hand hangs down behind the left hip, the two lower ends hang separated below the left hand. The clear tradition becomes blurred in the Hadrianic period (117 to 138 a . d .). The statue found in Cyrene and now in the British Museum, of the type of the small Herculaneum woman (Fig. 692), and that of the large Herculaneum woman in the Vatican (Fig. 693) are pleasing in appearance,23 but they are not reliable copies. On the latter statue the end of the upper edge of the mantle which hangs in the rear, and that of the lower edge w hich hangs in front from the left hand are combined by a fold set in betw een the two below the left wrist. On the British Museum 150

THE COPIES OF THE HERCULANEUM WOMEN statue, the lowest part of the rear fold is joined to the frontal one. On both statues the faces w ith the rather vacant traits and discontented look resemble those of Sabina, the wife of Hadrian. The headdress, probably wound around a ring in the case of Fig. 693 and superficially stylized like a braid in the case of Fig. 692, is also like that of the later portraits of Sabina.24 The two types of the Herculaneum women were very popular in the Antonine period. There are several examples in Olympia. In the second half of the first century a .d ., A. Sextius Eraton used the large Herculaneum woman for the portrait statue of a noble woman from Elis which stood in the pronaos of the Heraion. When Herodes Atticus built his exedra in Olympia betw een 147 and 150 a .d ., his artist used the same type for a statue of the older Faustina, the wife of Antoninus Pius. The head of this torso is missing, but a third replica of the large Herculaneum woman, preserved only in the upper part, has a cavity for a head, and this head which was found elsewhere is now restored.25 It has the features and hairstyle of the older Faustina (Fig. 694), but the mantle is not drawn over her head. The coins of Faustina (Fig. 695) have the same hairstyle as her statues.26 All the other statues have the head covered. The replica in Ostia (Fig. 696)27 has about the same amount of torso preserved as the Olympia statue (Fig. 694), but includes the left hand. This hand holds a bunch of ears of wheat. It also represents the older Faustina. The same empress is depicted in the fine statue formerly in Wilton House, England, now in the J. Paul Getty Museum (Figs. 697-699).28 It is here placed in an area surrounded by flowers and trees. It may have had the same beautiful setting in Roman times. The struts below her left hand can only be supports for a sheaf of wheat or a bunch of poppies, the attributes of Demeter. Faustina may have been a priestess of, or was identified with the Eleusinian goddess. Two statues, one of Vibullia Alcia, probably the mother of Herodes Atticus, and another of the mother of his wife Regilla also are in the type of the large Herculaneum woman.29 As a contrast, the younger Faustina, at the time still very young, is represented at Olympia in the type of the small Herculaneum woman (Figs. 700-701). In 146 a . d ., when she was sixteen years old, she married Marcus Aurelius, who became emperor in 171. The same type is also used for Athenais, the youngest daughter of Herodes Atticus, in the same exedra. The statues of the imperial house were in the right half, the statues of the family of Herodes in the left.30 The execution is good and clear. The Antonine ladies wear their hair in deep and broad waves and braids made into a nest drawn forward to the crown of the head. The deep waves of the hair agree with the deep channels of the folds of the chiton and the mantle. Another good example of the same style, probably of the time of Lucilla (the daughter of Marcus Aurelius and of the younger Faustina), is the statue of an older woman in the type of the small Herculaneum woman (but with head covered), found in Ostia (Figs. 702-703).31 A nest of braids on the crown of the head appears on a statue of the same period found in Benghasi, Cyrenaica, now in the Louvre (Fig. 704),32 in the type of the large Herculaneum woman. Characteristic of the Antonine style with its baroque windings is the bunch of folds added above the left hand. The hairdo of Crispina, the wife of Commodus (180 to 193 a .d .), who was the son of Marcus Aurelius and thus a brother of Lucilla, is seen on the statue in the Palazzo dei Conservatori.33 The front part of the hair forms a kind of tongue pattern, behind which a group of waves leads to the nest of braids on the crown of the head. W ith Julia Domna, the wife of Septimius Severus, and the other women of the Syrian dynasty, until the middle of the third century a . d ., the hair became very full and was drawn over the ears.34 151

THE COPIES OF THE HERCULANEUM W OMEN Thus to this period (probably the early third century) must belong a statue in the type of the large Herculaneum woman from Cyrene, now in the Louvre (Fig, 705).35 The execution is rather flat, but nevertheless exact. The end of the mantle hanging from the left shoulder and the end hanging from the left hand are widely separated (in contrast to the Hadrianic copy, Fig. 693). The statue of an elderly lady in Cairo, of the type of the small Herculaneum woman also belongs, in my opinion, to the first half of the third century (Figs. 706-707).3(i The hair is arranged in sharp furrows and ridges, radiating from the crown of the head. Such deep waves became popular in the Antonine period, but were combined with braids arranged at the crown of the head. They continued to be used during the third century, but w ith the hair coming from the part in front, engraved in waves which cross the radiating waves. On the forehead are small stylized curls. The long hair is coiled in the back to form a bun. This w e can see on coins beginning with Manlia Scantilla (193 a .d .) and continuing with Didia Clara, Julia Domna, Julia Soaemias, Julia Paula (Fig. 708), Julia Mamaea, Orbiana, Tranquillina, and still on coins of Otacilia, Etruscilla, and Salonina (Fig. 708). The sculptured portraits of Julia Domna, Julia Mamaea, and probably Otacilia also have these harsh waves combined with broad chignons in the back.37 On the coin portrait of Julia Paula, the ears remain free, while they are covered by a broad nest of hair for the Syrian queens. Julia Mamaea and Orbiana, as well as Otacilia and Etruscilla, have a loop of hair from the ear to the nape of the neck (like the edge of a helmet) and only a short braid at the rear of the head. The short braid is replaced by a long one, which goes over the crown of the head to the front on coins of the second half of the third century, for example for Salonina and for Severina. Julia Paula is portrayed with a row of small curls along the hairline on some of her coins (Fig. 708), somewhat similar to the head of the statue in Cairo (Fig. 707) and two heads in Copenhagen. These latter heads have been dated by Poulsen to the time of Caracalla (211 to 217), by Weber and Giuliano to 219 to 220, and therefore named Julia Paula, while Hekler dates them from 230 to 250, and Lawrence in the time of Philip the Arab (244 to 249).33 Thus the statue in Cairo could not have been made around 100 a .d ., as it has been dated up to now, but to the period between 220 and 250, and most likely to the decade betw een 220 and 230. The body of the statue in Cairo also shows details typical of the late Roman period. The repetition of the rounded folds on the lower arm, of the vertical folds falling from the left hand, of the sharp straight folds running from the left hip diagonally to the right knee, of the zigzag folds next to the left leg, and of the triangular folds over the left supporting leg (instead of the continuation of the vertical folds at the side) are all signs that the organic rendering of the draping has been replaced by the late Roman, decorative conception of drapery. A good parallel, for example, to the fold over the supporting foot is found on the tomb relief of Smyrna (Fig. 716) of the late second or early third century and, still later, on the Tyche of Alexandria on an ivory relief decorating the pulpit in the Cathedral of Aachen.38 The head of this elderly lady in Cairo is set on the body of the younger Herculaneum woman. This may be due to the fact that the two types of Herculaneum w om en later were not clearly distinguished. On late Attic and Asiatic tomb reliefs, we occasionally find the large Herculaneum woman with bare head, and the small one with covered head. Thus, on the tomb relief of Hieronis, set up by her husband Moukianos and dated about 200 a . d ., probably from Thrace, now in Istanbul (Fig. 719), the wife has the attitude of the younger Herculaneum woman, but her head is covered by the palla. The man wears the pallium in the prescribed form.30 152

THE COPIES OF THE HERCULANEUM WOMEN A statue in Saloniki in the type of the small Herculaneum woman I would date around the middle of the third century. Others have dated it to the early or late third or early fourth century.41 This, then, would be the last of the copies of these tw o types w ith portrait heads. The long series of statues dated by their portrait heads ought to make it possible for us to give a date to the many headless torsos of the same types. External and stylistic considerations point to a date in the early third century a . d . for the torsos found in the Atrium Vestae in the Roman Forum (Figs. 709-710)42 because inscriptions dating from the early third century a . d . were found together with them—but unfortunately they were not connected w ith them. It is interesting to note that these Vestal Virgins are not represented in their prescribed dress, but in the different types of Greek models popular with other Roman ladies. The large woman (Fig. 709) holds a bunch of poppies and wheat, the attributes of Demeter, also fotmd on eight other replicas. The execution is clear but rather schematized. A statue from Ostia in the Lateran (Fig. 711)43 is schematized to a still greater degree, with parallel folds, for example, in the triangle betw een the left shoulder and both hands, and between and below the knees. Shallow engraved folds are set betw een the plastic ridges. The original head is lost with the exception of the corkscrew locks falling on the shoulders. This seems a variation of the large Herculaneum woman made in the third century a . d . A funerary statue in Ostia in the type of the large Herculaneum woman (Fig. 712), found in the cemetery of Isola Sacra, with a cavity for the head and with ears of wheat in the left hand, is probably Trajanic in date. The same is certain for two torsos in Cyrene of the type of the small Herculaneum woman.44 The series of copies shows that the tradition for these types was good, and, except for the Hadrianic period, the original arrangement of the mantle was w ell imitated. W e have in these copies a kind of imitation three times removed from the original. The early Roman copies imitate the creations of the Classical and Hellenistic periods. The late Roman adaptations imitate the early Roman copies. The emphasis on the individual is strengthened by the portrait head inserted into the older composition. The drapery arrangement was so com plicated that it could not be recreated, but only imitated by the copyists of the Roman period. The arrangement is true to nature, for a large square piece of fabric used for the himation permits the recreation of the dress of the large Herculaneum woman on a living model (Figs. 713-714).45 It resembles the original statue in Dresden very closely (Figs. 664-665). W e can see the three ends hanging at the side, made clear by little ball or cone-shaped weights that the Greeks used to mark the corners and to make good folds. W e see the corner betw een the upper edge and the side edge hanging to the rear behind the left hip; the two corners betw een the side edges and the lower edge hang close together near the left knee, one coming from the left hand, the other from the left arm. The fourth com er coming from the left shoulder is hidden under the upper layer of the mantle. A model of the small Herculaneum woman (Fig. 715) was attem pted by Dorothea Schmidt, the Director of the School for Rhythmic Gymnastic in Berlin. She reversed the sides, but the motifs of the folds betw een the shoulders and arms come out quite similar to the Graeco-Roman statues.

153

THE COPIES OF THE HERCULANEUM W OMEN

3. FUNERARY STELAE AND SARCOPHAGI The series of statues in the round depicting Herculaneum w om en can be supplemented by representations on funerary stelae and sarcophagi. The deceased and their families began to be represented on Attic funerary stelae by definite types in the first century b . c . The types of the Herculaneum women, however, began to be used only in the imperial period and become particularly common in the second century a . d ., when Greece prospered under Roman rule. To the early Antonine period, the middle of the second century, seems to belong the fragment in Munich, of which head, left arm, and background are modern.48 It is a sober and rather exact copy of the small Herculaneum woman. Many examples come from the later Antonine period, when the rendering is lively, with much light and shade, but, in contrast to the statues, not always quite exact. Thus, in Athens, the stele of Smyrna, the wife of Himeros from Miletus (Fig. 716)47 combines the gesture and uncovered head of the small Herculaneum woman and the arrangement of the garment of the large one. The long diagonal edge of the mantle coming from the right shoulder and crossing to the left hand typical of the large Herculaneum woman is rightly used, since the woman was married. In Athens, the stele of the mid-wife Herm ione (Fig. 717)48 belongs to the period around 200 a . d ., the time of Septimius Severus. This is a simplified version of the small Herculaneum woman. The end of the drapery which is lifted to the left shoulder is spread out according to the frontal tendency beginning in this period. The reliefs where mother and daughter are shown together in the tw o types testify that the use of the large Herculaneum woman for matrons and the small for the young women was continued. On one relief inserted in the wall of the small Metropolis at Athens (Fig. 718),49 the daughter has been placed on a footstool to bring her to the same height as her mother. A wool basket beside her alludes to her domestic qualities. The rather baroque style, particularly in the folds falling from the left hand of the mother, dates the stele to the late Antonine period. The heads are turned slightly toward each other and not in an absolutely frontal pose, as they would be in the third century a . d . To the third century belong four funerary stelae from northern Greece, now in Istanbul. One was erected by Chrestos Moukianos to his wife Hieronis (Fig. 719).50 The husband is dressed as a palliatus. The wife shows the arrangement of the small Herculaneum woman, but the palla is drawn over her head, as on the large one. This mixture of the two types began in the late second and became more frequent in the early third century, to which period the hairdo of Hieronis belongs, with large waves of hair parted in the center (like with Julia Paula, Fig. 708). Chrestos is accompanied by a small slave boy. Next to Hieronis is her little slave girl, holding her jewelry box. This and the mirror above her show her as a beautiful, well-groom ed woman. Between the wife and her husband are a wool basket, a large distaff, and a spindle, characterizing her as an industrious housewife. On the second stele, the mother Artemisia is in the type of the Pudicitia, the sons (or husband and son) Akyda and Julius Tryphon are palliati, while Hygeia who has set up the tombstone, is in the type of the small Herculaneum woman, but with her head covered.51 According to the inscription, on the third stele in Istanbul, Karpime and three of her children dedicated the funerary stele to her husband Stolos and to the oldest brother of the children, 154

THE COPIES OF THE HERCULANEUM WOMEN probably the eldest son of Karpime and Stolos (Fig. 720).52 Again, the father wears the pallium. The mother is in the type of the large Herculaneum woman. The tallest son, next to the father, as well as the two smallest sons, apparently twins, also are palliati, while the daughter next to her mother is in the type of the small Herculaneum woman. Thus, the tradition of making the mother resemble Demeter and the daugher Persephone continued to be adhered to in later Roman art. The fourth stele was set up by Dionysia for her husband Thrason and their sons.53 She is depicted as a large Herculaneum woman; the husband and the three sons of different ages are seen as palliati. The carving of funerary stelae ended during the third century a . d ., and their place was taken by sarcophagi. In the Asiatic sarcophagi, the type of the large Herculaneum woman was often used, mostly for the wife of the deceased. C.R. Morey, in his book on the sarcophagus of Claudia Antonia and the Asiatic sarcophagi, has named it type 4. The small Herculaneum woman was not favored much. Nevertheless, w e find on a sarcophagus, now in the Palazzo Colonna, dated around 200 (Figs. 721-723) not only the large Herculaneum woman used on the front and back sides, but also the small Herculaneum woman used on both short sides.54 It is dedicated to three generations of a family. The grandparents are seated at the two ends of the front side. Before the seated man stands the large Herculaneum woman, his daughter or daughter-in-law, while before the seated woman stands a palliatus, her son or son-in-law. A granddaughter stands on both short sides; she is carved in the type of the small Herculaneum woman. On one side she stands opposite a brother, with the gate of Hades in between (Fig. 722); on the other, she stands opposite another sister, with another brother standing betw een them (Fig. 723). From these examples, w e may conclude that the excellent fragmentary sarcophagus in Adalia, dated to the first quarter of the third century a . d ., had as a companion figure a palliatus.55 This is certainly the case on the Copenhagen sarcophagus found on the Via Salaria in Rome, discussed in the last chapter (Fig. 645).58 Marion Lawrence believes that this sarcophagus was reworked, w hile Vagn Poulsen was of the opinion that it was left unfinished. I agree with Lawrence, who dates the sarcophagus to around 300 a . d . Thus, there is a good tradition for the type of the large Her­ culaneum woman down to the end of the third or to the beginning of the fourth century a . d . The Christian sarcophagi do not have the small Herculaneum woman, w hile the large one is slightly changed to represent Ecclesia, the personification of the church, or the Virgin Mary. She appears in this way on a sarcophagus found in Salona (discussed in the last chapter. Figs. 648-649). Here, she holds one child (probably the Christ child) on her arm, resulting in a somewhat different arrangement of the drapery.57 Her counterpart, a palliatus, depicts Christ as the divine teacher (Fig. 651). Both are surrounded by many small children, with some grown ones in the background, all representing the Christian community. W hile Marion Lawrence formerly believed that the two were husband and wife, she now agrees with O. W ulff that this is a Christian sarcophagus, because betw een them is the Christian symbol of the Good Shepherd carrying a lamb (Fig. 650). This sarcophagus is dated around 300 or 325. The type of the Herculaneum woman is also used for Ecclesia or Mary, again altered somewhat more, on the sarcophagus in Perugia, dated about 360 a . d . (Fig. 657).58 Here she stands to the left of the seated Christ, together with eight Apostles, five in the foreground and three in the background. W ilpert is of the opinion that here she is the Virgin Mary. As so often occurs in Christian art, the old forms are given new content. 155

THE COPIES OF THE HERCULANEUM W OM EN It is interesting to compare in this respect the two short sides of the nearly contemporary sarcophagi from the Via Salaria (Figs. 646-647) and from Salona (Figs. 652-653). Both have the Hades portal on one side, as does the sarcophagus in Rome shown in Fig. 722, among many others. On the Salona sarcophagus, the family to whom the sarcophagus belongs stands at the two sides of the gate (Fig. 652), as do the children on the sarcophagus in Rome (Fig. 722). On the former, the father with his two sons stands to the right, the mother w ith her little girl to the left. The figures are unfinished, as Poulsen has asserted. The dark portal through w hich all mortals have to go is an important symbol for pagans and Christians alike. On the other side of both Christian sarcophagi (Figs. 647, 653) is the conventional allegory of death: the winged boy standing with crossed legs and leaning on the inverted torch to extinguish the flame, symbolic of the fact that the flame of life is gone. W e find this symbol on numerous pagan funerary urns, sarcophagi, and funerary monuments of the Roman imperial period, as well as on coins of the second and third centuries a . d . Like the flying Victories who become the Christian angels, this genius of death did not change in form but its meaning was changed when it became a Christian symbol.

4. THE REASONS FOR THE LARGE NUMBER OF COPIES Why were the two types of the Eleusinian goddesses used so frequently for honorary and funerary monuments of Roman ladies? Their mantle certainly has a pleasant arrangement, created in the period of the transition from Classical to H ellenistic art. During the Hellenistic period it was used with variations. In the transition period from H ellenistic to pure Roman art, it was first used in a definite form for portrait statues. The Greek mantle was used to dress the palliatus and palliata who were often combined on Attic and Asiatic funerary stelae (Figs. 600603) and sarcophagi Figs. 644-645).39 W hile the general arrangement of the clothing remained the same in Roman times, the details were rendered in the style of their period. Therefore, the torsos which cannot be dated by the hairdo of the portrait heads can be dated by comparing them with contemporary statues. The Greek type of the Eleusinian goddess Dem eter was taken over for the Roman Ceres, together with the Greek cult. This cult flourished particularly in Sicily, and from there it spread to North Africa.60 That is the reason why we have so many copies from Syracuse, Cherchel, Phillipeville, Timgad, Constantine, Lambese, Benghasi, Alexandria, Leptis Magna, and Cyrene (Figs. 704-705),61 particularly from the period of the Antonines and the Severans, the emperors under whom Roman Africa flourished. Ceres, like Dem eter, was the goddess of agriculture and grain, and that is why in many cases she carries a bunch of ears of w heat or poppies (Figs. 645,696, 697, 709). She is also the promoter of human civilization and in particular, the founder and protectress of marriage. The matrons who are represented in her type therefore must have closely associated themselves with this latter role of D em eter as protectress and mother. Demeter’s daughter, Kore or Persephone, was very intim ately connected with her mother,62 and Demeter suffered deeply when Hades abducted her. The return of Kore to her mother is a parallel to the sprouting of fruit from the earth in the spring. It is thus quite natural that mother and daughter were often represented together (cf. note 49 and Fig. 718). D em eter and Kore were 156

THE COPIES OF THE HERCULANEUM WOMEN venerated together in Eleusis and many other places. It is therefore understandable -that Kore’s type was chosen for unmarried girls on Attic and Asiatic funerary reliefs, as w ell as on Roman sarcophagi. While the large and older Herculaneum woman represents the wife of the deceased, the small and younger one represents the daughter. Although sometimes in the later period the two types were no longer so sharply differentiated (Figs. 693, 694, 702, 706, 709, 716, 719), the symbolic connection with the Eleusinian goddesses seems to have been felt during all periods. The religious significance of the original Greek type and its Roman parallel made it possible to adapt the older Herculaneum woman for the personification of the Christian church or the Virgin Mary (Figs. 649, 657). Not only the artistic form survived, but also the fundamental religious' meaning. The same is seen in the depiction of Christ as the Good Shepherd (Fig. 650).

5. CONCLUSION The two types of the Herculaneum women were very popular from early Hellenistic times, around 300 b .c ., and remained popular through six centuries, until about 300 a . d . Besides exact copies variations were made during the Hellenistic period, in marble as well as in terracotta.63 During the Roman imperial period, there were many copies with portrait heads, beginning in the Augustan period, through the Claudian, Neronian, Flavian, Trajanic, Hadrianic, Antonine, and Severan periods, down to the late third century.64 The sculptors of later funerary stelae in Attica as well as in Asia Minor and the later Roman sarcophagi used, besides the two types, mixtures of the two, either the small Herculaneum woman with covered head (Figs. 702, 719), or the large one with bare head (Figs. 693, 694). The large Herculaneum woman was adapted for Ecclesia or the Virgin Mary (Figs. 649, 657) on Christian sarcophagi of the fourth century. The two types of Herculaneum women were combined with different male types, most commonly with the man in a pallium, the Roman man in the Greek himation, who might be the husband or the son of the large Herculaneum woman, and the father or brother of the small Herculaneum woman. Thus, on the stele of Stolos (Fig. 720) the father and his three sons are depicted as palliati, while the mother is portrayed as the large Herculaneum woman and the daughter as the small Herculaneum woman. In general the large type is reserved for the married woman, the small for the unmarried woman. On the sarcophagus in Copenhagen (Fig. 645) a married couple appears as a large Herculaneum woman and a palliatus. On the front side of the sarcophagus in the Palazzo Colonna, there are three generations, the middle one depicted in these two types. When an older woman is represented in the type of the small Herculaneum woman (Fig. 706), she is probably unmarried. On earlier Roman funerary stelae, the place of the Herculaneum women was taken by Pudicitia, on later sarcophagi by the palliata modeled after the palliatus. Neither Pudicitia, nor palliata, nor any other Greek female type was used for Roman portrait statues as often as the two Herculaneum women, which are second only to the palliatus in the number of examples known.

157

THE COPIES OF THE HERCULANEUM WOMEN

Footnotes to Chapter 12

This chapter is reprinted in a revised form from the author’s article in the ProcPhilSoc 106 (1962), pp. 111-134. 1. A. Hekler, “Gewandstatuen,” pp. 127-129,192,226-227, Types XIV-XV; E.B. Van Deman, “The Value of the Vestal Statues as Originals,” AJA 12 (1908), pp. .324-335; G. Lippold, Kopien, pp. 212-213. 2. F.P. Johnson, Lysippos, pp. 154-163; D. Tsontchev, “Monuments de la sculpture romaine en Bulgarie méridionale,” Coll.Latomus 39 (1959), Nos. 24,30,42,44-46 (He did not recognize the types and even believes fragments 24 and 30 to be male); G. Traversari, Statue iconiche, pp. 77-85, Nos. 34-36 (small), 39,42-43 (large), pi. XVIII, figs. 2-3, pi. XIX, fig· 1, pi· XX, fig· 3, pi. XXI, figs. 2-3 (He gives excellent datings); E. Rosenbaum, Cat.Cyren.Sculpt., pp. 93-95, Nos. 160-165, pis. LXXIII-LXXIV (She has essentially the same material as Traversari). New single copies turn up from time to time, such as a small Herculaneum woman found in Palmyra (see above, Fig. 611, note 22), and more can be expected. 3. A. Conze, Die attischen Grabreliefs, IV, pp. 42-47, Nos. 1894-1920, pis. CCCCV-CCCCX; A. Mühsam, “AtticGrave Reliefs from the Roman Period,” Berytus 10 (1952), pp. 101-102, pis. XII, XIII, fig. 1, pi. XVII, figs. 2-3, pi. XVIII, fig. 1, pis. XX, XXI, XXII, figs. 2-3, pis. XXIII, XXIV, figs. 2-3; H. Riemann, Kerameikos 2. Die Skulpturen, p. 65, Nos. 68,133, pi. 18; C.R. Morey, Asiatic Sarc., type 4, pp. 11-12, 37-38, 60, frontispiece, pi. opposite, p. 21, figs. 14, 22,55, 59,108,135; M. Lawrence, “Additional Asiatic Sarcophagi,” MAAR 20 (1951), p. 120, fig. 1, p. 126, fig. 8. See this chapter, section 3, for funerary stelae and sarcophagi. 4. For the large Herculaneum women in Dresden, see P. Hermann, Verzeichnis, pp. 71-72, No. 326, fig. 326; F.P. Johnson, Lysippos, p. 155, pi. 26; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pi. 310; H. Bulle, Schöne Mensch, cols. 280-282, pi. 132; G. Lippold, Gr.Plastik, p. 242, pi. 86, fig. 1; R. West, Röm.Porträtplastik, I, pp. 226, 227, pi. LXI, fig. 271; A. Hekler, op.cit., supra note 1, pp. 127-129; G.M.A. Richter, “Who Made . .. Statues,” p. 188, fig. 24. For the small Herculaneum woman in Dresden, see P. Herrmann, op.cit., p. 72, No. 327; F.P. Johnson, op.cit., p. 158, pi. 27; Br.-Br., op.cit., pi. 558; G. Lippold, op.cit., p. 242, fig. 2; A. Hekler, op.cit., pp. 127-129; G.M.A. Richter, op.cit., p. 188, fig. 28. 5. F.P. Johnson, Lysippos, p. 154. 6. G.E. Rizzo, Prassitele, pp. 100-103, pis. CLI-CLV, CLIX. 7. For e x a m p l e , for the coins of Queen Berenice II (3rd cent, b .c .), see F. Imhoof-Blumer, Porträtköpfe a u f antiken Münzen hellenischer und hellenisierter Völker (Leipzig 1885), p. 87, pi. VIII, figs. 2, 6, 7; E. Pfuhl, “Ikonographische Beiträge zur Stilgeschichte der Hellenistischen Kunst,” Jdl 45 (1930), pp. 41-42, pi. Ill, figs. 17-19; K. Lange, Herrscherköpfe des Altertums im Münzbild ihrer Zeit (Berlin-Zürich 1938), pp. 60-61; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age1, pp. 91-92, fig. 344. 8. For the peculiar treatment of the drapery characteristic of the late Hellenistic period, but which began in the late third century b . c ., see D. Thompson, “Bronze Dancer from Alexandria,” AJA 54 (1950), pp. 376-379, figs. 1-10; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age2, pp. 129-132, figs. 499-521 passim. For Fig. 678, the Malibu head, see below, note 13. 9. For the two small women from Herculaneum in Dresden, see supra, note 4 for one and for the other (our Fig. 674) (head is new), see P. Herrmann, Verzeichnis, p. 72, No. 328; F.P. Johnson, Lysippos, p. 158, No. 4; Br.-Br., Denkmäler, text to pi. 558, fig. 1. For the small Herculaneum woman from Delos, in the National Museum in Athens, see S. Karouzou, Nat.Arch.Mus.,Sculpt., pp. 89-90, No. 1827, pi. 33b; V. Stars, Ath.Marb. et Bronzes, I, pp. 85-86, No. and fig. 1827; F.P. Johnson, op.cit., p. 158, No. 3; M. Collignon, Statues funéraires, p. 171, fig. 102; L. Couve, “Fouilles a Délos,” BCH 19 (1895), pp. 482-484, pi. VII. This statue has remains of color—blue and violet on the drapery, red and gold on the sandals. For another small Herculaneum woman, headless, still in Delos, see J. Marcadé, Mus.Délos, pp. 287-288, A 2937, pi. LXVI, also MN 1827. For the statue from Aegion,

158

THE COPIES OF THE HERCULANEUM WOMEN

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

17.

18.

19.

20. 21.

22. 23.

24. 25.

in the National Museum in Athens, see V. Stäis, op.cit., I, pp. 78-79, No. 242; F.P. Johnson, op.cit., p. 158, No. 2; M. Collignon, op.cit., p. 170, fig. 101; H. Bulle, Schöne Mensch, cols. 279-280, figs. 65-66; Br.-Br., op.cit., text to pi. 558, fig. 2. A. Michaelis, Anc.Marbles, II, p. 541, No. 2; G. Kleiner, Tanagrafiguren, pp. 235-236, pi. 57a. For this treatment whereby the folds of the undergarment show through the outer garment, see D. Thompson, op.cit., supra note 8,figs. 1, 3, 11, 13; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age2, figs. 378-379, 499, 511, 520. See supra, note 9: P. Herrmann, Verzeichnis, p. 72, No. 328, etc. The head in the J. Paul Getty Museum, A 56.S-16, was acquired in 1956 from N. Koutoulakis in Paris. I owe the information to Mrs. Anne Jones, Curator of the Museum. F.P. Johnson, Lysippos, p. 156, No. 35; Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 2772. The restoration of the left hand with the ears of wheat and a poppy is correct. S. Karouzou, Nat.Arch.Mus.,Sculpt., p. 86, No. 3622; F.P. Johnson, op.cit., p. 157; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age2, p. 177, fig. 750. E. Petersen, Ara Pacis Augustae, Oesterr.Arch.Inst, Sonderschrift II (Vienna 1902), pp. 106-108, pi. VI, figs. 24 and 28; F. Studniczka, “Zur Ara Pacis,” Ahh.Sächs.Akad. 26 (1909), pp. 901-944, pi. II, figs. 24, 27, 28, pi. III, figs. 3-4; G. Moretti, The Ara Pacis Augustae, pp. 11, 36, 37; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age.2, pp. 188-189, fig. 813; E. Strong, Rom.Sculpt., p. 49, PI. XI; Helbig-Speier, Führer1, II, pp. 683-684. On the daughter of Balbus, in the form of a small Herculaneum woman (our Figs. 683-684), see A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, pp. 11-12, No. 22 (6244); idem, Auszug, p. 11, No. 13; A. Hekler, “Gewandstatuen,” pp. 158-159, 227, Type XVe; G.M.A. Richter, “Who Made . . . Statues,” pp. 188, 208, fig. 29; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age2, p. 177, fig. 753. For a statue of the other daughter of Balbus (our Figs. 685-686), see A. Ruesch, op.cit., p. 12, No. 27 (6248); B. Maiuri, Musée Nap., p. 51; R. West, Röm.Porträtplastik, I, pp. 225-226, pi. LXI, fig. 270; E. Kusch, Herculaneum (Nürnberg 1960), p. 24, fig. 59. For a statue of the mother Viciria (our Fig. 687), see A. Ruesch, op.cit., p. 11, No. 20 (6168); idem, Auszug, p. 11, No. 12 (6168); A. Hekler, op.cit., p. 131; idem, Bildniskunst, pi. 205a; R. West, op.cit., p. 163, pi. XLI, fig. 175; J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.Ikon., I, p. 270. Helbig-Speier, Führer1, I, pp. 428-429, No. 541 (Inv. 2708); G. Lippold, Skulpt.vat.Mus., Ill, 2, pp. 285-286, Galleria dei Candelabri No. 20, pi. 129; A. Hekler, “Gewandstatuen,” pp. 180-181, 227, Type XVi, p. 244, fig. 21 . O. Mendel, Mus.ottomans,Cat.Sculpt., II, pp. 340-342, No. 604 (27); R. West, Röm.Porträtplastik, II, p. 50, No. 14, pi. VIII, fig. 48; M. Schede, Meisterwerke der türkischen Museen zu Konstantinopel. Griechische und römische Skulpturen (Berlin 1928), 1, pls. 31-32. On this particular Flavian hairdo, see E. Strong, Rom.Sculpt., pp. 365-367, pi. CXV. A. Ruesch, Guida Napoli, p. 238, No. 988 (6057); idem, Auszug, p. 174, No. 682 (6057); R. West, Röm.­ Porträtplastik, II, p. 94, No. 2, pi. XXVII, fig. 99; J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.Ikon., II, 2, p. 104; H. von Heintze, Römische Porträtplastik aus sieben Jahrhunderten (Stuttgart 1961), p. 10, pl. 17. M. Wegner, Hadrian, pp. 74-83, 118-125, pls. (Plotina, Marciana, Matidia, Sabina). For the small Herculaneum woman in the British Museum, see A.H. Smith, Cat.Sculpt.Brit.Mus., II, p. 235, No. 1415; G. Traversari, Statue iconiche, p. 79, No. 37, pi. XIX, fig. 2; E. Rosenbaum, Cat.Cyren.Sculpt., p. 54, No. 41, pi. XXXI, fig. 2-3 (head), pl. LXXIII, fig. 2; S. Reinach, Rép.stat., II, p. 665, fig. 12; F.P. Johnson, Lysippos, p. 159, No. 16; A. Hekler, “Gewandstatuen,” pp. 192,227, Type XVj. For the large Herculaneum woman in the Vatican, see W. Amelung, Sculpt.vat.Mus., I, pp. 96-97, Braccio Nuovo No. 80, pl. 13; F.P. Johnson, op.cit., p. 156, No. 19; J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.Ikon., II, 2, p. 132; S. Reinach, op.cit., I, p. 583, fig. 4; A. Hekler, op.cit., p. 167, No. 3, p. 226, Type XIVb. For the hairdo of Sabina, see M. Wegner, Hadrian, pp. 84-91, 126-131, pls. 41-48. For the headless statue by A. Sextius Eraton, see G. Treu, Olympia, III, pp. 252-254, figs. 288-290, pl. 62, fig. 6; F.P. Johnson, Lysippos, p. 156, No. 15; S. Reinach, Rép.stat., II, p. 671, fig. 9; A. Hekler, “Gewandstatuen,” p. 175; P. Graindor, Athenes de Tib'ere a Trajan (Cairo 1931), pp. 178,180-181, figs. 18,20,21. For the headless statue of the older Faustina, see G. Treu, op.cit.. Ill, pl. 67, fig. 3; F.P. Johnson, op.cit., p. 156, No. 17; S. Reinach, op.cit., II, p. 671, fig. 8; A. Hekler, op.cit., pp. 201-202,226, Type XIVi; M. Bieber, “The Copies of the Herculaneum Women,” ProcPhilSoc 106 (1962), p. 118, fig. 13a. For the fragmentary statue of the older

159

THE COPIES OF THE HERCULANEUM WOMEN Faustina with head (our Fig. 694), see G. Treu, op.cit., pp. 265,273-274,277, pi. 67, fig. 1; F.P. Johnson, op.cit., p. 155, No. 3; S. Reinaeh, op.cit., II, p. 669, fig. 13. Another early Antonine copy of the large Herculaneum woman is in Florence-see G. Mansuelli, Uffizi Scult., p. 169, No. 146 (Inv. 197), fig. 148; F.P. Johnson, op.cit., p. 156, No. 24. For the hairstyle of the Antonine period, see M. Wegner, Herrscherbildnisse, pp. 26-32, 48-55, 74-78. 26. For the coin in Fig. 695, see H. Mattingly, BMC Empire, IV (London 1940 reprinted 1968), p. 243, No. 1521, pi. 36, fig. 8. 27. Calza-Squarciapino, Mus.Ost., p. 47, No. 1 (30), fig. 27; M. Wegner, Herrscherbildnisse, pp. 29, 102, 159, 166, pi. 58 m-s. 28. A. Michaelis, Anc.Marbles, pp. 671-672, No. Id; F.P. Johnson, Lysippos, p. 155, No. 6; S. Reinaeh, Rép.stat., I, p. 585, fig. 3; A. Hekler, “Gewandstatuen,” pp. 192,226, Type XlVf; F. Poulsen, Greek and Roman Portraits in English Country Houses (Oxford 1923), p. 91, No. 76. 29. For the statue of Vibullia Alcia in Berlin in the type of a large Herculaneum woman, see R. Kekulé, Beschreibung ant.Skulpt., p. 535, No. 2; C. Blürnel, Berlin,Kat.V.Röm.Kopien, p. 30, K 248, pi. 67; G. Treu, Olympia, III, pi. 67, fig. 2; F.P. Johnson, op.cit., p. 156, No. 16; S. Reinaeh, op.cit., II, p. 670, fig. 6; A. Hekler, op.cit., pp. 201-202, 226, Type XlVh. 30. For the younger Faustina in the type of the small Herculaneum woman, see G. Treu, Olympia, III, pp. 265, 274-275,277, fig. 303, pi. 68, fig. 1, pi. 69, fig. 5; F.P. Johnson, op.cit., p.159, No. 13; S. Reinaeh, op.cit., II, p. 665, fig. 8; A. Hekler, op.cit., p. 202, p. 227 Type XVI; M. Wegner, Herrscherbildnisse, p. 216. In Olympia the younger Faustina is shown as a bride or as a young girl engaged to Marcus Aurelius, while on a relief in Cairo, she is represented as the married empress. This relief showing the family of Antoninus Pius (P. Graindor, Bustes et statues, p. 55, pi. XIV) represents the younger Faustina in the type of the larger Herculaneum woman standing next to Marcus Aurelius. The older Faustina stands next to Lucius Verus, who is represented as a palliatus, while she is in the guise of the Pudicitia. For Athenais in the type of the small Herculaneum woman, see G. Treu, op.cit., pp. 267,275,277, pi. 68, fig. 3, pi. 69, fig. 7; F.P. Johnson, op.cit., p. 160, No. 27; S. Reinaeh, op.cit, II, p. 670, fig. 9; A. Hekler, op.cit., p. 202, No. 5, p. 227, Type XVm; H. Schleif, Olympische Forschungen (Berlin 1944), I, pp. 58-60, 64, pis, 25, 34-36. 31. Calza-Squarciapino, Mus.Ost., pp. 47-48, No. 2 (1123); F.P. Johnson, op.cit., p. 159, No. 22; S. Reinaeh, op.cit., V, p. 374, fig. 2. .32. J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, p. 175, No. 1130; E. Michon, Cat.Sommaire, pp. 64-65, No. 1130, pi. XLVI (wrongly names the type Pudicitia and identifies the statue as Crispina); G.M.A. Richter, “Who Made . . . Statues,” pp. 188,199, fig. 25 (identifies the statue as Faustina the Elder); G. Traversari, Statue iconiche, p. 83, No. 41, pi. XXII, fig. 2 (dates it to the beginning of the Antonine period); E. Rosenbaum, Cat.Cyren.Sculpt., pp. 60-61, No. 57, pi. XXXVIII, fig. 1 (head), pi. LXXIV, fig. 1; F.P. Johnson, op.cit, p. 155, No. 5; S. Reinaeh, op.cit, I, p. 158, fig. 3. 33. H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Pal.Cons., p. 109, No. 57, pi. 38; F.P. Johnson, Lysippos, p. 155, No. 4; A. Hekler, “Gewandstatuen, pp. 192,226, Type XlVe. For the hairdo of Crispina, see E. Strong, Rom.Sculpt., p. 379, pi. CXX, No. 10 and M. Wegner, Herrscherbildnisse, pp. 74-78, pis. 57-64. 34. For the hairdos of the third century, see below note 37 and E. Strong, op.cit., pp. 379-832, pi. CXXVI, figs. 1- 11. 35. J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, p. 188, No. 1780; E. Michon, Cat.Sommaire, p. 91, No. 1780; G. Traversari, Statue iconiche, pp. 82, 84, No. 40, pi. XXII, fig. 1 (he dates it to the time of the younger Faustina or later); E. Rosenbaum, Cat.Cyren.Sculpt., pp. 68-69, No. 80, pi. L, fig. 4 (head), pi. LXXIV, fig. 2 (she suggests a date in the later Antonine period); F.P. Johnson, Lysippos, p. 155, No. 7; S. Reinaeh, Rép.stat., II, p. 666, fig. 10; M. Bieber, Entwicklungsgeschichte2, p. 50, pi. 51, fig. 1. 36. C.C. Edgar, Greek Sculpture. Catalogue Général du Musée de Caire, 4 (Cairo 1903), p. 22, No. 27477, pi. XII; P. Graindor, Bustes et statues, pp. 120-122, No. 61, pis. LIII-LIV; F.P. Johnson, op.cit., p. 159, No. 20; S. Reinaeh, op.cit., II, p. 665, No. 5; A. Heckler, “Gewandstatuen,” p. 227, Type XVd. 37. J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.Ikon., II, 3, pis. XVI-XVIII (heads of Julia Domna), pi. XXXII (Julia Mamaea), pis. XLIII-XLIV (Otacilia). For portraits on coins, see Bernoulli, Münztaf. I, figs. 6 (Didia Clara), 13-15 (Julia

THE COPIES OF THE HERCULANEUM WOMEN

38.

39. 40. 4L

42.

43.

44.

45. 46. 47.

48. 49.

50. 51.

Domna); II, figs. 18-19 (Julia Soamias); III, figs. 4-5 (Orbiana), 6-7 (Julia Mamaea); IV, figs. 3 (Tranquillina), 6-7 (Otacilia), 13-14 (Etruscilla); V, figs. 13-15 (Salonina). Also for coins of the empresses from Didius Julianus to Elagabulus, see H. Mattingly, BMC Empire, V (London 1950), passim; for those from Severus Alexander to Balbinus and Pupienus (222-238), see Mattingly, BMC, VI (London 1962), passim. Finally, see R. Delbrueck, Die Münzbildnisse von Maximinus bis Carinus (Berlin 1940). Clear drawings of the coiffures from Didia Clara to Severina are made by K. Wessel, “Römische Frauenfrisuren von der severischen bis zur konstantinischen Zeit,” AA 61-62 (1946-1947), cols. 63-67. Very good illustrations of coins and marble portraits in B.M. Felletti-Maj, Iconografia romana imperiale da Severo Alessandro a M. Aurelio Carino, 222-285 D.C. (Rome 1958): pi. VI, figs. 16-18 (Orbiana), pis. VI-VII, figs. 19-24 (Mamaea), pi. XXII, figs. 69-71 (Tranquillina), pls. XXVI-XXVII, figs. 81-84 (Otacilia), pls. XXXI-XXXII, figs. 97-101 (Etruscilla), pi. XLIV, figs. 144-146 (Salonina). F. Poulsen, Cat.Ny Carlsberg, pp. 522-524, No. 75.3 (Inv. 1925) and No. 755 (Inv. 825); Billedtavler, pi. LXIII, No. 753, pi. LXIV, No. 755; II. Weber, “Zu einem Bildnis der Kaiserin Julia Paula,” Jdl 68 (1953), pp. 124-138, figs. 1-6; A. Giuliano, Ritratti Lat., pp. 65-66, fig. 76, pi. 46 (see also fig. 78, pls. 47-49); A. Hekler, Bildniskunst, p. XLVI, pi. 303 (head on 755); A.W. Lawrence, Classical Sculpture, p. 389, pi. 155b (on head 753). Perhaps the little scallops at the end of the waves on some coins of Julia Paula (our Fig. 708) are a replacement for these curls. For the relief of Smyrna, see below, note 47. For the relief in Aachen, see O. Wulff, Altchrist.und byz. Kunst, I, p. 189, fig. 190. (For Mary on a diptych, see Wulff, p. 196, fig. 198). For the stele of Hieronis, see O. Mendel, Mus.Ottoifians,Cat.Sculpt., Ill, pp. 123-124, No. 908 (2204). S. Pélékanides, “ΑΓΑΛΜΑ ΓΥΝΑΙΚΑΣ ΤΗΣ ΥΣΤΕΡΙΝΗΣ ΑΡΧΑΙΟΤΗΤΑΣ ΑΠΟ ΤΗ ΘΕΣ­ ΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΗ,” BCH73 (1949), ρρ. 294-305, pls. ΧΙΙ-ΧΙΙΙ; G.M.A. Richter, “Who Made . .. Statues,” pp. 188, 200, fig. 31. For the headless large Herculaneum woman in the Atrium Vestae (our Fig. 709), see H. Jordan, Der Tempel der Vesta (Berlin 1886), pi. VIII, fig. 4; F.P. Johnson, Lysippos, p. 156, No. 26; S. Reinach, Rép.stat., II, p. 661, fig. 2; A. Hekler, “Gewandstatuen,” p.211, No. 6, p.226,Type XIV1, p.246, fig. 26; E.B. Van Deman, op.cit., supra note 1, p. >330, fig. 5; M. Bieber, in Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. .3222. For the headless small Herculaneum woman in the Atrium Vestae (our Fig. 710), see H. Jordan, op.cit., pi. IX, fig. 8; F.P. Johnson, op.cit., p. 160, No. 41; S. Reinach, op.cit., II, p. 670, fig. 2; A. Hekler, op.cit.., p. 211, No. 4, p. 227, Type XVn; E.B. Van Deman, op.cit., p. 332, fig. 6; M. Bieber in Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 3223. Benndorf-Schöne, Bildwerke Lat.Mus., pp. 370-371, No. 523; F.P. Johnson, op.cit., p. 156, No. 29; A. Hekler, op.cit., p. 205, No. 6, p. 226, Type XlVj. There is some confusion as to the numbering of this statue in these various works. For the two torsos in Cyrene, see G. Traversali, Statue iconiche, pp. 77-78, Nos. 34-35, pi. XVIII, figs. 2-3; E. Rosenbaum, Cat.Cyren.Sculpt., p. 94, Nos. 162-163, pi. LXXIII, figs. 4-5; M. Bieber, op.cit., supra note 25, pp. 125-126, fig. 25a, b. M. Bieber, Griech. Kleidung, pp. 81-82, pi. LII, figs. 3-4. Furtwängler-Wolters, Glypt.München2, p. 258, No. 249; M. Bieber, op.cit., supra, note 25, p. 128, fig. 29. For other examples of Herculaneum women on Roman-Attic funerary reliefs and sarcophagi, see supra, note 3. Athens, National Museum No. 2700. A. Conze, Grabreliefs, IV, p. 45, No. 1913, pi. 410 fig. 1 ; A. Mühsam, op.cit., supra note 3, pp. 57,61, 72,85,91,95,102, pi. XVIII, fig. 1; M.Bieber, Entwicklungsgeschichté, pp. 43,50, pi. 49, fig. 2. A. Conze, op.cit., IV, p. 45, No. 1914, pi. 410, fig. 3; A. Mühsam, op.cit., pp. 55 (note 1), 63,64,72,88,98, pi. XXII, fig. 2. A. Conze, op.cit., IV, p. 50, No. 1936, pi. 417; K. Michel and A. Struck, “Die mittelbyzantinischen Kirchen Athens,” AthMitt 31 (1906), p. 305, fig. 24. For another relief of mother and daughter on the stele of Nike, dated to the time of Julia Domna, see A. Conze, op.cit., p. 50, No. 1934, pi. 416; A. Mühsam, op.cit., pp. 63,67,72,79,81, 85, pi. XX, fig. 1. See above, note 40 for the stele of Hieronis. O. Mendel, Mus.ottomans,Cat Sculpt., Ill, pp. 134-135, No. 919 (190).

161

THE COPIES OF THE HERCULANEUM W OM EN 52. Ibid., pp. 135-136, No. 920 (267). 53. Ibid., pp. 258-259, No. 1041 (252). 54. C.R. Morey, Asiatic Sure., pp. 37-38, fig. 55 and pi. opposite p. 21; O. Wulff, Altchrist.und byz.Kunst, I, pp. 170-171, figs. 164-165. For the front side, see M. Bieber, op.cit., supra note 25, p. 131, fig. 34a. 55. M. Lawrence, op.cit., supra note 3, p. 120, fig. 1. 56. See Chapter XI, Figs. 645-647, notes 59,71. 57. See Chapter XI, Figs. 648-653, note 73. 58. M. Lawrence, “Columnar Sarcophagi in the Latin W est/' ArtB 14 (1932), p. 130, fig. 42, and pp. 138-139. See also a sarcophagus in Florence, M. Lawrence, op.cit., p. 124, fig. 31 ; J. W ilpert, I Sarcophagi Cristiani antichi, p. 36, pi. 28, fig. 3. 59. See supra, notes 40,51-54,58. See also, A. Conze, Grabreliefs, IV, p. 59, No. 1971, pi. 424; p. 89, No. 2085a, pi. 458; p. 98, No. 2114, pi. 464; A. Mühsam, op.cit., supra note 3, pis. XII, pi. XXIV, fig. 3, pi. XXXI respectively. 60. See L. Beloch, in W.H. Roscher, Lexik.Myth., II, cols. 1284-1379 (“ Kore and Dem eter”); G. Ch. Picard, Les Religions de VAfrique antique, pp. 182-194. 61. See supra, notes 32, 35 for Figs. 704-705 all from Cyrenaica. See for the others also in the type of the large Herculaneum woman, F.P. Johnson, Lysippos, pp. 155-157. For seven examples holding poppies or ears of wheat, see F.P. Johnson, p, 157, note 109. Another example with the ears of wheat in the lefbhand has been found inTolmeta, Cyrenaica: E. Rosenbaum, Cat.Cyren.Sculpt., pp. 94-95, No. 165, pi. LXXIV, fig. 4; C.H. Kraeling and D.M. Brinkerhof, Ptolemais. City o f the Libyan Pentapolis (Chicago 1962), p. 184, pi. L. The statue of the older Faustina in the J. Paul Getty Museum (Figs. 697-699) has two struts for the support of the missing ears of wheat or poppies—see supra note 28. 62. Corresponding to Demeter as the large Herculaneum woman is Persephone as the small Herculaneum woman. See F.P. Johnson, op.cit., pp. 158-162. 63. G. Kleiner, Tanagrafiguren, pp. 143-146,235-236. 64. Chronology of the Monuments Illustrated: Ca. 300 B.c. Originals and exact copies Ca. 200-30 b .c . Hellenistic adaptations 30 b .c . - 6 8 a . d . Augustus-Nero 69-96 A .D . Flavians 98-117 Trajan 117-138 Hadrian 138-193 Antonines—Commodus 193-235 Severan 235-300 Late Roman Ca. 300-360 Early Christian

162

13 PORTRAITS OF ROMAN LADIES AS PRIESTESSES OF CERES AND OF EMPRESSES AS A U G U S T A E OR D I V A E 1. PRIESTESSES OF CERES The Herculaneum women are the female types that were most often used for portraits of Roman women, as has been seen in the preceding chapter. Married women were conceived in the type of the large Herculaneum woman, and unmarried women in the small type (see Chapter XII). There is a third type which has been called Praxitelean and is supposed to represent Demeter, because many examples hold poppies and ears of wheat, the Eleusinian symbols, in their left hands (see below. Figs. 728-733, 736, 738-740). The number of copies is not as large as the number of Herculaneum women. Hekler, who first collected examples of this type, made a list of 18.1 Lippold added five and W olters four; Poulsen has added at least six more.2This amounts to about 30 copies. Thus this type, not as common as the Herculaneum women, must have a definite and more lim ited significance. Poulsen has rightly seen that it was used only to portray ladies of noble descent, either married or unmarried, but they had to be officers or priestesses of temples erected for the Eleusinian goddesses. Cicero, talking about a sanctuary of Ceres in Catania, which is just as sacred as the one in Rome, asserts that no

PORTRAITS OF ROMAN LADIES AS PRIESTESSES OF CERES men but only ladies of noble extraction became priestesses and officers of such temples (in Verrem, IV, 99).3For example. Regilla, the wife of Herodes Atticus, was such a priestess, while the empress Faustina the elder was venerated as Demeter (cf. Chapter XII, Figs. 696-699). Therefore, I do not believe that the type represented the Greek Demeter originally, but may have been derived from the Roman Ceres or her priestesses. There are indeed forerunners of the type in Hellenistic art, but certainly not in Praxitelean art. An example would be the statuette of Kore found in the sanctuary of Demeter at Knidos.4This was developed into the palliata. Viciria Archias, the wife of Nonius Balbus, prominent in the early first century a .d . at Herculaneum, appears as a palliata (Fig. 687). Her statue must have been erected about 20 b .c .5 About the same period the statue of Livia, also in the type of a palliata, was set up in the Villa of the Mysteries near Pompeii.8 Probably to the same Augustan period belongs a bronze statuette in Dresden (Figs. 724-725).7 The style of the Viciria statue is decidedly late Hellenistic. The folds of the heavy woolen peplos show through the thin mantle in schematic vertical strokes, quite different from the earlier Hellenistic manner still preserved on some replicas of the dancing Muse (cf. Chapter X, Figs. 573, 577-580). The style of Viciria and the others is also quite different from the Kore created in the late fourth century b . c . They are tightly wrapped in their mantle and the right arm is laid into it as in a sling, while the right hand lies on the breast near the neck. The bronze statuette in Dresden holds the upper edge of the mantle as do several palliatae (cf. Chapter XI, Figs. 611, 614). All have the left arm hanging down; the mantle is wrapped around the left arm and the hand holds some folds of the mantle, except for the Dresden statuette. She holds a scroll as do many palliati (cf. Chapter XI, Figs. 627-628, 639-640). It is the palliata type, then, which was developed into the type with which we are concerned in this chapter. The difference between the Greek Hellenistic types (such as Viciria) and the portrait statues of Roman ladies of the imperial period is that in the latter the left hand grasps not the side edge of the mantle, but the lower edge, with the result that the lower edge is drawn up in a diagonal instead of horizontal line. This has been done also by the Terpsichore (cf. Chapter X, Figs. 573-580). But in this case, as always in Greek art, the gesture has a definite purpose. The Muse wants to free her leg to dance. The first statue which shows the motif without such a purpose is the portrait statue of Antonia, the wife of the older Drusus (Fig. 726).8 She was the daughter of Marc Antony and the mother of Germanicus and the emperor Claudius. On the Ara Pacis (built between 13 and 9 b . c .) she stands with her husband Drusus and has a similar arrangement of her mantle. Instead of holding the edge of the mantle, she holds the hand of little Claudius (Fig. 727).9 The portrait statue may have been erected by her grandson, the emperor Gaius Caligula (37-41), or by her son Claudius, who became emperor in 41 a . d . Claudius gave her the title Augusta and induced the Senate to confer on her all the honors which previously Livia had had. The over life-size statue would agree with such an honorable position. The hairdo, soft waves with small side curls, is certainly Claudian. This form of coiffure was also adopted by Livia in her later years. The young features of Antonia may have been idealized and shaped from an earlier portrait. The execution is excellent. The two corners, one hanging from the hand and one from the lower arm, are clearly indicated. The hand holds the lower edge so that a pouch is hanging under it. This was certainly set off by a different color from the outside. She does not hold any ears of wheat, and it is therefore not clear whether Antonia was meant to be a priestess or already a diva, an apotheosized princess. A statue found in Aphrodisias and now in Istanbul (Fig. 730)10 has been identified as Matidia 164

PORTRAITS OF ROMAN LADIES AS PRIESTESSES OF CERES by Ulrich Hausmann. Matidia was the daughter of Marciana, the older sister of Trajan. She was the mother of Sabina, who was already married in about 100 a .d . to Hadrian. Matidia as well as Sabina were portrayed for a while wearing a coiffure of the high toupee covered with small curls of the Flavian period, as did many women in the Trajanic period.11 Matidia was about 32 to 40 years old at the time of the marriage of her young daughter. She may have been the first for whom the type of the palliata, adapted to Antonia on the Ara Pacis and in her statue (Figs. 726-727) was changed to represent a priestess of Ceres. The right arm was moved sideward in order to hold the Eleusinian torch. The left hand, besides holding the lower edge of the mantle, was filled with a bunch of ears of wheat and a poppy capsule. The high toupee adds to the height and dignity of her appearance. As happened so often in religious usage, older forms of fashions became sacred. The execution of the statue is excellent. All forms of the dress are clear, and the folds are drawn in careful lines. Matidia received the title Augusta from her uncle, Trajan, after the death of her mother Marciana. A statue formerly in the Palazzo Braschi at Rome and now in Munich (Figs. 728-729)12has the same draping and attributes as the statue in Istanbul. The woman probably held a torch in her right hand and is seen holding two poppy capsules and an ear of wheat in her left hand. The hairdo is Trajanic, consisting of one small and two larger rolls of hair. This is shown by coins to be the hairstyle of Marciana. The Munich statue probably represents Marciana, not Matidia in her later years as has been formerly assumed. The execution is not as fine as on the statue from Aphrodisias (Fig. 730), but is nevertheless exact except in the back, an area so often neglected by copyists. The end of the mantle, thrown back over the left shoulder, hangs down too straight and too low; its comer comes down almost as far as the lower corner of the lower edge drawn up by the left hand. The comers are clearly marked by tassels. The vertical folds of the heavy peplos show in short and schematic strokes through the thin outer palla. It is a rather dry copy in the Trajanic style. A statue, originally found in a very broken state in a Roman tomb at Knidos together with an inscription to Likaithion, daughter of Aristokleides, and now in the British Museum, also seems to belong to the Trajanic period (Fig. 731).13 She must have been a priestess of Demeter, for she holds in her left hand one poppy capsule and two ears of wheat. She also must have been a noble lady to be represented in the same guise as the imperial princesses. Another Trajanic lady in the same type has been found in Rome and is now in Copenhagen.14 The head was reworked in the third or fourth century a .d ., when a man with the name of Eubulion dedicated the statue to his mother-in-law. He changed the head to match her features and also gave her a contemporary hairdo. Sabina as empress is represented in the same manner in an excellent over life-size statue in Ostia (Figs. 732-733).15 It must be dated to the later period of Hadrian. Sabina died in 136 a . d . She was about 40 to 50 years old when she wore her hair in this simple fashion, parted in the center and laid in soft waves. The right arm draws the torch (now lost) to her side so that the folds of the palla coming from the head and her right shoulder are almost straight. The left hand holds two ears of wheat and two poppy capsules. The design of the folds of the mantle is graceful and elegant. The side view shows the two corners with their tassels coming down from the left arm and the left hand clearly separated. This statue is certainly an official, idealized portrait statue, derived from an authorized model. It still has the schematic late Hellenistic rendering of the vertical folds of the peplos showing through the palla. The same rendering of the garment folds is seen all the more clearly on a headless statue also 165

PORTRAITS OF ROMAN LADIES AS PRIESTESSES OF CERES in Ostia (Figs. 734-735).16 The drapery is simplified. The cavity for the head and neck proves that this was a portrait statue. The lower right arm with the torch was also inset and is now broken off. The left hand does not hold the Eleusinian symbols. The execution is coarser and might already belong to the early Antonine period, when this type became particularly popular. The same difference on the two torsos in Ostia can also be seen on the two torsos in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme. The one, found in a tomb on the Via Latina and thus certainly sepulchral, is a refined work (Fig. 736).17The gracefully spread fingers of the left hand hold one poppy capsule and the palla in an elegant way. The folds of the palla are carefully drawn at the left side, and the comers are clearly distinguished. The execution seems to be Hadrianic. The second torso, not so well-preserved, is somewhat coarser (Fig. 737).18 The left hand has all its fingers bent, and the ear of wheat and the capsule of the poppy seem to have been originally inserted in a dowel hole. The different edges are there, but are not well separated. This work seems to be early Antonine. The older Faustina, married to Antoninus Pius, became Augusta in 138 and died in 141 a . d . She is certainly represented in a statue formerly in the Campana Collection and now in the Louvre (Fig. 738).19 She can easily be identified by her usual hairdo: large waves of her hair over the forehead and the nest of braids built up on the upper head, over which the mantle is drawn. She holds the torch in her right hand and two poppy capsules and two ears of wheat in her left hand. The two smaller fingers are bent, the others outstretched. There is no differentiation between the material and style of the tunica and palla. The two edges coming from the left wrist and hand are mixed together, but the corners with the tassels are clearly indicated. As always, the execution of statues representing the empress reveal the best works of the particular period. This statuary type is very common for ladies in the Antonine period. There is an excellent example of a grand old lady found in Rome near the Lateran and now in Copenhagen.20 Another good example is the over life-size statue of Cornelia Antonia, found in Yalovatch and now in Istanbul.21 The large size (2.05 meters) shows that Cornelia Antonia was an important person. She was not a priestess, for she holds neither a torch nor the Eleusinian symbols of wheat and poppy. She grasps the edge of the mantle coming from the head with her right hand and with her left hand the lower edge of the mantle. This is similar to the pose of Antonia, the wife of Drusus (supra, Fig. 726). The different edges and corners are clearly distinguished. Replicas and many variations were used for portraits, particularly of the Antonine period in Roman Africa-Cherchel, Bulla Regia, Carthage (Fig. 739), Tunis, and Timgad.22 The portrait statue in Ostia of the beautiful Syrian princess Julia Domna takes us down to about 200 a .d . (Figs. 740-741).23 She was the wife of Septimius Severus (193 to 211 a . d .), and she died in 217. She may have been a priestess of Ceres, for she holds two ears of wheat which are framed symmetrically by two poppy capsules. The execution is cold and smooth. Her coiffure is characterized by the two thick waved masses of hair which hang down over the ears to the neck. The same arrangement of the hair dates to the same period a statue in the Vatican of the same type but without the Eleusinian symbols (Fig. 742).24 The head is inserted, as in the case of many replicas, and probably belonged to this statue originally. The execution is simplified, superficial, and inferior to the official portrait statues of the same type. A statue in the Villa Borghese also is of an empress of the third century (Figs. 743-744).25 We thus have a good series of examples of this type covering more than two centuries. The type is not used on tomb reliefs of the Roman period, probably because it was reserved for noble 166

PORTRAITS OF ROMAN LADIES AS PRIESTESSES OF CERES ladies.“ On sarcophagi it is used for the noble brides of the generals whose deeds are represented together with their marriage, the crowning event and recompense for heroic deeds. A good example is the fragment of the Antonine period in the British Museum (Fig. 745).27 The type is adapted to the action. The right arm is lowered for the ceremonial clasping of the hands (dextrarum junctio). The left hand holds the lower edge of the mantle, with only the thumb and second finger extended, while the three other fingers are bent (not two as on the statue of Antonia, Fig. 726, and many other successors, Figs. 728-730, 732-733, 738, 740). The type continued to be used even into the medieval period. For example, the Virgin Mary in a miniature of the ninth century is represented in this guise of priestess of Ceres, with ears of wheat in her hand.28 It is possible that the ladies of the imperial house, residing on the Palatine, were priestesses of Ceres in her sanctuary on the neighboring Aventine, across from the Circus Maximus (Livy, XL, 2.2; XLI, 28.203). This oldest sanctuary of Ceres in Rome was built by Damophilos and Gorgasos in Greek style (Pliny, HN, XXXV, 154), and Augustus and Tiberius restored it after it had burned down in 31 b . c . Hadrian introduced the Eleusinian Mysteries of Demeter to Rome (Aurelius Victor, Caesares, 14). All this may have contributed to the custom that Roman imperial and other noble ladies were active in this cult and participated as priestesses of Demeter-Ceres. The difference in the gesture of the left hands and the number and combination of Eleusinian symbols held shows that the type was adopted in different periods with slight variations.

2. PORTRAITS OF EMPRESSES AS AUGUSTAE OR DIVAE There is another Greek type used for Roman portrait statues which has been called the “Praxitelean Demeter” type, but which this author considers neither of the school of Praxiteles nor a representation of Demeter. Hekler was again the first to collect copies (in this case 8).29 He believed that these adaptations were based on an original preserved in Venice and published by Furtwängler.10 Lippold rejected his dating of the original, and later Hekler followed him in favoring an early Hellenistic original.11 In my opinion an original of a similar type could not be early but only late Hellenistic. The earliest possible date would make it contemporary with the group attributed to Philiskos and used on the relief of Archelaos of Priene (supra. Chapter X, Fig. 573) and on the base with the Muses from Halicarnassus. Melpomene, the mother of the Muses on the relief, and Euterpe, the Muse with the flutes on the base, are the nearest parallels.32 The main characteristics of our type are the heavy, long, and full peplos with a deep pouch, and the mantle draped in such a way that both arms and the whole body, except for the left breast, are wrapped in it. One side edge is lifted up to the right shoulder and arm; from there it crosses the body diagonally to the corner between side and lower edge. Its lower corner meets the other lower corner outside the left leg. The lower edge, instead of going around the body, is lifted to the left lower arm, from which it again hangs down. This complicated arrangement could not have been invented before the later Hellenistic period. When the Romans took over the type, they trans­ formed it for use as a portrait statue. They adopted it, as far as I can see, not for Demeter, but in two variations for portraits, four in Florence (Figs. 746-749) and two for Vestal Virgins in the 167

PORTRAITS OF ROMAN LADIES AS PRIESTESSES OF CERES Atrium Vestae in the Roman Forum (Figs. 752-755). Another variation was also used for portrait statues and for Hygieia (Figs. 756-763). The best-known group of copies of this type are the four in Florence (Figs. 746-749).MIt has been assumed that they represent provinces. This is quite out of the question, since provinces are always sharply differentiated with regard to dress and attributes. Here we have one type, or rather two types, with small variations. The attributes are unfortunately not preserved, as all the arms are modem. Two of the figures have decidedly Trajanic portraits with identifiable coiffures. The one (Fig. 746) has the hairdo of Marciana, Trajan’s sister, attested to by her coins and by busts found in Cumae and Ostia.34 The other (Fig. 747) has the hairdo of Matidia, Marciana’s daughter, as shown by her coins and her bust found in Baiae.35 Matidia died and was consecrated as Diva in 119 A.D. by her son-in-law Hadrian, who erected in her honor a Basilica Matidiae in the Campus Martius. Marciana died in 113 and had already been made Diva in 115. Hadrian heaped honors on her and erected a Basilica Marcianae also in the Campus Martius. The two over life-size statues might well have come from these basilicas. We thus can date these two statues around 120 a .d ., early Hadrianic but still in Trajanic style. The other two statues in Florence can hardly be separated from the first two. They certainly must belong to the imperial house. Thus, Fig. 748 might be Plotina,“ Trajan’s wife. Her adopted son Hadrian built a temple at Nemausis in her honor as Diva after her death and consecration in 121/2 a .d . He also built a temple for her and his adoptive father in the Forum of Trajan (Dio Cassius, CLXIX, 10). The head in this case is certainly restored. We must expect that originally she was portrayed with a Trajanic hairdo, as on the first two figures, which would consist of a high rounded toupee above a narrow band of short hair over the forehead. The last of the four figures (Fig. 749) is distinguished by the mantle drawn over the head, used for the deceased; it is impossible to place the mantle over the head on the others due to the high coiffure. If it is a posthumous portrait, we might expect it to be that of Livia, and the head inset on this torso might be the original one. Her birthday was still celebrated in the time of Hadrian. The hairdo is that used during the Claudian period, which Livia used in her later life, and which appears on the portrait head in Copenhagen.37 Two coins minted by Tiberius during his reign (14 to 37 a . d .) in the lifetime of Livia, thus certainly showing her authentic likeness and hairstyle (Figs. 750-751), show the same hairdo, parted in the center and with soft waves smoothed down and covering the upper part of the ears as on the statue of Livia in Florence.“ The oval face and the shape of the eyes, chin, and mouth are the same. There must have been a continuous tradition for the portrait of Livia. Just as the first emperor Augustus was the model for all following emperors, who took his name as title, Livia was the first empress to be named Augusta during her lifetime and Diva after her death (this was done by Claudius). These titles were then given to most of the empresses after her. Every imperial couple venerated her as ancestress and as a model of dignity and wifely devotion. In 14 a .d . she became priestess of the deceased Augustus. Thus, the temple on the obverse of her coin (Fig. 751) may be the temple of Augustus. Antoninus Pius put her seated portrait statue next to that of Augustus in this temple. She was also venerated as Salus Augusta (Fig. 750), Iustitia, Pietas, Pudicitia, Cybele, Ceres, and Pax. While Augustus was pater patriae, Livia was mater patriae, mother of the country (Tacitus, Annales, I, 14). I would suggest that the four statues in Florence represent four Divae Augustae, all posthumous, set up by Hadrian and executed in the same workshop at Rome from a model for 168

PORTRAITS OF ROMAN LADIES AS PRIESTESSES OF CERES such over life-size honorary statues. They all agree in the main lines. All stand on their left leg, with the right leg relaxed. The mantle falls in a grandiose manner from the right shoulder down to the left leg below the knee. The lower right arm reaches out to the side, probably holding a scepter. The left hand seems to have been empty or may have held a small object. There are, however, variations. “Livia” (Fig. 749) has the mantle drawn above her head, which is omitted on the other three on account of the elaborate Trajanic hairstyles. “Livia” and Matidia (Fig. 747) assume a walking position with their right leg bent; the others merely have the right foot set to the side. Marciana (Fig. 746) and “Plotina” (Fig. 748) have a long overfold over their long pouch on the left side. The folds falling down from the left lower arm are in both cases straight, while they fall in zigzags on the statues of Matidia and “Livia,” because their mantle is wrapped more tightly around the lower left arm. Thus, there seem to be two corresponding pairs of types, one for Plotina and Marciana, wife and sister of Trajan, and one for Matidia and “Livia,” both highly venerated by Hadrian. But there may have been two different copyists employed for the two pairs, one of whom did not include the overfold of the peplos, probably mistaking it for a chiton. The same two variations are used for two statues of Vestal Virgins, found in the courtyard of the Atrium Vestae in the Roman Forum (Figs. 752-755).30 The stance of both has been changed, for the right leg is now supporting the body, and the left leg is relaxed. The mantle is shorter and has less swing. It crosses the left leg instead of below the left knee. The head is covered, as in the case with “Livia.” The large statue (Figs. 753-755, height 1.86 meters) has the head of a Vestal Virgin with the six artificial crines, or braids, above her own parted hair. The left hand holds the folds of the upper edge below the left breast. The peplos has the overfold which comes from a high belt and reaches almost to the pouch drawn out of the lower belt. The two edges of the overfold are clearly marked by little weights below the strut for the raised right arm, as seen in the side view (Fig. 754). Such weights also clearly mark the two corners hanging down from the lower left arm (Fig. 755). The other Vestal Virgin (Fig. 752) does not have the upper right arm lifted but rather she holds it to the side, and extends the lower arm forward; her hand lies on the folds of the mantle, and the fingers apparently hold a small incense box. The left hand originally came forward too. The folds coming from inside and outside the lower left arm are not separated. The overfold on the right side is omitted. This is a simplified adaptation. The earliest date for both Vestal Virgins is the Antonine period. Perhaps it may date from around 200 when Septimius Severus and his wife Julia Domna rebuilt the temple of Vesta, which had burned down in 191 in the reign of Commodus.40 The transition from a peplos with overfold and pouch to a chiton with only a pouch is perhaps shown on a torso found in the Artemision of Cyrene and now in the British Museum (Fig. 756).41 Here on the right side, the folds of the overfold follow exactly those of the pouch below it. The lively rounded folds of the pouch are very simplified. Thus, the two could be combined by another copyist, who conceived the peplos as a chiton and no longer distinguished between the woolen and linen material of the two garments. The same is true of two rather bad copies in Ephesos, where pouch and edge of overfold are flattened out, and the whole dress is greatly simplified.42 Another example is the statue incorrectly fitted with a head in the Vatican (Figs. 757-758).43 It is also a simplified version, without the overfold. The bulky mass of the folds of the pouch has been reduced to a shallow row. Straight folds hang down from the lower left arm. There was probably a portrait head set in originally. The empty cavities of these portrait statues tempted the

PORTRAITS OF ROMAN LADIES AS PRIESTESSES OF CERES restorers in modern times to insert any single head of similar size. But more often than has been realized, these statues with empty cavities were meant for portrait heads. Such is the case with the statue in Alexandria inscribed on the right thigh with the name of the Greek artist Ammonios, son of Apollophanes, who worked in the second century a . d . (Fig. 759)." The so-called Hera Campana in the Louvre is, in my opinion, a portrait statue, not one representing Juno (Figs. 761-762)." It is worked along large but rather schematic lines. The pouch of the peplos has strongly curved lines but no overfold. The ends hanging under the left arm are straight. The portrait head crowned with a diadem has strongly waved and full hair, which covers the ears and reminds one of the coiffure of Crispina. Thus, most of the replicas belong to the second century a . d . They seem to represent ladies of the imperial house and of other aristocratic families. In funerary monuments of the Roman period the type is rare. W e find it on one tomb relief only, the one for Euporia. She is seen in front view, standing like a statue, embraced by her sister Sponde. On the short side of a sarcophagus found in Melfi, the deceased or an important relative, similarly draped, also stands in frontal view, opposite Mercury near the gate of Hades.48 The type is occasionally used for personifications. H ygieia is thus represented in statues in Munich (Fig. 763), in Copenhagen, in the Louvre, in the Vatican (where the arrangement of the mantle is reversed), and one formerly in the art market at Rome (Fig. 760).47 The Copenhagen statue has the hairdo of the older Faustina, and the one in the Louvre has that of Lucilla. I think it possible that the statue from the Roman art market originally was fitted with a portrait head. Another adaptation is that of Fortuna or Concordia, with a horn of plenty in her arm, as in the Musée du Bardo in Tunisia (Fig. 764).48 This type, like the one discussed at the beginning of this chapter, was popular in Roman North Africa. A small statuette, once exhibited in Queens College, N ew York, also comes from this area, Antinoe in Egypt.49 Therefore, w e see that the copyists of the second century a . d . did not use only Greek types of gods for their portrait statues (such as the Herculaneum wom en discussed in Chapter XII). In the case of the Ceres type discussed in Section 1 of this chapter, they used adaptations made in the Augustan period, since this era provided the ideal models for later emperors, as w ell as for writers and artists.

Footnotes to Chapter 13

1. A. Hekler, “Gewandstatuen,” pp. 175-180 (list of 18 examples), 228-229 Type XXI, a-p (list of 16 examples). 2. G. Lippold, Kopien, p. 215; idem, Gr.Plastik, p. 335, note 6; P. Wolters, “ Die goldenen Ähren, Sammlung Loeb, Mumzu,” Festschrift fü r J. Loeb (Munich 1930), p. 127, note 69; F. Poulsen, Cat.Ny Carlsberg, p. 388, text to No. 552a. 3. .. .aditus enim in id sacrarium non est viris; sacra per mulieres ac virgines confici so len t. . . sacerdotes Cereris atque illius fani antistitae, maiores natu, probatae ac nobiles mulieres, rem ad magistratus suos deferunt. .. . 4. For this statuette of Persephone, see Chapter XI, note 66. 5. For the statue of Viciria, see Chapter XI, note 68, and Chapter XII, note 17, Fig. 687. 6. For the statue of Livia, see Chapter XI, note 67.

170

PORTRAITS OF ROMAN LADIES AS PRIESTESSES OF CERES 7. Dresden, Inv. 2770, W. Müller, “lieber antike Bronzestatuetten im Albertinum zu Dresden,” AA 46 (1931), col. 354, fig. 16 col. 359, No. 15. 8. J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, pp. 152-153, No. 1228; E. Michon, Cat.sommaire, p. 70, No. 1228; A. Hekler, “Gewandstatuen,” p. 176, No. 13, p. 228, Type XXIf (with museum No. wrongly marked as 1128); S. Reinach, Rép.stat., II, p. 666, No. 11; R. West, Röm.Porträtplastik, I, p. 134, pi. XXXIV, fig. 142. 9. E. Petersen, Aro Pacis Augustae, pp. 92-93, pi. VI, figs. 28-30; M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age1, pp. 187-189, fig. 814 (calls the child Claudius); E. Strong, Rom.Sculpt., p. 49, fig. XI (calls the child Germanicus); Helbig-Speier, Führer', II, pp. 684-685 (doesn’t name the child with Antonia). 10. G. Mendel, Mus.ottomans, Cat.Sculpt., II, pp. 197-198, No. 504 (2269); A. Hekler, “Gewandstatuen,” p. 176, No. 3, p. 178, No. 2, p. 228, Type XXI, b; S. Reinach, Rép.stat., IV, p. 411, No. 3; R. West, Röm.Porträtplastik, II, p. 50, No. 15, pi. VIII, fig. 49; U. Hausmann, “Bildnisse zweier junger Römerinnen in Fiesole,” Jdl 74 (1959), pp. 179,193,198,200, fig. 19; M.F. Squarciapino, La Scuola di Afrodisia, pp. 53-54, pi. XVII; J.M.C. Toynbee, The Art o f the Romans (London 1965), pp. 36, 244, fig. 13. 11. U. Hausmann, op.cit., pp. 164-189, figs. 1-10, for the head of Sabina with Trajanic toupee in Fiesole. Hausmann has discovered that the lovely head in the Capitoline Museum (H.S. Jones, Sculpt.Mus.Capitol., pi. 49; U. Hausmann, op.cit., figs. 20-23) also represents Sabina, but as a bride with the headdress of her earlier years. Inscriptions compare Matidia with Demeter, Sabina with Kore and name Matidia the mother of the beautiful daughter. See M. Wegner, Hadrian, pp. 84-91. 12. Furtwängler-Wolters, Glypt.München2, pp. 370-371, No. 377; A. Furtwängler, Einhundert Tafeln, pi. 84; A. Hekler, “Gewandstatuen,” p. 176, No. 2, p. 228, Type XXIa; J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.Ikon., II, 2, p. 105; U. Hausmann, op.cit., p. 198, note 118. See below, note 34 for Marciana and note 35 for Matidia. FurtwänglerWolters and Bernoulli name this statue Matidia. The author here suggests its identification as Marciana. 13. A.H. Smith, Cat.Sculpt.Brit.Mus., II, pp. 202,216, No. 1351; A. Hekler, op.cit., p. 176, No. 4, p. 228, Type XXIc; C.T. Newton, A History of Discoveries at Halicarnassus, Cnidus and Branchidae (London 1862-1863), II, p. 512, pis. 69-71. 14. F. Poulsen, Cat.Ny Carlsberg, pp. 386-387, No. 552 (Inv. 710); Billedtavler, pi. XXXXIII, No. 552; A. Hekler, op.cit., p. 176, No. 9, pi. 19; idem, Bildniskunst, pi. 289a; G.M.A. Richter, “Who Made . .. Statues,” pp. 188, 201, fig. 32; eadem. Ancient Italy, p. 39; H. Blanck, Wiederverwendung pp. 58-61, A37, pis. 28-29. 15. Calza-Squarciapino, Mus.Ost., p. 56, No. 12 (25); R. West, Röm.Porträtplastik, II, p. 124, No. 2, pi. XXXIII, fig. 128; G. Lippold, Kopien, pp. 215,273, note 220; M. Wegner, Hadrian, p. 86; G. Becatti, L ’Arte Romana (Milan 1962), p. 85, fig. 77; M. Bieber, Entwicklungsgeschichte1, p. 50, pi. 51, fig. 2; D. Vaglieri, “Ostia—Nuovi edifici rimessi a luce,” NSc (1909), p. 179; T. Ashby, “Recent Discoveries at Ostia,” /RS 2 (1912), p. 172, pis. 13-14; G. Calza, “L’Antiquarium ostiense nel Castello di Giulio II della Rovere,” BdA, Ser. Il, 2 (1922), p. 329, fig. 15; G.M.A. Richter, Ancient Italy, p. 39, fig. 129; eadem, “Who Made .. . Statues,” pp. 189, 201, fig. 34. For the changing hairstyle of Sabina, see M. Wegner, “Datierung römischer Haartrachten,” AA 53 (1938), cols. 303-325, figs. Id, le, 3d, 14-21; idem, Hadrian, pp. 84-86, 90-91, 127-128, pis. 43-47. 16. Unpublished. 17. F. Fornari, “Roma-Nuove Scoperte,” NSc (1916), p. 173. 18. Museo Nazionale delle Terme, No. 72 252. 19. E. Michon, Cat.sommaire, p. 65, No. 1139; A. Hekler, “Gewandstatuen,” p. 176, No. 5, p. 228, Type XXIi, p. 243, fig. 20; S. Reinach, Rép.stat., II, p. 240, fig. 1. For the older Faustina, see J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.Ikon., II, 2, pp. 152-160; M. Wegner, Herrscherbildnisse, pp. 26-32, pls. 10-13. 20. F. Poulsen, Cat.Ny Carlsberg, pp. 387-388, No. 552a (Inv. 2595); P. Wolters, op.cit., supra note 2, p. 127, fig. 16; idem, “Gestalt und Sinn der Ähre in antiker Kunst,” Die Antike 6 (1950), p. 300, fig. 10 (Wolters, in this author’s estimation, rightly regarded the prototype as Hellenistic, from around 200 b.c.); G.M.A. Richter, “Who Made . . . Statues,” pp. 188-189, 201, fig. 33; eadem. Ancient Italy, p. 39. 21. G. Mendel, Mus.ottomans, Cat.Sculpt., Ill, pp. 588-589, No. 1377 (2645). 22. G. Lippold, Kopien, pp. 215, 273, note 221 (He states there are eight examples from Africa); FurtwänglerWolters, Glypt.München1, p. 371, bibliography to No. 377; P. Wolters, op.cit., supra note 2, p. 127, note 69; F. Poulsen, Cat.Ny Carlsberg p. 388, text to No. 552a. For the statues in Cherehel, see A. Hekler, “Gewandsta-

PORTRAITS OF ROMAN LADIES AS PRIESTESSES OF CERES

23.

24. 25.

26. 27.

28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

35.

36.

37.

tuen,” p. 176, No. 11, p. 228, Type XXIj; P. Gauckler, Musée de Cherchel, pi. XVII, fig. 3. For the statue from Bulla Regia in the Musée Alaoui in Tunis, see A. Merlin, Le Temple d ’A pollon a Bulla Regia (Paris 1908), p. 14, pi. V, fig. 3; Catalogue des Musées et Collections archéologiques de ΓAlgerie et de la Tunisie, Musée Alaoui, XV, suppl. 1, pi. XXXV, fìg. 3; S. Reinach, Rép.stat., IV, p. 138, fig. 1. For the statue from Carthage in Tunis (our Fig. 739), see S. Reinach, op.cit.. Ill, p. 193, fig. 2. For 2 other statues in Tunis, see (1) Catalogue Musée Alaoui VII, pi. XIII, fig. 21; S. Reinach, op.cit., Ill, p. 193, fig. 4; (2) Catalogue Musée Alaoui, XV, suppl. 1, pi. XXXII, fig. 3. For the 3 statues in Timgad, see (1) S. Reinach, op.cit., II, p. 671, fig· 2 (without head), III, p. 194, fig. 2 (with head); A. Ballu and R. Cagnat, Musée de Timgad (Paris 1903), p. 17, pi· II, fig. 3; E. Böswillwald, R. Cagnat, and A. Ballu, Timgad (Paris 1905), p. 112, fig. 49; (2) S. Reinach, op.cit., Ill, P· 194, fig. 4; Ballu-Cagnat, op.cit., p. 16, pi. II, fig. 2; Böswillwald-Cagnat-Ballu, op.cit., p. 189; (3) Böswillwald-Cagnat-Ballu, op.cit., p. 261. Calza-Squarciapino, Mus.Ost., pp. 48-49, No. 4, p. 146, fig. 28; G.M.A. Richter, Ancient Italy, p. 39, fig. 130; eadem, “Who Made . . . Statues,” pp. 189, 201, fig. 35; G. Becatti, “Il nuovo Museo Ostiense,” Arti Figurative 1 (1945), p. 38, pi. XIII, fig. 3 (detail of left hand). For Julia Domna, see J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.Ikon., II, 3, pp. 35-47, pis. XV-XIX, Münztaf. I, Nos. 13-15. W. Amelung, Sculpt.vat.Mus., I, pp. 163-165, Galleria Lapidaria No. 2, pi. 22. Casino in the Villa Borghese, Sala Vili, No. CHIC; A. Helder, “Gewandstatuen,” p. 176, No. 14, p. 228, Type XXI, g. For a replica with modern head but holding ears of wheat, see Helbig-Speier, Führer', II, pp. 731-732, No. 1976 (Inv. 746). In contrast, note the frequent use of the Herculaneum women on funerary stelae and sarcophagi, Chapter XII, note 3, and Chapter XII, Part 3, passim. A.H. Smith, Cat.Sculpt.Brit.Mus., Ill, pp. 318-319, No. 2307, with parallels listed. For the sarcophagus in Mantua, see A. Levi, “Rilievi di sarcophagi del Palazzo Ducale di Mantova,” Dedalo 7 (1926), p. 222. For a sarcophagus in Florence, see G. Mansuelli, Uffizi Scult., pp. 235-236, No. and fig. 253a (Inv. 82); for the late date of this sarcophagus, see I. Ryberg, “Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art,” MAAR 22 (1955), p. 165, pi. LVIII, fig. 91. M.G. Zimmermann, Kunstgeschichte des Altertums und des Mittelalters (Leipzig 1900), p. 377, fig. 297. A. Hekler, “Gewandstatuen,” pp. 182-185, 211, 230, Type XXXVI. A. Furtwängler, “Griechische Originalstatuen in Venedig,” Abh.Bayr.Akad. 21 (1898), pp. 305-315. G. Lippold, Kopien, p. 216; idem, Gr.Plastik, p. 335; A. Hekler, text to Br.-Br., Denkmäler, pls. 633-634. See Chapter X, note 38, Fig. 573 for the Archelaos relief. D. Pinkwart, “Die Musenbasis von Halikarnass,” Antike Plastik 6 (1967), pp. 89-93. H. Dütsehke, Antike Bildwerke in Oberitalien (Leipzig 1874-1882), III, pp. 254-257, Nos. 559, 561-563; A. Hekler, “Gewandstatuen,” pp. 182-185, 230, Type XXXVI, a-d. For Marciana and her particular hairdo, see J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.Ikon., II, 2, pp. 96-100, especially pp. 97-98, No. 2, pi. XXXII (Cumae bust in Naples), Münztaf. Ill, Nos. 8-11; R· West, Rmn.Porträtplastik II, pp. 78-79, especially No. 3, pi. XX, figs. 75, a-b (Ostia bust), No. 4, pi. XX, fig- 76 (Cumae bust), pi. LIII, fig. 54; M. Wegner, op.cit., supra note 15, cols. 290 (Ostia bust), 291 (Cumae bust). For the statue in Florence (our Fig. 747) which has the hairdo of Matidia, see H. Diitschke, op.cit., supra note 33, III, p. 256, No. 561; A. Hekler, “Gewandstatuen,” pp. 183, Type XXXVIc; J.J. Bernoulli, op.cit., p. 99; R. West, op.cit., II, p. 81, No. 6, pi. XXII, fig. 77; M. Wegner, op.cit., col. 301. For Matidia and her particular hairdo, see J.J. Bernoulli, op.cit., II, 2, pp. 100-105, especially p. 102, No. 5, pi. XXXV (bust in Naples here said tobe from Cumae), Münztaf. Ill, figs. 12-14; R. West, op.cit., II, pp. 80-83, especially No. 7, pi. XXI, fig. 78 (bust in Naples here said to be from Baiae); M. Wegner, op.cit., col. 300 (Baiae bust). For Plotina, see J.J. Bernoulli, op.cit., II, 2, pp. 92-96, pi. XXIX, Münztaf. Ill, Nos. 6-7; R. West, op.cit., pp. 75-77, pi. XIX, figs. 70-73, pi. LIII, figs. 51-53. There is no similarity here between the hairdo on the Florence statue with restored head (our Fig. 748) and the hairdo on coins, busts, or .other statues of Plotina. F. Poulsen, Cat.Ny Carlsberg pp. 426-427, No. 614 (Inv. 747); Billedtavler, pi. L; R. West, op.cit., I, p. 128, pi. XXXI, fig. 130,130a; A. Hekler, Bildniskunst, p. XXXVII, pi. 209; A.W. Lawrence, Classical Sculpture, p. 332, pi. 125a; V. Poulsen, Les portraits remains, I (Copenhagen 1962), pp. 74-75, No. 39, pis. LXIV-LXV; Amdt-Brunn-Bruckmann, Porträts, pis. 6-7; H. von Heintze, Römische Porträtplastik aus sieben Jahrhunder-

PORTRAITS OF ROMAN LADIES AS PRIESTESSES OF CERES ten,p. 8, pi. 9; R. Delbrueck, Antike Porträts, pp. XLVII-XLVIII, No. 34, pi. 34; W.H. Gross, “JulJa Augusta,” Abh.Gött.Akad. N.F. 52 (1962), pp. 126-127 (he doubts the identification of this head with Livia. His conclusions are based on the coins—his pis. 7-10—which show different coiffures); G.M.A. Hanfmann, Roman Art, pp. 92, 172, No. 71. 38. The coins Figs. 750-751 are dupondii. Fig. 751 was minted by Arrius Peregrinus and L. Furius Labeo in Rome. Fig. 750 has the inscription SALVS AVGVSTA, thus showing the empress as the personification of health. For the Salus coin, see H. Mattingly, BMC Empire, I, p. 131, Nos. 81-84, pi. 24, fig. 2 (Livia side called the reverse); Mattingly-Sydenham, RIC, I, p. 106, No. 23, pi. VI, fig. 107 (Livia side called obverse); M. Bieber, “Cybele,” p. 11, coin pi. I, fig. 5; R. West, Rom.Porträtplastik, I, pp. 124-125, pi. LXIX, fig. 64; J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.Ikon., II, 1, pi. XXXII, fig. 12. 39. H. Jordan, Der Tempel der Vesta, p. 44, pi. Vili, figs. 3, 5; E.B. Van Deman, “The Value of the Vestal Statues as Originals,” AJA 12 (1908), pp. 326-327, figs. 1-2; A. Helder, “Gewandstatuen,” pp. 211-212, Nos. 7-8, p. 230, Type XXXVI, e and f; M. Bieber, in Arndt-Amelung, E.A., Nos. 3219-3221 (our Figs. 752, 753-755); G. Traversari, Statue iconiche, p. 73, pi. XXXIV, fig. 1. 40. C.C. Hülsen, Das Forum Romanum, p. 176. 41. A.H. Smith, Cat.Sculpt.Brit.Mus., II, p. 255, No. 1478; G. Traversari, op.cit., pp. 72-74, No. 31, pi. XIII, fig. 2; E. Rosenbaum, Cat.Cyren.Scidpt., p. 95, No. 167, pi. LXXV, fig. 2. 42. Österreichisches archäologisches Institut, Wien, Forschungen in Ephesos, V, 1 (Vienna 1953), p. 48, fig. 95, p. 60, fig. 103; A. Adriani, “Sculture del Museo Greco-Romano di Alessandria,” Société Royale dArchéologie, Alexandrie, Bulletin, No. 30, N.S. IX, 1 (1936), pp. 11 ff., suppl. pi. B; G. Traversari, op.cit., pp. 73-74, pi. XXXIV, figs. 2-3. 43. W. Amelung, Sculpt.vat.Mus., II, pp. 285-286, Cortile del Belvedere No. 1029, pi. 26. 44. P. Graindor, Bustes et statues, pp. 122-124, No. 62 (3882), pi. LV; idem. Un Milliardaire antique: Herode Atticus et sa Familie (Cairo 1930), p. 197, fig. 16-1. He compares this with Regilla in G. Treu, Olympia III, p. 276, pi. LXVIII, fig. 5. 45. J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, p. 76, No. 2283; G. Lippold, Kopien, p. 216; idem, Gr.Plastik, p. 335; A. Hekler, “Gewandstatuen,” p. 184, No. 3. A similar statue is in the Musée Alaoui, Catalogue des Musées de VAlgerie et de la Tunisie, XV, suppi. 1, pi. XXXVI; Arndt-Amelung, E.A., Nos, 3219-3220, and in Ephesus. 46. For the funerary relief of Euporia, see R. Kekulé, Beschreibung ant.Skulpt, p. 287, No. 765; A. Conze, Grabreliefs, IV, p. 51, No. 1939, pi. CCCCXVIII; M. Collignon, Statues funéraires, p. 273, fig. 17. For two replicas in Athens, see A. Conze, op.cit., IV, Nos. 1940-1941. Euporia must have been an important woman, adored by her younger sister. For the sarcophagus from Melfi, see E. Strong, Scult.rom., II, pp. 297-298, pi. LV; C.R. Morey, Asiatic Sure., pp. 34-35, figs. 39-41. 47. For the statue of Hygieia in Munich (our Fig. 763), see Furtwängler-Woffers, Glypt.München2, p. 341, No. 310. For the statue in Copenhagen, see F. Poulsen, Cat.Ny Carlsberg, p. 381, No. 545 (Inv. 1615); Billedtavler, pi. XXXXII, No. 545; S. Reinach, Rép.stat., II, p. 801, fig. 3; A. Hekler, “Gewandstatuen,” p. 184, No. 9; G. Lippold, Kopien, p. 216; A. Adriani, op.cit,, supra note 42, p. 11, note 1, p. 13, note 2, For the statue in Paris, see J. Charbonneaux, Sculpt.Louvre, p. 209, No. 260; S. Reinach, op.cit., II, p. 298, fig. 5. For the statue in Rome, see W. Amelung, Sculpt.vat.Mus., II, pp. 442-444, Galleria delle Statue No. 262, pi. 49. For the statue formerly in the art market (our Fig. 760), see G. Lippold, in Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 5018. 48. Found in Gigthis, the statue is now in the Musée Alaoui at Bardo. See catalogue, op.cit., supra notes 22 and 45, pp. 58-59, No. 1030, pi. XXXVI; A. Adriani, op.cit., supra note 42, p. 11, note 1, p. 13, note 3. 49. E. Porada, “ Man in the Ancient World,” The Queens College Art Collection (New York 1958), p. 21, No. 122, p. 47, fig. 122.

173

14 TYPICAL MISTAKES AND MANNERISMS FOUND ON ROMAN COPIES The Greek .artists who were engaged by Roman patrons had four main tasks to fulfill. The Romans wanted cult statues for their sanctuaries, adaptations of the Greek cult statues and of the votive statues created in the Archaic and Classical periods for the Greek gods.1 They wanted portrait statues of important personalities either in their own Roman dress or in the type of Greek gods, heroes, goddesses, and heroines, but provided with realistic portrait heads.2 They also wanted relief decorations for their ornate vases, fountains, statue and tripod bases, and altars. For these they used the same Greek types of the gods as well as those of their followers, particularly Maenads and Satyrs. Another task for the copyist was to fill the niches of the elaborate fronts in Roman theaters and fountains with statues.3 The tasks of the copyists thus were dictated by religious, political, social, and practical motives. Precision and idealized beauty were not required of artists who were granted commis­ sions, although, of course, some Romans wanted copies of celebrated masterpieces. Precision was in many cases not necessary, because the Romans liked to put their statues on high columns, triumphal arches, and aquediicts, thus works on a large scale and meant to be seen at a distance lessened the necessity for finely worked details. The Greek artists of the Classical period worked their statues com pletely all the way around. ' They executed them so that the sides and the backs were worked out at the same time as the front. Their cult statues stood free, just as their temples stood free. Just as one could go around the whole temple, so one could even go around the colossal gold and ivory statues of Athena Parthenos and the Olympian Zeus of Phidias. The votive statues also stood free in the sanctuaries, so that they were visible from all sides. In contrast, the Roman temple stood against one side of an enclosure, and the cult statues stood in the apse, so that their backs could not be seen. Most copies of Greek

TYPICAL MISTAKES AND MANNERISMS FOUND ON ROMAN COPIES statues stood in niches as decoration for walls, temple fagades, the scaenae frons of theaters, baths, fountains, and the like. Thus, there was no interest in the back. Copies of the same type show different backs, mostly sketchy, which agree neither with each other and nor, in all probability, with the original. The same types were used for statues in the round and for reliefs, probably both taken from sketchbooks or casts. When the pointing process was used, measurements were probably only taken from the front. As sculpture became only accents in an architectural whole, the copyists changed the size and proportions of the originals to fit the allotted space. Heads were more important to the Romans than bodies, while for the Greeks the head was no more important than were all the other parts of the body. The copyists, therefore, were free to fit the same head to different bodies. The expression of the face can rarely be accepted as that of the original. The same body could also be fitted with several different heads. Copies of the same type of body were used for gods, heroes, and portrait statues of mortals, for example the types of “Aspasia” (probably Europa or Kore),5 of Hermes, and of the Eleusinian goddesses. A head could be removed and another fitted to the body. This is testified for members of the imperial family. A portrait of Augustus was exchanged for one of Tiberius (Tacitus, Annales, I, 74). However, the man who did this was accused of injuring the majesty of the emperor (laesa maiestas). This procedure, therefore, must have been rarely used at this period. It became more common in the later period, as described by Jerome in Habakkuk, II, 3, 14: “When a tyrant is killed, the statues and pictures of him are torn down, and then only the face was changed; the head was taken away, the face of the victor set in, later to be exchanged for a new one, while the body itself remains.” 6 In most cases the whole head was removed and the new one was fitted into the cavity. Sometimes the earlier face was reworked to resemble the new owner. Portrait heads of members of the imperial family were probably first made in Rome to serve as standard and universal types. These heads could be sent in the form of sketches or moulds or casts to all parts of the Empire. There they could be made into busts or statues. There was probably a considerable traffic in ready made portrait heads for setting into figures that were carved locally.7 These statues could be prepared with cavities for different heads. Thus, we have such a series of men in the himation or Roman pallium found in Athens, where they certainly were made (see Chapter XI, Figs. 631-638). Also, other popular types, like the Hera Borghese or the Pudicitia, were thus prepared to provide bodies for different portraits. Sometimes fine heads were put on inferior statues of local workmanship, for example, Livia in the Villa of the Mysteries in Pompeii.8 The copyists of the imperial period knew the contemporary fashions, but not the earlier Greek fashions. Therefore, they sometimes replaced the Greek dress with Roman forms. For example, the tunic with its sleeves coming out of the side replaced the more beautiful and graceful chiton, with the upper edges going around the armpits and thereby creating better folds. The Classical chlamys with its square form and the Hellenistic chlamys with its two rounded lower edges were replaced by the round or half-circle or segment-formed Roman mantles, like the laena, lacerna, paenula, paludamentum, and sagum." The Classical peplos and the Hellenistic peronatris were replaced by the stola, the dress of honor for matrons.10 The laena-chlaina diplax, abandoned early by the Greeks, is a favorite. This large mantle is distinguished from the peplos by the omission of the brooch on one shoulder, so that one shoulder and breast are free. Good examples are an archaistic statue with a Trajanic head in the Villa Borghese (Fig. 765) and a Classical statue in the Vatican, with a late Flavian head identified as Julia, daughter of the emperor Titus (Fig. 766)." 175

TYPICAL MISTAKES AND MANNERISMS FOUND ON ROMAN COPIES The opening of the peplos is often transferred from the usual position on the right side to the left side. This is done particularly when two figures are represented opposite each other in the symmetrical arrangement greatly favored by the Romans, especially on triumphal arches and sarcophagi. While the Greeks created a subtle balance, the Romans arranged the two sides of the dresses symmetrically and sometimes mechanically reversed the right and left sides for decorative purposes. Thus, in the case of the mantle of Artemis-Diana, the Roman copyists made the two ends, which were differentiated on the Greek originals, of equal length, fluttering in the same way to both sides outside the hips, as on statues of the Lares.12 Thick knots are drawn upward out of the belt. Thus, the copyists made ornamentation out of the organic Greek arrangement. Love of symmetry won over exact rendering. As another change from an organic to a decorative form, a second belt was used. The Greeks pulled out a pouch between the two belts, which might vary in size, thus regulating the length of the chiton. They used this arrangement, particularly on statues of Amazons, Athena, and Artemis.13 The Romans placed the second belt in a lower position so that it appears parallel to the upper belt. However, there is no pouch and no possibility for shortening the dress is apparent, since the lower belt, for the most part, is laid only loosely around the hips, with the bow visible in the center. Another habit of the copyists is the addition of clothing. For men," small mantles were added to nude types. Sometimes different types of mantles were added to the same statue type. Weapons were added for warriors and Minerva, as well as cuirasses as on the Augustus of Primaporta. For nude women a chiton might be added, while sometimes just part of a chiton was used to cover a nude area, such as the shoulder and breast. It could also be used to fill the space between the open vertical edges of the peplos. An example of setting in a piece of a nonexistent dress occurs on the type of Venus Genetrix, where her shoulder might be covered, and on the type of Venus Marina, where her legs might be screened.15 Sometimes a second chiton was added under the tunic, particularly for Diana.1“ In contrast, the copyists exposed parts of the body which the Greeks covered, particularly the breasts and the legs of Maenads and Victories.17 The copyists did not always understand the earlier fashions of dress. They therefore did not always distinguish between the material of the outer and inner garments. They stylized the heavy woolen peplos, the thin linen chiton, the heavy Classical mantle, the thin Hellenistic mantle, and the smooth silk in the same way, without any differentiation. Furthermore, not knowing the difference, they sometimes confused the dresses. They combined the ends of the same dress (for example, the “shawl” of Artemis),18 or they added a third end to it. They simplified or multiplied the folds and fused parts of different garments together.IBThey replaced curved lines or folds with straight lines or folds. Thus, the hanging ends of a mantle are fused with the folds of the tunic. The continuous form of one or both garments was lost. It looks as if there are two scarves instead of one mantle. The inorganic draping makes it difficult to reconstruct the original. The copyists liked to emphasize the center and rearrange the folds symmetrically at both sides. The peplos sometimes was carved with two overfolds, and the back mantle is sometimes fused with the overfold.2'1Thus, the copyists preferred a symmetrical rather than a lifelike and practical rendering of the drapery. Most mistakes of the copyists are found at the sides of the figures. Here on Greek statues, the vertical edges of the garments meet, the chiton on both sides, the peplos in most cases on the right side, and the mantle on the left side.21 The copyists worked from sketchbooks or from casts or 176

TYPICAL MISTAKES AND MANNERISMS FOUND ON ROMAN COPIES moulds of the front side, or with the help of the pointing process which fixed only a few points. The arrangement was not known to them from life, because it was no longer the fashion; it had becom e an artistic tradition. They therefore confused the edges not only when they came from different sides, but also when they came from different garments (peplos and mantle or chiton and mantle). Some folds of a chiton were placed between the edges of a peplos or mantle. Sometimes the edges of the peplos were separated from each other only by a deep or a shallow groove. They also mistook the bends of the folds for edges and attached tassels or little weights to the folds which belong on the corners. Sometimes this results in five edges, while the rectangular Greek dresses could not have more than four edges or corners of course. The overfold of the peplos is sometimes sewn together under the right arm, as on some copies of the Dresden Artemis, Artemis Colonna, and Athena Hephaistia.22 The zigzag folds at the open edges, which are so diversified, yet always natural on Greek statues, become stiff and regular on copies. It seems as if they were inspired by late Archaic works, such as, for example, the edges of Medusa’s mantle as they are rendered on the vase by the Berlin painter, of about 490 b . c ., now in the Munich State Collection of Antiquities (Fig. 767).23 W hen w e compare my model (Fig. 768), based on a Kore from the Acropolis, with the archaistic statue (Fig. 765) and the Medusa (Fig. 767), we see the difference between an Archaic Greek original and a manneristic and archaistic Roman copy. An unpublished statue in Ostia (Figs. 769-770)2' is a good example of how the copyists schematized the organic folds of the side edges. The zigzags of the vertical side edges are laid into regular triangles and the triangles are crossed by vertical folds, which both enrich and yet also destroy the organic form. These vertical folds begin in the rear below the left hand and in the front below the left hip. The two vertical edges (1 to 3 hanging in the rear and 2 to 4 in front) are laid with the backs of their folds lightly against each other. The whole loose and yet decorative arrangement is typical of work in the Roman period. The side edges with their decorative zigzags are sometimes drawn forward, thereby creating a broader frontal view which the Romans liked. The sides, as a consequence, are narrow. This transfer of the open vertical edges from the side to the front might have been made intentionally already in the sketches, which could be made in front of the originals and then given to the workshops where the copies for the Romans were made. Such a practice could then becom e customary and be continued for several generations. Three examples from different periods might illustrate this mannerism. A Juno or Venus in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme (Fig. 771)25 has both side edges of the mantle, coming from the lower left arm, drawn forward to the front. The backs of the zigzag folds of these two edges are separated by a straight, deep groove, which continues in the chiton down to the ground. The two corners with the tassels or weights lie side by side over the chiton near the calf of the left leg. The work seems to be Augustan. The second example, in the Lateran Museum, is the Drusilla, so-called because an inscription with her name was found with the statue in Caere (Figs. 772-774).28 Drusilla was the daughter of Germanicus and the older Agrippina, and the sister of Caligula. The style seems indeed to be Claudian. The side view (Fig. 773), made clear by a sketch and the design from the sketch (Fig. 774), shows that the end hanging from the left shoulder in the back is brought to the side, while the end hanging from the inside of the lower arm is brought to the front. Thus, there is a general 177

TYPICAL MISTAKES AND MANNERISMS FOUND ON ROMAN COPIES movement forward. The two ends hanging from the left arm are only separated by a groove between the backs of the folds. The many vertical folds make the design unclear. Both corners hang to the ground near the front. This means that the ends of the mantle have been lengthened to give more breadth and stability to the statue. The third example is the statue found in Ostia inside a building of the Hadrianic period. It also is now in the Lateran Museum. It is rightly named Domitia (Figs. 775-776).27 Although the head is inset, it probably belongs to this statue. It is over life-size, which points to an Augusta or a Diva. A mausoleum was erected to the divine Domitia by two liberati in 140 a . d ., after the reign of Hadrian. She thus must have survived her husband Domitian, who died in 96 a . d ., by a great many years. Her hairdo is indeed a combination of the Flavian toupee surrounding her forehead and the high Trajanic hairdo, as worn by Marciana. She is indeed represented as an old woman, and her small mouth turned down at the corners gives her face a gloomy and discontented expression. She wears the stola, the honorary dress of matrons. The execution is certainly Trajanic—clear and sober, with precisely engraved lines. Hekler called the Domitia a replica of the Hera Barberini. Let us compare the Domitia with the best replica of this Hera type, found on the Palatine Hill and now in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme (Figs. 162-163).28 Instead of the finely sleeved chiton as on the Palatine statue, the Domitia has the sleeveless stola covering both shoulders. The mantle of Domitia lacks the over­ fold of the Classical creation, and the sculptor has assimilated the Greek square mantle to the Roman rounded mantle by lifting its lower edge to the lower left arm. The vertical edges of the mantle coming from the left shoulder and arm are drawn forward, and the edges are laid back to back with only a groove between them. The horizontal edges are enriched by vertical folds. The tassels of the lower corners both lie side by side in front, while on the Palatine statue they lie in a natural way, one behind the other. Also on the Palatine statue, the vertical edges are clearly separated and the supple folds of the chiton appear betw een them; these folds are lacking on the Domitia statue. All this can clearly be seen in my sketch and in the design made from this sketch (Fig. 776). Thus, Domitia does not have the free shoulder, the overfold of the mantle, and the folds of the chiton which show between the two distinct edges of the mantle which the Palatine copy of the Hera Barberini, probably made in the Augustan period, does have. The Domitia is a harsh work in the style of the second century a . d ., neither in the type nor a replica of the Hera Barberini, as suggested by Hekler. It is an accumulation of the mannerisms of copyists, without being a real copy. It is an expressive example of the portrait statue of an ugly and pretentious Roman lady. It is just as characteristic of the second centüry a . d . as the Hera Borghese is of the Classical style of the fifth century b . c . W e have come with this statue to the borderline between copying, adaptation, and Roman creation. This chapter gives a general survey of the mistakes and mannerisms of copyists during the Roman imperial period. Some of these copies are dealt with more extensively in the preceding chapters. Here, only an overall view of the habits in Roman workshops has been attempted.

178

TYPICAL MISTAKES AND MANNERISMS FOUND ON ROMAN COPIES

Footnotes to Chapter 14

1. M. Bieber, Sculpt.Hellen.Age2, pp. 180-181, figs. 770-782 (of Zeus and Asclepius). 2. Ibid., pp. 172-177, figs. 727-753; G.M.A. Richter, “Who Made .. . Statues,” pp. 184-208, figs. 1-64. See also supra, Chapters XI-XII. 3. For relief decorations, see W. Fuchs, Vorbilder, passim. For statues in theater facades, see M. Bieber, Theater*, p. 191, fig. 650, p. 201, figs. 676, 679, p. 209, fig. 705, p. 218, figs. 735-736. 4. K. Blümel, Griechische Bildhauerarbeit; idem, Griechische Bildhauer an der Arbeit (Berlin 1941). 5. For “Aspasia” used either as a heroine (Europa) or as a goddess (Kore), see K. Blümel, Berlin Kat.V Rom.Kopien, pp. 27-29, text to K 166-167; E. Simon, Opfernde Götter, p. 77. If it is Kore, the Berlin portrait head could be from a funerary statue. For a list of the eight extant representations of “Aspasia,” whether in the form of complete statues or merely the heads, see H. Lauter, Chronologie, pp. 115-116. 6. .. .si quando tyrannus obtruncatur, imagines quoque eius deponuntur et statuae, et vultum tantummodo commutato ablatoque capite, eius qui vicerit facies superponitur, ut manente corpore capitbusque praecisis caput aliud commutetur. J.P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Latinia (Paris 1844-1880), XXV, p. 1329; L. Friedländer, Sittengeschichte Roms III (Leipzig 1920), p. 59 with note 8; H. Blanck, Wiederverwen­ dung, p. 18. 7. E. Swift, “Imagines in Imperial Portraiture,” A/A 27 (1923), pp. 286-301; M. Stuart, “How Were Imperial Portraits Distributed throughout the Roman Empire?,” A/A 43 (1939), pp. 601-617 (on Claudian portraits only); M. Wegner, Herrscherbildnisse, pp. 11-13; P. Graindor, Bustes et statues, pp. 19, 29, 34. 8. For Roman men in the Greek himation, see Chapter XI, passim. For the Hera Borghese, see supra. Chapter V, note 81. For the Pudicitia, see supra. Chapter XI, notes 5, 7, 17-18, 23-28. For Livia in the Villa of the Mysteries, see Chapter XI, note 67 and Chapter XIII, note 6. 9. L. Wilson, Roman Clothing, chapters VI-IX, pp. 76-129. 10. M. Bieber, in Pauly-Wissowa, R.E., s.v. “Stola.” See also supra. Chapter III, notes 22-25. 11. For the statue in the Villa Borghese (Fig. 765), see G. Lippold in Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 2724. For the Vatican statue (Fig. 766) see W. Amelung, Sculpt.vat.Mus., I, pp. 75-76, Braccio Nuovo No. 56, pi. IX; J.J. Bernoulli, Röm.lkon., II, 2, p. 49, No. 3. 12. For Artemis and the Lares, see Chapter VII, passim. 13. On the Amazons, see Chapter II, Figs. 1-12, notes 3-12. For Artemis, see Chapter VII, Figs. 255-268, notes 7-22. 14. For the addition of clothing to male statues, see Chapter V, part 1, notes 1-33. On the Augustus of Primaporta, see Chapter V, Figs. 90-91, note 1. 15. For the Venus Genetrix type and the addition of clothing, see Chapter V, notes 61-77. For the Venus Marina type, see Chapter V, notes 97-100. 16. For Diana, see Chapter VII, Figs. 260-263, notes 13-16. 17. For Maenads and their partial divesting, see Chapter VI, Figs. 193-195,201-204, notes 7,16-19. For Victories, see Chapter VI, Figs. 196-200, 205-209, notes 8-15, 20-23, 30-31. 18. See Chapter VII, Figs. 303-304, notes 57-58. 19. For the fusing of parts of the same or of different garments, see Chapter VIII. 20. For the shoulder-back mantle, see Chapter IX. 21. See Chapter X on the draping of the himation. 22. For the Dresden Artemis, see Chapter VIII, Figs. 341, 343, 346-349, 351, notes 11-21. For the Artemis Colonna, see Chapter VIII, Figs. 363-366, notes 23-33. For the Athena Hephaistia, see Chapter VIII, Figs. 374, 377-378, 382, 384, notes 34-40.

TYPICAL MISTAKES AND MANNERISMS FOUND ON ROMAN COPIES 23. P. Jacobsthal and J.D. Beazely, Bilder griechischer Vasen (Berlin 1930-1939), II (Der Berliner Maler by J.D. Beazely), p. 8, pi. 9, fig. 1, Staatliche antiken Sammlung München No. 2312; J.D. Beazely, Aiitc Redfigure Vasepainters2, p. 197, No. 11. 24. I owe the photograph for the unpublished statue (our Figs. 769-770) to the kindness of R. Calza. Cf. Chapter VIII, Figs. 438-440. 25. S. Aurigemma, M us.N az.Rom p. 87, No. 203 (8646); R. Paribeni, Le Terme di Diocleziano e il Museo Nazionale Romano (4th ed. Milan 1932), p. 97, No. 78 (8646). For a similar classicizing statuette (in bronze) of Aphrodite from Paramythia, now in the British Museum, see H.B. Walters, Bronzes, Brit.Mus., No. 279, pi. 6; E, Langlotz, Phidiasprobleme, p. 84, pi. 26, fig. 2. 26. Helbig-Speier, Führer1, I, p. 755, No. 1050 (Inv. 9952), and for the inscription, pp. 752-753, No. 1044 (Inv. 9957); Benndorf-Schöne, Bildwerke Lat.Mus,, pp. 132-133, No. 213; A. Giuliano, Ritratti Lat, p. 30, No. 32, pis. 20-21; G. Lippold, in Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 2133. 27. Helbig-Speier, op.cit, I, p. 826, No. 1152 (Inv. 10784) (calls the statue Marciana); Benndorf-Schöne, op.cit, pp. 375-376, No. 532; A. Hekler, “Gewandstatuen,” pp. 181, 224, Type lb; R. West, Röm.Porträtplastik, II, p. 35, No. 5, pi. VIII, fig. 26; A. Giuliano, op.cit., p. 45, No. 49, pis. 31-32, fig. 49 a-c; G. Lippold in Arndt-Amelung, E.A., No. 2245. 28. For the replica of Hera Barberini in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, see Chapter V, Figs. 162-163, note 82.

180

15

AN OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF COPYING 1. ADAPTATIONS IN THE ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL PERIODS OF GREEK ART The Greek sculptors of the Archaic and Classical periods did not know copies in the sense of exact reproductions. They knew adaptations, that is, the use of creations by other artists for their own purposes. This means that they learned from artists of other countries as well as from older artists of their own land. They apparently tried to improve on the models, and thus they added something of their own to that which they had learned. This is particularly clear in the case of the kouros, the type of a standing youth, used for gods, heroes, and mortals alike.1 The general inspiration for carving large statues was derived by the Archaic Greek sculptors from Egypt and Mesopotamia. From Egypt they took the general type, from Mesopotamia the decorative pat­ terns for hair and muscles. But in each generation, the sculptors added details derived from their observations on the true nature of the different parts of the body. In a little more than one hundred years, the scheme, used in Egypt from the third millennium down to the Roman period during which time no changes were made for the body, became full of life, with correct anatomical observations. Each artist built upon the achievements of his predecessor, but each added something new. Patiently they worked on the same types: the kouros, the draped kore, and the seated statue. When they finally understood anatomy completely, they discarded the old scheme. The artists of the Classical period of Greek art attacked new problems. The sculptors of the early Classical period strove for greater knowledge and precision in depicting the human form. Those of the high Classical period solved the problem of how to distinguish mortals from gods and heroes, and in the late Classical period of the fourth century b . c . they added refinement and grace on the one hand, passion, on the other. They rejuvenated the Classical types. In the workshops of great creative masters like Phidias, Polykleitos, and Praxiteles, the masterpieces were repeated by the pupils, but again we have no copies, only variations and minor adaptations. When the pupil 181

AN OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF COPYING was himself gifted, as were Alkamenes and Agorakritos, again some details were brought to perfection. Thus was achieved the systematic development of Greek art which still astonishes us.

2. BLENDING OF CLASSICAL AND CONTEMPORARY STYLES IN HELLENISTIC COPIES The Hellenistic artists2 found the single human figure perfected; thus, they turned to new and larger tasks. They created real groups, studied the characteristics of foreign peoples, heightened passion and strong movement, rendered all ages from infancy to old age, represented all classes from the rulers of the new states, founded by the successors of Alexander the Great, down to the lowest street urchins. The close study of nature brought a flourishing of portraiture. The conserv­ ative Athenians made statues of their celebrated men, past and present. The more progressive Eastern countries needed statues for the kings of the new kingdoms. Still, all portraits were statues, the body just as characteristic of the person represented as the head. Style continued to be developed during the third and early second century b .c . : there were no real copies or mere repetitions without additions. Then during the second century b . c ., the artists began to look backward as w ell as forward. The rulers of Pergamon seem to have been the first to want copies of celebrated masterpieces. When they wanted an Athena to watch over their great library, an adaptation of the Athena Parthenos by Phidias was erected.3 The main frieze of the great altar dedicated to Zeus and Athena4 has some figures like Athena and Apollo which have been called quotations of older types. Yet all these were made in the contemporary H ellenistic style. Only the outline was borrowed. In Syria there was also a copy of the Zeus of Phidias set up at Daphne near Antioch, and a copy of the Athena Parthenos was set up in the tem ple of Athena in Priene. Both are known from coins.5 On the mainland, Damophon of Messene, who had repaired the Zeus of Phidias, began to blend the contemporary baroque forms with traditional classic forms." Thus, Classical and baroque styles were combined to produce a new grandeur. This beginning of classicism was considered by Pliny (HN, XXXIV, 52) as a revival of art, which he dates to 156 b . c . The eclectic mixture of Classical grandeur and Hellenistic realism and vivacity appealed to the Romans, who became more and more interested and enamored of Greek art.

3. BEGINNING OF COPYING BY GREEK ARTISTS FOJ1 THE ROMANS The Romans of the late sixth and fifth centuries b . c . did not have an art of their own. Their art was Etruscan, brought to them with the Etruscan kings in the sixth century b . c . The Etruscan art from 600 to 450 was archaic, influenced by Greek Archaic art, but with its own peculiar flavor.7 The Etruscans did not copy, but as the Greeks had done with foreign art, added elem ents of their own in form as well as in content. For example, they put pointed shoes on the Greek kouros. Their art is harsh, vigorous, restless, exuberant, and veristic. Only in the late period did they attem pt to copy. When, for example, in the fifth century b . c . they copied the Greek kore, they put the 182

AN OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF COPYING diagonal mantle, no longer worn, like a drapery across the front of the body, without continuing it at the sides or in the back (Figs. 777-778).* The Etruscans continued the Archaic style with their own strong flavor far into the Classical period during which time they were conquered by the Romans.8 Their statues which made up part of the Roman booty and the works of the Etruscan artists who had settled in Rome filled all Rome with terracotta and bronze statues (Pliny, HN, XXXV, 157 f.). During the third and second centuries b .c ., the Etruscans adapted Hellenistic art to their taste and independent outlook, again without real copying. For example, bronze boys in Hellenistic style have the Etruscan bulla hung around their necks.10 At Praeneste, south of Rome, an Etruscan metal industry which produced mirrors and cistae was developed by the Italian inhabitants. The artists may have been Oscans, like Novios Plautios who made the Ficoroni Cista in Rome, according to the inscription.11 Greek technique, subjects, and style were adopted by the Etruscans as well as by the Italians long before the Romans were aware of genuine Greek art. Occasionally Greeks like Damophilos and Gorgasos were called to Rome to decorate the temple of Ceres in 493 b . c . (Pliny, HN, XXXV, 154). Otherwise, no pure Greek art was known to the Romans in this early period. The Romans were initially exposed to Greek art during the period from the first Samnite War through the first Punic War (343 to 241 b .c .). The art of Sicily and Magna Graecia, however, had little influence on the Romans during the fourth and most of the third centuries b .c . Rather, plundering of Etruscan cities continued. For example, two thousand statues were brought from Volsinii, a city which the Romans destroyed in 280 b . c . (Pliny, HN, XXXIV, 34). Gradually the influence of contemporary Hellenistic art began to prevail in Etruria as well as in Rome. When the oracle at Delphi suggested to the Romans that they put up statues both of the wisest and strongest of the Greeks, they erected in the Comitium the portrait statues of Pythagoras and Alcibiades (Pliny, HN, XXXIV, 26; Plutarch, Numa, 8, 20). These were probably not copies but statues taken from the booty of the Samnite war. Later, during the late third century, the Greek cities of Sicily and southern Italy were also repeatedly plundered. A golden Victory was brought from Syracuse in 211 and many works of art, among them the Herakles of Lysippos, were taken from Tarentum in 209. The main period of plundering in Greek lands was from 212 to about 100 b . c . according to Vessberg.12 During the second century b . c ., mainland Greece and the kingdoms founded by the successors of Alexander in Macedonia and Asia Minor were conquered by the Romans. The victorious generals brought thousands of Greek statues, paintings, and luxury products to Rome. After Titus Quinctius Flamininus had defeated Macedonia in 196 b . c ., he took a statue of Zeus found there and dedicated it on the Capitoline in Rome. Lucius Aemilius Paullus, when he had defeated Perseus of Macedon in 168 b . c ., brought 250 wagon loads of statues and paintings to Rome, among them a bronze Athena of Phidias. Quintus Metellus Macedonicus, who made Macedonia a Roman province in 146, brought the large bronze group of Alexander and his companions from Dion in Macedonia to Rome (Pliny, HN, XXXIV, 64). In the same year Lucius Mummius conquered Corinth. He allowed his soldiers to plunder the city, but when he learned that art had a value he also sent many of the art treasures back to Rome with other booty (Velleius Paterculus, II, i, 13, 14). Fulvius Nobilior plundered Aetolia and Cephallonia. He brought 283 bronze statues and 230 marble statues to Rome (Livy, XXXIX, 5, 13-16). Thus Rome was filled with works of Greek art. The generals in this period did not keep the 183

AN OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF COPYING booty for themselves but displayed them in public places. Metellus Macedonicus built a porticus, later named for Octavia, where he exhibited the statues. Another large art collection was in the temple of Felicitas, where Mummius dedicated his booty.13 Rome became more and more Hellenized, beginning with the most aristocratic families of the Scipios and Aemilii. It is important that the Romans began to take an interest not only in the works of art, but also in the artists whom they engaged to work for them. Aemilius Paullus brought the artist Metrodoros to Rome in 168 as an educator for his children (Pliny, HN, XXXV, 135). It was a most important step when Greek artists were commissioned to create portraits of their Roman masters. When Flamininus was represented in statues and on coins, they were made in the contemporary style of the early second century b .c ., as the Greek inscriptions and the portrait on his coins prove14 (Plutarch, Titus Quinctius Flamininus, I, 1). This, however, changed about the middle of the second century. When the Roman magistrate Caius Ofellius Ferus in about 150 to 130 ordered his portrait from the two artists Dionysios and his nephew Timarchides II, the statue itself was of a heroic Greek type, similar to those used for a Hellenistic ruler from Pergamon and for a bronze statuette from Pompeii, probably representing Alexander Balas of Syria (152 to 144 b .c .) in the guise of Hermes.15Only the naked body of this signed statue of Ofellius is preserved and is now in Athens.16The head, now lost, must have been a portrait of Ofellius himself, similar in style to the one found on a second portrait statue of the same type from Delos, also in Athens (Fig. 779).17This is probably the head of another Roman magistrate, although he has been called a pseudo-athlete. At any rate, the head is a realistic portrait, with large ears and a bald crown. He wears a small Roman mantle, with a bunch of folds set on his left shoulder from behind and with the end coiled around and hanging down from his right wrist. Thus, a Roman portrait head has been set on a heroic Greek statue. The Romans had learned from the Etruscans to represent real likenesses including all distinguishing marks like warts or partly bald heads. This practice was furthered by the use of death masks which represented ancestors at funerals and later served as models for ancestral busts (Polybius, Hist., VI, 53; Pliny, HN, XXXV, 6; Cicero, Pro Mutena, 88).13Thus begin the veristic portrait heads of the Romans and the combination with copies of idealistic statues of the Greeks. This combination was used for many years during the late Republican and in all imperial periods. On the evidence from Delos, we may thus place the beginning of copying in the middle or second half of the second century b . c . Besides portrait statues, the same Greek artists created cult statues for the temples in Rome. Timarchides and his sons Polykies and Dionysios, of the same Athenian family which had created the statue of Ofellius, worked statues in Rome for the temples in the porticus Metelli (Pliny, HN, XXXVI, 33). Thus, the way was prepared for the wholesale copying, which began in the first century b . c . and continued throughout the imperial period.

4. COPIES DURING THE FIRST CENTURY

b .c

.

The many objects made of costly material which were brought with the booty from Greek lands awakened in the Romans a love for the luxurious, a thing unknown to the early republicans. More and more they began to desire objects to decorate their public and private buildings, as well as their open squares. Some workshops of the so-called Neo-Attic artists in Athens, that were 184

AN OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF COPYING started about 150 to 140 b . c . , 1" fulfilled this desire. The style o f this workshop art is eelectic, agreeing with the eclectic taste of the Romans who commissioned works. Late Hellenistic and contemporary figures are mixed with Classical and Archaic figures. Both of these latter tendencies had never quite died out during the Hellenistic age, and they particularly came to the fore in the late Hellenistic period. The archaistic style with its zigzags, swallow-tailed folds, and central folds was well adapted to decorative works.-" Its linear tendencies prevailed over the three-dimensional trends of Hellenistic art. In the early first century b . c ., the generals gradually ceased their wholesale plundering. Many places had been plundered, but important sites like the venerated city of Athens were not touched. Private plundering continued for a while; for example, Lucius Cornelius Sulla and the brothers Marcus and Lucius Lucullus collected statues, paintings, and other works of art for their houses.21 The worst plunderer was Gaius Verres, who used his office as legate in Asia (80 to 79 b . c . ) , as praetor in Greece (74), and as propraetor in Sicily (73 to 70) to assemble enormous collections of precious vases in silver, gold, ivory, statues in bronze, marble, and ivory, and paintings. Cicero, in his four orations against Verres, gives a clear picture of his misuse of office. He rebukes Verres so severely that an end was put to this ruthless practice.22 From then on, rich Romans bought Greek works of art. Thus, Cicero himself acquired herms and other art works between 6 8 and 65 b . c:., as he tells in his letters addressed to Atticus.25 One of his dealers was Avianus Evander, who made works for the embellishment of villas, probably mostly copies worked by himself. He set a new head on the statue of Diana by Timotheus in the temple of Apollo on the Palatine (Pliny, HN, XXXVI, 32).21 It is out of the question that the head was in the style of the fourth-century Timotheus. The Romans were unconcerned with the discrepancy between head style and body style, while the Greeks were concerned with the harmonious relationship of the head to all other parts of the body. The Hellenizing tendencies became more and more extensive during the first century B.c. The demand was particularly great for marble reliefs to decorate altars, candelabra, fountains, basins, amphorae, and craters, with their figures in pleasing arrangement.25 This demand drew many Neo-Attic artists from Athens to Rome, but artists from other Greek lands, particularly Asia Minor, followed them. One of their main tasks was the erection of cult statues in Greek style for the Roman temples, to replace the crude Etruscan images. Thus, after the Capitoline temple had burned in 85 b . c: . , Sulla replaced the Etruscan statue of Jupiter with a statue in gold and ivory, erected in 64 b . c ., by Apollonius. We know this new creation in the Greek manner (of the so-called Otricoli type) from many copies of the whole statue,2'0nZeSp ^ e^ ^ t‘Sa PP' m

m ln

v ίΞ Γ ((, μ Τ

Λ

* 4T

hlo- and ßg, 350 (Acc. No. G.R. 487); etulem. Tile Metropolitan “ ? ^ L e h m a n n - H a r ,leben, C rL b ro mean, II, pp. t 5, 100,

mr wo’ , 7 ‘w P ' * 7 C; boV!niì Sarcofagt paleocristiani, pp. 123-124, fig. 97; H. Koch, Römische f R B om arn’I T “ ’■Ί “ ■Pk, * « * »·°· hliemeyer, Stud, Darstellung, p 113, No, ] 28. pl. 48, fig. r ' i l l t U 1 P 5L Pd * ' fiS- 4·811E B · Harrison. The Athenian Agoni. I, p. 97, pl. 46c; G.M.A. Hanhnann, Roman Art, pp. 86-87 164 No 5«· r ’ u rm π i ,„ ” , r . , . Collections, pp. 189-190, figs. 241 A W Lawrence Γ7 / c Τ ’ floma" ScM ÌPittW m A'»encön PrrrH-u a ‘ΐ τ ι , ι . n ” D· Lawrence. Classical Sculpture, p. 388; 11. von Heintze, Studien zu den Portrats des 3. Jahrh., 2, RomMitt 63 (1956), pp. 56-58, pl 2 3 fie 1 86. 308 N. Catamito, (einen η Vermeide, \r , op.cit.,supra note t 3, p. 71, No. pi XXII IlfigMuseo 69 Nazionale di Reggio 66 iRcmrin leggio iuó U), p.’ 756; C. 87. C. Vermeule, op.cit., p. 72, No. 315A, pl. XXIII fìg

-* * ·

" ·

*»

89. See Chapter XIII, note 14, for the statue of the mother-in-law of Eubulion in Conenhairen 90. See^Chapter XIII, note»Μ for fte statue of Julia Domna in the guise of Ceres.

91. C. Blumel, Berlin.Kat.V.Rom.Kopien, pp. 27-29 K167 pls 5 3 - 5 4 92. On the idealized head of the “Aspasia” type in Óerlin/see C. Blümel, op.cit., pp. 29-31, K168, pis. 55-56; H. Schrader, Phtdtas p. 47, figs. 15, 18, 19; M. Bieber, Griech.Kleidung, p. 65, pi. XXXI, 2, 3; p, 82 pl. LIU. 2, 3. For a list of the extant copies, see D. Mustilli, Mus.Mussoi, pp. 35-36. and supra Chapter XIV, note 5. For the “r L t A" f f « « γ η Ae Metropolitan ^ ^ ^ p see ^ μΓ I 108-109P

’

°

CC

Mar“ ftS’ BMMA 20 ^1925)’ PP' 107~108 %· 3; eadem, Cat.Gk.Sculpt.Met, ° 29'97'3J |>ph XXIX: eadem. Handbook o f the Classical Collection, pp.

DD 7 « r 7 PP 110_113 (82-85), fig. 25, pis. 17,32; G. Bovini, Sarcofagi paleocristiani, pp. 125-126 fig. 103; A. Brüh\ Liber Pater (Paris 1953), p. 323, pi. XXIII. For Valerianus see ].J. Bernoulli, Rom.Ikon., II, 3, pp. 163-165, Münztaf. V, fig. 8. JJ

266

LATE ANTIQUE AND EARLY CHRISTIAN COPIES op.cit., p p .

94.

S ee for th e w ife o f B alb in u s: M . G ü tsc h o w ,

95.

s e e supra n o te 4 0 a n d F ig s, 8 7 8 - 8 7 9 . S ee C h a p ter V , n o te 8 0 , for th e H e r a B arb erin i in th e V a tica n .

9 6.

G . M e n d e l,

Mm.Oltomans,Cat,Sculpt.,

9 2 - 9 4 (6 4 -6 6 ), p i. X III; on th e sa r c o p h a g u s o f B a lb in u s,

II, p p . 3 3 8 - 3 4 0 , N o . 6 0 3 (28); A . H ek ler, “ G e w a n d s ta tu e n ,” p p .

1 9 3 -1 9 4 , 2 3 0 , T y p e X X X V a (h e tr a c e s th e ty p e b a ck to th e A th en a G iu stin ia n i). 97.

S ee C h a p ter X, n o te 17, for th e “ S a p p h o ” or K ore A lb an i.

98.

S ee J.J. B ern o u lli,

99.

M . G ü tsc h o w , “ P r a e te x ta t-K a ta k o m b e ,” p p . 6 4 - 6 5 (36), fig. 10; O . E lia, “ S a r c o p h a g i ro m a n i n e l M u se o

100.

F o r th e sta tu e o f th e s le e p in g A riad n e in th e V a tica n , se e H e lb ig -S p e ie r , Führer', I, p p . 1 0 9 -1 1 0 , N o . 144 (In v . 548); W . A m e lu n g , Sculpt.vat.Mus., II, p p . 6 3 6 - 6 4 3 , G a lleria d e lle S ta tu e N o . 4 1 4 , p i. 57; M . B ie b e r ,

Rimi.Ikon,,

N a z io n a le d i N a p o li,”

101.

II, 3, p p . 9 3 - 9 7 , M ü n zta f. II, figs. 1 8 - 2 1 , for Ju lia S o a e m ia s an d J u lia M aesa.

RiclstArch 3

(1 931), p p . 5 6 - 7 0 , pis. I - I I , figs. 3 , 4.

Sculpt.Hellen.Ager, p. 145. F o r th e sta tu e o f th e sle e p in g A ria d n e in F lo r e n c e , se e L .A . M ila n i, Il Museo archeologico di Firenze, p . 3 1 3 , N os. 4 0 - 4 1 , p i. 152; M . B ieb er, op.cit,, p p . 1 4 5 -1 4 6 , fig. 6 2 4 . Ile lb ig -S p e ie r , Purer', I, p . 7 2 9 , N o . 1 0 1 4 (In v. 9538); B e n n d o r f-S c h ö n e , Bildwerke Lat.Mus., p p . 3 3 7 - 3 4 1 , N o . 4 81; C . R ob ert, Sarkophagreliefs, III, 2, p. 193. A lth o u g h th e b o d y o f th e d e c e a s e d w ith r o u n d e d b r e a sts a p p ea rs to b e fe m a le , a m an is su rely r e p r e se n te d b y th e p o rtra it h e a d w h ic h h as a th in b ea rd . T h u s, th e h e a d se e m s to h a v e b e e n rew o rk ed .

10 2 .

R ö m isc h -G e r m a n isc h e K o m m issio n , d. D e u ts c h e n A r c h ä o lo g isc h e n In stitu ts, Germania Romana: Ein Bilder­ III (Die Grabdenkmäler) (B a m b erg 1926), p p , 5 2 - 5 3 , p i. X X X V I, figs. 2 - 3 , p i. X X X V III, figs. 2 , 4; E.

atlas,

E sp éra n d ieu ,

Recueil general des bas-reliefs, statues et bastes de la Germanie romaine, V I, N o s. 5 1 4 2 a n d Die Grabmäler ton Neumagen (B erlin 1932), N o . 180a 2, p l. 2 7 (sc h o o l s c e n e ), N o . 18 4 a ,

W . v o n M assow ,

5149; p i. 3 4

(h air-d ressin g scen e).

Röm.lkon.,

10 3 .

J.J. B ern o u lli,

1 04.

S e e C h a p te r V I, n o te 2 8 , for th e “ h a rb o r” sa r c o p h a g u s in th e V a tica n .

II, 3 , p p . 1 4 6 -1 5 1 , p i. X L V , M ü n zta f. IV , figs. 8 - 9 .

105.

J.J. B ern o u lli,

Röm.lkon.,

II, 3 , p p . 1 9 3 -1 9 7 (D io c le tia n ), 2 1 1 - 2 3 1 (C o n sta n tin e ); G . B o v in i,

Sarcofagi

paleocristiani, 106.

10 7 .

10 8 .

p p . 1 5 1 -1 6 9 (d a tes th e tetra rch y to 2 9 3 -3 1 2 ) , F o r th e g ro u p in V e n ic e , se e R. D e lb r u e c k , Antike Porphtjrwerke, p p . 8 4 - 9 0 , p is. 3 1 - 3 4 ; H .P . L O r a n g e ,

Studien zu Geschichte des spätantiken Porträts, p p . 1 6 - 2 8 ,1 0 0 ff„ figs. 3 2 ,3 4 , 41; A . R u m p f, Stilphasen der spätantiken Kunst (C o lo g n e 1957), p . 10, p l. 6, fig. 29; C . V e r m e id e , op.cit., supra n o te 3 , p. 7 3 , N o s. 3 1 6 - 3 1 7 , p l. X X III, fig. 72; G .M .A . H a n fm a n n , Roman Art, p p . 4 0 - 4 1 , c o lo r p l. p. 4 0 . F o r th e g r o u p in th e V a tic a n , s e e H e lb ig -S p e ie r , Führer', I, p . 3 6 9 , N o . 4 7 0 ; R. D e lb r u e c k , op.cit., p p . 9 1 - 9 2 , p is. 3 5 - 3 7 ; H .P . L ’O r a n g e , op.cit., p p . 1 6 - 2 8 , 1 0 0 if., figs. 3 3 -3 5 ; A. R u m p f, op.cit,, p. 10, p l. 6 , fig. 25; C . V e r m e u le , op.cit., p. 73, N os. 3 1 8 -3 1 9 ; G . B e c a tti, L ’Arte Romana, p p . 1 1 1 -1 1 2 , fig. 133. PI.P. L ’O ra n g e, “ E in te tr a r c h isc h e E h r e n d e n k m a l a u f d em F o ru m R o m a n u m ,” RömMitt 5 3 (1 9 3 8 ), p p . 1 - 3 4 , p ls. 1 -7 ; D E. S tro n g , Rom.lmp.Sculpt., p p . 72, 1 0 3 , figs. 1 3 1 -1 3 2 ; I.S. R y b e r g , “ R ite s o f th e S ta te R e lig io n in R o m a n A r t,” p p . 1 1 7 -1 1 9 , p l. X L I, figs. 6 1 a -b . H e lb ig -S p e ie r , Führer', II, p p . 2 5 2 - 2 5 4 , N o . 1441; H .S . Jon es,

1 09.

Röm.lkon.,

Sculpt.Pal.Con., p p . 5 - 6 ,

N o . 2 , p p . 1 3 - 1 5 ,1 7 - 1 9 ,

Spätantike Kaiserporträts, p p . 1 2 1 -1 3 0 , pls. 3 7 - 4 3 , figs. 3 0 - 3 1 ; idem, Antike Porträts, p p . L V I -L V I I , N o . 5 5 , fig. 2 7 , p l. 55; H .P . L ’O ra n g e, Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture, p p . 1 1 6 -1 1 8 , fig. 8 6 ; idem, Studien zur geschickte des .spätantiken Porträts, p p . 1 3 7 -1 3 8 , N o . 8 6 , figs. 8 3 , 163; A . R u m p f, op.cit., supra n o te 1 0 6 , p . 18, p l. 12, 5 5 (d e n ie s id e n tific a tio n C o n sta n tin e an d d a te s it to 3 6 0 - 3 7 0 a . d . ) ; A r n d t-B r u n n -B r u c k m a n n , Porträts, p ls. 8 9 1 -8 9 2 ; A . H e k le r , Bildniskunst, p . X L V I, p l. 3 0 7 a ; E. S tro n g , Rom.Sculpt., p. 3 8 5 , p l. C X X X ; eadem. Scult.rom., II, p . 4 1 0 , fig. 2 5 2 ; G .M .A . H a n fm a n n , Roman Art, p p . 1 0 2 - 1 0 3 ,1 8 6 N o . a n d fig. 9 6 . F o r th e sta tu e o f C o n sta n tin e as A u g u stu s in th e C h u r c h o f San G io v a n n i in L a te r a n o , s e e J.J. B e r n o u lli, op.cit., II, 3 , p p . 2 1 6 - 2 1 7 , p l. L; R. D e lb r u e c k , Spätantike Kaiserporträts, p p . 1 1 7 - 1 1 8 , p l. 3 3 ; C . V e r m e u le , op.cit., supra n o te 3 , p. 7 3 , N o . 3 2 2 ; G . R o d e n w a ld t, Die Kunst der Antike, p . 6 4 2 ; E. S tro n g , Art Anc.Rome, II, p p . 2 1 , pis. I, IV; J.J. B e r n o u lli,

II, 2 , p. 6 0 , II, 3 , p p . 2 2 0 - 2 2 2 , p l. L l l a - b ; R. D e lb r u e c k ,

1 8 9 -1 9 0 , fig. 5 4 5 . F o r th e s ta tu e o f C o n sta n tin e as A u g u stu s o n th e b a lu s tr a d e o f th e C a m p id o g lio , se e H e lb ig -S p e ie r ,

Führer', II,

pp.

13-14,

N o . 1167; J.J. B e r n o u lli,

267

op.cit.,

II, 3 , p p . 2 1 7 - 2 1 9 , N o . 2; R. D e lb r u e c k ,

LATE ANTIQUE AND EARLY CHRISTIAN COPIES op.cit, p p .

1 1 3 -1 1 8 , p ls. 3 0 - 3 2 , H .P . L ’O r a n g e ,

op.cit,

N o . 8 0 , fig. 1 55; C . V e r m e u le ,

op.cit.,

p. 7 3 , N o . 3 2 3 , p i.

X X IV , fig. 74. F o r th e sta tu e o f C o n s ta n tin e ’s so n as C a e s a r o n t h e b a lu s tr a d e o f th e C a m p id o g lio , s e e H e lb ig -S p e ie r ,

Führer',

II, p p . 1 3 - 1 4 , N o . 11 6 6 ; C . V e n n e u le ,

op.cit.,

p. 7 3 , N o- 3 2 4 .

110.

S e e C h a p te r X I, n o te 5 0 , for J u lia n th e A p o s ta te in th e g u is e o f a p a llia t u s .

111.

J.J. B ern o u lli,

op.cit.,

II, 3 , p p . 2 5 7 - 2 5 9 , p i. L V I; R. D e lb r u e c k ,

Die Kunst der Antike,

Spätantike Kaiserportäts,

p p . 2 1 9 - 2 2 6 , p is.

Grossbronzen, II, Oströmische Plastike der Theodosianischen Zeit, p p . 9 3 - 9 4 , 1 0 9 -1 1 0 , N o , 2 1 , p l. 30; R. B r illia n t, op.cit., supra n o te 5 1 , p . 1 9 7 , fig. 4 .8 9 ; H . K o c h , op.cit, supra n o te 8 5 , p p . 1 4 1 -1 4 2 , p l. 57; C . V e r m e u le , op.cit., p . 7 4 , N o . 3 2 9 ; P .H . v o n B la n c k e n h a g e n , “ D a s B ild d e s M e n s c h e n in d e r r ö m isch en K u n st,” M JKW 1 5 (1 9 4 9 /5 0 ) , p p . 1 3 2 - 1 3 3 , figs. 2 0 - 2 1 . B o th D e lb r u e c k a n d K o llw it z b e li e v e it to b e 1 1 6 -1 2 0 ; G. R o d e n w a ld t,

p . 6 4 6 , p l. X L II; K lu g e -L e h m a n n -H a r tle b e n ,

p p . 5 6 - 5 7 , 6 7 - 6 9 , III, p is. X V III, X X II; J. K o llw itz ,

M arcian u s (4 5 0 - 4 5 7 112. 113. 114. 115.

a .d .) .

Antike Porphyrwerke, p p . 9 9 - 1 0 2 , p ls. 4 2 - 4 4 ; B . S c h w e it z e r , Die spätantiken Grundlagen der mittelalterlichen Kunst ( L e ip z ig 19 4 9 ) (r e p r in te d in Zur Kunst der Antike 1 9 6 3 ), p p - 2 8 0 - 3 0 3 , p l. 6 8 , fig. 1. H .S. Jon es, Sculpt.Pal.Con., p . 3 5 , N o . 18, p l. 14; R. D e lb r u e c k , op.cit., p . 4 9 , p l. 5. C . V e r m e u le , op.cit., supra n o te 1 0 6 , p . 7 2 , N o . 3 1 5 A , p l. X X I I I , fig. 7 1 . H P . L ’O ra n g e, op.cit., supra n o te 1 0 6 , p p . 9 7 - 9 9 , 1 2 7 - 1 2 8 , N o . 6 9 , figs. 1 2 0 - 1 3 2 ; L O r a n g e -v o n G e r k a n , Konstantinsbogen, p p . 1 6 0 - 1 9 1 , p is. 3 9 - 4 9 ; A . G iu lia n o , L ’Arco Const., p p . 1 9 - 2 4 , N o s. a n d figs. 1 7 - 2 4 . T h e R. D e lb r u e c k ,

fo rm er id e n tific a tio n s o f t h e in s e r te d h e a d , in a d d itio n to th a t o f C o n s ta n tin e , lis t e d b y L ’O r a n g e (p . 5 0 , n o t e 2) a n d in c lu d in g th e id e n tific a tio n g iv e n b y th is a u th o r m u st n o w b e d is c a r d e d in fa v o r o f L ic in iu s . 116.

F or th e r e lie f p a n e l o n th e A r c h o f C o n s ta n tin e s h o w in g t h e e m p e r o r d is tr ib u t in g m o n e y , s e e H .P . L ’O r a n g e ,

op.cit.,

fig. 175; L ’O r a n g e -v o n G erk an ,

op.cit.,

p is. 1 6 - 1 7 ; D .E . S tr o n g ,

Rom.lmp.Sculpt.,

F or th e c u ira ssed b u st in o n e o f th e p a s s a g e w a y s o f th e A r c h , s e e C . V e r m e u le ,

p p . 7 6 , 1 0 4 , fig. 1 3 8 .

op.cit, supra

n o te 3 , p . 2 8 , N o .

H l , p i. X X III, fig. 7 3. 117.

J.J. B e r n o u lli,

Röm.Ikon.,

II, 3 , p. 2 1 5 . F o r a sim ila r tr a n s fo r m a tio n o f a s t a tu e o f th e su n g o d in t o a s ta tu e o f

C o m m o d u s an d fo r a r e v e r se tr a n s fo r m a tio n fro m a s ta tu e o f N e r o in to a s ta tu e o f th e su n g o d , s e e H . B la n c k , 118.

Wiederverwendung, p p . op.cit., p. 3 7 ,

1 7 -1 8 . N o s. A 1 1 - 1 2 ; C . V e r m e u le ,

op.cit., p . 6 2 , N o s . 2 4 0 - 2 4 1 ; R. H e b e r d e y , V e r lä u fig e r JOA 1 1 5 (1 9 1 2 ), p p . 1 7 5 - 1 7 6 , figs. 1 3 7 - 1 3 8 ; A . H e k le r , “ B e itr ä g e z u r G e s c h ic h te d er a n tik e n P a n z e r s ta tu e n ,” JOAI 1 9 - 2 0 (1 9 1 9 ), p . 2 3 9 , N o s . 7 - 8 . F o r a c o r s e le t s t a tu e o f t h e A n to n in e p e r io d re u se d fo r M a x im ia n u s, n o w in L e id e n , s e e H . B la n c k , op.cit., p p . 3 3 - 3 4 , N o . A 7 , p l. 7. O n th e e x ta n t b a se s for th e six sta tu e s in S id e , s e e H . B la n c k , op.cit., p p . 9 2 - 9 3 , N o s . B 7 1 - B 7 6 . F o r a c o r s e le t H . B la n ck ,

B e r ic h t ü b er d ie G r a b u n g e n in E p h e s o s ,”

119.

sta tu e in S id e from th e A n to n in e p e r io d b u t r e u s e d w ith t h e h e a d o f p e r h a p s M a x im u s C a e s a r or M a x im in u s

op.cit., p p . 4 8 - 4 9 , N o . A 2 2 , p l. 16; C . V e r m e u le , op.cit., p . 7 6 , N o . 3 4 1 ; Roman and Early Byzantine Portrait Sculpture in Asia Minor, p p . 8 6 - 8 7 , N o . 6 3 , p l. X L , figs.

T hrax, or L ic in iu s, s e e H . B la n c k , In a n -R o se n b a u m ,

1 -2 , p l. X L I, fig. 3.

La Villa romana di Piazza Armerina

12 0 .

G .V . G e n tili,

12 1 .

F o r th e tw o sta tu e s in R o m e , s e e H .S . J o n e s, Sculpt.Pal.Con., p p . 1 1 4 - 1 1 5 , G a lle r ia N o s . 6 6 - 6 7 , p l. 4 2 ; L .

(R o m e 1 9 5 1 ), p p . 2 6 - 2 7 , 4 2 , fig. 17.

The Roman Toga, p p . 1 0 4 - 1 1 0 , figs. 6 2 (s ta tu e ), 6 3 (m o d e l), 6 6 - 6 7 (b a c k v ie w s o f s ta tu e a n d m o d e l); E . Rom.Sculpt., p . 3 8 4 , p l. C X X IX ; A r n d t-B r u n n -B r u c k m a n n , Porträts, p is. 3 1 1 - 3 1 6 . F o r t h e t w o s t a tu e s in Ista n b u l, s e e G . M e n d e l, Mus.ottomans, Cat.Sculpt., II, p p . 2 0 2 - 2 0 5 , N o s . 5 0 7 - 5 0 8 ( 2 2 6 6 ,2 2 6 5 ) . F o r a s t a tu e o f V a le n tin ia n II, fo u n d a lso in A p h r o d isia s a n d e x e c u t e d in th e s a m e r ig id s t y le , s e e G . M e n d e l, op.cit., I I , p p . W ils o n ,

S tro n g ,

1 9 9 -2 0 2 , N o . 5 0 6 (2 2 6 4 ). 12 2 .

R. D e lb r u e c k , Antike Porphyrwerke, p p . 1 1 1 - 1 1 4 , figs. 4 1 - 4 3 , p is. 5 0 - 5 1 ; J. K o llw it z ,

op.cit, supra n o t e

111, pp.

9 2 - 9 3 , 9 8 - 9 9 , p l. 1 9, fig. 1. 12 3 .

Führer',

II, p p . 1 5 3 - 1 5 4 , N o .

p p . 2 1 4 - 2 1 5 , N o . 8 4 , p l. 5 3 ; H . B la n c k ,

Wiederverwendung,

F o r th e s e a te d sta tu e o f H e le n a in th e C a p ito lin e M u se u m , s e e H e lb ig - S p e ie r , 1 3 2 6 (Inv. 496); H .S . J o n es,

Sculpt.Mus.Capitol.,

p p . 5 6 - 5 7 , N o . A 3 5 , p l. 2 5 (d isc u sse s th e r e w o r k in g o f th e h e a d ). F o r t h e c o in p o r tr a its o f H e le n a , s e e J.J. B ern o u lli,

Röm.Ikon.,

II, 3 , p p . 2 0 1 - 2 0 4 , M ü n z ta f. V i l i , figs. 1 - 2 ; R . D e lb r u e c k ,

1 0, figs. 1 -1 2 , p l. 11, figs. 1 3 -1 4 .

268

Spätantike Kaiserporträts,

p i.

LATE ANTIQUE AND EARLY CHRISTIAN COPIES op.cit., supra n o t e 7 9 , p p . 3 2 3 - 3 3 4 , figs. 1 - 2 5 . Greek Mythology in Byzantine Art; idem, Ancient Book Illumination (C a m b r id g e

12 4 .

M . L a w r e n c e , “ T h r e e P a g a n T h e m e s in C h r istia n A rt,”

125.

K. W e itz m a n n ,

1 9 5 9 ),

p a r tic u la r ly p p . 1 1 6 - 1 2 7 , figs. 1 1 4 -1 3 1 .

Fell’s Collector's Guide to Valuable Antiques (N e w York 1 9 6 3 ), p. 17. Les Ortgins de I’kdifice hypostyle en Grece, en orient et chez les Romains (P aris 1 9 1 3 ), p p . 2 7 8 - 3 4 1 , (c o m p a r iso n o f p a g a n a n d C h r istia n form s o f th e b a silica ); E . S w ift, Roman Sources of Christian Art,

126.

H .R . B la ck , Jr.,

12 7 .

G . L erou x, figs. 7 2 , a

p p . 9 - 3 0 (“ P a g a n A n c e sto r s o f th e C h ristia n B a silic a s” ), figs. 2 3 - 2 4 (p la n s o f R o m a n b a s ilic a s a n d e a r ly C h ristia n b a s ilic a n c h u r c h e s).

Altchrist und byz.Kunst, I, p p . 1 4 7 - 1 4 8 , figs. 1 3 8 -1 4 0 . op.cit., supra n o te 1 1 1 , p i 10 5 , N o . 12, p i. 2 3 . M . L a w r e n c e , “ C ity - G a te S a r c o p h a g i,” ArtB 10 (1 9 2 7 ), p p . 1 -4 5 ; eadem, “ C o lu m n a r S a r c o p h a g i in th e L a tin W e s t ,” AJA 14 (1 9 3 2 ), p p . 1 0 3 - 1 8 5 . “ T h e sa r c o p h a g i w e h a v e b e e n s tu d y in g are th e c le a r e s t e x a m p le s o f th e

128.

O . W u lff,

12 9 .

J. K o llw itz ,

130.

tr a n sla tio n o f th e s ty lis tic fo r m u la e o f c la s sic a l art in to th e p ic to r ia l la n g u a g e o f C h r istia n ity . .

(p. 1 6 5 ). I n h e r

a r tic le c it e d in n o te s 7 9 a n d 1 2 4 , M iss L a w r e n c e su m m a r iz e s th e su r v iv a l an d tr a n sfo r m a tio n o f p a g a n th e m e s in C h r istia n art. S h e a d d s th r e e e x a m p le s o f th e e a r ly C h r istia n p e r io d w h ic h w e r e so tr a n sfo r m e d —th e s le e p o f d e a th , th e d iv in e b ir th , a n d th e a sc e n sio n .

132.

supra n o te s 7 7 - 7 9 . F o r C h r ist in a p a lliu m o n C h r istia n Altchrist.und byz.Kunst, p . 5 5 , fig. 4 2 , p p . 6 0 - 6 1 , fig. 5 1 , p p . 8 2 - 8 3 , fig. 64; J. W ilp e r t, Die Malerein der Katakomben Roms (F r e ib u r g 1 9 0 3 ), p p . 4 8 , 6 7 , 7 0 , 8 6 , 9 9 - 1 0 0 , 4 3 3 - 4 5 6 , pis. 9 , 1 7 , 3 5 , 3 8 , 6 1 ,6 6 ; F . G e r k e , Die Christ.Sarkophage, p p . 2 5 1 - 2 5 7 , 1 4 0 7 -1 4 0 8 . E . D ie t z a n d O . D e m u s , Byzantine Mosaics in Greece, Hostos Lucas, and Daphni (C a m b r id g e 1 9 3 1 ), p p . 7 5 ,9 4 ,

133.

S e e C h a p te r X I, n o te 7 3 a n d M . B ie b e r , “ R o m a n i P a llia ti (R o m a n M e n in G r e e k H im a tio n ),”

13 1 .

F o r th e G o o d S h e p h e r d o n C h r istia n sa r c o p h a g i, se e sa r c o p h a g i, s e e C h a p te r X I, n o te s 7 2 - 7 4 . O W u lff,

fig. 110.

ProcPhilSoc 1 0 3

(1 9 5 9 ), fig. 5 8 . 134.

F o r th e m a r b le r e lie f in Is ta n b u l, w ith fou r A p o s tle s in th e p a lliu m , s e e G . M e n d e l,

Mus.Ottomans,Cat.Sculpt.,

I l l , p p . 5 3 5 - 5 3 7 , N o . 1 3 2 8 (2 4 6 2 ); M . L a w r e n c e , “ C ity -G a te S a r c o p h a g i,” p . 4 0 , fig. 4 5 . F o r e x a m p le s o f A p o s tle s in b o o k illu s tr a tio n s, s e e K. W e itz m a n n ,

Method of Text Illustration,

Illustrations in Roll and Codex, a Study o f the Origin and

p p . 1 4 2 - 1 4 3 , fig. 130; 2 0 1 - 2 0 3 , figs. 1 9 7 - 1 9 8 , 2 0 0 , 2 0 3 , 2 0 5 ; A .M . F r ie n d . “ T h e

P o rtra its o f th e E v a n g e lis ts in th e G r e e k a n d L a tin M a n u sc r ip ts P a rt I ,”

Modern 5

(1 9 2 7 ), p p . 1 1 5 - 1 3 3 , figs. 1 - 9 4 , p is. I -X V I I I ;

L a tin M a n u sc r ip ts, P art I I ,”

Art Studies 7

idem,

Art Studies Medieval, Renaissance and

“ P o r tr a its o f th e E v a n g e lis ts in th e G r e e k a n d

(1 9 2 9 ), p p . 3 - 2 9 , figs. 1 - 4 0 , p is. I - X I I (sh o w m a n y v a r ia tio n s o f th e

m a n w ith p a lliu m . T h e b e s t e x a m p le s are M ic a h , fig. 5 2 , a n d Ju d e, fig. 9 4 ). 135.

A n e x a m p le o f th e m a n in h im a tio n o n th e iv o r y th r o n e o f M a x im ia n u s: O .M . D a lto n ,

Archaeology (O x fo rd

Byzantine Art and AJA 21

1 9 1 1 ), p p . 2 0 4 - 2 0 7 ; B. S m ith , “ A le x a n d r ia n O r ig in o f th e C h a ir o f M a x im ia n u s,”

(1 9 1 7 ), p p . 2 2 - 3 7 ; A .M . F r ie n d ,

op.cit. Art Studies

5 (1 9 2 7 ), p . 1 2 7 , p i. II, fig. 2 6 (M a n y a p o s tle s s h o w th is

v a r ia tio n ). 136.

E .H . S w ift,

Roman Sources o f Christian Art,

p. 5 6 , p i. V III. F o r th is t y p e u s e d for C h rist h o ld in g a c o d e x in th e

M o sa ic o f th e N a v e in San A p o llin a r e N u o v o in R a v e n n a , o f th e e a r ly six th c e n tu r y , s e e A .M . F r ie n d ,

op.cit, p i.

I l l , fig. 3 6 . F o r C h r istia n sa r c o p h a g i w ith th is ty p e , s e e M . L a w r e n c e , “ C ity - G a te S a r c o p h a g i,” p p . 7 - 8 , fig. 6 (sa c r ific e o f Isaac), a n d fig. 10. F o r b o th ty p e s to g e th e r , s e e

eadem, op.cit.,

fig. 15 (sa r c o p h a g u s in F erra ra

C a th e d r a l) a n d fig. 2 5 (sa r c o p h a g u s o f L ib eriu s) w h ic h are in th e t w o c o r n e r n ic h e s; K. W e it z m a n n ,

supra n o te 137.

op.cit.,

1 3 4 , p . 2 0 1 , fig. 1 9 8 (Z ach arias).

T h e figu re o f J o se p h w a s b r o u g h t to m y a tte n tio n b y P rof. H o w a r d M c P . D a v is o f C o lu m b ia U n iv e r s ity . T h e m a s te r P ie tr o C a v a llin i is o n e o f th e la te s t artists w o r k in g in th e B y z a n tin e s ty le a n d th e c la s s ic a l tr a d itio n in I ta ly . S e e R. v a n M a rie ,

The Development of the Italian Schools o f Painting (T h e

H a g u e 1 9 2 3 - 3 8 ) , I, p p . 5 0 6 -

5 0 7 , 5 1 3 - 5 1 4 , fig. 2 9 4 .

supra n o te

13 8 .

S ee

139.

F o r th e s e a t e d te a c h e r , s e e F . G e r k e ,

134.

2 5 0 - 2 7 0 A .D .); C .R . M o r e y ,

Christ.Sarkophage, p p . 2 2 6 - 2 2 7 , 2 7 1 - 2 7 3 , p is. 4 9 - 5 0 , 5 1 - 5 2 (d a te d a b o u t Asiatic Sure., figs. 5 2 , 6 1 , 6 5 , 81; M . B ie b e r , Entwicklungsgeschichte2, p i. 5 5 ; G .

LATE ANTIQUE AND EARLY CHRISTIAN COPIES R od en w ald t,

op.cit., supra

n o te 2 9 , p p . 8 2 - 1 1 3 , p i. 5 (on e o f s e v e n sa g e s in T o r lo n ia ), p i. 6 (P lo tin u s in th e

L ateran, our F ig . 890). F o r C h rist se a te d in th e c e n te r o f sa r c o p h a g i, s e e O . W u lff, Altchrist.und byz.Kunst, 1, pp. 1 1 4 -1 1 7 , p i. V II, figs. 9 6 -1 0 0 . F or C h rist as te a c h e r o f th e A p o stle s, s e e O . W u lff, op.cit., p. 1 1 5 , fig. 99; F.

140.

G erke, op.cit., p p . 2 2 6 -2 2 7 , 2 9 2 , pis. 5 2 , 61; idem. Der Sarkophag des Junius Bassus; C .R . M o r e y , Early Christian Art, fig. 141 (d ated b y in scrip tio n to 3 5 9 a . d .). C.R. M orey, Early Christian Art, p p . 2 6 6 - 2 6 7 , figs. 1 1 2 -1 1 5 ; A .M . F r ie n d , op.cit., supra n o te 1 34 , “ T h e P ortraits o f th e E v a n g elists in G reek an d L a tin M a n u sc r ip ts,” p p . 13 4 , 14 7 , p is. V I I I -X V I I I , figs. 9 5 - 1 8 4 ; idem, pp. 2 2 -2 9 , figs. 2 5 - 2 6 , 2 9 -3 7 , 4 0 . 1 do n o t a g ree w ith F r ie n d th a t th e b a c k g r o u n d s b e h in d th e e v a n g e lis ts are d eriv ed from th e a n c ie n t stage. T h e G reek th e a te r h a d p a in tin g s o f v a r io u s ty p e s b e h in d (n o t b e lo w ) th e sta g e , and th e R om an th ea ter h a d a rch itectu ra l d e c o r a tio n s o f th e

scaenae frons,

w h ic h a g r e e w ith th e fa g a d e s o f

R om an libraries, for e x a m p le, in E p h eso s an d n y m p h a e a su ch as th e o n e in M ile tu s. O n th e p r o sc e n iu m o f th e R om an stage w e r e statu es o f p o e ts b u t h a rd ly o f p h ilo so p h e r s. F o r p h ilo so p h e r s w ith M u ses c h a n g e d to 141.

ev a n g elists w ith p erson ification s o f H o ly W isd o m , se e A .M . F r ie n d , op.cit., p . 14 1 , figs. 107, 1 4 8 -1 5 1 , 164. C. R obert, Sarkophagreliefs, III, 2, p. 4 3 4 , N o . 3 5 0 0 , p i. C X V , fig. 6 4 2 ; E .H . S w ift, Roman Sources of Christian Art, p. 162, p i. X X X V (in th e L ateran). F or o th ers in Ista n b u l, se e O . W u lff, op.cit., p p . 1 4 7 -1 4 8 , figs. 1 3 8 -1 4 0 . For th e sam e ty p e o n sa rco p h a g i, se e

ibid.,

p p . 1 0 0 -1 0 7 , figs. 8 0 - 8 6 , p i. V , 1; L. v a n S y b el,

Christliche Antike,

II, pp. 1 0 3 -1 0 7 , figs. 2 , 4 , 7 - 9 , 1 1 - 1 2 , 4 5 . 142. 143.

S ee supra n o te s 7 7 -7 9 , F igs. 8 9 1 -8 9 3 . F. G erke, Christ. Sarkophage, p p . 3 8 - 4 0 , 2 6 2 - 2 6 4 , p is. 1 - 2 (th e se sa r c o p h a g i b e lo n g to th e th ird a n d fou rth centuries). F or Jason sw a llo w e d b y th e d ra g o n w h o w a tc h e s o v e r th e G o ld e n F le e c e , se e W . R o sch er,

JjexikMyth.,

II, pp. 8 2 -8 6 , fig. on p. 8 6 (Jason b e in g sp it o u t b y th e d r a g o n a n d A th e n a sta n d in g b y o n a k y lix

Attic Vase-Painting (M a rtin C la ssic a l Attic Red-figure Vase Painters, p . 4 3 7 , N o .

b y th e D uris p ain ter in th e V atican ); C .T . S eltm a n ,

L e c tu r e s III)

(C am bridge, M ass. 1933), p. 6 3 , p i. 27b ; J .D . B e a z le y ,

116; E . P fu h l,

Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen (M u n ich 1 923), v o i. I l l , fig. 4 6 7 ; M . L a w r e n c e , “ S h ip s, M o n ste r s an d AJA 6 6 (1962), p p . 2 8 9 -2 9 6 , pis. 7 7 - 7 8 , figs. 1 -9 . S ee supra n o te 79. F . G erke, Christ.Sarkophage, p. 2 7 5 , n o te 2; L. v a n S y b e l, Christliche Antike, p p . 1 0 6 -1 0 7 , 2 4 5 - 2 4 6 ; K. W e itz m a n n , Greek Mythology in Byzantine Art, p p . 6 7 - 6 8 , 9 1 - 9 2 , figs. 8 2 - 8 6 ; H . L e C le r q , in F . C a b ro l, Dictionnaire d'archeologie Chrétienne et de liturgie (P aris 1 9 0 7 -5 3 ) , p p . 2 7 3 5 - 2 7 5 5 . F. G erke, op.cit., p. 2 7 6 , n o te 2. A. B eck, Genien und Niken als Engel in der altchristlichen Kunst; J. A d h e m a r , Influences antiques dans I art du moyen age franqais (L on d on 1939), p p . 1 6 5 -1 6 6 , p i. V III, fig. 2 2 (h e c a lls th e o r ig in a ls c u p id s (am ou rs); E. C ap p s, “ T h e S ty le o f th e C on su lar D ip ty c h s ,” ArtB 10 (1 927), p p . 8 0 - 8 1 , 9 0 , figs. 10, 17, 19. F o r th e V ic to r ie s o n th e triu m p h al arches, se e F. C u m o n t, “ L ’A d oration d es M a g es e t Part tr io m p h a l d e R o m e, MemPontAcc 3 Jonah,”

144. 145.

146. 147.

(1 9 3 2 /3 3 ), p p . 8 1 - 1 0 5 , p i. II, fig. 3, p i. I l l , fig. 1. 148.

Skulpt.vat.Mus., H I, L PP· 1 6 5 - 1 6 6 , S ala a Antike Porphyrwerke, p . 2 1 9 , p i. 104; O . W u lff, Altchrist.imd byz.Kunst, p. 5 2, fig. 3 9 , p. 10 6 , fig. 8 5 , p p . 1 4 0 -1 4 2 , fig. 128; E .H . S w ift, Roman Sources of Christian Art, p. 162, p i. X X X V ; G . R o d en w a ld t, op.cit., supra n o te 2 9 , p p . 1 1 6 - 1 8 9 , figs. 1 - 2 , 2 8 , 3 1 , 4 6 - 4 7 , 5 5 , 5 7 - 5 8 , p is. 5 - 7 ; A.A. V asiliev, “ Im p erial P orp h yry S a rco p h a g i in C o n s ta n tin o p le ,” DOPapers 4 (1 9 4 8 ), p p . 1 - 2 6 , fig. 15. H elb ig -S p eier,

Führer1, 1, p p .

1 7 -1 8 , N o . 21 (In v. 237); G . L ip p o ld ,

C ro ce G rec a N o. 5 6 6 , pi. 67; R. D e lb r u e c k ,

149.

F or th e p agan sarcop h agu s in C o p e n h a g e n , se e C h a p te r X I, n o te s 5 9 , 7 1 . F o r th e C h ristia n sa r c o p h a g u s in

150.

III, 2 , p. 217; L. v o n S yb el, Christliche Antike, p. 176, fig. 11. C . R obert, Sarkophagreliefs, III, 1, p p . 1 0 3 -1 0 5 , p i. X X IV , N os. 8 3 a n d 8 3 a ; F . G e r k e ,

Spalato, se e C h a p ter X I, n o te 7 2. F o r o th e r p a g a n an d C h ristia n sa r c o p h a g i, se e C . R o b ert,

Sarkophagreliefs,

Christ.Sarkophage, p i.

42,

3 -4 . 151. G .M .A . H an fm an n , The Season Sarcophagus in Dumbarton Oaks, g iv e s a c o m p le t e c o r p u s o f th e s e sa r c o p h a g i w ith p erson ification s o f th e season s. S ee also th e r e v ie w b y M. L a w r e n c e in Speculum 28 (1 9 5 3 ), p p . 1 6 2 -1 6 4 . 152.

O. W u lff, Altchrist.und byz.Kunst, p. 8 7 , IVme au Xme siede (G en ev a 1924), p. 9 4 , 78 (1963), pp. 2 5 6 -2 9 2 , figs. 1 -2 5 .

p i. IV; M . v o n B e r c h e m a n d E. C lo u z o t,

Mosaiques Chrétiennes du Jdl

figs. 1 0 6 -1 0 7 ; K. P a rla sca , “ D a s P e r g a m e n is c h e T a u b e n m o sa ik ,”

LATE ANTIQUE AND EARLY CHRISTIAN COPIES Christ.Sarkophage, p p .

153.

F . G erke,

154.

D . L ev i, The Antioch Mosaic Pavements (P r in c e to n 1947), p p . 6 8 - 8 9 , 1 1 9 -1 2 6 , p is. X I -X I I I , X X II; K. W e itz m a n n , in The Excavations, Antioch-on-the-Orontes (P r in c e to n 1 9 3 4 -1 9 4 1 ), V o i. I l l , p p . 2 3 3 -2 4 7 , p i. 67;

155.

2 7 9 -2 8 0 .

idem, Greek Mythology in Byzantine Art, p p . 1 9 0 -1 9 1 ; G . B rett, W .J. M c C a u ly and R .R .K . S tev en so n , The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors (O xford 1947); G. B rett, “ T h e M o sa ic o f th e G reat P a la c e in C o n sta n tin o p le ,” JWarb 5 (1 942), p p . 3 4 - 4 3 , pis. 6 - 1 6 . L .A . M a tz u le w itc h , Byzantinische Antike (B erlin 1929); T . D o h rn , “ S p ä ta n tik es S ilb er au s B rita n n ien ,” MdI 2 (1949), pp. 7 1 - 9 9 , pls. 1 4 -1 7 (p la tes fou n d in M ild en h a ll, n o w in th e B ritish M u seu m ).

156.

O . W u lff, Altchrist.und byz.Kunst, II, p p . 6 1 2 -6 1 3 ; K. W e itz m a n n , Greek Mythology 1 5 2 -1 8 8 ; idem, “ E u rip id es S c e n e s in B y z a n tin e A rt,” Hesperia 18 (1 949), p p . 1 5 9 -2 1 0 .

15 7 . 158. 159.

K. W e itz m a n n , Greek Mythology in Byzantine Art, p p . 3 - 1 5 1 , figs. 2 - 1 6 6 , K. W e itz m a n n , op.cit., supra n o te 13 4 , p p . 6 4 - 7 2 , figs. 13, 19, 3 7 , 6 7 - 6 9 . Ibid., p p . 6 4 -7 2 , 7 8 - 8 8 , figs. 5 , 9, 2 6 , 3 7 , 6 5 - 6 6 , 7 5 -7 7 , 85.

160.

in Byzantine Art,

pp.

passim.

R. van M arie, op.cit., supra n o te 1 3 7 , 1, p. 178, fig. 7 8 (ap se in San C le m e n te in R om e); L. v o n S y b el, Christliche pi. II (ap se m o sa ic in th e B a p tistery o f th e L ateran); O . W u lff, Altchrist.und byz.Kunst, I, figs. 3 1 , 2 4 9 ,

Antike,

Sources of Christian Art, p. 175, p i. X X X IV , 3 , p i. X X X V , 2; M . v o n B e r c h e m op.cit., supra n o te 152, figs. 9 7 ,1 0 8 , 186. F or th e floral m o tifs in th e m o sa ics, s e e A. O v a d ia h , The Origin of the Geometric and Floral Patterns in the Mosaics from the Hellenistic Period to the Age of Augustus (D iss. H e b r e w U n iv e r sity 1971) (u n p u b lish ed ). 2 6 4 ; II, fig. 4 33; E .H . S w ift,R o m m i an d E. C lo u z o t,

161.

F or a d iscu ssion o f th e M a n tu a C a ry a tid n o w in th e P a la z z o D u c a le a n d for r e fe r e n c e to th e S tro zzi to m b , se e A. L e v i,

Scult.Mantova,

p p . 1 6 -1 8 , p i. X V II. F or th e S tro zzi to m b , s e e P. P e la ti,

La Basilica di

S.

Andrea

(M an tova 1952), p. 4 0 , p i. 5 3 . F o r ex a m p le s o f free c o p ie s o f a n c ie n t sta tu e s in G o th ic art, se e W . W orrin ger, Griechentum und Gotik (M u n ich 1928). F or th e M u se o f M a n tu a, se e C h a p te r IX , n o te 6. F or th e V en u s G en etrix, se e C h a p te r V , n o te 61. 16 2 .

E . P an ofsk y, “ R en a issa n ce and R e n a sc e n se s,”

The Kenyon Review

6 (1 9 4 4 ), p p . 2 0 1 - 2 3 6 , p a rticu la rly p. 202:

“ T h e h e r ita g e o f cla ssic a l a n tiq u ity h a d n e v e r b e e n lo st b e y o n d r e c u p e r a tio n .” C . M a c h t,

Designs (N e w

York 1957).

271

Classical Wedgwood

CONCLUSION Four main results can be deduced from the individual investigations in Chapters III-XIV and the historical survey in Chapters XV-XVI. 1. The copyists of the imperial Roman period, although mostly Greeks by birth, adapted their statues and reliefs not only to the eclectic taste and the love of luxury of the Romans, but also to the needs and to the character of their patrons, to their patriotism, dignity, nobility, seriousness, and virtue. The Greek artists, over several centuries, successfully endeavored to understand and represent more and more faithfully and more beautifully pictures of the real world, and par­ ticularly man in this world. The Romans used these artistic forms to express their ideals not so much of this world but of the world beyond our earthly life. The virtues of great Roman men and women are represented in the forms which the Greeks had created for their gods and heroes. They achieved immortality through their deeds and their characters. Such an art, which transcends the pure bodily image with a symbolic conception of political, cosmic, or divine meaning, is characteristic of the Roman spirit. 2 The importance of the workshops in Rome grew during the imperial period. There developed a special Roman art of portraiture probably entrusted to the best artists. These specialists made the portraits of the imperial family and other important outstanding men and women, while the provincial workshops, particularly in Athens and Asia Minor, worked bodies —often copied from Greek divine figures—and busts which received copies of these official portraits. Later these portraitists also worked over the heads of the deceased on Roman sar­ cophagi. The styles of the torsos follow the same development which we find in the purely Roman historical reliefs. 3. The copyists used as their models not only Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Greek works of art, but also the adaptations of these works made in earlier Roman periods. Thus, Neronian style continues in the Flavian period, Flavian in the Trajanic period, Trajanic in the early Hadrianic period, late Hadrianic in the Antonine period, Antonine in the Severan period, and 272

CONCLUSION Severan all through the third century. The Hadrianic classicism was only a short episode. The classicizing Augustan period, in contrast, became a model for all succeeding periods, just as later Latin poets imitated earlier Latin—not Greek—poets, and just as Augustus became the perfect ideal emperor to be imitated by all successors. During the third and fourth centuries pagan forms were copied and reinterpreted for Christian use in the light of Christian ideas and Christian philosophy. 4. All this leads to the last conclusion: The history of copying in antiquity belongs to the history of Roman, not of Greek art. An investigation of nude figures, which is outside the scope of this book, may lead to the same result. We could reconstruct neither Homeric epic from Vergil,' nor Greek lyric poetry from Catullus, nor Menander from Plautus, although the Roman poets were inspired by their Greek predecessors. We are just as little able to reconstruct Phidias or Praxiteles from Roman copies alone, particularly when they are inexact and contaminated. The spirit in Roman copies as well as in Latin literature is Roman, even when the models which inspired them were Greek, and when they were done by Greeks or provincial artists. It was in this Graeco-Roman form that ancient art became the underlying force in Byzantine as well as in medieval European art. It has remained as such in all periods and countries of the free Western world.

273

BIBLIOGRAPHY G EN ER A L WORKS

Repertorio d ’arte dell’Egitto greco-romano. P a le r m o , 1 9 6 1 . 2 v o ls. Photographische Einzelaufnahmen antiker Skulpturen. M u n ic h , 1 8 9 3 -1 9 4 7 , A r n d t, P a u l; B ru n n , H e in r ic h ; a n d B m c k m a n n , F r ie d r ic h . Griechische und römische Porträts. M u n ic h , 1 8 9 1 -1 9 4 2 . B e r n o u lli, J o h a n n J a k o b . Römische Ikonographie. V o i. I: Die Bildnisse berühmter Römer mit Ausschluss der Kaiser und ihrer Angehörigen. S tu ttg a r t, 188 2 ; V o i. II; Die Bildnisse die Römischen Kaiser und ihrer Angehörigen. P art 1: Das julisch-claudische Kaiserhaus. B e r lin & S tu ttg a r t, 188 6 ; P art 2: Von Galha bis Commodus. S tu ttg a r t, B e r lin & L e ip z ig , 18 9 1 ; P art 3: Von Pertinax bis Theodosius. S tu ttg a r t, B e r lin & L e ip z ig , 1 8 9 4 . R e p r in te d 1 9 6 9 . B ie b e r , M a r g a r e te . The History of the Greek and Roman Theater. 2 n d & rev . e d . P r in c e to n , 1 9 6 1 . B ie b e r , M a r g a r e te . The Sculpture o f the Hellenistic Age. 2 n d & rev. ed . N e w Y ork, 19 6 1 . B la n c k , H o r st. Wiederverwendung alter Statuen als Ehrendenkmäler bei Griechen und Römern. R o m e , 19 6 9 . B lin k e n b e r g , C h r. Knidia. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Praxitelischen Aphrodite. C o p e n h a g e n , 1 9 3 3 . B o a r d m a n , John; D ö r ig , Jose; a n d F u c h s , W e r n e r . Die Griechische Kunst. M u n ic h , 19 6 6 . B ru n n , H e in r ic h a n d F r ie d r ic h B r u c k m a n n . Denkmäler griechischer und römischer Sculptor. M u n ic h , 1 8 8 8 -1 9 5 0 . B u lle , H e in r ic h . Der schöne Mensch im Altertum. M u n ic h , 19 1 2 . C a r p e n te r , R h ys. The Sculpture of the Nike Temple Parapet. C a m b r id g e , M ass., 1 9 2 9 . C o llig n o n , M a x im e . Les statues funéraires dans Part grec. P aris, 19 1 1 . G o n z e , A le x a n d e r . Die attischen Grabreliefs. B e r lin , 1 8 9 3 -1 9 2 2 . D é o n n a , W a ld e m a r . L ’archéologie, sa valeur, ses méthodes. V o i. I. P aris, 19 1 2 . Encyclopédie Photographique de l’Art. P aris, 1 9 3 6 -4 9 . 5 vols. F u c h s , W e r n e r . Die Vorbilder der neuattischen Reliefs. Jah rb u ch d e s d e u ts c h e n a r c h ä o lo g is c h e n In s titu ts, E r g ä n ­ A d r ia n i, A c h ille .

A r n d t, P a u l a n d W a lt h e r A m e lu n g .

z u n g s h e ft X X . B e r lin , 1 9 5 9 . F u r tw ä n g le r , A d o lf.

Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture. A Series of Essays on the History of Art.

T r a n sla te d b y

E u g e n ie S tr o n g a n d e d it e d b y A l.N . O ik o n o m id e s . C h ic a g o , 1 9 6 4 .

Meistenverke der griechischen Plastik. Kunstgeschichte Untersuchungen. L e ip z ig , 1 8 9 3 . Zur Kunst der römischen Republik. B e r lin , 19 3 1 . G r a in d o r , P a u l. Busies et statues-portraits d’Egypte romaine. C a ir o , 1 9 3 9 . H a n fm a n n , G e o r g e M .A . Roman Art. G r e e n w ic h , C o n n ., 19 6 4 . H a r r iso n , E v e ly n B . Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture. The Athenian Agora. V o i. X I. P r in c e to n , 19 6 5 . H a u s e r , F r ie d r ic h . Die neu-attischen Reliefs. S tu ttg a r t, 1 8 8 9 . H e k le r , A n to n . Die Bildniskunst der Griechen und Römer. S tu ttg a r t, 1 9 1 2 . I m h o o f-B lu m e r , F .W . a n d P e r c y G ard n er. Ancient Coins Illustrating Lost Masterpieces of Greek Art. A Numismatic Commentary on Pausanias. N e w e n l. e d . b y A l.N , O ik o n o m id e s . C h ic a g o , 1 9 6 4 . J o h n so n , F r a n k lin P . Lysippos. D u r h a m , N o r th C a r o lin a , 1 9 2 7 . K ä h le r , H e in z . Rom und seine Welt. Bilder zur Geschichte und Kultur. M u n ic h , 1 9 5 8 .

F u r tw ä n g le r , A d o lf. G e r k e , W ilh e lm .

275

BIBLIOGRAPHY K aschnitz von W ein b erg, G uido. Das Schöpferische in der römischen Kunst. H am burg, 1961. K ekule von Stradonitz, R einhard. Die Balustrade des Tempels der Athena-Nike in Athen. L e ip z ig , 1869. K ekule von Stradonitz, Reinhard. Die Reliefs an der Balustrade der Athena Nike. S tu ttgart, 1881. Klein, W ilh elm . Vom antiken Rokoko. V ienna, 1921. K leiner, G. Tanagrafiguren. Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Kunst und Geschichte. Jahrbuch d es d e u tsc h e n archäologischen Instituts, E rgänzungsheft XV. Berlin, 1942. L an glotz, Ernst. Phidiasprobleme. Frankfurt am M ain, 1947. L aw ren ce, A .W . Classical Sculpture. L ondon, 1929. L ip p old , G eorg. Die griechische Plastik. H an d b u ch der A rch äologie im R ah m en d es H an d b u ch s der A lte r tu m s­ w issenschaft, Voi. I l l, part 1. M unich, 1950. Lullies, R einhard and M ax H irm er.

Griechische Plastik von den Anfängen bis zürn Ausgang des Hellenismus.

M unich, 1956. M attingly, H arold. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. V oi. I: Augustus to Vitellius. L ondon, 1923, reprinted 1965; Voi. II: Vespasian to Domitian. L ondon, 1930, reprinted 1966; V oi. Ill: Newa to Hadrian. L ondon, 1936, rep rin ted 1966. M attingly, H arold and E dw ard A. Sydenham . The Roman Imperial Coinage. V oi. I: Augustus to Vitellius. L ondon, 1923, rep rin ted 1948; Voi. II: Vespasian to Hadrian. L ondon, 1926, rep rin ted 1968; Voi. Ill: Antoninus Pius to Commodus. L on d on , 1930, rep rin ted 1968. M orey, C härles R. Sardis. V oi. V: Roman and Christian Sculpture. Part I: The Sarcophagus of Antonia Sabina and the Asiatic Sarcophagi. P rin ceton, 1924. Nash, Ernest. Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Rom. T ü b in gen , 1961-62. 2 vols. N iem eyer, H ans G eorg. Studien zur statuarischen Darstellung der römischen Kaiser. M o n u m en ta artis R om an ae, 7. Berlin, 1968. P auly, A ugust F riedrich and G eorge W issow a, et al. Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart, 1894Pinkw art, D oris. Das Relief des Archelaos von Priene und die 'Musen des Philiskos'. K allm ü n z, 1965. R einach, Salom on. Repertoire de la statuaire grecque et romaine. 2 n d ed. Paris, 1 9 0 6-30. 6 vols. R ichter, G isela M .A. Ancient Italy. A nn Arbor, 1955. R ichter, G isela M .A. Korai. Archaic Greek Maidens. A Study of the Development of the Kore Type Sculpture. L ondon, 1968. R ichter, G isela M .A. Kouroi. Archaic Greek Youths. A Study of the Development Sculpture. 3rd ed. L ondon, 1970. R ichter, G isela M .A. The Portraits of the Greeks. L ondon, 1965. 3 vols.

in Greek

of the Kouros Type in Greek

R ichter, G isela M .A. The Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks. 4th ed. N e w H a v en , 1970. R ichter, G isela M .A . Three Critical Periods in Greek Sculpture. O xford, 1951. R idgw ay, Brunilde Sism ondo. The Severe Style in Greek Sculpture. P rin ceton , 1970. R izzo, G .E . Prassitele. R om e, 1932. R obert, Carl. Die antiken Sarkophagreliefs. Berlin, 1890-1952. R od en w ald t, G erhart. Kunst urn Augustus. 2n d ed. Berlin, 1943. R oscher, W .H . Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen 1965.

Mythologie.

L e ip z ig , 1 884-1937. R ep rin ted

Schefold, Karl. Die Bildnisse der antiken Dichter, Redner, und Denker. B asel, 1943. Schm idt, Edouard. Archaistische Kunst in Griechenland und Rom. M unich, 1922. Schrader, Hans. Phidias. Frankfurt am M ain, 1924. Schuchhardt, W a lter-H erw ig. Die Epochen der griechischen Plastik. B aden -B ad en , 1959. S ch w eitzer, Bernhard. Die Bildniskunst der römischen Republik. L e ip z ig , 1948, Sim on, Erika. Der Augustus von Primaporta. B rem en, 1959.

276

BIBLIOGRAPHY S q u arciapino, M aria F lo ria n i. R om e, 1943.

La Scuola di Afrodisia.

Studi e m ateriali d e l M u seo d e ll’Im p e r o R om an o, N o . 3.

Roman Imperial Sculpture. A Introduction to the Commemorative and Decorative Sculpture of the Roman Empire down to the Death of Constantine. L ondon, 1961. Strong, E u g en ie S. Art in Ancient Rome. L on d on , 1929. 2 vols. Strong, E u g e n ie S. La scultura romana da Augusto a Constantino. T ran slated b y G. G ia n elli. F lo r e n c e , 1923-26. Strong, E u g e n ie S. Roman Sculpture from Augustus to Constantine. N e w York, 1907. S w ift, E m erson H . Roman Sources of Christian Art. N e w York, 1951. T reu, G eorg. Olympia. V oi. I ll: Die Bildwerke von Olympia in Stein und Thon. B erlin , 1897. V essb erg, O lof. Studien zur Kunstgeschichte der römischen Republik. Svenska In stitu et i R om , V II. L und, 1941. W eg n er, M ax. Die Herrscherbildnisse in antoninischer Zeit. D as röm isch e H errsch erb ild II, 4. B erlin , 1939. W est, R obert. Römische Porträtplastik. M u n ich , 1933-41. 2 vols. W ilp e r t, Josef. I sarcophagi cristiani antichi. R om e, 1929-36. 3 vols. W olff, Oskar. Altchristliche und byzantinische Kunst. B erlin -N eu b ab elsb erg, 1 9 1 6 -1 9 1 8 . Strong, D o n a ld E.

M U SE U M C O L L E C T IO N C A T A L O G S

Una visita al Museo arqueologico nacional. 2 n d ed. M adrid, 1925. Die Sculpturen des Vaticanischen Museums. Vols. I-II. B erlin , 1903 -1 9 0 8 . A m elu n g , W a lth er. Führer durch die Antiken in Florenz. M unich, 1897. A sh m o le, Bernard. Λ Catalogue of the Ancient Marbles at Ince Blundell Hall. O xford, 1929. A u rig em m a , S alvatore. Le Terme di Diocleziano e il Museo Nazionale Romano. 5 th ed. R om e, 1963. A u rigem m a, S alvatore. Villa Adriana. R om e, 1962. B allu, A lb ert and R en é C a g n a t. Musée de Timgad. Paris, 1903. B en n d orf, O tto and R ich ard S ch ö n e. Die antiken Bildwerke des Lateranenischen Museums. L e ip z ig , 1867. B erger, E rnst. Das Antikenmuseum Basel. B asel, 1967-68. B ieb er, M argarete. Die antiken Sculpturen und Bronzen des Kgl. Museum Fridericianum in Cassel. M arburg, 1915. B la n ch et, Ju les A. Catalogue des bronzes antiques de la Biblioth'eque Nationale. Paris, 1895. B liim el, C arl. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Katalog der Sammlung antiker Skulpturen. V oi. I ll: Katalog der griechischen Skulpturen des fünften und vierten Jahrhunderts v. Chr. B erlin , 1928; V oi. IV: Römische Kopien griechische Skulpturen des fünften Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Berlin, 1931; V oi. V: Römische Kopien griechische Skulpturen des vierten Jahrhunderts v. Chr. B erlin, 1938. B oston M u seu m o f F in e Arts. Greek, Etruscan and Roman Art of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. T ex t b y C. A lvarez-O ssorio, F ra n cisco .

A m elu n g , W a lth er.

V er m e id e . B o sto n , 1963. B o tti, G iu se p p e an d P ie tr o R o m a n elli.

Le sculture del Museo gregoriano egizio.

M o n u m e n ti v a tic a n i di A r c h e o lo g ia

e d ’A rte, IX . V a tic a n , 1951.

Antik Konst i National Museum. S tock h olm , 1911. Le antichità di Villa Medici. R o m e, 1951. C a lza , R aissa an d M aria F lo ria n i S q u arciap in o. Museo Ostiense. R o m e, 1962. C a r d u c c i, C arlo. Il Museo di Antichità di Torino. R om e, 1959. C h arb on n eau x, Jean. La sculpture grecque et romaine au Musée du Louvre. P aris, 1963. C o c h e d e la F e r té , E tie n n e . La sculpture grecque et romaine du Musée du Louvre. P aris, 1951. D ie k in s, G u y. Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum. C am b rid ge, 1912. F e lle tti-M a j, B ia n ca M aria, Museo nazionale romano. I Ritratti. R om e, 1953. F röh n er, W . Notice de la sculpture antique du Musee national du Louvre. 4 th ed . Paris, 1878. F u r tw ä n g le r , A d olf. Beschreibung der Glyptothek König Ludwigs I zu München. E d ite d b y P. B rising, H arold .

C a g ia n o d e A z e v e d o , M ic h e la n g e lo .

W o lters. M u n ich ,

1910. F u r tw ä n g le r , A d olf.

Einhundert Tafeln nach den Bildwerken der Kgl. Glyptothek zu München.

277

M u n ich , 1903.

BIBLIOGRAPHY F u r tw ä n g le r , A d olf.

Illustrierter Katalog der Kgl. Glyptothek zu München.

G au ck ler, P au l. Musée de Cherchel. Paris, 1895. G iu lia n o , A n to n io . Catalogo dei ritratti romani del

M u n ic h , 1 9 0 7 .

Museo Profano Lateranense.

M o n u m e n ti v a tic a n i di A r c h e o lo g ia

e d ’A rte, X . V a tic a n C ity , 19 5 7 . H e lb ig , W o lfg a n g . H e lb ig , W o lfg a n g .

La Collection Barracco. M u n ich , 1893. 2 vols. Führer durch die öffentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom.

3 rd ed . R e v is e d b y

W a lth e r A m elu n g . L e ip z ig , 1 9 1 2 -2 3 . 2 vols.; 4 th ed . C o m p le t e ly r e v is e d b y H e r in in e S p eier. V o ls. I-III. T ü b in g e n , 19Θ3-Θ9. H errm an n , P aul. Kgl.

Skulpturensammlung. Dresden. Verzeichnis der antiken Original-Bildwerke. D r e sd e n , 1915. Catalogue o f Ancient Sculptures Preserved in the Municipal Collections of Rome. The Sculptures o f the Museo Capitolino. O xford, 1912. Jon es, H en ry Stuart. A Catalogue o f Ancient Sculptures Preserved in the Municipal Collections of Rome. The Sculptures o f the Palazzo dei Conservatori. O xford , 1926. K arou zou , S. National Archaeological Museum. Collection o f Sculpture. A Catalogue. A th e n s, 1968. K asch n itz v o n W e in b e r g , G u id o. Sculture del Magazzino del Museo Vaticano. M o n u m e n ti v a tic a n i d i A r c h e o lo g ia Jones, H e n r y Stuart. A

e d ’A rte, IV. V a tic a n C ity , 1 9 3 6 -3 7 . 2 vols. K ek u le von S trad on itz, R ein h ard . Königliche

Museen zu Berlin. Beschreibung der antiken Skulpturen mit Ausschluss der Pergamenischen Fundstücke. B erlin , 1 8 9 1 . L a n g lo tz, E rnst, et al. Antiken aus dem Akademischen Kunstmuseum Bonn. B o n n , 1 9 6 9 . L ev i, A lda. Sculture greche e romane del Palazzo ducale di Mantova. R o m e, 1 9 3 1 . L ip p o ld , G eo rg . Die Skulpturen des Vaticanìschen Museums. V o i. I l l , P art 1. B e r lin , 193 6 ; V o i. H I, P art 2 . B e r lin , 1956. M aiuri, B ia n ca M aria. Le Musée National. The National Museum. Naples. N o v a r a , 19 5 9 . M an su elli, G u id o A. Galleria degli Uffizi. Le Sculture. C a ta lo g h i d e i M u sei e G a lle r ie d ’Ita lia . V o i. II, P a rts 1-2. R om e, 1 9 5 8-61. M a rea d é, Jean. A u

Musée du Delos. Etudes sur la sculpture hellénistique en ronde basse découverte dans l ile. P aris,

1969. M e n d e l, G u sta v e.

Musées imperiaux ottomans. Catalogue des sculptures grecques, remains et byzantines.

C o n sta n tin o p le , 1 9 1 2 -1 4 . 3 vols.

Ancient Marbles in Great Britain. C a m b r id g e , 1882, Musée national du Louvre. Catalogue sommaire des marbrés antiques. P aris, 1922. M ilan i, L u ig i A d rian o. 11. R. Museo Archeologico di Firenze. F lo r e n c e , 1 9 1 2 . 2 v o ls. M in to, A n to n io . Il Regio Museo Archeologico di Firenze. R o m e, 19 3 1 . M u stilli, D o m e n ic o . Il Museo Mussolini. R o m e, 19 3 9 . Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Billedtavler til Kataloget over Antike Kunstvaerker. C o p e n h a g e n , 19 0 7 . P a p asp yrid i, S e m n e . Guide du Musée national d ’A thènes. Marbres, bronzes et vases. A th e n s, 19 2 7 . P arib en i, E n rico. Catalogo delle Sculture di Cirene. R om e, 1959. P ietr a n g e li, C arlo. Museo Barracco di Scultura Antica Guida. 3rd ed . R o m e, 19 6 3 . P ou lsen , F red erik . Catalogue of Ancient Sculpture in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. C o p e n h a g e n , 1951· R ich ter, G ise la M .A . Catalogue o f Greek Sculpture in the Metropolitan Museum o f Art. C a m b r i d g e , M ass., 19 5 4 . R ich ter, G ise la M .A . Handbook of the Classical Collection. The Metropolitan Museum o f Art. N e w Y ork, 1 9 3 0 . ^ R ich ter, G isela M .A . Handbook o f the Greek Collection. The Metropolitan Museum o f Art. C a m b r id g e , M ass., 1953. R ich ter, G ise la M .A . The Metropolitan Museum o f Art. Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Bronzes. N e w Y ork, 1 9 1 5 . R oh d e, E lisa b eth . Griechische und römische Kunst in den Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. B e r lin , 19 6 8 . R osen b au m , E lisa b eth . A Catalogue o f Cyrenaican Portrait Sculpture. L o n d o n , 1960. R uesch , A rnold. Das Nationalmuseum in Neapel. Auszug aus dem Führer. N a p le s , n .d . R u esch , A rn old . Guida Illustrata del Museo Nazionale di Napoli. N a p le s, n.d. Sm ith, A .H . A Catalogue o f Sculpture in the Department o f Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum. V ols. M ich a elis, A d olf.

M ich o n , E tie n n e .

II-Π Ι. L o n d on , 1 9 0 0-04.

278

BIBLIOGRAPHY Stais, V. Marbres et bronzes du Musée National. 2nd ed. Voi. I. Athens, 1910. Svoronos, Joannel Nicolas. Das Athener Nationalmuseum. Athens, 1908-37. 3 vols. Taggart, Ross E. Catalogue of the William Rockhill Nelson Gallery of Art and Mary Atkins Museum of Fine Arts. 4th ed. Kansas City, 1959. Visconti, Ennio Quirino. I monumenti di sculture antiche, Museo Torlonia. Rome, 1884. Waldhauer, Oskar. Die antiken Skulpturen der Ermitage. Voi. III. Berlin, 1936. Walter, Otto. Beschreibung der Reliefs irn Kleinen Akropolismuseum in Athen. Vienna, 1923. Walters, H.B. Catalogue of the Terracottas in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum. London, 1903.

ANCIENT DRESS Bieber, Margarete. “Der Chiton der Ephesisehen Amazonen,” Jahrbuch des k. deutschen archäologischen Instituts, 33 (1918), 49-75. Bieber, Margarete “Der Wert von Trachtstudien für die Beurteilung römischer Kopien,” Forschungen und Fortschritte, 6 (1930), 157-159. Bieber, Margarete. “Die Herkunft des tragischen Kostüms,” Jahrbuch des k. deutschen archäologischen Instituts, 32 (1917), 15-104. Bieber, Margarete. Entwicklungsgeschichte der griechischen Tracht von der vorgriechischen Zeit bis zum Ausgang der Antike. 2nd ed. Berlin, 1967. Bieber, Margarete. Entwicklungsgeschichte der griechischen Tracht von der vorgriechischen Zeit bis zur römischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin, 1934. Bieber, Margarete. Griechische Kleidung. Berlin, 1928. Bieber, Margarete. “Romani Palliati (Roman Men in Greek Hirnation),” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 103 (1959), 374-417. Bieber, Margarete. “Stola.” Realencyckrpädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Voi. IV, Al, 56-62. Bieber, Margarete. “The Copies of the Herculaneum Women,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106 (1962), 111-134. Hekler, Anton. “Römische weibliche Gewandstatuen,” Münchener archäologisches Studien. Munich, 1909, 107248. Heuzey, Leon. Histoire du costume antique d ’apr'es des ètudes sur le modele vivant. Paris, 1922. Horn, Rudolf. “Stehende weibliche Gewandstatuen in der hellenistischen Plastik,” Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung, Erganzungsheft II (1931), 1-110. Kalkmann, A. “Zur Tracht archaischer Gewandfiguren,” Jahrbuch des k. deutschen archäologischen Instituts, II (1896), 19-52. Netolizka, Ada von. “Die Manteltracht der archaischen Frauenfiguren,” Jahreshefte des oesterreichischen archäologischen Instituts, Beiblatt, 15 (1912), 253-264. Oehler, Hansgeorg. Untersuchungen zu den männlichen römischen Mantel-statuen. Voi. I; Der Schulter­ bauschtypus. Berlin, 1961. Répond, Jules. Les secrets de la draperie antique de Thimation gree au pallium romain. Paris, 1931. Studniczka, Franz. “Beiträge zur Geschichte der altgriechischen Tracht,” Abhandlungen des archäologisch­ epigraphischen Seminares der Universität Wien, 6 (1886), 1-143. Wilson, Lillian. The Clothing of the Ancient Romans. The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology, No. 24. Baltimore, 1938. Wilson, Lillian. The Roman Toga. The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology, No. 1. Baltimore, 1924.

279

BIBLIOGRAPHY

B O O K S , A R T IC L E S A N D M O N O G R A P H S O N T H E P R O B L E M O F O R IG IN A L S A N D C O P IE S A n ti, C a r lo . “ A fr o d ite U r a n ia ,”

Africa Italiana, I (1 9 2 7 ), 4 1 -5 2 . Monumenti Antichi, 2 6 (1 9 2 0 ),

A n ti, C a r lo . “ M o n u m e n ti P o li c le t e i ,”

B e c a tti, G io v a n n i. “ T im a r c h id e s e l ’A p o llo q u i te n e t c it h a r a m ,”

Comunale di Roma,

5 0 1 -7 8 4 .

Bulletino della Commissione Archeologico

6 3 (1 9 3 5 ), 1 1 1 -1 3 1 .

B ie b e r , M a r g a r e te . “ A B r o n z e S ta t u e tte in C in c in n a t i a n d Its P la c e in t h e D e v e lo p m e n t o f t h e A s k le p io s T y p e s ,”

Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,

101 (1 9 5 7 ), 7 0 -9 2 .

B ie b e r , M a r g a r e te . “ A p h r o d ite in R o m a n C o p ie s o f G r e e k S ta t u e s ,”

American Journal o f Archaeology,

4 0 (1 9 3 6 ),

126. B ie b e r , M a r g a r e te . “ C o p ie s o f G r e e k S ta tu e s in th e R o m a n P r o v in c e s ,”

Latomus,

Hommages à Albert Grenier. Collection

1 8 (1 9 6 2 ), 2 8 8 -2 9 3 .

American Journal of Archaeology, 4 5 (1 9 4 1 ), 9 4 -9 5 . American Journal of Archaeology, 4 9 (1 9 4 5 ) , 2 5 -3 4 . G r a e c o -R o m a n A r t,” Hommages ά Joseph Bidez et ά Franz Cumont. Collection

B ie b e r , M a r g a r e te . “ D a m o p h o n a n d P lin y 3 4 .3 2 ,” B ie b e r , M a r g a r e te . “ H o n o s a n d V ir tu s ,” B ie b e r , M a r g a r e te . “ P lin y a n d

Latomus, 2 (1 9 4 9 ), 3 9 -4 2 . B ie b e r , M a r g a r e te . “ T h e P o r tr a its o f A le x a n d e r th e G r e a t,”

Proceedings o f the American Philosophical Society,

93

(1 9 4 9 ), 3 7 3 -4 2 6 . B ie b e r , M a r g a r e te . “ T h e S ta tu e o f C y b e le in t h e J. P a u l G e t ty M u s e u m ,”

J. Paul Getty Museum Publication,

N o. 3

(1 9 6 8 ), 3 -2 7 .

Marburger Winckelmunn Programm, (1 9 5 0 - 5 1 ), 3 -1 2 . Abhandlungen der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse, X X X , 2 (1 9 1 7 ), 3 -3 6 . B u sch o r, E rn st. “ D i e O x fo r d e r N io b e ,” Münchener Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 9 (1 9 1 4 - 1 5 ), 1 9 1 -2 0 6 . C a lz a , R aissa. “ C r o n o lo g ia e d id e n tific a z io n e d e ll’A g r ip p in a C a p it o lin a ,” Atti delle Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, Memorie, 8 (1 9 5 5 ).

B ro m m e r , F ran k . “ Z u r D r e s d e n e r A r te m is ,”

B u lle , H e in r ic h . “ A r c h a is ie r ie n d e g r ie c h is c h e R u n d p la s tik ,”

C u rtiu s, L u d w ig . “ I k o n o g r a p h is e h e B e itr ä g e z u m P o r tr ä t d er r ö m is c h e n R e p u b lik u n d d er ju lis c h - c la u d is c h e n F a m ilie ,”

Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung,

4 7 (1 9 3 2 ), 2 0 2 - 2 6 8 a n d 5 4

(1 9 3 9 ), 1 1 2 -1 2 9 . D ic k in s , G u y . “ D a m o p h o n o f M e s s e n e ,”

Annual of the British School at Athens,

1 2 (1 9 0 5 - 0 6 ), 1 0 9 -1 3 6 a n d 13

(1 9 0 6 -0 7 ), 3 5 6 -4 0 4 . D ö r ig , Jose. “ K a la m is -S tu d ie n ,”

Jahrbuch des k. deutschen archäologischen Instituts,

8 0 (1 9 6 5 ), 1 3 8 -2 6 5 .

D o h r n , T o b ia s. “ D e r A r r in g a to r e in F lo r e n z ,” Archäologischer Anzeiger, 8 0 (1 9 6 5 ), 1 2 3 -1 4 2 . D o h r n , T o b ia s. “ S p ä ta n tik e s S ilb e r au s B r ita n n ie n ,” Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen

Instituts,

2 (1 9 4 9 ),

6 7 -1 4 7 . F e lle t t i M aj, B ia n c a M aria. “ A fr o d ite P u d ic a ,”

Archeologia Classica,

3 (1 9 5 1 ), 3 3 -6 5 .

F u c h s, W e r n e r . “ Z u m A p h r o d ite -T y p u s L o u v r e -N e a p e l u n d s e in e r n e u a tt is c h e n U m b ild u n g e n ,

Bernhard Schweitzer

Pestschrift fü r

(S tu ttg a r t, 1 9 5 4 ), 2 0 6 -2 1 7 .

A d o lf. “ G r ie c h is c h e O r ig in a ls ta tu e n in V e n e d ig ,” Abhandlungen der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse, X X I , 2 (1 8 9 8 ), 2 7 5 - 3 1 6 . F u r tw ä n g le r , A d o lf. “ U e b e r S ta tu e n k o p ie n im A lte r t u m ,” Abhandlungen der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse, X X , 3 (1 8 9 6 ), 5 2 5 - 5 8 8 . G o e th e r t, F r ie d r ic h W ilh e lm . “ S tu d ie n z u r K o p ie n fo r s c h u n g ,” Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung, 5 4 (1 9 3 9 ), 1 7 6 -2 1 9 . H a m a n n , R ich ard . “ O r ig in a l u n d K o p ie ,” Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft, 15 (1 9 4 9 -5 0 ), 1 3 5 -1 5 6 . H a rriso n , E v e ly n B. “ N e w S c u lp tu r e fro m th e A th e n ia n A g o r a ,” Hesperia, 2 9 (1 9 6 0 ), 3 6 9 - 3 9 2 . H a rriso n , E v e ly n B . “ T h e C o m p o s itio n o f th e A m a z o n o r n a c h y o n th e S h ie ld o f A th e n a P a r th e n o s ,” Hesperia, 3 5 F u r tw ä n g le r ,

(1 9 6 6 ), 1 0 7 -1 3 3 .

280

BIBLIOGRAPHY Hausmann, Ulrich. “Bildnisse zweier junger Römerinnen in Fiesole,” Jahrbuch des k, deutschen archäologischen Instituts, 74 (1959), 164-202. Heberdey, Rudolf. “Die Komposition der Reliefs an der Balustrade der Athena Nike,” Jahreshefte des oesterreichischen archäologischen Instituts, Beiblatt, 21-22 (1922-24), 1-82. Heintze, Helga von. “Studien zu den Porträts des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. 4,” Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 64 (1957), 69-91 and “Studien zu den Porträts des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. 6” in 69 (1962), 164-171. Jastrow, Elizabeth. “Abformung und Typenwandel der antiken Tonplastik,” Opuscula Archaeologica (Acta Istituti Romani Sueciae, V), 2 (1938), 1-28. Langlotz, Ernst. “ Afrodite in den Gärten,” Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 1953/4 (Heidelberg, 1954). Lauter, Hans. Znr Chronologie römischer Kopien nach Originalen des V. Jahrh. Nürnberg, 1970. Lawrence, Marion. “Additional Asiatic Sarcophagi,” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 20 (1955), 119166. Lippold, Georg. Kopien und Umbildungen griechischer Statuen. Munich, 1923. Lippold, Georg. “Musengruppen,” Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 33 (1918), 64-102. Lippold, Georg. “ Zur Arbeitsweise römischer Kopisten,” Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung, 32 (1917), 95-117. Lippold, Georg. “Zur florentiner Niobidengruppe,” Münchener Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 8 (1913), 243-249. Michon, Etienne. “ La Suppliante Barberini au Musée du Louvre,” Monuments et memories pubi, par VAcadémie des inscriptions et belles lettres, Fondation Piot, 35 (1935/6), 93-124. Möbius, Hans. “Zu Ilissosfries und Nikebalustrade,” Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 53 (1928), 1-8. Mühsam, Alice. “ Attic Grave Reliefs from the Roman Period,” Berytus, 10 (1952), 51-114. Muthmann, Fritz. Hadrianische und antoninische Statuenstützen beitrüge zur Geschichte der römischen Kopistentätigkeit. Freiburg, 1927. Muthmann, Fritz. “Statuenstützen und dekoratives Beiwerk an griechischen und römischen Bildwerken,” Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 3 (1951), 7228. Noack, Ferdinand. “Amazonenstudien,” Jahrbuch des k. deutschen archäologischen Instituts, 30 (1915), 131-179. Pinkwart, Doris. “Das Relief des Archelaos von Priene,” Antike Plastik, 4 (1965), 55-65. Poulsen, Frederik. “Le remploi des statues dans PAntiquité,” Gazette des beaux-arts, 12 (1934), 1-7. Ravaisson, M. Felix. “ La Venus de Milo,” Memories presentes par divers savants a VAcadémie des inscriptions et belles lettres, 34 (1892), 145-256. Reinach, Salomon. “Copies de Chefs-d’oeuvre,” Revue archéologique, 34 (1931), 289-299. Reisch, Emil. “Athene Hephaistia,” Jahreshefte des oesterreichischen archäologischen Instituts, Beiblatt, 21-22 (1922-24), 1-82. Richter, Gisela M.A. “A Newly Acquired Relief in the Metropolitan Museum of Art,” American Journal of Archaeology, 40 (1936), 11-20. Richter, Gisela M.A. “A Roman Copy of the Eleusinian Relief,” Archaiologike Ephemeris, (1937), 20-26. Richter, Gisela M.A. “Who Made the Roman Portrait Statues - Greeks or Romans?,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 95 (1951), 184-208. Ryberg, Inez Scott. “Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art,” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 22 (1955), 1-227. Schefold, Karl. “Tochter der Niobe,” Phoebus, 1 (1946), 49-59. Schmidt, Evamaria. “Der Kasseler Apollon und seine Repliken,” Antike Plastik, 5 (1966), 7-43. Schober, Arnold. “Die Kopfreplik des ‘Kasseler’ Apollo in Wien,” Jahreshefte des oesterreichischen archäologischen Instituts, Beiblatt, 18 (1915), 79-93. Schuchhardt, Walter-Herwig. “Bronzestatuette des Merkur von Thalwil,” Antike Plastik, 1 (1962), 33-38.

281

BIBLIOGRAPHY Schuchhardt, Walter-Herwig. “Der Merkur von Thalwil,” Zeitschrift fü r schweizerische Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte, 20 (1960), 163-175. Sichtermann, Hellmut. Das Motiv des Meleager, Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung, 69 (1962), 43-51. Sieveking, Johannes and Ernst Buschor. “Niobiden,” Münchener Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 7 (1912), 111-146. Studmczka Franz. “Das Gegenstück der Ludovisischen ‘Thronlehne’,” Jahrbuch des k. deutschen archäologischen Instituts, 26 (1911), 50-192. 6 Toynbee, Jocelyn M.C. “Some Notes on Artists in the Roman World,” Collection Latomus, 6 (1951), 5-56. Traversari Gustavo. Statue iconiche femminili Cirenaiche. Contributi al problema delle copie a rielaborazioni tardo-ellenistiche e romano-imperiali. Rome, 1960. Tri898^e998110Der ^ reS^ener ^eus’ Festschrift für Otto Benndorf zu seinem sechzigsten Geburtstag (Vienna, ^°*Se' ^ le ^ ue

die Vestal Statues as Originals,” American Journal o f Archaeology, 12

Ven n f 1,iler,?rf,^el!US' “Hellenistic and Roman Cuirassed Statues,” Berytus, 13 (1953), 1-82; “First Supplement,” 15 (1964), 95-110; “Second Supplement,” 16 (1966), 49-59. Watzinger, Carl. Das Relief des Archelaos von Priene,” Winckelmannsprogramm der Archäologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin, 63 (1903), 3-24.

282

MUSEUMS and SITES ALEXANDRIA Greco-Roman Museum Fig. 759 Statue of woman by Ammonios, 170

APHRODISIAS Fig. 537 Peplos statue, 121; Fig. 617 Pudicitia statue, 133

ASCOLI PICENO Fig. 602 Tomb relief with two palliati and a Pudicitia, 132, 156

ATHENS Acropolis Figs. 39-40 Erechtheion Kore, 29f.; Figs. 460-462 Erechtheion Kore, 105 (see also Rome, Vatican Mus.; London, British Mus.; Tivoli, Villa of Hadrian) Acropolis Museum Fig. 26 Seated Hermes, 27; Figs. 28-29 Kritios Boy, 27 (see also Figs. 30-32); Fig. 47 Sandal Binder, 31 (see also Fig. 49); Fig. 48 Two Nikes and a bull, 31; Fig. 392 ‘Mourning’ Athena, 90; Fig. 510 Relief of charioteer, 118f.; Fig. 516 Parthenon frieze, man in himation, 120; Fig. 517 Parthenon frieze, men in himatia, 120 Agora Museum Figs. 631-638 Palliati, from Antonine period, 135 National Museum Figs. 22-23 Head from south slope of Acropolis, 27 (see also Berlin, Staatliche Museen); Fig. 36 Eleusinian relief, 29, 121 (see also New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art); Fig. 61 Athena of Piraeus, 33; Fig. 224 Aphrodite Anadyomene statuettes, 64; Figs. 229-232 Aphrodite statuettes, 64; Figs. 398-399 Varvakeion statuette, 90f.; Figs. 442-445 Statue of a girl, 95; Fig. 449 Statuette of Aphrodite, 96; Fig. 583 Youth of Eretria, 120, 130; Fig. 589 Statuette of youth, 131; Fig. 590 Statuette of man, 131; Figs. 675-677 Small Herculaneum woman, 149; Fig. 682 Large Herculaneum woman, 150; Fig. 716 Stele of Smyrna, 152; Fig. 717 Stele of Hermione, 154; Fig. 779 Roman magistrate, 184

283

MUSEUMS and SITES P ira e u s Museum

F igs. 97-98 Balbinus as Jupiter, 43 Small Metropolis F ig . 718 Funerary relief of mother and daughter, 154, 156 AVELLINO Palazzo Municipale F ig . 599 Tomb relief with five palliati, 132 AVIGNON Musée Calvet F ig . 625 Palliatus, Claudian period, 134 BENEVENTO F ig· 607 Tomb relief of a Pudicitia, 132 A rdi of Trajan F ig . 209 Reliefs of Victories sacrificing bulls, 62; Fig. 838 Relief of Trajan sacrificing, 205 BERLIN Pergamon Museum F igs. 94-96 Hadrian as hero or god, 41 Staatliche Museen F igs. 2-3, 5 Berlin-Lansdowne Amazon, 11; Figs. 24-25 Roman copy of head from south slope of Acropolis, 27 (see also Athens, National Museum); Fig. 178 Venus Marina, 50; Fig. 275 Diana, 74; Figs. 350-351 Dresden Artemis, 86f.; Figs. 356-357 Artemis Colonna, 88; Figs. 435-436 Leaning Aphrodite from Smyrna, 94f.; Fig. 441 Leaning Aphrodite, 95; Fig. 472 Demeter, 106; Fig. 512 Lekythos, det. warrior’s departure, 119; Fig. 513 Vase painting of man and woman, 119; Figs. 523-524 Zeus or Asklepios, 120; Figs. 529-530 Boy in himation, 120; Fig. 654 Christ as a palliatus, 136; Fig. 884 Sarcophagus with Muses, 249; Fig. 896 ‘Aspasia’ type portrait statue, 253; Fig. 897 Head of Aspasia, 253 University Museum of Casts F ig- 396 Athena Lemnia (reconstruction), 89f., 93; Fig. 400 Athena Parthenos, 90 BONN P.J. Dölger Institute F ig · 892 Orans on sarcophagus fragment, 251 BOSTON Museum of Fine Arts F ig s. 139-142 Venus Genetrix, 47; Figs. 867-868 Old priestess, 223 284

MUSEUMS and SITES

BRESCIA Museo Romano Fig. 113 Victory from Brescia, 45

BUFFALO Albright-Knox Art Gallery Figs. 287-289 Bronze statuette of Artemis, 75

CAIRO Cairo Museum Figs. 706-707 Old woman as small Herculaneum woman, 152, 157

CAMBRIDGE, MASS. Fogg Art Museum Fig. 86 Meleager, 41

CAPUA Museo Campana Fig. 598 Tomb relief with two palliati, 132

CASSEL Antikenabteilung der Staatlichen Kunstsammlungen Figs. 173-175 Hygieia, 49; Fig. 249 Relief of Artemis hunting, 71; Figs. 338-339 Dresden Artemis (correct restoration), 86, 88; Figs. 340-341 Dresden Artemis (incorrect restoration), 86; Figs. 342-343 Dresden Artemis (no restoration), 86, 88; Fig. 397 Athena Lemnia, 89-91, 93

CLEVELAND Cleveland Museum of Art Fig. 856 Orestes sarcophagus, 216f.

COPENHAGEN Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek Figs. 645-647 Christian sarcophagus, 136f., 137, 155f.; Fig. 826 Statue of Livia as Fortuna, 200; Fig. 830 Statue of Fundilia, 200

285

MUSEUMS and SITES

CYRENE Museum of Apollonia Fig, 621 Flavian statue of a Pudicitia, 133; Fig. 803 Statue of a woman, 197; Figs. 812-817 Statues of praying women with cavities for portrait heads, 198; Fig. 823 Female statue, Trajanic, 200 DAMASCUS Damascus Museum Fig. 611 Statue of a palliata, 133

DAPHNE Monastery Fig. 905 Mosaic, presentation of the Virgin Mary, 259

DELOS Fig. 584 Kleopatra and Dioskurides, 130 DRESDEN Staatliche Skulpturen Sammlung-Albertinum Figs. 99-101 Dresden Zeus, 43, 120; Fig. 120 Muse, 45; Figs. 189-190 Maenad, 60; Figs. 332-334 Dresden Artemis, 31, 86-88, 91; Figs. 369-371 Artemis Colonna, 88; Fig. 395 Athena Lemnia, 89-91, 93; Figs. 578-580 Terpsichore, 124; Figs. 664-667 Large Herculaneum woman, from Herculaneum, 148f.; Figs. 668-672, 673674 Small Herculaneum woman, from Herculaneum, 148f.; Figs. 724-725 Bronze statuette of a woman, 164

FLORENCE Galleria degli Uffizi Fig. 52 Relief, two women with a bull, 31; Figs. 55-57 Fleeing Niobid, 32; Fig. 59 Son of Niobe, 33; Fig. 105 Venus and Mars, 43; Figs. 127-129 Venus Genetrix, 46; Fig, 228 Venus Urania, 64; Fig. 456 Seated Roman woman, 96; Fig. 457 Seated Roman woman, 96; Figs. 495-496 Neo-Attic relief with Maenads, 110-112; Fig. 540 Niobid nurse, 121; Fig. 577 Terpsichore, 124; Fig. 746 Marciana, 168f.; Fig. 747 Matidia, 168f.; Fig. 748 Plotina, 168f.; Fig. 749 Livia, 168f.; Fig. 789 Altar of the Lares, 191; Fig. 795 Kore of Florence, 196; Fig. 866 Young priestess, 223; Fig. 873 Priestess, 244 Museo Archeologico Fig. 153 Venus Genetrix, 47; Fig. 349 Dresden Artemis, 86; Fig, 364 Artemis Colonna, 88f.

FRANKFURT Städtische Galerie Fig. 19 Torso with cavity for portrait head, 23; Figs. 393-394 Copy of Athena by Myron, 90

286

MUSEUMS and SITES

ISTANBUL Archaeological Museum Fig. 585 Stele of Meidias, 131; Figs. 612-613 Baebia, 133; Fig. 615 Saufeia, 133; Fig. 616 Pudicitia statue, 133; Fig. 618 Pudicitia statue, 133; Fig. 630 Priest from Kyzikos, 134f,; Figs. 658-659 Sarcophagus from Ephesos, 138; Figs. 689-690 Flavian women as small Herculaneum women, 150; Fig. 719 Stele of Hieronis, 152, JL54, 157; Fig. 720 Stele of Stolos and family, 155,157; Fig. 730 Matidia, 165; Figs. 780-781 Statuette of young girl, 187; Fig. 782 Polla Valeria, 187; Fig. 837 Flavian woman, 203; Figs. 839-841 Late Antonine statue of woman, 203f. LONDON British Museum Fig. 38 Kore from Erechtheion, 29; Fig. 54 Cast of Fleeing Niobid (Chiaramonti type, see also Fig. 53), 32; Fig. 123 Aphrodite from Gyrene, 46; Figs. 186-187 Hebe from east pediment, Parthenon, 59; Fig. 191 Nereid, 60; Fig. 205 Victories sacrificing a bull, 62; Figs. 311-312 Statuettes of Lares, 79; Figs. 326-327 Bronze statuette of Artemis, 85f.; Figs. 353-354 Ariadne, 87; Fig. 423 Running Athena (or Artemis), 92; Figs. 477-480 Caryatid, 105,107; Fig. 491 Apollo Kitharoidos on archaistic relief, 109; Fig. 498 Relief of Maenad with knife, 112; Fig. 514 Parthenon frieze, man in himation, 120; Fig. 515 Parthenon frieze, man in himation, 120; Fig. 541 Relief of Alkestis, 121; Fig. 573 Relief of Archelaos, 124; Fig. 629 Statue of Hadrian from Cyrene, 134f.; Fig. 692 Sabina(?) as small Herculaneum woman, 150f,; Fig. 731 Priestess of Ceres, 165; Fig. 756 Statue of woman from Cyrene, 169; Fig. 786 Bronze statuette of Hellenistic Greek, 191; Fig. 822 Priestess, 199f.; Fig. 848 Relief of youth subduing his horse, 212; Fig. 874 Publia Maxima, 244; Fig. 887 Philosopher and Muse on sarcophagus, 250 MAINZ Römisches Germanisches Zentralsmuseum Fig. 309 Statuette of Lar, 78; Fig. 310 Statuette of Lar, 78 MALIBU, CALIF. J. Paul Getty Museum Figs. 678-681 Praxitelean head, 150; Figs. 697-699 Older Faustina as large Herculaneum woman, 151 MANTUA Fig. 461 Muse, 105 San Andrea Figs. 909-911 Tomb of Pietro Strozzi, 261 MINNEAPOLIS Minneapolis Institute of Art Fig. 835 Agrippina the Younger, 202 287

MUSEUMS and SITES

MUNICH Glyptothek Fig. 51 Relief of two girls decorating a herm, 31; Fig. 157 Venus Genetrix, 47; Fig. 297 Diana on Niobid sarcophagus, 76; Fig. 344 Dresden Artemis, 86; Fig. 481 Apollo Kitharoidos, 108, 118; Fig. 555 Tyche, 87; Figs. 728-729 Marciana, 165; Fig. 763 Hygieia, 170; Fig. 767 Amphora by Berlin Painter, 177; Fig. 833 Messalina, 202 NAPLES Museo Nazionale Fig, 13 Relief with Hermes, Eurydike, Orpheus, 21; Fig. 17 Livia, 23; Figs. 20-21 Flavian bust, 23; Fig. 87 Moschion, 42; Figs. 102-103 Venus of Capua, 43; Fig. 125 Venus Genetrix, 46; Fig. 146 Venus Genetrix, 47; Figs. 158-159 Flora Farnese, 47; Fig. 176 Relief with nymphs, 49; Figs. 180-181 Venus Marina, 50; Fig. 193 Maenad, on crater, 60; Fig. 212 Diana Lucifera, 63; Fig. 241 Nude portrait statue, type of Venus Medici, 66; Fig. 242 Nude portrait statue, type of Venus Capitoline, 66; Fig. 243 Antonine sarcophagus, triumph of Dionysus, 65; Fig. 245 Omphale and Hercules, 66; Fig. 285 Running Diana, 74; Figs. 307-308 Statuettes of Lares, 78; Fig. 325 Bronze statue, girl from Herculaneum, 85; Fig. 439 Leaning Aphrodite, 94; Figs. 451-454 Seated Agrippina, 96; Fig. 489 Apollo Kitharoidos on Neo-Attic candelabrum, 109; Fig. 506 Maenad with tympanum, 113; Figs. 527-528 Man in chiton and himation, 120; Fig. 582 Aischines, 120, 130; Fig. 606 Tomb relief with Pudicitia, 132; Figs. 683-684, 685-686 Daughters of Balbus as small Herculaneum women, 150; Fig. 687 Viciria, as palliata, 150; Fig. 691 Trajanic woman as small Herculaneum woman, 150; Fig. 745 Marriage scene on Antonine sarcophagus, 167; Fig. 793 “Marcellus” or “Drusus,” 42, 193; Fig. 796 Relief with Eleusinian goddesses, 197; Fig. 824 Bronze statue of woman, Claudian, 200; Fig. 827 Eumachia, 200; Fig, 861 Lucius Verus, 42, 219; Figs. 862-863 Bust of Antoninus Pius, 42, 219; Fig. 870 Severus Alexander, 42, 243 NEW YORK Metropolitan Museum of Art Fig. 12 Lansdowne Amazon, 11; Fig. 14 Hesperide relief, fragment, 21; Fig. 37 Copy of Eleusinian relief, 29 (see also Athens, National Museum); Figs. 130-132 Venus Genetrix, 46; Fig. 511 Black-figured hydria, det. three men, 119; Figs. 535-536 Bronze statuette of philosopher, 120; Figs. 777-778 Etruscan bronze statuette of a kore, 183; Figs. 783-785 Julio-Claudian prince, 191; Figs. 894-895 Trebonianus Gallus, 252f.; Figs. 898-899 “Europa,” 253 OLYMPIA Olympia Museum Fig, 694 Older Faustina as large Herculaneum woman, 151; Figs. 700-701 Younger Faustina as small Herculaneum woman, 151; Figs. 805-806 Poppaea Sabina, 196 OSTIA Museo Ostiense Fig. 70 River god, 34; Figs. 133-134 Venus Genetrix, 46; Figs. 147-148 Sabina as Venus Genetrix, 46; Figs. 149150 Statuette of Venus Genetrix, 47; Figs. 151-152 Venus Genetrix, 47; Fig. 177 Venus Marina, 50; Fig. 183

MUSEUMS and SITES Venus Marina, 50; Fig. 184 Venus Marina with chiton, 50; Fig. 258 Diana, 72; Figs. 277-278 Diana, 74; Fig. 279 Diana, 74; Figs. 383-384 Athena Hephaistia, 89; Fig. 622 Pudicitia, 133; Fig. 641 Palliatus on Sidamara sarcophagus, 135; Fig. 696 Older Faustina as large Herculaneum woman, 151; Figs. 702-703 Antonine woman as small Herculaneum woman, 151, 157; Fig. 712 Funerary statue in type of large Herculaneum woman, 153; Figs. 732-733 Sabina, 165; Figs. 734-735 Antonine woman, 166; Figs. 740-741 Julia Domna, 166f.; Figs. 769770 Leaning Aphrodite, 177; Fig. 842 Trajan, 205

OXFORD Ashmolean Museum Figs. 256-257 Diana, 72; Figs. 410-413 Minerva, 91; Fig. 414 Relief of Athena, on candelabrum base, 92; Fig. 415 Colossal Minerva, 92

PARIS Bibliothèque Nationale Fig 304 Bronze statuette of Diana, 77; Fig. 587 Stele of Menander, 131; Fig. 588 Stele of Kornelia, 131 Louvre Fig. 16 Livia, 23; Fig. 18 Sabina, 23; Figs, 33-34 Suppliant Barberini, 28 (see also Rome, Vatican Museums); Fig. 67 Nile, 34; Fig. 69 Tiber, 34; Figs. 74-76 Octavianus by Kleomenes, 41; Fig. 104 Ares Borghese, 43; Fig. 109 Sabina and Hadrian, 44; Fig. 110 Venus of Palermo, 45; Fig, 114 Victory from Brescia (restoration), 45 (see also Brescia, Museo Romano); Fig, 124 Venus Genetrix, 46f.; Fig. 192 Nike, 60; Figs. 216-218 Aphrodite of Arles, 64; Figs. 246-248 Artemis of Versailles, 71, 73, 79; Fig. 268 Tomb relief of Aelia Procula, 73; Figs. 269-271 Artemis of Gabii, 73; Fig. 273 Diana, 73-75; Fig. 352 Dresden Artemis (misnamed Erato), 86; Fig. 360 Artemis Colonna, 88; Fig. 361 Artemis Colonna, 88; Figs. 372-375 Athena Hephaistia, 89, 91; Figs. 401-402 Minerve au Collier, 79, 90f., 93; Figs. 416-417 Minerva, 92; Figs. 418-420 Athena Medici, 12, 92; Fig. 438 Leaning Aphrodite, 94; Fig. 440 Leaning Aphrodite, 94; Fig. 450 Statuette of Aphrodite, 96; Figs. 463-465 Hellenistic female statue, 105; Fig. 474 Wall painting of a girl, 106; Fig. 488 Apollo Kitharoidos, 108; Fig. 490 Apollo Kitharoidos on archaistic relief, 109; Fig. 499 Maenad with knife on amphora, 112; Fig. 504 Relief of Maenad with thyrsus, 113; Fig. 547 Julia Mamaea, 122; Figs. 551-552 Athena of Velletri, 122; Figs. 574-576 Terpsichore, 124; Fig. 586 Stele of Menophila, 131; Fig. 619 Pudicitia statue, 133; Figs. 639-640 Julian the Apostate, 135; Fig. 704 Antonine woman as large Herculaneum woman, 151, 156; Fig. 705 Large Herculaneum woman from Cyrene, 152, 156; Fig. 726 Antonia, 165; Fig. 738 Older Faustina, 166; Figs. 761762 Hera Campana, 170; Fig. 797 Relief of Kore from Kyzikos, 197; Fig. 798 Plotina, 197; Figs. 799-801 Statue of a woman, 197; Fig. 804 Didia Clara, 197; Fig. 810 Porphyry statue of a woman, 198; Fig. 825 Euterpe, 200; Fig. 834 “Messalina” holding child, 202; Fig. 844 Head of Antinous, 210; Figs. 845-847 Plotina, 206 Fig. 859 Aelius Verus, 219; Fig. 883 Antonine sarcophagus with Muses, 249 Musée Guimet Fig. 302 Fabric with Diana hunting, 77

PERUGIA Palazzo dell’ Università Fig. 657 Seven arches sarcophagus, 136, 138, 155, 157 289

MUSEUMS and SITES

PISA Campo Santo Fig. 198, Flying Victories, on sarcophagus, 01; Fig. 200 Standing Victories, on sarcophagus, 61

POMPEII Fig. 620 Old woman as a Pudicitia, 133

PRINCETON Art Museum Figs. 591-594 Bronze statuette of a boy, 132

RAVENNA Church of S. Francesco Fig. 656 Five arches sarcophagus, 136, 138

ROME Lateran Fig. 15 Relief of Medea and Peliades, 21; Fig. 294 Diana, 76; Fig. 299 Virtus, on Hippolytus sarcophagus, 76; Fig. 313 Altar of Manlius, 79; Figs. 403-404, 79, 90; Figs. 544-545 Agrippina, 122; Fig. 581 Sophokles, 120, 130; Fig. 608 Tomb relief of the Furii, 132; Fig. 643 Sarcophagus of Annios Katos, 136; Fig. 663 Togaed statue of Julius Caesar, 139; Fig. 711 Large Herculaneum woman from Ostia, 153; Figs. 772-773 Drusilla, 177; Fig775 Domitia, 178; Fig. 857 Sarcophagus with triumph of Dionysus and Ariadne, 218; Fig. 877 Several) sarcophagus with story of Adonis, 247; Fig. 890 Sarcophagus of Plotinus, 250f.; Fig. 891 Sarcophagus with Good Shepherd, 251; Fig. 900 Sarcophagus of Caecilius Vallianus, 254; Fig. 904 Good Shepherd, 259 Museo Barracco Figs. 328-329 Female statuette, 85; Fig. 503 Relief with three Maenads, 112f. Museo Capitolino Figs. 7, 9 Capitoline Amazon, 11; Figs, 10-11 Mattel Amazon, Ilf.; Fig. 68 Martorio, 34; Fig. 108 Married couple statues, 44; Figs. 167-168 Lucilla as Hera, 48; Fig. 263 Diana, 72; Fig. 286 Running Diana, 74,76; Figs· 362-363 Artemis Colonna, 88; Fig. 422 Running Athena, 92; Fig. 458 Seated Roman woman, 96; Fig. 473 Athena, 106; Figs. 557, 560 Replica of Athena Giustiniani, 122; Figs. 571-572, Girl with dove, 123; Fig. 628 “Marius,” 134; Fig. 644 Sarcophagus with bust of palliata, 136, 156; Figs. 660-662 Endymion sarcophagus» 138; Fig. 808 Livia sacrificing 198; Fig. 871 Julia Domna, 243 Museo Communale Fig. 314 Battle of gods and giants frieze, 79 (see also Vatican Mus. and Museo Nuovo) Museo Nazionale delle Terme Fig. 50 Nike with a bull, 31; Fig. 78 Hermes Ludovisi, 41; Fig. 79 Hermes from Anzio, 41; Fig. 89 Seated male by Zenon, 42; Fig. 107 Crispina and Commodus, 44; Fig. 135 Venus Genetrix, 46; Figs. 162-163 H e ra from the Palatine, 48; Figs. 169-171 Portrait statue, Flavian, 49; Fig. 188 Niobid, 59; Figs. 196-197 Victories, relief from Casa Farnesina ceiling, 60; Fig. 199 Victories, on sarcophagus, 61; Fig. 206 Relief, Victory sacrificing bull, 62; Figs. 207-208 Victories on terracotta friezes, 62; Fig. 210 Reliefs of Victories, 62; Fig. 211 Relief of 290

MUSEUMS and SITES dancers on round base, 63; Fig. 253 Girl represented as Diana, 71; Fig. 262 Diana, 72; Fig. 303 Diana, 77, 79; Figs. 321-323 Girl in peplos, 85; Fig. 365 Artemis Colonna, 88f.; Figs. 389-390 Artemis (or Athena) from Ariccia, 89f., 92f.; Fig. 391 Colossal female statue, 90; Figs. 424-426 Herrn of Minerva, 79, 92; Fig. 501 Maenad with knife, 112f.; Fig. 548 Vestal Virgin, 122; Figs. 595-597 Stele with two palliati, 132; Fig. 736 Hadrianic woman, 166; Fig. 737 Antonine woman, 166; Fig. 771 Juno or Venus, 177; Fig. 788 Togaed statue of Augustus, 191; Fig. 794 Male statue, 193; Fig. 809 Praying woman, 198; Fig. 819 Antonine woman, 198; Fig. 820 Vestal Virgin, 198; Figs. 828-829 Antonine woman, 201; Fig. 864 Antoninus Pius, 41f., 219; Fig. 881 Battle sarcophagus, 247; Fig. 886 Sarcophagus with Muses, 250; Fig. 906 Good Shepherd, 259 Museo Nuovo Fig. 219 Copy of Aphrodite of Arles, 64; Fig. 220 Aphrodite Anadyomene, 64; Fig. 305 Altar of the Lares, 78; Fig. 316 Battle of gods and giants frieze with an Erinnys, 79 (see also Museo Communale and Vatican Museums); Fig. 486 Apollo Kitharoidos, 108; Fig. 522 Zeus, 120; Fig. 526 Asklepios, 120; Fig. 553 Copy of Athena of Velletri, 122; Fig. 605 Tomb relief with palliatus and Pudicitia, 132; Fig. 811 Praying woman, 198; Fig. 885 Polyhymnia, 249 Museo Torlonia Figs, 225-226 Nude Aphrodite, 64; Figs. 469-470 Leto with twins, 105f.; Fig. 556 Copy of Athena Giustiniani, 122; Fig, 889 Sarcophagus of Lucius Peregrinus, 250 Palazzo Altemps Fig. 525 Zeus, 120 Palazzo Colonna Fig. 154 Venus Genetrix, 47; Fig. 642 Medallion with palliatus, 136; Figs. 721-723 3rd cent, sarcophagus, 155f. Palazzo dei Conservatori Fig. 291 Diana, 75; Fig. 298 Sarcophagus with Atalanta hunting, 76; Fig. 306 Statuette of a Lar, 78; Figs. 431432 Bronze Hekateion 93; Figs. 467-468 Leto with twins, 105f.; Figs. 492-494 Herrn, 110; Fig. 497 Maenad with knife, 11 If.; Fig. 500 Maenad with knife, 112 Palazzo Doria-Pamphili Figs. 1, 4 Amazon Doria-Pamphili, 11; Fig. 63 Nile, 34; Fig. 204 Neo-Attic base with Maenad relief, 62; Figs. 300-301 Woman with long sash, 77; Figs. 335-337 Dresden Artemis, 86f.; Fig. 388 Hellenistic Artemis, 89; Fig. 446 Aphrodite, 95; Fig. 626 Palliatus, Claudian period, 134 Palazzo Lazzeroni Fig. 447 Aphrodite, 95; Fig. 872 Severan woman, 244 Palazzo Matter Fig, 266 Virtus on sarcophagus, 73 Palazzo Odescalchi Fig. 448 Aphrodite, 95 Vatican Museums Figs. 6,8 Matter Amazon, 11; Fig. 35 Copy of suppliant Barberini, 28; Figs. 41-42 Copy of Erectheion Kore, 29f. (see also Athens, Acropolis); Fig. 53 Fleeing Niobid, 32 (see also Fig. 54); Fig. 58 Painting of fleeing Myrrha, 33; Fig. 60 Son of Niobe, 33; Fig. 62 Nile, 34 (see also Figs. 71-73); Fig. 64 Nile, 34; Fig. 65 Nile, 34; Fig. 66 Nile, 34; Fig. 88 Menander or Plautus, 42; Figs. 90-91 Augustus of Primaporta, 40, 42; Fig. 92 Claudius as Jupiter, 42; Fig. I ll Tyche and child, 45; Fig. 121 Victory on sarcophagus, 45; Fig. 143 Sabina as Venus Genetrix, 47; Fig. 156 Venus Genetrix, 47; Figs. 160-161 Hera Barberini, 48; Figs.'164-165 Hera from Ostia, 48; Fig. 166 Hera from Otricoli, 48; Fig. 194 Relief with Maenad, 60; Figs. 201-202 Maenad on Dionysiae sarcophagus, 62; Figs. 213-214 Achilles, Penthesilea and Amazonomaehy on sarcophagus, 63; Fig. 215 Wife and husband on sarcophagus, 63; Fig. 221 Copy of Aphrodite Anadyomene, 64; Fig. 227 Portrait statue, time of Julia Soaemias, 64; Fig. 238 Nymph with shell, 65; Fig. 239 Hadrianic portrait statue, 65; Fig. 240 Sallustia, 65; Fig. 244 Portrait statue in guise of Omphale, 65; Fig. 259 Wall painting of the veneration of Diana, 72; Fig. 260 Diana, 72; Figs. 264-265 Lietor and Virtus on Cancelleria relief, 73; Fig. 276 Diana, 74; Fig. 280 Diana, 74; Fig. 284 Running Diana, 74; Fig. 292 Diana, 75; Fig. 293 Diana, 76; Fig. 295 Relief with Diana, 76; Fig. 296 Diana, 76; Fig. 315 Battle of gods and giants, frieze with Artemis, 79 (see also Museo Communale and Museo Nuovo); Fig. 324 Girl in peplos on amphora, 85; Figs. 330-331 Female torso, 85; Figs. 345-346 Dresden 291

MUSEUMS and SITES A rtem is (in c o r r e c t restoration ), 86, 88 ; F ig . 3 4 7 D r e sd e n A r te m is, 8 6 -8 9 ; F ig . 3 5 8 A r te m is ^ ol■ ena G iu stin ia n i, 122; F ig . 5 6 7 T h alia, 123; F ig . 6 2 7 Ju lian u s, 134; F ig . 688 F la v ia n w o m a n as sm a ll H e r c u la n e u m w o m a n , 150; F ig . 6 9 3 H a d ria n ic w o m a n as la r g e H e r c u la n e u m w o m a n , 1 5 0 f F i g . 7 4 2 e^ er **n F igs. 7 5 7 -7 5 8 F e m a le p o r tr a it sta tu e , 1 69; F ig . 7 6 6 C la ss ic a l fe m a le s ta tu e w it h F la v ia n h e a d , 175; P ig .

707 /Vi

A ugu stu s, 4 2 , 191; F ig . 8 0 7 L iv ia p rayin g, 197; F ig . 8 3 6 D o m itia n , 2 0 3 ; F ig . 8 4 9 R e lie f o f s le e p in g A r ia d n e , 2 1 3 ; F ig . 8 5 0 H erm es o n c a n d e la b r u m , 2 1 3 ; F ig . 8 5 1 Z e u s o n c a n d e la b r u m , 2 1 3 , F ig . f ia ^ ca n d ela b ru m , 2 1 3 ; F ig . 8 5 3 A p h r o d ite o n ca n d ela b ru m , 2 1 3 ; F ig . 8 5 4 A res o n c a n d e la b r u m , 2 1 3 ; tig. « o d Athena on candelabrum, 213; Fig. 858 Sarcophagus with Alcestis, 218; Fig. 860 A e liu s Venn; as a oy, , F ig . 8 6 5 C o m m o d u s, 2 2 0 ; F ig . 8 7 5 S le e p in g b a c c h a n te o n H a d r ia n ic sa r c o p h a g u s , 2 4 5 ; F i g · « ™ w o m a n o n A n to n in e sa rcop h agu s, 2 4 6 ; F ig s. 8 7 8 -8 8 0 S a r c o p h a g u s o f E m p e r o r B a lb in u s, W e d d in g sa rcop h agu s, 2 4 8 ; F ig . 888 S a r c o p h a g u s w it h M u ses, 2 5 0 V illa A lb a n i

8-

, ,

p.

F ig . 1 1 6 N em esis, 4 6 ; F ig . 1 1 9 M u se, 4 5 ; F ig . 4 5 5 S e a te d R o m a n w o m a n , 9 6 ; F ig . 4 7 5 C a r y a tid , 1 0 6 ; 4 7 6 C a ry a tid in m a n tle, 106; F ig . 4 0 9 M a en a d , 91; F ig . 5 0 2 M a e n a d w it h k n ife , 112; F ig . 6! th r e e M aenads, 112f.; F ig . 5 4 3 “ S a p p h o ” or K o re A lb a n i, 1 21; F ig . 8 4 3 A n tin o u s a s V e r tu m n u s o n re

ig . „ 9 ...

V illa B o r g h e se ρ· 199 A o ll F ig . 8 5 M ele a g er, 4 1 ; F ig . 9 3 C la u d iu s as Ju p iter, 4 2 ; F ig . 1 0 6 V e n u s a n d M a rs w it h C u p id , 4 3 , i& Vernus w ith tw o M u ses o n sa rco p h a g u s, 46; F ig . 1 2 6 V en u s G e n e tr ix , 4 6 ; F ig . 1 5 5 V e n u s G e n e tr ix , 4 , ig· M arina in c h ito n , 5 0 ; F ig . 2 5 5 D ia n a , 72; F ig . 2 6 1 D ia n a , 72; F ig . 3 4 8 D r e s d e n A r te m is ,

86 -88 ;

P igs.

_

3 8 1 -3 8 2 A th e n a H e p h a istia , 89; F ig s. 4 3 3 -4 3 4 H e k a te io n , 93; F ig . 6 0 4 T o m b r e lie f w ith P u d ic i ia tw o p a llia ti, 132; F ig s. 7 4 3 -7 4 4 , S e v e r a n w o m a n , 166; F ig . 7 6 5 A r c h a is tic f e m a le s ta tu e w ith Ira] 175; F ig . 8 3 2 E u m a c h ia t y p e fe m a le sta tu e , 201 V illa L u d ovisi B o n c o m p a g n i F ig . 2 5 2 A rtem is, 71 V illa W o lk o n sk i F igs. 4 2 7 -4 3 0 A d a p ta tio n o f A th e n a P a rth en o s, 9 2 M on u m en ts A ra P a c is F ig. 7 2 7 R e lie f o f A n to n ia w ith h er fa m ily , 164; F ig s. 7 9 0 -7 9 2 A ra P a c is , 1 5 0 A rch o f C o n sta n tin e F ig. 1 1 8 V ic to r y w ith b arb arian , 4 5 A rch o f T itu s R o m a o n k e y sto n e , C o lu m n o f T rajan

73

F ig . 1 1 7 V ic to r y w ith sh ie ld (cast), 4 5

710

A triu m V e sta e F ig s. 5 4 9 -5 5 0 V esta l V irg in s, 122; F ig . 7 0 9 V e sta l V ir g in as la r g e H e r c u la n e u m w o m a n , V irg in as sm a ll H e r c u la n e u m w o m a n , 153; F ig s. 7 5 2 -7 5 5 V e sta l V ir g in s, 169; F ig . 8 1 8 V e s ta l 8 3 1 V e sta l V irgin , 201 C h u rch o f S an ta M aria A n tiq u a F ig. 8 9 3 P h ilo so p h e r an d G o o d S h e p h e r d o n sa rco p h a g u s, 2 5 1 P a n th e o n F ig. 1 1 2 M ad on n a a n d C h ild o v e r R a p h a e l’s to m b , 4 5 P orta M a g g io re F ig . 6 0 9 T o m b r e lie f o f E u ry sa ces an d h is w ife , 133 St. P e te r ’s F ig . 6 5 5 S arcop h agu s o f Ju n iu s B assus, 13 6 , 138

292

V e sta l jcjg.

ir 8'

*

MUSEUMS and SITES

SARDIS Fig. 802 Female statue, 197

SICILY Villa of Piazza Armerina Fig. 903 Mosaic of rhinoceros hunt, 258

SPALATO Spalato Museum Figs. 648-653 Christian sarcophagus from Salona, 136f., 155-157

SPEYER Historisches Museum Fig. 81 Mercury, 41

SYRACUSE Museo Archeologico Figs. 233-234 Aphrodite of Syracuse, 65

TIVOLI Villa of Hadrian Figs. 43-44 Copy of Erechtheion Kore, 29f. (see also Athens, Acropolis); Figs. 45-46 Copy of Erechtheion Kore, 29f.

TORONTO Royal Ontario Museum of Archaeology Figs. 136-138 Venus Genetrix, 46

TREVISO Villa Reale Dossora Fig. 600 Tomb relief of Firmius with his wife, 132f„ 156; Fig. 601 Tomb relief with three palliati and woman, 132f„ 156

MUSEUMS and SITES TRIER Landesmuseum Fig. 901 Tomb relief with woman having hair arranged, 258; Fig. 902 Tomb relief with boys and teacher, 258 TRIESTE Museo Civico Fig. 603 Tomb relief of Vibius with his wife, 132f., 156; Fig. 610 Tomb relief of palliatus and his wife, 133 TUNISIA Musée du Bardo Fig. 471 Kore or Demeter, 105f.; Fig. 739 Antonine woman, 166; Fig. 764 Fortuna or Concordia, 170; Fig. 821 Old woman, 198 TURIN Museo di Anticità Fig. 421 Bronze statuette of Minerva, 92

VERONA Museo Maffeiano Fig. 203 Dionysiae sarcophagus, 62 VIENNA Kunsthistorisches Museum Fig. 27 Seated Mercury, 28; Fig. 182 Venus Marina, 50 WASHINGTON, D.C. National Gallery of Art Fig. 907 Painting of St. James Minor, 259; Fig. 908 Painting of St. John the Evangelist, 259f. WILLIAMSTOWN, MASS. Lawrence Art Museum Fig, 869 Septimius Severus, 242

294

MUSEUMS and SITES

WURZBURG Martin von Wagner Museum der Universität Fig. 250 Vase painting of Artemis present at sacrifice, 71

ZURICH Schweizerisches Landesinuseum Figs. 80, 82-84 Mercury from Thalwil, 41

295

INDEX Achilles and Penthesilea, on sarcophagi, 63,247f. Acroliths: of Antinous, 210; of Constan­ tine, 256; of Hadrian, 209 Adaptations, in the Archaic and Classical periods, 181f. Adonis, hunt and wounding of on sar­ cophagi, 246f. Aegis, draping on Athena statues, 89; on the Lemnia and Parthenos, 90 Aelia Procula, represented as running Ar­ temis, 73 Aelius Verus, statue of, 42, 219 Aesculapius, Roman cult statue, 16 Agorakritos, (sculptor) 5, 47, 106, 182 Agrippina. See Aphrodite, seated statue Agrippina the Younger, statues of, 201 Ahenobarbus, Domitius, altar of, 17 Aischines, 15 Aischines type, 129, 186; contemporary statue, 130; forerunner of the palliatus, 136 Alcibiades, statue erected in the Comitium by Romans; 183. S ee a lso Pythagoras Alexander the Great; lion hunt on sar­ cophagi, 247; portraiture, 15, 27; statue from Eleusis, 27 Alkamenes, 2, 91, 182; adaptation of Phid­ ian Aphrodite, 94f.; Ares, 43; Asklepios, 16; Athena Hephaistia, 89; Hekateion, 93; Hermes, 2 Alkestis, wearing classical shoulder mantle, 107,121 Alkibiades, helmet with Aphrodite and Eros, 95. See also Alcibiades M lo c u tie (Roman gesture), 42, 188 Amazon: Berlin-Lansdowne, 11; Cap­ itoline, 11; Doria-Pamphili, 11; Mattei,

11 Amazonomachy, on sarcophagi, 63 Amazons, 10

Amelung, Walther, 27, 32, 86, 124, 223 Ammonios (sculptor), 170 Anti, Carlo, 6f., 10

Antinous; in the guise of Silvanus, 209f.; portraits, 210f, as Vertumnus, 210. See also Acroliths Antiochos (sculptor); 7; copy of Athena Parthenos, 90f. Antonia, wife of Drusus, portrait statue of, 164, 197. See also Ara Pacis Antoninus Pius, statues of, 219, 221 Aphrodisias, peplos statue from showing arrangement of himation, 121; Pudicitia statues from, 133 Aphrodite Anadyomene, 64, 224 Aphrodite, Arles, 64, 93 Aphrodite, arranging her hair, 64 Aphrodite, Capitoline, 66; adapted to Roman portrait statues in the Flavian and Antonine periods, 93 Aphrodite with chiton and mantle, 95 Aphrodite, Hellenistic and Roman drap­ ing, 64f. Aphrodite, Knidian, 64,93 Aphrodite, leaning, 93f. Aphrodite Medici, 65 Aphrodite, Roman copies, 95 Aphrodite, statuettes, 64 Aphrodite, from Syracuse, 65 Aphrodite, seated statue, called Aphrodite in the Gardens, 96 Aphrodite, from Troas, 65 Aphrodite Urania, by Phidias, 46; adapta­ tion by Alkamenes, 94; copy, incorrectly restored as Muse Euterpe, 94 Aphrodite. See also Venus Genetrix Apollo Belvedere, 6 Apollo, from Cyrene 46, 64 Apollo, holding a kithara, 96, 108f. Apollo Kitharoidos, dressed in himation, 46,118 Apollonios (sculptor), 34, 185 Apostles, dressed in the pallium, 118,259f. Ara Pacis, 17, 34, 63, 133, 150, 164, 194 Archaic art, 177, 181 Archaistic art, 2, 13, 93, 109, 177, 185 Archelaos of Priene, Apotheosis of Homer,

297

123, 124, 167. See also Polyhymnia, Muse; Terpsichore, Muse Arch of Constantine (Rome), 73, 205 Arch of Titus (Rome), 61, 73 Arch of Trajan (Benevento), 205 Ares and Aphrodite, represented together, 43f. Ares Borghese, 43 Arnold, Dorothea, 6 “Arringatore”, 16, 134,186 Artemis; Artemis Dictynna at Las, 74; of Philius, 74; adapted to Roman Diana, 72; bronze in Buffalo, N.Y., 75; fourthcentury creation, 71; on frieze of battle of giants and gods, 79f,; hunting, 71; quietly standing, 75; running, on coins from Megara, Tanagra, 74; walking, 17 Artemis, from Ariccia. See Athena, from Ariccia Artemis Brauronia, 73; shown arranging himation, 121 Artemis Colonna, 71, 88; copies, 88 Artemis Laphria, 74 Artemis Pergaia, on coin, 75 Artemis of Versailles, 73f.; 79 Asinius Pollio, opening of his private art collection to the public, 185, 187f. Asklepios, head in the Villa Borghese, 5 Asklepios, arrangement of himation on statues, 120; statuettes, 3 See also Aesculapius “Aspasia” type, head covered with hima­ tion, 120,175, 258 Atalanta hunting. See Meleager, on sarcophagi Atalanta from Tegea, by Skopas, 60 Athena, from Ariccia, 89f. Athena, bronze from the Piraeus, 33f, Athena Giustiniani, 122 Athena Hephaistia, by Alkamenes. See Alkamenes Athena Lemnia by Phidias, 90,122 Athena Medici, 12, 92 Athena Parthenos, by Phidias, 90, 122;

INDEX Athena Parthenos, by Phidias (co n t.) copy by Antiochos for Pergamon, 182, See a lso Varvakeion Statuette Athena, shown "mourning," from the Ac­ ropolis, 90 Athena, statuettes, 3, 92 Athena of Velletri, 90, 122 Athenais (daughter of Herodes Atticus), in the guise of the small Herculaneum woman, 151, 222 Athens, Agora, statues from the Odeion, 42,135 A u g u s ta (divine title given to Roman em­ presses), 165 Augustan art, 60, 192; head and body as unit, 188; Hera Barberini, 178; Juno or Venus, 177. S ee a lso Ara Pacis Augustus; dressed in toga, 191f.; reorga­ nization of Empire, 188; seated, on gems and in statues, 194; statues of, 40f; 188 Aulus Metellus. See “Arringatore” A u r a e V e lific a n te s, 63 Baebia Hertophila, sarcophagus of, 244f. Baebia, wife of Lucius Valerius Flaccus, represented as Pudicitia, 133, 186f. Balas, Alexander, bronze, statuette of, 184 Balbinus, represented as Zeus, 43, 252; on sarcophagus, 246, 249, 252. S ee a lso Dresden Zeus Balbus, Nonius, 150 Baldric, 43; confused rendering of, 76 Barletta, colossal bronze statue of, 256 Basilica Marcianae, 168; Matidiae, 168 Baths of Caracalla, 3f. 47, 244; Constan­ tine, 3; Diocletian, 3 Battle of the gods and giants, from an Antonine frieze, 79f. Battle sarcophagus, 247 Becatti, Giovanni, 43, 66 Belts, Greek arrangement, 176; Roman arrangement of two, 44, 57, 73,176,213, 255 Belvedere, torso, 17 Berlin painter, 177 Black, Howard R., quoted, 259 Blinkenberg, Chr., 7 B racca e (barbarian trousers), 205 Brommer, Frank, 86 Bulle, Heinrich, 2 Buschor, Ernst, 129 Calza, Raissa, 96, 133 Candelabra, from Villa of Hadrian, 213f. Candelabrum, reproduction at Columbia University, 215 Caputo, 110 Carpenter, Rhys, 110 Caryatids, wearing unbelted peploi and shoulder mantles, 106f. See a lso Korae of the Erechtheion Cassel Apollo, 5f. Casts, 125, 135, 150, 175f. Catacombs of Callistus, 245. S e e a lso Prae­ textatus

Cato, 131 Ceres, priestesses of noble descent, repre­ sented in the guise of, 163-167, 204, 223, 253; represented in a type taken from the Greek Demeter, 156 Chiton, archaic form, 10; copyist’s misun­ derstanding of, 50; of Artemis Colonna, 88; with buttoned sleeves, 123; fusing with mantle, 112; fusing with peplos, 92f.; Hellenistic form—see peronatriS; long form, 71; with only a pouch, 169; Roman addition of a second, 72; thin and fluttering, 110 C h ta in a , Homeric mantle, won sym­ metrically over both shoulders, 119 Chlamys, 33, 41, 175; mistake on Hadrianic relief, 212; on nude-heroic statues, 186; on statues of Trajan, 205; pinned on the right shoulder, 120 Christ: dressed in the pallium, 118, 136; as the Good Shepherd, 157, 251 Christian art, transformation of GraecoRoman types, 155, 259-62. See a lso Good Shepherd; Orans; Sarcophagi, Christian Cicero, 138; cited, 139, 163f„ 184, 185, 186; portrait, 188 Classical art, 130, 181f. Claudius, represented in statues as ZeusJupiter, 42, 195; seated statue, 194 Coiffure. See Hairstyles Coin portraits. See Portrait coins Coins: Apollo Kitharoidos on denarius of Augustus, 108; on sestertius of An­ toninus Pius, 108; Artemis with stag on tetradrachm, 75; Diana on denarius of Augustus, 72; Leto and twins on coin from Pisidia, 106; Pudicitia seated on denarius of Julia Maesa, 133; Pudicitia standing on denarius of Sabina, 133; running Diana and running Diana in temple on bronze coins of Commodus, 74; running Diana on coin of Macrinus and Diadumenianus, 74; temple on du­ pondius of Tiberius, 168; Venus Gen­ etrix on denarii of Hadrian, 47; Zeus on tetradrachm, 123 Commodus: with Crispina, 43f. ; statues of,

220 Constantine the Great, statues of, 256f. Constantius Caesar, statue of, 256 Copyists, 1, 5ff., 27, 43, 50, 89, 90, 91, 92, 95, 109, lllf., 122f„ 169; addition of clothing, 176; in the Augustan period, 192, 195; mistakes at the sides, 176.; of sarcophagi in the Hadrian and Antonine periods, 216f. ; of the second century A.D., 170, 178; in the third century a .i>., 251 C rines. S e e Vestal Virgins Crispina (wife of Commodus), hairstyle, 151; statues of, 223. See also Commodus; Hera Campana Cuirassed statues, 41f., 186; of Antonines, 220; of Constans and Constantius II, 257; of the Flavians, 203; of Hadrian,

298

208f.; of Septimius Severus, 243; of Trajan, 205 C u r c u lio (Plautus), 131 Curtius, Ludwig, 4f., 27, 32 D a lm a tic a (tunic with wide sleeves), D a m n a tio m em o ria e, 204, 220

258

Damophilos, 167, 183 Damophon of Messene (sculptor), blending of contemporary with classic forms, 16, 182; repairs to temple of Zeus at Olym­ pia, 14 Demeter, as large Herculaneum woman, 16, 149; as precursor of Roman Ceres, 156. See also Ceres; Eleusinian relief Denuding, in Roman art, 43, 66, 204. See a lso Divesting; Nudity, in Roman art Deonna, Waldemar, 6 D e x tr a ru m ju n c tio , represented on sar­ cophagi, 167, 248f. See also Balbinus, on sarcophagus Diana Lucifera, 63 Diana, Roman sanctuaries of, 72; wearing the pigskin, 72. See also Artemis Dio Cassius, cited 139, 168, 186, 190, 192, 208 Diomedes, by Kresilas, 7 Dionysiae Mysteries, 61. See also Sar­ cophagi, garland Dionysios (sculptor), 1, 16, 184 Dionysos: used as a portrait model, 43; with portrait head wearing loose mantle on sarcophagi, 254 Dioscuri, 3 Dioskurides (magistrate from Delos), 15, 130 D ip lo is (double mantle), 73, 104 D i m (apotheosized princess), 164 D ic a e A u g u s ta e (titles of honor for Roman empresses). See Livia, Marciana, Matidia, Plotina Divesting 59ff.; 176 Dohm, Tobias, 62 Domitia, statue of, 178. See also Hera Barberini Domitian, statues of, 202f, Doryphoros, 7, 40, 42,189 Draped female statues, in the Trajanic and Hadrianic periods, 223 Dresden Artemis, attributed to Praxiteles, 31, 71, 86; copies, 87f. Dresden Zeus, 5, 43, 252 Drusilla (sister of Caligula), statue of, 177f. Drusus, statue of older or younger, 193 Ecclesia, personification of the Church, 155. See a lso Virgin Mary . Eirene, by Kephisodotos, 30; draping of the mantle, 104f. Eleusinian relief, original and Roman copy, 29, 121, 157 Ephesus, column from temple of Artemis, 107. See a lso Alkestis; Kore Equestrian statue, 221 Erinnys, 80 Eros and Psyche, on sarcophagi, 46, 61

INDEX Etruscan art, 14, 182f. “Eubouleus,” statue from Eleusis, 27 Eubulides (sculptor), 1, 15 Eukleides (sculptor), 15 Eumachia type, 20()f. Euphranor, statue of praying woman, 198 Eusebius, cited, 257 Euterpe, Muse, statue in Aphrodite type, 94 Evander, Avianus (sculptor and art dealer), 185 131f. Farnese Bull, 3f., 244 Farnese Flora, 3, 47, 244 Farnese Hercules, 3f., 244 Farnesina, Augustan house, 60 Faustina, wife of Antoninus, as large Her­ culaneum woman, 151, 221f.; venerated as Demeter, 106, 164, 166 Faustina, the younger, 65; in the guise of the small Herculaneum woman, 151, 221f. Felletti-Maj, B.M., 66 Flaccus, Lucius Valerius, 133; represented as a p a llia tu s, 186 Flamininus, Titus Quinctius, 183f. Flute player, by Lysippos, 60 Fortuna, statues of, 170 Frankel, Eduard, 4 Freyer, Brigitte, 43 Fuchs, Werner, 7, 110, 113 Funerary stelae; Hellenistic and Roman, 131; palliati and Pudicitiae on, 132-35; Roman lady represented as priestess of Ceres on, 170 Furii family, stele of, 132 Furtwängler, Adolf, If,, ll f ,; 86 quoted, 104

F a b u lu Palliata,

Gaius Caesar (grandson of Augustus); on Primaporta statue, 189; statue of, 43 Gaius, Verres, 185 Gallienus, 247 Gemma Augustea, 192, 194 Girl, from the Piraeus, 95. See a lso Alkibiades, helmet Girl, holding a dove, Roman copy, 123f. Giuliano, G., 152 Goethert, Friedrich, 129 “Goethe’s dancer,” showing arrangement of the himation, 121 Good Shepherd, 259. See a k a Christ, as the Good Shepherd Gorgasos, 167, 183 G ra eci p a llia ti. See Plautus Graeco-Roman art, 14f., 258 G r a n d Carnee d e F rance, 194, 199 G r a n d e H ercu la n a ise. See Herculaneum women Great altar of Zeus at Pergamon, 74f. Greek artists; influenced by their patrons, 187; main tasks, 17, 175, 185; in the service of the Romans, 23, 113f; 184f. Greek dress; in Archaic art, 20f.; in Classi­ cal art, 21, 94; copyists confused as to,

176; distinguished by color, 123; draped organically, 20; endless possibilities for draping, 139; in Hellenistic art, 123. See a lso Chiton, Himation, Mantle, Overfold Gull ini, G„ 110 Hadrian, statues of, 41, 208ff; dressed in Greek himation, 208; with Sabina, 43f, Hairstyles: daughters of Balbus, 150; Domitianic, 150, 203; empresses, Roman, 52; Flavian, 204; Hadrianic, 151; imitating Octavia and Livia, 132; Livia, 197, 199; Marciana, 206; Matidia, 165, 223; melon, of the Herculaneum women, 149; older Faustina, 166; Pop­ paea Sabina, 165, 207; Salonina, 251; Severan, 151f.; Trajanic, 133, 150, 165, 206, 223 Hamann, Richard, 7 Hanfmann, George, 133; quoted, 132 lla p lo is (single mantle), 104 Harrison, Evelyn, 2, 27 Hauser, F., 110 Hausmann, Ulrich, 165 H e a u to n tim o r u m e n o s (Terence), 131 H ecy ra (Terence), 131 Hegias (sculptor), 42, 195 Hekateion, 93 Ilekler, Anton, 2, 148, 152, 163, 167, 178 Helen, wife of Menelaos, 59 Helena, represented in the same pose as the Aphrodite in the Gardens, 96, 258 Hellenistic art: blending of Classical and contemporary styles, 182; complicated drapery, 123; influence on Etruscan and Roman art, 183; popularity of the Knidian Aphrodite, 93 Hera Barberini, 47f., 178 Hera Borghese, 48, 175, 178 Hera Campana, 170 Herculaneum women, 16; from Olympia, 196; head covered with himation, 120; mixture of large and small on Attic and Asiatic stelae, 152, 154f., 157; on sar­ cophagi, 246; originals and copies, 14857; type becomes more popular than Pudicitia, 132, 195 Hercules and Omphale, 66 Hermes bronze from Thalwil, 7, 41 Hermes, heads, 4 Hermes, statue on the Acropolis, 27 Henns, fifth century, 5, 27; Roman copies of Athena as, 92 Herodes Atticus, exedra at Olympia, 106, 196, 221; Herculaneum women from, 151 Hesperides. See Three-figure reliefs Heuzey, Léon, 10, 22 Hieronis, stele of; 152, 154 Himrtion, 15, 43; Classical arrangement, 43, Π8, 121; draping, 118-25, 153, popularity with Roman emperors, 139; worn in the Etrusco-Roman fashion, 186; wom without the chiton, 120 Horace, C arm en Saeculare: cited, 72; quoted, 188, 194

299

Hostilianus. See Battle sarcophagus Humboldt, Wilhelm von, 125 Hygieia, statues of, 49, 168, 170 Ionic art. See Aphrodite with chiton and mantle Jerome, cited, 175, 258 Johnson, Franklin P., 148 Julia, daughter of Augustus. See Ara Pacis Julia, daughter of Titus, statue in the Vatican, 122, 175, 203 Julia Domna (wife of Septimius Severus): in guise of priestess of Ceres, 166, 243; as a Muse, 243; represented as Juno in Leptis Magna, 243; statue in Cyrene, 244 Julia Maesa, 247; associated with Pudicitia, 133; coins of, 254 Julia Mamaea, statues of, 122,243. S e e a lso Hera Borghese Julian the Apostate, in the guise of a pa llia tu s, 135, 256 Julianus, in the guise of a p a llia tu s, 134 Julia Soaemias, 64, 224 Juno Caelestis. See Relief, in Carthage Jupiter Capitolinus, 34, 185 106f. Kalkmann, A., 22 Kallimachos (sculptor), 2, 93, 110, 113 Kekrops, 30 Kekule von Stradonitz, Reinhard, 1, 94 Kephisodotos (sculptor), 30, 33, 89, 104 Kephisodotos the younger, 72 Kleomenes (sculptor), 40, 72, 188 Kleopatra (wife of Dioskurides), 130 Korae of the Erechtheion, 6, 29f.; Au­ gustan copies, 30; copied as a Muse, 105; Hadrianic copies, 30; shoulder mantle, 105 Kore Albani, 121, 254 Kore of Florence, 196. See a lso Her­ culaneum women Kore (Persephone); forerunner of palliata type, 136, 164; myth of Kore and Deme­ ter, 156; small Herculaneum woman, 16, 149; wearing Classical shoulder mantle, 107; with Demeter and Triptolemos— see Eleusinian relief Kornelia, stele of, 131 Kouros, standing youth, 181 Kresilas (sculptor), 7, 12, 41, 122 Kritios Boy, original and copies, 27 Kriton and Nikolaos (sculptors), 91, 106. See also Maenad with head of caryatid

K a la th o i,

Langlotz, Ernst, 96 Lapitb women, 59 Lares, 78-80, 188, 191 Late Antique art 201, 242-62 Lauter, Hans, 6, 10 Lawrence, A. W., 152 Lawrence, Marion, 129, 155, 259 Leochares (sculptor), 71, 74

INDEX Leto, with Apollo and Artemis, 105; cop­ ies, in the Antonine period, 106 Leukios, Lucius Valerius (son of Lucius Valerius Flaccus), 133 Lippold, Georg, 3ff., 10, 28, 32, 44, 66, 88, 89,95, 124, 148, 163 Livia, wife of Augustus: bronze bust of, 197; dressed as a palliata, 136, 164; portrait statue, 168f.; represented sacri­ ficing, 198; venerated as m a te r p a tria e, 168 Livy, cited, 139, 167 Loewy, Emmanuel, 6 Loom, 118 L’Orange, Η. P., 135 Lucilla, sister of Commodus, statues of, 48, 222f. Lucius Caesar (grandson of Augustus), statue of, 43 Lucius Verus, son of Aelius Verus, 42, 219 Lucullus, Marcus and Lucius, 185 Luna, 72. See also Diana Lucifera Luxury, Roman love of, 17, 184 Lysippos (sculptor); flute player, 60; origi­ nal type for Herculaneum women at­ tributed to, 149; statue of Herakles plundered, 183

Matidia, portrait statues, 66, 164f„ 168, 223 Matz, Friedrich, 5 Medallions with busts, held by flying Cupids on sarcophagi, 135f. Meidias, stele of, 131 Meleager, on sarcophagi, 76, 247; statues of, 41 Melpomene, Muse, on sarcophagi, 250 Menander, stele of, 131 Menophantes (sculptor), 65 Menophila, stele of, 131 Mercury. See Hermes Messalina, statues of, 202 Metal industry, Etruscan, 16, 183 Mildenhall treasure, 62 Minerva. See Athena Morey, Charles, 129, 155 Moschion (tragic poet), 42 Mourning Athena. See Athena, shown “mourning” Munich, Bavarian Academy of Science, 3 Muse, dancing. See Terpsichore Muses: on Archelaos relief, 167; on sar­ cophagi, 249f. Muthmann, Fritz, 4f., 211 Myron (sculptor), 90 Myrrha, painting of, 33

Macedonicus, Quinctius Metellus, 183f. Macrinus, statue of, 243 Maenad; with head of caryatid, 91,106; on sarcophagus depicting triumph of Di­ onysus, 65; by Skopas, 60. See also Athena Lemnia Maenads; as classicizing Hellenistic crea­ tions, 113; in copies, 112f.; legs exposed, 176; on Neo-Attic reliefs, 60ff., 110-13; similar to Venus Genetrix, 110 Magistrates, wearing the Greek himation.

Nemesis, on altar, 46 Neo-Attic art, 60, 62, 109, 184f. Neo-Attic reliefs, 7. See also Maenads Neoplatonism. See Plotinus Nereids of Xanthos, 60 Nerva, statues of, 204 Netolizka, Ada von, 22 Nike balustrade, 30-31; copies, 31 Nike of Paionios, 60 Nile, personification of, 34 Niobe and children, .23 Niobid Chiarainonti, .32; copies, 32f. Niobid Nurse, 121 Noack, Ferdinand, 10, 90 Nudity, in Roman art, 44, 66; in the Antonine and Severan periods, 223 Numisius (architect, theater at Her­ culaneum), 148 Nymphs, 65

See P a llia ti

Mantle; addition of, 43; diaphanous, 123; differentiated from peplos, 106, 122; draping: for goddesses, 73, 106, 176; for men, 42; Hellenistic and Roman, 64f., 252; in the Flavian period, 203; drawn over head, 149, 197; general arrange­ ment, 73f. ; hand-held, 110; rounded Roman form, 42, 195; shoulder, 104-14. See also Himation Marcadé, Jean, 6 “Marcellus,” statue of, 42, 193.. S ee also Drusus Marciana, 66 Marciana (sister of Trajan), 66, 168f., 206; portrait statue, 165 Marcus Aurelius: on Arch of Constantine, 221; on horseback, 221; column, of, 220; Marriage scene. See D e x tr a ru m ju n c tio Married couples, on sarcophagi, 167, 246. See also Commodus, with Crispina; Hadrian, with Sabina Mars Juvenis, dancing, 80 Mars Ultor, S ee Mars Juvenis, dancing Mars and Venus. S ee Ares and Aphrodite

Oceanus. See Relief, in Carthage; Gemma Augustea Octavian. .See Augustus Oehler, Hans, 243 Ofellius Ferns, Cains, portrait statue of, 184, 186 Olympia, Temple of Zeus, 6, 14. See also Damophon of Messene Omphale, lady dressed as, 65, 224; with Hercules, 66 Orans, 251, 260. See a lso Euphranor Orators, prescribed dress for, 186. See also P a llia ti

Orestes, story of on sarcophagi, 216f. Original and copy, 27-34, 92; distinguish­ ing characteristics, 97

Overfold: distinction between short and long, 105; fifth-century style, 96; made long for young girls, 85; of the shoulder mantle, 104f.; with symmetrical edges, 90; triangular form, 43 Ovid: cited, 80; quoted, 23 Palla, 24, 118, 197; draped with triangular overfold, 201 P alliata, 132Γ; with palliatus on sar­ cophagi, 135-138; replaces Pudicitia type for portrait statues, 136; on stelae, 157 P alliati, 16, 129-40; combined with Her­ culaneum women, 157; in Late Antique and early Christian art, 259f.; men in Greek himation, 221; on sarcophagi, 246 P a llia li (men dressed in the Greek hima­ tion), 16, 129-140, 221; combined with Herculaneum women, 157; in Late An­ tique and early Christian art, 259f.; on sarcophagi, 135-37, 246; used alone, 134f.; used in statuary groups with Pudicitia, 133; with palliata on sar­ cophagi, 135-37. See also Funerary Stelae P a llia tu s. See Palliati Pallium, 23, 118, 131, 186, 208. See also Mantle Paludamentum, 23, 41 f-, 43, 203, 219, 220, 24.3, 256 Pasiteles (sculptor), 1, 187 Paterculus, Velleius, cited, 183 Paullus, Lucius Aemilius, 183f. Pausanias, cited, 33, 44, 74, 94, 110, 190, 208 Peliads. See Three-figure reliefs l’eloponnesian-Argive school, 12 Penthesilea, 63. See also Achilles and Penthesilea Peplos, 59f., 61, 88, 89; confusion with shoulder mantle, 107; on copies of Athena, 91; differentiation from mantle, 106, 122; draping, 84f.: for Artemis and Athena, 90; fusing with chiton, 92f.; opening transferred on copies, 176; tran­ sition to chiton with only a pouch, 169; without belt, 86; worn in Hellenistic manner by Terpsichore, 124 Peplos statue, showing arrangement of himation, 121 Pergamene-Asiatic school, 14 Pergamon, great altar of. See Great Altar of Zeus P e n m a tris (Hellenistic form of chiton), 123 Persephone. See Kore Persius, cited, 79, 80 P etasos, 3 P e tite lle r c u la n a is e . S e e Herculaneum women P haros, worn in Homeric period by women, 119; 123 Phidias, 5, 12, 14, 17, 90, 92, 93f., 95, 121, 181 f. Philathenarios (sculptor), 42, 195

INDEX Phlliskos (sculptor), 124. Sec a lso Archelaos of Priene; Terpsichore Philosophers, wearing the Greek himation. S ee P alliali

Phrygian cap, 3 Phryne, possible model for the Aphrodite, from Arles, 93 Physicians, wearing the Greek himation. S ee P alliali

Pisos, from Herculaneum, art collection of, 187 Plautus, 4; cited, 131, 138 Pliny, H istoria N a tu ra lis, cited, 10, 12, 71, 110, 167, 182, 183 Passim, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 260; quoted, 15, 33, 40 Plotina (wife of Trajan): portrait statue, 168f.; represented in Kore of Florence type, 206 Plotinus (philosopher), on sarcophagus, 250f. Plutarch, cited, 183, 184 Pointing process, 113, 135, 175, 177, 222, Polla Valeria, (daughter of Saufeia), stat­ uette of, 187 Polybias, cited, 184 Polyhymnia, Muse: arranging himation, 121 f.; on sarcophagi, 249f. Polykleitos, 6f„ 12, 17, 40, 41, 42, 181 Polykies (sculptor), 16, 184 Pompey: erection of first stone theater building, 185; portrait, 188 Pontios, rhyton. See Chiton, fusing with mantle Poppaea Sabina (wife of Nero), statue of, 196 P o rp h y r io n , quoted, 23 Porphyrins. See Plotinus Porticus of Octavia, Rome, 184 Portrait coins: Antoninus Pius, 108; Au­ gustus, 41, 108, 188; Faustina the older, 151; Helena, 96; Julia, daughter of Titus, 203; Julia Maesa, 133; Julia Paula, 152; Livia, 168; Poppaea Sabina, 202; Sabina, 47, 133; in Salonina, 152, 251; Trajan, 45 Portrait statues, 40ff.; demand for, 186; in Hadrianic period, 209; ladies as priest­ esses of Ceres, 204; of magistrate, 184; of Roman empresses, 164f„ 168; of seated Roman women, 96; in Trajanic period, 253; in types of Herculaneum women, 150f.; of women in Augustan and JulioClaudian periods, 195; of women in the type of Venus Capitoline, 209. Sec also Roman copies Portraiture, high point, 186; practice of combining portrait head with an ide­ alized statue, 184 Poulsen, Frederik, 152, 163 Praetextatus Catacomb, 43, 245f., 249, 252,254 Praxiteles, 17, 64f„ 71, 73, 89, 91, 93, 121, 149, 181 Praying Woman. See Euphranor; Orans Priestesses, Antonine, 223

Primaporta, statue of Augustus, 40, 42, 188f. Publia Maxima, funerary statue of, 244 P udicitia: on coins, 133; decline in popu­ larity, 195; on Roman stelae, 132, 157; type, 16, 129, 175; used for portrait statues, 139; used in statuary groups with palliatus, 133. See also Kornelia, Menophila Punic War, first, 183 Pythagoras, statue erected in the Com­ itium by Romans, 183. See also Alcibiades Quintilian, D e In s titu tio n e O ratoria, cited, 186; quoted, 137-38 passim Regilla (wife of Herodes Atticus), priestess of Demeter-Ceres, 106, 164, 221f. Reinach, Salomon, 6 Relief, in Carthage, 34, 194f. Reliefs, Neo-Attic, 7, 60 Reliefs, Roman historical, 17 Richardson, Emeline, 132 Richter, Gisela, 6, 10, 110, 113, 135 Rizzo, G. E., 110 Rodenwaldt, Gerhart, 4, 32 doma, 73 Roman art: decoration of public buildings, 184; eclecticism, 3, 15f., 17, 66, 91, 185, 244, 251; Greek works, buying of, 185; most perfect statue, 201, 222; popularity of Knidian Aphrodite, 93; representation of mythological scenes, 216; symmetry and decorative arrangement in, 60f., 75f., 79f„ 92f„ 152, 176, 186. See also Roman copies; of Classical statues, 123; of Herculaneum women, 153; mistakes and mannerisms, 174-78; secondary, 112; in tire Hellenistic period, 182-84; in the first century b.c., 184-87; in the Augrrstan period, 48, 188-200; in the JulioClaudian period, 94, 96, 194-202; in the Neronian period, 201 f.; in the Flavian period, 150, 202M; in the Trajanic per­ iod, 125, 150, 165, 204-06; in the Hadrianic period, 125, 150, 206-15; in the Antonine period, 48, 94, 124, 151, 215-24, 253; in the Severan period, 24244; in the third century a . o . , 244-54; in the fourth century a.d., 254-57 R o m a n i p a llia ti. See P alliati

Rome: annexation of Hellenistic kingdoms by, 183; decoration of public places with plundered Greek art treasures, 184; Etruscan artists in, 182; Greek artists in, 183f. Rufiis, Gaius Vibius (sculptor), 30 Sabina (wife of Hadrian); associated with Pudicitia on reverse of her coins, 133; in the guise of Venus Genetrix, 207; por­ trait statue, 207; represented as priestess

301

of Ceres, 165, 207; as small Her­ culaneum woman, 207. See a lso Hadrian Sabine w o m e n , on frieze of Basilica Aemilia, 60 S a g u m (soldier’s mantle), 23, 205 Sallustia (wife of Severus Alexander), 65, 223f. Salpion (vase painter), 60 Salus. See Hygieia Samnite wars, 183 "Sappho,” 96. See also Kore Albani Sarcophagi: in Antonine period, 217f.; Christian, 6 3 ,136f., 155f., 245, 251,258; emphasis on central composition, 254.; emphasis on deceased, 250; garland, 216; Niobid, 217f.; Roman, 61f„ 138; Sidamara type, 65, 129, 135; in third century, 244-51 Saufeia (daughter-in-law of Lucius Val­ erius Flaccus), represented as Pudicitia, 133, 187 Scaurus, Marcus, theater of, 185f. Schmidt, Dorothea, 153 Schmidt, Eduard, 2 Schmidt, Evamaria, 6, 96 Schober, Arnold, 6 Schrader, Hans, 90, 94 Schuchhardt, Walter-Herwig, 7, 10 Script. H ist. A u g ., cited, 139 passim Selvage, 118f., 122; characteristic of care­ ful copy or original, 91 Septimius Severus: Arch of, in Rome, 243; represented as Jupiter, 243; statues of, 242 Severus Alexander, statue of, 42, 243, 252f. Seyrig. Henry, 133, 136 Sieveking, Johannes, 4, 124 Sign« q u a d ra ta (figures), 12 Silenus, 30 S in u s (overfold of toga), 139, 191, 202 Sketchbooks, used in making copies, 76, 175f. Skopas, 60 Sleeping Ariadne, from Villa of Hadrian, 213 Sleeping women, on lids of Roman sar­ cophagi, 245f. Smyrna, stele of, 152 “Sophokles” type, 15, 129, 186; statues from the late Classical period, 130. See also Sarcophagi, Sidamara type Sosibios, amphora. See Chiton, fusing with mantle Spalato, palace of Diocletian, 3 Spartianus, cited, 211 Stelae. See Funerary stelae Stephanos, (sculptor), athlete, 17; pupil of Fasiteles, 187 Stola (dress for matrons), 23f„ 178; re­ places the Classical peplos and Hellenis­ tic peronatris, 175 Stolos, stele of, 157 Strong, Eugénie, 4, 201 Strzygowski, Joseph, 129 Studniczka, Franz, 10, 22

INDEX Suetonius, cited, 139, 190,192, 199 Sulla, Lucius Cornelius, 185 Suppliant Barberini, copies, 28b; original, 28 Tacitus, cited 168,175,190,193, 202 Tanagra figurines, heads covered with himatia, 120 Tarpeia, 60 Tellus relief. See Gemma Augustea; Relief in Carthage Terence, 131 Terpsichore, Muse of Dance: in adaptation of Venus Capua type with added tunic, 45; on relief of Archelaos of Priene and in statues, 124f,, 164 Tertullian, D e PaUto: cited, 136; quoted, 131f„ 140 Tetrarchs, porphyry statues of, 255 Thalia, Muse of Comedy, 123 Three-figure reliefs, 21f. Thutines (Etruscan artist), 186 Tiberius; art in his period, 60; on Gemma Augustea, 192; seated statue, 194 Timarchides (sculptor), 64, 96,184 Timarchides II (sculptor), 1,16,184 Timomachos, 14, 32 Timotheus (sculptor), 95, 185 Titus, statue of, 202f. Tivoli (villa of Hadrian), korae from, 29f; sculpture from, 210-15 Toga, 186; in Antonine period, 221; under Augustus, 188,191, 253 T ogp c o n ta b u la ta , 248, 253, 256,258 T oga exig u a , 16, 129b, 134 T oga p ic ta , 221, 253 T o g a tu s, 15,193,257, S e e a lso “Sophokles” type. T o g a virilis, 79 Tomb monuments. S ee Funerary stelae Tomb reliefs. See Funerary stelae

Toynbee, Jocelyn, 216 Trajan, statues of: in cuirass and paluda­ mentum, 205; represented nude as a seated Jupiter, 66 Traversali, Gustavo, 7f., 148 Trebonianus Callus, bronze statue of, 252f. Tribon (mantle worn by philosophers), 120 Tsontchev, Dimitri, 148 Tunic, with sleeves, 23, 63; without sleeves, 45. See also Dalmatica U m bo

(knot before the breast on toga), 139

Van Deman, Esther Boisie, 148 Varro, Marcus Terentius (author, books on portraits), 187 Varvakeion statuette, copy of Athena Par­ thenos, 91 Venus and Mars. See Ares and Aphrodite, represented together Venus, Capitoline, 66 Venus of Capua, 43-45, 224 Venus Genetrix, 46f„ 93, 110, 176, 223 Venus Marina, statues of, with chiton added, 49f„ 176 Venus de Milo, 1, 46 Verres, Gaius, 185 Vessberg, Olof, 183 Vestal Virgins, from the Atrium Vestae, 122,153,169; in guise of large and small Herculaneum women, 244 Vibullia Alcia (mother of Herodes Atticus), in the guise of the large Herculaneum woman, 151, 222 Viciria (wife of Nonius Balbus), dressed as a p a llia ta , 136, 150, 164, 195; daughter in guise of small Herculaneum woman, 150 Victories: on Arch of Titus, Trajan the Severi, and Constantine, 61; Hellenistic terracottas, 60; from house of the Far­

302

nesina, 60; legs exposed, 176; sacrificing a bull, 62; on sarcophagi, 61,63 Victory, from Brescia, 45; type also found on Column of Trajan, Column of Marcus Aurelius, and Arch of Constantine, 45 Victory from Myrina, 60 Virgin Mary, in guise of priestess of Ceres, 167; represented like the large Her­ culaneum woman, 136; presentation scene on mosaic, 259 Virgil, quoted, 189b Vitruvius, cited, 110 Virtus: accompanying the emperor, 73; in scene of lion hunting on sarcophagi, 247 Vogel, Hugo, 134 Volsinii (Etruscan city plundered by Ro­ mans), 183 Wall paintings, Greek and Roman ele­ ments, 13f. Warren, Larissa, 132 Weapons, added to statues of Minerva, 176 Weber, H., 152 Wegner, M., 223 Weights, used in Greek dress to make good folds, 91, 153, 169 Weitzmann, Kurt, 49 West, Robert, 129 Wife of Balbinus, on his sarcophagus, 254 Wilpert, J., 155 Wilson, F., Lillian, 22 Winckelmann, Johann Joachim, 1 W inter, F., 110 Wolters, P., cited, 163; quoted, 104 Youth of Eretria, 1, 16, 130, 136, 186 Zenon of Aphrodisias (sculptor), 42 Zeus, arrangement of himation on statues, 120; heads, 4. S e e also Dresden Zeus