The Art of Praxiteles IV : The Late Phase of His Activity [1 ed.] 9788891302892, 9788891302915

Citation preview

A. CORSO THE ART OF PRAXITELES IV

The Art of Praxiteles iv The Late Phase of his Activity

The Art of Praxiteles iv The Late Phase of his Activity

Antonio Corso attended his curriculum of studies in classics and archaeology in Padua, Athens, Frankfurt and London. He published more than 100 scientific essays (articles and books) in well refereed periodicals and series of books. The most important areas covered by his studies are the ancient art criticism and the knowledge of classical Greek artists. In particular he collected in three books all the written testimonia on Praxiteles and in other three books he reconstructed the career of this sculptor from around 375 to around 355 BC. He also delivered many lectures and papers in conferences in several academic institutions of Europe. He was awarded the honours of senior research fellow by the British Academy, the King’s College of London, the Institute for Advanced Study of Budapest, the Onassis Foundation of Athens, etc. From 2011 he collaborates with the Centre of Vitruvian Studies.

190

SEAT OF THE WORLD

ANTONIO CORSO

The Palatine of Ancient Rome

ANTONIO CORSO

The book is focused on the late production of the 4th c. BC Athenian sculptor Praxiteles and in particular on his oeuvre from around 355 to around 340 BC. The most important works of this master considered in this essay are his sculptures for the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, the Apollo Sauroctonus, the Eros of Parium, the Artemis Brauronia, Peitho and Paregoros, his Aphrodite from Corinth, the group of Apollo and Poseidon, the Apollinean triad of Mantinea, the Dionysus of Elis, the Hermes of Olympia and the Aphrodite Pseliumene. Complete lists of ancient copies and variations derived from the masterpieces studied here are also provided. The creation by the artist of an art of pleasure and his visual definition of a remote and mythical Arcadia of beautiful and gentle tales are discovered and followed through their development.

ISBN 978-88-913-0291-5

«L’ERMA»

«L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER

STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA 190

S T U D I A A R C H A E O L O G I C A 190 1 -  De Marinis, S. 2 -  Baroni, F. 3 -  Laurenzi, L. 4 -  Giuliano, A. 5 -  Nocentini, S. 6 -  Giuliano, A. 7 -  Ferrari, G. 8 -  Breglia, L. 9 -  Lattanzi, E. 10 -  Saletti, C. 11 -  Blank, H. 12 -  Canciani, F. 13 -  Conti, G. 14 -  Sprenger, M. 15 -  Polaschek, K. 16 -  Fabbricotti, E. 17 -  Polaschek, K. 18 -  Pensa, M. 19 -  Costa, P. M. 20 -  Perrone, M. 21 -  Mansuelli, G. A. (a cura di) 22 -  Fayer, C. 23 -  Olbrich, G. 24 -  Papadopoulos, J. 25 -  Vecchi, M. 26 -  Manacorda, D. 27 -  Mansuelli, G. A. (a cura di) 28 -  Rowland, J. J. 29 -  Romeo, P. 30 -  Romeo, P. 31 -  Macnamara, E. 32 -  Stucchi, S. 33 -  Zuffa, M. 34 -  Vecchi, M. 35 -  Salza Prina Ricotti, E. 36 -  Gilotta, F. 37 -  Becatti, G. 38 -  Fabrini, G. M. 39 -  Buonocore, M. 40 -  Fuchs, M. 41 -  Buranelli, F. 42 -  Piccarreta, F. 43 -  Liverani, P. 44 -  Strazzulla, M. J. 45 -  Franzoni, C. 46 -  Scarpellini, D. 47 -  D’Alessandro, L., Persegati, F. 48 -  Milanese, M. 49 - Scatozza Höricht, L. A.

- - - - - - - - - - -

La tipologia del banchetto nell’arte etrusca arcaica, 1961. Osservazioni sul «Trono di Boston», 1961. Umanità di Fidia, 1961. Il commercio dei sarcofagi attici, 1962. Sculture greche, etrusche e romane nel Museo Bardini in Firenze, 1965. La cultura artistica delle province greche in età romana, 1965. Il commercio dei sarcofagi asiatici, 1966. Le antiche rotte del Mediterraneo documentate da mo­ne­te e pesi, 1966. I ritratti dei «cosmeti» nel Museo Nazionale di Atene, 1968. Ritratti severiani, 1967. Wiederverwendung alter Statuen als Ehrendenkmäler bei Griechen und Römern, 2a Ed. riv. ed. ill., 1969. - Bronzi orientali ed orientalizzanti a Creta nell’viii e vii sec. a.C., 1970. - Decorazione architettonica della «Piazza d’oro» a Villa Adriana, 1970. -  Die Etruskische Plastik des v Jahrhunderts v. Chr. und ihr Verhältnis zur griechischen Kunst, 1972. -  Studien zur Ikonographie der Antonia Minor, 1973. - Galba, 1976. - Porträttypen einer Claudischen Kaiserin, 1973. - Rappresentazioni dell’oltretomba nella ceramica apula, 1977. - The pre-Islamic Antiquities at the Yemen National Mu­seum, 1978. - Ancorae Antiquae. Per una cronologia preliminare delle ancore del Mediterraneo, 1979. - Studi sull’arco onorario romano, 1979. - Aspetti di vita quotidiana nella Roma arcaica, 1982. - Archaische Statuetten eines Metapontiner Heiligtums, 1979. - Xoana e Sphyrelata. Testimonianze delle fonti scritte, 1980. - Torcello. Ricerche e Contributi, 1979. - Un’officina lapidaria sulla via Appia, 1979. - Studi sulla città antica. Emilia Romagna, 1983. - Ritrovamenti romani in Sardegna, 1981. - Riunificazione del centro di Roma antica, 1979. - Salvaguardia delle zone archeologiche e problemi viari nelle città, 1979. - Vita quotidiana degli Etruschi, 1982. - Il gruppo bronzeo tiberiano da Cartoceto, 1988. - Scritti di archeologia, 1982. - Torcello. Nuove ricerche, 1982. - L’arte del convito nella Roma antica, 1983. - Gutti e askoi a rilievo italioti ed etruschi, 1984. - Kosmos. Studi sul mondo classico, 1987. - Numana: vasi attici da collezione, 1984. - Schiavi e liberti dei Volusii Saturnini. Le iscrizioni del colombario sulla via Appia antica, 1984. - Il Teatro romano di Fiesole. Corpus delle sculture, 1986. - L’urna «Calabresi» di Cerveteri. Monumenti, Musei e Gallerie Pontificie, 1985. - Manuale di fotografia aerea: uso archeologico, 1987. - Municipium Augustum Veiens. Veio in età imperiale at­traverso gli scavi Giorgi (1811-13), 1987. - Le terrecotte architettoniche della Venetia romana. Contributo allo studio della produzione fittile nella Ci­salpina, 1987. - Habitus atque habitudo militis. Monumenti funerari di militari nella Cisalpina romana, 1987. - Stele romane con imagines clipeatae in Italia, 1986. - Scultura e calchi in gesso. Storia, tecnica e con­servazione, 1987. - Gli scavi dell’oppidum preromano di Genova, 1987. - Le terrecotte figurate di Cuma del Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli, 1987. continued to pag. 258

Antonio Corso

The Art of Praxiteles IV The Late Phase of his Activity

«L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER

Antonio Corso The Art of Praxiteles Iv The Late Phase of his Activity isbn 978-88-913-0291-5 BROSSURA isbn 978-88-913-0289-2 PDF © Copyright 2013 «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER Via Cassiodoro, 11 - 00193 Roma http://www.lerma.it Progetto grafico: «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER Tutti i diritti risevati. è vietata la riproduzione di testi e illustrazioni senza il permesso scritto dell’Editore. On Cover: Hermes of Praxiteles, painting by L. Otto, Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Skulpturensammlung

Corso, Antonio The art of Praxiteles, IV : The Late Phase of his Activity / Antonio Corso. - Roma : «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER, 2013. - 262 p. : ill. ; 24 cm. - (Studia archaeologica ; 190) CDD 733.3 1. Prassitele

to Hector Catling, in memoriam

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Michael Marks Charitable Trust contributed a grant toward the completion of this book. Thanks are due to Lady Marina Marks, the head of the Trust, as well as to Prof. Angelos Delivorrias, the Director of the Benaki Museum, who accepted that this grant is channeled through his Museum. Moreover the Cleveland Museum of Art instituted another grant which allowed me to study in detail the bronze statue of Apollo Sauroctonus kept there. I am very thankful to Dr. Michael Bennett who gave me this essential opportunity. I gave lectures on issues debated in this book in June, 2010 on Paros, in the context of the congress on Skopas, and at Sankt Petersburg, in November, 2010 again on Paros in the premises of the Aegean Center, in October, 2011 and November, 2012 in the context of the Vitruvian conferences held in Fano and finally in December, 2012, at Thessaloniki, in the conference on Hellenistic pottery. I am thankful to Prof. Theodora Katsonopoulou, Prof. Nikolaj Kazansky, Prof. John Pack, Prof. Paolo Clini and Prof. Stella Drougou who gave me the opportunity to take part to these important events. I discussed many problems considered in this book with several scholars who are warmly thanked: G. Alevras, E. Angelicoussis, A. Anguissola, V. Barlou, B. Barr Sharrar, A. Bignasca, A. Bravi, J. Carlson, G. A. Cellini, J. Curbera, G. Despinis, R. Di Cesare, A. Doronzio, S. Dreni, L. Faedo, E. Ghisellini, P. Gros, F. Iatridou, L. Kelperi, M. Kluge, G. Ladstaetter, M. Lefantzis, O. Levinskaja, M. E. Micheli, V. Mitsopoulos Leon, P. Moreno, A. Moustaka, P. Mpoughia, A. Nagy, A. Oehnesorg, E. Oestby, M. Osanna, K. Peppas Delmouzou, M. G. Picozzi, F. Rausa, D. Schilardi, P. Schultz, K. Seaman, S. Settis, R. R. R. Smith, N. Spivey, N. Stampolidis, T. Stefanidou, A. Stewart, J. Stroszeck, A. Surtees, P. Themelis, M. Tiverios, I. Touratsoglou, I. Triandi, A. Trofimova, E. Vikela, H. Walda, E. Walter Karydi, J. Whitley and C. Wolf. ANTONIO CORSO Athens, 4 April, 2013

SUMMARY

Seventh CHAPTER From around 355 to around 350 BC.......................................................................................................................................... p. 11

35. Praxiteles’ statues set up in the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus....................................................................... » 11



36. The Apollo Sauroctonus.............................................................................................................................................. » 22



37. The Eros of Parium......................................................................................................................................................... » 65



38. The statue of Artemis Brauronia .............................................................................................................................. » 75



40. The statues of Peitho and Paregoros in the temple of Aphrodite Praxis at Megara.............................. » 84

39. The Satyr in Parian marble in the sanctuary of Dionysos at Megara........................................................... » 83

Notes ............................................................................................................................................................................................ » 88 Eighth Chapter From around 350 to around 345 BC.......................................................................................................................................... » 119

41 and 42. Two bronze iconic statues set up on the Acropolis of Athens........................................................... » 119



43. The statue of Archippe................................................................................................................................................. » 120



44. The statue of Ibycus...................................................................................................................................................... » 120



45. Two bronze statues brought to Pergamum......................................................................................................... » 122



46. The statue set up in the agora of Olbia Pontica.................................................................................................. » 124



47. The bronze Aphrodite.................................................................................................................................................. » 126

Notes ............................................................................................................................................................................................ » 131

Nineth Chapter From the year 345 to the year 340 BC....................................................................................................................................... » 135

48. The marble statues of Apollo and Poseidon........................................................................................................ » 135



49. The Apollinean triad at Mantinea............................................................................................................................. » 142



50. The Triad of Athena, Hera and Hebe....................................................................................................................... » 147



51. The marble statue of Dionysus set up in the sanctuary of this god at Elis................................................ » 159



52. The marble group of Hermes carrying the baby Dionysus............................................................................. » 165



53. Praxiteles’ Aphrodite made for Sparta, perhaps to be identified with the Pseliumene........................ » 172



54. The statue of Tyche set up in the sanctuary of this goddess in Megara.................................................... » 185



55. The labours of Heracles in the pediments of the temple of Heracles in Thebes..................................... » 199

Notes ............................................................................................................................................................................................ » 206 A. General Index................................................................................................................................................................................ » 233 B. Index of Written Sources .......................................................................................................................................................... » 251 C. Museographic Index................................................................................................................................................................... » 255

SEVENTH CHAPTER From around 355 to around 350 BC

We have seen that Praxiteles’ authority and fame in the satrapy of Caria, ruled by Mausolus, became established already in the late 360s, when our sculptor carved the Cnidian Aphrodite and this statue was set up in the sanctuary of Aphrodite Euploia at Cnidus: in fact this town was included in the satrapy of Mausolus.1 This fact explains why Praxiteles was probably invited to contribute marble statues to the Mausoleum – or tomb of the satrap Mausolus – set up at Halicarnassus.

35. Praxiteles’ statues set up in the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus Mausolus must have decided to set up his monumental tomb, named after him Mausoleum, in the centre of his newly built capital – Halicarnassus – towards the last years of his life: he died in 353.2 After his death, some writers who were renowned in the oratory, which at the time was in fashion (Theopompus, Theodectes, Naucrates and less certainly Isocrates), went to the Hecatomnid court at Halicarnassus and took part in the competition held in the capital of Caria in order to deliver the most convincing funerary oration on the death of Mausolus: the agon was won by Theopompus.3 Poets had also been invited on the same occasion.4 After the death of this satrap, the Mausoleum was continued by his wife and successor Artemisia (353351 BC) and finished after her death,5 thus during the rule of Idrieus (351-344 BC).

The shape of the building is known only generically thanks to the detailed description of the monument given by Pliny 36. 30-31, as well as to surviving elements of the tomb. The Mausoleum was composed of a rectangular podium containing the tomb of the satrap, above which there was a temple like structure provided with a peristasis, which was topped by a pyramidal roof, made of steps and supporting a marble quadriga (fig. 1). The architects who had been responsible of the Mausoleum were Satyrus and Pytheus who also wrote a treatise “About the Mausoleum”.6 Satyrus was a Parian and is known also thanks to his signature on the base of bronze statues of Idrieus and Ada offered by the Milesians to Apollo Pythius at Delphi.7 Thus he was both architect and bronze sculptor, closely linked to the Hecatomnid court and worked for Ionian patrons.8 Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

11

Fig. 1. The Mausoleum of Halicarnassus according to the hypothetic reconstruction of Waywell.

12

Antonio Corso

Pytheus was an Ionian architect who after the Mausoleum became the responsible architect of the temple of Athena at Priene:9 he wrote a treatise also about this temple.10 Moreover probably he was the sculptor of the quadriga on top of the monument.11 The general concept of the architecture was rooted in the building tradition of Asia Minor: the emphasis given to the tomb of the dynast and its conception as a vertical succession, from bottom to top, of podium with the real tomb and temple-like structure with a peristasis was also not unknown to the early 4th c. architectural experience of this region, especially of Lycia.12

However the novelty of this monument consisted in its unusually great dimensions, probably in the rational, homogeneous and modular design of the architectural complex,13 which transformed it into a typically Ionian creation, as well as in its extremely lavish sculptural decoration. In fact, both Vitruvius 2. 8. 11 and 7. praefatio 12-13 and Pliny 36. 30-31 insist that the high quality of the sculptures was the most salient feature of the building. There were both free standing statues14 and reliefs.15 The sets of free standing statues consisted of: a. the chariot group on top of the building; b. the lions, probably set up on the lowest step of the pyramidal roof; c. colossal standing figures. These statues are divided among: 1. dynastic portraits; 2. a sacrificial group, and 3. a hunting group. d. Heroic standing figures: probably both gods and human draped figures. e. Life–size statues: probably fighting groups.16 The placement of these series in the building is a vexata quaestio. Certainly colossal figures – probably dynastic portraits – stood in the inter-columns of the peristasis, in continuity with the previous adoption of the same display in the Nereids’ monument at Xanthus in Lycia around 375 BC.17 The architectural sculpture consisted of: a. a frieze with an Amazonomachy; b. a frieze with a Centauromachy; c. carved coffers; d. a chariot frieze. Vitruvius and Pliny provide lists of sculptors who were responsible for the sculptures of the Mausoleum.

Vitruvius 7. praefatio 12-13 gives the following account: “Satyrus and Pytheus published a book on the Mausoleum. And on these last, good fortune conferred the greatest and highest boon. For their works are adjudged to have a merit which is famous throughout the ages and of unfading freshness and they employed distinguished artists on their undertakings. For on the single sides, different rival artists took their share in decorations wherein they competed: Leochares, Bryaxis, Scopas, Praxiteles, and some add Timotheus. The outstanding excellence of their work caused the fame of the Mausoleum to be included in the seven wonders of the world” (transl. Loeb with amendments). The Roman writer on architecture specifies that he depends on the treatise written by Satyrus and Pytheus on the Mausoleum. Treatises of architects of archaic and classical periods about buildings designed by them probably provided an analytic description of the main features of these monuments, technical details, a justification of the budget used on purpose and names of craftsmen and artists employed: these treatises may have been addressed first of all to the patrons or authorities who hired them. However, since they survived until the age of Vitruvius and came to be known by him, probably these books targeted also a broader public and copies of them were kept at the time of this writer at least in a library of Rome.18 Thus Vitruvius’ information taken from this treatise is reliable because it is hardly believable that Satyrus and Pytheus could convey inaccurate data to their patrons (Mausolus, Artemisia and Idrieus) and to their public. The writer informs that each side was given out - probably on contract – to a renowned artist. The works of these artists aimed at two goals:

1. ad ornandum: probably this expression means the beautifying activity undertaken by each artist on his own side;19 2. ad probandum: this specification may refer to the circumstance that their works won the general approval for the monument.20 Then Vitruvius mentions the artists who worked on the single sides. These artists are four, thus corresponding to the four sides of the monument. They are Leochares, Bryaxis, Scopas and Praxiteles. A fifth artist is mentioned: Timotheus. Since all of these five artists were sculptors, thus their activity on the sides of the monument must have consisted of making sculptures to be set up on the building. Leochares was an Athenian master beloved by Plato.21 Mausolus was subjected to the influence of the philosopher Eudoxus of Cnidus, a former pupil of Plato.22 Thus it is hardly surprising that a sculptor who was close to the Platonic environment was hired for the Mausoleum. The same sculptor was also asked a colossal acrolithic statue of Ares for the sanctuary of this god in the same Halicarnassus.23 Of course this detail confirms that he worked for the Hecatomnids. Bryaxis was also a sculptor: his name has been thought to reveal that he was of Carian descent, although he was an Athenian:24 he carved a marble Dionysus set up on Cnidus25 - a city which was under the Hecatomnid rule – and moreover he made statues of gods also for Rhodes26 which also became a Hecatomnid possession,27 and of Zeus and Apollo for the Lycian city of Patara.28 Thus his activity for Halicarnassus fits his strong links with patrons of south-western Asia Minor quite well. Scopas was Parian as Satyrus, thus it is not impossible that it was Satyrus who invited his fellow countryman. MoreoSeventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

13

ver around 355 he was probably already rather well established because very likely he had already carved his Hestia for the Pritaneum of Parus.29 Finally Scopas also worked for Cnidus, where his statues of Athena and Dionysus had been set up,30 as well as for other important monuments of Asia Minor.31 His link with the Hecatomnid dynasty is argued also by the fact that Scopas, after the completion of the Mausoleum – at around 345 BC - designed the temple of Athena Alea at Tegea in eastern Arcadia32 and that a relief representing the Carian rulers Ada and Idrieus has been found at Tegea,33 perhaps dedicated by Carian craftsmen who moved from Halicarnassus to Tegea in order to build the new temple:34 thus it is possible that the Scopas’ temple was achieved with the support of the satrap of Caria, Idrieus. Finally the collaboration of Praxiteles to the enterprise of the Mausoleum does not need a justification: towards 350 BC our sculptor was famous and in particular the setting of the Cnidian Aphrodite at Cnidus must have established his positive fame in Caria in the fields of marble sculpture and of young female statues. The first four masters mentioned by Vitruvius must be related to the most important sculptures which adorned the monumental tomb, i. e. to the free standing statues. The name of Timotheus is added to the series of the four masters related to the four sides of the building: towards the middle of the 4th c. he must have been in the late phase of his activity.35 The presence of his works at Halicarnassus is confirmed by the information, handed down by Vitruvius 2. 8. 11, that he may have worked on the colossal acrolithic statue of Ares set up in the sanctuary of this god at Halicarnassus.

14

Antonio Corso

Since his fame was mainly due to his acroteries and typoi carved around 375 BC for the temple of Asclepius near Epidaurus36, it is likely that he was hired because of his specialization in the specific field of architectural sculpture. Pliny 36. 30-31 is more detailed about the carving of Mausoleum sculptures by famous masters: “The contemporaries and rivals of Scopas were Bryaxis, Timotheus and Leochares, whom we must discuss along with him because together with him they worked on the carvings (caelavere) of the Mausoleum. This is the tomb that was built by Artemisia for her husband Mausolus, the viceroy of Caria, who died in the second year of the 107th Olympiad. These artists were chiefly responsible for making the structure one of the seven wonders of the world. On the north and south sides it extends for 63 feet, but the length of the facades is less, the total length of the facades and sides being 440 feet. The building rises to a height of 25 cubits and is enclosed by 36 columns. The Greek word for the surrounding colonnade is ‘pteron’, ‘a wing’. The east side was carved (caelavit) by Scopas, the north by Bryaxis, the south by Timotheus and the west by Leochares; and before they completed their task, the queen died. However, they refused to abandon the work without finishing it, since they were already of the opinion that it would be a memorial to their own glory and that of their profession; and even today they are considered to rival each other in skill. With them was associated a fifth artist. For above the colonnade there is a pyramid as high as the lower structure and tapering in 24 stages to the top of its peak. At the summit there is a four-horse chariot of marble, and this is made by Pythis. The addition of this chariot rounds off the whole work and brings it to a height of 140 feet” (transl. Loeb).

This passage of Pliny lends support to the fact that Scopas, Bryaxis, Timotheus and Leochares, competed each other in order to carve the sculptures of the Mausoleum. From his exposition it appears clearly that Scopas was regarded the most important of the four masters. In fact he carved the eastern side, which of course was the privileged one – the “front” of the tomb – looking towards the palace of the satrap. The second most important side was probably the southern one, which could be admired from the sea: probably not by chance it was given to the second most important sculptor of the four mentioned by Pliny: Timotheus, who was already well established because of his activity at Epidaurus. The third side in order of importance was probably the western one, which could be seen from the boats entering the harbour: it was given to Leochares, already appreciated by Plato. The less important side was the northern one, looking towards the upper part of the city, and was assigned to Bryaxis: perhaps this sculptor was not yet well established. Pliny determined the activity of these sculptors with the verb caelo, used twice. This verb is more appropriate to the reliefs of the building than to the free standing sculpture.37 The context in which this verb is used also lends support to this interpretation: in fact Pliny 36. 30 specified that the four sculptors “carved” (caelavere) the Mausoleum - i. e. the building itself – not statues to be set up on the building. In 36. 31 he details that the four sculptors “carved” (caelavit) from east, north, south and west: of course the understood object of the verb is again the Mausoleum. This phrase conveys the image of the sculptor who carves the building directly from one side, not of the sculptor who carves statues which will be erected on the building. The conclusion

of this reasoning is that it seems clear that Pliny with his report informs about the sculptors who made the reliefs on the Mausoleum. Thus the problem arises about the writers who are the sources of this section of Pliny’s encyclopedia: he does not use Satyrus’ and Pytheus’ treatise because he does not mention it in the bibliography used for the 36th book, given in his first book. Among the writers included in this bibliography, good candidates to have been used by Pliny for his information about the Mausoleum are Duris, Pasiteles, Varro and Mucianus: it is difficult to choose among them. There is another question which arises: why Pliny mentions the less important reliefs of the building and not the most praised free standing statues? Were the latter damaged by the fire and the sack of the city caused by Alexander the Great in 334 or plundered by Verres in 80-79 BC or by the pirates in 62-58 BC?38 The circumstance that the excavations on the site led to the recovery of very few statues or fragments of them pertaining to the Mausoleum would lend support to this hypothesis.39 In any case, the combination of the testimonies of Vitruvius and Pliny leads to the conclusion that Scopas, Leochares and Bryaxis made both statues and reliefs, Timotheus especially reliefs and perhaps also statues, Praxiteles only statues. It is likely that the specialization of Praxiteles’ workshop in carving statues led to the request by Satyrus and Pytheus to this atelier only of free standing sculptures. Prior to examining the surviving sculptures of the Mausoleum in search for evidence of the styles of the masters mentioned by the two Latin writers, it is necessary to point out two observations: 1. During the late classical times, some of the best established Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

15

workshops began producing works at an industrial pace: of course not any work made in these ateliers was by the hands of the main masters, but often assistants did much of these products, while in other cases not all their parts were properly finished. For example Praxiteles in the late phase of his production used to leave unfinished parts of statues which were destined not to be visible.40 Lysippus is known to have made 1500 works.41 Of course a lot of them must have been made not by himself but by his assistants. Finally the painter Nicomachus invented a particularly fast painting technique: the so called pictura compendiaria.42 Of course his fast technique was exactly what was needed by the contemporary increasingly industrial pace of production of works of art. He trained in the art of painting Philoxenus of Eretria, who continued the research of his master by devising an even faster painting technique which of course met the never ending demands for paintings of the new royal courts.43 Thus the fact that sculptures set up in the Mausoleum were delivered by the workshops of the above mentioned sculptors does not necessarily mean that they were all made by the hands of these famous masters: these sculptors may have sent their assistants to carve them! 2.  Specifically concerning the reliefs of the Mausoleum, it is necessary to underline that during the classical period the most important masters used not to carve architectural sculptures with their own hands but made small size models which were

16

Antonio Corso

transformed by assistants into the real sculpture. For example Schweitzer demonstrated that Phidias made the models of the Parthenon sculptures. Nevertheless several sculptors used these models in order to carve the sculptures of the metopes, of the frieze and of the pediments.44 Equally Timotheus is recorded to have made the typoi for the temple of Asclepius at Epidaurus:45 although the meaning of this technical word is controversial,46 its interpretation as model is the most probable because it is in keeping with the most widespread meanings of the word in late classical times.47 Thus Timotheus would have delivered the small size models of the architectural sculptures of the Asclepius’ temple at Epidaurus and other less famous craftsmen would have used these models as basis for their sculptures set up on the temple. By analogy we can suppose that Scopas, Timotheus, Bryaxis and Leochares carved the models of the friezes of the Mausoleum and that large workshops of Ionian craftsmen took inspiration from these models in order to carve the reliefs. This suggestion would explain: α. the homogeneous style of the Mausoleum’s reliefs, which implies their actual carving by workshops sharing style and rendering technique48; and β. the circumstance that nevertheless stylistic patterns of the four masters can be detected on these slabs.49 Concerning the free standing statues of the Mausoleum, the following materials may be attributed to the workshops of the masters mentioned by Vitruvius. The male bearded head at London, The British Museum, no. 1054, pertaining to the above mentioned heroic stat-

ues, reveals the seal of the workshop of Scopas in its rectangular concept, in its depiction of beard and hair with short curved locks which adhere rather closely to the skull, in its square forehead, in the deeply cut eye-sockets and in the concept of the mouth made by a long centrally curved upper lip and by a short outward lower lip.50 Equally the young male head at London, The British Museum, no. 1056, pertaining to the life – size statues, with an energetic pose, a pathetic expression and a Scopadic anatomic grammar, also may be attributed to the same atelier.51 Concerning the draped seated man, pertaining to the colossal figures, at London, The British Museum, no. 1047,52 the general concept of this seating figure and of its drapery with its folds are so closely related to corresponding features of sculptures from the temple of Asclepius at Epidaurus, that it is tempting to attribute it to the workshop of Timotheus and to argue that, in keeping with the report of Vitruvius, he may have worked also for the statues of the tomb. The bearded male head, perhaps pertaining to the life size statues, at London, The British Museum, no. 1055, could be ascribed to the workshop of Timotheus, because of the preservation of a concept of head which is still typical of the post – Phidian tradition.53 Leochares’ art can be recognized in the colossal Persian rider at London, The British Museum, no. 1045,54 because of the wavy rendering of drapery’s folds which is one of the most peculiar features of the art of this master. Moreover the colossal head of a Carian noble lady at London, The British Museum, no. 1051,55 responds well to the general concept of face and to its anatomic grammar which have been recognized to be typical of the atelier of this sculptor.

Especially the head of Apollo at London, The British Museum, no. 1058, perhaps to be included in the series of heroic size statues, is so close to the head of the Belvedere type of Apollo to eloquently confirm that the master of the latter did work for statues of the Mausoleum.56 This head should be given to Leochares and not to his assistants, because of its very high quality and since it reveals clearly the art of this master. Bryaxis is recognized in the colossal statues of Carian dignitaries at London, The British Museum, nos 1001 and 100057, because they reveal a heavy, static and frontal concept of figures which would suggest the name of the only sculptor who worked for the Mausoleum and had Carian and not Hellenic roots. The very high quality of these two statues – and especially of the face of the male aristocrat no. 1000, which is itself a masterpiece of psychological rendering – would suggest their attribution to the master and not to his assistants. The problem of recognizing Praxiteles’ art in the Mausoleum is suggested by the colossal female head at London, The British Museum, no. 1052 (fig. 2).58 This head was inserted into a draped statue: the upper edge of a himation was pulled over the head from the left side. The face is oval, the forehead’s upper border was curved, eyes and eyes – sockets were narrow and elongated, the surface is fleshed out with the typically Praxitelean light – and – shade rendering, the curving of the neck is similar to that of the Cnidian Aphrodite. This head must have conveyed the appeal and freshness of a young lady and is graciously tilted and inclined to her right. I recognize in this work the concept of young female beauty of Praxiteles. Comparison with the heads of Hecatomnid women at London, The British Museum, nos. 1001 and 1051 clarifies Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

17

Fig. 2. Marble head from the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus at London, The British Museum, no. 1052.

Fig. 3. Marble foot on sandal from the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus at London, The British Museum, no. 1972. 4 – 2. 172 (261).

18

Antonio Corso

determination of the side of the Mausoleum in which this colossal statue was set up. Another fragment which should be considered here is the left foot on sandal of a female figure pertaining to the heroic standing statues: this foot is at London, The British Museum, no. 1972.4-2. 172 (261) (fig. 3).60 The shape of the sandal, which bears an indentation between the big toe and the second toe, and its relation with the toes, find comparison in the feet with sandals of the Gabii type of Artemis – which in my opinion is the copyist tradition of Praxiteles’ Artemis Brauronia – as well as of the Hermes of Olympia.61 It is possible that Praxiteles adopted for his statues of young females this type of sandal because it was curvaceous and graceful, thus in keeping with the appeal and female seduction spreading from these dreamy figures. that probably this head portrayed a The marble of the foot looks Penyoung lady of the Carian court: probably telic. Again, the re-use of the fragment her statue was one of the colossal images in a Turkish house does not guarantee its disposed in the inter-columns of the peri- coming from a specific side of the buildstasis. ing. The marble used in order to flesh The two considered fragments of out this head looks Pentelic: this type of free standing statues would lend supmarble was often carved in Praxiteles’ port to the conclusion that Praxiteles was workshop.59 hired in order to carve statues of young Unfortunately the re-use of this head female subjects for the two series of cointo the chimney of the Imam’s house lossal and heroic statues. near the Mausoleum does not allow the Clearly the Cnidian Aphrodite must have established in Caria the renown of Praxiteles especially as a great interpreter of girlish beauty. Finally a few lions in Pentelic marble which probably stood at the basis of the pyramidal roof of the building may be relevant to the problem of Praxiteles’ activity in the Mausoleum.62 The general style of the lions is a standard one and is adopted for all the wild animals set up on the roof. The lions were carved for a

profile view. They were standing but represented in the moment when they were about to walk. Thus their left legs are more advanced when compared with their right legs. Their manes are made of short sinuous locks. Their tails are also long and sinuous. Non doubt the iconography of the lions was provided by the designers of the whole building and the sculptors had to abide by that. However except for that the detailed rendering of patterns of these lions differs greatly in this series and thus it is possible to distinct the animals in different groups according to their specific styles.63 The rear sides of these lions were marched with Greek letters. A lion coming from the north – eastern corner of the building – the fragment at London, The British Museum, no. 1085 - 64 bears the letter Alpha on its back: since the master of the eastern side of the Mausoleum was Scopas, it is possible that A is the initial of the father of this Parian sculptor: Aristander of Parus. Aristander is known for having made a bronze statue of Sparta under a tripod dedicated by the Lacedaemonians at Amyclae after their victory at Aegospotami, thus towards the end of the 5th c. BC.65 According to Pliny 34. 52, the supposed father of Aristander – Scopas the Elder – peaked at 420-417 BC: thus it is possible that Aristander was still young just a few years after the flourishing of his father and that towards the middle of the 4th c. he was old but still alive. For example, if towards 400 BC he was 20 - 25 y. o., towards 350 BC he may have been 70 – 75: probably no longer active but still the legal owner of his workshop, which is why his initial letter would mark lions set up on the eastern side. In fact Scopas – the son of Aristander – must have directed all the work delivered from his

workshop to the Mausoleum, which is why ancient writers mentioned him as the master of this side of the monument. The lions must have been made by assistants because they were second rate sculptures, destined to be seen from far away and their quality is not outstanding. Despite that, features of the style which is typical of Scopas’ workshop may be detected on this lion, as well as on the lion at London, The British Museum, no. 1082,66 whose rear part – presumably bearing the letter mark – does not survive: both these lions have been made by the same craftsman, who in Waywell’s terminology is the “sculptor no. 6”.67 This sculptor gives emphasis to the wildness of the lion by endowing him with a triple row of locks. Moreover he renders the terribleness of the lion by giving to him a protruding tongue and open, spirited eyes. These features are in keeping with the fire and the expression of extreme attitudes which are typical of the style of Scopas and thus it would not be surprising if this craftsman worked in Scopas’ workshop. The presence of letter marks suggests that the lions were carved in the workshops of the masters charged of them and shipped to Halicarnassus where the letters clarified where they should be set up in the Mausoleum. Other lions bear the letter Pi on their backs: these lions are at London, The British Museum, nos. 1075, 1081, 1084 and 1086. Other lions, whose backs do not survive and thus no longer bear letter marks, are stylistically related to this series: these are the lions at London, The British Museum, nos. 1076, 1083 and MRG 116 Reg. 1857. 12-20. 244. 283.68 These lions have been carved by three sculptors – nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Waywell’s catalogue – and nevertheless are closely linked: probably these three craftsmen worked in the same workshop.69 Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

19

Fig. 4. Type of lion from the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus bearing the Pi mark. Reconstruction drawing by Waywell.

Fig. 5. Marble lion from the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus at London, The British Museum, no. 1075.

20

Antonio Corso

This set of animals was set up on the northern side of the monument. The Pi letter could be interpreted as referring to either Pytheus or Praxiteles, both artists having worked for the Mausoleum according to the ancient tradition. However Pytheus should be excluded because he is not listed among the sculptors charged with statues displayed on the four sides. Praxiteles is a possible option. The style of these three sculptors is characterized by a rendering of the surface of the body in which the smoothness prevailed upon anatomic detail, by a lithe pose as well as by the predilection for curved patterns: the latter feature is clear especially in the rounded corners of the mouth (figs. 4 and 5). The eye-sockets are carved with sense of the transitions. All of these patterns are compatible with the stylistic features of the workshop of Praxiteles. Thus it is possible that these three sculptors were workshop’s craftsmen, charged with the lions because these animals on the roof, set up in order to be seen from a far distance, were regarded second rate. In fact the quality of these statues is not very high. These lions in Pentelic marble, prepared in Praxiteles’ workshop by attendants, must have been shipped from Athens to Halicarnassus, where the Pi letter must have shown their pertinence to the northern side. Then there are three lions which bear the letter Lambda: they are at London, The British Museum, nos. 1078, MRG 114 Reg. 1857. 12-20. 246 and MRG 113 Reg. 1857. 12-20. 254.. The lion at London, the British Museum, no. 1077 is stylistically close to these examples70 but its back does not survive and also its letter mark. Since the eastern lions bore the Alpha mark and the northern ones the Pi mark, the lions with the Lambda mark must have been pertinent to either the western side or the southern one. Their

style is revealed by the spiky treatment of their mane as well as by their not deep-set eyes: a feature which must have implied a great emphasis on the expression of eyes.71 Since these patterns are in keeping with the style of Leochares, it is tempting to think that Lambda is the initial of the name of Leochares and that these lions pertained to the western side. I wish to suggest that the lions at London, The British Museum, nos. 1079 and 108072 with round eyes, upturned head, pathetic gaze and tufty mane and fur are close to the art of Scopas, thus they should be attributed to a sculptor working in the atelier of the Parian master and be given to the eastern side. The interpretation given here of the letter marks of the lions is the only one which makes sense. An alternative explanation could be that these letters were the initials of the names of the craftsmen of these lions: the circumstance that three sculptors (nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Waywell’s list) carved lions bearing the same Pi letter makes this hypothesis unlikely. Another possibility could be that these letters referred to the sides where the lions had to be set up. This suggestion is also unsatisfactory because there are not cardinal points whose names in ancient Greek begin with Lambda or Pi. The suggestions that they are alphabetic sequences or numerals does not make sense: in these cases there should not be several lions with the same letters. Concerning the function of the lions, obviously they meant protection on the monument, which they guarded from above, and perhaps expressed also the power and strength of Mausoleus and of the Hecatomnid dynasty.73 From the circumstance that the lions with the Pi mark stood on the northern side and that the other two free stand-

ing statues attributed to Praxiteles’ workshop were found re-used in post-ancient buildings which stood on north of the Mausoleum it is possible to argue that the sculptures commissioned from him were set up on this side. Thus it is not impossible that Bryaxis’ activity on the northern side, asserted by Pliny, refers only to reliefs and that in the free standing sculpture he picked up the southern side. Given his Carian roots, Bryaxis may have been able to secure the most prestigious southern side in the most important realm of the free standing sculpture. This hypothesis in turn would explain rather well the sequence of the names of the four sculptors in Vitruvius: coming from the sea – from west to east – he mentioned first of all Leochares, being the master of the western side, then Bryaxis, responsible for statues set up in the southern side, then Scopas, the master of the eastern side, and finally Praxiteles who worked for the northern side. The interest of the most famous Greek masters of the time to work for the satraps of Asia Minor is probably due to the lack of sizable monumental programs in the contemporary world of the Greek poleis. During these years most Greek states, both in the mainland and on the islands, were engaged in continuous wars and for this reason had only a limited economic capability to promote new monuments.74 On the contrary, the satraps of western Asia Minor had the vision, the managerial attitude, the enterprising skills and the economic capability to build new cities, such as Halicarnassus and Priene, and to promote monuments destined to enjoy a great fame for a long period, such as the Mausoleum.75 Thanks to the participation of his workshop to the enterprise of the Mausoleum, Praxiteles’ fame must have become better established, especially in the field Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

21

(puer), which elicits the love (cupit) even of the lizard. This admiration is rooted in the social value of the juventus, which is typical of high imperial Rome. The circumstance that this beauty, while exciting the admiration, may also give death and the desire to be killed by whoever 36. The Apollo Sauroctonus spreads this appeal is rooted in the ambiThe Apollo Sauroctonus is known first guity in Roman culture of love and beauof all thanks to Pliny 34. 70. This writer ty which are tied with death.79 includes this statue among Praxiteles’ The clarity of Pliny’s description albronze works: lowed in 1724 von Stosch to recognize “Praxiteles also made a youthful that an emerald gem in the collection of Apollo called in Greek the Lizard – Slayer van der Marck at Haarlem carried a repbecause he is waiting with an arrow for a resentation of the Apollo Sauroctonus.80 lizard creeping toward him” (transl. Loeb). This suggestion was supported in 1750 The length of Pliny’s description by Mariette.81 In the 1760s Winckelmann contrasts with the short mentions in the published a glass paste in the collection same passage of other bronze works by of von Stosch bearing this type and then Praxiteles (e. g. Catagusa, Opora, etc.) identified four sculptural representations and suggests that this statue of Apollo of Praxiteles’ Apollo Sauroctonus kept in had been regarded one of the most im- Roman collections: two marble statues in portant works made by Praxiteles in the the Borghese collection, one in Palazzo tradition of art criticism epitomized by Costaguti and a bronze statuette in the Pliny.76 Albani collection, regarded by him the The emphasis given by Pliny to this original of the series.82 masterpiece lends support to the possiThese copies enjoy a close relationbility that this statue was set up at Rome ship between concept and style, and in the age of this writer because he no- their features correspond with those of toriously privileges statues by the old other statues attributed to Praxiteles. masters which were adorning the capital Therefore a long tradition of scholars – of the empire.77 including Visconti,83 Duchalais,84 FriederThis suggestion is confirmed by Mar- ichs,85 Overbeck,86 Rayet,87 Brunn,88 Furttial 14. 172, who included one distich de- waengler,89 Klein,90 Perrot,91 Collignon,92 scribing a miniature copy of the Sauroc- Rizzo,93 Picard,94 Todisco,95 Rolley,96 Preistonus in the series of epigrams evoking shofen,97 Martinez,98 Damaskos99 and Ancopies of works of art set up at Rome in dreae100 - has regarded the Sauroctonus’ the temple of Augustus:78 attribution as certain.101 “Lizard – slayer in Corinthian bronze. It must be said that Pliny’s lists of Spare the lizard, insidious boy, as she bronze statues made by masters of the creeps toward you; classical period are usually thought to She wants to die by your fingers”. depend upon the earlier catalogues of (transl. Loeb). Xenocrates, an art critic who wrote a From Martial’s epigram we argue treatise on bronze sculpture in the midthat Praxiteles’ Sauroctonus was socially dle of the 3rd c. BC.102 If this hypothesis is admired because of his teenage beauty true, then the Sauroctonus was regarded of statues of young females, and tied to a famous monument, which is why soon other satraps may have commissioned from him new works.

22

Antonio Corso

a very important statue during the early Hellenistic period. What is more, Pliny’s lengthy description of the Sauroctonus contrasts his quick mention of most of Praxiteles’ bronze statues in 34. 69. A question then arises: why did Pliny emphasize this statue? I think that two reasons explain his interest in it: 1. the art critical tradition had already recognized this work as one of Praxiteles’ most important and 2. as we shall see, it is likely that the statue stood in Rome during the early imperial period. Therefore, Pliny probably saw it and wanted to highlight a statue that his city kept and admired. Now it is time to inquire when, where and why the Sauroctonus was made. The early style of Praxiteles is characterized by a moderate sinuosity (see e. g. the Pouring Satyr).103 As time went on, though, Praxiteles adopted what could be called a “vertical element” on the sides of his statues. For example the Cnidian Aphrodite from the late 360s BC, has such a vertical element – a pot and a drapery – that both suggests the goddess’ action and frames her.104 In the early Cnidia, this vertical element is not yet a static support. But in later statues such as the Resting Satyr, the Sauroctonus, and the Hermes of Olympia, the vertical side attribute is a tree-trunk and has become a static support of an S-shaped, diagonally conceived god. So, the Sauroctonus is probably several years later that the Cnidia. Yet the rendering of the Sauroctonus’ anatomy is still marked by clear transitions. It does not yet show the continuous mutating surfaces that characterized such late works as the Hermes of Olympia105 and the Leconfield Head.106 Thus, our Apollo should be earlier than the Hermes, which probably dates to the late 340s BC107 A date around 350 BC is therefore likely for the Apollo Sauroctonus.

In order to ascertain where the original statue of Apollo Sauroctonus stood, we must look at the numismatic evidence. Three ancient cities represented the Sauroctonus type on their coins. The Mysian city of Apollonia ad Rhyndacum struck coins with this sculptural type for a long period, from the time of Domitian to that of Gallien (figs. 27 and 28): the statue appeared inside a temple from the time of Antonine Pius to that of Gallien. Moreover, Nicopolis ad Istrum struck coins with the Sauroctonus portrayed during the age from Antonine Pius to Macrinus (fig. 29). Finally, our sculptural type appears on coins of the Thracian city of Philippopolis during the reigns of Antonine Pius and Faustina the Younger.108 Nicopolis was a Trajanic foundation, placed in a peripheral region of the ancient world. Praxiteles’ original statue, of course, could not have been set up there. Moreover, the presence of the Sauroctonus on coins of Philippopolis is episodic, since it only occurred on coins struck during the years of Antonine Pius and Faustina the Younger. These representations were inspired by the corresponding ones of Nicopolis and therefore do not suggest that this statue stood there. We have no evidence that works by the great masters were displayed in this Macedonian foundation. Therefore, of the three poleis that portrayed the Sauroctonus on their coins, Apollonia ad Rhyndacum is the only city in which the original statue of Praxiteles could have been placed. The Sauroctonus appeared on this city’s coins for a very long time, and it was displayed inside a temple. These coins thus appear to have shown a cult statue. The Sauroctonus on Apollonia’s coins rests with his left arm on a column and not on the three trunk that occurs in free standing copies. The substitution of the original vertical element Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

23

with a column also sometimes occurred in Mysian copies of the Cnidia.109 In these cases, the column might have identified the statue as sacred and venerable. Apollonia ad Rhyndacum was founded by Miletus - on the coast of the Apolloniatis lake south of the Propontis Sea but at a short distance from the sea - and got its name from Apollo Didymaeus, as we know from an inscription of around 150 BC.110 Like most Milesian colonies, this apoikia was probably established in the archaic period.111 It is therefore likely that Praxiteles’ original statue stood in the temple of Apollo at Apollonia. Of course, it is reasonable to suppose that a city named Apollonia was endowed with an important cult of this god. Around 350 BC, when the Apollo Sauroctonus was made, Mysia was under Persian rule.112 Praxiteles also made another statue – a marble Eros – for the nearby city of Parion (Pliny 36. 22). This statue, recognized in a copy from Cos, also responded to the mellephebic conception of divine figures.113 It also should be noted that Scopas made a statue of Apollo with a mouse for the sanctuary of Apollo Smintheus at Chryse in the Troad, i. e. also in north-western Asia Minor (Strabo 13. 604 and Eustathius, Ad Homeri Iliadem 2. 34. 16) which is probably represented on local coins.114 This regional concentration of statues from the two most important late classical sculptors suggests that these cities competed with each other for sculpture from renowned masters. Chryse and Apollonia, in particular, appear to have competed for statues of Apollo with small animals. Scopas and Praxiteles might also have competed for patrons in north-western Anatolia. In addition, it is possible that the ruler of this region, the satrap Artabazus whose capi-

24

Antonio Corso

tal was Dascylium,115 promoted adorning the important sanctuaries of his satrapy with works of famous Greek sculptors, as the Hecatomnids did in south-western Anatolia. When considering the meaning and message of the Sauroctonus, three observations must be taken into account: 1. the statue appears on coins of Apollonia ad Rhyndacum in the centre of a temple (fig. 27) and therefore, it probably was a cult statue. It seems unlikely that the god in a cult statue was represented while playing a game. 2. As I shall show below, the statue was brought to Rome and placed in the temple of Augustus on the Palatine. Therefore, the god must have been understood as the typically Augustan Apollo who prevails over evil. It is likely that whoever decided the statue’s new setting knew this meaning of Praxiteles’ original. Finally, the lizard had negative connotations in antiquity.116 The conclusion of these three observations is that Apollo probably kills the lizard to fight evil. Concerning the possible mythological context in which Apollo is supposed to act as lizard-slayer, three observations should be considered: a. the composition has a bucolic flavour: that is determined not only by the presence of the tree trunk, but also by the lazy and indolent attitude of the young god who rests on the side support as well as by the position of his feet one behind the other, which is similar, although mirrored, to the posture of the feet of the Resting Satyr, i. e. of a mythical inhabitant of groves.

b. The concept of the teenage-looking god is an androgynous one as it is suggested by the velvety skin as well as by the tapering of the torso below the breasts. Moreover the hair of Apollo is composed of wavy locks divided in the middle, held by a band which is partially overlapped by hair, brought behind and collected on the nape in a chignon: this hair style is blatantly inspired by the hair of the Aspremont – Lynden / Arles type of head, of the Arles type of Aphrodite and of the Cnidian Aphrodite and betrays the desire of the master to give a very effeminate interpretation of the god. c. This creation was reproduced on coins only of cities of the Pontic area. As far as I know, there is only one mythological episode which explains all of these three considerations: that of Apollo serving as a shepherd the king Admetus.117 First of all this mythical context explains the bucolic flavour of the episode represented by Praxiteles. Apollo, while being a shepherd of Admetus, was also thought to have had a homoerotic relationship with his lord:118 thus the androgynous figure of the Sauroctonus would fit this mythical moment rather well. Finally, Admetus became one of the leading heroes of the expedition of the Argonauts119 which was the founding myth of the Greek presence in the Black Sea. The god who protected the Argonauts was Apollo:120 thus it makes sense that Apollo as the herdsman and lover of Admetus became popular in the Pontic culture. In particular the Argonauts – of course including Admetus – were thought to have made an important stop-over in Mysia:121 thus the possibility that a Mysian

polis – Apollonia ad Rhyndacum – asked for a statue of Apollo as shepherd and lover of Admetus makes sense. Since Euripides composed a tetralogy in which a tragedy on the king of Mysia Telephus was followed by that about Alcestis – the wife of Admetus – in which Apollo appeared as character, it is likely that the close link of the story of Apollo and Admetus with the Mysian mythical history has been popularized by Euripides.122 The stay of Apollo near Admetus was linked to the slaying of the python: in fact Apollo had to serve the Thessalian king as a punishment for his slaying of the Cyclops123 or of their sons124 or of the python.125 The latter version of this story, having being narrated by Anaxandridas of Delphi, was probably that accepted at Delphi, thus enjoying a great authority also in the cult centres of Apollo of the colonial world. Thus the relationship of the slaying of the lizard with the slaying of the python becomes clear: the sauroktonia alludes to the previous episode of sanitization and in the same time reveals the attitude of the god to fight evil, as well as in the Hermes carrying the baby Dionysus at Olympia, the act of the child to outstretch his hands towards the vinegrapes held by Hermes reveals the nature of Dionysus. Moreover the slaying of the lizard is the adaptation of the killing of the python to a bucolic context. It should be noted that in the coinage of Apollonia ad Rhyndacum Apollo appears both together with the python126 and as Sauroctonus: this fact reveals that the two episodes of sanitization were associated. Finally il is noteworthy that after the prevalence of Christianity the place of Apollo at Apollonia was taken by another person who killed a dragon: St. George.127 This is an eloquent testimony Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

25

to the fact that this mythical pattern was very deeply rooted in the local religious culture. From a formal point of view, the Sauroctonus represents Apollo as an androgynous teenager with velvety skin, who is relaxed and resting on a tree trunk. Such a representation must have been an artistic “manifesto” of the Ionian art of “softness” (tryphe), symbolized by the mellephebic interpretation of the male youth. Ancient art-criticism argued that Praxiteles’ art expressed the tryphe typical of Ionia (see Choricius, Declamationes 8. Recitatio 57). The contemporary philosopher Eudoxus of Cnidus – a devotee of Mausolus – theorized that pleasure (hedone) was the greatest good128 and offered the most appropriate philosophical background and justification of this art of tryphe. Of course a relaxed attitude was appropriate to Apollo, who is able to prevail without great effort. Apollo also exhibited calmness in his contest with Marsyas on the Mantinean base.129 The association of a god with a tree trunk is typical of the Praxitelean art from the 350s BC onwards, as it is evidenced by the Resting Satyr and by the Hermes of Olympia. The tree trunk suggests a setting in the forest. In late classical times, forests were increasingly loved as the theatres of gods’ epiphanies, where the magical and the supernatural appear. This is the age in which the myth of Arcadia was first conceived.130 Moreover the predilection for environments that are far from centres where the masses live, i. e. the cities is typical of the oligarchic culture of classical Greece.131 Praxiteles’ allusion to the forest, then, is in keeping with his close links with such an oligarchic environment as the Platonic Academy in Athens.132 The same satraps of Asia Minor supported oligarchic constitutions in the

26

Antonio Corso

Greek cities subjected to them,133 and it is not a coincidence that Praxiteles worked a lot for centres of Asia Minor.134 Finally, the occurrence of tree-trunks as symbols of forests in the late Praxitelean oeuvre reveals the need to retreat from the narrow world of the polis. This feeling also constituted the psychological premise of Alexander’s adventure just a few years later. From a visual point of view, the type of Apollo Sauroctonus is known thanks to a corpus of around 113 ancient images, which include statues and miniature copies on both gems and coins.135 In analyzing the visual evidence of this type it is logical to begin with the bronze life size Sauroctonus that is now in Cleveland (note 135, no. 1) (figs. 6-7) because it may be still late classical and perhaps could be identified with Praxiteles’ original statue. With this statue the god is represented as a teenage boy endowed with an androgynous appearance. The young god is resting against a vertical support which is supposed to be on his left. His position is diagonal and the configuration of his body is very sinuous and curvaceous. This impression is conveyed by the projection of the chest, by the tapering of the waist, by the curving of the hips and especially of the outward right hip, by the concave upper line of the right shoulder, finally by the left leg and foot put behind the right ones. The general schema of the figure and the position of the legs in particular are inspired by the corresponding features of the Resting Satyr although they are reversed when compared to these. In the back view sinuous patterns also prevail: the back is very curved being concave at the right of the figure, convex at the left: accordingly the line of the backbone is also curved. The glutei reveal a reversed curving being convex at the right and

Figs. 6-8: Bronze statue of Apollo Sauroctonus, Cleveland, Museum of Art, no. 2004. 30.

concave at the left. The depression of the two fossae gluteae is also pronounced. The rendering of the body’s anatomy is remarkable because of the subtlety of its transitions. The skin looks exceptionally velvety. The head is bent down, forward and slightly towards the figure’s left. Accordingly the neck is also curved. The general concept of the face responds well to the usual Praxitelean anatomy of the face: the forehead is triangular with both upper borders curved, the face is oval, eyes and eye-sockets are narrow and elongated, the nose is long and strong, the mouth is short and sinuous, the chin is slightly protruding. The eyes are inlaid as in the Albani bronze copy with a yellowish paste but the pupils are not preserved, the gaze suggests concentration of the god in the action he is doing.

The hair is divided in the middle and is constituted of wavy locks which form a soft mass, collected at the sides and on the nape and encircled by a taenia. This concept of the hair is a modified version of that of the Aspremont – Lynden / Arles type of head. The locks are made of wakes of sinuous thin ribbons that are slightly flattened on the top. For this concept of hair there are a lot of classical comparanda.136 The right arm is lowered although the forearm with hand and arrow does not survive. Most of the left arm is equally lost but the left forearm with the hand survives: its configuration is the same of the left forearm and hand brought above the tree – trunk in the Roman copies of the Vatican sub-type (note 135, no. 9 and fig. 12) and thus differs from that of the Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

27

left forearm and hand resting against the internal side of the vertical support which characterizes the Borghese subtype (note 135, no. 18). The lizard survives (fig. 8): it is more sinuous than in Roman copies, it appears as a little dragon and has a sinister look. This observation would strengthen the suggested idea that the little animal was a bearer of evil and that Apollo’s slaying action is an episode of his sanitization. The lizard of the bronze statue is also smaller than in Roman copies: this observation implies that the tree trunk of the statue was thinner than those in marble Roman copies: this conclusion is argued also by the small circular mark left by the tree trunk on the modern base of the Cleveland Sauroctonus. It is likely that the static needs of marble made the enlargement of the tree-trunk customary in the copyist production. It is clear that Roman copyists, being obliged to make much larger tree trunks because of static reasons, conceived new lizards for each copy: not surprisingly, the lizards of Roman copies differ one from the other. The very high quality of the statue, which is likely to have been made by one of the greatest masters of antiquity, and the statue’s style and anatomical vocabulary, which do not reveal the stylistic idiosyncrasies of copies, suggest that the Cleveland statue is Praxiteles’ original. The Apollo Sauroctonus is one of the most important masterpieces of late classical times because it happily expresses the spiritual life of a well defined Zeitgeist and precisely symbolizes the value of the tryphe which mirrors the mentality of western Asia Minor of the Satraps in its golden period. Praxiteles’ Apollo Sauroctonus may have been set up in the Ionic temple which was erected at Apollonia ad Rhyndacum – on a small island called

28

Antonio Corso

now ‘Kizada’ on the lake Apolloniatis – and whose dedication to Apollo is very likely:137 that fact would explain both the fortunate association of the Sauroctonus with Ionic columns which often occurred in his representation on gems and coins and his representation inside an Ionic temple on coin types of Apollonia ad Rhyndacum.138 The statue may have enjoyed an international acclaim already in the years following its setting in the Ionic temple. This possibility is argued by the reuse of the general style of Apollo Sauroctonus in the Apulian vase painting. It has been already noticed that the Apulian imagery of the third quarter of the 4th c. BC is very receptive of Praxitelean styles:139 this fact may be due to the circumstance that around 350 BC the most prominent intellectual figure of Tarentum – Archytas – had been a student of Plato:140 thus it is logical that artistic creations conceived by artists who were close to the world of the Academy became popular also at Tarentum as expression of a very respected intellectual environment. On an oinochoe near the Chamay Painter the myth of Admetus is represented in a comic version of the story. The figures are disposed on two levels: on the upper one there are two Satyrs and Pan together with a libation-bearing girl and with Persephone. In the lower frieze in sequence from the viewer’s left to right, Apollo, Admetus, Heracles, Alcestis, with two young girls, the paedagogus and another libation-bearing lady are portrayed (see note 135, no. 2 and fig. 9). The representation probably depends from a comic play focused on this story: a possible candidate is the comedy Admetos by Theopompus (frgg. 1-2 K-A) which may have been performed in the second quarter of the 4th c. BC.

Fig. 9. Apulian oinochoe near the Chamay Painter at Florence, Villa La Pagliaiuola, no. 116. In the lower frieze Admetus is represented according to the general style of the Sauroctonus type except for the position of the legs which is reversed and for the arms which are adapted to the act of welcoming Apollo who is coming toward him. Of course the adoption of the style of the Sauroctonus in order to represent Admetus strengthens the above suggested probability that the sauroktonia was conceived in the context of the relationship of Apollo with Admetus. The transfer of the style of the Sauroctonus from Apollo to Admetus, i. e. from the erastes to the eromenos – should be compared to the similar case of Myron’s Discus-thrower: the statue perhaps represented Apollo while he was about to throw his discus which eventually killed Hyacinthus as it is argued by Philostratus Major, Imagines 1. 23: this neosophist in the description of a pinax describes Apollo in that mythical moment and attributes to him the shape of the Discobolus. However the style of this creation of Myron ended up being adopted also for the eromenos, Hyacinthus, as it is known from an inscribed gem bearing a miniature copy of the type.141 With the rise of Macedonian power in the late fourth century BC, there is a change in the general conception of the

ideal youth. The appointment of Lysippus as Alexander’s official sculptor142 implied the recognition of the privileged status accorded to the athletic Peloponnesian conception of the male youth. The leaning mellephebos was no longer in keeping with this ‘Zeitgeist’ and the muscular athletic youth involved in a quick action became trendy. This is probably the reason for the absence of the Sauroctonus’ type in the surviving visual evidence from the period of the Macedonian hegemony. Yet it is likely that in the late 3rd c. BC, the two art critics Xenocrates143 and Antigonus144 regarded the Sauroctonus one of the most important bronze statues of Praxiteles. Such high regard is suggested by Pliny’s emphasis on this work, since he is thought to derive his judgements from the above mentioned critics145. During the middle Hellenistic times, the artistic environment of Rhodes became very retrospective and began the continuous reuse of Praxitelean types which will characterize the ancient visual culture for a very long time, until the Antonine period. Thus miniature variations of Praxitelean masterpieces and especially of those set up in Asia Minor had been carved often in workshops of local marble sculptors. Miniature copies of the Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

29

Cnidian Aphrodite became a trendy production.146 The Praxitelean Eros set up at Parium and the Archer Eros, also attributed to our master, are equally a source of inspiration for the Rhodian imagery of this god.147 Other Praxitelean models of middle Hellenistic Rhodian sculptures include the Arles type of Aphrodite148 as well as draped types of Mantinean Muses and of the Uffizi type of Kore.149 In this artistic culture it is hardly surprising that a Rhodian workshop working the local Lartian stone delivered a miniature variation of the Apollo Sauroctonus (see note 135, no. 3). The grey colour of the Lartian stone may have been thought to reproduce the colour of the original bronze statue. The presence of the type of Apollo Sauroctonus on Rhodes may depend from the fact that Apollo was worshipped on the Acropolis of this polis with a monumental temple with the epiclesis Pythios: 150 the sauroktonia of this god was probably regarded a mythological episode akin to his Pythoktonia. Moreover it should be noticed that the area where the miniature torso was found is that of the Asclepieum of Rhodes:151 if the statuette had been dedicated in this sanctuary that would suggest an interpretation of Apollo Sauroctonus as bearer of sanitization. Yet in the late Hellenistic period, events and situations occurred that established the enduring fame of the Sauroctonus. Fitst of all, the rise of neoclassicism involved the consideration of Praxiteles as one of the most important masters of the classical period. Second, Lucullus’ victory against Mithridates in the battle of Apollonia ad Rhyndacum in 73 BC152 probably prompted the looting of Praxiteles’ Sauroctonus and its journey to Rome, since Lucullus’ booty of artworks from his Pontic campaigns was huge.153 The gens Licinia was particularly devoted to Apollo, probably with a particu-

30

Antonio Corso

lar reference to the specialization of the god as Medicus154 and the act of slaying the lizard could be seen in the context of the sanitization promoted by this god. Third, it is probable that Pasiteles included the Sauroctonus in his catalogue of opera nobilia in 5 books around 70-60 BC155 because the several teens of copies of the Sauroctonus recovered (see note 135) guarantee that the statue had been regarded an opus nobile. The Roman copies derived from the Sauroctonus began to be carved in the second quarter of the 1st c. BC. The western provenance of most of them suggests that they depend from an original statue set up in Rome. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the copying begins around the time (70-60 BC) when Pasiteles’ catalogue was written. The Roman setting of the Sauroctonus before the Imperial age is not known but the suggestion that the statue was first dedicated in the horti Luculliani is attractive.156 In fact these horti were among the most important ones in the centre of Rome and these areas were endowed with many important statues.157 The bucolic flavour of the Sauroctonus, revealed by its tree-trunk, and the erotic charm of this androgynous god may have lead to the consideration of Praxiteles’ Sauroctonus as fit to decorate a hortus. The possible regard of the Sauroctonus as a statue suitable to beautify gardens was going to change the meaning of the Sauroctonus from that of sanitization and victory against evil to that of a paignion. As we shall see several copies will reveal such an up-dating of the message of the type. The production of life size copies of the Sauroctonus begins in the second quarter of the 1st c. BC. There are 4 copies of the Sauroctonus that date to the years before 50 BC (see note 135, nos. 4-7 and figs. 10-11): they all come from Rome or around and

Fig. 10. Marble head at Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Skulpturensammlung, no. 197 (Hm 110).

reveal that the carving of copies of this statue began for the Roman market. The organic concept of the body and the light – and – shade depiction of the surfaces make these pieces still Hellenistic. The use of Pentelic marble for the copy note 135, no. 6 suggests that NeoAttic workshops began the serial carving of copies of the Sauroctonus. In the same years, and also in the same cultural context, the cutting of gems bearing miniature copies of this type begins (see note 135, no. 8): the substitution of the tree-trunk with an Ionic column is shown for the first time in a gem of this period (see note 135, no. 8): probably the Ionic column conveyed the message that the statue was not just an opus nobile but a sacred image of the god and is a ‘quotation’ of the Ionic temple of Apollonia in which the statue was originally set up. The idea to reproduce the statue on gems probably is due to the facts that this type was thought to convey a message of sanitization and of victory upon evil and that it was meant to be of good omen for the bearer.

Fig. 11. Marble torso at Basle, Antikensammlung und Sammlung Ludwig, no. Lu 237.

In the second half of the 1st c. BC, the increasing emphasis on the imagery of Apollo also boosted the carving of copies of the Sauroctonus. Of course the great honours lavished on Apollo at Rome during the time of Augustus158 determined the ideal conditions for the high consideration of our type and thus for its dissemination through copies. There are 8 copies which can be attributed to these years (see note 135, nos. 9-16). All but one come from the 1st region of Italy (Latium et Campania) (see note 135, nos. 9 and 11-16): thus even during this period the market of copies derived from the Sauroctonus is a Roman phenomenon. 4 out of these 8 Augustan copies probably come from Rome (see note 135, nos. 9 and 14-16). The most important copy of this period both for its high quality and for its provenance from the Palatine (note 135, no. 9 and fig. 12) is Pentelic and shows that neo-Attic copySeventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

31

Fig. 12. Apollo Sauroctonus at Rome, Vatican Museums, Galleria delle Statue, no. 264 (750).

32

Antonio Corso

ists were still busy carving statues of the Sauroctonus for the Roman market. This early Augustan copy is the first example of the copyists’ habit of endowing their copies with a large tree trunk which took the place of the slender tree of the original statue. A long strut between the left thigh of the god and the lower part of the tree-trunk also became customary from the time of this copy onwards. Both the thick tree trunk and the strut were felt needed because of static reasons. Since the tree trunk of this creation had to be re-invented in lifesize marble copies, its shape changes from a copy to another. Equally the lizards of Roman marble copies are also not inspired by the lizard of the bronze original statue but are rethought in order that their shape is in

keeping with the large size of the tree trunk. Needless to say, their shapes also change in the different copies.159 The find spot of this copy on the Palatine suggests its original connection with both the setting for the cult of Apollo Palatinus160 and the domus of Augustus161 who was devoted to this god. The sanctuary of Apollo Palatinus was endowed with important statues of renowned Greek masters which included marble statues of the archaic sculptors Boupalus and Athenis,162 the marble statue of Apollo by Scopas,163 the marble statue of Artemis by Timotheus,164 the marble statue of Leto by Cephisodotus the Younger165 and bronze statues of oxen by Myron.166 The setting up in this sanctuary of the statue of Leto by Cephisodotus the Younger – i. e. by the elder son of Praxiteles - guarantees that the circle around Augustus which decided the display of sculptures in this cult place appreciated the Praxitelean interpretation of deities. During the period of Augustus copies from opera nobilia were also set up on the Palatine and included a Westmacott Athlete in Parian marble,167 a Doryphorus in Pentelic marble,168 a Hermes of the Ingenui type from the domus of Augustus169 and a Hygieia of the Hope type in Parian marble.170 While the Hermes certainly adorned the House of Augustus, the other Augustan copies from the Palatine were re-displayed in the imperial palace during the imperial times. Thus it makes sense that the Augustan Sauroctonus from the Palatine was also set up in the Augustan period, in the context of the predilection of the age for Apollo and his mythical record of sanitization, and then was re-used because of its high quality in the domus Flavia, which is why it was found in Villa Magnani, just above Domitian’s Palace.171

The Hope torso (note 135, no. 14) testifies to the enduring fortune of the variation with reversed legs – with the left foot brought in front of the right one -, which was already shown in late classical vase painting (see note 135, no. 2). Perhaps the peculiar architectural setting of the Hope statue determined the reversal of the legs in this copy.172 The marble of the Hope copy is Parian173 and this fact reveals that our type was regarded worthy to be fleshed out with the best available type of marble. The group of San Ildefonso (note 135, no. 15) represents two naked young men: the young man at the viewer’s left is inclined towards the young man at the viewer’s right: the latter is younger than the former who outstretches his left arm towards the left shoulder of the younger man and rests with his corresponding hand on it. Blatantly the two are, from the viewer’s left to right, the lover (erastes) and the loved (eromenos). The identity of the erastes is conveyed to the viewer thanks to the adoption for this figure of the schema of the Sauroctonus: thus he is Apollo. The eromenos must be a mythical figure loved by Apollo: his identification with Admetus is probable. The alternative identification of the eromenos with Hyacinthus is less likely because in the available visual evidence this hero is usually represented not resting since the hyperactivity is an important feature of his mythical personality.174 On the contrary the resting position is appropriate to Admetus and to his royal dignity (see note 135, no. 2). The younger man wears on his head a laurel wreath which of course would also suggest to the viewer the close link of this hero with Apollo and the values and sanitization promoted by this god.175 The statuette at the left of the eromenos represents in archaistic style a longdraped young goddess endowed with a

polos on her head, with a sad expression in her face. The same sorrow appears also in the faces of the two young men. Moreover the younger man holds in his right hand a reversed torch above a round arula, an obviously funerary symbol.176 Clearly they all mourn the death of someone who was dear to them: if the two are Apollo and Admetus, the mourned dead is of course Alcestis. The goddess holds a fruit in her right hand brought to her chest. The fruit is probably a pomegranate, which is a well known attribute of Persephone177 and thus would identify the goddess portrayed with this statuette. The pomegranate would promise victory above death.178 In the specific mythical context represented here, it would suggest Alcestis’ imminent return to life. Thus the general interpretation of the group becomes clear: the figure represented with the Sauroctonus type is Apollo, the hero next to him is Admetus, his eromenos whose devotion to his divine lover is shown by the laurel wreath. They are both saddened by the death of the wife of Admetus, Alcestis, who is now in the kingdom of Persephone, portrayed next to Admetus. However the pomegranate foreshadows the positive outcome of the story. The presence of Apollo in the palace of Admetus in the sad moment of the departure of Alcestis for the kingdom of Hades and his great sorrow had been popularized by the famous tragedy ‘Alcestis’ (vv. 1-71) by Euripides. The re-use of the Apollo Sauroctonus’ type conveys to the viewer the message of the prevalence of light upon darkness, of life upon death, of the eventual fulfillment of a dreamed condition despite the suffering felt prior to this achievement. The use of the Luna marble for the carving of this group179 suggests that it is Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

33

the product of a Roman workshop which is placed in the school of Pasiteles and near Stephanos.180 The importance of the Apollo Sauroctonus in the sacred imagery of Rome at the time of Augustus determined the dissemination of this iconography in the municipal life of central Italy. These ‘municipal’ copies were carved with available stones, not with marbles, by local workshops. The copy from Terracina (note 135, no. 12) comes from the upper part of the ancient city which under Augustus was endowed with new important and monumental buildings.181 In this part of the city there was the most important temple of the town opened to the forum: both temple and forum were constituted during the age of Augustus.182 This temple was probably dedicated to Apollo, as it is argued by the Acta passionis Sancti Caesarii 1-16. The same text associates this cult with the male teenage beauty as a socially recognized value. The setting up of our copy of Apollo Sauroctonus could be related to this specific aspect of the local cult of Apollo. In any case the presence of an Apollo Sauroctonus in Augustan Terracina and possibly in a sanctuary of Apollo would suggest that at the time this type enjoyed the status of one of the symbols of the new happy age of Rome, guaranteed by the protection of Apollo. The stone copy of Apollo Sauroctonus from Terracina should be compared with the local stone copy of the PseudoSeneca which may share the date of our head.183 The identification of the PseudoSeneca with Aesop is convincing:184 thus the setting up of a copy of the poet who offended Apollo and as a consequence of the anger of this god was killed by the Delphians would also have been meant

34

Antonio Corso

to emphasize the power of Apollo and be related to the local cult of the god. Equally the Pentelic copy of the Diadumenus of Polycleitus from Terracina185 may also date to Augustan times and would suggest the glorification of the young male beauty associated with the cult of Apollo in that town. Finally an Augustan marble statue of Fortuna which probably once carried a portrait head – perhaps of Livia – derives from the early Hellenistic standing type of Tyche with high girdle and horn of plenty held in her left hand:186 this copy completes the series of surviving opera nobilia set up at Terracina during the age of Augustus, with the aim of asserting an optimistic interpretation of the present and future days of the ‘kingdom of Apollo’. Another Augustan stone copy of the Sauroctonus was set up at Capua (note 135, no. 13), a colony which as Terracina was served by the via Appia.187 Already during the late Hellenistic period the Cnidian Aphrodite had been reproduced at Capua with a clay figurine.188 The local Sauroctonus may have adorned the famous sanctuary of Diana Tifatina near Capua, which had been renewed and probably enlarged in late republican times.189 The clay copy of the Cnidia and the stone copy of the Sauroctonus constitute the beginning of the reception at Capua of the idea that copies of opera nobilia are an essential ornamentum to the venustas of a Roman city although a frequent display of marble copies from famed masterpieces will characterize this town, after sporadic examples of the 1st c. AC, especially in the Hadrianic period.190 However already around the middle of the 1st c. BC a mosaic copy of Sosus’ emblema with drinking birds adorned

a building of Capua:191 the fact that in this town a Pergamene middle Hellenistic model is re-used in late republican times and that a classical statue of Apollo by an Athenian master is copied in the Augustan period suggests that the Augustan classicistic hierarchy of works of art which favoured the most restrained styles of classical Greece was accepted also in internal Campania. The only surviving Augustan copy of Apollo Sauroctonus found in the eastern Mediterranean world comes from Melus (see note 135, no. 10 and fig. 13). During the age of Augustus a great emphasis was lavished on the cult of Apollo on Delus: this cult is now associated to that of Augustus as “new Apollo” as well as to the sanctuary of Apollo Palatinus at Rome.192 Already before 50 BC the Parian marble sculptor Antiphanes delivered to Melus a variation in Parian marble of the late classical Richelieu type of Hermes, endowing it with a tree trunk on which he wrote his signature: this statue was set up in the stadium of the polis.193 Although very little is known about the gods worshipped on Roman Melus, it is presumable that this Spartan colony194 derived from its motherland the importance of the cult of Apollo195 which in fact characterizes Spartan colonies from Cyrene to Cnidus. Equally it is likely that Melus followed Sparta in choosing to side with Octavian against Antonius:196 the Melians’ cult of Augustus is evidenced by inscriptions.197 The Melian Sauroctonus might be understood in this context. The habit of cutting gems with the type of Apollo Sauroctonus associated with the tree probably began in the late Augustan period (see note 135, no. 16 and fig. 15): as it has been noted above, the only surviving late Hellenistic gem of the Sauroctonus (see note 135, no. 8)

was endowed with an Ionic column, not with a tree-trunk. Since gems were often thought to have magical properties and to bring good luck198 it is possible that the act of slaying the lizard, being interpreted as an episode of sanitization, was therefore regarded as a good omen for the bearer of a gem cut with this type. From a formal point of view, several Sauroctoni on gems are characterized by very slender trees which are curved and have leaves. It is probable that these gems faithfully portray the slenderness of the tree of the Praxitelean creation, which had to be modified in marble copies for static reasons. Therefore, Praxiteles’ Sauroctonus probably foreshadowed the idyllic representation of a landscape outside the city. Since representations of natural landscapes were a very important component of Augustan visual arts

Fig. 13. Torso at Avignon, Musee Calvet, no. E 37 = 371.

Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

35

Fig. 14. Eros Sauroctonus at Naples, National Archaeological Museum, no. 150381.

36

Antonio Corso

and reveal the Roman predilection for the countryside,199 it is possible that the favour toward the reproduction of this sculptural type with a naturalistic tree on gems is partly due to its reinterpretation as a typical idyllic picture. The Townley gem (note 135, no. 16 and fig. 15) is still of late Augustan times200 and, as most antiquities of the Townley collection,201 probably comes from Rome or nearby. Since it is the first surviving gem which portrays the Sauroctonus with a naturalistic tree-trunk, perhaps this innovative pattern was introduced in the decoration of gems by gem cutters settled in Rome and working for Roman clients. The Sauroctoni on late Hellenistic and Augustan gems portray the god while he holds his left hand above the side vertical support (see note 135, nos. 8 and 16): this fact suggests that in the

original statue by Praxiteles Apollo also held his left hand above the tree trunk. In the Augustan period the Sauroctonus type was also transformed from Apollo to Eros. The first example of the god’s change of identity is the early Augustan Eros Sauroctonus from Baiae (see note 135, no. 11 and fig. 14). Since this torso probably was set up in a Nymphaeum, it is possible that a workshop of copyists introduced this change in the early Augustan age in order to make the type playful – a paignion – and therefore in keeping with a locus amoenus created for the delectatio of the dominus. From the early Hellenistic period onwards Eros was conceived and represented as a hunter:202 thus the idea that this god could also ‘hunt’ and kill a lizard must have been regarded rather obvious. Moreover, Eros was often represented as a player of childish games203 and this fact may also have given credibility to his representation as a player with a lizard. Finally, it should not be forgotten that Venus was a strong presence at Baiae:204 this fact may have favoured the reinterpretation of the Sauroctonus as Eros. Unfortunately the imperial Nymphaeum of Baiae in which Eros Sauroctonus was once displayed is known only in its Flavian and Severan phases:205 thus the original Augustan setting of this statue is not known, although it is possible that it was set up in a previous Augustan phase of the same Nymphaeum. In fact at least 5 marble statues of the Augustan period adorned the Flavian and Severan phases of this Nymphaeum: an Amazon of the Sosicles type,206 another Amazon of the Sciarra type,207 an Eros in fetters close to the Borghese type,208 our Eros Sauroctonus and finally a copy of the so-called Hera Borghese – which in fact probably represents an Aphrodite of the late 5th

c. BC209 - signed by the copyist sculptor Aphrodisius of Athens.210 The Ephesian Amazons were a beloved subject of the Augustan visual propaganda:211 that is obvious because these Amazons were the mythical founders of the cult of Artemis at Ephesus and thus contributed to the glory of Diana and Apollo, i. e. of the two divine protectors of Augustan Rome. Moreover the Amazons had been allies of the Trojans, i. e. of the ancestors of the Romans, and thus were dear to the Zeitgeist of the Aeneid.212 Finally the well known predilection of patrons of the Augustan environment for models of Polycleitus and of his age213 must have contributed to the ‘success’ of copies taken from the Ephesian Amazons as well as from the original statue of Aphrodite which is named Hera Borghese. Concerning the three statues of love deities (the Borghese type of Aphrodite, Eros Sauroctonus and Eros in fetters), they are explainable partly with the above stressed particular protection of Venus on Baiae, partly with the circumstance that the setting of statues of love deities was regarded appropriate to the decoration of buildings such as baths and Nymphaea devoted to the enjoyment of water:214 the pleasures offered by Venus, Bacchus and thermal sites were considered linked215 and Baiae certainly was regarded an important thermal centre. The presence in the same context of an Eros Sauroctonus and of an Eros in fetters may have eloquently illustrated the swinging fortune of Love who sometimes prevails and other times, succumbs. Such a depiction of the agency of love would have been rather appropriate to Baiae: a resort which was characterized by an aura of seduction.216 If the Augustan statues found in the Nymphaeum pertained to the original Augustan phase of this complex, this

building would have been one of the first examples in the 1st region of Roman Italy of the type of Nymphaea opened to the sea characterized by a display of marble statues illustrating a gallant interpretation of deities as well as of heroic figures.217 During the reign of Tiberius the temple of the Divus Augustus was built in the north-eastern part of the Palatine: this building has not been excavated but is shown on coins of Caligula as hexastyle with Ionic or Corinthian columns, a sculptural pediment and, on the roof, a quadriga as central acroterium and Romulus with the spolia opima and Aeneas leading Ascanius and carrying Anchises as lateral acroteria.218 This temple was endowed with several works of art that celebrated the typical Augustan value of the juventus. In the age of Domitian, the poet Martial described copies of the works of art kept there (14. 170-182). In fact, in this series he evoked pictures of Hyacinthus and of Danae, whose originals, as we know from Pliny (35. 131), were dedicated in the temple of Augustus by Tiberius. This collection revealed a strong interest in Athenian late-classical masters because it included the Brutus’ boy of Strongylion, the Apollo Sauroctonus of Praxiteles and the pictures of Hyacinthus and Danae by Nicias.219 Martial includes the Apollo Sauroctonus in this series and therefore it is possible to argue that the statue had been set up in this temple. The decision to endow the new building with this masterpiece is probably due to the wellknown devotion of Augustus to Apollo, to the fact that the teenage appearance of this Apollo responded well to the Au-

Fig. 15. Plasma at London, The British Museum, no. W 1311.

Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

37

gustan value of the juventus and finally to the above stressed predilection for works of art from late classical Athens. It is possible to argue from the setting in a temple of Augustus that the Sauroctonus was interpreted as the typical Augustan Apollo who promotes the sanitization of the world and not just as a teenager who was busy with a game. The works of art, whose miniature copies are described by Martial 14. 170182 are the following: 1. a gold statue of Victory, celebrative of Domitian’s victory upon Germans (Martial 14. 170); 2. Brutus’ Boy, a bronze work of Strongylion (Martial 14. 171; see also 2. 77 and 9. 51 and Pliny 34. 82); 3. Praxiteles’ Apollo Sauroctonus (Martial 14. 172); 4. Nicias’ picture of Hyacinthus (Martial 14. 173 and Pliny 35. 131); 5. a statue of Hermaphrodite (Martial 14. 174), probably to be identified with Polycles’ bronze statue of Hermaphrodite (see Pliny 34. 80); 6. Nicias’ picture of Danae (Martial 14. 175 and Pliny 35. 131); 7. the mask of a Batavian, probably related to Domitian’s German campaigns (Martial 14. 176); 8. the statue of a baby Heracles strangling two snakes (Martial 14. 177); 9. a statue of Heracles (Martial 14. 178), probably to be identified with the clay Heracles by Vulca (see Pliny 35. 157); 10. a silver statue of Athena (Martial 14. 179) also celebrative of Domitian’s victories; 11. a painting of Europa (Martial 14. 180); 12. a statue of Leander (Martial 14. 181); 13. a statue of a hunchback (Martial 14. 182). The statue of Victory (no. 1), the German mask (no. 7) and the statue of Athena (no. 10) were probably added when Domitian restored the temple. The collection included 9 statues (nos. 1-3; 5; 8-10 and 12): one of them was golden (no. 1: the gold material is referred to the miniature copy but it is difficult to conceive a gold copy of a statue

38

Antonio Corso

in another material), another was silver (no. 10: again the silver copy probably reproduced an original in the same material), 4 were probably bronze statues (nos. 2-3, 5 and 8), one was marble (no. 12) and perhaps two were clay (nos. 9 and 13). The choice of masterpieces to be displayed may have been indebted to the influence of Ovid: in fact the poet of Sulmona evoked the story of Hyacinthus (Metamorphoses 10. 162-218), that of Hermaphrodite (ibidem 4. 285-388), that of Europa (ibidem 2. 833-875) and eventually that of Leander (Heroides 1819). The influence of Ovid on the sculptural display of Sperlonga has also been noticed:220 thus the impact of Ovid on the choice of mythological themes decorating buildings patronized by Tiberius is hardly surprising. The visual display of the temple of Augustus would give emphasis from one side to homoerotic loves of Apollo (Apollo lover of Admetus: no. 3; Hyacinthus: no. 4), from another side to a series of gallant mythical loves (nos. 4-6 and 11-12): the latter genre had been popularized by Ovid. The statue of the baby Heracles strangling the snakes may also have been meant to celebrate the strength of the juventus and may refer to the depiction of the episode by Vergil, Aeneid 8. 287-289. From an art historical point of view, the probable display of an archaic statue by Vulca221 reveals Tiberius’ continuity of Augustus’ visual policy of displaying archaic statues on temples.222 It should be noticed that another Etruscan statue – a colossal “Tuscanic” bronze Apollo - was displayed in the library attached to the temple (Pliny 34. 43). Moreover there is a clear predilection for Attic masters of the period going from the late 5th c. BC (the Boy of Strongylion223) to the late 4th c. (the two pictures of Nicias224). The predilection of the Tiberian age for ‘Prax-

itelean’ and Athenian late classical styles is appreciated through testimonia of the period225 and may be compared with the contemporary strong interest for Plato promoted in the court of Tiberius by Thrasyllus.226 This admiration towards masterpieces of late classical times may have been evidenced also by the presence in this collection of a bronze statue of Hermaphrodite if it is identified with the bronze statue of this figure attributed by Pliny (34. 80) to the late classical Argive master Polycles.227 In the 14th book of Martial’s epigrams the poems describing small copies of works of art displayed in the temple of Augustus are followed by poems describing copies of books (Martial 14. 183-196). These books are Homer’s Batrachomyomachia (14. 183), the Iliad and the Odyssey (14. 184), Vergil’s Culex (14. 185), the Bucolics, the Georgics and the Aeneid (14. 186), the Thais of Menander (14. 187), Cicero (14. 188), Propertius (14. 189), Livy (14. 190), Sallustius (14. 191), Ovid’s Metamorphoses (14. 192), Tibullus (14. 193), Lucan (14. 194), Catullus (14. 195) and Calvus (14. 196). Perhaps the copied books were available in the library attached to the temple of Augustus on the Palatine.228 The new public setting of Praxiteles’ masterpiece in a very prominent Roman temple prompted a renewed interest in making copies from it. There are no fewer than 26 copies and variations of the Sauroctonus which can be dated to the 50 years from the empire of Tiberius to that of Nero (see note 135, nos. 17-42): certainly these decades have known the zenith of the dissemination of this type throughout the Roman empire. This fact implies that the Sauroctonus was regarded one of the most significant classical masterpieces by this time. One of these copies is bronze (see

note 135, no. 17), 18 copies are marble (see note 135, nos. 18-35), while 7 copies are on gems (see note 135, nos. 3642). Most of these copies – perhaps 23 out of 26 – come from Rome or around (see note 135, nos. 17-28; 30; 33-42): thus the carving of copies of this masterpiece targeted nearly exclusively the Roman market. It is possible that the association of Praxiteles’ masterpiece with the cult of Augustus played a pivotal role in spreading the fame of the Sauroctonus. The bronze copy at Rome, Villa Albani (see note 135, no. 17 and fig. 16) is one of the few surviving reproductions of this type in bronze and dates to the early Julio-Claudian period.229 The copy was found below the Church of St. Balbina, east of the Aventinus minor,230 in the area of the ancient sanctuary of the Bona Dea Subsaxana.231 In the temple of this goddess reptiles were kept (see especially Macrobius, Saturnalia 1. 12. 25 and also Plutarch, Caesar 9. 3) and were justified with the story that her father, Faunus, raped the Bona Dea by metamorphosing into a snake (see Macrobius, Saturnalia 1. 12. 24). This sanctuary was restored by Livia (see Ovid, Fasti 5. 147-158). The Bona Dea was assimilated to Venus Cnidia.232 Thus it is possible that the Albani copy of the Apollo Sauroctonus was set up in this sanctuary in the context of its monumentalization promoted by Livia. The killing of a reptile by this god may have been interpreted as the usual prevalence of the god of the moderation upon a symbol of transgression, since Faunus raped his daughter by becoming a reptile. Moreover the dedication of a copy of one of the most famous masterpieces made by Praxiteles in a sanctuary of the Bona Dea may have been regarded particularly appropriate, considering the fact that this goddess was identified with Venus Cnidia and that the latter godSeventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

39

Fig. 16. Bronze copy of Apollo Sauroctonus at Rome, Villa Albani, no. 952.

40

Antonio Corso

dess was known everywhere thanks to her formal definition by Praxiteles. From a formal point of view this copy despite its reduced size is one of the best of the whole series of the extant Sauroctoni for the rendering of the velvety skin, for the wealth of anatomic details, for the deli-

cacy of the passages in the surface, for the sense of grace communicated by the face of the teenage god. In my opinion its quality is second only to that of the Cleveland statue and this consideration leads to the suggestion that the same Livia, in the context of her renovation of this sanctuary, may have promoted also the dedication of this praised copy, in keeping with the favour that the Sauroctonus type enjoyed in the entourage of Augustus. The 18 surviving marble copies of the Sauroctonus which date in the JulioClaudian period (see note 135, nos. 1835) reveal the use of the three marbles which were carved more often by copyist workshops throughout the early Imperial period: the two best copies of this series (note 135, nos. 18 and 21) are Parian marble of the best quality (Lychnites) and probably have been carved by the same Greek insular workshop. Another two copies (note 135, nos. 20 and 22) are Pentelic and possibly have been made in the same Attic workshop. Finally in this period even a local workshop probably based in Rome copied our masterpiece using Luna marble (note 135, no. 33). Most copies have been made for the Roman market (note 135, nos. 18-28; 30 with fig. 20; 33-35) while one copy comes from the Fourth regio of Italy (Samnium et Sabina: note 135, no. 32) and other two copies come from the pars occidentis of the Empire: one from the Gallia Narbonensis (note 135, no. 29) and another from the Baetica (note 135, no. 31). The most complete of the two copies formerly in the Borghese collection (note 135, no. 18 and fig. 17) probably comes from Rome or nearby, is dated in the Claudian period and is the first surviving example of a peculiar copyist variation: the left arm of the god no longer reaches the top of the tree-trunk but

rests on its internal vertical side. Thanks to this change, the statue of the god became much closer to the tree-trunk. This change allowed carvers to save marble and working time and patrons or purchasers to save money.233 Only one of the marble Julio-Claudian copies coming from Rome has a known provenance: this is the Claudian copy at Geneve which was found in Serpenti street (see note 135, no. 20), on the collis Viminalis in the 6th region of Augustan Rome.234 This find spot is near the area where the aedes Dianae Plancianae had been set up, probably in the Augustan or early Julio-Claudian age.235 Thus this life-size, high quality copy carved in Pentelic marble probably by an Attic workshop may have been a dedication in this sanctuary of Diana: the setting up of this copy would be explained in the context of the well known devotion for Diana and Apollo which is typical of the early Julio-Claudian culture. Once again, the type of the Sauroctonus would have been thought to illustrate an example of the sanitizing agency which is attributed to this god in this period. Thus we should have another example of the privileged status of the Sauroctonus as one of the most beloved types of Apollo by patrons of public monuments in the early Julio-Claudian decades. Perhaps the dedicatees of the statue were the Plancii who constituted the sanctuary.236 The variation constituted by the Eros Sauroctonus, probably introduced during the Augustan times (see note 135, no. 11) continues to be successful also during the Julio-Claudian period as a light and disengaged version of our Apollo, as it is testified by the copy note 135, no. 27, probably from Rome (fig. 18). The display of copies of the type in villas near Rome during these decades is

known in the case of the copy note 135, no. 28 from Carcaricola, not far from via Labicana.237 The sculptural display of the villa is not well known. A female veiled statuette of good craftsmanship once also stood there.238 Moreover statues of a seating Apollo citharoedus of the Bar-

Fig. 17. Apollo Sauroctonus at Paris, Louvre, no. Ma 441 = MR 78.

Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

41

Fig. 18. Eros Sauroctonus at New York, The Metropolitan Museum, no. 24. 97. 14.

42

Antonio Corso

racco type239 and of Daphnis playing his syrinx, copy of this young player in the group of Pan and Daphnis,240 have been attributed to this villa and would compose together with the Sauroctonus an Arcadian picture because Apollo citharoedus and Daphnis with Pan seated on rocks and the Sauroctonus once was endowed with a tree trunk. This dreamy environment would be identified as a kingdom of Apollo who both performs as a musician and fights evil as well! In the Fourth region of Roman Italy (Samnium et Sabina) a Julio-Claudian marble copy of the Sauroctonus is kept at Avezzano (see note 135, no. 32) not far from the ancient town of Alba Fucens where the cult of Apollo enjoyed a special importance: 241 the temple of this god was set up on top of the high hill of St. Peter, above the town,242 moreover Apollo and Diana are represented also in the monumental sculpture from Alba.243 The fact that Apollo was locally conceived as Lycius244 reveals: a. that he was regarded a warrior god, protector of the

community, in keeping with the fact that this colony was a military stronghold; and b. that he was represented according to Attic late classical styles. Thus the presence of our Sauroctonus fits the local cult of Apollo quite well: it is likely that in this military colony the type of the Sauroctonus was meant to express the prevalence of the god patron of the state upon evil. Our copy of the Sauroctonus should be included in the list of early imperial copies from late classical opera nobilia which adorned Alba Fucens: the other examples of this series are a copy of the Richelieu type of Hermes which is attributed to the Polycleitan school,245 a head of the Thasus type of Dionysus,246 a variation of the Apollo Lycius,247 an Aphrodite Anadyomene,248 a copy of the Gabii type of Artemis249 which is probably the copyist tradition of Praxiteles’ Artemis Brauronia, and a Diana inspired by the late classical types of Artemis wearing a diploid drapery.250 The appeal of late classical styles is understandable in the period from Caligula to Nero when the visual culture of the age of Alexander was preferred to previous ones because it was thought to tune rather well with the absolutistic concept of ruling of these two Roman emperors. Moreover the setting in town of a copy of the Gabii type of Artemis is in keeping with the celebration of the short mouth of Praxiteles’ Diana by Petronius 126. From a historical point of view these copies of renowned masterpieces are understandable in the context of the noteworthy monumental enterprises which beautified the town during these decades,251 when it became the head quarter of the draining of the Fucinus lake undertaken by Claudius252. During the Julio-Claudian period, the Sauroctonus enters also the visual culture of the pars occidentis of the empire.

In Gallia Narbonensis a statuette of our type decorated the frons scaenae of the theatre of Vasio Vocontiorum (note 135, no. 29 and fig. 19). This theatre had been built during the empires of Tiberius and Claudius:253 accordingly the frons scaenae was decorated with statues of these two emperors. Statues of later royalty (Domitian, Sabina, Hadrian) probably testify to a restoration of the stage in the age of Hadrian.254 Other sculptures set up on the stage were related unsurprisingly to the worlds of Bacchus (images of Bacchus and Sileni) and Venus who notoriously plays an important role in Roman theatres.255 Moreover a variation of the Boboli – Berlin type of goddess,256 which is attributed to the Attic school of the late 5th c. BC, was also set up there: although the identity of the goddess cannot be ascertained, nevertheless the presence of this copy may be partly explainable with the appeal of early classical masterpieces for patrons of sculptural displays throughout the Augustan and early JulioClaudian times. The marble copy of Apollo Sauroctonus from the scaenae frons of this theatre, having been set up among statues of emperors, of local dignitaries257 and of deities protecting the theatre, must have been perceived as that of a god protecting the state and its institutions: this observation of course strengthens my suggestion that Apollo Sauroctonus by that time stood in a prestigious area of Rome and was interpreted as the typically Roman and Augustan Apollo who defeats the evil and grants victory to the princeps. Needless to say, the Sauroctonus from Vasio testifies to the growing appeal of Praxitelean styles in Gallia Narbonensis during the Julio-Claudian times, which is argued also from the presence in this province of contemporary derivations from the Cnidian Aphrodite.258

Finally the reception of Apollo Sauroctonus in early imperial Vasio must have been made easier by the noteworthy importance of this god in the local cult life and derived visual culture. 259 The lizard is also reproduced in the series of small bronzes from Vaison.260 The presence of copies of our type in southern Gallia (see note 135, nos. 29; 63; 72) must be indebted to the importance of the cult of Apollo as a sanitizing god in the early imperial culture of this part of the Roman Empire.261 A copy of our type was found also in Baetica and precisely in the eastern portico of the forum of Baelo Claudia (see note 135, no. 31). In Baetica the cult of Apollo was closely associated to that of the emperor.262 Moreover in this region there was the tendency of displaying statues and other images expressing the social identity of the community in the forum.263 During the empire of Claudius, Baelo became municipium, the public areas of the city were monumentalized and a new forum was constituted.264 The eastern portico of the forum was endowed with our statue of Apollo Sauroctonus among statues of togati who presumably portrayed local dignitaries265 while a bronze frieze supported images of captivi.266 This visual context suggests that the type of Apollo Sauroctonus was perceived as that of a god who protected the Roman state and guaranteed its victory upon external enemies. It should not be forgotten that Baelo Claudia is located on the south-eastern coast of the Iberian peninsula, on the Atlantic sea near Cades: from the latter harbour boats sailed for the Canary Islands which were famous for their giant lizards.267 Thus in the years of the Roman conquest of the kingdom of Mauretania,268 which gave to Baelo great importance as a harbour looking toward the

Fig. 19. Fragment of Apollo Sauroctonus at Vaison – la – Romaine, Musee Municipal.

Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

43

Fig. 20. Marble head at Amiens, Musee de la Picardie, no. 1874-75.

44

Antonio Corso

new province, the Apollo Sauroctonus of Baelo may have been meant to express the prevalence of the god protecting the Roman state against the wild and hybristic habitat lying at the margins of the civilized world. The above listed Julio-Claudian copies of the Sauroctonus have been dated from the reign of Tiberius to that of Claudius. I am not aware of statues copying the Sauroctonus which have certainly been carved in the years of Nero. This observation might perhaps suggest that our masterpiece was not very much admired during the empire of Nero. This possibility may be explained with the considerations that the principatus Neronis was no longer the kingdom of Apollo and that the message of the god of moderation who prevails upon hybristic manifestations and beings was hardly in keeping with the ideals and the life style spread from the inhabitant of the domus aurea.269 Thus it is likely that our type, so dear to the Augustan propaganda, was on the contrary perceived not in keeping with the prevailing ‘Zeitgeist’ of this age. There are 7 gems portraying the Sauroctonus which are datable to the Julio-Claudian period (see note 135, nos. 36-42 and figs. 21-22): they may come

from Rome which, as we have seen, in this period is the most important centre of production of copies of the Sauroctonus. The not infrequent adoption of this type for gems testifies to its interpretation as a bearer of sanitization and of good luck. From a formal point of view, on Julio-Claudian gems the Sauroctonus is reproduced with a wide gap between the body of the god and the tree-trunk, the latter is thin, curved with boughs and leaves suggesting a naturalistic interpretation of the pattern. Thus the gems suggest that the interpretation of the type evidenced by the Vatican copy, with Apollo rather distant from the tree, is closer to the original than that of the Borghese copy which places the god next to the tree trunk. As asserted above, the Sauroctoni on gems reveal that the type was perceived as an idyllic representation and suggest that the thick, static and vertical tree trunk of marble copies does not reflect the naturalistic tree of Praxiteles’ original statue but was introduced by marble copyists for static reasons. The Flavian decades are a period of deeply felt enthusiasm toward the Praxitelean interpretation of deities. This is testified by the high quality copies of the Cnidian Aphrodite and of the Resting Satyr which are dated to the last 30 years of the 1st c. AD:270 in this period copyists tried to endow their Praxitelean statues with the curvaceous and fleshy appearance of the copied Praxitelean originals. Thus it is hardly surprising that the only two surviving ancient writers praising the Apollo Sauroctonus are both of these years. During the age of Vespasian, Pliny 34. 70 gives a list of bronze works by Praxiteles. Most of them are recorded with just one or few words. On the contrary, the writer of Comum not only mentions the

Fig. 21. Cornelian at London, The British Museum, no. D. 608.

Fig. 22. Nicolo at London, The British Museum, no. W 1312.

Apollo Sauroctonus but describes it. The importance attributed by Pliny to this work is probably explained with two considerations: 1. The statue had been regarded one of the most important creations of Praxiteles by the early Hellenistic art critics; and 2. It stood in a very prominent area of Rome and elicited the admiration of the writer. Concerning Martial, he wrote his short poem on the Sauroctonus (14. 172) during the reign of Domitian: he describes a miniature copy of Praxiteles’ statue made in the Corinthian alloy of bronze.271 In his epigram, Martial praises the extraordinary beauty of the teenage subject of this creation: this beauty attracts even the lizard! Martial testifies also to the new dedications added by Domitian to the temple of Augustus on the Palatine in celebration of his German victories.272 The new monumentalization of the temple may have elicited also a renewed interest toward the Sauroctonus. There are 6 marble copies of the Sauroctonus which probably date to these

decades (see note 135, nos. 43-48 and fig. 23). Moreover perhaps two Augustan copies (see note 135, nos. 9 and 11) may have been displayed in new arrangements set up in this period. All Flavian marble copies of the Sauroctonus except one probably come from the 1st regio of Italy (Latium et Campania) and probably from Rome (see note 135, nos. 43-46 and 48) while one copy comes from Sicily (see note 135, no. 47). An Attic workshop delivered two of the best copies of this period (see note 135, nos. 43 with fig. 23, and 46) which are both Pentelic and reveal the same style while a local workshop which used Luna marble was responsible for one of the copies which adorned Domitian’s palace on the Palatine (see note 135, no. 44). Domitian’s domus Augustana on the Palatine was adorned with at least three copies of the Apollo Sauroctonus (see note 135, nos. 9, 44 and 46). The same imperial palace was also endowed with at least one copy of the Cnidian Aphrodite273 as well as with at least one copy Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

45

Fig. 23. Torso at Naples, National Archaeological Museum, storeroom.

46

Antonio Corso

of the Resting Satyr274 and perhaps also the copy at Parma of the Archer Eros275 while at least 4 copies of the Pouring Satyr adorned the villa of the same emperor at Albanum.276 This consideration makes it clear that the 5 Praxitelean creations which were best established in the copyist production (Archer Eros, Pouring Satyr, Cnidian Aphrodite, Resting Satyr and Apollo Sauroctonus) were all praised in the cultural milieu around the emperor and that thus the high esteem of the Sauroctonus expressed by Martial must have been shared in the imperial circle. In particular the Cnidian Aphrodite, the Resting Satyr and the Apollo Sauroctonus, types selected for the sculptural display of the domus Augustana, suggested a dreamy Arcadia of springs and groves which must have appealed to the prevalent idealized view of groves in the dominant culture of the times.

From a political point of view, the Cnidian Aphrodite, representing the goddess bathing prior to the judgement of Paris, may have been meant to glorify Venus as Aeneadum genetrix, i. e. as progenitrix of the Romans, the Resting Satyr may have suggested the felicitas temporum lavished by the emperor, while our sanitizing Apollo may have been thought to refer to the moral superiority of the empire protected by this god. One of the statues of Apollo Sauroctonus re-displayed in the Imperial palace was probably the Augustan copy in Pentelic marble in the Vatican Museums note 135, no. 9. The second one was found together with the statue in the Vatican Museums and thus probably decorated the same part of the palace, thus creating a duplicatio: it is doubtfully identified with the Ince torso (see note 135, no. 44). Finally the third Flavian Sauroctonus set up in the Imperial palace survives in a head in Pentelic marble in the Palatine Museum (see note 135, no. 46):277 the specific ancient context of these three copies cannot be determined. The imperial palace of Domitian was adorned, beside the above mentioned copies of Praxitelean originals, also by other examples of late classical and early Hellenistic types. The late classical types which could be admired in the domus Augustana included an Athena of the Vescovali type,278 probably to be attributed to Cephisodotus the Elder,279 Timotheus’ Leda with the Swan,280 the Meleager attributed to Scopas,281 the Antium type of Apollo,282 the Lysippan Eros at Thespiae283 as well as a seating Muse of the so-called ‘Thespiads’,284 which probably constitute the copyist tradition of Lysippus’ Muses at Megara.285 The surviving Flavian copies from early Hellenistic creations are less numerous and confined to the Satyr who looks to his tail286

as well as to the Dresden / Zagreb type of Muse.287 Considered all together, the types selected for the embellishment of the palace demonstrate that Pliny’s statements (34. 65 and 35. 79) that the visual arts peaked in the age of Alexander the Great were shared by the Imperial court. At Baiae, the Augustan Eros Sauroctonus (see note 135, no. 11) may have been displayed in the Flavian arrangement of the local imperial Nymphaeum. At the time the decoration of this lavish building was enriched with new sculptures, which included a standing Tyche signed by Karos288 which is very close to the late 5th c. BC type of Aphrodite called ‘Hera Borghese’,289 a reclined Heracles inspired by late classical styles290 and a flute-playing Satyr.291 These additions confirm the typically Flavian predilection for opera nobilia from the middle classical period to the early Hellenistic one and for a gallant interpretation of the Greek mythology, which it is possible to appreciate also in the contemporary poems of Statius and Silius Italicus. The Flavian copy of the Sauroctonus from Sicily comes from Syracuse (see note 135, no. 47) and precisely from the island of Ortygia: it was found reused in the demolished Spanish walls which protected the island from the mainland292 and for this reason probably it had been set up in the near sanctuary of Apollo.293 The cult of Apollo at Syracuse and that of the temple of Augustus on the Palatine were closely associated from the times of Tiberius who brought the colossal statue of Apollo Temenites from Syracuse to Rome and set it up in the library of this temple.294 The close association of Augustus and Apollo explains this dedication. The temple of Augustus and its library were at least partly damaged by a fire at either 69 or 80 AD295 and restored

by Domitian.296 Since Praxiteles’ Apollo Sauroctonus probably was set up in this temple, it is likely that the renovation of the building involved a new emphasis lavished on our famous Apollo and thus that the special connection of this temple with the sanctuaries of Apollo at Syracuse led to the decision to set up a high quality copy of the Sauroctonus in the most important sanctuary of Apollo of the Sicilian capital. The area of provenance of the Syracusan Sauroctonus was adorned with several statues, found especially in the 16th c.297 Specific details about the types and the historical circumstances of dedication of most of these statues are not known. However a late 2nd c. BC statue of Hygieia found in this area298 may also have been pertinent to the sanctuary of Apollo, because of the obviously close connection between Apollo and Asclepios, while a statue of Hades with Cerberus, found together with the Hygieia and to be dated in the Hadrianic period,299 may be related to the same cult context. The desire to copy renowned statues of Apollo of the classical period is argued for Syracuse and for the Flavian period also from the local copy of the Omphalos type of Apollo.300 Since the latter type represented Apollo as archer, probably as Pythios, it is possible to argue that both Flavian Syracusan copies of famous types of Apollo – our Sauroctonus and the Omphalos one – reveal a local desire to give emphasis to this god as a slayer. The production of gems bearing the type of the Sauroctonus continues also in the Flavian period: a gems cutter of Aquileia (see note 135, no. 50) reproduced the naturalistic interpretation of Apollo Sauroctonus characterized by a curved tree endowed with boughs and leaves and on top of which the god holds his left hand. As we have seen, this interSeventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

47

pretation is probably closer to Praxiteles’ original statue than that offered by marble copies, as far as the tree is concerned. The type of Apollo Sauroctonus will be part of the visual culture of the capital of the 10th region of Italy – Venetia et Histria – until the Antonine period (see note 135, no. 73). In the same years gems cutters of Aquileia reproduced also the Methe of Praxiteles.301 Moreover Praxiteles’ Agathodaimon was represented on Aquileia’s gems from Julio-Claudian times until the Antonine period.302 Finally the presence at Aquileia in the late 1st c. AD of variations of the Centocelle type of Eros,303 which is probably the copyist tradition of Praxiteles’ Eros from Thespiae, as well as of the Arles type of Aphrodite,304 which derives from Praxiteles’ Aphrodite at Thespiae confirms the strong presence of Praxitelean opera nobilia in the artistic Umkreis of Aquileia of these decades. In this period Aquileia is endowed also with several copies or variations of renowned Greek creations which include sculptures inspired by Polycleitus’ Cyniscus,305 by Phidias’ Athena Parthenos,306 by late classical draped goddesses,307 by late classical types of Dionysus,308 by the Capua type of Aphrodite,309 by the Medici type of this goddess,310 by the Giustini type of Asclepios,311 by the Lysippan Hermes,312 by the Uffizi type of Niobe,313 by Rhodian types of Aphrodite,314 by the Astragalizontes,315 by the Pasquino group316 and by the Mylasa type of Zeus.317 In this context of high regard for renowned types popularized by Greek masters, the inspiration to famous masterpieces of Phidias, Polycleitus, Praxiteles and Lysippus makes sense. Finally, it must be specified that the most popular god in Aquileia was Belenus: this Celtic god had been identified with Apollo and had a strong characteri-

48

Antonio Corso

zation as a sanitizing and healing god:318 thus the message of Apollo Sauroctonus must have fit the local interpretation of Apollo quite well. A gem cutter from Brigetio in Pannonia Superior also adopted the type of Apollo Sauroctonus for a jasper, found at Dotis, the thermal site of this centre (see note 135, no. 49). The sub-type adopted by this gems cutter is that with the arm of Apollo brought to the internal side of the tree, not to the top of it. Thus this artisan was inspired by earlier Roman examples of Apollo Sauroctonus on gems (see note 135, nos. 16; 37; 40 and 42). The message of good luck attributed to the Sauroctonus was rather appropriate to an institution, as Roman baths were, devoted to the well-being of people. Brigetio was an important military stronghold where Apollo with the epiclesis Grannus was one of the most important deities, regarded a healing god and associated with springs of water.319 The message of victory of the Sauroctonus may explain the adoption of our type in the visual culture of the military camps along the limes (see note 135, nos. 49, 71 and 74) while the interpretation of the Sauroctonia as a mythical paradigm of sanitization explains the reference of this episode to Apollo Grannus. The visual culture of Flavian Brigetio sees the adoption also of the Praxitelean types of Methe320 and of Agathodaimon321 as well as of Aphrodite Anadyomene322 as figures on gems. These reproductions prove from one side that Brigetio shares the love for late classical types which is typical of the age and which was promoted by the cultural circle around the emperor, and from the other side that ‘optimistic’ personifications, promising food, wine and love, are beloved. These choices fit well the trend towards popular hedonism which characterized the Flavian

period323 as well as the basic desiderata of a society of soldiers. Finally in the age of Domitian the Mysian city of Apollonia ad Rhyndacum began striking coins bearing on their reverses Apollo Sauroctonus (see note 135, no. 51): this city will represent the Sauroctonus on its coins for nearly two centuries (see note 135, nos. 55; 75; 80; 88; 95; 98; 106-108). The Apollo Sauroctonus adopted by the Apolloniats rests his left arm on an Ionic column: this variation had been already accepted in the visual tradition of this type at least from late Hellenistic times onwards (see note 135, nos. 8; 38 and 41). As suggested above, probably the Ionic column had the function of informing the viewer that the statue pertained to a sacred landscape and in the case of Apollonia that it was set up inside an Ionic temple. This function of the Ionic column is suggested by the circumstances that on a coin type of Apollonia a candelabre – a typical cult object – takes the place of the column (see note 135, no. 55) and that in other coin types of the same city the statue of Apollo Sauroctonus is represented inside its Ionic temple (see note 135, nos. 75; 95; 98; 107 and 108). The favour enjoyed by this sculptural type under Domitian, which is evidenced first of all by the copies of the Sauroctonus displayed in the imperial palace on the Palatine, may partly explain the decision of the Apolloniats to put this figure on show on their coins as an emblem of their own cultural and cult identity. Moreover we are at the beginning of the neo-sophist ‘Zeitgeist’ in which Greek cities proudly exhibited their renowned masterpieces on their own coins.324 The case of Thespiae which under Domitian had struck a coin type with the representation of Praxiteles’ Aphrodite and Phryne which stood in the local temple of Eros325 is particularly enlightening, because it reveals the peculiar

desire of a Greek city to represent on its coins statues of deities made by Praxiteles which were kept in town, in a cultural moment characterized by a very high esteem enjoyed by works of our sculptor. Since in the years of Domitian the Greek cities which showed monuments and statues on their coins usually give emphasis to works of art which had been set up in their territories, where they will be seen by Pausanias,326 thus it is probable that the Apolloniats also exhibited on their coins Apollo Sauroctonus because it stood there, although it had been removed to Rome. The visual culture of Apollonia in the years of Domitian includes also a teenage-looking Artemis with her hair brought back and collected on the nape with a chignon and short dress:327 this Artemis was loosely inspired by the late classical imagery of the goddess and confirms both the importance of Artemis and Apollo in the religious life of the town as well as the high esteem enjoyed locally by late classical models. During the empire of Nerva, Apollo Sauroctonus also appears on coin types of Apollonia (see note 135, no. 55) but the Ionic column is substituted by a candelabre. The circumstance that the vertical support changes from a coin type to the other of the same city clarifies that it was not regarded among the visual features of the type to be faithfully reproduced. On the contrary it was adopted for the image on coins in order to send a message which in this case is probably the high sacrality of this peculiar statue of Apollo, since candelabres were sacred objects par excellence.328 The visual culture of Apollonia during the empire of Nerva is characterized also by an Apollo citharoedus which is very close to the late classical types of this god represented with the cithara.329 Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

49

Fig. 24. Head at Wuerzburg, Martin von Wagner – Museum der Universitaet, no. H 5791.

50

Antonio Corso

On another coin type a tetrastyle Ionic temple appears without a statue:330 at a later moment the same temple will be represented with the statue of Apollo Sauroctonus in the middle (see note 135, nos. 75, 95; 98; 107 and 108). There are three marble copies which are more sober than Flavian copies and foreshadow the analytical rendering of the Hadrianic ones (see note 135, nos. 5254): therefore they are probably Trajanic. These three copies may come from Rome or around, thus evidencing the continuity of the copyist activity derived from the Sauroctonus in town. The marbles used are Pentelic (see note 135, no. 52) and Cycladic (see note 135, no. 53 and fig. 24). The best copy of this period is that at Cambridge (see note 135, no. 52), probably to be attributed to a neo-Attic workshop and which reproduces the accentuated inclination of the body of the god which probably characterized the original statue but which had been often reduced by copyists in order to save marble and money. The Hadrianic period is notoriously an age in which the copyist production is booming.

Thus it is not surprising that there are 9 marble statues inspired totally or partly by the Apollo Sauroctonus (see note 135, nos. 56-64). The copies of this period lose the fleshy and curvaceous appearances of the Flavian productions and become cold, academic and analytical. 7 out of these 9 marble statues probably come from Rome or nearby (see note 135, nos. 56-58; 60-62 and 64), while one comes from the Gallia Lugudunensis (see note 135, no. 63), thus revealing the continuity of the fortune of this type in Gallia, and another copy comes from Achaia (see note 135, no. 69), thus showing the reception of the type in the world of the Panhellenic League. A local workshop which used Luna marble delivered a copy which perhaps may have been set up in the Imperial Palace on the Palatine (see note 135, no. 56), where other three copies of the same type had been previously displayed (see note 135, nos. 9, 44 and 46). During the Hadrianic period, the Imperial palace was endowed with new copies of renowned masterpieces. This new set of statues included a Praxitelean Eros of the Farnese / Steinhaeuser type,331 and copies of Timotheus’ Leda with the Swan,332 of Euphranor’s Paris,333 as well as of an early classical creation334 and of Hellenistic ones.335 Another copy adorned Hadrian’s villa near Tibur (see note 135, no. 58) where copies of the Cnidian Aphrodite336 and of the Resting Satyr337 were also displayed, revealing the appeal of the three best established Praxitelean opera nobilia in the visual culture of the time. Outside of Italy, a marble plinth with feet from Augustodunum in Gallia Lugudunensis (see note 135, no. 63) probably pertained to a rare example of mirrored copy of the Sauroctonus: perhaps the architectural setting of the statue suggested the adoption of a reversed style.

In the same years this town was endowed also of a copy of the Cnidian Aphrodite:338 this fact suggests the desire of this centre to have copies of two of the most famous and often reproduced opera nobilia attributed to a renowned sculptor, whose display would have increased the venustas of a city. Moreover the circumstance that one of the most important cults of the town was that of Apollo Grannus – i. e. of a god specialized in healing and sanitizing339 - suggests that the local reception of Apollo Sauroctonus was an example of the sanitizing agency of the god. The city was endowed with other statues derived from late classical opera nobilia which included a Praxitelean Dionysos,340 an Apollo Lycius,341 a Lysippan torso,342 a Lysippan Eros,343 a sleeping Eros,344 and a Capitoline Aphrodite.345 These reproductions of famous types suggest the strong appeal felt at Augustodunum for styles of the age of Praxiteles and Lysippus, i. e. of the period in which visual arts were thought to have peaked. Finally a neo-Attic workshop carving Pentelic delivered a copy of the Apollo Sauroctonus which was set up in a centre of the provincia Achaia (see note 135, no. 59 and fig. 25). This fact implies that our masterpiece was no longer regarded just a ‘Roman Apollo’ but one of the emblems of the greatness of the classical Greek past, considered important in the visual culture of Hadrian’s ‘Panhellenic League’. The Cnidian Aphrodite346 and the Resting Satyr347 had also been selected as masterpieces to be copied in the years of the Panhellenic League. During the first decades of the 2nd c. AD, Greek cities of NW Anatolia began strucking coins depicting Daedalsas’ crouching Aphrodite: this statue originally stood in the Kingdom of Bithynia but had been brought to Rome well be-

fore the times of Pliny.348 It is not impossible that Apollonia ad Rhyndacum was first, already at the time of Domitian, in reproducing on its coins a masterpiece – Apollo Sauroctonus - once kept there but at the present set up at Rome and that at a later moment other Greek cities of NW Anatolia followed its example and reproduced another work of art – the crouching Aphrodite - which once beautified this region but long time earlier had gone to the capital of the empire. The fortune of Apollo Sauroctonus continues to be well evidenced throughout the Antonine period: we have 16 surviving examples which can be attributed to this period (see note 135, nos. 65-80). The Antonine copies are recognized because of a simplification of carving details and of a loose inspiration from the model.

Fig. 25. Torso at Athens, National Archaeological Museum, no. 1623.

Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

51

There is a sharp decline in the production of copies of the Sauroctonus serving the Roman market: only two copies (see note 135, nos. 66 and 67) datable to these decades have a probable Roman provenance and they are even of not outstanding quality. An Antonine copy will be re-displayed in the Tetrarchic age villa at Piazza Armerina in Sicily and thus presumably had been set up in Sicily even earlier (see note 135, no. 71). A variation comes from the regio septima of Italy – Etruria – and precisely from the scaenae frons of the theatre of Caere (see note 135, no. 65). This statue is Luna marble, it was carved by an Italic – perhaps local – workshop and probably is a late addition to a sculptural display which is Julio-Claudian and included statues of members of the imperial family, of other dignitaries as well as figures of the Bakchic retinue.349 Apollo Sauroctonus, being together with images of emperors and other high – ranking officials of the state, appears to be the protector of the Roman state and of the royal family and guarantees their victory upon evil. Perhaps the statue replaced an earlier, Julio-Claudian Apollo which for unknown reasons had been damaged. In fact the display of a copy of Apollo Sauroctonus in the Julio-Claudian stage of a theatre is known in another case (see note 135, no. 29). Apollo rests with his left arm upon a tree trunk on which the mantel of the god is thrown. The endowment of this creation with drapery is not unknown in previous versions of this type (see note 135, nos. 2 and, if ancient, 36). In this case the Sauroctonus type becomes closer to that of the Hermes carrying the baby Dionysos, where the chlamis of the adult god is thrown on the tree-trunk: thus the desire to obtain a contaminatio between the

52

Antonio Corso

two types may be the reason explaining such a variation. Another reason may have been the desire to adapt our type to the statues of royalty and officials which stood nearby and were draped. In any case the statue from Caere reflects the desire to freely recreate a famous type which is typical of the Antonine period. A mirrored copy of the Sauroctonus probably decorated the stage of the theatre of Lugudunum (see note 135, no. 73). Already in the Augustan times and especially in the Flavian period the scaenae frons of this theatre had been decorated with sculptural representations of figures of the worlds of Venus and Bakchus which included two Praxitelean Resting Satyrs.350 During the Hadrianic and Antonine periods, a new rich set of statues beautified the theatre and especially the stage.351 Zeus, the god of the sovereignty, was represented together with Athena, goddess of war, with the usual imagery of Aphrodite, Eros and especially Dionysos as well as with the statue of an emperor, probably Hadrian. In this context, as in the stages of Vasio and Caere, Apollo Sauroctonus may have expressed the victory of this god protecting the state upon evil. Moreover, since the Praxitelean Resting Satyr had been represented twice in the same theatre, the desire to reproduce an opus nobile shaped by a renowned sculptor is probable. The mirrored style of the copy may depend from the peculiar setting of the statue in the context of the architectural setting of the stage. During the Antonine period, our type continues to be popular also in the world of the military camps along the limes. In Raetia, the lower section of a marble statuette probably representing Apollo Sauroctonus was found at Regina Castra, on the Danube (see note 135, no. 72). Since there was not a local tradition of carving marble statues, this work must have been imported probably from Italy.

The appeal of late classical types in this camp in late Antonine times is revealed by statuettes of the Capitoline type of Aphrodite with Eros diadoumenos352 as well as of the Lansdowne / Berlin / Pitti type of Hermes, derived from Naucydes’ statue at Troezen.353 Moreover the interest for our type may be explained with the popularity of the healing and sanitizing god Apollo Grannus in a very large area which goes from Gallia to Pannonia. In the late Antonine period at Aquileia the Red Jaspers Workshop cut a red jasper with the type of the Sauroctonus, adopting the variation in which the god rests his left arm on the internal side of the tree trunk, not on the top of it (see note 135, no. 74). This workshop reproduced other statues set up in Rome354 which included also Praxiteles’ Agathodaimon.355 Since the Red Jaspers Workshop specialized in representing idyllic landscapes on gems,356 it is likely that the Sauroctonus type was also regarded an example in the idyllic repertoire. The variation of the type with tall tree may have been chosen because it gave emphasis to the natural setting of the represented mythical episode. The artistic culture of Aquileia at the time was characterized by the repeated reproduction of the Praxitelean Agathodaimon on gems357 as well as by the inspiration to the Cnidian Aphrodite for another gem.358 Beside the derivations from Praxitelean prototypes, Antonine Aquileia was endowed also with reproductions of other late classical masterpieces: Euphranor’s Agathodaimon,359 the Lycius Apollo,360 the Rospigliosi type of Artemis,361 the Meleager attributed to Scopas,362 the Richelieu type of Dionysos,363 the Albani type of Socrates,364 seating Muses of the so-called ‘Thespiads’, Madrid type365 and finally the Sarapis attributed to Bryaxis.366

Of course in a cultural environment as the Antonine was which is characterized by a strong admiration towards the earlier phases of Greek visual arts, early classical works of art are also honoured: the early classical creations copied at Aquileia during these decades included the Phidian Zeus,367 the Phidian Athena Promachos,368 the Altemps type of Heracles,369 a Montecavallo type of Dioscurus,370, the enthroned type of Demeter,371 Nikai of the type of Paeonius,372 the Cook type of Satyr,373 the so-called Aspasia type,374, the Piraeus type of Dionysos375 and finally the portrait of Pythagoras.376 The appeal of Hellenistic creations is felt much less, as it is obvious, in a visual culture which is so retrospective, but Antonine copies of a Hellenistic Satyr377 as well as of the lying Maenad378 have also been found at Aquileia. The three creations by Praxiteles reproduced on Aquileian gems of the time – the Sauroctonus, the Agathodaimon and the Cnidia – promised good luck to the owners of these gems: the Sauroctonus announced the victory upon evil, the Agathodaimon brought food and wine, the Cnidian Aphrodite brought love. It is perhaps redundant to stress how much these optimistic messages fit the rosy depiction of the future which was spread by the imperial propaganda. The same type of re-interpretation of the Apollo Sauroctonus with a tall and curved tree and with the god’s arm resting on the internal side of the tree, is found in Germania Inferior and precisely in Colonia Ulpia Trajana (see note 135, no. 75). Probably the appeal of idyllic patterns which is typical of the period led to the preference accorded to this sub-type. The visual culture of Antonine Xanten was nourished with copies on gems of Praxiteles’ Methe,379 of Euphranor’s AgathSeventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

53

odaimon380 as well as of the type of Venus victrix.381 Moreover an early Antonine bronze copy, probably imported from Italy, of the middle-Hellenistic type of Aphrodite loosening her sandal382 and late Antonine clay figurines representing the love goddess according to the most renowned Hellenistic types of Aphrodite and locally produced by the choroplast Servandus383 complete the picture of the presence of opera nobilia at Xanten. This dossier reveals the appeal of late classical styles (Sauroctonus, Methe and Agathodaimon) and of Hellenistic Fig. 26. Head at Athens, ones (the various types of Aphrodite reBenaki Museum, no. 23722. produced). From the point of view of the messages of these images, Agathodaimon as usual brought food and wine, wine was also brought by the appealing Methe, the Sauroctonus promised victory, while the various representations of Aphrodite invited the viewer to enjoy love. Thus this series of deities announced a very rosy and optimistic future: similar positive messages are often suggested by the divine ad heroic world of the military camps along the limes, as it has been stressed above. This phenomenon may be explained partly with the observation that the desiderata of a society of soldiers are usually rather basic (victory, material prosperity and women), partly with the influence of the imperial propaganda. From an iconographic point of view, the reception of the type of the Sauroctonus at Xanten may have been prepared by the early Imperial local representation of Apollo resting on a column.384 During the Antonine period, the Greek world appears very retrospective, nostalgically living of the glories of the

54

Antonio Corso

past. The great masterpieces made by renowned masters in the classical period are admired and approached as signs of the divine presence rather than only as works of art. Thus it is not surprising that there are three Antonine statues derived from the Sauroctonus found in Greek centres (see note 135, nos. 68-70 and fig. 26). Probably it is hardly casual that the two cities where the statues have been found (Athens: note 135, nos. 68-69 and fig. 26, and Cyrene: note 135, no. 70) were members of the Panhellenic League:385 this fact suggests that Apollo Sauroctonus was selected as one of the masterpieces which represented the Greek past identity. One Attic copy of the Apollo Sauroctonus probably comes from Cephisia, perhaps from the local villa of Herodes Atticus (see note 135, no. 68 and fig. 26).386 The very high quality of this Pentelic sculpture, carved in a first rate Attic workshop, would be in keeping with its possible provenance from an estate of this refined neosophist. The family of Herodes Atticus provided a priest of Apollo Pythius already in late Hellenistic times.387 Herodes’ devotion to Apollo is revealed by the name Triopion he gave to his private sanctuary near Rome along via Appia, which is a reference to a famous sanctuary of Apollo in the Cnidian peninsula,388 by a dedication to his daughter Elpinice in the sanctuary of Apollo Ptoios in Boeotia389 and especially by his close relationship with Delphi.390 Moreover he collected in his villa of Eua Cynurias reliefs with the Lycius type of Apollo391 and with Apollo and the Muses at Delphi392 and set up a copy of the Omphalos type of Apollo in his estate along via Appia.393 Thus the closeness of the sauroktonia of Apollo to his Pythoktonia may have elicited the interest of this patron for Apollo Sauroctonus.

The artistic world of Herodes Atticus is composed of figures which reveal contemplative or meditative attitudes, often sad, characterized by a sober and restrained agency. No doubt these styles were beloved by our neo-sophist because of his love for philosophy and of the untimely death of several relatives which made him increasingly grieved. Not surprisingly, in the sculptural displays of his villas and estates as well as of the public monuments funded by him, there is a preference for early classical types.394 However late classical styles and even 4th c. BC original sculptures were also very much honoured395 as well as famous Hellenistic opera nobilia.396 In the cemetery of the family of Herodes Atticus at Cephisia a deceased youth was portrayed in a statue inspired by the Borghese type of Ares:397 the god saddened by the deaths he is causing is appropriately re-used for the representation of a young boy untimely kidnapped by Hades. The Leda’s sarcophagus from Cephisia was probably made for the daughter of Herodes Atticus, Elpinice, who died still at a young age.398 On a long side of the sarcophagus, Helen appears at the centre: a supreme symbol of beauty which may refer to the outstanding venustas of the girl. At both sides of Helen the Dioscuri appear with the re-use of types probably derived from the statues of Castor and Polydeuces of Lycius, the son of Myron: in this funerary context probably they are meant to suggest their victory on death, perhaps with a reference to the name of the beloved trophimos of Herodes, Polydeukion, who also died untimely. On a short side of the sarcophagus, Leda and the swan are carved: this mythical episode shows the decisive divine intervention into human agency through

love, which leads to beauty and immortality. Appropriately on the other short side a Lysippan Eros with the bow is represented: the chosen type of Eros is not the Lysippan Eros from Thespiae, who is psychologically involved into the action he is about to do, but the more reflective Eros from Myndos which portrays the god while he is thinking perhaps to the eventful consequence of his striking. On the other long side a sea thiasos is carved: probably it is supposed to bring the soul of Elpinice to the island of the blessed. Thus the message of this sarcophagus is about love, outstanding beauty and the reward of immortality. In the context of the visual display of the villa of Herodes Atticus at Cephisia, the Apollo Sauroctonus also promised victory upon evil: the evil may have been regarded in this case the untimely deaths of Herodes’ children and trophimoi. Another copy in Pentelic marble, carved in an Attic workshop, adorned the Acropolis of Athens (see note 135, no. 69). During the Antonine period, the upper terrace of the Acropolis became a sort of museum filled with copies, usually carved in Pentelic marble and made by Attic workshops, of classical opera nobilia which epitomized the old glory of classical Greece. These copies included several late classical creations and Praxitelean ones.399 In the same period at Cyrene a workshop carving Pentelic marble delivered an Eros Sauroctonus which was set up in the local sanctuary of Isis and Osiris (see note 135, no. 70). In this sanctuary, probably from late classical times, Isis was identified with Aphrodite: thus it is not surprising that it was adorned with an Antonine Aphrodite anadyomene as well as with an early imperial group of the three Graces.400 The dedication of a statue of Eros fits this context well. The sanctuSeventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

55

Fig. 27. AE struck by Apollonia ad Rhyndacum during the age of Antonine Pius (drawing taken by D. Sestini, Descrizione delle medaglie antiche greche del Museo Hedervariano 2, Florence (1828) addenda pl. 3, fig. 5).

56

Antonio Corso

ary had been partly damaged under Hadrian and restored during the latest years of reign of this emperor.401 A small bust of Serapis carved according to the Alexandrian type, the above mentioned Aphrodite anadyomene, our Eros Sauroctonus, a late Antonine Agoracritan Meter and a statuette of Zeus carved according to the Dresden type402 adorned the late Hadrianic temple and its surroundings. The Dresden type of Zeus was the usual representation of this god as the protector of the Panhellenic league,403 thus it makes sense that this type was re-used in a polis member of that league. Meter was close to Zeus and moreover both adopted types – the Dresden Zeus and the Agoracritan type of Meter – at the time were much admired icons, close to the highly appreciated art of Phidias. The Bryaxis’ type of Serapis was the obvious choice for the representation of this god especially in a city which was close to the Alexandrian culture. Since Isis was supposed to give salvation to her worshippers, as it is possible to argue especially from the Antonine ‘Metamorphoses’ of Apuleius, thus the type of Eros Sauroctonus may have conveyed to the viewer the message of victory and sanitization guaranteed by Isis / Aphrodite. This dedication should be included in the huge evidence of the fortune of

Praxitelean types in middle imperial Cyrene404 as well as in the general devotion to Greek classical opera nobilia which characterizes the artistic culture of this polis during these decades. Needless to say, the deeply felt nostalgia towards the glorious artistic past of Greece may have been regarded an essential component in the pedigree of a Greek colony, member of the Panhellenic league. At Rome, the temple of Augustus on the Palatine - where Apollo Sauroctonus probably was set up – was shown on coins of Antonine Pius no longer with an exastyle front, as it appeared on coins of Caligula, but with an octastyle front and Corinthian columns:405 it is not known whether the transformation of the temple is to be attributed to the previously mentioned restoration by Domitian or to an unattested rebuilding of the same temple by Antonine Pius. In the same period Apollonia ad Rhyndacum shows on its coins Apollo Sauroctonus inside an Ionic tetrastyle temple (see note 135, no. 76 and fig. 27). As in a previous coin type of this city (see note 125, no. 51), an Ionic column takes the place of the tree trunk. The Ionic tetrastyle temple had been already shown on a coin type of Apollonia of the age of Nerva but no statue was represented inside the temple. The presence of the statue inside the temple on Antonine coins of this city may be due to the purpose to give emphasis on the religious identity of this Apollo, in a period in which the Greek classical images are increasingly felt as epiphanies of gods on earth and approaching them is often regarded a way to get closer to gods.406 Another possibility is that a new copy of Apollo Sauroctonus was carved for this temple and set up in this building and that the coin type commemorated this event. The Thespians also ordered

a copy of the Praxitelean Eros from the Athenian sculptor Menodoros after Praxiteles’ original Eros was removed to Rome (see Pausanias 9. 27. 4): thus this possibility cannot be excluded. Finally it is not impossible that Apollo Sauroctonus by Praxiteles was brought back to its original Mysian setting. Such restitutions are not unknown: for example Augustus restituted Myron’s Heracles and Athena to Samus407 and Claudius restituted the Praxitelean Eros to Thespiae.408 Moreover it should not be forgotten that Antonine Pius had been proconsul for the province Asia around 135 / 136 AD and that his enduring predilection for the cities of this province is revealed by the huge funds given to cities of Asia for building works after the earthquake of 142-144 AD.409 Finally it has to be considered that, as it will be stressed below, with the late Antonine times the type of Apollo Sauroctonus disappears from the western part of the empire. Although this phenomenon is first of all due to the general decline of copyist productions which is typical of the period, the fact that no single copy of this type is known to have been delivered to any place of the pars occidentis of the empire after around 160 AD would be better understandable if Praxiteles’ statue went back to its original setting.410 In the same period Apollo Sauroctonus is reproduced on two coin types of Nicopolis ad Istrum (see note 135, nos. 77 and 78). The reason of the adoption of this type for coins of this Trajanic foundation probably relies in the importance of Apollo in the Thracian religious life,411 in the fact that the elite of the local population was Greek412 and must have regarded the masterpieces of their great past an important component of their own identity, finally in the fact that Apollo Sauroctonus was regarded a symbol of victory

in the visual culture of the military camps along the limes (see note 135, nos. 49, 72 and 75) and may have been attributed the same meaning also in this defensive stronghold against Thracian tribes. Finally since its administration was modeled on Greek towns of Asia Minor,413 the direct influence of the coinage of Apollonia cannot be excluded. The visual culture of Antonine Nicopolis included an excellent marble copy of the Eros of Parium as well as an Asclepios of the Giustini type,414 which reveal the appeal of Athenian late-classical styles in this town: if the city was endowed with a good copy of the Praxitelean Eros of Parium, it may have been adorned also with a first rate copy of the more famous Apollo Sauroctonus which might have inspired its representation on coins. On the coin types of Nicopolis, the vertical support of Apollo is a tree-trunk and not a column: this fact suggests that the interpretation of the type given in this town near the border of the state is closer to that given in the world of the military camps along the limes than to that given in Mysia. The tree trunk on these coins is rather vertical and not curved or sinuous, without boughs and leaves. The left hand of the god is brought on top of the trunk and not on the internal side of the same. The shape of the tree suggests that the Apollo Sauroctonus of Nicopolis is not inspired by the Sauroctoni on gems but depends rather on a free standing copy of the masterpiece. The position of the left hand makes it clear that this possible copy portrayed the god according to its interpretation given in the Vatican subtype. A direct dependence of the Sauroctoni of Nicopolis from the original statue of Praxiteles is less likely because, as it has been suggested above, probably the tree of this statue was rather curved. Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

57

Fig. 28. AE struck by Apollonia ad Rhyndacum under Lucius Verus, reverse, at London, The British Museum, no. 1859. 1219. 44.

58

Antonio Corso

However the presence of a hollow at the foot of the trunk in the coin type in note 135, no. 78 may convey a feature of the original creation by Praxiteles because a hollow characterized also the tree trunk of the Resting Satyr415 and thus was adopted by our sculptor in order to make this element more naturalistic through a light and shade rendering. The Apollo Sauroctonus was adopted even on coin types of Antonine Philippopolis (see note 135, nos. 79-80). The Sauroctoni of Philippopolis are very similar to those on the coins of Nicopolis and suggest that one of these two cities took the inspiration from the coins of the other. Since the type occurs on coins of Nicopolis prior to its adoption in the coinage of Philippopolis, it is probable that the Philippopolitans imitated the choice of the type of the Nicopolitans. The patron deity of the capital of Thrace, whose elite spoke Greek, was Apollo:416 this circumstance may have favoured the choice of a famous statue of Apollo for representation on local coins. Moreover the sense of the Greek identity on the part of the Greek speaking elite of this town may have led to the decision to give value to a masterpiece which ranked high in the series of admired works of the Greek classical past. Finally a locally discovered Antonine copy of the Giustini type of Asclepios417 confirms the interest of this society for late classical Athenian representations of healing gods. In the late Antonine period, the Sauroctonus stops being reproduced with free standing sculptures and on gems. However, in the late 2nd c. AD the masterpiece is still represented on coins of cities of the Pontic area.

There are three coin types bearing this iconography which date in the years of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (see note 135, nos. 81-83). One of these coin types has been struck by Apollonia ad Rhyndacum under Lucius Verus (see note 135, no. 81 and fig. 28), another by Nicopolis ad Istrum under Marcus Aurelius (see note 135, no. 82) while the last has been struck by Philippopolis under Faustina the Younger (see note 135, no. 83): thus these three cities keep striking coins with the Sauroctonus in continuity with the previous period. During these years, Apollonia struck coin types bearing also other types of Apollo, characterized as Pythios418 or resting with an arm on a column:419 the latter feature suggests that the column adopted as vertical support for the Sauroctonus in coins’ representations does not actually copy faithfully an element of a statue but is often associated with images of Apollo probably in order to include the god patron of the city into a sacred landscape. Moreover representations on coins of Artemis with a schema close to that of the Versailles type of this goddess,420 of Dionysus according to the Attic late classical types – with thyrsus and cantharus - as well as of Asclepios with the usual bearded and half naked configuration421 confirm the strong impact of the late classical imagery of these deities on the visual culture of late Antonine Apollonia. The Aurelian coin type of Nicopolis follows the standard interpretation of this iconography already shown on previous Antonine coin types of this city of immigrants from Asia Minor.422 The visual culture of the times included also a girlish Artemis wearing a diploid chiton423 and a typically early Hellenistic Tyche with horn of plenty and phiale424 who also appear on Aurelian coins of the town and moreover reveal the high esteem of sculptural

types handed down from an ancient artistic tradition. The coin type of Philippopolis struck under Faustina the Younger sees the reception in the capital of Thrace of Apollonia’s interpretation of the Sauroctonus whose left hand rests on an Ionic column and not on a tree trunk. The coinage of Philippopolis under Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus and Faustina the Younger sees also the reception of statuary types of Apollo,425 Demeter,426 Athena,427 Dionysus428 and Asclepios429 which reveal the education of this Greek city to see the gods according to their standard classical iconographies. During the age of Commodus, Nicopolis keeps striking coins bearing Apollo Sauroctonus (see note 135, nos. 87 and 88), with interpretations of this iconography which are very similar to those of previous coin types struck by the same city. The iconographies on coins of this town of Zeus,430 of Dionysus,431 of Hygieia and Asclepios,432 of Tyche433 and probably of Demeter (the latter being in keeping with the Large Herculaneum Lady)434 proposed the traditional deities according to types guaranteed by the late classical and early Hellenistic tradition. The appearance of Eros on a Commodan coin of Nicopolis435 is particularly noteworthy because this god is represented with a sinuous style with large wings and thus may have been inspired by Praxiteles’ Eros of Parium. This possibility would strengthen my suggestion that even Apollo Sauroctonus on coins of Nicopolis was inspired by a famous statue set up in north-western Asia Minor. During these years, Prusa ad Olympum in western Bithynia struck a coin type bearing Apollo Sauroctonus (see note 135, no. 84). This city was rather close to Apollonia ad Rhyndacum.436 The

interpretation of Apollo Sauroctonus given on this coin type is close to those of Nicopolis and Philippopolis, as far as the slender and rather straight tree trunk is concerned: it is without boughs and leaves and thus may have been inspired by coins of these two Thracian cities. However the body of the god is frontal as on the coins of Apollonia and not in profile as on Thracian coins, the right arm of the god is brought to the side as on the coin types of Apollonia, while on most coin types of Nicopolis and Philippopolis it is close to the body: thus the general conception of the figure appears to have been taken from the type of Sauroctonus on the coins of Apollonia and this observation implies that the Sauroctonus of Apollonia enjoyed a special authority in NW Asia Minor. Also in this case the local importance of the cult of Apollo437 may have led the authorities of this town to the decision to represent Apollo Sauroctonus on their coins. Moreover, since in this town Apollo is invoked as ‘saviour’,438 it is possible that the sauroktonia was interpreted as a symbol of healing salvation. Apollo is represented at Prusa as citharoedus, in long robe fastened by a high belt, according to a well established late classical and early Hellenistic iconography,439 and as archer, with the adoption of the classical chiastic characterization of the standing male body.440 These examples reveal that our god was locally conceived according to statuary types of the Greek classical visual culture. The visual culture of Prusa in this period includes also the type of Meter of Agoracritus,441 an Athena generically inspired by Attic late classical types,442 an Artemis close to Strongylion’s type,443 an Apollo close to the Omphalos type,444 Attic standard types of Hygieia and Asclepios,445 of Nike446 as well as the typically Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

59

early Hellenistic iconography of Tyche.447 These examples reveal the strong impact of classical iconographies of deities in late Antonine Prusa. In the same years the city of Prusa struck also 3 coin types bearing Eros Sauroctonus (see note 135, nos. 85-86, under Commodus, and 89, under Crispina): Eros is given a configuration similar to that of Apollo Sauroctonus except that the left arm is lowered and resting with his elbow on a side Ionic column. The frontal presentation of the god, the right arm brought to the side and the adoption of the column reveal the inspiration of whoever conceived these images from the Apollo Sauroctonus on coin types of the neighbouring city of Apollonia. The sinuous body of the god, the shape of the images, his hair style with a chignon on the nape and the left arm lowered with its bent elbow may copy the same features of the not distant Eros of Parium, which are known from coin types of this town, and thus may reveal the popularity of the latter masterpiece.448 The chlamis thrown on the side vertical support may have been inspired by the same feature in the Hermes carrying the baby Dionysus by Cephisodotus449 or by the group depicting the same gods by Praxiteles set up at Olympia.450 Of course the idea to transfer the pattern of the sauroktonia from Apollo to Eros had been established in the Roman copyist production already much earlier, both in Latium et Campania (see note 135, nos. 11 and 27) as well as at Cyrene (see note 135, no. 70). The decision of the Prusan authorities to give emphasis on Eros Sauroctonus on their coins may have been taken because of the renown of the Praxitelean Eros of Parium in the neighbouring area. Thus it may have been tempting to suggest a contaminatio of the two most important agalmata of the region: the Apollo Sauroctonus and the Eros of Parium. The

60

Antonio Corso

importance of Eros at Prusa451 may have contributed to this decision. The coins of Prusa are the only visual documents which allow us to have an idea of how Eros Sauroctonus looked like because the three available statues of this type survive only as torsos. During the Severan period, Apollo Sauroctonus is represented quite often on coin types of both Apollonia and Nicopolis (see note 135, nos. 90-107). Apollonia keeps striking coin types bearing Apollo Sauroctonus resting on an Ionic column, with his left arm resting on the vertical support with its elbow and his right arm brought to the side. The body is represented in a three quarter position with the head in full profile (see note 135, nos. 90; 96; 99 and 107). Sometimes Apollo is represented alone (see note 135, nos. 90-107), sometimes inside his own temple (see note 135, nos. 96 and 99). The coinage of the town in the period of Septimius Severus portrays Apollo without the temple (see note 135, no. 90). The importance of Apollo is argued also from coins struck under Julia Domna which portray Apollo as Pythius452 as well as with Daphne.453 Demeter running and holding two torches, represented on other coins of the same years, is loosely derived from the late classical Eleusinian imagery.454 On the contrary the coinage of the town under Geta and Caracalla prefers the variation of the god within his own temple (see note 135, nos. 96 and 99). Another coin type of these years bears Apollo and Artemis in statuary types which echo the late classical imagery of these two gods.455 Finally Apollo Sauroctonus is represented again without his temple in the coinage of this town under the emperors Diadumenian and Elagabalus (see note

135, no. 107). Another coin type of the period represents again Apollo as Pythius.456 The occurrence of both Apollo Sauroctonus and Apollo Pythius in the Apollonian coinage of the same years suggests that the two episodes – that of slaying the Python and that of killing the lizard – were regarded similar and linked. Apollo Sauroctonus is equally portrayed on coin types of Nicopolis of the Severan period (see note 136, nos. 91-95; 97-98; 100-106), under Septimius Severus (see note 135, nos. 91-95), under Caracalla (see note 135, nos. 97-98), under Geta (see note 135, nos. 100-101), under Plautilla (see note 135, no. 102), under Macrinus (see note 135, nos. 103-105 and fig. 29) and finally under Diadumenian (see note 135, no. 106). On coins of Nicopolis, Apollo is always resting on a tree trunk with his left arm. His right arm is either brought to the side as in most cases or lowered and bent on the body. The tree trunk always looks slender, sometimes straight, other times with a zig-zag configuration but usually has not boughs, nor leaves. In the Severan coinage of this city, the other traditional gods are usually represented according to their standard classical iconographies.457 The frequent occurrence of established types of Apollo and Artemis on Severan coins of Nicopolis458 guarantees the special devotion felt in town towards the two deities. Moreover the frequent occurrence of snakes and reptiles on Nicopolis’ coins and their association with tripods or omphaloi - well known attributes of Apollo – suggest that reptiles were particularly important in the local cult of Apollo. 459 Finally it should be noticed that a relief lizard is carved above the Ionic three fascias architrave of Hadrianic period pertinent to the northern portico of the

agora of Nicopolis which leads to the local basilica:460 this fact might perhaps suggest that the cult of Apollo Sauroctonus took place in the basilica.461 Of course the importance of the cult of Sun in the heydays of the Severan dynasty and its close association with Apollo462 may also partly explain the continuous striking of coins bearing Apollo Sauroctonus by Apollonia and Nicopolis during these decades. A certain interest of the Severan court for our masterpiece may be revealed by the re-use of previously carved copies of the Sauroctonus type in imperial buildings of the time. It is likely that the copies of the Sauroctonus which had been already displayed in the imperial palace on the Palatine (see note 135, nos. 9; 44; 46 and 56) were set up also in the Severan phase of the palace.463 These copies may have been disposed in couples, one being the pendant of the other of the same type, and may have become part of a series of ‘old’ copies of late classical masterpieces (Timotheus’ Leda, Euphranor’s Paris, Praxiteles’ Sauroctonus and Archer Eros) illustrating the loves of deities and heroes, in the context of a hedonistic concept of the art of the age of Plato and Menander, which is typical of these decades. Moreover a late Antonine or early Severan copy of Cephisodotus the Elder’s

Fig. 29. AE struck by Nicopolis ad Istrum under Macrinus, at Paris, National Library, Department of Coins, Medals and Antiquities, no. 817.

Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

61

Hermes carrying the baby Dionysus464 was set up in the palace as well as a newly carved copy of the Resting Satyr.465 These settings are justified by both the promotion of the cult of Bacchus by Septimius Severus466 and the high esteem of Attic late-classical and Praxitelean styles, which in the age of Athenaeus are supposed to mirror the golden age of the Attic society of the age of the great philosophers and courtesans as well as of the New Comedy. The circumstance that a new copy of the Resting Satyr was set up in the Severan Palace while only old copies of the Sauroctonus are known to have been reused should be noticed: this fact lends support to the suggestion that, while the Resting Satyr was still standing in Rome and new copies could still be made of it, on the contrary the Apollo Sauroctonus was no longer available and thus only ‘ancient’ copies could be displayed. In the same years, the Augustan copy of Eros Sauroctonus from Baiae (see note 135, no. 11) was re-displayed in the Severan phase of the imperial Nymphaeum of Baiae. This statue was set up in the Nymphaeum together with Amazons of the Sosicles and Sciarra types, probably derived respectively from the Amazons of Cresilas and Polycleitus, an Eros in fetters, an Athena of the Vescovali type, two copies of the Aphrodite named ‘Hera Borghese’ – one of which was reinterpreted as Tyche -, Eros and Psyche, a leaning Heracles, a flute-playing Satyr, a probable Hygieia and herms of Asclepios and Dionysos.467 Eros was the most beloved subject, because no fewer than 3 statues (Eros Sauroctonus, in fetters and with Psyche) evoked Eros as the central figure of the ‘ancient’ art of pleasure. The world of Dionysos was represented by a head of

62

Antonio Corso

the god and by the flute – playing Satyr, Asclepios and Hygieia are explainable with the concern for health and salvation typical of the age of Philostratus’ ‘Life of Apollonius of Tyana’. Athena may have suggested military strength and / or learned wisdom while Heracles leaning on the coat of the Nemean lion suggests the idea of rest after worthy deeds, which is in keeping with the function of a Nymphaeum, devoted to the need for relaxation. Finally the Amazons of Ephesus may have been logically associated to Artemis Ephesia, identified with the Moon and thus in keeping with the astrological obsession of the court life of the time.468 From an artistic point of view, the Amazons, the two copies of the Aphrodite called ‘Hera Borghese’ and the herm of Dionysus were inspired by famous middle classical masterpieces, with a preference for female subjects as well as for the god of happiness. Asclepios and Hygieia, the Vescovali Athena, the fluteplaying Satyr and our Eros Sauroctonus led the viewer to the late classical art, with a preference for masterpieces suggesting a life style based on sensual satisfaction: this value was considered in the time of Athenaeus typical of the golden period of courtesans. Finally the leaning Heracles and Psyche with Eros introduced formal experiences of later periods. Most of this decorative program advertises the relaxation and abandonment to the enjoyment of life, which was the most important function of a Nymphaeum: a type of building conceived delectationis causa. However Athena and Heracles are there to warn that you must have well deserved in order to be able to relax. Eros Sauroctonus was probably regarded an episode in the series of hunting Erotes: this suggestion is based on

the fact that the same building was endowed with friezes representing Erotes fighting animals or hunting.469 The post-Severan age sees the decline of the neo-sophistic culture as well as of the admiration towards the masterpieces of the classical past. The need to travel in order to see the beautiful gods is fading and the phenomenon of art tourism is shrinking. Many Greek cities stop showing their most renowned classical statues on their coins.470 In this context, it is hardly surprising that after Diadumenian, Nicopolis ad Istrum stopped showing Apollo Sauroctonus on its coins. Apollonia ad Rhyndacum only kept striking coins bearing Apollo Sauroctonus until the 250s (see note 135, nos. 108-109). On these coin types, Apollo usually appears inside his temple: this fact is probably meant to underline his sacrality and his status of idol. The first of these coin types of Apollonia was struck under Gordian iii (see note 135, no. 108), probably in 242, when this emperor crossed Mysia on his way for the campaign against the Persians.471 Other coin types of Apollonia of the years of Gordian iii bear an Asclepios generically inspired by the late classical imagery of the standing god472 and an Aphrodite fastening her sandal.473 Thus the visual culture of Apollonia at the time reveals the persistence of the authority of a few opera nobilia which promise victory upon evil (Apollo) or health and salvation (Asclepios) or love (Aphrodite) in keeping with the usual concept of ‘ancient’ art as a remote reign of beauty and pleasure. This classicistic aura may have been maintained locally partly thanks to the influence of Timesitheus, i. e. of the strong man of the empire under Gordian iii who was also endowed with a sophisticated culture.474 In the context of Gordian iii’s campaign against the Persians,

the general and obvious message of the sauroktonia as victory upon evil may have been meant to promise victory against the enemy of the time, i. e. against the Persians, which is why this iconography has been represented again on coins of this city exactly in this period, as a homage to the emperor’s war. Finally the iconography of Apollo Sauroctonus appears on four coin types of Apollonia during the empire of Gallien (see note 135, no. 109): on one of them the god is alone475 while on the remaining three coin types he appears inside his temple. The iconography of the god lizard-slayer prevails on the reverses of the coinage of Apollonia under Gallien. The only Apollonian coin type struck under this emperor which does not bear the Sauroctonus probably represents Agathodaimon with fortune wheel and horn of plenty476 while one coin type struck under Salonina portrays on the reverse Apollo and Daphne.477 The dominance of Apollo in the Gallienic coinage of Apollonia might suggest that the message of victory of this god became once again topical. This message is coupled with the notion of love (Apollo and Daphne) as well as with the advertising of the abundance of food (Agathodaimon with his horn of plenty). The overall picture which is argued from the coinage of these years is very optimistic, in keeping with the usual imperial propaganda. In all of these cases the subjects represented are young and that is in keeping with the ideal of the juventus which is also typical of the imperial propaganda.478 The strong interest towards Praxiteles’ masterpiece should be understood in the context of the classicistic trend which characterized the so-called ‘Gallienic renaissance’.479 The usual message of victory attributed to the Sauroctonus may reveal a Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

63

fresh concern for the invasion of Mysia by Goths and Herulians.480 The probable sack of Apollonia by these northern barbarian tribes, which may have damaged the city and destroyed the temple and the statue of Apollo Sauroctonus represented on coins, partly explains the fact that the striking of coins by Apollonia ended in the late Gallienic years. This is also due to the general decline of the institutional life of cities which occurs in the period of the military anarchy.481 Thus the miniature reproductions of Apollo Sauroctonus on coins ended probably in the early 260s, in keeping with the general lack of interest for works of classical masters which characterizes the third quarter of the 3rd c.AD.482 A certain interest towards our type is evidenced again in the tetrarchic age, when an Antonine copy of Apollo Sauroctonus was re-used in the imperial palatium, probably of the emperor Maximian, at Philosophiana in Sicily (see note 135, no. 71).483 The mosaics and sculptures of the estate offer representations of many Erotes,484 of Aphrodite,485 of Dionysos and of his retinue,486 of sea thiasoi,487 of mythological episodes488 which were well established in the visual culture thanks to a long tradition and suggested the usual gallant and pleasant interpretation of deities and heroes, as well as of scenes of daily life,489 most of which expressed the concept of relaxation: of course the need to relax and enjoy life was one of the main functions of the ‘villa’. The frequent occurrence of Heracles490 is probably due to the fact that the deified hero was the divine protector of Maximian.491 Statues of Apollo492 set up in the ‘villa’ probably are due to the importance attributed to this god by Constantine,493 who married Fausta, the daughter of Maximian, and thus may have inherited this estate.494

64

Antonio Corso

In this villa, beside our Antonine copy of Apollo Sauroctonus, other copies or variations of famous opera nobilia included an Antonine copy of Apollo Lycius,495 an early imperial Aphrodite close to the Medici type,496 an early imperial Heracles close to Lysippus’ Heracles epitrapezios,497 an early imperial athletic head close to the Argive athletic sculpture of the middle classical period and perhaps pertinent to a statue of young Heracles498 and a late Antonine head of Heracles close to the Lansdowne type of this hero, which is probably the copyist tradition of Scopas’ Heracles at Sicyon.499 Since Apollo Lycius was found in the hall with the mosaic of Orpheus, this god was meant to represent the poetic inspiration. On the contrary, if Apollo Sauroctonus stood in the peristyle, the teenage god killing the reptile on the tree trunk may have been interpreted as an idyllic episode, in keeping with the garden and the water basin of the peristyle, as well as with the hunting and mythical episodes inside landscapes which decorated diaetae around the peristyle.500 The statue of young Heracles stood in a naiskos constituted along a short side of the peristyle: with this arrangement Fausta would have honoured both her father, with Heracles, and her husband, with Apollo. From an artistic point of view, the display of statues inspired by old masterpieces reveals the reception of a middle classical Argive athletic style – this Heracles -, of Apollo Sauroctonus, of Apollo Lycius, probably to be attributed to Euphranor,501 of Scopas’ Heracles, of Lysippus’ Heracles epitrapezios and finally of the Medici type of Aphrodite, which probably derives from Lysippus’ Aphrodite.502 This choice of statuary types reveals a predilection for late classical

styles . In particular the re-use of copies of Attic late classical masterpieces may suggest a persistence of the nostalgia for Athens of the age of Plato and Menander, while the display of statues inspired by works of Lysippus may be due to the enduring popularity of Alexander the Great, because the never ending wars with the Persians may have elicited an interest also towards the works of Alexander’s beloved bronze sculptor.503 The copies of Apollo Sauroctonus which can be dated only generically to the period of the copyist production (note 135, nos. 110-113) add further examples to the popularity of the type in the first region of Italy – Latium et Campania -because the example no. 111 was once at Naples and those nos. 110 and 112 come from Rome. Moreover the bronze fragment no. 112 strengthens the evidence offered by the bronze copy no. 17 concerning the presence of bronze copies of our type at Rome. After the tetrarchic period, there is not further evidence of an interest towards this type. However, the memory of Apollo Sauroctonus at Apollonia ad Rhyndacum must have not been completely lost: in fact probably by the 11th c. AD, another figure slying a reptile – although a bigger one – was venerated in town, which by that time was called Theotokiana: St. George who killed the dragon.504 With the creation of Apollo Sauroctonus and his setting in a sanctuary of north-western Asia Minor, Praxiteles proposed a new, teenage-looking, androgynous and sinuous figure of Apollo, which expressed well the typically Ionian value of the habrosyne. Thus it is likely that this statue enhanced the success of its master in Mysia. Probably these considerations explain the circumstance that in the same

period Praxiteles was commissioned another statue of a young god for a city and a sanctuary which were not distant from Apollonia.

37. The Eros of Parium Praxiteles’ marble statue of Eros set up at Parium in Propontis is known thanks to a long passage of Pliny 36 22: ‘To him (scil.: Praxiteles) belongs, moreover, another Cupid, which is naked (nudus), at Parium, the colony of Propontis, a work that matches the Venus of Cnidus in its renown (nobilitas), as well as in the outrageous treatment which it suffered. For Alcetas, a man from Rhodes, fell in love with it and left upon it a similar mark of his passion’ (transl. Loeb with amendments). From this passage it is possible to argue that this statue of Eros of Praxiteles was marble: since Pliny considers the statue within his treatment of the Parian marble (36. 14-43), it is probable that the marble used for this statue had been Parian. This probability is in keeping with the fact that Parus had been the main colonizer of this city:505 thus it makes sense that the marble used for this statue stressed the identity of its polis. Moreover the passage of Pliny makes it clear that this was one of the most important works of Praxiteles: in fact the Latin writer devotes to this statue a long passage which contrasts with the quick mentions of other Praxitelean marble works in 36. 23, stresses its renown (nobilitas) and specifies that its fame could be compared to that of the Cnidian Aphrodite. The importance of the statue matches also that of the cult of Eros at Parium, which is testified by Pausanias 9. 27. 1: this traveller asserts that the cult of Eros Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

65

at Parium was not inferior to that of the same god at Thespiae, i. e. of the most famous sanctuary of Eros of the mainland. The visual impact of the local cult of Eros is revealed by coin types of Parium representing this god.506 The mythical aition of this cult would lay in the legend that Paris spent his childhood at Parium, where he was honoured with a statue and the tomb in the agora and to whom the Parians tributed sacrifices and festivities.507 This myth suggests: a. that the cult of Eros at Parium was rather ancient and thought to hark back to the mythical times of the Trojan war, thus that it was pre-Praxitelean and that a cult statue must have already existed at the time of Praxiteles; and b. that Eros conceived at Parium was expression of the prevalence of love in both internal feelings and agency which characterized Paris: the hero gynai(ko)manes.508 These considerations imply that Eros was locally regarded omnipotent – with a substantial acceptation of the concept of the god asserted in Plato’s Symposium – and that he patronized the behaviour which once characterized this important hero of the Asiatic kingdom of Troja and thus an important life style enshrined in the tradition of Asia Minor. The above outlined picture of the cult identity of Eros at Parium suggests that the satrap of Dascylium – Artabazus – might have been interested in the promotion of this sanctuary of Eros and in its monumentalization, in order to give visual emphasis to the Trojan heritage, to express the typically Asiatic values of the tryphe and of the habrosyne and perhaps also to oppose this sanctuary of Eros in Asia to that of Thespiae. Equally the ruling elite of Parium may have wanted to have an important statue of a famous master, in rivality with the near cities of Apol-

66

Antonio Corso

lonia ad Rhyndacum, adorned with the Sauroctonus, and with the Smintheum which was endowed with a statue by Scopas.509 In this satrapy there may have been a program aiming at adorning the most important sanctuaries of the region with works of art of renowned masters: this program would have been similar to that pursued by Mausolus in Caria. Thus, as the Cnidian Aphrodite illustrated the bath of this goddess prior to the judgment of Paris and as the Amazons of the Mausoleum gave emphasis to these mythical allies of Troja, in the same way our Eros may have symbolized the divine support for the life style of Paris. All of these works would have implied the consideration of the kingdom of Troja as the mythical antecedent of the satrapy of Artabazus. Before beginning the survey of the visual evidence derived from the Eros of Parium, it is necessary to consider the above mentioned statue of Paris: Athenagoras, Legatio pro Christianis 26. 3 defines this statue andrias and specifies that it was bronze. Since statues of Paris outside of any narrative context are rare, it is probable that this bronze statue of Paris coincides with the bronze statue of Paris by Euphranor, regarded by Pliny 34. 77 the most important bronze masterpiece of this Isthmian master. According to Pliny, Euphranor’s statue ‘conveys all the characteristics of Paris in combination – the judge of the goddesses, the lover of Helen and yet the slayer of Achilles’. (transl. Loeb) All of these three episodes tie this statue to the mythical history of the Troad and especially to the kingdom of Troy. Moreover the expression of the mythical moments of the judgment of the goddesses and of Paris’ love with Helen places this statue of the Trojan hero in the world of Aphrodite and Eros while the representation of Paris as slayer of Achil-

les reveals anti-Greek feelings: whoever patronized this statue identified himself with the Trojans against the Greeks and wanted to commemorate Paris’ prevalence upon the greatest of Greek heroes! For this reason it is likely that this statue had been an episode of satrapic patronage: that in turn strengthens the identification of Euphranor’s Paris with the statue of this hero set up in the agora of Parium, i. e. of a city of north-western Asia Minor whose mythical identity laid in the Trojan legend. Euphranor’s Paris is recognized in the copyist tradition in a type of youth with Phrygian hat who bears a sinuous style which is similar, although reversed, to that of Praxiteles’ Apollo Sauroctonus.510 Not differently from the Sauroctonus, even this type advertizes the same effeminate ideal of youth of western Asia Minor under the Satraps, suggestive of a sensual life style devoted to the pleasures and to the satisfaction of instincts and thus opposed to the muscular athletic ideal of youth expressed by the visual tradition of mainland Greece. It is conceivable that Praxiteles and Euphranor became rivals in trying to respond with their statues to the desiderata of the patronage of Artabazus, the satrap of Dascylium:511 the former made the bronze statue of Apollo Sauroctonus for Apollonia ad Rhyndacum and the marble statue of Eros for Parium, while the latter made the bronze statue of Paris for Parium. Pliny 36. 22 informs also that the Eros of Parium was ‘naked’ (nudus). His specification that the statue was not less renowned than the Cnidian Aphrodite of course implies that the early Hellenistic art criticism took already notice of it.512 In particular the detail that the statue is distinguished for its nobilitas suggests that Pasiteles included it in his catalogue of nobilia opera in 5 books

(Varro in Pliny 36. 39-40). Finally it is not impossible that Pliny used for the information about this statue also the memoirs from the east of Mucianus.513 Finally Pliny compares the Eros of Parium to the Cnidian Aphrodite because he had been also the object of an episode of agalmatophilia. The Cnidian Aphrodite was targeted by lovers at the latest from around 300 BC onwards. The most famous episode of these loves, to be placed in the early 3rd c. BC, is accounted by Pliny just in the previous paragraph (36. 21) and reports that a noble youth copulated with the Cnidia leaving his sperm on her thigh.514 Pliny specifies that a Rhodian man named Alcetas left a similar mark on the Eros. The name Alcetas is known on Rhodes thanks to a couple of inscriptions from Camirus:515 he was an early 2nd c. BC member of a family whose exponents are recorded both for holding the demiourgia as well as public benefactors. Since this family was in the public eye, it is tempting to suggest that Alcetas known through these inscriptions is the same mentioned by Pliny. Since, as I shall point out below, the period of flourishing of Alcetas from Camirus is the same of the reception of the sculptural type of the Eros of Parium in the visual culture of Rhodes, it is possible that Alcetas, with his fondness for this Eros, pioneered the practice of copying this type on the island. This episode of agalmatophilia suggests two considerations, one concerning the concept of Eros at Parium and the other related to its appearance. While the Eros of Thespiae embodied the status of whoever feels the sentiment of love and thus the situation of the erastes, which is why no act of agalmatophilia is handed down concerning this statue,516 on the contrary the Eros of PariSeventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

67

um, having been subjected to the love of a man, of course personified the status of the eromenos. This observation is in keeping with the above reported conclusion that this Eros must have suggested an androgynous, effeminate model of youth. From a formal point of view, the fact that the statue excited the desire of a man implies that its appearance must have been similar to that of the Cnidia, i. e. that it must have conveyed to the viewer the appearance of a fleshy body as well as of a velvety skin. The use of colours and of transparent waxes on the statue’s surfaces may have been crucial towards making the divine image appealing.517 The configuration of this Eros is known thanks to Roman imperial coin types of Parium which bear the image of the statue on their reverses (fig. 33):518 the god bears a sinuous body which is very similar to that of the Apollo Sauroctonus. The right leg rests on the ground with the full sole, whilst the left leg is bent on the knee and the corresponding foot rests on the ground with the tip of toes. The left arm is lowered with the forearm brought forward in order to hold an attribute which on the coins is not specified. The right arm is also lowered and brought to the side and probably also held an object which cannot be detected on coins. The god is naked except that the drapery – probably a mantel – is held on the left arm and falls down from the forwarded forearm. The large wings are similar to those of the Farnese / Steinhaeuser type of Eros, which reproduces the Praxitelean Archer Eros, both in their general shape as well as in the carving of their lower sections with long strips. The head turns to the viewer’s right: heads represented in profile characterize also the coin reproductions of the Cnidian Aphrodite and of the Apollo Sauroctonus. Since the Cnidia

68

Antonio Corso

and the Sauroctonus had in fact heads in a three / quarters position, probably also in the case of our Eros the profile rendering of the head is a simplification of an original three / quarters position of the same. The face is oval and typically Praxitelean. The hair was brought behind and collected with a chignon. Below the right arm of the god, a small archaic idol is represented: probably it is the original cult statue of Eros which may have been very archaic and similar to the argos lithos worshipped as the original cult statue of Eros at Thespiae (see Pausanias 9. 27. 1). The general style of the figure derives from that of Apollo Sauroctonus except for the drapery which falls down from the left arm: the latter feature will be used by Praxiteles during his late phase, as it will become clear with the consideration of the Hermes of Olympia. Thus the Eros of Parium is probably a little later that the Apollo Sauroctonus because it reveals a solution to the problem of creating a wing which closes the composition on one side which is typical of the art of Praxiteles during the 340s. The representation of the archaic idol on the viewer’s left side is equally important: from a formal point of view it creates a vertical wing on this side. However the main reason for its adoption must have been religious: it advertises the high antiquity and the true religious flavour of the cult of Eros at Parium. For this reason the presence of the idol may have been required by the patrons of the statue. From the point of view of artistic tradition, the presence at a side of a previous image of the god below the arm of the new statue reminds the archaistic herm of Hermes below the left arm of Hermes carrying the baby Dionysus by Cephisodotus the Elder.519 and foreshadows the Apollo from Formiae – probably a copy from a late Praxitelean Apollo -520 who rests with

his left arm on an archaistic Artemis, as well as the Artemis from Larnaka, also resting on an archaistic statuette of the goddess and to be placed in the early Hellenistic Praxitelean environment.521 In any case the growing success of the adoption of the schema of the statue of a god with an archaic idol placed below his arm is due to the contemporary growing antiquarian culture which loves ancient myths and statues, as evidence of the prestige of a sanctuary.522 Concerning the specific message of the statue, it is crucial to understand which attributes the god showed in the hands of his forwarded forearms. In order to understand this specific aspect of the creation we must consider the following argumentations: 1. the statue, illustrating the power of Eros revealed in the story of Paris, probably represented the god as omnipotent. 2. the sanctuary pertained to a polis on the sea, thus we should expect that the symbols of Eros’ power express his rule on both earth and sea. 3. Parium is very close to Byzantium: thus it is likely that our image of Eros influenced the visual concept of this god of the late antique antiquarian culture of Constantinople. On the basis of these considerations, it is possible to suggest that an epigram by the late 4th c. AD poet Palladas is inspired by our statue (Anthologia Graeca 16. 207): ‘To the naked Eros (Eros gymnos): Eros is naked; for this reason he smiles and is gentle; for he has not his bow and burning arrows; and it is not without reason that he holds on his palms a dolphin and a flower;

for on one he holds the earth, on the other the sea’. (transl. Loeb with amendments). In Planudes’ Anthology this epigram is included in the section devoted to descriptions of statues and follows the series of short poems on Praxiteles’ Eros at Thespiae. The definition of this Eros as ‘naked’ (gymnos) is the same given by Pliny to the Eros of Parium (Cupido... nudus): probably both derive it from the Hellenistic art criticism. The poet specifies that the god is smiling: the same detail was given in the ancient tradition for the Praxitelean Archer Eros (Callistratus 3) and for the Cnidia (Lucian, Amores 13): the latter two statues suggest that our sculptor represented through these smiles the seducing expressions of love deities. The specification that the god does not hold bow and arrows but has his palms forwarded fits perfectly the type of Eros on the coins of Parium. The attributes held by Eros on his palms are a flower and a dolphin. The conclusion about the supreme power of Eros both on earth and on the sea reminds the proclamation of Eros as omnipotent in Plato’s Symposium. Thus it would not be surprising if Praxiteles, being close to the world of the Academy, fleshed out this concept. Equally, since Eudoxus spread the Platonic idealism in the satrapic court worlds of western Asia Minor, re-interpreting it as a hedonistic philosophy,523 a satrapic patronage of a statue of Eros with such a meaning is not unthinkable. Moreover, absolute rulers loved to give emphasis to deities who expressed the satisfaction of senses, such as Eros, Aphrodite and Dionysus, because they could be interpreted as divine paradigms of the ruler seen as the primary source of the happiness of his subjects. Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

69

The flower often associated with Eros in the classical visual culture and moreover suitable with the gentle interpretation of the Eros described by Palladas is the rose:524 thus the generic flower of Palladas may perhaps be specified. This flower would illustrate the power of Eros to produce beauty on earth. The dolphin is often associated to Eros in classical Greece and especially in the late classical Pontic culture:525 the use of this animal as symbol of the triumph of Love on the sea is plausible. The fact that the Eros of Parium is without bow and arrows, which is argued certainly by the representations of Eros on coins of this polis and perhaps also by Palladas’ poems, may be due also to the circumstance that bow and arrows were traditional attributes of the local most important hero, Paris,526 and thus could not be given also to Eros. The attribute of the dolphin would be in keeping with the fact that fishing was the most important economic income of the inhabitants of Parium.527 Finally it should be noticed that the dolphin was a standard symbol of Parium as it is argued from its appearance on coin types of this polis of both late classical528 and Hellenistic times.529 Thus the dolphin on the palm of Eros may refer to a popular symbol of this maritime city. In conclusion the statue of Eros described by Palladas probably coincides with Praxiteles’ Eros at Parium because of the following reasons: 1. this statue represented the god with both hands forwarded and with open palms. There is visual evidence of only one type of Eros with these features: Praxiteles’ Eros at Parium, portrayed on coins of this town; 2. Palladas’ Eros was endowed with the attribute of the dolphin and

70

Antonio Corso

this sea animal became symbol of Parium in late classical times, as it is shown by the evidence of coins; 3. Palladas’ Eros blatantly was the god of a polis on the sea because his attributes refer to both earth and sea and his message about the omnipotence of the god is in keeping with the Platonic emphasis on his power. The reasons nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the identification look strong and compelling while the point no. 3 strengthens them. With this statue, Praxiteles conceived the god as a teenager who landed in his own sanctuary of Parium, expressed by the presence of the old idol of the god: he shows on his palms his two attributes which reveal his rule on earth and sea: in particular the flower refers to him as the creator of beauty while the dolphin symbolizes the same polis. The concern of the master to dispose two vertical wings, one at each side of the main figure, - the idol and the drapery – expresses a desire to enlarge the sculptural creation and to express its environment. This research will peak, in the artistic itinerary of our sculptor, with Praxiteles’ Dionysus at Elis. Moreover the gentle expression of the god, noticed by Palladas, reveals that the austere idealism of the Academy is somewhat softened by a more mundane accent and interpretation of the charm of Love. For these reasons, while Apollo Sauroctonus may date around 352 BC, when Artabazus established his satrapy as independent kingdom, the Eros of Parium looks a little later: this creation reveals the beginning of the general concept of deities which will characterize the late Praxitelean oeuvre. These divine figures

look less idealistic and more mundane and the concern to frame the main figure on both sides becomes clear: both these features will be shown clearly in the art of our master of the 340s. Thus the Eros of Parium should be dated in the very late 350s or even in the early 340s, but no later than 345, when the state of Dascylium becomes again a satrapy of the Persian empire and thus any emphasis on its mythical glory fades. A date around 350 is preferable because, as I shall point out below, the Eros of Parium must be earlier than Praxiteles’ statue set up at Olbia Pontica and the latter must be dated still in the early 340 BC. Before Praxiteles, Parium had been already endowed with a statue made by an important master: the bronze Heracles by Hegesias, to be dated probably in the early 5th c. BC.530 However the Eros of Parium had a much greater impact 531 which can be followed from the late 4th c. BC until the third quarter of the 3rd c. AD. A nearly immediate echo of the Eros of Parium is found in the Tarentine vase painting (see note 531, no. 1). This occurrence should be compared to the visual reception of the Eros of Thespiae in the Apulian Kleinkunst532 as well as to miniature reproductions of Praxiteles’ Charioteer,533 of his Kidnapping of Kore,534 of his Maenads,535 of his Smiling Courtesan,536 of his Niobe with the Niobids,537 of his Opora538 and finally of his Apollo Sauroctonus (see note 135, no. 2) in southItalian and particularly in the Apulian and Tarentine imagery. The fact that statues set up in remote centres, such as Thespiae and Parium, could be imitated at Tarentum and nearby requires an explanation. The most plausible one seems to me the following. When Praxiteles finished a statue he exposed it in his workshop, before

shipping it to its final destination.539 Since Archytas – the most eminent figure at Tarentum until his death which occurred around 350 BC – was a friend and probably a pupil of Plato,540 it is not unlikely that his pupils and companions flocked to the Academy of Athens in order to get high learning.541 They must have admired the creations made by a master close to the world of the Academy as Praxiteles was and when they returned to their homeland they may have promoted the re-use of these styles by local artisans. This model of transmission of these types from Athens to Apulia looks to me the most economic. The fact that the Tarentine askos bearing a painted variation of our Eros comes from a burial context should not go unnoticed. In fact it is possible that the love and beauty promised by our Eros had been referred also to the world after death because Love was regarded also a bearer of salvation.542 The circumstance that the dolphin probably was an attribute of the Eros of Parium may have suggested the funerary re-interpretation of this iconography because this animal who brings human beings to salvation may guarantee the same happy end also to the dead.543 Probably in the late 4th c. BC, the fame of our Eros may have been obscured by the setting up at Parium of a monumental altar for Artemis and Apollo Actaeus: this monument was a work of the architect Hermocreon,544 its large size and beauty put it in the tradition of early Hellenistic monumental altars, moreover it became a marvel celebrated in the ancient tradition until late antiquity and was shown on coins of Parium already in the years after its completion.545 Moreover, in this period of general success of baroque styles there is little evidence of the re-use of the styles of Praxitelean statues in the contemporary visual culture. Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

71

Fig. 30. Marble statue of Eros at Cos, Archaeological Museum, no. 54.

72

Antonio Corso

Probably in the late 3rd c. BC, the bronze sculptor Theudorus of Parium made portrait statues of important Rhodian dignitaries set up on Rhodes both in the city of Rhodes and at Lindus, in the sanctuary of Athena Lindia.546 Moreover probably in the early 2nd c. BC, as above

reported, Alcetas from Rhodes went to Parium, fell in love of Praxiteles’ Eros and copulated with the statue leaving a mark of his act on a thigh of the god, as it is argued from Pliny 36. 22. These close ties between Parium and Rhodes explain the reception of this type of Eros at Rhodes and in the Dodecannese. The copy of our Eros from Rhodes (note 531, no. 2) comes from the necropolis of this city and thus suggests a continuity of the re-interpretation of this type as funerary Love, promising a joyful stay in the underworld. In any case, this Eros should be included in a series of middle Hellenistic Rhodian marble statuettes which echo Praxitelean creations.547 A statuette inspired by the Praxitelean Farnese / Steinhaeuser type of Eros is also included in this series.548 The use of Parian marble for the Rhodian variation of the Eros of Parium should be noticed because it suggested that this marble was used also for the original statue. The fortune of the Eros of Parium in the Dodecannese is testified also by the late Hellenistic copy from Cos (see note 531, no. 3 and fig. 30). This statuette has been found in the large peristyle of the Antonine phase of a house at Cos:549 thus its original context is not known. However since a previous phase of the same architectural complex was middle Hellenistic, it is likely that it pertained to the same house even originally and that it was set up in the middle imperial domus as heirloom. As the statuettes which adorned the middle Hellenistic houses of Delus,550 even the small sculptures decorating this house at Cos advertize the joys of life (love: Aphrodite and Eros; luck: Tyche; health: Asclepios; the seduction of instincts: Nymphs; music, sex and wine: Satyr; finally, the intellectual pleasures: Athena and Muse), thus suggesting a rosy depiction of the in-house living.

Most of these statuettes are middle – or late Hellenistic551 and thus may have decorated also the original middle Hellenistic house. The Nymphs,552 Athena553 and Eros are inspired by fortunate Praxitelean types while a statuette of armed Aphrodite, a Satyr, a Muse, a Tyche and a Heracles are variations of early Hellenistic prototypes.554 Probably by the time that this Eros was set up in the house on Cos the Eros of Parium had been selected as one of the types which could successfully be displayed in architectural interiors. The right hand of the Eros from Cos is preserved and held an oblong attribute which could have been the dolphin. In the second quarter of the 1st c. BC it is likely that Pasiteles included the Eros of Parium in his catalogue of opera nobilia in 5 books (Varro in Pliny 36. 39-40) because a late republican Eros inspired by this statue comes from Rome (see note 531, no. 4). Another, early imperial Eros derived from the same prototype also probably comes from Rome (see note 531, no. 5 and fig. 31). This Eros, since it will be reused in the Baths of Constantine, may have been in a Roman, public display already in early imperial times and thus could confirm the interest of the cultural elite of the capital for this masterpiece which is argued also from his celebration by Pliny 36. 22. From the times of the second Sophistic the Eros of Parium appears no longer imitated at Rome but sculptures inspired by this masterpiece were displayed in the Hellenistic east during the Hadrianic / Antonine times. Thus in Hadrianic times a bronze variation of the type was dedicated in the temple of Aphrodite of Old Paphus on Cyprus (see note 531, no. 6 and fig. 32). In the same temple, clay statuettes of the Cnidian Aphrodite,555 of the Arles type of Aphrodite,556 of the Aphrodite anady-

omene with the dolphin557 and perhaps of the Capitoline type of Aphrodite558 were set up together with marble copies of the Cnidia559 and of the Small Herculaneum Lady:560 this list is eloquent evidence of the impact of the late classical and Praxitelean re-definition of goddesses and

Fig. 31. Marble statue of Eros at Paris, Louvre, no. MR 140 = Ma 545.

Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

73

Fig. 32. Bronze statuette at Paris, National Library, Department of Coins, Medals and Antiquities, no. Br 306.

74

Antonio Corso

especially of Aphrodite on the imagery accepted in this sanctuary. Thus the dedication also of an Eros inspired by the most famous Eros of Asia Minor, with a pedigree harking back to a well known late classical master, would not be surprising. During the Antonine period, a statue of Eros very close to our type was dedicated in the agora of Nicopolis ad Istrum (see note 531, no. 7). Since the population of this city was largely composed of emigrants from Asia Minor – mostly from Nicomedia and Ephesus – it is hardly surprising that a rather faithful copy of our renowned Eros from north-western Asia Minor was erected in the centre of this town.561 Moreover the frequent occurrence of Apollo Sauroctonus on coin types of Nicopolis from the times of Antonine Pius onwards shows that not only Eros but also Apollo was locally conceived according to a Praxitelean statue of this god set up in Mysia. On Cos, the late Hellenistic statuette of Eros was reused in the Antonine phase of the Roman House and displayed in the garden of the large peristyle (see note 531, no. 3). Together with this god, a statuette of armed Aphrodite, a Heracles’ herm, a portrait of Alexander the Great, a statuette of Tyche and finally a heroic banquet relief were set up in the large peristyle.562 While the banquet relief is early Hellenistic, the statuettes are middle – or late Hellenistic. The armed Aphrodite expressed the all-mighty power of the love goddess, thus was an appropriate garden sculpture, emphasizing the garden as a place for delectatio. Moreover, since Cos was thought to have been founded by Epidaurus563 and in the latter polis Aphrodite was conceived armed,564 probably Venus armata was dear to the owners of the domus because she expressed the Coan / Epidaurian identity. Tyche was also a goddess dealing with

the happiness of the individuals. The herm of Heracles evoked the gymnasia and thus might have suggested both the sense of spending free time and an assimilation of this private courtyard to a place of intellectual teaching and discussions. The heroic banquet relief and Alexander the Great may have both suggested a perspective towards salvation in the underworld.565 This early Hellenistic relief would have also revealed the antiquity of the family of the owners of the house. In this context, our Eros, showing his power on the earth by holding a flower and on the sea with the symbol of the dolphin, must have strengthened the message of absolute rule of Aphrodite. The statuette from Gortys (see note 531, no. 15), although not exactly dated, confirms the spread of our type in the Aegean world. Gortys sees the reception of Praxitelean styles from the Julio-Claudian to the Antonine period: a Dionysus close to the Sambon type is still Julio-Claudian566 while a variation of the Cnidia dates to the Flavian period.567 After Gortys became a member of the Panhellenic League,568 in Hadrianic / Antonine times Praxitelean female draped types are re-used probably because they are felt expressions of the concept of goddesses of a glorious past: thus the Small Herculaneum Lady569 and the Uffizi type of Kore570 are selected to decorate a local Nymphaeum. The copyist tradition surveyed in the previous pages is rather fluid, with noteworthy differences among the copies, and thus suggests that no casts could be taken from the statue in Parium but that only statues made at some distance from the masterpiece and thus imitating it but not in all details had been carved. The Antonine period sees the renown of a philosopher of Parium: Peregrinus Proteus.571 It is likely that the fact

to be the birthplace of one of the best established intellectuals of the time elicited the self esteem of the Parians: thus they began strucking coins with the miniature representation of their Praxitelean Eros (see note 531, nos. 8-9 and fig. 33), perhaps emulating the Apollonians who had represented their Apollo Sauroctonus on their coins from the times of Domitian. After the death of Peregrinus in 165, his bronze statue was set up at Parium,572 for which probably the Polycleitan canon was adopted573 and which was attributed oracular powers.574 Coin types bearing our Eros had been struck under Commodus (see note 531, no. 10), Alexander Severus (see note 531, no. 11), Otacilia Severa (see note 531, no. 12), Philip the Arab (see note 531, no. 13) and eventually by Aemilian (see note 531, no. 14). With the decline of the neo-sophistic culture which occurs during the third quarter of the 3rd c. AD, most Greek cities stopped exhibiting their masterpieces on their coins and Parium also abandoned this habit. The classicistic culture of Parium is shown by the fact that the running Artemis with two torches loosely inspired by Strongylion’s Artemis is also adopted on their coins from the age of Marcus Aurelius to that of Gordian iii.575 The legend which accompanies our Eros on some coins of this Roman colony – Deo Cup(idini) – reveals that the definition of the god as Cupido and not as Amor given by Pliny was shared by the inhabitants of Parium: this details testifies to the accuracy of Pliny’s account on the statue. In the time of Constantine, a Roman statue inspired by our Eros (see note 531, no. 5) probably was set up in the Baths of Constantine perhaps because of the importance given to love deities in the decoration of baths but may be also because works of the great masters still enjoyed a strong appeal.576

With the transfer of the capital to Constantinople, the Eros of Parium – a town not distant from the new Rome – may have received fresh attention. Toward the end of the 4th c. AD, Palladas’ epigram (Anthologia Graeca 16. 207) probably refers to this statue, interpreting its attributes from a symbolic point of view, in keeping with the allegoric culture of the time. Finally in the xii c. Tzetzes’ specification about the meaning of the dolphin as attribute of Eros which expresses his rule on the sea (Tzetzes, Chiliades 5 historiae 11. 502-511) may have been vaguely derived from Palladas’ epigram on this statue. Praxiteles with this creation may have given a more mundane interpretation of the appeal of a teenage - looking god than in the Apollo Sauroctonus: this possibility and his concern to frame the statue with vertical wings on both sides foreshadow the late phase of his art.

Fig. 33. AE struck by Parion under Aemilian, reverse, at Paris, National Library, Department of Coins, Medals and Antiquities, no. 1002 = L 3089.

38. The statue of Artemis Brauronia in Parian marble set up in the Brauronium of the Acropolis of Athens This statue is known first of all from Pausanias 1. 23. 7, in the context of his description of the Acropolis of Athens: ‘There is a sanctuary (hieron) of Brauronian Artemis, the statue (to agalma) is art of Praxiteles, the goddess gets her surname from the township of Brauron, and at Brauron is the old statue (to archaion xoanon), which is, they say, the Tauric Artemis’ (transl. Frazer with amendments). A passage by Petronius 126 is also probably relevant. This writer describes a very beautiful girl in a laurel grove: ‘Into the grove of plane-trees (…) the girl (…) gathered her tunic (tunica) Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

75

up high, and turned into the laurel grove (daphnon) (…). The woman was more perfect than any statue of deity (omnibus simulacris). There are no words that can include all her beauty, and whatever I write must fall short of her. Her hair grew in natural waves and flowed all above her shoulders, her forehead was small, and the roots of her hair curved back from it, her eyebrows ran to the outline of her cheekbones and almost met again near her eyes, and these eyes were brighter than stars when there is no moon, and her nostrils had a little curve and her little mouth was the kind that Praxiteles dreamed Diana had (osculum quale Praxiteles habere Dianam credidit). And her chin and her neck, and her hands, and the gleam of her feet under a light band of gold (auri gracile vinculum)! She had turned the marble of Parus dull (Parium marmor exstinserat)’. (transl. Loeb with amendments). The Artemis of Praxiteles mentioned by Petronius, being compared to a woman in a grove, must have been an isolated statue, thus not inside a group. We are aware of only two statues of Artemis made by Praxiteles and which were not inside groups of statues: the Artemis Brauronia at Athens and a statue of this goddess at Anticyra in Phocis, mentioned by Pausanias 10. 37. 1. Of course the former must have been much more famous than the latter which stood in a very peripheral town. Thus it is nearly certain that Petronius had the Artemis Brauronia in his mind. He provides a lot of information about how the statue looked like. Pausanias specifies that Praxiteles’ agalma of Artemis Brauronia stood in the sanctuary of the goddess with this epiclesis which was located in the south western part of the upper terrace of the Acropolis of Athens. This hieron was a

76

Antonio Corso

branch of the sanctuary of Artemis at Brauron. Probably the section of the sanctuary on the Acropolis had been founded by Pisistratus. By the late 5th c. BC, most of the sanctuary was an area sub divo, with a portico disposed along its southern side probably with two projecting wings while another portico was created along its eastern side. The presence of a temple in the centre of the courtyard has been suggested by Doerpfeld and Despinis but has been rejected by Stevens because no material evidence supports this claim. A wall marked the border of the sanctuary toward north-west. A propylon with stairs allowed the entrance to the sacred space from the courtyard in front of the eastern façade of the Propylaea.577 The old xoanon stood at Brauron, where other important statues of the goddess were set up well before the times of Praxiteles.578 From the opposition in Pausanias’ passage between to archaion xoanon set up at Brauron and to agalma of Artemis by Praxiteles erected on the Acropolis it is fair to argue that Praxiteles’ statue was votive. This conclusion is strengthened by the circumstance that no traces of altar have been found in the hieron on the Acropolis. In late classical times, this sanctuary was dear to Athenian women who dedicated their garments to this goddess.579 Masters of the school which was eventually inherited by Praxiteles made statues for this sanctuary: Myron made the Perseus which stood at the viewer’s left side of the entrance to the sanctuary and his son Lycius made the boy who holds the sprinkler set up at the other side of the entrance: these commissions must have been public because it is hard to imagine that the sculptural display of the propylon of this hieron was decided by private patrons. However a private citizen, Charidemus, dedicated the Trojan

horse made by Strongylion which probably had been set up at the centre of the area sub divo of the sanctuary.580 Thus it is rather obvious that whoever patronized the new statue of Artemis Brauronia commissioned it to Praxiteles also because the latter master continued – through Cephisodotus the Elder – the workshop tradition of Myron, Lycius and Strongylion. Since Pausanias refers to this statue as to agalma – i. e. the statue of this hieron par excellence – it is probable that the commission was public. In order to discover the formal features of the statue we must turn to Petronius. First of all, we argue from this writer that the configuration of Praxiteles’ Artemis responded to the idea of the goddess conceived by this master (see: quale Praxiteles habere Dianam credidit). This process from a worthy concept of the deity envisaged by the artist to its translation into the statue was illustrated by Praxiteles in his epigram on the base of his Eros of Thespiae581 and in the ancient art critical tradition was thought to explain how he defined Aphrodite with the Cnidia:582 of course this passage from the idea to the figure is Platonic in concept,583 overcomes the imitation of earthly semblances and guarantees the wisdom of the representation. It is hardly surprising that an important statue of goddess carved by a sculptor close to the world of the Academy and set up in a noteworthy sanctuary on the Acropolis of Athens when Plato was at the peak of his glory was obtained through this method. The marble used was the Parian (Parium marmor in Petronius): our artist carved in this marble an important Eros – probably that at Thespiae -584, the Cnidia585 and perhaps the Eros of Parium (see above, no. 37): it was the best choice for quality and may have been chosen by the

public patronage in order to give a sparkling look to this statue of Artemis. Petronius attributes to Praxiteles’ Artemis ‘a small pretty mouth’ (osculum). The remaining notes of Petronius’ description are also based on comparison between a faultless woman (mulier emendata) and statues of goddesses (omnibus simulacris). The writer places this idealized body in a grove which is defined with the Greek word daphnon, whose use probably reveals that our Latin writer is following a Greek source. Thus it was a laurel grove. The laurel was sacred to Apollo, the divine brother of Artemis / Diana and this observation suggests that he thought to Praxiteles’ Diana as a sculptural term of comparison not just for the osculum but for the whole description of the woman, although probably in a more fluid and less precise way. The features specified are: a. the wearing of a tunic which is gathered up higher (collegit altius tunicam); b. the hair was brought from the forehead behind and formed waves above the shoulders; c. the forehead was small; d. the eyebrows were very long running until the cheeks; e. the eyes were clear; f. the nostrils were curved; g. the chin, the neck, the hands and the feet were also very beautiful: thus these parts were easily visible and not covered by the tunic. Clearly the tunic did not arrive to the neck nor to the feet. The latter note is consistent with the specification about the gathering of the tunic up higher. Moreover this tunic must have been short sleeved if the hands were bare; h. finally sandals were worn, made of golden narrow strips. Petronius’ description suggests that this Artemis of Praxiteles was no longer conceived as a heavenly archetype, as the Cnidian Aphrodite was, but as the divine sublimation of a mundane young woman, whose short dress, golden sanSeventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

77

Fig. 34. Marble statue of Artemis at Paris, Louvre, no. MR 154 = Ma 529.

78

Antonio Corso

dals, hair style and fresh and pretty face spread her appeal. Thus this creation must have been a crucial passage in the itinerary of our master from an idealistic

concept of statues of deities to a hedonistic one. The latter reflects the cultural season of the New Comedy and of Eudoxus. Petronius’ comparison between a beautiful lady and the statue of a goddess implies that this statue of Artemis also stood in a laurel grove: thus it is possible to argue that the central courtyard of the Brauronium was a daphnon and that Praxiteles’ Artemis had been set up there. Of course the example of the Cnidia, which was protected by a round temple, makes it possible that this marble statue was also shielded from weathering through a light structure, such as a baldachine or a statues’ shrine. Groves are the obvious habitat of Artemis! There is only one sculptural type which meets all the requirements argued from the description of Petronius: the Gabii type of Artemis (fig. 34).586 In fact the goddess according to this type reveals the following features: a. her mouth is short; b. she gathers up higher her drapery; c. her hair is wavy and brought from the forehead behind, above her shoulders; d. her forehead is small; e. her eyebrows are long, running until her cheeks; f. her nostrils are curved (this detail cannot be appreciated in the copy from Gabii where the nose has been restored, but is clear in the Farnese copy of the same type); g. her neck, hands and feet are bare and not covered by her drapery; h. she wears sandals made by narrow strips. Thus the correspondence of this type to Petronius’ description is perfect. According to this type the teenage looking goddess is surprised by the viewer while she is fastening her mantle on her right shoulder. Below the chlaina she wears a short diploid chiton, which appears derived from that of Strongylion’s Artemis Soteira at Megara. Her head is

entirely inside the anatomic grammar of Praxitelean heads: her face is oval, her forehead is triangular with the upper border curved, her eyes are narrow and elongated, her mouth is short and her chin slightly protruding. Her hair is made of sinuous locks which from the forehead are brought behind and collected in a chignon and moreover are fixed with a thin ribbon: the concept of this hair depends from that of the Artemis of Dresden. The neck, the upper part of the chest as well as the left shoulder are left bare: this feature is blatantly inspired by the presence of a similar detail in the Aspremont – Lynden / Arles type of head as well as in the Richelieu type of Aphrodite where the same pattern is transferred to the right shoulder. The folding of the drapery is essential and natural, similar to draperies of other statues of goddesses attributed to our master: from Demeter and Kore of the two Praxitelean Eleusinian triads to the Dresden Artemis to the Mantinean Muses: thus it is also entirely inside the Praxitelean tradition. The sandals reveal an indentation between the big toe and the other toes and are made of narrow strips: this type of sandals is the same worn by the Hermes of Olympia: thus it was adopted by Praxiteles in order to endow his ‘young’ deities with elegant and curved footwear which would have increased their appeal. The action of the goddess – that of fastening her mantle – should be related to the gift of garments by Athenian ladies to Artemis Brauronia: she accepts to wear a chlaina offered by an Athenian woman, revealing with that gesture that she appreciates the offerings of her devotees.587 The overall style of the type is entirely in keeping with the Praxitelean concept of both anatomy and garments. Moreover as other Praxitelean creations

even this Artemis responds to a theatrical mentality and appears on stage, admired by spectators but at the same time unaware of their gazes. Therefore the fresh and teenage look of this goddess is one of the definitions by our master of the happy and eternal youth of the immortals. However while most Praxitelean deities created during the youth and early maturity of the sculptor were distant and idealized figures, on the contrary the appeal of this girlish goddess showing arms, legs and a shoulder bare, reveals a shift toward an art of pleasure, inviting the viewers to enjoy life. Thus this statue must be put at the beginning of the creation of mundane images of gods operated by Praxiteles in the late phase of his career. However in the same time it has to be several years earlier than the Hermes of Olympia because the sense of the structure of the body is still rather strong in the Gabii type and does not reveal yet the radical treatment of the surfaces with continuous transitions which will characterize the Hermes of Olympia, the Eubuleus and the Leconfield head, i. e. the late works of our master. Thus a date around 350 is the most probable. Before surveying the copies of this type, it is necessary to consider a head in Parian marble found in the sanctuary of Athena Hygieia on the Acropolis of Athens which has been regarded part of the original statue of Artemis Brauronia by Praxiteles.588 The style of this head is incompatible with everything we know of the style of Praxiteles: the hair locks are not wavy and are not brought from the forehead behind, the eyes are too large to be Praxitelean, the nose was also too large (Praxitelean noses are long and thin), the lines of the eyebrows are not subtle and made by transitions, but are heavily marked, thus this head has nothing to do with our Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

79

master: it has rightly been dated around 330 BC, when Praxiteles was no longer working. Since its quality does not appear very high, the fragment may be pertinent to one of the many statues which were set up on the Acropolis but were overlooked by the surviving ancient writers.589 Alternatively, since the head was found in the sanctuary of Athena Hygieia, it may have been pertinent to the statue of Hygieia the daughter of Asclepius seen by Pausanias 1. 23. 4.590 The freshness of the surface of this head – which has been thought to suggest a setting not in a sanctuary sub divo as the hieron of Athena Hygieia was – may lend support to the possibility that this Hygieia stood in the adjacent eastern portico of the Propylaea. The possibility that this head was pertinent to a statue of Artemis cannot be excluded, because it is in keeping with the frequent definition of this goddess as a young figure, but even in that case it should not be identified with Praxiteles’ Artemis because it is not in keeping with the poetic imagination of Praxiteles and does not come out of his need to flesh out beautiful tales. The fortune of the Gabii type is known from the early Hellenistic period. It is well known that the dynasty of the Seleucids nourished a special devotion towards Apollo and Artemis: the former was regarded the real father of Seleucus I.591 It is equally well known that the statue of Apollo Daphneus for the important sanctuary of Apollo at Daphne near Antioch was commissioned to the Athenian sculptor Bryaxis:592 this fact is an eloquent testimony of the high consideration enjoyed by the Athenian late classical school of making statues of deities in the Syrian court, probably because it gave visual identity to the small Greek elite ruling on a largely barbaric land. Thus it is hardly surprising that the city of Issus in Cilicia Campestris, not far

80

Antonio Corso

from Antioch, was endowed around 300 BC of a copy of the Gabii type of Artemis (see note 586, no. 1).593 Unfortunately the visual culture of Issus is unknown.594 Praxiteles’ Artemis Brauronia may have been taken in consideration in the early Hellenistic art criticism, particularly by Duris, who certainly was concerned with marble sculpture.595 This conclusion is based on two observations: a. a statue by Praxiteles of an important goddess on the Acropolis of Athens could hardly have been overlooked; and b. as observed above, Petronius 126 seems to depend on a Greek source. Moreover this statue may also have been included by Pasiteles in his catalogue of nobilia opera in 5 books because as we shall see copies of this statue have been carved throughout the early – and middle imperial times and set up in Rome as well as in other Italian centres. The Farnese copy dates in the age of Petronius (see note 586, no. 3) and probably comes from Rome or nearby as most sculptures of the Farnese collection: it is carved in Luna marble and probably has been made in an Italian workshop. The Borghese statue (see note 586, no. 2) is contemporary to the Farnese head and it comes from Gabii and precisely from the area of the probable temple of Apollo near the local forum.596 In this sanctuary Diana had a function similar to that of Artemis at Brauron: she accompanied children along the road towards the adult age and the married status. The peculiar aspect of this cult site is revealed by the ideal statues found on the spot. These sculptures included: a copy in Parian marble of Hadrianic times of Lysippus’ Thespian Eros597 which must have stressed the moment when young girls and boys began experiencing their love feelings; b. a statue in Luna marble probably of Eros Palestritas598 who per-

haps protected the gymnastic activities; c. an athletic torso in Pentelic marble pertaining to a young Heracles close to the Polycleitan type,599 probably set up as protector of the youth. The importance of Diana in the sanctuary is probably implied also by the statue in Luna marble of a dog600 to be related to the huntress goddess par excellence. A copy in Luna marble of the Capitoline type of Venus601 proposed this goddess associated to a vase for wedding – the loutrophoros -:602 thus she probably stressed the passage of the youth into the married status. Finally the presence of a marble statue of Nemesis603 is perhaps due to the association of this goddess with the figure of the empress as well as to her protection of games.604 The local copy of Artemis Brauronia and the statue of Nemesis stress the link of this sanctuary of Gabii with the sanctuaries of these two goddesses, both conceived as young draped figures, in eastern Attica. The sanctuary of Gabii was endowed with a grove,605 i. e. with the natural habitat of our goddess. The Borghese copy of our type had been probably carved in a Greek workshop which used Parian marble: it may have been made in Greece, perhaps in front of the original statue, and only delivered to Gabii. The visual culture of Gabii in the period from Nero to Hadrian reveals a predilection for opera nobilia of late classical times: the Eros of Lysippus, the Artemis of Praxiteles and the Aphrodite probably made by Cephisodotus the Younger were exhibited through excellent copies which may have enhanced the dignity and the beauty of the sanctuary. Still in the age of Petronius, the configuration of the mantel of the Gabii type of Artemis is adopted for a statue of the goddess set up in the middle of a grove pertaining to a private house at Pompeii

(see note 586, no. 4): this example testifies to the popularity of an important feature of our type exactly in the region in which the vicissitudes narrated in the novel of Petronius are imagined to happen. Thus this writer through his mention of Praxiteles’ Diana referred to a type of goddess which was well known to his public of the 1st region of Italy, Latium et Campania. Pliny does not mention the Artemis Brauronia in his list of marble statues by Praxiteles, probably because he records only two marble statues of Praxiteles which in his times stood outside Rome – the Cnidia and the Eros of Parium – and prefers to give emphasis to marble works of this master which adorned the capital of the empire. Another early imperial copy of our type of Artemis was found at Alba Fucens (see note 586, no. 5): the importance of the local cults of Diana and Apollo, the strong impact of late classical and Praxitelean opera nobilia on the visual culture of this town and the historical conditions which lay behind the wealth of early imperial copies from classical masterpieces adorning this city have been considered above in the section devoted to Apollo Sauroctonus (see the text from note 241 to note 252). The presence of this goddess in the portico between the forum and the basilica, probably to be identified with the comitium of Alba Fucens, may be explained with the importance of Diana for the institutional life of a Roman civitas and specifically with the notion that our type represented this goddess as patron of the youth. The continuity of production of copies of the Gabii type in Hadrianic times is known thanks to the Della Valle and the Polignac copies, probably from Rome or nearby (see note 586, nos. 6 and 8). Also in Hadrianic times, the scaenae frons of the theatre of Lupiae in the secSeventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

81

ond region of Italy was adorned with a copy of the Gabii type of Artemis (see note 586, no. 7). This statue of the goddess decorated a niche on the third and upper level of the stage front of the theatre. In the niche on the viewer’s right of that occupied by Diana probably there was a statue of Ares for which the style of Polycleitus’ Discophorus had been adopted606 while in the niche on the viewer’s left, above the porta regia of the stage, probably a copy of Alexander with the spear was set up.607 Perhaps in the niche at the viewer’s left of Alexander, there was an Athena of the Giustiniani type, probably derived from the statue of Athena Sunias which at the time stood in the agora of Athens.608 In the second middle level of the stage, above the porta regia, probably a statue of Augustus stood, the Nereids carrying the weapons of Achilles being carved on his lorica.609 At the viewer’s right of Augustus, probably below our Artemis, a statue of Heracles of the Copenhague / Dresden type was set up.610 Again at the viewer’s right of this Heracles, the Sciarra type of Amazon, probably derived from Polycleitus’ Amazon at Ephesus, was proposed.611 At the viewer’s left of the statue of emperor, a copy of Polycleitus’ Heracles or Doryphorus was set up.612 At the ground or lower level of the stage, a statue of Hera Borghese, perhaps once supporting the portrait of an empress, was disposed perhaps in the middle below the statue of the emperor.613 Above the portae hospitales two tondi were placed, one with the head of the Athena Hope / Farnese, probably derived from the Athena Hygieia on the Acropolis of Athens,614 and the other bearing a head of Asclepius according to the Mounychia type.615 The statues displayed on the upper level of the stage appear to have sug-

82

Antonio Corso

gested positive examples for the youth: the Attic Athena Giustiniani probably embodied both high learning and military strength. Alexander was en emblem of victory, the chaste Artemis indicated the morally acceptable behaviour before marriage while Ares / discophorus suggested probably military training. Since the other three statues attributed to the upper level – Athena, Alexander and Ares – were all derived from opera nobilia of the classical period, it is obvious that our Artemis must also have been inspired by a classical creation. The statues of the middle level must have been related to the image of the emperor in the middle. He probably was surrounded by two statues of Heracles who must have exalted the strength of the emperor. The Amazon of Ephesus must also have been related to Diana. At the ground level the imposing statue of the empress represented according to a famous classical draped statue of Aphrodite must have enhanced her authority, coupled both with chastity and grace. The heads of both Athena Hygieia and of a late classical Attic type of Asclepius must have promised health. Most of the statues displayed on the stage derive from renowned creations of the Polycleitan tradition and of Attic late classical schools. It is noteworthy that copies of both Artemis Brauronia and Athena Hygieia were present in the same architectural setting because these two statues stood very close one to the other on the Acropolis of Athens: thus this observation evidences the particular homage paid to renowned statues of the sacred rock of Athens. Moreover it should also be noticed that no fewer than 6 sculptures displayed on this stage derived from late classical Attic prototypes (the Athena Hope / Farnese; the Mounychia type of Asclepius, usually at-

tributed to Bryaxis; the Athena Giustiniani; the Gabii Artemis; the Copenhagen / Dresden type of Heracles and the Alexander with the spear, usually given to Leochares) because they reveal the strong appeal of the late classical Athenian art felt by whoever choose the sculptural types destined to beautify the stage of the theatre. Of course Lupiae, given its position in the south-eastern tip of Italy, was closely linked to the Greek world. The continuity of the production of copies of the Gabii type of Artemis in the Antonine times is testified by a head from Naples (see note 586, no. 9). As usual the copyist production derived from our type must have finished in the Antonine period. Finally a copy once in Palazzo Verospi at Rome (note 586, no. 10) adds an example to the dossier of copies of this type probably originally set up in the capital of the empire. The Artemis Brauronia by Praxiteles is one of the most important works of our sculptor because it suggested more clearly than previous works through the image of this teenage-looking goddess the appealing and pleasant presentation of a beautiful tale, imagined to be found in the grove, far from the life of the city, in a mythical Arcadia.

39. The Satyr in Parian marble in the sanctuary of Dionysus at Megara Praxiteles’ Satyr in Parian marble had been seen by Pausanias 1. 43. 5-6 in the sanctuary of Dionysus at Megara: ‘Beside the entrance to the sanctuary of Dionysus (scil.: at Megara) is the grave of Astycratea and Manto. They were daughters of Polyidus, son of Caeranus, son of Abas, son of Melampus, who came to Megara to purify Alcathous after

the murder of his son Callipolis. Polyidus also built the sanctuary to Dionysus, and dedicated a wooden image, which in our time is all hidden except the face, the only visible part of it. Beside it stands a Satyr, a work of Praxiteles, in Parian marble. This Dionysus they call Paternal, but another Dionysus they surname Dasyllius, and say that his image was dedicated by Euchenor, son of Caeranus, son of Polyidus. After the sanctuary of Dionysus, etc.’ (transl. Frazer with an amendment). This sanctuary was located at Megara probably in the valley between the acropoleis Caria and Alcathous, not far from the agora and at the feet of the theatre of that city.616 This cult is known also thanks to middle Hellenistic inscriptions which mention the local festivals Dionysia.617 Finally the Megarian cult of Dionysus is known also thanks to a marble statuette from the slopes of the Alcathous Acropolis of around 360-350 BC which portrays an enthroned Dionysus derived from the chryselephantine statue of Alcamenes set up in the sanctuary of Dionysus Eleuthereus at Athens618. This statuette reveals that towards 350 BC Megarian patrons of sculptures to be set up in the local sanctuaries of Dionysus were determined to have images responding to the styles of renowned Athenian masters. Thus, the date of the statuette of Dionysus suggests that Praxiteles’ Satyr may also be dated towards 350 BC. Moreover it is obvious that this Satyr was commissioned to Praxiteles after his two Athenian Satyrs – the Pouring Satyr and especially the Resting one – became famous: this consideration suggests that our statue is later than the Resting Satyr. Also it makes sense that a patron asked this statue to the workshop of Praxiteles because our sculptor was already famous at Megara thanks to his Dodekatheon as well as to his Apollinean Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

83

triad at Megara. All of these considerations point out to a date towards 350 BC. The use of Parian marble fits the age from the Artemis Brauronia to the Hermes of Olympia rather well because both of these statues were Parian marble. However the subject of the Satyr leads still to the period of Praxitelean production in which our master worked a lot for monuments of the Athenian theatrical life and does not fit entirely well in the late Praxitelean production which usually betrays an international cultural background. Thus a date several years after 350 BC is unlikely. I am unable to find echoes of this Satyr which may have never been copied: thus it is unknown how he looked like619.

40. The statues of Peitho and Paregoros in the temple of Aphrodite Praxis at Megara These statues are also recorded by Pausanias 1. 43. 6: ‘After the sanctuary of Dionysus is a temple (naos) of Aphrodite: the image (agalma) of Aphrodite is made of ivory, and is surnamed Praxis (Action): it is the most ancient statue in the temple. The images of Persuasion (Peitho) and of another goddess whom they name Comforter (Paregoros) are works of Praxiteles. But Scopas made the images of Love (Eros) and Longing (Himeros) and Yearning (Pothos) (if indeed their functions are, as their names, distinct)’. (transl. Frazer with amendments). The cult of Aphrodite Praxis was focused, as the epiklesis reveals, on the agency of the goddess.620 Her statue was ivory: that implies that she must have been naked, because as a rule the ivory was not used for the draped parts of a statue. She may have been archaic, prior

84

Antonio Corso

to the early and middle classical nearly universal acceptance of draped Aphrodites,621 or late classical, just a little earlier than the activity of Praxiteles and Scopas. The second possibility is more likely: should the agalma of the goddess have been archaic, probably Pausanias would have reported a mythical foundation of the temple. Thus it is likely that early in the late classical period a comprehensive monumental program was conceived in order to give visual evidence and cult honours to the agency of Aphrodite. This program had three phases, each one not chronologically distant from the others: a. the construction of the temple; b. the carving and setting up of the cult statue of the goddess; and c. the creation and setting up of the personifications which illustrate aspects and moments of the action of the goddess in the world. Of course the concept of Aphrodite as a heavenly entity whose influence in the world can be seen from different angles is Platonic and was illustrated by Plato especially in his dialogue Symposium. Since this dialogue is variously dated within the time span 385-367 BC,622 we can guess that the naked ivory Aphrodite at Megara was commissioned in the late 360s, just after Praxiteles’ Cnidian Aphrodite popularized the naked concept of the love goddess. The desire to have an agalma in the precious ivory material suggests that the authorities of the sanctuary and perhaps of Megara wanted to emulate other sanctuaries endowed with chryselephantine statues: in the specific case the gold was not needed because this Aphrodite was naked and of course beardless. In particular there may have been an antagonism between the Megarian sanctuary of Aphrodite Praxis and the local sanctuary of Olympian Zeus where an unfinished chryselephantine Zeus by Theocosmus and Phidias could

be admired.623 Moreover the patrons of this ivory statue may have tried to emulate Phidias’ chryselephantine statue of Aphrodite Urania at Elis624 and perhaps also the much closer chryselephantine statue of Aphrodite by Canachus which stood in the sanctuary of this goddess at Sicyon.625 These two statues and in particular the authoritative chryselephantine Aphrodite by Phidias must have conveyed the notion that the ivory was an appropriate material for expressing the beauty of Aphrodite because it could suggest her white velvety skin. The myth of Pygmalion from Paphus on Cyprus and of his ivory and very beautiful statue of Aphrodite626 suggests the eastern origin of the habit to use ivory for statues of Aphrodite: the reception of this association of ivory with Aphrodite in mainland Greece in the years of the hegemony of the Great King after the Peace of Antalcidas is hardly surprising. After having built the temple and set up the ivory statue of the goddess, the patrons of this complex must have commissioned five statues illustrating five different moments and aspects of love. The patrons of this series commissioned these statues from two sculptors: Praxiteles and Scopas. These two masters competed each other in order to secure important commissions from Caria – from Halicarnassus and Cnidus -, from north western Anatolia, from Argus (see the works of Praxiteles corresponding to the nos. 22, 28 and 35-38), from Megara and also from Elis,627 Thebes628 and Ephesus.629 Such a competition is obvious because the two sculptors were at the time the most famous available marble sculptors. Praxiteles was given the two female personifications of the series of five statues, Scopas the three male ones: that confirms the well known specialization of our sculptor in female subjects, while

Scopas may have become famous especially for his statues of Asclepius, Heracles, Apollo, Ares and Dionysus.630 The fact that Scopas carved three out of these five statues makes it clear that these statues were marble because this Parian master worked especially marbles and only in exceptional cases the bronze.631 The two statues made by Praxiteles were Peitho – the Persuasion to love – and Paregoros – the Comforter for the pains of love. These two ladies were one opposed to the other: the former illustrated the concept of love as joy, the latter expressed the notion of love as suffering. Thus they formed a group similar to that opposing the mourning lady and the smiling courtesan (work no. 20). The expression by Praxiteles of love as suffering is well known and was asserted by our master in his epigram on the base of his Eros at Thespiae. The three figures carved by Scopas were Love, Longing and Yearning and personified three successive moments of the action of love. Eros expressed the moment when someone begins feeling love. Himeros represents the consequent longing of the erastes for the person loved and finally Pothos proposed the yearning felt by the erastes in his soul. This triptych advertized the Platonic concept of love as internal force. Since in the early 4th c. Plato spent a period at Megara in the house of the pupil of Socrates Euclides632 and since the latter founded a Socratic philosophical school at Megara and wrote a dialogue entitled Erotikos633, there is a strong possibility that the Socratic / Platonic theory of love was accepted at Megara and that the Megarian school of Euclides promoted the series of five statues made by Praxiteles and Scopas and illustrating this love theory, commissioning two of them Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

85

from a sculptor – Praxiteles – close to the environment of the Academy. This group should be dated around 350 BC: the temple of Aphrodite Praxis was very close to the sanctuary of Dionysus where a Satyr by Praxiteles was set up634 and this detail suggests that the two sanctuaries competed each other in order to obtain statues of such a renowned master. Thus the date of Praxiteles’ Megarian Satyr should be the same of his statues of Peitho and Paregoros. Since Scopas being a Parian worked especially the Parian marble635 it is likely that the whole series of five statues was in Parian marble. This possibility is strengthened by the circumstance that Praxiteles’ Satyr in the adjacent sanctuary of Dionysus was also Parian marble: thus Fig. 35. Lekythos at Balti- it is likely that the patrons of the five statmore, The Walters Art Mu- ues also wanted them to be carved with seum, no. 48. 84. the best available marble. In the Attic culture Peitho was regarded daughter of Aphrodite and is often represented in the Athenian visual culture of the late classical period.636 The statue of Peitho by Praxiteles is the only image of this goddess known to have been carved by a renowned late classical master. Thus it becomes tempting to consider an image probably of this goddess dated around 350 BC which looks inspired to a statue. This representation of Peitho is on an Attic lecythos attributed to the Apollonia Painter and found at Apollonia Pontica (fig. 35).637 On this vase, Aphrodite is represented according to the style of Alcamenes’ Aphrodite in the Gardens.638 Thus it is certain that the Apollonia Painter took inspiration from a famous statuary type. The love goddess is surrounded by two flying Loves: they have different sizes and are not similar to the usual representations of Eros both in their breasts which appear rather

86

Antonio Corso

female and in their hairdos: these details have led both Erika Simon639 and Oakley640 to conclude that they are Himeros and Pothos. A female figure is the pendant to Aphrodite for her large size, standing position on rocks and because she is endowed with a great authority which is also due to her high quality execution: probably she is Peitho641 who at Athens had a deep connection with Aphrodite Pandemos.642 She stands on the right leg while her left knee is bent, wears a chiton and a mantel above it which leaves the lowest border of the chiton visible. Her neck, her right shoulder and part of her chest are bare, moreover she wears a diadem, a necklace and bracelets. Her wavy hair is brought from the forehead behind and collected on her nape in a chignon. Both her arms are lowered and her forearms are brought forward, her hands holding each one a bird, an obvious love gift.643 This noteworthy creation bears the seal of the art of Praxiteles: the hair made of wavy locks brought behind from the forehead and collected in a chignon is a well known feature conceived by our master in order to endow the hair with a sense of grace (see above the Gabii type of Artemis). The face of the goddess is oval and bears the typically Praxitelean anatomic grammar: triangular forehead, narrow and elongated eyes, long nose, short mouth and slightly protruding chin. The detail of the neck with one shoulder and the corresponding part of the chest bare with the drapery determining a diagonal line is another feature adopted often by our master (see above the analysis of the Gabii type of Artemis). The configuration of the arms, lowered and forwarded in order to show the attributes held in her hands has been adopted already for the Persephone descending to the Underworld (work no. 6),

for the Maenads (work no. 10), for Dionysos and two Nikai in a choregic monument (work no. 11), for the two Eleusinian triads (works nos. 12 and 13), for the Sambon / Grimani type of Dionysus (work no. 15), for the Archer Eros (work no. 16), for the Arles type of Aphrodite (work no. 17), for the Pouring Satyr (work no. 18), for the Praxitelean Nymphs (work no. 19), for the Resting Satyr (work no. 29), for Agathodaimon (work no. 31), for Opora (work no. 32), for the Apollo Sauroctonus (work no. 36) and for the Eros of Parium (work no. 37). Finally the feature of the chiton exposed below the mantel above the feet is also recurrent in the Praxitelean oeuvre: see the Kore descending to the Underworld (work no. 6), Dionysus and the two Nikai in a choregic monument (work no. 11), Kore in the two Eleusinian triads (works nos. 12 and 13), the Nymphs (work no. 19), goddesses of the dodekatheon (work no. 24), the Leto of Argus (work no. 28), Opora (work no. 32) and of course will characterize Muses on the slabs from Mantinea. Peitho must have convinced viewers to love with her tilted head, with the grace of her face, with her bare chest and finally with her love gifts.

The iconography of Peregoros is not well known.644 Perhaps Paregoros should be identified in a young female figure whose identity was specified with an inscription of which only eta and gamma survive (fig. 36). This personification is painted on an Attic lecythos on which an Athena inspired by the Hope / Farnese type is also depicted.645 Thus even the painter of this vase took inspiration from a well known sculptural type. Again this young lady has her wavy hair brought back and collected on her nape, her face is oval with narrow and elongated eye, long nose, short mouth and slightly protruding chin, she wears both a necklace and bracelets, mantel and chiton which is visible above her feet and her arms are also outstretched, probably in order to show her consolation of whoever felt the pains of love. These two figures are stylistically homogeneous and may have formed a successful group: both have their heads and arms brought toward the viewer in order to communicate with him, both have their wavy hair brought behind and collected on the nape, both wear chiton and mantel and the chiton appears above their feet,

Fig. 36. Lekythos at Athens, National Archaeological Museum, no. 1282.

Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

87

finally both have their chests partly bare. The first lady persuaded to love while the second consoled the viewer in pains. Praxiteles’ group may have been exposed at Athens in his workshop before being shipped to Megara: thus local vase painters may have taken advantage of the types conceived by our master. Being a minor work, it may have been overlooked by early Hellenistic art critics and thus not included by Pasiteles in his catalogue of nobilia opera. That would explain the circumstances that it was never copied in Roman times646 and that Pliny does not include these two statues in his catalogue of marble creations by our master. However, these two statues may have been an interesting example of the emphasis on love personifications which is typical of late classical times as well as of the influence of rhetoric and oratory on visual arts. Notes See A. Corso, The Art of Praxiteles ii, Rome (2007) 9-187. 2 Concerning Mausolus, see S. Hornblower, Mausolus, Oxford (1982); S. Ruzicka, Politics of a Persian Dynasty. The Hecatomnids in the Fourth Century B. C., Oklahoma (1992) 33-99; A.M. Carstens, Karia and the Hekatomnids, Oxford (2009) 37-74. About the Mausoleum, see especially G.B. Waywell, The Free – Standing Sculptures of the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus in the British Museum, London (1978); K. Jeppesen (ed.), The Maussoleion at Halikarnassos, vols. 1-7, Aarhus (1981-2002); W. Hoepfner, ‘Das Mausoleum von Halikarnassos’, W. –D. Heilmeyer (ed.), Die Griechische Klassik, Berlin (2002) 417-423; B.F. Cook, Relief Sculpture of the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, Oxford (2005); I. Jenkins, ‘The Mausolea of Halicarnassus’, F. Mac Farlane and C. Morgan (eds.), Exploring Ancient Sculpture. Essays in Honour of Geoffrey Waywell, London (2010) 121-135. 1

88

Antonio Corso

See Hornblower (n. 2) 334. See Hornblower (n. 2) 334-337. 5 See Pliny 36. 30-31, and bibliography in note 2. 6 See Vitruvius 7, praefatio 12. Pytheus is regarded the architect of the Mausoleum also in Laterculi Alexandrini 7. 15-17. 7 See M. Muller – Dufeu, La sculpture grecque, Paris (2002) 658-659, no. 1962. 8 See G.B. Waywell, ‘Satyros (i)’, R. Vollkommer (ed.), Kuenstlerlexikon der Antike 2, Munich (2004) 366-367. 9 See W. Hoepfner, ‘Pytheos’, Vollkommer (n. 8) 334-338. 10 See Vitruvius 7. praefatio 12. 11 Pliny 36. 31 reports the name of the author of this marble group as Pythis: probably an adaptation of the name Pytheus to Latin. 12 See Hoepfner (note 9). 13 Hoepfner (note 2) insisted on this feature of the building. 14 See Waywell (note 2). 15 See Cook (note 2). 16 See Waywell (note 2) and Carsten (note 2) 69-74. 17 See Hoepfner (note 9). 18 About these treatises, see H. Svenson – Evers, Die Griechischen Architekten archaischer und klassischer Zeit, Frankfurt am Main (1996) 7-49; 67-99; 116-150 (with specific consideration of the treatise of the Mausoleum); 157-211; 320-329. In any case Vitruvius saw the Mausoleum with his own eyes: see K. Jeppesen, ‘Did Vitruvius ever visit Halikarnassos?’, Anadolu 21 (1981-1983) 85-98. 19 See P. Gros, ‘Ornamentum chez Vitruve’, P. Gros (ed.), Vitruve et la tradition des traits d’architecture, Rome (2006) 389-398. 20 About the possible meanings of probatio, see G. Geraci, ‘Mensura, pondus e probatio’, R. Soraci (ed.), Politica retorica e simbolismo del primate, Catania (2004) 155-181. 21 See Plato, Epistulae 13. 361 a. 22 See Corso (note 1) 26-36. 23 See Vitruvius 2. 8. 11. About Leochares, see P. Schultz, ‘Leochares’ Argead Portraits in the Philippeion’, P. Schultz and R. von den Hoff (eds.), Early Hellenistic Portraiture, Cambridge (2007) 205-233. About acrolithic statues, see G. Despinis, ‘Akrolithstatuen Griechischer und Roemischer Zeit’, Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Goettingen. 3 4

I. Philologisch - Historische Klasse 8 (2004) 243-301. 24 See R. Vollkommer, ’Bryaxis’, Vollkommer (n. 8) 1 (2001) 122-125. 25 See Pliny 36. 22. 26 See Pliny 34. 42. 27 See the bibliography on the Hecatomnids in note 2. 28 See Clement, Protrepticus 4. 47. 29 About Scopas, see G. Calcani, Skopas di Paros, Rome (2009), particularly 51-52 and 122 (about his Hestia). Calcani overlooks the seminal study by G. Gruben, ‘Wandernde Saeulen auf Naxos’, N. Chr. Stampolidis (ed.), Phos Kykladikon, Athina (1999) 296-317. 30 See Pliny 36. 22. 31 See his Apollo Smyntheus at Chryse, his group of Poseidon, Achilles, Thetis with a sea thiasos probably from Bithynia as well as his works for the new Artemisium of Ephesus (Calcani (note 29) 131-135). 32 See E. Oestby, ‘Recent Excavations in the Sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea’, R. Haegg (ed.), Peloponnesian Sanctuaries and Cults, Stockholm (2002) 139-147. 33 See C. Loehr, Griechische Familienweihungen, Rahden (2000) 110-111, no. 131. 34 See Calcani (note 29) 33-34. 35 See A. Stewart, ‘Timotheos (ii)’, Vollkommer (note 8) 2 (2004) 475-479. 36 See N. Yalouris, Die Skulpturen des Asklepiostempels in Epidauros, Munich (1992), particularly 67-83. About the controversial meaning of typoi, see W. Posch, ‘Die Typoi des Timotheos’, AA (1991) 69-73 and S. Settis, ‘Il papiro di Artemidoro’, C. Gallazzi and S. Settis (eds.), Le tre vite del papiro di Artemidoro, Milan (2006) 20-65, particularly 29. 37 See Thesaurus linguae Latinae, s. v. caelo. 38 About Alexander’s sack of Halicarnassus, see Diodorus 17. 23. 4 – 27. 6 and Arrian, Anabasis 1. 20. 5 – 23. 6. About the rapacity of Verres in town, see Cicero, In Verrem 2. 1. 49; about the sack of the city by the pirates, see Cicero, Ad Quintum fratrem 1. 1. 25. See H. Kaletsch and C. Haecker, ‘Halicarnassus’, H. Cancik (ed.), Brill’s New Pauly 5 (2004) 1110-1113, with previous bibliography; moreover P. Flensted – Jensen, ‘Halikarnassos’, M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford (2004) 1115-1116. Probably Pliny saw the Mausoleum because he is known

to have travelled in the eastern Mediterranean world (see K. Sallmann, ‘Plinius (1)’, Cancik (cited above) 11 (2007) 383-390, particularly 383-384). 39 About the problem of the masters of the Mausoleum, see C. Lucchese, Il Mausoleo di Alicarnasso e i suoi maestri, Rome (2009) particularly 39-55. 40 See Choricius, Declamationes 8. 59 (about the unfinished bronze Aphrodite made by Praxiteles for the Spartans); Codex Vaticanus Graecus 989 (about the enthroned Leto of Myra carved by Praxiteles, which was left unfinished in her feet and back and on her throne); see also the Hermes of Olympia which is not finished in his back (see N. Stampolidis, ‘Symplegma Ermi kai mikrou Dionysou’, E.N. Kaltsas and G.Despinis (eds.), Praxitelis, Athens (2007) 90-97, no. 14). The quality of the baby Dionysus carried by the Hermes of Olympia is not outstanding and thus is hardly by the hand of such a renowned master as Praxiteles: probably it had been carved by assistants (see A. Corso, ‘The Hermes of Praxiteles’, NumAntCl 25 (1996) 131-153). 41 See Pliny 34. 37. 42 See Pliny 35. 145. About Nicomachus, see J.H. Oakley, ‘Nicomachos (i)’, Vollkommer (note 8) 2 (2004) 139-140. 43 See Pliny 35. 110. 44 See B. Schweitzer, Alla ricerca di Fidia, Milan (1967) 3-254. 45 See IG 4 (second ed.) 102. ll. 36-37. See Muller – Dufeu (note 7) 534-535, no. 1562. 46 See note 36. 47 See LSJ, s. v. typos ii. 1; 2; iii; v. 2; vi; vii; viii. 2; ix. 2. See Settis (note 36). In particular the use of this word by Plato as “model”, “archetype” (LSJ, s. v. vii) is relevant to the artistic environment of the early 4th c. BC which is very conditioned by the Platonic philosophy and environment. 48 See Cook (note 2). 49 See Lucchese (note 39) and Calcani (note 29). 50 See Waywell (note 2) pl. 20 and Lucchese (note 39) pl. 2, b. 51 Waywell (note 2) pl. 21. 52 See Waywell (note 2) pl. 17, no. 33 and Lucchese (note 39), 131, n. 240 and pl. 3, a. K. Jeppesen (note 2) 5 (2002) 194-199 supposes that this enthroned figure had been accommodated in a recess in an imaginary doorway reserved within the masonry of the upper po-

Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

89

dium and placed in the middle of the east front. This hypothesis is not based on sound evidence. However the freshness of the surface, when preserved, of this statue suggests that it was set up in a place which shielded it from weathering. 53 See Waywell (note 2), pl. 22, no. 47. 54 See Waywell (note 2) pl. 18, no. 34 and Lucchese (note 39), pl. 3, b. For the wavy rendering of drapery’s folds in the oeuvre of Leochares, see L. Todisco, Scultura greca del iv secolo, Milan (1993) figs. 219 (Vatican type of Ganymedes kidnapped by the eagle) and 226 (Belvedere type of Apollo). 55 See Waywell (note 2) pl. 16, no. 30 and Lucchese (note 39) pl. 2, a. Jeppesen (note 52) regards this head pertinent to an acroterial group: however in that case the surface should be much more weathered. Concept of face and of its anatomic grammar in Leochares: see Todisco (note 54) figs. 219 (Vatican type of Ganymedes kidnapped by the eagle); 220 (Basle type of Apollo diadematus); 223 (Acropolis type of Alexander) and 226-227 (Belvedere type of Apollo). About the Belvedere type of Apollo as the copyist tradition derived from Leochares’ Apollo Patroos, see C. Maderna, ‘Die letzten Jahrezehnte der spaetklassischen Plastik’, P. Bol (ed.), Die Geschichte der antiken Bildhauerkunst, Mainz am Rhein 2 (2004) 303-382, particularly 341-344. 56 See Waywell (note 2) pl. 22, no. 48 and Lucchese (note 39) pl. 4, a. 57 I refer to the so-called Artemisia and Mausoleus: see Waywell (note 2) pls. 13-15 and Lucchese (note 39) pl. 1, a and b. 58 See Waywell (note 2) 107-108, no. 31 and pl. 17. 59 See especially Propertius 3. 9. 16: “marble from his native city commends the art of Praxiteles” (transl. Loeb). See also the following Praxitelean works made in Pentelic: A. Corso, The Art of Praxiteles, Rome (2004) 115-125 (work no. 1); 175-185 (work no. 11); 229-232 (work no. 14); A. Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii, Rome (2010) 103106 (work no. 34). 60 See Waywell (note 2) 155, no. 228 and pl. 33. 61 About these sandals, see A. Corso, ‘Small Nuggets about Late - Classical Sculpture’, NumAntCl 29 (2000) 125-161. About the feet with sandals of the Hermes of Olympia, see H. Fron-

90

Antonio Corso

ing, ‘Die Sandale des Hermes des Praxiteles in Olympia’, E. Christof (ed.), Potnia Theron, Vienna (2007) 95-101. 62 See Waywell (note 2) 27-34 and 180-209, nos. 401-650, pls. 37-42. Waywell supposed that the lions were disposed on the lower step of the pyramidal roof in series from the corners looking towards the middle of each side of the building. Jeppesen (n. 52) 118-124 believes that the lions were disposed in couples, looking to a pillar placed between them, on several steps of the pyramidal roof. The available evidence does not allow the resolution of the problem of the exact disposition of the lions. 63 See Waywell (note 2) 32-34. 64 See Waywell (note 2) 187-1888, no. 416. 65 See Pausanias 3. 18. 8 and E. Kourinou – Pikoula, ‘Sparta’, LIMC 7 (1994) 803-804 and W. Mueller and G. Broeker, ‘Aristandros (i)’, Vollkommer (note 8) 1 (2001) 80. 66 See Waywell (note 2) 186, no. 414 and pl. 40. 67 See Waywell (note 2) 33-34. 68 See Waywell (note 2) 180-186, nos. 401; 402; 403; 407; 410; 411 and 412. 69 See Waywell (note 2) 32-33. 70 See Waywell (note 2) 182-188, nos. 404, 408, 415 and 417. 71 See Waywell (note 2) 33. Spiky treatment of surfaces and emphasis on the expression of eyes in Leochares’ oeuvre: see the works attributed to Leochares cited above in notes. 54 and 55. 72 See Waywell (note 2) 33, 182-183, no. 405 and 186, no. 413. 73 See Jeppesen (note 72) 118-124. 74 See J. Buckler, Aegean Greece in the Fourth Century BC, London (2003) 184-524. About the often troubled economy of late classical poleis, see K. Shipton, Leasing and Landing in Cash Economy in Fourth Century B. C., London (2000). 75 See A. Corso, ‘The Impact of the Peace of Antalcidas on Late Classical Visual Arts’, NumAntCl 37 (2008) 83-100. 76 About the dependence of Pliny from the Hellenistic art criticism and in particular from Xenocrates and Antigonus, see J. Tanner, The Invention of Art Criticism in ancient Greece, Cambridge (2006) 235-246 and A, Corso, ‘The Position of Portraiture in the Early Hellenistic Art Criticism’, Eulimene 5 (2004) 11-25. Pliny’s dependence

from his Greek sources is argued in this case from his specification quem Sauroctonon vocant. 77 About the privileged position of masterpieces brought to Rome in Pliny’s art historical chapters, see J. Isager, Pliny on Art and Society, London (1991) 157-168. 78 See K. Lehmann, ‘A Roman Poet Visits a Museum’, Hesperia 14 (1945) 259-269. Lehmann wrongly assumed that Martial described the real works of art, not copies. 79 Making examples illustrating this obvious statement is probably superfluous: see e. g. the death of Dido which follows her love; the many unhappy ends of loves in the Metamorphoses of Ovid; the tragic stories developed from loves in the tragedies of Seneca, etc. 80 See Ph. De Stosch, Gemmae antiquae caelatae, Amsterdam (1724) xviii-xix. 81 P.J. Mariette, Traite des pierres gravees, Paris (1750) 1. 37. 82 See J.J. Winckelmann, Description des pierres gravees du feu Baron de Stosch, Florence (1760) 190, no. 1120; Geschichte der Kunst des Alterthums, Dresden (1764) 343; Monumenti antichi inediti, Rome (1767) xliii and lxxv; 46 and pl. 40; Storia delle arti del disegno presso gli antichi, Rome (1783-1784) 1. 382-383 and 2. 36 and 222-224. 83 See E.Q. Visconti, Sculture del Palazzo della Villa Borghese detta Pinciana, Rome 1 (1796) 37-38; Musee Pie-Clementin, Milan (2nd ed.: 1818) 1. 126-132, pl. 13; Monumenti scelti borghesiani, Milan (2nd ed.: 1837) 154-159, pl. 21, fig. 3. 84 See A. Duchalais, ‘L’Apollon Sauroctone’, RA 6 (1849) 81-93; 288-303 and 482-489. 85 C. Friederichs, Die Gypsabguesse im Neuen Museum, Duesseldorf (1868) 264-266, no. 445. 86 See J. Overbeck, Geschichte der Griechischen Plastik, Leipzig (1893) 3. 53-54. 87 See O. Rayet, ‘Apollon Sauroctone’, Monuments de l’art antique 2, Paris (1884) 1-12. 88 See H. Brunn, Geschichte der Griechischen Kuenstler, Stuttgart (2nd ed.: 1889) 1. 236-237 and 246-248. 89 See A. Furtwaengler, Meisterwerke der Griechischen Plastik, Leipzig (1893) 569. 90 See W. Klein, Praxiteles, Leipzig (1898) 104-132. 91 See G. Perrot, Praxitele, Paris (1904) 63-67. 92 See M. Collignon, Scopas et Praxitele, Paris (1907) 79-80.

93

39-41.

See G.E. Rizzo, Prassitele, Milan (1932)

94 See C. Picard, Manuel d’archeologie grecque. La sculpture 3. 1, Paris (1948) 530-555. 95 See Todisco (note 54) 74. 96 See C. Rolley, La sculpture grecque 2, Paris (1999) 248-250. 97 See R. Preisshofen, ‘Der Apollo Sauroktonos des Praxiteles’, Antike Plastik 28 (2002) 41-115. 98 See J. –L. Martinez, ‘L’Apollon Sauroctone’, A Pasquier and J. –L. Martinez (eds.), Praxitele, Paris (2007) 202-235. 99 See D. Damaskos, ‘Agalma Apollona Sauroktonou’, Kaltsas and Despinis (note 40) 126-127; Idem, ‘Kormos Apollona Sauroktonou’, ibidem 128; Idem, ‘Kephali Apollona Sauroktonou’, ibidem 129. 100 See B. Andreae, ‘Novita’ su Prassitele e Apelle’, Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia 88 (2009-2010) 19-32. 101 The skepticism of Ridgway and Ajootian toward this attribution has not met a wide acceptance: see A. Ajootian, ‘Praxiteles’, Yale Classical Studies 30 (1996) 91-129, particularly 116122, and B.S. Ridgway, Fourth – Century Styles in Greek Sculpture, Madison (1997) 265. 102 See K. Lehmann, ‘Xenokrates’, Vollkommer (note 8) 2 (2004) 521-522 with previous bibliography. 103 About the Pouring Satyr, see I. Mennengka, ‘Agalma Oinochoountos Satyrou’, Kaltsas and Despinis (note 40) 150-157. 104 See Corso (note 1) 9-187. 105 See Stampolidis (note 40) 90-97. 106 See A. Pasquier, ‘Tete feminine dite Tete Leconfield’, Pasquier and Martinez (note 98) 116-117. 107 It is likely that the Hermes of Olympia was a dedication owing to the help by the Arcadians to the oligarchs of Elis who seized the power in the polis in 343 BC (Hermes is the god of Arcadia, Dionysus of Elis) (see Stampolidis (note 40)). 108 See W. Lambrinoudakis (ed.), ‘Apollon’, LIMC 2 (1984) 183-323, particularly 191, no. 18 and 199, no. 81. See also I. Touratsoglou, ‘Nikopolis ston Istro potamo, chalkino nomisma epi’ Makrinou’, Kaltsas and Despinis (note 40) 72. The isolated coin type of Prusa ad Olympum struck during the age of Commodus and representing the Sauroctonus will be considered below.

Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

91

See Corso (note 1) 91-92, fig. 60. D. Plantzos, ‘Praxiteles, the Sauroctonus, and the Roman Gem Cutter’, Antike Kunst 54 (2011) 55-61, particularly 56, note 12, asserts that my suggestion that the Sauroctonus was made for Apollonia ad Rhyndacum is “entirely hypothetical”: he appears unaware that my conclusion is based on a huge body of numismatic evidence as well as on other circumstantial considerations. 110 See G. Kawerau and A. Rehm, Das Delphinion in Milet, Berlin (1914) 378-381, inscription no. 155. 111 The thesis of A. Abmeier, ‘Zur Geschichte von Apollonia am Rhyndakos’, E. Schwertheim (ed.), Mysische Studien, Bonn (1990) 1-16 that this polis was a Pergamene foundation is not convincing because it is contradicted by the middle Hellenistic inscription cited in n. 110. About Apollonia ad Rhyndacum, see S. Aybek and A.K. Oez, ‘Preliminary Report of the Archaeological Survey at Apollonia ad Rhyndacum in Mysia’, Anadolu 27 (2004) 1-25. 112 On the Persian administration of Mysia, see P. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, Winona Lake (2002) 697-700. 113 See I. Touratsoglou, ‘Parion, chalkino nomisma epi Aimilianou’, Kaltsas and Despinis (note 40) 72 and D. Mposnakis, ‘Agalmatidio Erota apo ti Ko’, ibidem 140-141. 114 See Calcani (note 29) 46 (with a date of this work to 360-350 BC); 71-72 and 131. 115 See note 112. About Artabazus, satrap from 362 until the end of the Persian empire, see A. Kuhrt, ‘Artabazos (4)’, Cancik (note 38) 1 (2003) 53. The palace of the satraps at Dascylium and its surroundings, endowed with the lure of a lush abundance and thus apt to satisfy the pleasures of life, is described by Xenophon, Hellenica 4. 1. 15: ‘Dascylium, the place where the royal palace (basileia)of Pharnabazus (scil.: Artabazus’ father) was situated, and round about it were many large villages, stored with provisions in abundance, and splendid wild animals, some in enclosed parks (paradeisoi), others in open spaces. And, besides, there were birds in abundance for those who knew how to take them’ (trans. Loeb with amendments). Artabazus split from the Great King in 352 BC and ruled his satrapy as indipendent kingdom until 345: it is possible that he commissioned statues from renowned Greek masters 109

92

Antonio Corso

in order to make his state dignified and to give emphasis to its mythical history and cults. 116 The evidence about the negative connotation of lizards has been collected by Duchalais (note 84), Ajootian (note 101) 120, note 149 and Preisshofen (note 97) 48-53. 117 This suggestion had been already proposed by Winckelmann (note 82) but without an analytical justification of this conclusion. About Admetus and Apollo, see M. Schmidt, ‘Admetos I’, LIMC 1 (1981) 218-221, particularly 218 and 220, nos. 11-13. 118 See Callimachus, Hymns 2. 47-54 and Rhianus, FGrHist 265 F 56. 119 See T. Scheer, ‘Admetos’, DNP 1 (1996) 118. 120 See R. Hunter, ‘Apollo and the Argonauts’, Museum Helveticum 43 (1986) 50-60. 121 See R.J. Clare, The Path of the Argo, Cambridge (2002) 88-104. 122 See C. Collard and M. Crop, Euripides Fragments Oedipus – Chrysippus Other Fragments, Cambridge Mass. (2008) 185-223, frgg. 696-727 c. 123 See Hesiod, Catalogus mulierum, frg. 52 Most; Euripides, Alcestis 1-27; Asclepiades, FGrHist 12 F 9; Apollodorus 3. 10. 4 and Hyginus 49. 124 See Pherecydes, Historiae 8, FGrHist 3 F 35 a. 125 See Anaxandridas of Delphi, FGrHist 404 F 5 and Scholiast to Euripides, Alcestis 1. 126 See H. von Fritze, Die antiken Muenzen Mysiens, Berlin (1913) 79-96, nos. 245; 255; 257; 258; 270; 289; 296; 301 and 304. 127 See F.W. Hasluck, Cyzicus, Cambridge (1910) 68-73 and Aybek and Oez (note 111) 6.. 128 See M. Falkerts, ‘Eudoxos (i)’, DNP 4 (1998) 223-225. 129 See N. Kaltsas, ‘Treis anaglyphes places apo apendysi vathrou’, Kaltsas and Despinis (note 40) 82-87. 130 The poems of Anyte of Tegea in the late 4th c. BC reveal that the world of groves and mountains had already been idealized. The idealization of Arcadia as characterized by wild nature is clear in Apelles’ picture of Hercules aversus (Pliny 35 94) to be recognized in the painting with the personification of Arcadia from the Basilica of Herculaneum (see P. Moreno, Pittura greca, Milan (1987) 155-156 and 179, fig. 176).

See F. Turato, La crisi della citta’ e l’ideologia del selvaggio, Rome (1979). 132 The evidence about the link of Praxiteles with the cultural environment of the Academy has been collected in Corso (note 1) 9-18; 27-32; 36-38 and 42-44. 133 About the Greek cities in the Persian empire during the late classical times, see Briant (note 112) 700-709. 134 These works are: 1. The Cnidian Aphrodite (see Corso (note 1) work no. 22); 2. His sculptures for the Mausoleum (see above the work no. 35); 3. The Apollo Sauroctonus (no. 36); 4. The Eros of Parium (Pliny 36. 22); 5. His sculptures for the Altar of the Artemisium at Ephesus (see Artemidorus in Strabo 14. 1. 23. 641) and finally 6. His Leto for Myra (see Codex Vaticanus Graecus 989. 110). 135 Recent lists of sculptural copies of the Apollo Sauroctonus have been provided by Preisshofen (note 97), by V. Machaira, ‘Kephali Apollona’, S. Vlizos (ed.), Elliniki kai Rhomaiki Glyptiki apo tis sylloges tou Mouseiou Mpenaki, Athina (2004) 100-106, no. 24, and by Martinez (note 98) while a list of gems portraying this type is supplied by L. Marinescu, ‘Original, copie, representation antique? Quelques considerations sur les images d’Apollon Sauroktonos’, C. Museteanu (ed.), The Antique Bronzes 16, Bucharest (2004) 301-304. The article by Plantzos on gems representing the Sauroctonus (note 109) is very superficial and should be used with care. A recent and complete catalogue of representations of the Sauroctonus on coins is still missing  : however, see Lambrinoudalis (note 108); M. Amandry and J. –L. Martinez, ‘Monnaie en bronze de Nicopolis ad Istrum (Mesia) frappe a l’effigie de l’empereus Macrin (217-218 apres J. -C.) (droit) et representant l’Apollon Sauroctone de Praxitele (revers)’, Pasquier and Martinez (note 98) 52 and Touratsoglou (note 108). See now S. Mancuso, ´Im Spiegel der Kopie. Die Repliken des Apollon Sauroktonos des Praxiteles´, V. Brinkmann (ed.), Zurueck zur Klassik, Frankfurt am Main (2013) 214-229. The list of copies and variations of the Apollo Sauroctonus reported here below follows their hypothetical chronological order. a. late classical examples: 1. Bronze life size statue of unknown provenance at Cleveland, Museum of Art, no. 2004. 131

30 (most of left arm, right forearm and tree trunk are missing: however the left hand with the wrist and the lizard are preserved): probably the original statue made by Praxiteles: see M. Bennett, ‘Une nouvelle replique de l’Apollon Sauroctone au Musee de Cleveland’, Pasquier and Martinez (note 98) 206-208 and Andreae (note 100) (figs. 6-8); 2. Apulian oinochoe at Florence, Villa La Pagliaiuola, no. 116, dated around 340 BC, near the Chamay Painter. See Schmidt, ‘Admetos I’ (note 117) 220, no. 11. Admetus and Apollo are represented together. Admetus bears a diagonal position of the body which is very similar to that of the Apollo Sauroctonus. The position of the feet is reversed when compared to that of the Sauroctonus. Head and arms are not inspired by this type (fig. 9). b. Middle Hellenistic examples: 3. Torso in grey Lartian stone found in the south-western part of the ancient city of Rhodes, probably originally pertinent to the sanctuary of Asklepios of this town, kept in the local Archaeological Museum, no. 1010 / P. B. E. 1775: see I. Zervoudaki, ‘Anaskaphai. Polis Rhodiou’, AD 25 B 2 (1970) 500-518, particularly 513, pl. 437, fig. 3 and V. Machaira, Ellinistika glypta tis Rhodou, Katalogos 1, Athina (2011) 110-111, no. 88, pl. 116.. c. late Hellenistic examples: 4. Marble head formerly in the Chigi collection from Rome or around at Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Skulpturensammlung, no. 197 (Hm 110): see Preisshofen (note 97) 78-79, no. K 1, pls. 40-41; C. Vorster, ‘Kopf des Apollon Sauroktonos’, S.F. Schroeder (ed.), Verwandelte Goetter, Dresden (2009) 181-184 and 379-380 and Eadem, ‘Kopf des Apollon, Typus Sauroktonos des Praxiteles’, K. Knoll et alii (eds.), Skulpturensammlung. Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden. Katalog der antiken Bildwerke ii. Idealskulptur der Roemischen Kaiserzeit 1, Munich (2011) 542-544, no. 121 (fig. 10). 5. Marble torso formerly at Rome in Palazzo Costaguti, then at Berlin, Altes Museum, Antikensammlung, no. Sk 48, probably from Rome: see Preisshofen (note 97) 93-94, no. St 2, pl. 55. 6. Torso of statuette in Pentelic marble at London, The British Museum, Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, no. 1534: see Preisshofen (note 97) 95, no. St 4, pl. 58;

Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

93

7. Marble torso probably from Italy at Basle, Antikensammlung und Sammlung Ludwig, no. Lu 237 (fig. 11): see Preisshofen (note 97) 97-98, no. U 1, pls. 60-61; 8. Glass paste ringstone from the Pincket Collection at Brussels at The Hague, The Royal Coin Cabinet, no. 1956 / 819: see M. Maaskant – Kleibrink, Catalogue of the Engraved Gems in the Royal Coin Cabinet The Hague The Greek Etruscan and Roman Collections, The Hague (1978) 110-111, no. 102 and Plantzos (note 109) 58 with note 26. Variation: Ionic column instead of tree-trunk. Attributed to a Roman / Campanian workshop. d. Augustan examples: 9. Statue in Pentelic marble from Rome, Palatine Hill, Villa Magnani at Rome, Vatican Museums, Galleria delle Statue, no. 264 (750) (fig. 12): see G. Spinola, Il Museo Pio – Clementino 2, Rome (1999) 49-50, no. 62; Damaskos (note 99) 126-127, no. 27 and S. Pafumi, ‘Per la ricostruzione degli arredi scultorei del Palazzo dei Cesari sul Palatino’, Babesch 82 (2007) 207-225, particularly 213 and 217. 10. Marble torso from Melos formerly in the Choiseul – Gouffier collection, then at Avignon, Musee Calvet, no. E 37 = 371 and fig. 13: see J. –L. Martinez, ‘Torso de la Collection Choiseul – Gouffier (?) du type de l’Apollon Sauroktone’, Pasquier and Martinez (note 98) 221-222, no. 52. 11. Marble statue of Eros Sauroctonus from the harbour of Baiae and once displayed in a local Nymphaeum which was Imperial property, at Naples, National Archaeological Museum, no. 150381 and fig. 14: see F. Maniscalco, Ninfei ed edifici marittimi severiani del Palatium imperiale di Baia, Naples (1997) 17 and 59-61, no. 8; Preisshofen (note 97) 104-105, no. E 1, pl. 64 and J. –L. Martinez, ‘Eros Sauroctone de Baies’, Pasquier and Martinez (note 98) 359, no. 97; 12. Stone head from the upper part of Tarracina at Terracina, Museum: see Preisshofen (note 97) 90-91, no. K 12. 13. Stone head at Capua, Old Antiquarium: see Preisshofen (note 97) 90, no. K 11, figs. 2022. 14. Torso in Parian marble probably from Rome, formerly in the Hope collection at Lisbon, National Museum of Ancient Art, no. 745 (variation: the position of the legs is reversed when compared to that of the Sauroctonus): see E.

94

Antonio Corso

Angelicoussis, ‘Torso of Pothos’, D. Watkin and Ph. Hewat – Jaboor (eds.), Thomas Hope, New Haven (2008) 314-315. 15. Group of San Ildefonso in Luna marble from Rome or around, attributed to the school of Pasiteles and to the milieu of Stephanos, formerly in the Ludovisi collection, then in the collection of Camillo Massimo, then in that of Queen Christine of Sweden, then in that of Livio Odescalchi, then in the collection of King Philip V of Spain in the Palacio Real of San Ildefonso, now at Madrid, Museo del Prado, no. 28 – E: see S.F. Schroeder, Katalog der antiken Skulpturen des Museo del Prado in Madrid 2, Mainz am Rhein (2004) 371-379, no. 181: the figure on the viewer’s left side of the group is inspired by the Apollo Sauroctonus. 16. Plasma probably from Rome or around formerly in the Townley Collection, at London, The British Museum, Department of Coins and Medals, no. W 1311 and fig. 15: see D. Plantzos, ‘Sphragidolithos me parastasi Apollona Sauroktonou’, Kaltsas and Despinis (note 40) 130-131, no. 30 (variation: mirrored style) and Idem (note 109) pl. 12, fig. 3. e. Julio – Claudian examples: 17. Bronze statuette found at Rome, below the Church of St. Balbina, east of the Aventinus minor in the context of the ancient sanctuary of the Bona Dea subsaxana, and kept at Rome, Villa Albani, no. 952 and fig. 16 (the tree trunk is modern): see Preisshofen (note 97) 91-93, no. St 1, pls. 56-57 and figs. 24-25 and B. Andreae, Der tanzende Satyr von Mazara del Vallo und Praxiteles, Mainz (2009) 67, fig. 19. 18. Statue in Parian marble probably from Rome or around, formerly in the Della Porta Collection, then in the Borghese Collection, then at Paris, Musee du Louvre, Departement des Antiquites Grecques, Etrusques et Romaines, no. Ma 441 = MR 78 and fig. 17: see K. Kalveram, Die Antikensammlung des Kardinals Scipione Borghese, Worms am Rhein (1995) 150, no. 105 and 172, no. 6 and M. –L. Martinez, ‘Replique de la collection Borghese du type de l’Apollon Sauroctone’, Pasquier and Martinez (note 98) 216-218, no. 50. 19. Marble torso at Genua, formerly in the Durazzo – Pallavicini collection, then in the Archaeological Museum of Genova – Pegli, no. 590: see Preisshofen (note 97) 65-67, no. 54, figs. 7-10.

20. Statue in Pentelic marble found at Rome in Serpenti Street, perhaps originally pertinent to the near sanctuary of Diana Planciana, then at Geneve formerly in the Fol collection, now in the Musee d’Art et d’Histoire, no. MF 1316 (the upper parts of Apollo and of the tree trunk are modern restorations): see Preisshofen (note 97) 67-69, no. 55, pls. 30-31. 21. Head in Parian marble from Rome at Newby Hall, room no. 2 of the gallery: see D. Boschung, ‘Sitzstatue einer Muse, mit Kopf des Apollo Sauroktonos’, V. Boschung and H. von Hesberg (eds.), Die antiken Skulpturen in Newby Hall, Wiesbaden (2007) 40-42, no. N 3, pls. 7-9. 22. Head in Pentelic marble probably from Rome or around at Rome, Villa Albani, Galleria del Canopo, no. 662: see Preisshofen (note 97) 81, no. K 3, pl. 42. 23. Marble head, provenance and whereabouts unknown, gyps copy at Rome, Museo dell’Arte Classica, Universita’ di Roma ‘La Sapienza’, no. 39 / 4453: see Preisshofen (note 97) 81-82, no. K 4, pl. 43. 24. Marble head from a private collection at Salzburg at Copenhague, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, no. 2330: see Preisshofen (note 97) 82-84, no. K 5, figs. 14-15, pls. 44-45. 25. Marble head probably from Rome or around at Rome, Villa Albani, no. 1: see Preisshofen (note 97) 84-85, no. K 6, figs. 16-18. 26. Torso in Pentelic marble at Florence, Palazzo Medici – Riccardi, Loggia, no. Uffizi 1008: see Preisshofen (note 97) 98-100, no. U 2, figs. 27-29. 27. Marble torso of Eros Sauroctonus from Rome at New York, The Metropolitan Museum, no. 24. 97. 14 and fig. 18: see Preisshofen (note 97) 105-106, no. E 2, pls. 62-63. 28. Marble torso from a villa near Carcaricola, south of Torre Nova. In 1974 it was preserved in a local farm: see L. Quilici, Collatia, Rome (1974) 725-726, no. 642, fig. 1651. 29. Marble tree trunk and lizard once pertinent to a statuette from the scaenae frons of the theatre of Vasio Vocontiorum in Gallia Narbonensis at Vaison – la – Romaine, Musee Municipal and fig. 19: see Y. de Kisch, ‘Le theatre de Vaison-la-Romaine’, C. Landes (ed.), Spectacula – ii, Lattes (1992) 133-148, particularly 135, no. 14; Preisshofen (note 97) 77-78, no. S 14 and Martinez (note 98) 224, fig. 135.

30. Marble head probably from Rome, formerly in the Campana collection, then at Amiens, Musee de la Picardie, no. 1874-75 and fig. 20: see Preisshofen (note 97) 91, no. K 13, fig. 23 and Martinez (note 98) 224, fig. 136. 31. Marble torso found in the eastern portico of the forum of Baelo Claudia in Baetica at Cadiz, Museum: see N. Duppe, ‘Belo 1973’, NotArqHisp 3 (1975) 209-224, particularly 220, fig. 35. 32. Two fragments of marble torso perhaps from Alba Fucens at Avezzano, Antiquarium in Municipio: see Preisshofen (note 97) 96-97, nos. V 7 and 8, pl. 59. 33. Torso once pertinent to a statuette in Luna marble formerly at Florence in Galleria Riccardi, now at Pisa, Camposanto, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, no. 1963. S 7 (12), room 20, no. 25: see L. Faedo, ‘Torso di Apollo Sauroctonos’, S. Settis (ed.), Camposanto monumentale di Pisa. Le antichita’ ii, Modena (1984) 165-167, no. 78. 34. Marble head probably from Rome formerly in the collection of King Friedrich Wilhelm IV at Potsdam in the Small Gallery of Sanssouci Castle, then in the storeroom of the Neue Palais, at Berlin, Altes Museum, Antikensammlung, no. Sk 1941: see D. Kreikenbom, ‘Statue der Artemis mit antiken Kopf des Apollo’, S. Hueneke (ed.), Antiken I, Berlin (2009) 606-607, no. 373. 35. Marble head at Rome, Palazzo Valentini (EA, nos. 2384-2385) (variation: the hair is not collected at the sides of the head and behind on the nape). 36. Cornelian from the Blacas collection, at London, The British Museum, Department of Coins and Medals, no. D 608 and fig. 21 (variation: mantle on back of Apollo, tree trunk curving above the god, mirrored style. If ancient, early Imperial but perhaps modern): see D. Plantzos, ‘Sphragidolithos me parastasi Apollona Sauroktonou’, Kaltsas and Despinis (note 40) 131-132, no. 31 and Idem (note 109) pl. 13, fig. 2.. 37. Nicolo formerly in the Boulton collection at London, The British Museum, Department of Coins and Medals, no. W 1312 and fig. 22 (variation: mirrored style): see D. Plantzos, ‘Sphragidolithos me parastasi Apollona Sauroktonou’, Kaltsas and Despinis (note 40) 133, no. 32 and Idem (note 109) pl. 13, fig. 1. 38. Amethyst paste at London, The British Museum, Department of Coins and Medals, no.

Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

95

2743 (variation: Ionic column instead of tree trunk): see H.B. Walters, Catalogue of the Engraved Gems and Cameos Greek Etruscan and Roman in the British Museum, London (1926) 268, no. 2743 and Plantzos (note 109) pl. 13, fig. 4. 39. Glass paste formerly in the von Stosch collection, modern copy from an ancient gem, at Berlin, Altes Museum, Antikenabteilung, no. F 9501: see G. Horster, Statuen auf Gemmen, Bonn (1970) 87 and Plantzos (note 109) 55-56, pl. 2, fig. 1. 40. Cast of gem formerly in the Cades collection at Basle, Cades collection, Cl 1 L, no. 66 (variation: no arrow): see Horster (no. 39) 86, note 3 and Plantzos (note 109) 59, no. 28. 41. Gem once at Geneve, Fol collection, no. 1609, now its whereabouts are not known: see Horster (no. 38) 88 (variation: Ionic column instead of tree trunk). 42. Gem on sale by Christie’s in 1994 (no. 89): see Marinescu (cited above) 302-303. f. Flavian examples: 43. Torso in Pentelic marble probably from Rome or around once at Rome, formerly in the Sassi collection, then in the Farnese collection in Palazzo Farnese, now at Naples, National Archaeological Museum, storeroom, fig. 23: see C. Capaldi, ‘Torso di Apollo tipo Sauroktonos’, C. Gasparri (ed.), Le sculture Farnese. i. Le sculture ideali, Naples (2009) 103-104, no. 44. 44. Torso in Luna marble from Rome, probably from the Palatine Hill, Domitian’s palace, formerly in the Ince Blundell Hall, now at Liverpool, National Museum and Galleries on Merseyside, storeroom: see Preisshofen (note 97) 70-71, no. S 7, pls. 32 and 33. 45. Marble head formerly in the Ince Blundell Hall, now at Liverpool, National Museum and Galleries on Merseyside, storeroom: see Preisshofen (note 97) 100, no. U 3, pls. 32 and 33. 46. Head in Pentelic marble found at Rome on Palatine Hill, in the Palace of Domitian, at Rome, Antiquarium on the Palatine, no. 12. 477: see M.A. Tomei, Museo Palatino, Milan (1997) 124, no. 101 and Preisshofen (note 97) 86-87, no. K 8. 47. Marble torso once pertinent to a statuette from Syracuse, found on Ortygia, reused in the demolished Spanish walls which protected the island from the mainland, probably originally set up in the near sanctuary of Apollo, at Syra-

96

Antonio Corso

cuse, Museo Archeologico Regionale, no. 6422: see Preisshofen (note 97) 94, no. St 3, fig. 26. 48. Marble torso sold at Paris, its whereabouts are not known: see Preisshofen (note 97) 77, no. S 13. 49. Jasper found at Dotis, in the thermal site of Brigetio in Pannonia Superior at Budapest, National Museum, no. 35. 1889. 2 (reversed style): see T. Gesztelyi, Antike Gemmen im Hungarischen Nationalmuseum, Budapest (2000) 40-41, no. 21; Idem, ‘Gemme romane della Pannonia nord-orientale’, G. Sena Chiesa (ed.), Aquileia e la glittica di eta’ ellenistica e romana, Trieste (2009) 157-167, particularly 158, fig. 3, and Plantzos (note 109) 57 (he seems unaware of the provenance of this gem). 50. Nicolo at Aquileia, Archaeological Museum: see G. Sena Chiesa, Gemme del Museo Nazionale di Aquileia, Aquileia (1966) 111, no. 57 and Plantzos (note 109) 58. 51. AE struck by Apollonia ad Rhyndacum during the empire of Domitian, reverse (variation: Ionic column instead of a tree trunk): see von Fritze (note 126) 70, no. 210. g. Examples to be dated in the periods of Nerva and Trajan: 52. Torso in Pentelic marble at Cambridge, The Fitzwilliam Museum, no. GR 94. 1937: see Preisshofen (note 97) 71-73, no. S 8, pl. 35. 53. Head in Naxian marble at Wuerzburg, Martin von Wagner – Museum der Universitaet, no. H 5791 and fig. 24: see Preisshofen (note 97) 87-89, no. K 9, pls. 50-51, 54 c and fig. 19. 54. Marble head formerly in the Audeoud collection, then at Cluny and now at Paris, Musee du Louvre, Departement des Antiquites Grecques, Etrusques et Romaines, no. MNC 887 = Ma 675: see J. –L. Martinez, ‘Tete de la collection Jules Paul Audeoud du type de l’Apollon Sauroctone’, Pasquier and Martinez (note 98) 224-225, no. 54. 55. AE struck by Apollonia ad Rhyndacum under the empire of Nerva, reverse (variation: candelabre instead of tree trunk): see von Fritze (note 126) 72, nos. 217-218. h. Hadrianic examples: 56. Torso in Luna marble from Rome, perhaps from the Imperial Palace on the Palatine Hill, formerly in the Lansdowne collection, then at Stockholm, Medelhavsmuseet: see Preisshofen (note 97) 73-74, no. 59, pls. 36-37; Pafumi

(no. 9) 217-218 and I. Bignamini and C. Hornsby, Digging and Dealing in eighteenth – century Rome, New Haven (2010) 1. 322 and 2. 44; 47; 71 and 81. 57. Marble torso at Florence, Uffizi, no. 249: see J. –L. Martinez, ‘Replique du type de l’Apollon Sauroctone restauree par Giovanni Caccini en 1586’, Pasquier and Martinez (note 98) 226-227, no. 55. 58. Marble head from Pantanello in Hadrian’s villa near Tibur, collected by King Gustaf iii of Sweden, now at Stockholm, Antiken Museet, no. Sk 15: see A. –M. Leander Touati, Ancient Sculptures in the Royal Museum. The Eighteenth – Century Collection in Stockholm 1, Stockholm (1998) 152 and pl. 40. 59. Torso in Pentelic marble at Athens, National Archaeological Museum, no. 1623 and fig. 25: see D. Damaskos, ‘Kormos Apollona Sauroktonou’ (note 99) 128, no. 28. 60. Marble torso originally pertinent to a statuette probably from Rome or around formerly in the Della Porta collection, then in the Borghese collection, now at Paris, Musee du Louvre, Departement des Antiquites Grecques, Etrusques et Romaines, no. MR 115 = Ma 489: see J. –L. Martinez, ‘Groupe de Bacchus et Silene compose par les Della Porta’, Pasquier and Martinez (note 98) 228-229, no. 56. 61. Marble torso originally pertinent to a statuette formerly in the Craufurd collection, then at Paris, Musee du Louvre, Departement des Antiquites Grecques, Etrusques et Romaines, no. MR 86 = Ma 4802: see J. –L. Martinez, ‘Replique redeute de la collection Craufurd du type de l’Apollon Sauroctone’, Pasquier and Martinez (note 98) 229-231, no. 57. 62. Marble torso from Rome formerly in the Richelieu collection in the castle of Poitou, then at Paris, Musee du Louvre, Departement des Antiquites Grecques, Etrusques et Romaines, no. MR Suppl. 1 = Ma 2305: see J. –L. Martinez, ‘Replique de la collection Richelieu du type de l’Apollon Sauroctone’, Pasquier and Martinez (note 98) 232-235, nos 58-59. 63. Marble plinth with feet from Augustodunum at Autun, Musee Rolin, no. M. L. 824 (S. E. 314) (variation: mirrored copy): see M. Pinette (ed.), Autun Augustodunum, Autun (1987) 329, no. 653. 64. Marble statue of Hypnos, from Valladolid, formerly in the collection of the Duques de

Frias, then in the collection of King Karl iii in Palacio Real, then at Madrid, Museo del Prado, no. 89 E: the hair is inspired by that of the Sauroctonus type. See S.F. Schroeder, ‘Statue des Hypnos (Der Schlaf)’, Schroeder (no. 4) 286-289, no. 48. i. Antonine examples: 65. Torso in Luna marble from the scaenae frons of the theatre of Caere at Rome, Vatican Museums, Museo Gregoriano Profano ex Lateranense, no. 9941 (variation: legs not in keeping with the Sauroctonus type and drapery thrown on the tree-trunk): see M. Fuchs, Untersuchungen zur Ausstattung Roemischer Theater, Mainz am Rhein (1987) 77-84, particularly 82, no. E i. 1; P. Santoro (ed.), Il teatro e il ciclo statuario giulioclaudio, Caere 2, Rome (1989) 110-113, no. 31 and C. Vorster, Roemische Skulpturen des spaeten Hellenismus und der Kaiserzeit, Wiesbaden (2004) 151-152, no. 97, pl. 112. 66. Marble head probably from Rome or around, at Rome, Villa Albani, no. 999: see Preisshofen (note 97) 101-102, no. U 5, figs. 31-32. 67. Marble head probably from Rome or around formerly in the Bessarion collection in Casa del Bessarione at Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, storeroom, no. 1155: see Preisshofen (note 97) 102-103, no. U 6, figs. 33-36. 68. Head in Pentelic marble probably from Cephisia, perhaps from the local villa of Herodes Atticus (according to Stella Raftopoulou from Sparta) at Athens, Benaki Museum, no. 23722, fig. 26: see D. Damaskos, ‘Kephali Apollona Sauroktonou’ (note 99) 129, no. 29. 69. Head in Pentelic marble probably from Athens, Acropolis, kept at Athens, Acropolis Museum, no. 2374 (see M.L. Mprouskari, ‘Idealistika kephalia Rhomaikon chronon, antigrapha klassikon ergon apo to Mouseio tis Akropoleos’, ArchEph 150 (2011) 1-119, particularly 15-16, no. 4). 70. Headless statuette of Eros Sauroctonus in Pentelic marble from the temple of Isis and Serapis at Cyrene, kept at Cyrene, Museum, no. 14. 353: see E. Paribeni, Catalogo delle sculture di Cirene, Rome (1959) 111, no. 310 and J.J. Callot, Recherques sur les cultes en Cyrenaique, Nancy (1999) 189, no. 16 and 219-220. 71. Marble tree-trunk with hand found in the fountain of the peristyle of Maximian’s palatium at Philosophiana (Casale di Piazza Arme-

Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

97

rina) in Sicily, kept in the local Antiquarium: see R. Neudecker, Die Skulpturen – Ausstattung Roemischer Villen in Italien, Mainz am Rhein (1988) 176-177, no. 30. 8 and G.V. Gentili, La villa romana di Piazza Armerina. Palazzo Erculio, Osimo (1999) 1. 81 and 2. 15. 72. Marble plinth with feet and low section of tree trunk found at Regina Castra below the Cathedral’s square and kept at Regensburg, Museum, no. 116: see F. Wagner, CSIR Deutschland i. 1, Bonn (1973) 100, no. 425, pl. 116. 73. Marble plinth with tree-trunk and lizard from the stage of the theatre of Lugudunum at Lyon, Musee de la Civilisation Gallo-Romaine, no. 2000-0-557 (variation: mirrored copy): see M. –P. Darblade – Audoin, Lyon, Paris (2006) 7576, no. 231, pl. 75. 74. Red jasper cut in the Red Jaspers Workshop at Aquileia, Archaeological Museum, no. 48815: see Sena Chiesa (no. 50) 110-111, no. 56 and Plantzos (note 109) pl. 14, fig. 3. 75. Gem from Colonia Ulpia Trajana in Germania Inferior kept at Xanten, Regionalmuseum, no. XAV 332 – L 51 (variation: reversed style): see G. Platz – Horster, Die antiken Gemmen aus Xanten, Cologne (1987) 88, no. 151, pl. 31 and Plantzos (note 109) pl. 13, fig.3. 76. AE struck by Apollonia ad Rhyndacum during the empire of Antonine Pius, reverse (variation: Ionic column instead of tree trunk. Apollo is inside an Ionic tetrastyle temple): see von Fritze (note 126) 77, no. 237 and fig. 27. 77. AE struck by Nicopolis ad Istrum under Antonine Pius, reverse: see B. Pick, Die antiken Muenzen von Dacien und Moesien, Berlin (1898) 349, no. 1225. 78. AE struck by Nicopolis ad Istrum under Antonine Pius, reverse: see P. Lawrence, ‘Apollo Sauroktonos: the Evidence of the Coins’, http:// www.forumancientcoins.com/ayiyoryitika/ saurcoins/ayiyoryitika-saurcoins.htm, no. 2. 79. AE struck by Philippopolis under Antonine Pius, reverse: see Lambrinoudakis (note 108) 199, no. 81 c. 80. AE struck by Philippopolis during the empire of Antonine Pius, reverse: see P. Lawrence (no. 77) no. 4. j. Examples of the late 2nd c.: 81. AE struck by Apollonia ad Rhyndacum under Lucius Verus, reverse (variation: Ionic col-

98

Antonio Corso

umn instead of tree trunk): see von Fritze (note 126) 84, no. 264 and fig. 28. 82. AE struck by Nicopolis ad Istrum under Marcus Aurelius, reverse: see Lawrence (no. 77) no. 3. 83. AE struck by Philippopolis under Faustina the Younger, reverse (variation: Ionic column instead of tree trunk): see K. Kolev, ‘Kopien Griechischer Skulpturen auf Muenzen von Philippopolis’, Klio 73 (1991) 510-525, particularly 515516 and fig. 1, no. 8 and Lawrence (no. 78) no. 6. 84. AE struck by Prusa ad Olympum under Commodus, reverse: see W.H. Waddington, Recueil general des monnaies grecques d’Asie Mineure, 1. 4, Paris (1912) 579-580, no. 25 and Lawrence (no. 78) no. 9. 85. Eros Sauroctonus on AE struck by Prusa ad Olympum under Commodus, reverse (variation: Ionic column instead of tree-trunk, chlamis thrown on the support): see Waddington (no. 84) 580, no. 28. 86. Eros Sauroctonus on AE struck by Prusa ad Olympum under Commodus, reverse (variation: Ionic column instead of tree trunk, chlamis thrown on the support): see Waddington (no. 84) 576, no. 4. 87. AE struck by Nicopolis ad Istrum under Commodus, reverse: see Lawrence (no. 78) no. 7. 88. AE struck by Nicopolis ad Istrum under Commodus, reverse: see Lawrence (no. 78) no. 8. 89. Eros Sauroctonus on AE struck by Prusa ad Olympum under Crispina (variation: Ionic column instead of tree trunk, chlamis thrown on the support): see Waddington (no. 84) 583, no. 60. k. Examples of the Severan period: 90. AE struck by Apollonia ad Rhyndacum under Septimius Severus, reverse (variation: Ionic column instead of tree trunk): see von Fritze (note 126) 87, nos. 274-275. 91. AE struck by Nicopolis ad Istrum under Septimius Severus, reverse: see Pick (no. 76) 362, no. 1288. 92. AE struck by Nicopolis ad Istrum under Septimius Severus, reverse: see Pick (no. 77) 375, no. 1354. 93. AE struck by Nicopolis ad Istrum under Septimius Severus, reverse: see Lawrence (no. 78) no. 10. 94. AE struck by Nicopolis ad Istrum under Septimius Severus, reverse: see Pick (no. 77) 375, no. 1355.

95. AE struck by Nicopolis ad Istrum under Septimius Severus, reverse: see Pick (no. 77) 362, no. 1289. 96. AE struck by Apollonia ad Rhyndacum under Caracalla, reverse (variation: Ionic column instead of tree-trunk. The god is inside an Ionic tetrastyle temple): see von Fritze (note 126) 90, nos. 282-285. 97. AE struck by Nicopolis ad Istrum under Caracalla, reverse: see Pick (no. 77) 400, no. 1518. 98. AE struck by Nicopolis ad Istrum under Caracalla, reverse: see Pick (no. 77) 404, no. 1539. 99. AE struck by Apollonia ad Rhyndacum under Geta, reverse (variation: Ionic column instead of tree-trunk. Apollo is inside the Ionic tetrastyle temple): see von Fritze (note 126) 91, no. 288. 100. AE struck by Nicopolis ad Istrum under Geta, reverse: see Pick (no. 77) 426, no. 1654. 101. AE struck by Nicopolis ad Istrum under Geta, reverse: see Pick (no. 77) 424, no. 1639. 102. AE struck by Nicopolis ad Istrum under Plautilla, reverse: see Pick (no. 77) 420, no. 1626. 103. AE struck by Nicopolis ad Istrum under Macrinus, reverse: see Touratsoglou (note 108) 72, no. 3 and fig. 29. 104. AE struck by Nicopolis ad Istrum under Macrinus, reverse: see Pick (no. 77) 431, no. 1679. 105. AE struck by Nicopolis ad Istrum under Macrinus, reverse: see Lawrence (no. 78) no. 18. 106. AE struck by Nicopolis ad Istrum under Diadumenian, reverse: see Lawrence (no. 78) no. 21. 107. AE struck by Apollonia ad Rhyndacum under Diadumenian and Elagabalus, reverse (variation: Ionic column instead of tree trunk): see von Fritze (note 126) 92, nos. 291-292. l. Examples of the advanced 3rd c.: 108. AE struck by Apollonia ad Rhyndacum under Gordian iii, reverse (variation: Ionic column instead of tree trunk, god inside his tetrastyle Ionic temple): see von Fritze (note 126) 97, no. 306. 109. AE struck by Apollonia ad Rhyndacum under Gallien, reverse (variation: Ionic column instead of tree trunk, on one type god alone, on other three types god inside his tetrastyle Ionic temple): see von Fritze (note 126) 99-100, nos.

311 and 313-315; Lambrinoudakis (note 108) 191, no. 18 and Aybek and Oez (note 111) 21. m. examples to be dated only to the period of the copyist production(1st c. BC to 2nd c.): 110. Marble torso once at Rome and now at Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Skulpturensammlung, no. Hm 109: see W. Geominy, ‘Torso des Apollon Sauroktonos’, Knoll (no. 4) 538-541, no. 120. 111. Marble torso once at Naples, National Archaeological Museum, courtyard: see Preisshofen (note 97) 96, no. V 3. 112. Bronze lizard once at Rome, Palazzo Barberini, then in the Payne Knight collection, then at London, The British Museum, Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, no. NI 1914: see Preisshofen (note 97) 97, no. V 11. 113. Emerald gem once in the collection of van der Marck at Haarlem, now its whereabouts are not known: see note 80. n. Rejected identifications: 114. Torso in Parian marble found at Rome on the Quirinal Hill at Rome, Conservatori Palace, garden: see Preisshofen (note 97) 104, no. A 3. In fact it is a copy of Euphranor’s Paris. 136 See A. Stewart, Skopas of Paros, Park Ridge (1977) pl. 4, figs. A and b; Waywell (note 2) pl. 22, fig. 48; C.W. Clairmont, Classical Attic Tombstones. Plate volume, Kilchberg (1993) nos. 1. 315; 2. 152; 2. 220; 2. 273 e; 2. 294 a; 2. 300; 2. 304; 2. 339; 2. 390; 2. 430; 2. 431; 2. 441; 2. 464; 2. 480; 2. 770; 2. 820; 3. 383; 3. 415; 3. 425 a; 3. 905; Corso (note 1) 41, fig. 11 and 195, fig. 113. In the realm of bronze sculpture, the hair of the Dancing Satyr of Mazara is very similar: see R. Petriaggi (ed.), Il Satiro danzante di Mazara del Vallo, Naples (2005) 146-148. In my opinion the statue is near the workshop of the Derveni crater (toward 350 BC). 137 See Aybek and Oez (note 111) 3-4. 138 See the catalogue of representations of this type in note 135. 139 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 73 and 140, note 430. 140 See C.A. Huffman, Archytas of Tarentum, Cambridge (2005). 141 See F. Villard, ‘Hyacinthos’, LIMC 5 (1990) 549, no. 48. About Myron’s Discus-thrower, see H. Thliveri, ‘The Discobolos of Myron’, F. Macfarlane and C. Morgan (eds.), Exploring Ancient Sculpture, London (2010) 7-70.

Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

99

See Cicero, Ad familiares 5. 12. 6-7; Horace, Epistulae 2. 1. 232-244; Valerius Maximus 8. 11. ext. 2; Pliny 7. 125; 35. 85 and 37. 8; Plutarch, De Alexandri fortuna aut virtute 2. 2-3; De Iside et Osiride 24 d; Alexander 4. 1; Arrian, Alexandri anabasis 1. 164-165; Apuleius, Florida 7; Himerius, Meletai kai logoi 31. 5; Scholiast to Horace, Epistulae 2. 1. 139-240; Choricius, Dialexeis 34. 1-3. On the portraits of Alexander made by Lysippus and Apelles, see A. Stewart, Faces of Power, Berkeley (1993) 9-70; 106-117; 191-209; 360-362. On Lysippus, see P. Moreno, ‘Lysippos’, R. Vollkommer (ed.), Kuenstlerlexikon der Antike, Munich 2 (2004) 27-39. 143 About Xenocrates, see Lehmann (note 102). See also Tanner (note 76) 212-245. 144 See Tanner (note 76) 212-245. 145 See note 76. 146 See Corso (note 1) 207, nos. 10-22. 147 See V. Machaira, ‘I thematiki paragogi tis scholis tis Rhodou’, O. Palagia and W. Coulson (eds.), Regional Schools in Hellenistic Sculpture, Oxford (1998) 137-148, particularly 138-139. 148 See V. Machaira, ‘Duo agalmatikoi typoi tis Rhodiakis plastikis tou ysteroellinistikou chronou’, G. Konstantinopoulos (ed.), Rhodos 2. 400 chronia, Athina (1999) 173-178. 149 See Machaira (note 135, no. 3) 42-48, nos. 2-3 and 7. 150 See L.M. Vazquez, Inscripciones Rodias, Madrid (1988) 61-62; 89; 112; 155 and 219 and M. Livadiotti and G. Rocco, La presenza italiana nel Dodecanneso tra il 1912 e il 1948, Catania (1996) 17-20. 151 About the Asclepieum of Rhodes see J.W. Riethmueller, Asklepios, Heidelberg (2005) 2. 350-351, no. 184. 152 See Sallustius, Historiae 3. frgg. 28-29 M; Strabo 12. 8. 11. 576; Memnon, De Heraclea, frg. 28, FGrH 3 B 434; Plutarch, Lucullus 11. 2-4; Appian 12. 11. 75; Orosius 6. 12. 15. About Lucullus, see W. Will, ‘Licinius I 26’, DNP 7 (1999) 166-168. About this battle, see A. Keaveney, Lucullus, London (1992) 82. 153 See A. Celani, Opere d’arte greche nella Roma di Augusto, Perugia (1998) 81-84 and I. Oesternberg, Staging the World, Oxford (2009) 77-97. Lucullus looted from Sinope the statue of Autolycus by Sthennis and the Globe of Heaven by Billarus. He removed also the statue of Heracles which was eventually set up near the rostra 142

100

Antonio Corso

of the Roman comitium and the gold statue of Mithridates. Moreover Marcus Terentius Varro Lucullus looted from Apollonia Pontica the colossal statue of Apollo by Calamis. Lucullus also bought a copy of Pausias’ picture with Glycera (evidence in M. Pape, Griechische Kunstwerke aus Kriegsbeute und ihre oeffentliche Aufstellung in Rom, Hamburg (1975) 20-22 and Celani (cited above) 82-83). Lucullus’ interest for these works of art reveals his devotion to Apollo as well as his admiration of late classical masters since Pausias and Sthennis lived in that age. 154 See Celani (note 153) 83. 155 See Varro in Pliny 36. 39. About Pasiteles, see P. Moreno, ‘Pasiteles’, Vollkommer (note 8) 2 (2004) 192-196. 156 On these gardens, see H. Broise and V. Jolivet, ‘Horti Luculliani’, LTUR 3 (1996) 67-70. 157 See e. g. M. Cima and E. Talamo, Horti Romani, Milan (2007). 158 See e. g. B.L. Wickkiser, ‘Augustus, Apollo, and an ailing Rome’, Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 12 (2005) 267-289. 159 The early Augustan date of this copy has been demonstrated by Preisshofen (note 97) 63 with very punctual comparisons. This date has been also endorsed by Damaskos (see note 135, no. 9). However Pafumi (see note 135, no. 9) suggested a date of this copy in the 2nd c. AD: her re-dating of the statue is not convincing because she does not explain why the very detailed comparisons forwarded by Preisshofen are not convincing. Martinez (J. –L. Martinez, ‘Replique du Vatican du type de l’Apollon Sauroctone’, Pasquier and Martinez (note 98) 219220, no. 51) asserts a Flavian date of this copy because it was found in Villa Magnani above the domus Flavia. However it is equally possible that this copy, given its very high quality, has been re-used in the Palace of Domitian. 160 About the sanctuary and temple of Apollo Palatinus, see M.J. Strazzulla, Il principato di Apollo, Rome (1990); P. Gros, ‘Apollo Palatinus’, LTUR 1 (1993) 54-57 and A. Carandini and D. Bruno, La casa di Augusto, Bari (2008) 199-242. 161 See I. Iacopi, ‘Domus: Augustus’, LTUR 2 (1995) 46-48; R. Mar, El Palati, Tarragona (2005) 77-112 and Carandini and Bruno (note 160). 162 See Pliny 36. 13 and M. D’ Acunto, ‘Ipponatte e Boupalos’, RA (2007) 227-268. 163 See Propertius 2. 31. 15-16; Pliny 36. 25

and Notitia regionum X. See Calcani (note 29) 56-59, no. 4. 164 See Pliny 36. 32. 165 See Pliny 36. 24. 166 See Propertius 2. 31. 7-8. 167 See Tomei (note 135, no. 46) 118, no. 91. 168 See Tomei (note 135, no. 46) 129, no. 107. 169 See Tomei (note 135, no. 46) 138-139, no. 119. 170 See Tomei (note 135, no. 46) 150, no. 129. 171 About the excavations at Villa Magnani see Pafumi (note 135, no. 9). 172 Angelicoussis (see note 135, no. 14) interpreted this statue as copy of Scopas’ Pothos: however differently from the Pothos in the Hope statue no drapery falls from the left shoulder along the left side of the figure. Thus it is more prudent to regard the statue a Sauroctonus with reversed legs. About Scopas’ Pothos, see Calcani (no. 29) 105-111, nos. 20 and 21. 173 See G.B. Waywell, The Lever and Hope Sculptures, Berlin (1986) 74-75, no. 9. 174 See L. and F. Villard, ‘Hyacinthos’, LIMC 5 (1990) 546-550. 175 About laurel wreaths and their meaning in the Augustan imagery, see G. Sena Chiesa, ‘L’alloro di Livia’, M. Fano Santi (ed.), Studi Traversari, Rome (2004) 791-801. Perhaps the laurel wreath would also refer to Admetus’ victory in the athlon for the marriage of Alcestis. 176 Evidence in Schroeder (note 135, no. 15) 376. About the funerary destination of this type of round arulae, see D.W. von Moock, ‘Delische Rundaltaere’, AM 119 (2004) 373-390. 177 About the identification of the fruit, see B. Palma, ‘Gruppo di S. Ildefonso’, A. Giuliano (ed.), Museo Nazionale Romano. Le sculture i. 6, Rome (1986) 88-93. 178 About the symbology of the pomegranate and its being a frequent attribute of Kore, see F. Muthmann, Der Granatapfel, Symbol des Lebens, Fribourg (1982) and A. Suter, The Narcissus and the Pomegranate, Ann Arbor (2002). 179 About the type of marble used for the group, see F. Huebner, Die antiken Bildwerke in Madrid, Berlin (1862) 73-79, no. 67. 180 See Schroeder (note 135, no. 15). 181 About this provenance, see U. Broccoli, Terracina Museo e Raccolte Civiche 1, Rome

(1982) 57, no. 68; see also M.R. Coppola, Terracina. Il Museo e le Collezioni, Rome (1989) 103, no. 150. 182 See M.R. Coppola, Terracina. Il foro emiliano, Rome (1986) 16 and 34 and G. Uggeri, ‘Tarracina’, DNP 12 / 1 (2002) 35-36. 183 See Coppola (note 181) 105, no. 143, pl. 24. 184 See P. Moreno, ‘Pseudo-Seneca’, EAA Suppl. 2. 4 (1996) 667-668. 185 Rome, Barracco Museum, no. 107. See C. Gobbi, ‘Testa di Diadumeno’, E. Borgia et aliae (eds.), Museo Barracco, Rome (2008) 82-83. 186 See Coppola (note 181) 82-83, no. 101, pl. 18. 187 The importance of the regina viarum for the spread of copyist types would deserve a specific study which is still missing: however see e. g. C. Gasparri, ‘L’officina dei calchi di Baia’, RM 102 (1995) 173-187, particularly 180. 188 See Corso (note 1) 212, note 8, no. 94. 189 See L. Melillo Faenza, ‘Sant’Angelo in Formis (Caserta) Tempio di Diana Tifatina’, Bollettino di Archeologia 22 (1993) 73-76. 190 See E. Pozzi (ed.), Le collezioni del Museo Nazionale di Napoli 1. 2, Rome (1989) 104-105, nos. 52-55. The only surviving Julio – Claudian copies of opera nobilia from Capua are, as far as I know, the marble copy of Myron’s Samian Heracles (see E. Berger, ‘Zur Samischen Gruppe des Myron’, Antike Kunst 13 (1970) 89-91, pl. 41) and a copy of Praxiteles’ Dionysus Taurus (see note 873, no. 2). 191 See Pozzi (note 190) 1. 1 (1986) 118-119, no. 18 (Naples, National Archaeological Museum, no. 9992). About Sosus, see A. Panayides, ‘Sosus’, Cancik (note 38) 13 (2008) 664. 192 Evidence in T. Mavrojannis, ‘Apollo Delio, Atene e Augusto’, Ostraka 4 (1995) 85-102. 193 See C. Bluemel, Roemische Kopien Griechischer Skulpturen des vierten Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Berlin (1938) 23-24, no. K 237, pls. 51 and 63. About the personality of Antiphanes of Parus, see W. Mueller, ‘Antiphanes (iii)’, Vollkommer (note 8) 1 (2001) 57. The same stadium was adorned with the Aphrodite in Parian marble by Alexander from Antiochia on the Maeander (see W. Mueller, ‘Alexander (ii)’, Vollkommer (note 8) 1 (2001) 21-22). This Aphrodite was also a re-interpretation of late classical prototypes. About the gymnasium of Melus, see J. Delorme, Gymnasion, Paris (1960) 164-165.

Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

101

Sources about the foundation of classical Melus by the Spartans in G. Reger, ‘The Aegean’, Hansen and Nielsen (note 38) 758-760, no. 505. 195 See M. Pettersson, Cults of Apollo at Sparta, Stockholm (1992). 196 See P. Cartledge and A. Spawforth, Hellenistic and Roman Sparta, London (1992) 93104. 197 See IG 12. 3. 1104 and 1116 (the latter inscription concerns the honours lavished on the priest of Augustus and Tiberius). 198 See e. g. Posidippus 3-20 Gigante – Lanzara. 199 See e. g. S. Settis, La villa di Livia le pareti ingannevoli, Rome (2008). 200 See Horster (note 135, no.39) 85. 201 About the Townley collection, see V. Coltman, Classical Sculpture and the Culture of Collecting in Britain Since 1760, Oxford (2009) 48-272. 202 See A. Hermary, ‘Eros’, LIMC 3 (1986) 850942, particularly 912-913, nos. 730-738, and N. Blanc and F, Gury, ‘Eros / Amor, Cupido’, ibidem 952-1049, particularly 991-994, nos. 296-326. 203 See Hermary (note 202) 913-915, nos 748-778 and Blanc and Gury (note 202) 10191020, nos. 549-563. 204 About the lordship of Venus on Baiae, locus classicus is Martial 11. 80, v. 1: Litus beatae Veneris aureum Baias: see F. Rakob, ‘Litus beatae Veneris aureum’, RM 68 (1961) 114-149. 205 See Maniscalco (note 135, no. 11) 29-87. 206 See R. Bol, Amazones volneratae, Mainz (1998) 196-197, no. ii 17. 207 See Bol (note 206) 181, no. I 12. 208 See Maniscalco (note 135, no. 11) 52-55, no. 2. About the Borghese type of Eros in fetters, see P. Moreno, ‘L’Eros di Tespie’, Archeo 275 (2008) 108-111. 209 See A. Pasquier, ‘Le type statuaire de l’Hera Borghese au Musee du Louvre’, CRAI (2004) 711-742 and F. Ghedini, ‘Le statue del teatro del Pythion’, ASAIA 83 (2005) 657-666, particularly 662-666.. 210 See R. Vollkommer, ‘Aphrodisios (i)’, Vollkommer (note 8) 1 (2001) 64 and C. Valeri, Marmora Phlegraea, Rome (2005) 98-102. 211 Augustan copies of Ephesian Amazons: see Bol (note 206) nos. i. 2; 7; 12; 18; 25-26; ii. 6; 11; 16-17; 32; 34; 38-41; iii. 2-3; 11. 194

102

Antonio Corso

About the importance of Artemis Ephesia for Augustus and his world, see P. Scherrer, ‘Augustus, die Mission des Vedius Pollio and die Artemis Ephesia’, OeJ 60 (1990) 87-101. About the visual fortune of Amazons in the Augustan period, see E. La Rocca, Amazzonomachia, Rome (1985) 83-102. 213 See P. Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, Ann Arbor (1988) 240-263. 214 See e. g. Corso (note 1) 169. About the visual presence of the world of Aphrodite in early Imperial Nymphaea of Campania, see H. Lavagne, ‘Fontane e ninfei’, S. Settis (ed.), Civilta’ dei Romani. La citta’, il territorio, l’impero, Milan (1990) 125-138, particularly 133-134. 215 See Carmina Latina Epigraphica (2nd ed.) no. 1499: Balnea vina Venus corrumpunt corpora nostra, / sed vitam faciunt b(alnea) v(ina) V(enus). 216 See G. Di Luca, ‘Nullus in orbe sinus Bais praelucet amoenis’, Babesch 84 (2009) 143-162. 217 The two most important examples of this type of architectural complexes are of course Sperlonga (see e. g. B. Andreae, ‘Einer neuen Wahrheit ist nichts schaedlicher als ein alter Irrtum. Noch Einmal zum Praetorium Speluncae’, C. Franek (ed.), Thiasos, Vienna (2008) 57-64) and the Nymphaeum at Punta Epitaffio at Baiae, dated in the reign of Claudius (see E. Pozzi (ed.), Baia. Il Ninfeo Imperiale sommerso di Punta Epitaffio, Naples (1983)). About sculptural displays of Nymphaea, see W. Letzner, Roemische Brunnen und Nymphaea in der westlichen Reichshaelfte, Muenster (1990) 258-262. 218 See L. Richardson, A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, Baltimore (1992) 45-46. 219 See Lehmann (note 78). Lehmann wrongly assumed that Martial described the real works of art, not copies. The recognition of the two pictures of Hyacinthus and of Danae described by Martial as copies of the corresponding pictures by Nicias dedicated by Tiberius in the temple of Augustus is due to the circumstance that this temple is the only known place in which two pictures of exactly these two subjects stood one near the other. 220 See B. Andreae, Praetorium Speluncae. Tiberius und Ovid in Sperlonga, Stuttgart (1994). 221 See C. Weber – Lehmann, ‘Vulca’, Vollkommer (note 8) 2 (2004) 509-510. 222 See the case of the temple of Apollo Palatinus: note 162. 212

See D. Kreikenbom, ‘Strongylion’, Vollkommer (note 8) 2 (2004) 426-427. 224 See U. Koch-Brinkmann, ‘Nikias (ii)’, Vollkommer (note 8) 2 (2004) 135-137. 225 See Valerius Maximus 8. 11. ext. 4; Geminus, Anthologia Graeca 6. 260 and 16. 205; Aemilianus, ibidem 9. 756; Phaedrus 5 prologus. 226 See M. –L. Lakmann, ‘Thrasyllus (2)’ Cancik (note 38) 14 (2009) 620-621. 227 About Polycles, see C. Mueller, ‘Polykles (i)’, Vollkommer (note 8) 2 (2004) 292. 228 See Richardson (note 218) 59 and R. Meneghini, ‘Le biblioteche pubbliche di Roma nell’alto impero’, Y. Perrin (ed.), Neronia viii, Brussels (2010) 32-40, particularly 35. 229 About the date of the bronze Sauroctonus Albani, see P.C. Bol, ‘Bronzestatuette des Sauroktonos nach Praxiteles’, P.C. Bol (ed.), Forschungen zur Villa Albani I, Berlin (1989) 188191, no. 58. 230 About Mt. Aventin, see M. Andreussi, ‘Aventinus mons’, LTUR 1 (1993) 147-150. 231 See L. Chioffi, ‘Bona Dea Subsaxana’, LTUR 1 (1993) 200-201. 232 See CIL 6. 76: see L. Chioffi, ‘Bona Dea Venus Cnidia’, LTUR 1 (1993) 201. 233 Martinez (note 98) 220 claims that the copies of the Sauroctonus with the left hand brought to the top of the tree-trunk are arbitrary results of modern restaurations and that copies of the Sauroctonus with this peculiar feature did not exist in antiquity. He blatantly overlooks the still late Hellenistic example at note 135, no. 8 and the Augustan example at note 135, no. 16: in both cases the Sauroctonus has his left arm brought to the top of the vertical support. This evidence suggests that the interpretation of the Sauroctonus with the left arm brought up to the top of the tree-trunk was earlier than that with the left arm resting on its internal side. Finally the evidence of coins portraying the Sauroctonus reveals the absolute prevalence of Sauroctoni who extend their left arms up to the top of their vertical supports. This fact coupled with the observation that only Sauroctoni with their left arms brought to the top of their supports are known before the Julio-Claudian period strongly suggests that this feature characterized also Praxiteles’ original statue. 234 See F. de Caprariis, ‘Viminalis, Collis’, LTUR 5 (1999) 205-206. 223

See L. Chioffi, ‘Diana Planciana’, LTUR 2 (1995) 15. 236 About the constitution of the sanctuary by this gens see Chioffi (note 235). 237 About the Roman villa of Carcaricola, see Quilici (note 135, no. 28) 725-726, no. 642. 238 Quilici (note 135, no. 28) 725. Although there is no visual evidence of this statuette, its possible association with our Apollo might perhaps suggest that she was a veiled Leto in the type represented on the Surrentum base, whose original is identified in the Leto by Cephisodotus the Younger which stood in the temple of Apollo on the Palatine (see C. Cecamore, ‘Le figure e lo spazio sulla base di Sorrento’, RM 111 (2004) 105-140). In that case both our Apollo and this female figure would reproduce statues standing in the cradle of the imperial power and expressing the protection of Apollo on the Roman state. 239 See Quilici (note 135, no. 28) 725 and R. Kekule von Stradonitz, Koeniglische Museen zu Berlin. Beschreibung der antiken Skulpturen, Berlin (1891) 29, no. 55. For the Barracco type of Apollo, see M. Flashar, Apollo Kitharodos, Cologne (1992) pl. 92. 240 See Quilici (note 135, no. 28) 725 and Kekule von Stradonitz (note 233) 102, no. 231. For the group of Pan and Daphnis, see A. Leibundgut, ‘Von der “Luesternheit des Auges”. Gedanken zu den Gruppen Pan – Daphnis und ‘Leda ignuda‘, P.C. Bol (ed.), Hellenistische Gruppen, Mainz (1999) 365-425. N. Marquardt, Pan in der Hellenistischen und Kaiserzeitlichen Plastik, Bonn (1995) 182, no. 1, dates our Daphnis with the lost Pan in the Antonine age. This date cannot be verified on the poor photo of this Daphnis published by Leibundgut. If Marquardt is right, the group of Pan and Daphnis would have been a late addition to the sculptural display of the villa because the materials listed by Quilici as pertinent to this villa reveal its Julio-Claudian phase. 241 See e. g. F. Catalli, Alba Fucens, Rome (1992) 57-71. 242 See J. Mertens, ‘Deux temples italiques a Alba Fucens’, Idem (ed.), Alba Fucens 2, Brussels (1969) 7-22. 243 See F. de Ruyt, Sculptures d’Alba Fucens, Brussels (1982) 97, no. 117 (Antonine copy of the Apollo Lyceus); 97-98, no. 118 (Flavian copy, 235

Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

103

variation of the same type); 78, no. 100 (head, copy of the Gabii type of Artemis); 100-102, no. 120 (votive statue of Diana with diploid chiton, of Julio-Claudian period). 244 See note 243. 245 See De Ruyt (note 243) 127-129, no. 147. 246 See De Ruyt (note 243) 104-105, no. 122. 247 See De Ruyt (note 243) 97-98, no. 118. 248 See De Ruyt (note 243) 79-83, no. 101. 249 See De Ruyt (note 243) 78, no. 100. 250 See De Ruyt (note 243) 100-102, no. 120. 251 See e. g. Catalli (note 241) 34 (re-making of the macellum and of a temple); 37-40 (renovation of the Baths and of the sanctuary of Hercules); 43 (lavish domus); 46 (renovation of the temple above the theatre); 55-56 (amphitheatre). 252 See e. g. C. Letta, ‘La bonifica antica e la statio della flotta pretoria di Ravenna sul Fucino’, A.M. Radmilli (ed.), Il Fucino e le aree limitrofe nell’antichita’, Rome (1991) 501-511. 253 See De Kisch (note 135, no. 29) 254 See De Kisch (note 135, no. 29). 255 See the catalogue of the 14 identified sculptures decorating the frons scaenae in De Kisch (note 135, no. 29) 135. 256 See E. Esperandieu, Recueil general des bas-reliefs, statues et bustes de la Gaule romaine, Paris 9 (1925) 133, no. 6775 = De Kisch (note 135, no. 29) 135, no. 12. About the Boboli – Berlin type of goddess, see e. g. L. Beschi, ‘Demeter’, LIMC 4 (1988) 844-892, particularly 852, no. 56. 257 See H.R. Goette, Studien zu Roemischen Togadarstellungen, Mainz am Rhein (1989) 121, no. 155 (Goette wrongly attributes the not pertinent head to this statue) and 124, no. 226. 258 See Corso (note 1) 214-217, nos. 127128; 139 and 155. 259 See e. g. IG 12. 1276 and C. Goudineau, Les fouilles de la Maison au dauphin, Paris (1979) 229 and pl. 3. 260 See H. Rolland, Bronzes antiques de haute Provence, Paris (1965) 134-135, no. 286. 261 See J.J. Hatt, ‘Apollon guerisseur en Gaule’, RA Centre France 22 (1983) 185-218. 262 See J.A.D. Delgrado, Elites y organizacion de la religion en las provincias romanas de la Betica y las Mauritanias, Oxford (1998) 125, 200 and 213. 263 See J.F.R. Neila, ‘La ciudad como “espacio de representacion” de las elites municipales en

104

Antonio Corso

la Betica romana’, C.G. Roman and A.P. Arroba (eds.), Estudios sobre las ciudades de la Betica, Grenada (2002) 341-388. 264 See P. Sillieres, Baelo Claudia, Madrid (1995) 102-110 about the forum of this town. 265 See Duppe (note 135, no. 31) 220. About statues of togati in cities of the Baetica during the early imperial times, see L. Baena del Alcazar, ‘Los togados de la Baetica’, P. Sada Castillo (ed.), Actes ii reunion sobre escultura romana a Hispania, Tarragona (1996) 31-48. 266 See Duppe (note 135, no. 31) 220, fig. 36. About the iconography of eastern barbarian prisoners in the Roman imperial propaganda, see R.M. Schneider, Bunte Barbaren, Worms (1986). 267 See Jubas, FGrHist 275, frgg. 43-44 = Pliny 6. 201-204. 268 See W. Huss, ‘Mauretania’, Cancik (note 38) 8 (2006) 493-497. 269 About the cultural milieu of Nero, see M.A. Tomei (ed.), Nerone, Milan (2011). 270 See Corso (note 1) 219-221, copies nos. 199-218 and Idem, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 126-127, copies nos. 33-46. 271 About the Corinthian alloy of bronze, see D.M. Jacobson, ‘What was Corinthian bronze?’, AJA 96 (1992) 237-247. 272 About Domitian’s German campaigns, see J. von Ungern-Sternberg, ‘Germania capta’, Xenia 22 (1989) 161-169. The new dedications were a gold statue of Victory, a German mask and a statue of Minerva (see above the text between notes 219 and 220). 273 See Corso (note 1) 220, copy no. 208. About the domus Augustana, see R. Mar, ‘La domus Flavia’, F. Coarelli (ed.), Divus Vespasianus, Milan (2009) 250-263. 274 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 126-127, copy no. 45. 275 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 281, note 425, no. b. 276 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 285, note 478, copies nos. 2-4 and 9. About the Albanum Domitiani, see H. von Hesberg, ‘Le ville imperiali dei Flavi: Albanum Domitiani’, Coarelli (note 273) 326-333. 277 Martinez (note 98) 220 suggests that the head of Sauroctonus in the Palatine Museum pertained to either the Ince torso of Sauroctonus (see note 135, no. 42) or to the Lansdowne

torso of the same type (see note 135, no. 56). The observation that both of these torsos are Luna marble while the head is Pentelic makes this suggestion very unlikely. 278 See Tomei (note 135, no. 44) 112, no. 83. About the Vescovali type of Athena see V. Saladino, ‘La Minerva di Arezzo’, M. Cygielman (ed.), La Minerva di Arezzo, Arezzo (2008) 13-29. 279 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 88-89. 280 See Tomei (note 135, no. 44) 114, no. 86. 281 See Tomei (note 135, no. 44) 137, no. 117. 282 See Tomei (note 135, no. 44) 136, no. 116. 283 See H. Doehl, Der Eros des Lysipp, Goettingen (1968) 53, no. 22. 284 See Tomei (note 135, no. 44) 134, no. 114. 285 See the convincing demonstration by R. Cittadini, ‘Figure femminili di Lisippo’, BdA 100 (1997) 55-80. 286 See Tomei (note 135, no. 44) 115, no. 88. 287 See Tomei (note 135, no. 44) 131, no. 109. 288 See P. Knuevener, ‘Karos’, Vollkommer (note 8) 1 (2001) 404. 289 See Maniscalco (note 135, no. 11) 56-57, no. 5. 290 See Maniscalco (note 135, no. 11) 58-59, no. 7. 291 See Maniscalco (note 135, no. 11) 60-61, no. 9. 292 See G. Patroni, Guida del R. Museo Archeologico di Siracusa, Naples (1896) 37, no. 6422 and G. Libertini, Il Regio Museo Archeologico di Siracusa, Rome (1929) 166, no. 6422. 293 About the topography of this area, see H. Gans, ‘Der antike Isthmos von Syrakus’, JdI 121 (2006) 227-266. 294 See Svetonius, Tiberius 74. This statue had been mentioned also by Cicero, In Verrem 2. 4. 53. 119. This statue probably is not the colossal bronze Apollo Tuscanicus seen by Pliny 34. 43 in this library because Pliny specifies that the latter had been made in Italy. 295 See Pliny 12. 94. 296 See M. Torelli, ‘Augustus, Divus, templum (novum); aedes’, LTUR 1 (1993) 145-146 and Idem, ‘Bibliotheca templi Divi Augusti’, ibidem 197.

See Gans (note 293). See Gans (note 293) 252. 299 See Gans (note 293) 252, note 101. 300 See S. Pafumi, ‘Una nuova replica da Siracusa dell’Apollo tipo Omphalos’, BdA 87 (2002) 55-84. 301 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 122, note 218, nos. 48-52. 302 See Idem, ibidem 142-144, note 478, nos. 1-13; 57-59 and 61. 303 See V.S.M. Scrinari, Museo Archeologico di Aquileia. Catalogo delle sculture romane, Rome (1972) 10, no. 27. 304 See Scrinari (note 303) 207, no. 1. 305 See Scrinari (note 303) 41, no. 107. 306 See Scrinari (note 303) 48, no. 134. 307 See Scrinari (note 303) 20, no. 57 and 31-32, no. 87. 308 See Scrinari (note 303) 3, no. 2 and 94, no. 274. 309 See Scrinari (note 303) 14, no. 40. 310 See Scrinari (note 303) 48, no. 135. 311 See Scrinari (note 303) 5, no. 8. 312 See Scrinari (note 303) 11, no. 29 and 23, no. 69. 313 See Scrinari (note 303) 50, no. 142. 314 See Scrinari (note 303) 13, no. 37. 315 See Scrinari (note 303) 19-20, no. 55. 316 See Scrinari (note 303) 23, nos. 70-74. 317 See Scrinari (note 303) 44, no. 120. 318 See S. Tavano, ‘Tensioni culturali e religiose in Aquileia’, Antichita’ Altoadriatiche 29 (1987) 211-245, particularly 216-218. 319 See L. Borhy et alii, Kelemantia-Brigetio, s. l. (2003) 21. About Apollo Grannus as healing god, see E. Simon and G. Bauchhens, ‘Apollon / Apollo’, LIMC 2 (1984) 363-464, particularly 458459, nos. 595-603. The cult of Apollo at Brigetio is known thanks to the following inscriptions: RIU 2. 375-378. 320 See Gesztelyi, Antike Gemmen (note 135, no. 49) 66, no. 169. 321 See Idem, ibidem 64, no. 157. 322 See Idem, ibidem 56, no. 108. 323 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 54-55. 324 Evidence of renowned monuments and statues reproduced by Greek cities on their coins under Domitian: see F.W. Imhoof – Blumer, P. Gardner and A.N. Oikonomides, Ancient Coins Illustrating Lost Masterpieces of Greek Art, 297 298

Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

105

Chicago (1964) 12-16; 21-22; 28; 33; 76; 80-82; 116-117; 157. 325 See I. Touratsoglou, ‘Thespiai, chalkino nomisma epi Domitianou’, Kaltsas and Despinis (note 40) 71, no. 2. 326 Evidence in Imhoof-Blumer, Gardner and Oikonomides (note 324) and Touratsoglou (note 325). 327 See von Fritze (note 126) 70-71, nos. 211-213. 328 See H. –U. Cain, Roemische Marmorkandelaber, Mainz am Rhein (1985) 4-22. 329 See von Fritze (note 126) 71, nos. 215 and 216. 330 See von Fritze (note 126) 72, no. 219. 331 For the Hadrianic date of the copy of this type in the Louvre, see Pafumi (note 135, no. 9) 219-220. 332 See Pafumi (note 135, no. 9) 216. 333 See Pafumi (note 135, no. 9) 219. 334 The Baiae type of ‘Aspasia’: see Tomei (note 135, no. 46) 136, no. 115. 335 The copies from Hellenistic creations included a Seating Muse of the Frankfurt type (see Tomei (note 135, no. 46) 113, no. 85), a Hellenistic Aphrodite (see Tomei (note 135, no. 46) 121, no. 97) and dying warriors derived from Pergamene groups (see Tomei (note 135, no. 46) 146-147, nos. 126-127). 336 See Corso (note 1) 134-138. 337 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 57-58. 338 See Corso (note 1) 123, note 8, no. 240. 339 See Pinette (note 135, no. 63) 275 and 297. 340 See Pinette (note 135, no. 63) 328, no. 650. 341 See Pinette (note 135, no. 63) 328, no. 651. 342 See Pinette (note 135, no. 63) 328-329, no. 652. 343 See Pinette (note 135, no. 63) 331, no. 658. 344 See Pinette (note 135, no. 63) 330-331, no. 657. 345 See Pinette (note 135, no. 63) 326, no. 645. 346 See Corso (note 1) 223, note 8, nos. 241; 245-246; 249-250. 347 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 128-129, nos. 76-77.

106

Antonio Corso

See M. Bernhart, Aphrodite auf Griechischen Muenzen, Munich (1936) 48-50, nos. 299 a – 310. About the crouching Aphrodite, see E. Ghisellini, ‘L’Afrodite accovacciata tipo Doidalses’, C. Braidotti et alii (eds), Ou pan ephemeron, Rome (2009) 663-685. 349 See Santoro (note 135, no. 65) 58-113. 350 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 49, 55-56 and 134-135, note 293. 351 See Darblade – Audoin (note 135, no. 73) 34, no. 002: Zeus of the Sardis type; 7-9, no. 008: colossal Satyr; 13, no. 016: perhaps a Dionysus; 17, no. 024: an archaistic Minerva; 24-25, no. 037: a Caryatid; 29-30, no. 047: a Gorgon; 30, no. 048: a Satyric mask; no. 049: a comic mask; 42-45, no. 076: a courassed statue, probably of Hadrian; 47, no. 083: a draped female statue close to late classical types of Muses and Kore; 47-48, no. 084: archaistic colossal statue; 48, no. 087: male bust; 49, no. 092; 50, nos. 094-095 and 097; 50-51, no. 098; 51-52, no. 103; 52, nos. 104-107; 53, no. 110: various fragments of statues; 55, no. 121: hand with patera; 58, nos. 135-137; 59, nos. 140 and 143; 60, nos. 145-149; 61, nos. 151-153: various fragments of statues; 64, no. 172: Satyr; 64-65, no. 173; 65, no. 174; 65-66, no. 179; 66, nos. 181-183; 67, nos. 185 and 188-189; 67-68, no. 190; 68, no. 193; 68-69, no. 196; 69, nos. 197-198; 70-71, no. 204; 71, nos. 208 and 210; 72, nos. 211 and 214: various fragments of statues; 73, nos. 220-222; 73-74, no. 223; 74, nos. 224-225: wings probably of Erotes; 76, no. 234: tree trunk; 121, no. 352: Attic helm of statue, Athena?; 129-130, no. 367: frieze with Eros and wreaths; 132, no. 376: frieze with Hermes; 132, no. 377: frieze; 134, no. 386: flower; 139, no. 400: candelabre; 142, no. 409: lion’s head of kymation; 142, no. 412: relief with goats; 143, no. 415: dog; 143-144, no. 419: shell, perhaps pertinent to an Aphrodite. 352 See Wagner (note 135, no. 72) 101, no. 429. 353 See Wagner (note 135, no. 72) 101-102, nos. 434-435. 354 See Sena Chiesa (note 135, no. 51) 148, no. 207 (statue of Mars Ultor probably set up at Rome in the forum of Augustus); 156, no. 238 (statue of Hadrian represented as Mars) and 229, no. 550 (Praxiteles’ statue of Agathodaimon). 355 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 144, no. 57. 348

See Sena Chiesa (note 135, no. 51) 358, no. 1117; 361, no. 1124; 362, no. 1140; 387, no. 1301; 393, no. 1349; 411, no. 1486. 357 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 144, no. 57. 358 See Sena Chiesa (note 135, no. 51) 158, no. 246. 359 See Sena Chiesa (note 135, no. 51) 226, no. 559. 360 See Scrinari (note 303) 5, no. 7. 361 See Scrinari (note 303) 14, no. 41. 362 See Scrinari (note 303) 43, no. 114. 363 See Scrinari (note 303) 43, no. 113. 364 See Scrinari (note 303) 43, no. 115. 365 See Scrinari (note 303) 17, no. 49 and 19, no. 54. 366 See Scrinari (note 303) 45, no. 124. 367 See Sena Chiesa (note 135, no. 51) 92, no. 3. 368 See Sena Chiesa (note 135, no. 51) 124, no. 110. 369 See Sena Chiesa (note 135, no. 51) 209210, nos. 475-476. 370 See Sena Chiesa (note 135, no. 51) 217, no. 495. 371 See Sena Chiesa (note 135, no. 51) 231, nos. 555 and 558-562. 372 See Sena Chiesa (note 135, no. 51) 255, nos. 665-666 and 670. 373 See Scrinari (note 303) 3-4, no. 3. 374 See Scrinari (note 303) 16, no. 45. 375 See Scrinari (note 303) 44, no. 117. 376 See Scrinari (note 303) 66, no. 194. 377 See Scrinari (note 303) 4, no. 5. 378 See Scrinari (note 303) 19, no. 53. 379 See Platz-Horster (note 135, no. 75) 109110, no. 192. 380 See Platz-Horster (note 135, no. 75) 6768, no. 122. 381 See Platz-Horster (note 135, no. 75) 6367, no. 117. 382 See E. Kuenzl, ‘Venus vor dem Bade’, Bonner Jahrbuecher 170 (1970) 103-162. 383 See B. Liesen, ‘Ein Komplex figuerlicher Terrakotten aus der Colonia Ulpia Traiana’, B. Liesen (ed.), Roemische Keramik, Mainz am Rhein (2003) 306-323, nos. 63 (Aphrodite on a pillar); 64 (Aphrodite holding a wreath) and 6566 (Anadyomene). 384 See Platz-Horster (note 135, no. 75) 61, no. 112. 356

See I. Romeo, ‘Das Panhellenion’, W. –D. Heilmeyer (ed.), Die Griechische Klassik, Berlin (2002) 675-684. 386 Until now the oral suggestion by S. Raftopoulou that this copy comes from Sparta has not been proved. 387 See P. Graindor, Herodes Atticus, Le Caire (1930) 7-8. 388 See M. Galli, Die Lebenswelt eines Sophisten, Mainz am Rhein (2002) 110-144. 389 See J. Tobin, Herodes Attikos and the City of Athens, Amsterdam (1997) 84-85. 390 See Galli (note 388) 218-248. 391 See Th. G. Spyropoulos, I epauli tou Irodi Attikou stin Eya Kynourias, s. l. (2001) 47. 392 See G. Spyropoulos, I epauli tou Irodi Attikou stin Eya Loukou Kynourias, Athens (2006) 78-80, no. 16. 393 See E.E. Perry, Artistic Imitation and the Roman Patron, Ann Arbor (1995) 157-188, no. 19. 394 The following early classical types and pieces are known to have been re-used and displayed in buildings promoted by Herodes Atticus: a. estates near Rome, along via Appia: 1. Erechtheum’s ‘Caryatids’ (see Tobin (note 389) 362365; 2. Olympias’ type of Aphrodite; 3. Omphalos type of Apollo; 4. Myron’s Marsyas (see Perry (note 393) 138-165; b. Nymphaeum at Olympia: 5. Dresden type of Zeus (see P. Bol, Das Statuenprogramm des Herodes Atticus – Nymphaeum, Berlin (1984) 190-193, no. 49); c. stadium at Olympia: 6. Agoracritus’ type of Nemesis (see Galli (note 388) pl. 6, fig. 3); d. Peirene fountain at Corinth: 7. Large Eleusinian relief; 8. Three figured reliefs; 9. Dancing Maenads; 10. Alcamenes’ Aphrodite; 11. Corinth / Conservatori goddess; 12. Corinth / Mocenigo goddess (see Corso (note 1) 160-164); e: villa at Eua Cynurias: 13. Stele of fallen soldiers at Marathon; 14. Hermes by Alcamenes; 15. Agoracritus’ Meter on a relief; 16. Chiaramonti type of Charites on a relief; 17. Mattei type of Amazon (see G. Spyropoulos, Drei Meisterwerke der Griechischen Plastik aus der Villa des Herodes Atticus zu Eva / Loukou, Frankfurt am Main (2001) 27, nos. 45-46; Idem (note 392) 73, no. 6 and 96-98, nos. 45-46; Idem, Oi stiles ton pesonton stin machi tou Marathona apo tin epauli tou Irodou Attikou stin Eua Kynourias, Athens (2009)); f. stadium at Athens: 18. Herm of Dionysus, Alcamenean style (see Galli (note 388) pl. 2); g. estate at Cephisia: 385

Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

107

19. Borghese type of Ares (see Galli (note 388) 29, pl. 29, fig. 4); 20. Helen of the base of Nemesis at Rhamnus on a sarcophagus and 21. Lycius’ Dioscuri on the same sarcophagus (see E.E. Perry, ‘Iconography and the Dinamics of Patronage’, Hesperia 70 (2001) 461-492). 395 See: a. estates along via Appia: 1. Praxitelean Dionysus; b. Nymphaeum at Olympia: 2-3. Large and Small Herculaneum ladies; 4. Uffizi type of Kore; c. Peirene fountain at Corinth: 5. Cnidian type of Aphrodite; 6. Sardanapallus type of Dionysus; d. villa at Eua Cynurias: 7. Acroterium probably from Epidaurus; 8. Late classical stele; 9. Reliefs with nekrodeipnia with re-use of the type of the Pouring Satyr; 10. Lansdowne type of Heracles; 11. Large Herculaneum lady; 12. Berlin Knaben type of Youth; 13. Apollo Lycius on a relief; e. estate at Cephisia: 14. Leda with the swan and 15. Eros from Myndos re-used on the same sarcophagus (bibl. in note 394). 396 See: a. estates along via Appia: 1. Portrait of Demosthenes; 2. Portrait of Epicurus; b. Peirene fountain at Corinth: 3. Capitoline type of Aphrodite; 4. Scylla of the Bargylia / Sperlonga type; c: villa of Eva Cynurias: 5. Capitoline type of Aphrodite; 6. Satyr carrying the baby Dionysus; 7. Pasquino; 8. Achilles and Penthesilea (bibl. in note 394; for the Scylla see B.D. Robinson, Histories of Peirene, Princeton (2011) 233-247). 397 See note 394. 398 See Perry (note 394). 399 See Mprouskari (note 135, no. 69). The resting Satyr was shown in this series (Mprouskari, no. 29) as well as the Eubuleus (Mprouskari, nos. 36-37) and at least one of the Dancing Girls of Delphi (Mprouskari, no. 55). Other late classical masterpieces celebrated with copies were the Belvedere type of Apollo (Mprouskari, no. 2), the Lycius type of Apollo (Mprouskari, no. 3), the Woburn Abbey type of Dionysus (Mprouskari, nos. 9-11), the Giustini type of Asclepius (Mprouskari, nos. 27-28), the Leochares’ type of Alexander (Mprouskari, no. 38), the Capitoline type of Alexander (Mprouskari, no. 39), Corinna (Mprouskari, no. 42), the Lansdowne type of Heracles (Mprouskari, no. 44), a goddess in the style of Cephisodotus the Elder (Mprouskari, no. 52), an old priestess close to the Lysimache type (Mprouskari, no. 41) and a Scopadic Apollo Citharoedus (Mprouskari, no. 1). Early classical prototypes copied in this se-

108

Antonio Corso

ries included the ‘Hera’ Borghese (Mprouskari, no. 5), an Athena Promachos (Mprouskari, no. 6), the Athena Giustiniani (Mprouskari, no. 7), the Artemisium type of Zeus (Mprouskari, no. 8), Hermes Propylaeus (Mprouskari, nos. 12-26), the Ephesian Amazons (Mprouskari, nos. 31-34), the Rondanini type of Medusa (Mprouskari, no. 35), perhaps Myron’s Marsyas (Mprouskari, no. 45), early classical athletic types (Mprouskari, nos. 46-49), goddesses in the Phidian style (Mprouskari, nos. 51 and 53-54) and goddesses generically looking early classical (Mprouskari, nos. 56-58). Hellenistic creations were not frequent but a Satyriscus (Mprouskari, no. 30), a Spinario (Mprouskari, no. 43) and Boethus’ Boy (Mprouskari, no. 50) have been recognized. Of course religious reasons also contribute to explain the choice of masterpieces: Dionysus and his cortege, Asclepius, Aphrodite, Athena, Hermes, the Amazons, Marsyas etc. were familiar subjects on the Acropolis. Apollo was celebrated on the Acropolis as Parnopios (Pausanias 1. 28. 4) and thus the precence of his statues there was not out of place. Since Apollo represented as Parnopios also fought a small animal with a bad fame – the locust, – Apollo Sauroctonus may also have been interpreted on the Acropolis as fighter and victor upon evil. If the Antonine copy of the Colonna type of Artemis found on the southern slopes of the Acropolis fell down from the upper terrace (see C. Vlassopoulou, ‘Tria idealistika glypta apo to oikopedo Makrygianni sto Mouseio Akropoleos’, Mouseio Mpenaki, Suppl. 7 (2011) 25-35, particularly 25-27, no. 1), this type should be included in the series of late classical creations displayed on the Acropolis in this period. The statue may have been a dedication in the sanctuary of Artemis Brauronia. 400 See Callot (note 135, no. 70) 219-220. About the identification of Isis with Aphrodite at Cyrene, see S. Ensoli, ‘Il santuario di Iside e Serapide sull’Acropoli iii’, L. Bricault (ed.), Isis en Occident, Leiden (2004) 193-219 with previous bibliography. 401 See Ensoli (note 400). 402 See Callot (note 400). 403 See Romeo (note 385). 404 The re-use of the following late classical types close to Praxiteles is evidenced at Cyrene throughout the 2nd c. AD: the Cephisodotan

Eirene; the Arretium type of Athena; the Kore Uffizi; the Praxitelean Demeter; Praxitelean Dionysi; the Arles Aphrodite; the Pouring Satyr; the Cnidian Aphrodite and the Resting Satyr: see Corso (note 1) 275, note 876 and The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 130-131, no. 108. 405 See Richardson (note 218) and Torelli (note 296). 406 See J. Elsner and I. Rutherford (eds.), Pilgrimage in Graeco-Roman and Early-Christian Antiquity: seeing the Gods, Oxford (2005). 407 See Augustus, Res gestae 4. 49 and Strabo 14. 637 b. 408 See Pausanias 9. 27. 3. 409 See SHA Pius 8. 3-4 and Pausanias 8. 43. 4. See W. Eck, ‘Antoninus (1) Pius’, Cancik (note 38) 1 (2002) 795-797 and T. Witulski, Kaiserkult in Kleinasien, Fribourg (2007) 171-172. 410 Despite the decline of copyist productions in the late Antonine age, types which had been copied often in previous periods usually are sporadically copied also in the late II sec. AD and in Severan times: for example there are still 17 copies and variations of the Cnidia which can be dated after 160 AD (see Corso (note 1) 218230, nos. 312-321; 326-328 and 332-335). Equally the Resting Satyr is still copied, although not often, during the Severan times (see Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 131, nos. 116 and 117). Thus the fact that no copy of the Sauroctonus dates after the late Antonine period looks strange and would require an additional explanation. 411 See I.P. Haynes (ed.), Early Roman Thrace, Portsmouth (2011) 19-21; 27-30; 32-35; 76-81; 85-106; 147-148. 412 See J. Burian, ‘Nicopolis ad Istrum’, Cancik (note 38) 9 (2006) 741-742. 413 See Burian (note 412). 414 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 65. 415 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 44, fig. 31. 416 See J. Niehoff, ‘Philippopolis’, Cancik (note 38) 11 (2007) 26-27. 417 See Musee Archeologique de Plovdiv, Sofia (1967) no. 72. 418 See von Fritze (note 126) 77-78, no. 238; 81-82, nos. 255-256 and 258. 419 See von Fritze (note 126) 78, nos. 239242; 81-82, nos. 252-254 and 255-256.

See von Fritze (note 126) 78-79, no. 243. See von Fritze (note 126) 79, no. 245 and 82, no. 257. 422 About the provenance of several leading citizens of Nicopolis from Asia Minor, see A. Poulter, Nicopolis ad Istrum, London (1995) 11. 423 See K. Butcher, ‘The Coins’, Poulter (note 422) 269-314, particularly 270, no. 6. 424 See Butcher (note 423) 270, no. 7. 425 See R. Stuart Pole, Catalogue of Greek Coins. The Tauric Chersonase, Sarmatia, Dacia, Moesia, Thrace, etc., London (1877) 162, no. 12. 426 See Stuart Pole (note 425) 162, no. 13. 427 See Stuart Pole (note 425) 162, no. 14. 428 See Stuart Pole (note 425) 163, no. 15. 429 See Kolev (note 135, no. 83) 521 and fig. 3, no. 7. 430 See Pick (note 135, no. 77) 351, nos. 1230-1232. 431 See Pick (note 135, no. 77) 351, no. 1233. 432 See Pick (note 135, no. 77) 351, no. 1234. 433 See Pick (note 135, no. 77) 353-354, nos. 1239 and 1243-1245. 434 See Pick (note 135, no. 77) 354, no. 1246. 435 See Pick (note 135, no. 77) 353, no. 1241. 436 See K. Strobel, ‘Prusa, Prusa ad Olympum’, Cancik (note 38) 12 (2008) 91-92. 437 See T. Corsten, Die Inscriften von Prusa ad Olympum, Bonn 1 (1991) and 2 (1993) nos. 4042 and 1017-1018. About the cult of Apollo at Prusa, 2. 69-71. 438 See Corsten (note 437) no. 41. 439 See Corsten (note 437) nos. 40, 42 and 117. 440 See Corsten (note 437) no. 41. 441 See Corsten (note 437) no. 50. See also no. 1021. 442 See Corsten (note 437) no. 1019. 443 See Waddington (note 135, no. 84) 879, no. 21. 444 See Waddington (note 135, no. 84) 879, no. 24. 445 See Waddington (note 135, no. 84) 580, no. 26. 446 See Waddington (note 135, no. 84) 580581, nos. 30-34 and 37-39. 447 See Waddington (note 135, no. 84) 581, nos. 41-43. 448 See Touratsoglou (note 113). 449 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 77-85. 420 421

Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

109

450

14.

See N. Stampolidis (note 40) 90-97, no.

See Corsten (note 437) 2. 69. See von Fritze (note 126) 88, no. 278. 453 See von Fritze (note 126) 88, no. 279. 454 See von Fritze (note 126) 86, no. 273 and 88, no. 277. 455 See von Fritze (note 126) 91, no. 286. 456 See von Fritze (note 126) 92, no. 289. 457 See Pick (note 135, no. 77) 355-476, nos. 1252-1892. The iconographies reproduced are: the enthroned, Phidian Zeus; the Alexandrian Sarapis; the Attic standard types of Hygieia and Asclepios, standing statuary figures of Heracles (according to the Farnese type), Hermes, Athena, Tyche, Demeter, Dionysus, Nemesis, Eros and Hera, Apollo Daphneus, Archer (according to the Omphalos type) and Citharoedus, Artemis as huntress and standing with a diploid chiton, Aphrodite according to the Capitoline and Medici types. 458 See Pick (note 135, no. 77) 363-467, nos. 1290-1291; 1349; 1356-1357; 1359-1360; 1416-1424; 1445-1447; 1474; 1491; 1504-1507; 1517; 1540; 1567; 1590; 1604-1607; 1627; 1638; 1644-1645; 1651; 1655; 1662; 1678; 1688-1689; 1715-1718; 1735-1741; 1782-1784; 1786-1788; 1797-1798; 1823-1825; 1839-1844. About the types of these two deities represented, see previous note. 459 See Pick (note 135, no. 77) 354, no. 1250; 385, nos. 1421 and 1424; 399, nos. 1505 and 1507; 416, nos. 1604-1605; 425, nos. 1644-1645; 426, no. 1651; 440-441, nos. 1716-1718; 463, no. 1825 and 518, no. 2106. 460 See T. Ivanov and R. Ivanov, Nicopolis ad Istrum, Sofia (1994) 68-69 and 81, figs. 58 a and b. 461 Relief dogs also decorated the architrave of the northern portico of the agora leading to the basilica: the representation of a lizard and of dogs may refer respectively to Apollo and Artemis as being worshipped in the space just beyond this portico, i. e. in the basilica. Apollo and Artemis were not unknown in the basilica of Ephesus (see C. Lang – Auinger, ‘Terrakotten’, V. Mitsopoulos – Leon and C. Lang – Auinger (eds.), Die Basilika am Staatsmarkt in Ephesos 2, Vienna (2007) 124-169, particularly 127-128; 133; 135; 144; 147 and 160; see also V. Mitsopoulos – Leon, ‘Die Lampen’, ibidem 64451 452

110

Antonio Corso

113, particularly 66 and Eadem, ‘Webgiwichte’, ibidem 114-123, particularly 116). Since Greeks from Ephesus were an important component of the population of Nicopolis (see R. Ivanov, Roman Cities in Bulgaria, Sofia (2006) 59, thus it makes sense that Apollo and Artemis were considered in the imagery of the basilica of the latter centre. 462 See A. Golfetto, Rom im Bann des Sonnengottes, Taunusstein (2002). 463 See Pafumi (note 135, no. 9): this scholar suggests that these statues were disposed according to the criterium of the duplicatio, i. e. by opposing one copy to another of the same type in one room. Thus two copies of Timotheus’ Leda were set up in the same architectural environment, at least two copies of the Sauroctonus (the copies nos. 9 and 56 of my catalogue) stood in the same room, a copy of Euphranor’s Paris was opposed to another statue of young hero with a Phrygian hat and finally the two copies of the Farnese – Stainhaeuser type of Eros were one the pendant of the other. These oppositions were focused on the theme of loves of deities and were consistent with the notion of ancient art as an art of pleasure which was typical of the neo-sophistic culture and was endorsed by the Severan court. These conclusions being based on a very analytical examination of the possible find spots of these statues are probable although far from certain. 464 See Tomei (note 135, no. 46) 116, no. 89. 465 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 131, note 221, no. 116. 466 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 67, with note 382. 467 See Maniscalco (note 135, no. 11) 52-63, nos. 1-14 and moreover supra notes 205-210 and 288-291. 468 About the identification of Artemis Ephesia with the Moon in the Roman culture of the 3rd c. BC, locus classicus is Trebellius Pollio, Gallieni duo 6. 2. About the importance of Asia Minor’s cult of Moon in the Severan court, see also e. g. Aelius Spartianus, Antoninus Caracalla 66 and 7. 3-5. About the power of magicians in the Severan court, see e. g. Aelius Lampridius, Antoninus Heliogabalus 8. 2 and 9. 1-2. See R. E. A. Palmer, ‘Severan Ruler-Cult and the Moon in the City of Rome’, ANRW 2. 16. 2 (1978) 10851120.

See Maniscalco (note 135, no. 11) 38-47, nos. 8-18. 470 Concerning these features of the central decades of the 3rd c. AD, see Corso (note 1) 176, with note 960. 471 See T. Franke, ‘Gordianus (3)’, Cancik (note 38) 5 (2004) 928. 472 See von Fritze (note 126) 97, no. 304. 473 See von Fritze (note 126) 96, no. 303. 474 See T. Franke, ‘Furius (ii. 5)’, Cancik (note 38) 5 (2004) 619. 475 See von Fritze (note 126) 99, no. 311. 476 See von Fritze (note 126) 99, no. 312. 477 See von Fritze (note 126) 101, no. 316. 478 About the rhetoric emphasis on the juventus, see M. Leglay, ‘Hercule et la iuventus viennoise’, H. Stern (ed.), Mosaique, Paris (1983) 265-271. 479 See Corso (note 1) 177-178, with notes 969-970. 480 See Trebellius Pollio, Gallieni duo 6. 2 and Zosimus 1. 42. 2 – 43. 1. About the 3rd c. AD Gothic and Herulian looting of western Asia Minor, see E. Kettenhofen, ‘Die Einfaelle der Heruler ins Roemische Reich im 3. Jh. n. Chr.’, Klio 74 (1992) 291-313 and M. Kulikowski, Rome’s Gothic Wars, Cambridge (2007) 18-30. 481 See K. -P. Johne (ed.), Die Zeit der Soldaten-Kaiser, Berlin (2008) 65-66; 284-287; 449464; 691-712; 763-789; 817-860 and 1025-1053. 482 See Johne (note 481) 77-78. 483 About the ownership of the ‘villa’ the bibliography is huge: here I cite only Gentili (note 135, no. 71) 1. 26 and 261-266. 484 See Gentili ( note 135, no. 71) 2. 25-27 and 3. 42-48; 124-132; 143-147; 176-179; 184188; 235-239. 485 See Gentili (note 135, no. 71) 2. 17-18. 486 See Gentili (note 135, no. 71) 3. 216-219. 487 See Gentili (note 135, no. 71) 3. 133-142 and 235-239. 488 See Gentili (note 135, no. 71) 3. 70-75; 109-114; 133-147 and 200-208. 489 See Gentili (note 135, no. 71) 3. 11-41; 49-69; 76-108; 117-123; 148-175; 180-183; 214215; 220-232 and 239-254. 490 See Gentili (note 135, no. 71) 2. 18-25 and 3. 190-199; 209-213 and 220-232. 491 See e. g. A. Chastagnol, ‘Maximien Hercule’, Idem, Aspects de l’antiquite tardive, Rome (1994) 303-307. 469

See Gentili (note 135, no. 71) 2. 15-17 and supra, note 135, no. 71. 493 About Apollo as the divine protector of Constantine prior to his conversion to Christianity, see e. g. G. A. Mansuelli, ‘Constantinus Apollo’, Felix Ravenna 127 (1984-1985) 291-295. 494 About this possibility, see Gentili (note 135, no. 71) 1. 26. 495 See Gentili (note 135, no. 71) 2. 15-17. 496 See Gentili (note 135, no. 71) 2. 17-18. 497 See Gentili (note 135, no. 71) 2. 18-20. 498 See Gentili (note 135, no. 71) 2. 20-23. 499 See Gentili (note 135, no. 71) 2. 23-25. 500 See Gentili (note 135, no. 71) 1. 64-83. 501 See G. Dontas, ‚Ein verkanntes Meisterwerk im Nationalmuseum von Athen. Der Marmorkopf G 177 und Ueberlegungen zum Stil Euphranors‘, H. -U. Cain et alii (eds.), Festschrift Himmelmann, Mainz (1989) 143-150. 502 See R. Cittadini (note 285). 503 The importance of the art of Praxiteles for the tetrarchic culture is argued from contemporary copies of the Cnidian Aphrodite (see Corso (note 1) 230, copies nos. 334-335). The importance of the art of Lysippus is argued by the transport of his Tarentine Heracles from Rome to Constantinople already at the time of Constantine (see P. Moreno, Lisippo. L’arte e la fortuna, Milan (1995) 281-288). 504 See I. Oetueken, Forschungen im Nordwestlichen Kleinasien, Tuebingen (1996) 14. St. George was also said to have opposed the cult of Apollo and to have thrown down a statue of this god (see S. Riches, St George, Phoenix Mill (2000) 3; 9; 27; 58-59 and 218) and this part of the legend of this saint may have encouraged the inhabitants of Byzantine Apollonia / Theotokiana to embrace his veneration. Thus, the figure of St. George may have been thought to represent well the Christian identity of Theotokiana versus pagan Apollonia and its cult and statue of Apollo. 505 See Strabo 10. 5. 7 and 13. 1. 14. Other colonists came from Thasus (Eustatius, Commentarii ad Dionysium Periegetam 517), which was also a colony of Parus, Erythrae (Pausanias 9. 27. 1), Miletus (Strabo 13. 1. 14) and generically fron Ionia (Pausanias 9. 27. 1). See A. Avram, ‘The Propontic Coast of Asia Minor’, Hansen and Nielsen (note 38) 991-992, no. 756. 506 See Rizzo (note 93) pl. 93, figs. 1-6: the representation of Eros on coins begins with An492

Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

111

tonine Pius and ends under Aemilian. About the cult of Eros at Parium, see E. Pellegrini, Eros nella Grecia arcaica e classica, Rome (2009) 222-223. 507 Literary evidence in P. Fritsch, Die Inscriften von Parion, Bonn (1983) 56-58, testimonia nos. 33 and 36-41. Athenagoras, Legatio pro Christianis 26. 3 is the most important of these sources. 508 This definition of Paris is already in Homer, Iliad 3. 39 and is related to the worship and statue of Paris at Parium by Athenagoras, Legatio pro Christianis 26. 3. 509 See note 114. 510 See Todisco (note 95) 92 and figs. 191193 and Tomei (note 135, no. 46) 142, no. 121. See also supra notes 135, no. 114, 333 and 463. 511 About Artabazus, see note 115. 512 Since Pliny mentions Duris in his bibliography of the book 36th given in book 1, it is not impossible that this Samian writer accounted about this marble statue: about Duris, see F. Landucci Gattinoni, Duride di Samo, Rome (1997). 513 Mucianus is also included in the bibliography of Pliny’s book 36th given in the 1st book of his encyclopaedia: about him, see G. Williamson, ‘Mucianus and a Touch of the Miraculous’, J. Elsner and I. Rutherford (eds.), Pilgrimage in Graeco-Roman and Early Christian Antiquity, Oxford (2005) 219-252. Mucianus’ authority is taken in consideration by Pliny especially for northwestern Asia Minor: see Williamson (cited above) 247-252, frgg. nos. 5; 10; 18; 20; 28-29 and 31. In particular Mucianus wrote about the cult of Eros in Propontis, since Pliny 31. 19 cites him as authority for the Cupid’s Spring at Cyzicus. 514 Evidence in Corso (note 1) 40-49. 515 See P. M. Fraser and E. Matthews, A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names 1, Oxford (1987) s. v., nos. 5 and 6 and L. Martin Vazquez, Inscripciones Rodias, Madrid (1988) nos. 242 and 249. 516 Evidence concerning the concept of Eros at Thespiae in Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 257-281. 517 See Corso (note 1) 20-22. 518 See Rizzo (note 506). 519 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 77-85. 520 See infra. 521 See e. g. L. Kahil, ‘Artemis’, LIMC 2 (1984) 618-753, particularly 654, no. 406.

112

Antonio Corso

Concerning the growing antiquarian sensibility throughout the late classical times, see G. Schepens, Biography and Antiquarian Literature. 1. The Pre-Hellenistic Period, Leiden (1998) 84-372. 523 See Corso (note 1) 26-36. 524 See F. Hermary, ‘Eros’, LIMC 3 (1986) 850942, nos. 91-92 and Pellegrini (note 506) 152154. 525 See Pellegrini (note 506) 58-60; 79; 140; 148; 173; 183-189; 200 and 531. About Eros with the dolphin in the late classical Pontic culture, see M. Reho Bumbalova, ‘Eros e delfino su una lekythos di Apollonia Pontica’, Mededelingen van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome 43 (1981) 91-99. 526 See e. g. R. Hampe, ‘Alexandros’, LIMC 1 (1981) 494-528, particularly 513-514, nos. 7077a. 527 See Frisch (note 507) nos. 5-6. See also Polyaenus 6. 24 and Athenaeus 3. 84. 116. 528 See W. Wroth, Catalogue of Greek Coins of Mysia, London (1892) 96, no. 22. 529 See Wroth (note 528) 99, no. 58. 530 See Pliny 34. 78: about Hegesias, see A. Corso, ‘Libro trentaquattresimo. Introduzione e note’, G. B. Conte (ed.), Gaio Plinio Secondo Storia Naturale 5, Turin (1988) 103-285, particularly 201, notes 8 and 9. 531 I am aware of the following ancient figures which appear to have been inspired by the Eros of Parium: a. late classical variations: 1. Eros on a red-figured askos probably made at Tarentum in the Gnathia style, near the Matera Painter, dated around 340 BC, from a tomb at Rubi in Daunia and kept at Ruvo, Jatta Museum, no. 1290 (see E. Lanza Catti, La ceramica di Gnathia al Museo Nazionale Jatta di Ruvo di Puglia, Rome (2008) 183-184, no. 108) (variation: in his left hand he holds a trochos, in his right hand a thymiaterion); b. middle Hellenistic copies: 2. statuette in Parian marble from the necropolis of Rhodes at Rhodes, Archaeological Museum, no. E 498, to be dated in the early 2nd c. BC (head, most of arms, legs below the knees and wings are missing) (see Machaira (note 147) 139, fig. 5); c. late Hellenistic copies: 3. marble statuette from the large peristyle of the Roman House at Cos, to be dated 522

in the 1st c. BC and kept at Cos, Archaeological Museum, no. 54 (fig. 30) (head, most of left arm, right leg below the knee, left foot and wings are missing) (see D. Mposnakis, ‘Agalmatidio Erota apo tin Ko’, Kaltsas and Despinis (note 40) 140141, no. 36); 4. marble torso probably from Rome, once in the collection of the King of Spain Philip 5th, then in San Ildefonso, Palacio Real, then at Madrid, Museo del Prado, no. 12 E (head, most of arms, legs below the knees and wings missing) (see Schroeder (note 135, no. 15) 277-280, no. 155); d. early Imperial copies: 5. head and torso of marble statue probably from Rome once in the Borghese collection, perhaps found on Mt. Quirinal near Rospigliosi Palace and thus once decorating the Baths of Constantine, then at Paris, Musee du Louvre, Department of Greek, Etruscan and Roman Antiquities, no. MR 140 = Ma 545 (fig. 31) (most of arms and legs and wings are missing) (see J. -L. Martinez, ‘Eros de la collection Borghese dit le Genie aile ou le Genie Borghese’, Pasquier and Martinez (note 98) 353-353, no. 93 and M. Minozzi, M. -Lou Fabrega – Dubert and J. -L. Martinez, ‘Genio’, A. Coliva et alii (ed.), I Borghese e l’antico, Rome (2011) 368); e. Hadrianic copies: 6. bronze statuette from Old Paphus, found in the temple of Aphrodite, once in the Peretie collection, then collected by de Janze, then at Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale de France, Departement des Monnaies, Medailles et Antiques, no. Br 306 (fig. 32) (the wings are missing) (see Martinez (no. 5) 352-353, fig. 247); f. Antonine copies: 7. statue in Pentelic marble from the agora of Nicopolis ad Istrum at Sofia, National Archaeological Museum, no. 8410 (the head and the hands are missing) (see R. Ivanov, Roman Cities in Bulgaria 1, Sofia (2006) 67, fig. 16 and R. Ivanov and G. von Buelov, Thracia, Mainz am Rhein (2008) 56-57, fig. 51); 8 – 9. AE struck by Parium under Antonine Pius, reverses (see B. Filow, ‘Erosstatue aus Nicopolis ad Istrum’, JdI 24 (1909) 60-73, particularly 65, nos. 1-5, figs. 1-2; Rizzo (note 93) pl. 93, figs. 1 and 6, and L. Laurenzi, ‘Il prassitelico Eros di Parion’, RIASA 5-6 (1956-1957) 111-118, particularly 112, fig. 1 c); g. copies of the late 2nd c. AD:

10. AE struck by Parium under Commodus, reverse (see Filow (nos. 8-9) 65, no. 6 and Rizzo (note 93) pl. 93, nos. 2-3 bis); h. Severan copies: 11. AE struck by Parium under Alexander Severus, reverse (see Filow (nos. 8-9) 65, no. 7 and fig. 3); i. copies of the advanced 3rd c. AD: 12. AE struck by Parium under Otacilia Severa, reverse, with the legend DEO CUP(IDINI) (see Filow (nos. 8-9) 65, nos. 9-10); 13. AE struck by Parium under Philip the Arab, reverse (see Filow (nos. 8-9) 65, no. 11, fig. 4; Rizzo (note 93) pl. 93, fig. 4 and Laurenzi (nos. 8-9) 112, fig. 1 a); 14. AE struck by Parium under Aemilian, reverse (fig. 33) (see Filow (nos. 8-9) 65-66, nos. 12-13, fig. 5; Rizzo (note 93) pl. 93, fig. 5; Laurenzi (nos. 8-9) 112, fig. 1 b; M. Amandry, ‘Monnaie en bronze de Parium frappee a l’effigie de l’empereus Emilien (droit) et figurant l’Eros de Praxitele (revers)’, Pasquier and Martinez (note 98) 54, no. 7 and I. Touratsoglou, ‘Parion, chalkino nomisma epi Aimilianou’, Despinis and Kaltsas (note 40) 72, no. 4). k. copies which can be dated only generically to the age of the copyist production: 15. Lower part of marble statuette from Gortys at Candia, National Archaeological Museum, no. H 448 (see I. Romeo, ‘Le sculture ideali’, A. Di Vita (ed.), Gortina iii, Padua (1998) 19-276, particularly 179-182, no. 50). 532 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (nota 59) 275, fig. 213. 533 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 139, fig. 63. 534 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 145-149, figs. 65-68. 535 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 174, fig. 76. 536 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 316, fig. 132. 537 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 73-77, figs. 66-71. 538 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 85, fig. 76. 539 The exposition of Praxiteles’ works in his workshop is clearly implied by the story narrated by Pliny 36. 20-21, about the Coan and the Cnidian Aphrodites both exposed in his workshop at the same time before being picked

Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

113

up by envoys of the Coans and of the Cnidians. Pausanias 1. 20. 1-2 concerning the Eros later dedicated at Thespiae and the Satyr later set up in Tripodes’ Street also goes to the same direction. The exposition of paintings in lodges of the workshops of painters which were open to streets where passers-by could admire them is well known for Zeuxis (see Lucian, Zeuxis 7) as well as for Apelles (see Pliny 35. 84-85). See A. Anguissola, ‘La bottega dell’artista’, C. Gallazzi and S. Settis (eds.), Le tre vite del papiro di Artemidoro, Turin (2006) 124-131. 540 See C. A. Huffman, Archytas of Tarentum, Cambridge (2005) 32-43. 541 The same Plato, Letters 7. 339 d-e and 350 a refers to the friends and companions of Archytas as well known by him. The Pythagorean followers of Archytas reveal a strong interest for Plato also in Plutarch, Dion 18. 5 – 20. 2. Plato had visited Tarentum probably in 388/387 BC according to Nepos, Dion 2. 1-2 (concerning the relations of Plato with the school of Archytas and with Tarentum, see also Demosthenes 61. 44; Cicero, De re publica 1. 10. 16; De finibus 5. 29. 87; Tusculanae disputationes 5. 23. 64; Philodemus, Historia philosophorum, PHerc 1021. 5. 32 – 6. 12; Valerius Maximus 8. 7. ext. 3; Apuleius, Plato 1. 3; Hieronymus, Contra Rufinum 3. 40; Olympiodorus, Ad Platonis Alcibiadem I 2. 86-93; Tzetzes, Letters 75 and Historiae 10. 988-992). About the impact of the Athenian artistic life on the visual culture of Tarentum in late classical times, see M. Maggialetti, ‘Tra Atene e Sparta. Mito e Politica sul cratere apulo Taranto, MN 52230’, Ostraka 16 (2007) 289-310. 542 About Eros as bearer of joys in the world after death, see Pellegrini (note 506) 48-67; 124126; 148-155; 157-171; 187-201 and 203-224. 543 About Eros and the dolphin as funerary iconography, Reho Bumbalova (note 525) 94-95. 544 See W. Mueller, ‘Hermokreon’, Vollkommer (note 8) 1 (2001) 311. 545 Evidence in Frisch (note 507) 89-90, testimonia nos. 102 a-e. About the booming of the city of Parium throughout the early and middle Hellenistic period, see F. Preteux, ‘Parion et son territoire a l’epoque hellenistique’, M. Sartre (ed.), L’Asie Mineure dans l’antiquite, Rennes (2009) 335-350. 546 See R. Vollkommer, ‚Theudoros‘, Vollkommer (note 8) 2 (2004) 462.

114

Antonio Corso

See above, notes 147-149. See above, note 147. 549 About this house, see P. Bonini, La casa nella Grecia romana, Rome (2006) 298-300, no. Coo 8. 550 See M. Kreeb, Untersuchungen zur figuerlichen Ausstattung Delischer Privathaeuser, Chicago (1988). 551 See M. Albertocchi, ‘An Example of Domestic Garden Statuary at Cos: the Casa Romana’, I. Jenkins and G. B. Waywell (eds.), Sculptors and Sculpture of Caria and the Dodecannese, London (1997) 120-126. 552 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) figs. 125-126. 553 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 37-38. 554 See Albertocchi (note 551). 555 See D. Leibundgut Wieland and L. Frey – Asche, Weihgeschenke aus dem Heiligtum der Aphrodite in Alt-Paphos, Darmstadt (2011) 6163, no. 899. 556 See Leibundgut Wieland and Frey-Asche (note 555) 61-63, no. 900. 557 See Leibundgut Wieland and Frey-Asche (note 555) 61-64, no. 903. 558 See Leibundgut Wieland and Frey – Asche (note 555) 61-64, no. 901. 559 See Leibundgut Wieland and Frey – Asche (note 555) 144, no. 1833 bis. 560 See Leibundgut Wieland and Frey – Asche (note 555) 144, no. 1833 ter. 561 See above, the text from note 410 to note 418. 562 See Albertocchi (note 551). 563 See Herodotus 7. 99. 3. 564 See e. g. W. Geominy, ‚Die Zeit von 390 bis 360 v. Chr.‘, P. C. Bol (ed.), Die Geschichte der antiken Bildhauerkunst 2, Mainz am Rhein (2004) 258-302, particularly 281-282. 565 See Albertocchi (note 551). 566 See F. Ghedini, ‘Sculture dal Ninfeo e dal Pretorio di Gortina’, ASAIA 63 (1985) 63-248, particularly 75-76, no. 3. 567 See Romeo (note 531, no. 15) 123-124, no. 23. 568 See Romeo (note 385) 677. 569 See Ghedini (note 566) 180-184, nos. 39-40. 570 See Ghedini (note 566) 188-189, no. 42. 571 See Lucian, De morte Peregrini 4; 8; 10; 547 548

14-16. About Peregrinus, see M. –O. A. Goulet – Caze, ‘Peregrinus Proteus’, Cancik (note 38) 10 (2007) 751-752. 572 See Athenagoras, Legatio pro Christianis 26. 3-4. 573 The body of Peregrinus was regarded close to that prescribed by the Polycleitan canon: see Lucian, De morte Peregrini 9. 574 See Athenagoras (note 572). 575 See Wroth (note 528) 105, no. 100; 106, no. 106 and 107, nos. 1112 and 113. 576 About the sculptural display of these baths, see Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 103. 577 About all of these problems, see G. Despinis, ‘Zum Athener Brauronion’, W. Hoepfner (ed.), Kult und Kultbauten auf der Akropolis, Berlin (1997) 209-217. 578 See G. Despinis, ’Die Kultstatuen der Artemis in Brauron’, AM 119 (2004) 261-315. 579 See T. Linders, Studies in the Treasure Records of Artemis Brauronia found in Athens, Stockholm (1972) 7-76: the surviving inventories of dedicated garments date from 349 to 336 BC. 580 About these dedications, evidence in Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 28-30; 44-47 and 55-57. 581 Praxiteles in Athenaeus 13. 591 a = Anthologia Graeca 16. 204: see Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 260. 582 See especially Plato, Anthologia Graeca 16. 160-161; Evenus, ibidem 166 and Lucian, Juppiter tragoedus 10: Corso (note 1) 9-13. 583 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 240-241. 584 See Meleager, Anthologia Graeca 12. 56: Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 257. 585 See Lucian, Amores 13: Corso (note 1) 12. 586 I am aware of the following copies and variations of the Gabii type of Artemis: a. early Hellenistic copies: 1. Head in Parian marble from Islahiye, probably in the ancient territory of Issus in Cilicia Campestris at Adana, Regional Museum, no. 2876 (see E. T. Egilmez, Darstellung der Artemis als Jaegerin aus Kleinasien, Mainz (1980) 245246, no. K 71 and A. Corso, ‘Praxiteles and the Parian Marble’, D. Schilardi (ed.), Paria Lithos, Athens (2010) 227-236, particularly 232-233, fig. 16);

b. early imperial copies and variations: 2. Statue in Parian marble found at Gabii near the temple probably of Apollo in the area of the forum, once in the Borghese collection, then at Paris, Louvre, Department of Greek, Etruscan and Roman Antiquities, no. MR 154 = Ma 529 (fig. 34): see A. Pasquier, ‘Statue de femme drapee dite Diane de Gabies’, Pasquier and Martinez (note 98) 312-314, no. 73 and M. -L. Fabrega – Dubert, La collection Borghese au Musee Napoleon, Paris (2009) 298, no. 646; 3. Head in Luna marble once in the Farnese collection, then at Naples, National Archaeological Museum, no. 6199 (see C. Capaldi, ‘Testa femminile tipo Artemide di Gabi’, Gasparri (note 135, no. 43) 111-112, no. 49, pl. 45, figs. 1-4); 4. Marble statue from the hortus, arranged as lucus Dianae, of the domus of C. Arrius Crescens at Pompeii 3. 4. 2. 13, at Naples, National Archaeological Museum (variation: although the general style of this statue of Diana is different from the Gabii type, the mantel of this statue is very similar and probably inspired by that of our type) (see E. Simon, ‘Artemis / Diana’, LIMC 2 (1984) 792-855, particularly 800, no. 10); 5. marble head found in the rectangular portico between the forum and the basilica at Alba Fucens and preserved in the local Antiquarium (see De Ruyt (note 243) 78, no. 100 b and pl. 22); the portico perhaps was the comitium of the town (see J. Mertens, ‘Etude topographique d’Alba Fucens’, Idem (ed.), Alba Fucens 1, Brussels (1969) 37118, particularly 92-96). Probably the statue of Diana stood on one of the 12 bases disposed along the southern side of the portico toward the basilica. A marble foot survives from the statues set up on the other 11 bases (see De Ruyt 76, no. 95); c. Hadrianic copies: 6. Marble torso probably from Rome, once in the della Valle collection, then in Villa Doria, now in Galleria Doria, Salone Aldobrandini (see B. Palma, ‘Statua di Artemide. Replica del tipo Gabi’, R. Calza (ed.), Antichita’ di Villa Doria Pamphilj, Rome (1977) 64-65, no. 57); 7. Marble torso from the third and upper level of the scaenae frons of the theatre of Lupiae at Lecce, Museo Provinciale S. Castromediano, no. 4563 (see K. Mannino, ‘Il teatro: la decorazione della scena’, F. D’ Andria (ed.), Lecce romana e il suo teatro, Lecce (1999) 38-55, particularly 41-43, with fig. 8);

Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

115

8. Marble head probably from Rome or near by once in the Polignac collection, then in the collection of king Friedrich ii, kept in Charlottenburg, then in the Antikentempel, moved to Paris, to the Napoleon Museum, returned to Berlin and set up in the Antikenmuseum, re-displayed in the castle of Posen and now in Poznan, Muzeum Narodowe, no. A 604 = 384 (see A. Dostert, ‘Kopf der Artemis im Typus Gabii auf neuzeitlicher Bueste’, Hueneke (note 135, no. 34) 190-191, no. 81); d. Antonine copies: 9. Marble head from Naples at Copenhague, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, no. 1462 (see F. Poulsen, Catalogue of Ancient Sculpture in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhague (1951) 233, no. 326); e. copies which can be dated only generically to the copyist age: 10. Headless marble copy with a not pertinent head of Faustina the Elder probably from Rome or around once at Rome in Palazzo Verospi, now its whereabouts are not known (see E. Q. Visconti, Monumenti gabini della Villa Pinciana, Rome (1797) 68-69, pl. 32 and S. Loire, ‘Charles Le Brun a Rome (1642-1645): les dessins d’apres l’antique’, GBA 136 (2000) 73-102, particularly 88-89, fol. 17). 587 The garments offered by Athenian ladies to Artemis Brauronia were put at least sometimes ‘on’ statues of this goddess: see Linders (note 579) 11). Often the dedicated garments were chitons, thus in keeping with the chiton worn by the Gabii type of Artemis (see e. g. Linders (note 579) 9; 12; 17; 20; 26; 40-41; 44-45 and 59-61). Sometimes the chitons dedicated were diploid, in exact coincidence with that worn by our goddess (see Linders (note 579) 45). Finally the chlaina was also among the garments dedicated to the goddess (see Linders (note 579) 44) and this details of course strengthens the suggestion that the Gabii type of Artemis is about to fasten a mantel, gift of an Athenian woman. 588 This head is at Athens, Acropolis Museum, no. 1352 = 13601. See G. Despinis, ‘Gynaikeia kolossiki kephali apo tin Akropoli’, Kaltsas and Despinis (note 40) 88-89, no. 13. 589 The selective habit of Pausanias to report just about the most noteworthy statues of the Acropolis is stated by him in 1. 23. 4. 590 G. Despinis identifies this statue with the

116

Antonio Corso

so-called Olympias (see G. Despinis, ‘Klassische Skulpturen von der Athener Akropolis’, AM 123 (2008) 235-340, particularly 268-301): however the original statue of this type is dated around 440-430 BC – i. e. before the introduction of the cult of Asclepius at Athens – and in my opinion it is unthinkable that a statue of Hygieia was dedicated in a public sanctuary before the recognition of the cult of Asclepius in town. 591 Concerning Apollo, see e. g. C. Bearzot, ‘Il santuario di Apollo didimeo e la spedizione di Seleuco I a Babilonia, 312 a. C.’, M. Sordi (ed.), I santuari e la guerra nel mondo classico, Milan (1984) 51-81. About Artemis, see e. g. D. Ujes, ‘Autonomous Coinage of Rhizon in Illyria’, P. Cabanes (ed.), L’Illyrie meridionale et l’Epire dans l’Antiquite – iv, Paris (2004) 149-168, particularly 157-160. 592 See Vollkommer (note 24) 122-125. 593 About this city, see F. Hild, ‘Issus’, Cancik (note 38) 6 (2005) 986.. 594 See note 593. 595 Duris is cited by Pliny among his sources for the 36th book of his ‘Natural History’ devoted to marbles (see note 512). Moreover he wrote about the marble Charites of Socrates (Duris in Diogenes Laertius 2. 18-19), thus he was certainly interested to marble masterpieces. 596 For the provenance of this statue, see G. Uggeri, ‘Gabii’, Cancik (note 38) 5 (2004) 630631. 597 Rome, Roman National Museum, no. 129185: see M. Sapelli, ‘Statua di Eros’, Moreno (note 503) 122-123, no. 4. 15. 7. 598 Once at Rome in the Borghese collection, then at Paris, Louvre, Department of Greek, Etruscan and Roman Antiquities, no. MR 209 = Ma 4868: see Fabrega - Dubert (note 586, no. 2) 295, no. 639. 599 Once at Rome, in the Borghese collection, then at Paris, Louvre, Department of Greek, Etruscan and Roman Antiquities, no. MR 351 = Ma 364: see Fabrega – Dubert (note 586, no. 2) 286, no. 641. 600 Once at Rome, in the Borghese collection, then at Paris, Louvre, Department of Greek, Etruscan and Roman Antiquities,, no. MR 1012 = Ma 186: see Fabrega – Dubert (note 586, no. 2) 303, no. 657. 601 Once at Rome, in the Borghese collection, then at Paris, Louvre, Department of Greek, Etruscan and Roman Antiquities, no. MR 382 =

Ma 4719: see Fabrega - Dubert (note 586, no. 2) 297, no. 644. 602 About the Capitoline type of Aphrodite, see A. F. Stewart, ‘A Tale of Seven Nudes’, Antichton 44 (2010) 12-32. 603 Once at Rome in the Borghese collection, then at Paris, Louvre, Department of Greek, Etruscan and Roman Antiquities, no. MR 304 = Ma 377: see Fabrega – Dubert (note 586, no. 2) 298, no. 645. 604 See M. B. Hornum, Nemesis, the Roman State and the Games, Leiden (1993). 605 See F. Coarelli, ‘I luci del Lazio’, O. de Cazanove and J. Scheid (eds.), Les boies sacres, Naples (1993) 45-52. 606 See D. Kreikenbom, Bildwerke nach Polyklet, Berlin (1990) 152, no. I 32. 607 See Mannino (note 586, no. 7) 45-46. 608 See Mannino (note 586, no. 7) 41-42. About the Athena Giustiniani, see L. Buccino, ‘Statua di Athena da un originale tardoclassico, cosiddetta Minerva Giustiniani’, G, Fusconi (ed.), I Giustiniani e l’antico, Rome (2001) 181-186, cat. 3. 609 See Mannino (note 586, no. 7) 46-49. 610 See Mannino (note 586, no. 7) 42-43. About this late classical type of Heracles, see C. Vorster, ‘Statue des Typus Kopenhagen – Dresden’, K. Knoll (note 135, no. 4) 631-634, no. 631. 611 See Bol (note 206) 179-180, no. I. 9 and Mannino (note 586, no. 6) 44. 612 See Kreikenbom (note 606) 171, no. iii. 31 and Mannino (note 586, no. 6) 44-45. 613 See Mannino (note 586, no. 7) 49-50. 614 See Mannino (note 586, no. 7) 39-40. About the Athena Hope / Farnese, see I. Leventi, Hygieia, Athens (2003) 86-96 and 158-168. 615 See Mannino (note 586, no. 7) 40-41 and for the overall reconstruction of the sculptural display of the stage, 50-54. 616 About the probable location of this sanctuary, see R. P. Legon, Megara, Ithaca (1981) 28, map no. 2, site no. 32. 617 IG 7. 19-20. 618 The statuette is at Athens, National Archaeological Museum, no. 63578: see G. Despinis, Megarika, Megara (2010) 57-63. 619 P. Moreno and A. Viacava, I marmi antichi della Galleria Borghese, Rome (2003) 251, no. 239 identify the Resting Satyr with the Satyr from Megara. However the copies of the Rest-

ing Satyr probably depend from a bronze statue . Moreover the prevalence of copies of this type of Satyr from Rome suggests that the original statue of the type also stood in Rome throughout the early and middle imperial times and not in the peripheral town of Megara. Thus I do not agree with this opinion. 620 About Aphrodite Praxis see V. PirenneDelfolge, L’Aphrodite grecque, Athens (1994) 8991; 374-377; 404; 456-457 and Eadem, Retour a la source, Liege (2008) 286. 621 About the archaic naked goddess, see e. g. N. Marinatos, The Goddess and the Warrior, London (2000). 622 The different dates given to the Symposium are listed by R. Arcioni, Platone. Il Simposio, Rome (2003) 10-11. For the consideration of Eros, Himeros and Pothos as a triad, see Plato, Cratylus 419 e – 420 b. About Himeros, see also Plato, Phaedrus 251 c. About Peitho, see Plato, Gorgias 453 a – 454 e and Leges 720 d – 722 b. 623 See Pausanias 1. 40. 4: C. Cullen, Pheidias, London (2009) 889-891. 624 See Pausanias 6. 25. 1 and Cullen (note 623) 29-37. 625 See Pausanias 2. 10. 4-5 and K. D. S. Lapatin, Chryselephantine Statuary in the Ancient Mediterranean World, Oxford (2001) 43; 56 and 174. 626 See Philostephanus, De Cypro in Clement, Protrepticus 4. 50-51 and in Arnobius 6. 22. See also Ovid, Metamorphoses 10. 243-297. 627 Praxiteles made for Elis a Dionysus (see Pausanias 6. 26. 1) and Scopas the bronze statue of Aphrodite Pandemos (see Pausanias 6. 25. 1). 628 Praxiteles made the pedimental sculptures of the Heracleum (Pausanias 9. 11. 6) while Scopas made an Athena Pronaia (Pausanias 9. 10. 2) and an Artemis Eucleia (Pausanias 9. 17. 1). 629 Praxiteles made statues set up in the late classical altar of the Artemisium (Artemidorus in Strabo 14. 641) and Scopas made the statues of Leto and Ortygia (Strabo 14. 640) and a columna caelata for the Artemisium (Pliny 36. 95). 630 See Calcani (note 29) 56-59, work no. 4; 65-67, work no. 9; 70-72, works nos. 11-12; 101104, work no. 19 and 111-113, work no. 22. 631 His only recorded bronze statue is the Aphrodite Pandemos at Elis (see note 627). 632 See Diogenes Laertius 2. 106 and 3. 6. 633 See Diogenes Laertius 2. 106-108 and K.

Seventh Chapter - From around 355 to around 350 Bc

117

Doering, ‘Euclides (2)’, Cancik (note 38) 5 (2004) 137. 634 See Legon (note 616) 28, map. 2, no. 33. 635 See Glaucus, Anthologia Graeca 2. 774 and Callistratus 2. 2. 636 See Aeschylus, Supplices 1038-1042 and A. C. Smith, Polis and Personification in Classical Athenian Art, Leiden (2011) 55-60. 637 The lecythos is at Baltimore, The Walters Art Museum, no. 48. 84. See S. Albersmeier, ‘Attic Red-figure “Kertch-Style” Lekythos’, Eadem (ed.), The Walters Art Museum. The Art of Ancient Greece, Baltimore (2008) 90-92, no. 29. 638 See A. Delivorrias, ‘Aphrodite’, LIMC 2 (1984) 2-151, particularly 29-33, nos. 185-224 and C. Capaldi, ‘Statua di Afrodite appoggiata’, Gasparri (note 135, no. 43) 58-62, no. 24. 639 See E. Simon, ‘Daphnis and Nymphe’, The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 25-26 (19621963) 28-37. 640 See J. H. Oakley, CVA (U. S. A. 28), Baltimore (1992) 37-38. 641 This identification has been suggested by Simon (note 639) and has been accepted by both Oakley (note 640) and N. Icard-Gianolio, ‘Peitho’, LIMC 7 (1994) 242-250, particularly 246, no. 33. 642 See Smith (note 636) 55. 643 See the descriptions and comparisons

118

Antonio Corso

suggested by Simon (note 639) and Oakley (note 640). 644 See B. Magri, ‘Paregoros’, LIMC 7 (1994) 175. 645 Athens, National Archaeological Museum, no. 1282. See L. Kahil, ‘Helene’, LIMC 4 (1988) 498-563, particularly 522, no. 120. I do not agree with the date given by Kahil to this lecythos in the early 4th c. BC: the concept of the drapery of the young lady identified as Paregoros is essential and without the overfolding which is typical of the rich style and suggests a date around 350 BC. The winged being next to this lady (Pothos?) has his legs crossed, a feature which was trendy in the ‘Zeitkreis’ of Scopas (see especially Scopas’ Pothos). Finally the shape of Eros’ wings is typical of the middle and advanced 4th c. BC. 646 The Roman copies derived from Scopas’ Pothos probably depend from the statue of Pothos made by the Parian sculptor on Samothrace (see Pliny 36. 25) because the leaning style of Pothos fits well with the fact that this daemon was a side figure of a group which had Aphrodite in the middle, rather than from Scopas’ Pothos at Megara, where the triad by Scopas (Eros, Himeros and Pothos) must have been made of standing figures, without subordination of one statue to another as it is argued from the paratactic description of Pausanias. About Scopas’ Pothos, see Calcani (note 29) 105-111.

EIGHTH CHAPTER From around 350 to around 345 BC

After 350 BC, Praxiteles’ production is characterized by an industrial pace: his art becomes very successful and his works are shipped to very distant places such as Olbia Pontica. The formal features of his creations characterize an art of pleasure which reveals a shift from idealism to hedonism. Most of Praxiteles’ works of his late production are not very meditated probably because they have been made more quickly than in the past and perhaps also because the creativity of the sculptor diminished during his old age. The ancient tradition may have been aware of this decline of quality in the late production of our master because the works made by him after 350 BC are not mentioned often by ancient writers – with the exceptions of the Aphrodite Pseliumene and of the Aphrodite / Phryne at Delphi – and were rarely copied in Roman times.

41 and 42. Two bronze iconic statues set up on the Acropolis of Athens Two bronze statues by Praxiteles probably were set up on the Acropolis of Athens: the two bases signed by our sculptor survive, although their original dedications were erased and substituted with mentions of new honoured men twice on each base in late Hellenistic and early Roman times.647 In the case of the first of these two bases the upper face survives and the marks of the bronze statue suggest the style of the figure: the statue stood with its right foot fully on the ground while the left foot was not fixed on the base probably because it was bent and rested on the ground only with tip-toes, and

there was a side vertical support (a tree trunk?) on the left side of the statue.648 It is likely that the setting up of Praxiteles’ Artemis Brauronia elicited commissions of bronze iconic statues from this sculptor. Thus these works should be later than the Artemis Brauronia. The adoption of the schema of the figure resting on a vertical support also suggests the years from the Resting Satyr and the Apollo Sauroctonus to the Hermes of Olympia. The first base was found W of the Parthenon, the second E of the Propylaea: the fact that both bases were not distant from the sanctuary of Artemis Brauronia strengthens the hypothesis that the setting up of Praxiteles’ Artemis encouraged private Athenians to have statues by our sculptor set up near by. Eighth Chapter - From around 350 to around 345 Bc

119

The circumstance that the identity of the sitters was changed twice in each of the two cases suggests that these statues were regarded important and that for this reason prominent men of late Hellenistic and early Roman times usurped them. Finally the fact that the sculptor’s signatures were not erased makes it certain that one of the reasons for which the statues were regarded important was the fame of the master who made them: thus this consideration sheds new evidence to the great reputation of our artist at Athens throughout the late Hellenistic and early Roman times.

43. The statue of Archippe probably set up in the Eleusinium of Athens The base of this statue was found not far from the Eleusinium, on the northern slopes of the Acropolis of Athens and bears the dedication by an Athenian lady named Archippe of the statue of her daughter who was also named Archippe as well as the signature of Praxiteles. The formula of the inscription, as well as the shapes of the letters, suggest a date of the statue after 350 BC.649 The crowning block of the base is missing and thus it is not known whether the statue of Archippe was bronze or marble. The find spot near the Eleusinium suggests that the base together with its statue stood there. The dedication of a statue of a daughter by her mother reproduces the close link between mother and daughter which characterized Demeter and Kore, i. e. the goddesses worshiped in that sanctuary. Praxiteles may have been charged with this statue because he made two bronze groups evoking the story of Kore (works nos. 5 and 6) and two marble tri-

120

Antonio Corso

ads which included both Demeter and Kore (works nos. 12 and 13): thus he must have been quite popular among the devotees of these two goddesses. Of course the statue of this lady was draped650 but no details can be argued about its specific style. It is quite possible that the statue dates after 350 but before 344/343, when Cephisodotus the Younger, Praxiteles’ elder son, specialized in making statues for ‘minor’ dedications set up in Athenian sanctuaries.651 It is likely that from these years onwards Praxiteles turned these commissions to his son in order to help him becoming renowned in the world of Athenian patrons of statues to be erected in sanctuaries, while devoting him only to the most important commissions.652 Finally it has to be noticed that the size of the letters of Praxiteles’ signature is larger than in previous inscribed signatures of this sculptor:653 this fact reveals that by the period when this inscription was cut654 the fame of the master had determined a greater emphasis on his own signature.

44. The statue of Ibycus The portrait of the poet Ibycus by Praxiteles is known thanks to a marble inscribed bust found at Crest in Gallia Narbonensis. The bust was a portrait of an old bearded man and on its foot bore the label ‘Ibycus / Praxiteles / made’.655 Although the bust is lost, a cast of the inscribed foot is available in the local museum.656 This bust stood in the same ancient environment of another bust which is a copy of the bronze portrait of the poet Philitas by Hecataeus657 and is still preserved, as well as of other heads which are lost. It has been suggested that these sculptures decorated the library of a Roman villa

which was endowed with portraits of poets.658 However, since a strigil was also found in the same context,659 perhaps the busts of poets decorated the gymnasium of a villa. The preserved portrait of Philitas has been dated to the Trajanic times:660 probably the same date should be given to the other lost busts which composed the series of poets including that of Ibycus. A portrait of Ibycus also decorated Tibur and probably was kept in the villa of Hadrian, as it is argued from an inscribed headless herm of which a fragment still survives.661 This herm was probably Hadrianic. Thus it is possible to conclude that a portrait of Ibycus was made by Praxiteles, that it represented the poet as a bearded old man and that it was copied in Trajanic / Hadrianic times in order to include this poet in the series of renowned Greek ‘intellectuals’ which decorated Roman villas. Ibycus662 poured his love pains into his poems and for this reason must have been highly regarded in the Platonic circle of Athens which deepened the concept of love as suffering. Praxiteles asserted this interpretation of love in his epigram on the base of his Eros set up at Thespiae and gave visual expression to it with this Eros (see his work no. 17). Moreover he took inspiration from Ibycus’ concept of love for his other statue of this god erected at Messana (see his work no. 33). The same Plato paid homage to Ibycus as renowned poet of love in his dialogue Parmenides 9. 137 A: in this passage the great philosopher specified that he refers to Ibycus when he was both old and kidnapped by the passions of love. The presentation of Ibycus by Plato matches the portrait of this poet by Praxiteles quite well: in fact according to the

bust from Crest Praxiteles represented this poet old and bearded. The conclusion of this consideration is that Praxiteles’ portrait of Ibycus probably translated Plato’s presentation of him into visual terms and thus was likely commissioned by a patron close to the world of the Academy. Of course this portrait must be later than the date of Plato’s Parmenides which is usually placed after 365 BC.663 Probably the portrait of Ibycus was made during the last years of Plato who died in 348 BC. In fact the trend at Athens to make portraits of poets characterizes the third quarter of the 4th c.: the Athenian bronze sculptor Silanion who flourished between 350 and 320 made portraits of Sappho, Corinna, Plato and of the sculptor and former student of Socrates Apollodorus.664 The portraits of Silanion should be regarded to have been made under the influence of Plato, not only because he made the portrait of this great philosopher but also because Apollodorus, sitter of another portrait by him, was introduced to the same social environment665 and finally because his portrait of Sappho may also be due to the authoritative definition of this poetess by Plato as ‘the tenth Muse’.666 This trend will peak with the portraits of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides promoted by Lycurgus and set up at Athens in the theatre of Dionysus Eleuthereus.667 However there is no evidence that after the death of Plato his followers kept an interest for Ibycus. These considerations favour a date of the portrait of Ibycus in the early 40s of the 4th c. Concerning the material used for this portrait, the consideration that in the ancient collection at Crest the portrait of Ibycus stood near that of Philitas, which was a copy of Hecataeus’ bronze statue of this Hellenistic poet, suggests that Praxiteles’ statue was also bronze. Eighth Chapter - From around 350 to around 345 Bc

121

The endowment of statues of poets and intellectuals with the beard was traditional by this time668 because this element conferred to them a senior and authoritative status and thus does not need any justification. Praxiteles’ definition of bearded subjects is known especially thanks to his Warrior standing beside a horse (see his work no. 2), to his Pan (see his work no. 19) as well as to the Zeus of his Dodekatheon (see his work no. 24), thus he was not just a sculptor of teenage subjects. However the fact that no portrait of Ibycus survives does not allow a consideration of this creation from a formal point of view. From the point of view of the mentality which shaped the Athenian elite of the time, the portrait of Ibycus may have strengthened the importance of love as the decisive impulse of a society: thus this creation would express the rise of a hedonistic concept of life. The portrait of this lyric poet could have been dedicated in the Academy of Plato or in a sanctuary of Eros and / or Aphrodite or in a place devoted to the cult of Apollo and / or of the Muses or in an Odeum: it is impossible to choose among these possibilities. During the Trajanic / Hadrianic times, the importance of Ibycus in the literary education – which already in the Flavian period had been asserted in the Roman world by Statius, Silvae 5. 3. 146 -149 - can be appreciated especially thanks to Plutarch (Quaestiones conviviales 748 c and Comparatio Lycurgi et Numae 25). This importance of Ibycus explains why only in this time span the head of our portrait was copied with a bust and a herm to be included in series of portraits of poets. In the villa of Crest, the portrait of Ibycus was associated to that of Philitas:669 this fact could be due to the patron’s pref-

122

Antonio Corso

erence for a ‘light’ and disengaged type of poetry. In Hadrian’s villa the herm of Ibycus may have been associated with portraits of Homer, Hesiod, Sappho, Aesop, Pindar, Anaximander, Sophocles, Euripides, Lysias, Socrates, Aristophanes, Xenophon, etc.670 Ibycus was included in the series of the most important ‘intellectuals’ of the glorious past of Greece. Probably together with Sappho he represented the lyric poetry inspired by love. After the Hadrianic times, the preference for early classical types as well as for the most austere quarters of the Greek culture671 may explain the lack of interest for this portrait.

45. The two bronze statues brought to Pergamum Two bronze statues of Praxiteles are known through labels which were cut on their bases in the sanctuary of Athena Polias at Pergamum. These bases date in the first half of the 2nd c. BC. The first of these two bases supported at least six bronze statues, each one advertized by a label cut below the figure: a statue of Praxiteles, another by Myron, which stood at the viewer’s left of that by Praxiteles, another by Xenocrates as well as at least other three statues, whose signatures are too incomplete to be restituted. A hole on the upper face of the base at the right side of the figure suggests that the statue of Praxiteles was endowed with a vertical attribute. The second base supported a bronze statue by Praxiteles which was not included in a series.672 These labels testify to the collectionism of statues made by renowned masters in the sanctuary of Athena at Pergamum:

statues of Bupalus, Onatas, Demetrius, Silanion, Polymnestus, Cephisodotus the Younger and Theron beside those of Myron, Praxiteles and Xenocrates, and paintings of Apollodorus were exposed there.673 The provenances of these statues were specified through inscriptions cut on their bases:674 a statue by Theron from Boeotia was specified to come from Aegina and another statue was declared to come from Oreos. When the subjects of these statues are known, they were divine or heroic ones. In fact a group of Charites of Bupalus, an Apollo of Onatas and a symplegma of Cephisodotus the Younger, which probably was a group of a Silenus with a Hermaphrodite,675 were exposed at Pergamum. Thus even the statues of Praxiteles settled there may have been either divine or heroic rather than iconic. The fact that a statue by Praxiteles was set up together with one by Myron reveals that the arts of these two masters were regarded closely linked. The schema of the first of these two statues by Praxiteles, suggesting a figure with a vertical support on its right side, makes this creation close to the Resting Satyr and thus points toward a date in the late 50s or in the early 40s of the 4th c. BC. A later date is unlikely because Praxiteles from around 345 BC prefers to use marbles in order to flesh out divine or heroic subjects and only exceptionally uses the bronze for these purposes. Concerning the second statue by Praxiteles brought to Pergamum, since only a fragment of its base survives and the upper face of the same is not preserved, its configuration is totally unknown: thus it can date at any time of the youth and maturity of Praxiteles until the early 340s: a later date is not probable for the above exposed reason.

The collection of ‘old’ masterpieces at Pergamum reveals a high consideration of Attic late classical masters: statues of Demetrius, Praxiteles, Silanion, Polymnestus and Cephisodotus the Younger adorned the Pergamene sanctuary of Athena Polias. The fact that the labels cut below the statues mention the names of the masters and the provenances but not their subjects reveals that the personalities of the artists were by then regarded the most important reason for collecting their works. The special devotion of the Pergamene royalty for Athens as the city of philosophers and intellectuals is probably implied also by the two porticoes gifted by the kings of Pergamum Eumenes ii and Attalus ii to this city.676 In fact stoai were suitable places for philosophical discussions. It is tempting to connect the first of these two statues by Praxiteles with an S – shaped Eros with his right arm brought to his head, with his left arm resting on the corresponding hip and with a treetrunk as a side attribute at the left of the god which appears on coin types of Pergamum of the age of Commodus (fig. 37):677 if the coins reproduce this Eros mirrored, the tree trunk would have stood rather well on the hole at the right of the statue of Praxiteles. For this new Eros, Praxiteles would have reused the style of his Archer Eros making it more sinuous, adopting the position of the left arm of the resting Satyr and thus integrating this style with a tree trunk which after the resting Satyr and the Apollo Sauroctonus may have been a quite popular element because it gave to the god the beloved setting in a grove. Cities of Mysia loved exhibiting their most renowned statues made by great masters on their coins especially in the period going from the Antonines to the

Fig. 37. AE of Pergamum struck during the empire of Commodus, reverse, at Berlin, Muenzkabinett.

Eighth Chapter - From around 350 to around 345 Bc

123

Severans: thus at the time Apollonia ad Rhyndacum exhibited Apollo Sauroctonus on its coins, while Parium showed its own Praxitelean Eros on its coins and Alexandria Troas and other cities of the region, including Pergamum, portrayed Scopas’ Apollo Smintheus on their coins.678 Moreover during the empire of Commodus Pergamum represented on its coins the local cult statues of Asclepius sometimes inside his temple - as well as of Athena Polias:679 thus a representation also of a Praxitelean Eros kept there on coins of this city in that period is hardly surprising. Since both the left and the right arms of Eros are in a resting position, this Eros is imagined to be resting in a grove and not active. According to the epigram of Praxiteles cut on the base of the Eros at Thespiae (Athenaeus 13. 591 a-b = Anthologia Graeca 16. 204) an active Eros determined internal pains suffered by the targets of his love spreading activity. Thus a resting Eros guarantees the internal peace: our master will deepen this concept with his late creation of the Sleeping Eros. Such a peace is associated with the world of trees and with the forest: thus the creation of the resting Eros may have been a step towards the idealization of groves. From a formal point of view, the small size of the wings underlines the resting attitude of the god. Beside that our master is still experiencing sinuous and slim figures resting on tree trunks.

46. The statue set up in the agora of Olbia Pontica A statue by Praxiteles was set up in the agora of Olbia Pontica, as it is argued by its base which is partially preserved. Most of the signature of our sculptor survives:680 only the rho of the name

124

Antonio Corso

P(r)axiteles is missing. After his name, the ethnic Ath(enaios) appeared no doubt because the statue had to be set up far from Athens, thus the ethnic had to be specified. The fragment ‘e’ of the base bears the letters iota eta which probably pertained to the verb (epo)ie(sen) which must have followed the ethnic. The date of this inscription is around 350 BC. The letters of the dedication had the same size as the letters of the signature: this observation implies that the status of this artist was highly regarded at Olbia, that they were proud to exhibit a statue made by him and thus gave to his signature the same importance and size assigned to the dedication. Only two fragments survive of the dedication: the fragment ‘g’ bears the letters pi omikron which suggest the mention of the subject of the statue: (A)po(llon). Apollo was the most important god of this Milesian colony:681 his most important sanctuary was on the Acropolis, where the monumental temple of Apollon Delphinios stood, at a very short distance from the place in the agora in which Praxiteles’ statue stood.682 Thus the topographical context strengthens the suggestion that the statue was an Apollo: indeed an agalma of this god set up in the agora in front of the main sanctuary of him in town, makes sense. Praxiteles already made an Apollo for a Milesian colony: his Apollo Sauroctonus for Apollonia ad Rhyndacum. Thus it is likely that the fame of the Sauroctonus among the Milesian communities of the Black Sea elicited the desire of the Olbians to emulate the Apollonians and to have a statue of their poliadic god made by our master as well: in this case the Olbian statue should date soon after the Sauroctonus. At least from 437 BC, when Olbia joined the Delian League,683 this city was re-

ceptive of the styles of the most important masters of the Greek mainland and of Athens in particular. In the late 5th and early 4th c. BC, the Phidian influence prevails in town while in the middle of the 4th c. the appeal of the Scopadic style is clear in the Olbian visual culture.684 Thus the reception also of the art of Praxiteles is hardly surprising. Another feature to keep in mind is that around 350 BC Olbia knows an economic boom:685 however very soon this prosperity will be challenged by attempts of the kingdom of Macedonia to seize this city.686 Since Pliny 36. 20-22 and Pausanias 1. 20. 1-2 suggest that Praxiteles worked at Athens in his own workshop and that heralds of the patrons used to come to Athens even from far away in order to pick up statues made by him, it is likely thant even this statue was carved in the Athenian workshop of the master and then shipped to Olbia. A headless marble Apollo from Olbia (fig. 38)687 dated still in late classical times may shed light to this creation: the god was bent towards his right side, his left arm was lowered with his forearm forwarded, while his right arm was uplifted, his right hand probably resting on his head. His mantel is thrown on his left shoulder and falls down from his left forearm. The position of the left forearm suggests that he held a bow in his left hand. The surface reveals the typically Praxitelean prevalence of velvety skin upon muscles and bones in the anatomy. These considerations suggest that the statuette depended on a ‘model’ which was marble and not bronze. The sinuous configuration of the body was often adopted by our master. The right arm uplifted with the corresponding hand resting on his head had been adopted by Praxiteles already with his Archer Eros (see Callistratus 3. 3

and work no. 16), whose general style is very similar to that of the Olbian Apollo. The drapery falling down from the left forearm had been met already with the Persephone kidnapped by Hades (work no. 5), with the Maenads (work no. 10), with Dionysus and the two Nikai (work no. 11), with the Praxitelean statues of Kore (works nos. 12 and 13), with the Thespian Aphrodite (work no. 17), with his Nymphs (work no. 19), with his Merry Courtesan (work no. 20), of course with the Cnidia (work no. 22), with the Coan Aphrodite (work no. 23), with figures of the dodekatheon (work no. 24), with Apollo at Megara (work no. 27), with the Opora (work no. 32) and with his Eros of Parium (work no. 37). With a few changes this type will become the Formiae type of Apollo (see infra), the Apollo Lyceius – although the latter had no drapery -688 and an Apollo Citharoedus.689 Thus the Olbian Apollo is well inside the Praxitelean concept of general style and of anatomic grammar.

Fig. 38. Marble statuette of Apollo at Kiev, National Archaeological Museum.

Eighth Chapter - From around 350 to around 345 Bc

125

It should be noticed that the archery was highly regarded at Olbia:690 that is obvious because this Greek colony was close to the Scythian world and archers were very appreciated in the Scythian society.691 Thus a statue of Apollo represented as archer should not be surprising. There is a strong possibility that this statuette depends on Praxiteles’ Olbian Apollo. This consideration leads to another suggestion: that the statue of Praxiteles must have enjoyed in town a discrete fame if shortly after its erection it was reproduced with the statuette now at Kiev. Moreover the presence in town of a statue of Apollo by the famous Athenian Praxiteles probably encouraged in the third quarter of the 4th c. BC a prominent Olbian citizen – Leocrates – to commission a bronze statue of Apollo Iatros from another Athenian master, Stratonides.692 This example suggests that a well established private patron may have dedicated also the statue made by Praxiteles. Finally the appeal of Praxitelean creations at Olbia must have been strong at least until around 300 BC when a local close variation of the Cnidian Aphrodite was dedicated.693

47. The bronze Aphrodite and other bronze statues brought to Rome and set up in front of the temple of Happiness

Pliny 34. 69 in his catalogue of bronze statues by Praxiteles lists also ‘the statues (signa), that used to be in front of the temple of Happiness (ante Felicitatis aedem) and the Aphrodite (Venus) which was destroyed by fire when the temple of that goddess was burnt down in the reign of Claudius, and which rivaled his famous Aphrodite, in marble, that is

126

Antonio Corso

known all over the world (marmoreae illi suae per terras inclutae parem)’. (trasl. Loeb with amendments) From Pliny we know that there were a bronze Aphrodite by Praxiteles and other bronze statues by him set up at Rome in front of the temple of Happiness and that the Aphrodite was destroyed with the fire of the temple which occurred during the empire of Claudius. Also Pliny informs about the high quality of this bronze Aphrodite which in his opinion was not inferior to the famous marble Aphrodite by Praxiteles, i. e. to the Cnidia. Concerning the provenance and the circumstances of dedication of these statues, a passage by Strabo 8. 6. 23. 381 is enlightening: ‘When Lucullus built the sanctuary (hieron) of Happiness and a portico (stoa), he asked Mummius for the use of the statues which he had (scil.: having been taken from Corinth), saying that he would adorn the sanctuary (hieron) with them until the dedication and then give them back. However he did not give them back, but dedicated them to the goddess, and then bade Mummius to take them away if he wished. But Mummius took it lightly, for he cared nothing about them, so that he gained more repute than the man who dedicated them’. (transl. Loeb with amendments) Thus from Strabo we argue that bronze statues coming from the sack of Corinth of 146 BC were given by Mummius to Lucullus who built the sanctuary and a portico of the goddess Happiness and that eventually they were dedicated to this goddess and thus not removed from the sanctuary. The testimony of Strabo is strengthened by that of Dio Cassius 22. 76. 2: ‘In fact Mummius was of such an amiable nature that he even lent some statues to Lucullus for the consecration of

the temple of Happiness (which he had built from the booty gained in the Spanish war); and then, when that general was unwilling to return them on the ground that they had become sacred as a result of the dedication, he showed no anger, but permitted his own spoils to lie there offered up in the other’s name’. (transl. Loeb with an amendment) Moreover a specification by Cicero, In Verrem 2. 4 (de signis) 2. 4 is relevant: ‘I may add that the celebrated Lucius Mummius, though he took away from that town (scil.: Thespiae) all the unconsecrated statues, included the Thespiads now standing beside the temple of Happiness, did not touch this marble Cupid (scil.: Praxiteles’ Eros of Thespiae) because it was consecrated’. (transl. Loeb with an amendment) From this information by Cicero we argue that Mummius looted only statues that were not dedicated to gods, i. e. which stood in private or public areas, not in sanctuaries. He also mentions a group of Muses from Thespiae named Thespiads which was removed by Mummius not from a sanctuary and was also set up at Rome near the temple of Happiness. This group is mentioned also by Varro in Pliny 36. 39: ‘Formerly too there were the Thespiads by the temple of Happiness, and a Roman knight, Junius Pisciculus, loved one of them, according to Varro’. (transl. Loeb with amendments) Thus this group of Thespiad Muses was marble because it is considered by Pliny in his book devoted to marbles – the 36th book of his encyclopedia – and one of these Muses was the target of an episode of agalmatophilia by a Roman knight. Since the Thespiads were marble, they are not included among the bronze signa attributed by Pliny 34. 69

to Praxiteles and thus their master is not known. Since one of them was loved by a man and this bahaviour is known only for naked statues,694 the notice implies that these Muses were naked or at least half naked. Thus these Muses should be recognized in a series of half naked Muses represented on gems.695 This series is reproduced from the beginning of the 3rd c. BC. These Muses are conceived from a three dimensional point of view. Thus the Thespiads were an early Hellenistic group. Concerning the bronze signa by Praxiteles set up in front of the temple of Happiness, it has to be said that a base of a bronze statue bearing the label Opus Praxitelis, ‘work of Praxiteles’, may be related to one of them.696 The base with this label pertains to a series of bases with labels - specifying the sculptors of the statues supported by them – carved and cut in the late Antonine period.697 Bronze statues of Polycleitus, Bryaxis, Timarchus and Tisicrates were also advertized through labels cut on these bases. Finally probably in 416 AD, these bronze statues with their bases, including at least one bronze statue of Praxiteles, were re-displayed in the north-western section of the Roman Forum, which was transformed into a museum of ancient statues.698 From the above listed evidence it is possible to argue the following conclusions. Lucius Mummius in 146 BC removed from private and public areas of Corinth and Thespiae a certain number of statues which were exhibited in his triumph of 145 BC.699 Then he gave on loan to L. Licinius Lucullus the following statues: a.  The marble Thespiads removed from a public area or Eighth Chapter - From around 350 to around 345 Bc

127

less probably from a private one of Thespiae. This group probably was early Hellenistic. b. Bronze statues by Praxiteles and c. A bronze Aphrodite by Praxiteles. Strabo suggests that these statues came from Corinth. The provenance of Praxiteles’ bronze Aphrodite from Corinth would be in keeping with the importance of the love goddess at Corinth, where she had her sanctuary on the Acrocorinth.700 Lucullus dedicated these statues in the sanctuary of Felicitas in the Velabrum:701 the good luck guaranteed by this goddess should be understood first of all in the military sense, i. e. leading to victory,702 which is why spoils from a triumph were set up there. The Muses may give joy through their songs and poems and this consideration may explain the dedication of the Thespiads near the temple. Moreover Venus of course is an essential provider of happiness. Thus the display of Praxiteles’ Aphrodite and of the Thespiads in this sanctuary must have been thought to be appropriate. At the time of Varro or before, the knight Junius Pisciculus loved one of the Thespiads.703 Since these episodes occurred especially in sanctuaries of Aphrodite, as that of the Cnidia, and of Eros, as that of Parium, this observation implies the assimilation of Felicitas, as dispenser of pleasures704, to Venus, probably in keeping with the diffusion in the age of Sulla of the cult of Venus Felix. During the reign of Claudius, the temple burned and was never rebuilt again.705 Praxiteles’ bronze Aphrodite was destroyed by this fire, as it is argued from Pliny 34. 69. Pliny 34. 69 and 36. 39 asserts that the other bronze statues by Praxiteles kept there and the Thespiads stood near the temple in the past but it is

128

Antonio Corso

not clear whether they had just been removed or if most of these sculptures also perished with the fire. However at least one bronze statue by Praxiteles may have survived, because in the late Antonine period a new base of a bronze statue by Praxiteles, together with bases of bronze statues of Polycleitus, Bryaxis, Timarchus and Tisicrates, was made. The fact that only the names of the sculptors are mentioned in these labels and not the subjects represented reveals that these works of art were praised first of all because of their artistic quality and as expressions of artistic personalities of the great Greek past. These names reveal a predilection for the Attic late classical school of sculptors, because Praxiteles, Bryaxis and Timarchus were both Attic and masters of this period. Moreover, since Timarchus was the younger son of Praxiteles, this choice of bronze masterpieces of the Greek classical past reveals a predilection for statues of this family of sculptors. Perhaps the admiration felt in the age of Athenaeus for Athens of the age of Plato, Epicurus and Menander elicited a strong interest for masters of the same period. We do not know where the collection of statues revealed by these late Antonine labels stood, but by the early 5th c. AD, these statues were re-displayed in the north – western part of the Roman Forum – thus not very far from the Velabrum where the sanctuary of Felicitas once stood – and probably set up above columns. This fact implies that at least one bronze statue by Praxiteles was regarded one of the important ancient ‘idols’706 to be preserved even in the new Roma Christiana. From a historical point of view, the most likely period for the commission by the Corinthians of an Aphrodite from Praxiteles is that around 350 BC, i. e.

the years of neutrality, peace and prosperity which followed the tyranny of Timophanes and preceded Corinth’s join of the anti-Macedonian forces.707 As it will be asserted below, the stylistic examination of the visual evidence which may depend on this Aphrodite might allow a closer time span for the creation of this statue. Concerning the exact area of Corinth where Praxiteles’ Aphrodite stood before her removal to Rome, the sanctuary of the goddess on the Acrocorinth has to be excluded because, as we know from the above quoted passage of Cicero, Mummius removed only works of art which stood outside sanctuaries. The most probable original setting of the statue is the agora of Corinth where Aphrodite was present.708 The north-eastern Peloponnese was renowned for its schools of bronze sculptors based in Argus and Sicyon rather than in the field of marble sculpture: the region has no marble!709 Thus it is likely that at Corinth in this period bronze statues were regarded superior to marble ones. This hierarchy probably explains why the Corinthians commissioned from Praxiteles a bronze Aphrodite and not a marble one. The subjects of the bronze statues made by Praxiteles dedicated in the sanctuary of the Felicitas are not known except for the Aphrodite: thus the latter is the only statue of which a recognition in the surviving ancient visual evidence can be attempted. First of all it is likely that the visual memory of the Praxitelean Aphrodite brought to Rome was not lost in the Corinthiad. On the contrary the marble Aphrodite of Hermogenes of Cythera set up in the forum of the Roman colony of Corinth710 may have been a copy of Praxiteles’ Aphrodite removed to Rome as

well as at Thespiae the statue of Eros of the neo-Attic sculptor Menodorus, which was a copy of Praxiteles’ Thespian Eros brought to Rome, was set up in the place where the removed statue once stood. A Praxitelean statuary type of Aphrodite is represented on a Corinthian coin type of the age of Caracalla (fig. 39):711 the goddess is naked and reveals a moderate sinuosity. Her left foot is fully on the ground while her right foot rests on tiptoes and her corresponding knee is bent. Her left arm is lowered, her corresponding elbow is bent and her left hand is brought in front of the body probably in order to hold an attribute, perhaps a mirror. Her right arm is brought to the side, her corresponding elbow is bent and her right forearm is brought to her head, probably in order to wreath it. The general style of this figure is plausible for a bronze statue: there is no side support despite the position of the right arm brought to the side. The configuration is similar to that of the Cnidia but reversed. The most important change in comparison with the Cnidia is determined by the position of the right arm: the oblique position of the right forearm is the pendant of the oblique configuration of the left one and determined a sense of rhythmical harmony. As already Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner suggested, this statuary type may be the miniature copy of the Aphrodite by Hermogenes of Cythera set up in the agora of Corinth. The Praxitelean style of this statue may be explained with the suggestion that the latter statue copied or imitated the removed Aphrodite by Praxiteles. A variation of this type is found in a small bronze statue, probably to be dated still to the late 4th c. BC, found on Thera (fig. 40):712 the general style of the

Fig. 39. AE of Corinth struck during the empire of Caracalla, reverse, Museum des Stiftes St. Florian.

Eighth Chapter - From around 350 to around 345 Bc

129

Fig. 40. Bronze Aphrodite at Berlin, Altes Museum, Antikensammlung, no. 7101.

130

Antonio Corso

body, of the legs and of the left arm is the same of the Aphrodite on the Corinthian coin type. The left arm of the statuette has a different position because the forearm instead of being brought in front of the body is forwarded with the open palm in order to show an attribute, perhaps a mirror. The position of the left forearm eliminates the rhythmical correspondence with the right forearm, thus it should be regarded a modification of the artisan of the statuette, decided in order to make the whole figure more clearly visible by the viewers. The statuette allows a first appreciation of the head: the face is typically Praxitelean (oval shape, triangular forehead, narrow and elongated eyes, long nose, short mouth, slightly protruding chin). The hair is divided in the middle and brought back to the nape with the usual wavy locks. In the body, the sense of the skin prevails upon the rendering of bones and muscles. The face is very similar to the faces of the Arles type of Aphrodite, which is probably the copyist type of the Thespian goddess, and of the Aspremont – Lynden / Arles type of head, which probably portrayed Phryne. However the face of our Aphrodite looks older: her eyebrows are more clearly cut as well as her eyes-sockets. The conclusion is that she is Phryne, that this courtesan was the model of this Aphrodite and that when she gave her beauty to the bronze Aphrodite she was older than when she gave her features to the Thespian Aphrodite and to the Phryne of Thespiae. The same face will be found again with the Pseliumene, the Aphrodite / Phryne at Delphi and the Leconfield Aphrodite. Marble heads similar to that of our bronze statuette, with their typical wavy

locks brought behind from the forehead, have been found at Corinth, where they come from both the agora and nearby,713 thus revealing their dependence from the Aphrodite of the agora. The head of this creation can be better appreciated thanks to a life size head in Parian marble probably from Rome, dated in the late Hellenistic period and kept in the storerooms of the Vatican Museums (fig. 41).714 The head copies a bronze original as it is revealed by the inlaid eyes and by the metallic rendering of the eyessockets. I do not repeat how the anatomic grammar of the face and the wavy locks brought to the nape and collected in a chignon conform to the Praxitelean sense of grace. A band which surrounds the hair with two circles underlines the softness of these locks. However, only this head retains the ‘soul’ of Praxiteles’ bronze Aphrodite, expressing the internal seducing energy of the goddess. The Vatican head depends from a superlative masterpiece and all the observations reported above suggest that this creation is our bronze Aphrodite. The head clarifies also the date of our goddess: she is much later than the Cnidia who was confined by her serenity to a superior and remote ideal over-world. On the contrary her gaze places her in a moment when the goddess is regarded a sublimation of the human experience of pleasures. The sense of the skin and the games of light and shade obtained with her hair locks are much more clear than in the Cnidia. As we shall see this Aphrodite is the immediate antecedent of the Pseliumene which is dated around 343 BC (see infra), thus a date towards 345 BC for our creation is likely. With this Aphrodite wreathing herself and looking at her mirror, this god-

dess became more clearly than in the past the heavenly personification of the figure of the courtesan and an emblem of the hedonistic concept of visual arts which invite the viewers to enjoy life. For this reason this work is important: it leads to a new way to conceive the love goddess. After having been set up in the agora of Corinth, our Aphrodite was soon reproduced in the ‘Kleinkunst’ with small bronzes: the one found on Thera had probably been crafted in a Corinthian bronze workshop and exported to this Doric island. Thera had an important sanctuary of Aphrodite715 which was closely linked to Corinth, as it is revealed by the huge quantity of imports from the latter city found there,716 thus the import of a small bronze copy of an important Aphrodite of Corinth on this island makes sense. After the removal of the statue to Rome, the Aphrodite was copied with an extremely high quality head which is also en eloquent expression of the admiration felt for Praxiteles in the age of Cicero and Varro. Unfortunately the destruction of this Aphrodite in the age of Claudius prevented the copying of this statue throughout the golden period of the copyist production from Nero to Antonine Pius. However a new Aphrodite by the neo-Attic sculptor Hermogenes of Cythera was set up in the agora of the Roman colony of Corinth perhaps in the spot where once Praxiteles’ Aphrodite stood. The statue ‘generated’ throughout the early and middle imperial times a number of small reproductions of the head which were set up in the agora and near by. The fact that the head was reproduced both at Rome and Corinth is hardly casual because the greatness of this

creation relied especially in the seducing expression of the goddess. Probably because of that Pliny asserts that this Venus was not inferior to the Cnidia. Finally, as usual in the Severan period, a Corinthian coin of the age of Caracalla reproduced the statue of Hermogenes, which copied the bronze Aphrodite of our master and probably retained something of her magic power of kidnapping the gazes of viewers.

Fig. 41. Marble head at Rome, Vatican Museums, storeroom, no. 287.

Notes 647 See IG 2 (second ed.) respectively 3882 / 4117 and 4181. See C.M. Keesling, ‘Early Hellenistic Portrait Statues on the Athenian Acropolis’, P. Schultz and R. von den Hoff (eds.), Early Hellenistic Portraiture, Cambridge (2007) 141-160, particularly 152-156. 648 See Keesling (note 647) 154, fig. 117. 649 The base is kept at Athens, Agora Museum, no. I 4568. About the family of Archippe, see J.S. Traill, Persons of Ancient Athens 3, Toronto (1995) 394, nos. 214125 and 214130. About this inscribed base, see A. Ajootian, ‘Praxiteles and Fourth – Century Athenian Portraiture’, Schultz and von den Hoff (note 647) 13-33 and particularly 19-20, inscription no. 2, and D.J. Geagan, Inscriptions: the Dedicatory Monuments, Princeton (2011) 175-176, no. H 325.

Eighth Chapter - From around 350 to around 345 Bc

131

See my considerations in Corso (note 1) 282, note 1062. 651 See P. Schultz, ‘Kephisodotos the Younger’, O. Palagia and S.V. Tracy (eds.), The Macedonians in Athens, Oxford (2003) 186-193. 652 Ajootian (note 649) 19-20 connected the letter cutter of the inscription on this base with the letter cutter of the inscription EM 12807 who was active between 334 and 314 BC. Such a time span is too late for the chronology of Praxiteles who stopped working around 334 BC. Moreover S.V. Tracy, ‘The Statue Bases of Praxiteles found in Athens’, ZPE 167 (2008) 27-32 attributes the inscription to the same layout artist responsible of the inscriptions on the bases of Praxiteles’ statues corresponding to the works nos. 14 (= Athens, Agora Museum, no. I 4165), dated around 365, and 26 (= Athens, Ephoreia Gamma, no. Lambda 6866) dated around 360 BC. 653 See Tracy (note 657) 28 and Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 104-105. 654 The late classical Praxiteles may have been also the master of the statue of Lysanias son of Nicodemus from Xypete which once stood on the signed base IG 2 (second ed.) 3886 = Geagan (note 649) 191, no. H 352. In fact this Lysanias may have been a son of Nicodemus from Xypete known from inscriptions dated a little after 350 BC (see Traill, (note 649) 13 (2004) 204, nos. 714365 + 714370 + 714375). This inscription would have been re-cut in the early imperial period or a new base may have been needed in this period. Since this base was also found near the Eleusinium, this monument would have been set up in this sanctuary. 655 See E. Prioux, ‘Le portrait perdu et retrouve du poete Philitas de Cos’, ZPE 166 (2008) 66-72. 656 The cast of the inscribed foot is kept in the Museum of Die (see Prioux (note 655)). 657 Evidence in Prioux (note 655) and in K. Tsantsanoglou, ‘The Statue of Philitas’, ZPE 180 (2012) 104-116. 658 See Prioux (note 655) and Tsantsanoglou (note 657). 659 See J. -C. Decourt, Inscriptions grecques de la France (IGF), Lyon (2004) 292-293, nos. 198199. 660 See Prioux (note 655). 661 Evidence in B. Nobiloni, ‘Ibico’, B. Palma 650

132

Antonio Corso

Venetucci (ed.), Pirro Ligorio e le erme tiburtine, Rome (1992) 37-38 and 295. 662 See especially Ibycus, frgg. 286-287 Campbell 663 See A. Hermann, Plato’s Parmenides, Las Vegas (2010) 8. 664 See P. Moreno, ‘Silanion’, EAA 7 (1966) 288-292 and M. Weber, ‘Silanion’, Vollkommer (note 8) 2 (2004) 385-386. 665 See G. Broeker and W. Mueller, ‘Apollodoros (iii)’, Vollkommer (note 8) 1 (2001) 65. 666 See Plato, Anthologia Graeca 9. 506. 667 See Plutarch, Lives of the Ten Orators 841 and Pausanias 1. 24. 1. I cite only D. Clay, Archilochos Heros, Cambridge (2004) 127; 135 and 152. 668 See e. g. S. Dillon, Ancient Greek Portrait Sculpture, Cambridge (2006) 3; 7; 9; 16-29; 3238; 43-47; 52; 63-64; 67-71; 73-74; 78-85; 87-94; 109; 111; 114-115; 117; 119-122 and 128. 669 About Philitas, see L. Sbardella, ‘Philitas’, Cancik (note 38) 11 (2007) 49-50. 670 See Palma Venetucci (note 661) 15-53 and 287-300: I accept the identification of the pseudo-Seneca as Aesop. 671 The nostalgia for early classical visual arts in the advanced 2nd c. AD is illustrated especially by Pausanias as well as by the many 2nd c. AD copies from masterpieces of Phidias and Polycleitus: see Kreikenbom (note 606) 21-203 and Cullen (note 623) 1-563. 672 See M. Fraenkel, Die Inschriften von Pergamon 1, Berlin (1890) 70-72, nos. 135-140 and H. Mielsch, ‚Die Bibliothek und die Kunstsammlung der Koenige von Pergamon‘, AA (1995) 765-779. 673 See for Bupalus, Muller – Dufeu (note 7) 127, nos. 342-343; for Onatas, ibidem191, nos. 506-508; for Myron, ibidem 861, no. 2563; for Praxiteles, ibidem 861, no. 2564; for Silanion, ibidem 859, no. 2559; for Cephisodotus the Younger, ibidem 541, no. 1580; for Polymnestus, probably to be identified with the homonymous late classical sculptor, ibidem 861, no. 2567; for Demetrius, probably to be identified with the homonymous sculptor from Alopece, W. Mueller, ‘Demetrios (ii)’, Vollkommer (note 8) 1 (2001) 164; for Apollodorus’ pictures brought to Pergamum, see A. Reinach, Recueil Milliet, Paris (1985) 185, no. 193. 674 See Muller-Dufeu (note 7) 859, nos. 2558-2559 and Mielsch (note 672) 775, fig. 11.

See note 573. For the symplegma of Cephisodotus the Younger, see P. Gercke, ‘Pergami Symplegma des Kephisodot?’, M. Schmidt (ed.), Kanon, Basle (1988) 232-234. 676 See L. Mercuri, ‘Programmi pergameni ad Atene’, ASAIA 82 (2004) 61-80. 677 See Rizzo (note 93) pl. 118, figs. nos. 4 and 5. 678 See Lambrinudakis (note 108) 231-232, no. 378 a – j. 679 See Wroth (note 528) 148-151, nos. 295301 and 304. 680 See B. Latyschev, Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini, Petropoli (1916) 256-257, no. 271. 681 See A. Avram, J. Hind and G. Tsetskhladze, ‘The Black Sea Area’, Hansen and Nielsen (note 38) 924-973, particularly 936-940, no. 690. 682 See e. g. S.D. Krizhitskij and V.V. Krapivina, ‘Olbia Pontica’, E. Samaritaki (ed.), Ancient Greek Sites on the Northwest Coast of the Black Sea, Kiev (2001) 15-70, particularly 20. 683 See I. von Bredow, ‘Olbia (1)’ Cancik (note 38) 10 (2007) 80-81. 684 See e. g. E.B. de Ballu, Olbia, Leiden (1972) 71-75. 685 See A. Wasowicz, Olbia Pontique, Paris (1975) 67-100. 686 See von Bredow (note 683). 687 See A.S. Ruseva, Religi i kulty antichnoi Olbii, Kiev (1992) 38-39, fig. 10 and Kryzhitskij and Krapivina (note 682) 46-47: the statuette is kept in the Archaeological Museum of Kiev. 688 See M. Nagele, ‘Zem Typus des Apollon Lykeios’, OeJ 55 (1984) 77-105. 689 See M. Flashar, Apollo Citharoedus, Vienna (1992) figs. 94-95 and 102-103. 690 See e. g. de Ballu (note 684) fig. 13 and pls. 82 and 90. 691 About the importance of bows and arrows in the interaction between the Olbian society and the Scythian world, see D. Braund, ‘Greater Olbia’, D. Braund and S.D. Kryzhitskiy (eds.), Classical Olbia and the Scythian World, Oxford (2007) 37-77 and B. Baebler, ‘Dio Chrysostom’s Construction of Olbia’, ibidem 145-160. 692 See R. Vollkommer, ‘Stratonides’, Vollkommer (note 8) 2 (2004) 425-426 and Traill (note 649) 15 (2006) 452, no. 841760. Even in this case, the size of letters of the sculptor’s sig675

nature is the same of the letters of the dedication (see T.I. Kiripovic and E.I. Levi, Inscriptiones Olbiae, St. Petersburg (1968) pl. 32, no. 65). Of course this fact reflects the importance attributed to statues of Athenian masters in the late classical Olbian society. 693 See Corso (note 1) 206-207, note 8, copy no. 3. 694 See the list of episodes of agalmatophilia given in A. Corso, ‘Ancient Greek Sculptors as Magicians’, NumAntCl 28 (1999) 97-111. 695 See J. Lancha and L. Faedo, ‘Mousa, Mousai’, LIMC 7 (1994) 991-1059, particularly 997, nos. 210-217. 696 See CIL 6. 2. 10041. Further bibliography is given in A. Corso, ‘Il collezionismo di scultura nell’antichita’’, Fusconi (note 608) 101-129, particularly 126, note 97. 697 See also CIL 6. 2. 10038-10043. 698 See CIL 6. 1. 1156; 1658 a-e; 3864; 6. 4. 2. 31883-31886 and 6. 8. 3. 41337-41338. About this museum of ancient statues and the widespread phenomenon of museums of ‘idols’ of the late 4th and early 5th c. AD, see Corso (note 696) 112-121, particularly 112-113. 699 See I. Oesternberg, Staging the World, Oxford (2009) 82-93. 700 See M.E. Carr Sales, Aphrodite at Corinth, Ann Arbor (1983) 24-233; C.K. Williams ii, ‘Corinth and the Cult of Aphrodite’, M.A. Del Chiaro (ed.), Corinthiaca, Columbia (1986) 1224; M.C. Sturgeon, ‘A Peloponnesian Aphrodite: the Corinth Theater Type’, K.J. Hartswick and M.C. Sturgeon (eds.), Stephanos, Philadelphia (1986) 12-24; R.P. Legon, ‘Megaris, Corinthia and Sikyonia’, Hansen and Nielsen (note 38) 462-471, particularly 465-468, no. 227 and C.K. Williams ii, ‘Roman Corinth’, D.N. Schowalter and S.J. Friesen, Urban Religion in Roman Corinth, Harvard (2005) 221-247. 701 See D. Palombi, ‘Felicitas, aedes’, LTUR 2 (1995) 244-245. 702 See T. Ganschow, ‘Felicitas’, LIMC 8 (1997) 585-591, particularly 590-591. 703 About this Roman knight, see F. Muenzer, ‘Iunius 129’, RE 19 (1917) 1079. 704 About the cult of Venus Felix, see H. Wrede, ‘Der Venus Felix Peinvolles Schicksal im Lupercal’, RM 102 (1995) 345-348. About the Sullan connection, see V. Fadinger, ‘Sulla als Imperator Felix und “Epaphroditos” (= “Liebling des Aph-

Eighth Chapter - From around 350 to around 345 Bc

133

rodite”)’, N. Ehrhardt and L. -M. Guenther (eds.), Widerstand – Anpassung – Integration, Stuttgart (2002) 155-188. About Sulla’s promotion of the cult of Felicitas, see N. Castagnetti, ‘Silla e il culto di Felicitas’, Rivista storica dell’antichita’ 26 (1996) 47-52. 705 See Palombi (note 701). 706 For inscriptions and bibliography supporting these statements see notes 697-698. 707 See J.B. Salmon, Wealthy Corinth, Oxford (1984) 371-386 and Y. Lafond and E. Wirbelauer, ‘Corinthus / Corinth’, Cancik (note 38) 3 (2003) 797-804, particularly 801. 708 Locus classicus for the presence of Aphrodite in the agora of Corinth is Pausanias 2. 2. 8: he saw in the agora the statue of Aphrodite by Hermogenes of Cythera (see J. Flemberg, ‘Hermogenes (ii)’, Vollkommer (note 8) 1 (2001) 304305). About the deities of the agora of Corinth, see R. Dubbini, Dei nello spazio degli uomini, Rome (2011). 709 About the schools of bronze sculptors in

134

Antonio Corso

north-eastern Peloponnese throughout the late classical period, the bibliography is extensive: here I cite only Maderna (note 55) 3-3-382, particularly 317-321 and 344-356. 710 See note 708. 711 See Imhoof-Blumer, Gardner and Oikonomides (note 324) 18, no. 13. 712 The bronze statuette is at Berlin, Altes Museum, Antikensammlung, no. 7101: see A. Pasquier, ‘Statuette de femme nue’, Pasquier and Martinez (note 98) 196-197, no. 47. 713 See Corso (note 1) 220, note 8, no. 215 and 223, nos. 245-246. 714 See G. Kaschnitz-Weinberg, Sculture del magazzino del Museo Vaticano, Citta’ del Vaticano (1937) 140, no. 287. 715 See C.I. Sigalas and A.P. Matthaiou, ‘Epigraphes apo to Aphrodision tis Theras’, Horos 1721 (2004-2009) 475-480. 716 See C.W. Neeft, ‘The Corinthian Pottery at the Aphrodite Sanctuary of ancient Thera’, Horos 17-21 (2004-2009) 481-482.

NINETH CHAPTER From the year 345 to the year 340 BC

The salient fact of these years in the organization of the workshop is that the elder son of Praxiteles, Cephisodotus the Younger, began working as a sculptor at the latest from 344/343 BC,717 picking up commissions of private Athenians dedicating in Attic sanctuaries. With the decision to give the less demanding commissions to his son, probably Praxiteles wanted him to become well established and renowned in the Athenian market of commissions of statues. From a stylistic point of view, in this period Praxiteles pursued his research to give emphasis to the velvety skin and to the surfaces of statues through games of light and shade, at the detriment of the rendering of muscles and bones of bodies. From an iconographic point of view, he conceived more and more his figures in remote places expressed with rocks and trees which give to his creations the setting in a sort of Arcadia. From the point of view of the message, his works of this period constitute more clearly than in the past an art of pleasure which becomes very popular but in the same time met a growing criticism from the most conservative quarters of the Greek society of the time.

48. The marble statues of Apollo and Poseidon brought to Rome Pliny 36. 23 includes two statues of Apollo and Poseidon among Praxiteles’ marble works brought to Rome: ‘At Rome the works of Praxiteles are (Romae Praxitelis opera sunt) (…) as well as an Apollo and a Neptune’ (transl. Loeb). The two statues are the only ones in Pliny’s list of Praxiteles’ marble statues at Rome of which he does not specify where

exactly they stood in Rome: as we shall see, this fact is not without a reason. Pliny, since he mentions these works with the paratactic formula et... et, suggests that they stood one beside the other and did not form a group. However, since Apollo and Poseidon do appear together in several episodes in the ancient mythology,718 it is probable that their patron commissioned these two statues together from Praxiteles. Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

135

A passage by Lucian, De sacrificiis 11 may refer to these statues: ‘They (scil.: humans) too erect temples, in order that the gods may not be houseless and hearthless, of course; and they fashion images in their likeness, sending for a Praxiteles or a Polycleitus or a Phidias, who have caught sight of them somewhere and represent Zeus as a bearded man, Apollo as a perennial boy, Hermes with his first beard, Poseidon with blue hair and Athena with green eyes’ (transl. Loeb with amendments). Lucian illustrates the art of making statues of gods with the mention of three sculptors – Praxiteles, Polycleitus and Phidias – and attributes to them five standard iconographies of gods: the bearded Zeus, the boyish Apollo, the young Hermes, Poseidon with blue hair and Athena glaucopis. After the quoted passage, he specifies that concerning the bearded Zeus he thinks to Phidias’ Zeus at Olympia. Regarding Athena glaucopis, probably he also thinks to the famous statues of the goddess by Phidias. Concerning the young Hermes, he probably has in mind Polycleitus’ Hermes719 because otherwise no one of the mentioned iconographies could be attributed to the Argive sculptor. The boyish Apollo and the blue haired Poseidon are probably thought by Lucian to be associated figures because a little above the quoted passage (De sacrificiis 4) he specifies that ‘Apollo (..) when found guilty of killing the Cyclopes and was banished from Heaven on account of it, he was sent to earth to try the lot of a mortal. On this occasion he actually became a serf in Thessaly under Admetus and in Phrygia under Laomedon, where, to be sure, he was not alone, but had Poseidon with him; and both of them were so poor that they had to make bricks and work upon the wall; what is more, they

136

Antonio Corso

did not even get full pay from the Phrygian, etc’. (transl. Loeb). Thus in par. 9 Lucian probably still has in his mind the figures of Apollo and Poseidon who served the king of Troja Laomedon. Since Praxiteles is the only one of the three masters mentioned by Lucian in that passage who carved a composition of Apollo and Poseidon, the writer probably had in his mind this work by Praxiteles. This conclusion has two consequences: a. that the composition represented the two gods while they served the king of Troja Laomedon:720 this story was very renowned and reported already by Homer, Iliad 7. 452-453 and 21. 442-457; and b. that with these two statues Apollo looked boyish and Poseidon had blue hair: the latter feature was traditional of Poseidon721 whose hair was thought to have the colour of the sea, thus expressing the lordship by this god of this element. Lucian traveled to Italy and thus may have seen Praxiteles’ composition in Rome.722 Praxiteles probably represented Apollo as a shepherd of Admetus with his Apollo Sauroctonus: thus it makes sense that a patron commissioned from him also a visual evocation of the second service of Apollo to a king: that related to Laomedon. Also, since these services of Apollo to mortals fall in the early history of the god, it makes sense that in Praxiteles’ composition he looked boyish. Finally, the blue colour given to the hair of Poseidon is a good example of the habit in the workshop of Praxiteles to paint the hair of marble statues; as we shall see, this habit is archaeologically confirmed by the traces of colour found in the Hermes of Olympia. Since Pliny 35. 133 specifies that the Athenian painter Nicias, who was younger than Praxiteles,

painted the best statues of the latter, it is possible that Nicias gave the blue colour to the hair of Poseidon. Pliny does not specify the patron of Praxiteles’ composition but it is possible to suggest that Megara commissioned the composition. In fact Megara nourished a special devotion to Apollo and Artemis and was endowed with several sanctuaries of these gods.723 Moreover the Megarians commissioned an Apollinean triad from Praxiteles724 and thus were already used to conceive Apollo according to the Praxitelean visual definition of this god. Equally it is noteworthy that Megareus, mythical king of Megara and eponymous hero of this polis, was the son of Poseidon:725 thus this god played also a special importance for the identity of the city. Finally it has to be kept in mind that Telamon, the son in law of Alcathous – the mythical king of Megara who gave his name to one of the two acropoleis of the town - and thus also a salient figure in the mythical history of the Megarians, took part to the expedition against Troja which was organized after Laomedon cheated Apollo and Poseidon of their reward, eventually killed this king of Troja726 and got his daughter Hesione.727 I am not aware of any other city except Megara which could have so compelling reasons in order to promote a monument which would have illustrated the revenge of the two gods pursued by a Megarian hero, against the usual hybris of an Asiatic king. Moreover Praxiteles had already fleshed out for the Megarans both Apollo and Poseidon: Apollo twice, in his dodekatheon (work no. 24) and in his Apollinean triad (work no. 27), Poseidon only in his dodekatheon. Concerning the original setting of the composition, it has to be underlined

that no creations of ancient masters are known to have been removed from Megara and shipped to Rome.728 Thus it is unlikely that these two statues were taken from this town. It should be noticed that the Megarians used to dedicate at Delphi729 and that this sanctuary of Apollo would have been its ideal setting because the site was thought to have been under the lordship of Poseidon prior to its seize by Apollo:730 thus statues of Apollo and Poseidon would have been a homage to both the previous and the actual lord of the place. The late 34Os follow the liberation of the sanctuary from its occupation by the Aetolians: in that context the dedication of statues of the two gods cheated by an arrogant king might have been an allusion to the recent act of hybris of the Aetolians against the sanctuary once of Poseidon and now of Apollo.731 If the original setting of the two statues at Delphi is accepted, thus it would become obvious who looted them: of course Nero who removed from the sanctuary several hundred of statues732 in order to adorn his Domus Aurea. Thus even Pliny’s lack of specification about where exactly these two statues stood in Rome becomes logical: it is likely that, after the removal of the statues from the Domus Aurea, their final setting was still undecided. Probably for the same reason Pliny does not specify where exactly the Pseliumene was set up at Rome, although, since the statue was probably set up in the templum Pacis, perhaps she was also looted by Nero, placed in the Domus Aurea and then exposed by Vespasian in the sanctuary of Peace (see infra). For the same reason, this writer also mentions Myron’s Cow but does not say where it was set up733: again this statue will be erected in the templum Pacis. Equally Pliny mentions Leochares’ GanyNineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

137

42. Marble Apollo at Naples, National Archaeological Museum, no. 145078.

138

Antonio Corso

medes (34. 79) but does not specify where exactly it could be found: this monument will also be set up in the templum Pacis.734 Thus it is obvious that in the late 70s AD – when Pliny wrote his ‘Natural History’ – several statues removed by Nero and once decorating the Golden House of this emperor were still waiting a new setting. Concerning the identification of these two statues in the visual evidence, we must consider first of all the marble statue of Apollo from Formiae (fig. 42).735 This marble statue shows a young naked Apollo with a moderate sinuosity: his right hip projects and determines the concave configuration of the left border of his body. The slim body of the god is entirely within the late classical concept of bodies and the anatomic grammar is very similar to that of the Apollo Sauroctonus, although the prevalence of transitions upon the rendering of specific muscles and bones is more accentuated in the Apollo of Formiae and foreshadows the velvety skin of the body of the Hermes of Olympia. Thus the body of this Apollo suggests a date of this creation after the Sauroctonus and at a moment which is not distant from that of the Hermes of Olympia but perhaps a little earlier than the latter creation. The god has his right arm uplifted and brought to his head in a resting attitude, while his left arm is lowered with the forearm forwarded in order to hold an attribute. The configuration of the upper part of the body is inspired by that of the Apollo of Olbia and foreshadows the Apollo Lycius: by analogy with these two creations probably the left hand held a bow. The face is not preserved, the hair is composed of wavy locks which are brought from the forehead behind: this concept of hair has been met several times during my survey of Praxitelean creations and is clearly a beloved feature of our master.

The god has his left elbow resting on the drapery which has been thrown above a vertical support. The vertical succession from above, of left arm with the forearm forwarded resting on drapery thrown on a vertical support is inspired by the similar formal feature of the Hermes carrying the baby Dionysus by Cephisodotus the Elder and again foreshadows the creation of the Hermes of Olympia where this formal pattern will be reused. The vertical support consists of a statuette of Artemis standing on her round base. This Artemis is inspired by the Artemis of Praxiteles’ Apollinean triad set up in the sanctuary of the Tutelary Apollo at Megara – whose copyist tradition is represented by the Artemis of Dresden – except that her right arm is lowered as in the Artemis of the Praxitelean dodekatheon which was erected in the sanctuary of Artemis Saviour, also at Megara. This change is due to the circumstance that this Artemis supporting her brother is not supposed to be ready to strike with her bow as in the Dresden type but is resting. The adoption of the Praxitelean type of Artemis at Megara conveys to the viewer the notion of where the epiphany of Apollo is imagined to take place: he appears inside a Megarian sanctuary of the two gods, perhaps that of the Tutelary Apollo, indicated by the reproduction of the statuette of Artemis kept there. He is ready to strike with his bow, in the mythical context which is thought to justify his apparition in response to the Trojan king who denied him the agreed reward. However there may be also an allusion to a more recent episode of impiety suffered by Apollo: that of the Aetolians who occupied and looted the most sacred place of the god, that of Delphi. The copy of Formiae looks late Hadrianic or early Antonine because of the drill

channels existing among the folds of the drapery and among the locks of the hair, which characterize the sculptures carved in the Roman workshops during the second quarter of the 2nd c. AD. This Apollo adorned a Roman villa and in particular the area around a swimming pool of this resort. It makes sense that a Roman workshop carved a copy of an original statue which also stood in Rome – perhaps in the templum Pacis, as most Greek statues once in the Domus Aurea – and sold it to the owner of a villa near the sea. A copy of the crouching Aphrodite by Daedalsas was also set up near the same swimming pool: since the latter creation also stood in Rome, in the porticus Octaviae,736 it is clear that the owner of this estate wanted to adorn it with copies of statues of renowned Greek masters which could be admired at Rome. Moreover, still in the same environment two Nereids on pistrices were displayed: probably they are Greek originals of the early 4th c. BC which once were acroteria of a temple perhaps in north eastern Peloponnese and had been removed in order to adorn a Roman villa.737 Clearly the owner of this villa was interested to opera nobilia of the Greek past because he got both original statues and copies. In particular, it is noteworthy that no surviving statue from this villa was a new creation. The Nereids and the Aphrodite who washes herself are timely decorations of a swimming pool, thus their choice is obvious. Concerning Apollo, the god of poetry and music could add a lot to the enjoyment of the piscina natatoria: in fact statues of this god are frequent in villas738 and in baths.739 Now it is time to turn to Poseidon: Lucian’s mention of his blue hair implies that his hair was impressive. About the possible recognition of this creation in

the visual evidence we should consider a sculptural type of Poseidon / Neptune which is known from several figures dated from the third quarter of the 4th c. BC until the Antonine period and is dated on stylistic ground in the third quarter of the 4th c. BC.740 The copy of this type which retains more the late classical style of the original comes from Delus (fig. 43): thus this interpretation of Poseidon is called the Delus type. The god is standing with his right foot fully on the ground while his left knee is bent and thus the left foot is brought behind and rests on the ground on tiptoes.

Fig. 43. Marble statuette from Delos, Archaeological Museum, no. A 4120.

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

139

The right hip projects on its side and thus the left border of the figure is concave. The head has the usual anatomic features of Praxitelean creations (oval face, narrow and elongated eyes, etc.), the hair is made of wavy locks, divided in the middle, is fastened by a band and is blatantly inspired by the hair of the Resting Satyr. The eyes look hard forward and suggest the feeling of anger. The right arm was resting with the hand on the corresponding hip while the left arm was brought to the side with the forearm uplifted in order to hold the trident. The position of the right arm of Poseidon was already adopted in arms of the Athena of Arretium, perhaps of the Weeping Matron, of Athena, Demeter, Poseidon, Hephaestus and Artemis of the dodekatheon, of the Resting Satyr and finally of two Muses of the base from Mantinea. Thus it was a pattern often used in the workshop of Praxiteles: the closest examples are the right arms of the Artemis of the dodekatheon and of the Resting Satyr. This creation announced the anger through the eyes and the terrifying power, expressed with the trident, of the god. Thus the god has been conceived when, after having been cheated by Laomedon, is about to send a sea monster against the Trojan king.741 The figure is appropriate to a position at the viewer’s right side of a group: the vertical line of the trident closed the group at the left of the god while the resting position of the lowered right arm suggested continuity towards the equally lowered right arm of the Formiae type of Apollo, who thus must have been the viewer’s left side of the group. The rendering of the surfaces of the Delus type of Poseidon is appreciated especially in the copy from Delus: the skin prevails upon the muscles and bones

140

Antonio Corso

more than in previous creations of this workshop and thus foreshadows the velvety and gleaming skin of the Hermes of Olympia, of the Eubuleus and of the Leconfield Aphrodite. However the transitions are still not as pronounced as in the Hermes. Thus the suggested date for our Poseidon is 345 BC or a little later. The contrast between the smooth skin of the face and the beard and hair must have resulted into a superb game of light and shade which would have made this creation a true masterpiece. There are 9 figures742 illustrating this type. The first example (note 742, no. 1) is still of the third quarter of the 4th c. BC and consists of a miniature figure of Poseidon on the obverse of a coin type of Crane on the island of Cephallenia. The re-use of this sculptural type on a coin type of this city suggests that the creation of this type of Poseidon is not later than around 340 BC and of course implies that it became immediately famous. Since Crane was closely linked with Delphi,743 it would make sense that this town adopted the style of Poseidon which characterized a statue set up at Delphi of the renowned Praxiteles. The second example is a bronze statuette attributed to a Corinthian workshop (note 742, no. 2). We have seen that another statue by Praxiteles – an Aphrodite – was reproduced in the production of bronze statuettes of Corinth as it is argued by the bronze Aphrodite from Thera.744 Moreover Corinth was also closely linked with Delphi,745 thus it would not be illogical that a statue at Delphi was imitated in a Corinthian workshop of bronze sculptors. This statuette was found in the sanctuary of Zeus at Dodona which was also tied with Delphi.746 The middle Hellenistic marble copy found on Delus (note 742, no. 3 and fig.

43) is by far the most faithful example to the late classical style of the type: in fact it retains the sinuous configuration of the hair locks and of the beard, the Praxitelean anatomic grammar of the face as well as the velvety rendering of the skin and the devaluation of muscles and bones. This fact is in keeping with the circumstance that in the same period the Delian production of marble figurines delivered rather faithful copies of the Cnidian Aphrodite.747 The presence in a Delian house of a statue of Poseidon is hardly surprising: in fact the lord of the sea has a strong divine presence on this tiny island.748 Equally the possible imitation of a statue set up at Delphi on Delus is not difficult to explain given the fact that the two most important sanctuaries of Apollo – those of Delphi and Delus – were closely linked from the archaic period.749 The statuette of Poseidon was set up, rather appropriately, in the south eastern part of the peristyle near the water basin, of the House of Dionysus.750 In the same area, but in the western portico of the peristyle, a statuette of enthroned Meter was erected: it was loosely inspired by the Agoracritan type of Meter.751 Of course this goddess was set up between the entrance to the house and the peristyle because of the protection that she guaranteed on the house and on the family.752 However the erection in the same peristyle of two statues inspired by works of two renowned masters of the Attic school – Agoracritus and Praxiteles – implies also a high esteem for the Athenian artistic achievements of the late 5th and of the 4th c. BC. The three earlier examples of this type, being located at Cephallenia, Dodona and Delos, imply that the imitated statue stood in the Greek world at the time. Since Dodona and Delus shared

close links with Delphi, this observation strengthens our suggestion that the original statue stood in that sanctuary of Apollo. On the contrary the examples of the type in note 742, nos. 4-9 date in the period from Vespasian to Antonine Pius, have been found in Italy and in the central section of the Mediterranean world and thus suggest that the imitated statue moved west and was set up in this region probably in the age of Vespasian. This circumstance suggests that the statue was displayed in the public view by the latter emperor at Rome and strengthens my hypothesis that it was removed to Rome by Nero, set up in the Domus Aurea and re-displayed by Vespasian in the templum Pacis. The example no. 4 is a bronze statuette from Herculaneum while the bronze statuette no. 5 has no certain provenance but probably also comes from the 1st region of Roman Italy, Latium et Campania, and dates in the same period. These two figures reveal the fortune of a Praxitelean Poseidon in the same years when Pliny reports on the presence of Praxiteles’ marble Neptune at Rome. The fortune of our type continues during the Hadrianic period when Poseidon appears according to this configuration on a sarcophagus representing the wedding of Thetis and Peleus (note 742, no. 7): the lord of the sea appears in front of the sea monster which he is about to send against Laomedon and thus is a timely presence because his appearance reminds the viewer of the tragedy which will affect Troja as a consequence of the wedding represented on the sarcophagus but also of the offense of a Trojan king against gods. This sarcophagus is very important because the presence of the ketos reveals the mythical context in which the considered type of Poseidon Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

141

is understood to be: the god is receiving the homage of the sea monster which soon would attack Troja. A well head also from Rome of the same years (note 742, no. 9) is also important because it preserves the trident held reversed in the left hand of the god. The trident stands on a rock suggesting that this type was felt part of an Arcadian landscape. In front of the god there is the usual ketos. The production of small bronzes inspired by this type continues also in the first decades of the 2nd c. AD as it is argued by the example note 742, no. 8, which reveals the reception of the type in Germany, beyond the limes. This figurine of the lord of waters was found in the valley of the river Oder and may be explained with the protection guaranteed in the Roman world by this god not only on the sea but also on the fresh water. Finally a marble statuette of the type was found at Carthage (note 742, no. 6). Neptune was a very important god of this city.753 Thus the display in town of a statuette of this god inspired by an important statue standing at Rome is not surprising. The love for opera nobilia in Antonine Carthage is appreciated especially thanks to the sculptural display of the Antonine’s Baths, which were adorned of statues derived from fortunate types of Dionysus, Aphrodite, Eros, Apollo, Athena etc.,754 composing the usual gallant picture of a mythology of pleasure. Poseidon was also represented in this complex.755 After the research exposed in the previous pages we can eventually have an idea of how Praxiteles’ composition of Apollo and Poseidon looked like: Apollo was ready to strike with his bow but without losing his serenity and on the contrary keeping his relaxed attitude. He rests on a statuette of Artemis which allows the viewer to identify the patrons of the

142

Antonio Corso

two statues: he is the god of the Megarians. Poseidon is also standing but the expression of his face is more pathetic and he asserts his sovereignty through his trident. He is about to send a sea monster against a king who dared to cheat gods. The rendering of skin and anatomy in the Formiae statue of Apollo and in the Delus statuette of Poseidon is so homogeneous to strongly suggest that the two statues are inspired by the same group. The two statues probably set up at Delphi were an admonition against whoever provokes the anger of gods, perhaps with a reference to recent episodes of the Greek history such as the sacred war for the possession of Delphi. Praxiteles through the velvety skin of these figures and the play of light and shade obtained with the contrast of skin with hair and beard of the head of Poseidon may have transformed this story of revenge into a beautiful tale.

49. The Apollinean Triad at Mantinea This triad is known thanks to Pausanias 8. 9. 1: ‘At Mantinea there is a double temple (naos diplous), divided just about the middle by a partition wall (kata meson toicho dieirgomenos). In one division of the temple is a statue of Asclepios, art of Alcamenes, the other division is a sanctuary (hieron) of Leto and her children; Praxiteles made the statues in the latter the third generation after Alcamenes. On the base of these statues are represented the Muses and Marsyas; the latter is playing on the flute’ (transl. Frazer with amendments).756 The writer describes a sanctuary of the Apollinean triad in which the cult of Asclepios found also place.757 The reception of the latter cult in Mantinea may

have occurred around 420, when the polis was allied with Argus and Athens and thus could have easily welcomed the new god in the same time when Athens also accepted this new cult.758 It makes sense that in the late 5th c. BC the Mantineans built a temple in which the two cult spaces were divided by a wall: this formal solution could have been inspired by the similar layout of the Erechtheum. The political alliance with Athens is also probably the context of the decision to commission the statue of Asclepios from Alcamenes, an Athenian master. This statue is probably represented on Roman imperial coins of the Severan period of this town:759 the god rests on his staff with his left arm, a himation wraps the lower part of his body while his chest is left bare. His head is the traditional one of this god, elongated, bearded, with deep eye sockets and with hair falling both on the forehead and on the nape. His right arm rests on the corresponding hip. Alcamenes’ Asclepios is echoed in the eastern Arcadian imagery of this god760 and copied with the Este type of him.761 Praxiteles may have been charged of the Apollinean triad at Mantinea because he became already well established with his Apollinean triad of Megara (work no. 27) as well as with his statue of Leto at Argus (work no. 28): in fact the visual culture of Mantinea was influenced by that of the near polis of Argus.762 The presentation of the triad by Pausanias who mentions first of all Leto and then her children and the analogy with Praxiteles’ triad at Megara – which had Leto at the viewer’s left, Apollo in the middle and finally Artemis at the viewer’s right – suggest that at Mantinea there was a similar succession, from the viewer’s left to right, of Leto, Apollo and Artemis. Praxiteles’ triad may have constituted the cult group of this sanctuary because

Pausanias does not mention other statues of these deities there. Moreover again the analogy with the triad of Megara and the circumstance that Pausanias often does not specify the material of a mentioned statue when it is marble suggest that the triad was marble and not bronze. Pausanias’ specification that Praxiteles’ statues had been carved the third generation after Alcamenes may have been taken by this writer from his local guides and perhaps corresponds to around 75 years:763 thus since Alcamenes’ Asclepios would date around 420 or soon after that year, Praxiteles’ triad would date around 345 or a little later. This chronology will be strengthened by the stylistic observations reported below. The statue of Leto may have been regarded in Roman imperial times less important than the statues of her two children because, differently from the statues of Apollo and Artemis, she is never represented on late coin types of Mantinea. We can just guess that perhaps she was similar to the statue of Megara holding a sceptre in her right hand and clad in long chiton. The statue of Apollo is probably represented on coin types struck under Julia Domna and Plautilla (fig. 44): the god is also clad in a long chiton above which a himation is fastened with a high girdle: in his right hand he holds the plectrum and in his left hand he has the cithara. His left forearm with the cithara rests on a column. His hair seems similar to that of the Resting Satyr with a large mass around the skull, fixed with a band and creating a braid on the back. The general schema of the figure is similar to that of Praxiteles’ Apollo at Megara except that this time our sculptor adopted a vertical support at the left side of the figure. Of course this choice is due to the predilection of our master for figures

Fig. 44. AE struck by Mantinea under Julia Domna, reverse, at London, Department of Coins.

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

143

Fig. 45. AE struck by Mantinea under Plautilla, reverse, at Paris, National Library, Department of Coins, Medals and Antiquities.

Figs. 46-48: marble slabs from Mantinea at Athens, National Archaeological Museum, nos. 215-217.

144

Antonio Corso

resting on side vertical supports which characterizes his production in the 340s. This Apollo citharoedus must have stressed the distinguished musical competence of the Mantineans which was famous according to Plutarch, De musica 32. 1142 e-f. Thus the Mantinean patrons of the triad must have specified that they wanted an Apollo musician. Artemis is also represented on Severan coin types (fig. 45) clad in short diploid chiton striding and holding a torch in each hand. Her head bears her hair collected behind in a chignon.764 Her position is plausible as a right wing figure, from the point of view of the viewer, of a triad. The figure is blatantly inspired by Strongylion’s statue of the goddess at Megara, thus it is plausible that Praxiteles reused the type of Strongylion. Thanks to her short dress as well as to the chignon gently beautifying the hair look of the goddess, our master may have underlined the teenage appeal of this young Artemis. The base of the triad partly survives: three slabs (figs. 46-48) in Pentelic marble

were found reused in the pavement of a Byzantine church near the southern wall of the city and represented the musical contest between Apollo and Marsyas in the presence of the Muses who would judge their performance.765 Since the episode evoked is the same reported by Pausanias for the base of the Praxitelean triad, the marble is Pentelic, the craftmanship is Attic and of the third quarter of the 4th c. BC and the relief figures bear the seal of the Praxitelean style, the identification of these relief slabs with the relief seen by Pausanias on the base of the triad is nearly certain. A detailed study by Walter Amelung reached solid conclusions about how the base of the triad looked like:766 a core probably by limestone was externally covered by marble slabs. There were two marble slabs in the front of the base and one for each short side: each slab was carved with three figures against a rocky landscape. The two slabs in the front were the slab with Apollo, the Scythian and Marsyas at its right end, and one with three Muses which

had not survived, at its left end. The slab with the seating Muse was placed on the short right side of the base while the slab with the three standing Muses was set up on the short left side of the base. The arrangement of this base looks similar to those which are argued for the

bases of the statues of Cleiocratia and Spoudias (work no. 14) and in the House of Hermes on Delus (work no. 34): a limestone core covered by marble slabs. Thus this was at least one of the ways used in Praxiteles’ workshop in order to make bases.

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

145

The two slabs on the short sides bear 6 carved Muses: three on each slab. 5 out of these 6 Muses are variations of the same standard type of standing draped young lady which is illustrated first of all by the Arretium / Vescovali types of Athena,767 then by the Sardanapallus type of Dionysus,768 by the descending Kore (work no. 6), by two Nikai (work no. 11), especially by Kore in two Eleusinian triads (works nos. 12 and 13), by the Weeping Matron (work no. 20), by 5 goddesses of the Dodekatheon (work no. 24), by Artemis in the Apollinean triad of Megara (work no. 27), by Niobe (work no. 30) and by Opora (work no. 32). These Praxitelean Muses constitute appealing and fresh images of young girls who suggest a quiet and nearly idyllic concept of serenity. Since no certain group of Muses by Praxiteles is known from the ancient sources, it is possible that the workshop of Praxiteles adopted for the occasion, changing them just a little bit, the types of Muses carved by Cephisodotus the Elder and set up on Mt. Helicon.769 On the slab on the short right side, the first Muse from the viewer’s left is a variation of the Praxitelean Kore as she is known especially from the statuette from Chiparissi, but her head is bent and looking toward her double flute, held in both her hands. The second figure from left is a variation of the Sardanapallus type of Dionysus, except that both arms are wrapped inside the drapery and that of course the figure is more slender and female. The head is frontal, in keeping with the central position of the Muse in the slab, slightly bent as a sign of concentration and her hair is made of wavy locks brought behind and fastened by a band. The third Muse from the left of this slab is seating on a rock, a girdle just below her breasts gives emphasis to her

146

Antonio Corso

sensual appeal, her neck is bare with a wide neckline, the oval of her face responds well to the Praxitelean anatomic grammar, her hair is also made of wavy locks brought behind, fastened with a band and collected with a chignon, constituting one of the first examples of melon coiffure. Her head is also bent, showing concentration. Her right hand holds a music instrument, probably the trichordon. The only surviving slab from the front has at the viewer’s left Apollo seating on a rock, wearing the citharedic chiton and himation. His hair falls on the shoulders with braids. He holds a monumental cithara with which he is about to play. The god looks calm and dignifying. The Scythian is standing, wears a short chiton, amaxyrides sandals and on the head a Scythian tiara. His left hand rests on his hip while his right hand holds the knife with which he is going to take out the skin of Marsyas. In the viewer’s right of the slab, Marsyas is playing the double flute. His figure is inspired by the Myronian Marsyas, his nervous attitude contrasts with the serenity of Apollo and foreshadows the outcome of the contest. Finally the slab on the left side of the base has three standing Muses. The first Muse from the viewer’s left holds a volumen, while the Muse in the middle has a cylindrical capsa for a volumen: this figure is very close to the Arretium / Vescovali type of Athena. Finally the Muse at the viewer’s right holds a cithara. Of course Apollo and the Muses celebrate the musical skills of the Mantineans, while the rocky landscape puts on the fore an environment far from the world of the polis where Apollo and the Muses appear, you can enjoy divine music, poetry and girlish beauty. Thus the reliefs from Mantinea are one of the first clear depictions of the

was at the viewer’s left side of Hera and Hebe at the viewer’s right side. Concerning the identification of these statues in the visual culture, unfor50. The triad of Athena, Hera and tunately this triad was not represented Hebe in the temple of Hera at Mantinea on coins of Mantinea, perhaps because it was regarded less important than This triad had also been seen by Pausan- the Apollinean one: the statues of Hera and Hebe by Praxiteles may have been ias 8. 9. 3: ‘And I saw a temple (naos) of Hera be- just variations of the Argive statues of side the theatre (pros to theatro): the stat- the same goddesses by Polycleitus and ues (agalmata) are by Praxiteles, and rep- Naucydes. Praxiteles’ statue of Athena may have resent the goddess seated on a throne (kathemenen en throno) with Athena and been a variation of the Vescovali type Hebe, daughter of Hera, standing beside of this goddess (figs. 49 and 50).775 This her (parestosas)’ (transl. Frazer with an probability is argued from three considamendment).770 erations: 1. the type was conceived in the This triad was the cult group of an important temple: that of Hera located workshop of Praxiteles, as it is argued in the central area of the city near the from its close connection with other theatre and along the western side of the draped ladies of the Praxitelean tradiagora.771 The importance of the cult of tion (see the Praxitelean works nos. 6; 7; Hera at Mantinea is probably due to the 11; 12; 13; 19; 20; 23; 24; 27; 30 and 32). influence of Argus, whose sanctuary of Because of the prevalence of the drapery upon the body probably it should be Hera was very famous. The triad of Praxiteles had an en- given still to the artistic environment of throned Hera in the middle: of course this Cephisodotus the Elder. 2. The type was reused for a Muse iconography of the goddess was inspired by the renowned chryselephantine en- of the Mantinean slabs (see the work no. throned statue of Hera by Polycleitus set 49) and thus, if Praxiteles’ workshop used up in the Heraeum of Argus.772 Even the it for a Muse on the base of one of his two presence at one side of Hera of a stand- Mantinean triads, it is even more probing statue of Hebe was an imitation of able that it was used also for the Athena the analogous display in the Heraeum of his other Mantinean triad because this of Argus, where at a side of Polycleitus’ goddess was the original subject repreenthroned Hera there was the chrysele- sented with this type. 3. The type offered an ideal style phantine Hebe of Naucydes.773 The presence also of Athena in the for the viewer’s left wing of a triad, with Mantinean triad may be due both to the the right hand of the goddess probably importance of this goddess in the pan- holding a sceptre and thus closing the theon of eastern Arcadia774 and to the fact composition on this side, with the left that, as a daughter of Zeus, she could be arm resting on the hip and thus opening regarded half-sister of Hebe, daughter the creation toward the central statue of the triad, with the head turned in a both of Hera and Zeus. Since Pausanias mentions first of all three / quarter position also toward the Athena and then Hebe, probably Athena centre of the group, with the aegis – at concept of ‘Arcadia’ located in the region bearing this name.

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

147

Fig. 49. Marble Athena at Rome, Roman National Museum, no. 108595.

148

Antonio Corso

least in the prevailing copyist tradition – also disposed toward the left side of the goddess, finally with the left leg bent and brought behind which also rhythmically opens towards this side. Thus the adoption of this creation would have offered to the viewer a teenage – looking, fresh and appealing interpretation of the goddess. In the same time the sense of security conveyed both by the far-looking gaze and by the posture of Athena and the sense of power suggested by the sceptre would have communicated the authority of the goddess.

The Vescovali goddess is standing, rests on her right leg, while her left knee is bent and her corresponding foot is brought to a side. She wears sandals similar to those of Cephisodotus’ Eirene. Also she wears a peplos, above which a himatium is disposed. Her left arm rests on her corresponding hip and is also wrapped in the himatium. A band of drapery girdles the goddess just below her breasts. The distance between the two breasts is close to that of Cephisodotus’ Eirene: the bosom is larger than in female Praxitelean female statues. The posture of her body shows a torsion towards the left side of the goddess. Her aegis is disposed across her chest again towards her left side. Her neck has a wide neckline which is very similar to the one characterizing Cephisodotus’ Eirene. Her head is brought up, in order that she looks above her viewers, also she turns her head in a three / quarter position towards her left side. The grammar of her face is very similar to that of the Eirene as well as her wavy locks, brought behind and collected in a braid which is nearly a copy of the braids of the Eirene. A Corinthian helmet is on her hair. Her right arm is not well known but it may have been brought to the side to hold a sceptre. The visual fortune776 of this creation can be followed from around 370 until the late Antonine period. The large statue in Pentelic marble from the upper terrace of the Acropolis of Athens (see note 776, no. 1) is probably the original creation of the series because it makes sense that this monumental image of outstanding quality set up in the most famous sanctuary of Athena of the ancient world was regarded very authoritative during the ‘Kopistenzeit’! The above suggested comparisons of this type with the Eirene of Cephisodotus the Elder place this creation in the

‘Umkreis’ of this master. The head slightly raised up does not suggest a date in or after the ‘Alexanderzeit’ because already Phidias conceived his Athenian statue of Eros with a similar position of the head.777 The Vescovali type of Athena with her sceptre probably held in her right hand and with her gaze proudly and superbly directed above the viewers underlines her rule and sovereignty. Perhaps the statue on the Acropolis was a dedication for the victories of Athens on sea and for the restoration of the sea power of this city which occurred during the 370s. The monument might have been promoted by the political party of the general Timotheus which was closely linked to the workshop of Cephisodotus the Elder.778 The model of the type must have been kept in the workshop inherited by Praxiteles who reused it with changes in order to flesh out the statues of Athena and Demeter of his Megarian dodekatheon (see note 776, no. 2). The type reappears with a few changes with a Muse of the base of Praxiteles’ Apollinean triad at Mantinea (see note 775, no. 3) and may also have been adopted for the statue of Athena in Praxiteles’ triad of Athena, Hera and Hebe at Mantinea: in fact it is argued from Pausanias 8. 9. 3 that Athena was the viewer’s left wing of the triad and the Vescovali type is very appropriate for such a position. However it is logical to assume that later copies of the type depended from the statue on the Acropolis of Athens and not from Praxiteles’ Athena at Mantinea. In the late 4th c. BC, two marble statuettes of Athena are imported probably from Athens in Olbia: one is inspired by the Athena Parthenos779 and the other echoes the Athena Vescovali (see note 776, no. 4): these two images were probably dedicated to our goddess who was

worshipped in the central temenos of the city together with Zeus780 and are understandable in the context of the local high regard of Athenian sculptors and of their oeuvre which is argued from the Olbian statues of the Athenian masters Praxiteles and Stratonides (see the work no. 46). Since of course this variation of the Athena Parthenos derived from an important statue admired on the Acropolis of Athens, by analogy the Olbian example of the Vescovali type probably also is intended to reproduce the colossal Athena Vescovali standing on the Acropolis. Already during the late classical times, the Athena Vescovali was rethought in order to obtain fully frontal figures such as Athena and Demeter of the Praxitelean dodekatheon and one Muse of the Mantinean base (see note 776, nos. 2 and 3). This trend continues in the early Hellenistic period. When – toward the end of the 4th c. BC – Athenian sculptors flocked to Alexandria in order to carve marble sculptures for the public and private patrons of this metropolis,781 the Vescovali type also enters the visual culture of the new capital. This fact is revealed by a statue in Pentelic marble (note 776, no. 5) which reveals both the re-thought of the schema as fully frontal and its adoption for a subject other than Athena: perhaps the heavy design of the drapery and of the folding suggests that the statue represented a deceased young lady. Perhaps in the same period the schema of the Vescovali type was adopted in order to represent Athena, also conceived from a frontal point of view: this variation is known thanks to the bronze Athena from Arretium (see note 776, no. 6). This Athena may be understood in the context of the noteworthy visual importance of the corresponding Etruscan goddess Men(e)rva in this Etruscan town

Fig. 50. Marble Athena at St. Petersburg, Ermitage, no. W 27 – A 166, drawing by Amelung.

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

149

from the late classical times onwards.782 The statue should probably be attributed to the Arretine production of monumental bronzes of the late classical and early Hellenistic periods.783 Finally this Athena is an example of the reception in internal Etruria of Praxitelean schemata which is known especially thanks to the re-use of the style of the Cnidian Aphrodite in the Volterran urnae.784 The marble statuette found at Thebes (see note 776, no. 7) comes from the southern slopes of the Cadmeian rock of this polis785 and thus perhaps was a dedication in the sanctuary of Athena Onka which was located not far from the find spot of this miniature copy.786 This early Hellenistic reception of our type may be justified by the great importance of Athena in the founding myth of Thebes as well as in its religious life.787 Moreover Thebes had been receptive of styles conceived in the workshop of Praxiteles at least from the 360s, when Xenophon and Callistonicus made a statue of Tyche holding the child Wealth which was inspired by the Cephisodotan Eirene and was also set up on the Cadmeian rock (see Pausanias 9. 16. 2). Probably in the late 340s, Praxiteles delivered the pedimental sculptures of the temple of Heracles at Thebes, which was located in the south-eastern slopes of the Cadmeian rock788 Finally after the reconstruction of Thebes by Cassander, the altar of the sanctuary of Dionysus Cadmeius, which was also constituted on the Cadmeian rock, had been decorated with sculptures by the two sons of Praxiteles, Cephisodotus the Younger and Timarchus.789 The presence of the heritage of the great Attic masters of the classical period in the visual culture of early Hellenistic Thebes is known also from the archaeological point of view. A marble statuette of this period found on the Cadmeian rock is loosely inspired by Phidias’

150

Antonio Corso

Athena Parthenos790 and in fact may copy Alcamenes’ Athena dedicated at Thebes in the sanctuary of Heracles.791 The Meter of Agoracritus was also reproduced in a votive relief and with a miniature copy of the same age.792 Styles associated with Praxiteles are known also thanks to a funerary relief showing the deceased in a very sinuous configuration793 and to the adoption of the type of the Pouring Satyr for a serving boy in a funerary banquet relief of the 340s.794 It is possible that the three statuettes in Pentelic marble of the Agoracritan Meter, of the Athena inspired by the Parthenos and of the Vescovali Athena have been carved in the same Attic workshop, specialized in delivering miniature reproductions of well known Athenian types of goddesses to the Theban market. In the late Hellenistic period the systematic production of copies of the Vescovali type begins and will continue without interruption until the late Antonine period (see note 776, nos. 8-51). It is likely that around 70-60 BC Pasiteles included the original statue in his catalogue of nobilia opera in 5 books (see Varro in Pliny 36. 39-40) because the type enters the visual culture of Rome already in this period. In fact the first monumental and faithful copy of the type – the Altoviti Athena (see note 776, no. 8) – probably comes from Rome and thus reveals the early reception of this opus nobile in the Urbs: probably the statue had been carved in a Greek workshop in which the Parian marble was used. The Apollo Sauroctonus (see above, the work no. 36) as well as the Resting Satyr (see the work no. 29) and the Eros of Parium (see above the work no. 37) were also introduced in the artistic culture of Rome around the same time. This observation can be explained with the probability that all of these four

statues were recommended by Pasiteles in his 5 books about nobilia opera and that late republican patrons used the selection of masterpieces suggested by Pasiteles when they choose which types would adorn their architectures and settings. A statuette of the Vescovali type now in Rethymnon on Crete (see note 776, no. 9) is probably to be included in the series of miniature copies of famous creations produced in Aegean marble workshops especially in the early 1st c. BC and known particularly from the rich evidence of these statuettes found on Rhodes and Delus. The repertoire of these ateliers included the Cnidian Aphrodite (see the work no. 22), the Apollo Sauroctonus (work no. 36), the Eros of Parium (work no. 37), the Arles type of Aphrodite, Mantinean Muses and the Uffizi type of Kore.795 The spread of these statuettes to Crete is known for marble figurines of the Cnidian Aphrodite.796 Thus the re-use of the Vescovali type of Athena in the late Hellenistic production of marble statuettes should be understood in the context of the appeal of Praxitelean draped female figurines in this ‘Zeitgeist’. Of course the notorious importance of the cult of Athena on Crete797 may have contributed to the reception of the Vescovali type on this island. The type spreads also to the Roman province Africa where a marble statuette of Minerva from the capital of the province Utica (see note 776, no. 11) is inspired by the Vescovali type but conceived as a fully frontal figure. This image should be understood in the context both of the popularity of the so-called ‘Libyan Athena’ in northern Africa798 and of a local presence of the cult of Minerva.799 Finally it might suggest the existence of an artistic culture based on Greek opera nobilia at Utica which in late repub-

lican times knew the best period of its existence.800 However the import of marble figurines to Utica during the late republican times is not otherwise known and thus the local presence of this miniature copy of a famous classical masterpiece is still isolated in the visual culture of Utica of the times. In the Rome of Augustus, Minerva is very popular as goddess of learning, of self restraint as well as of opposition to the eastern and barbarian hybris:801 thus it is hardly surprising that in this period probably a neo-Attic workshop which carved Pentelic marble delivered the excellent Mattei copy of the Vescovali type (see note 776, no. 11) which probably comes from Rome. The Altoviti and Mattei copies are perhaps the best because they retain something of the freshness which characterized the late classical original statue. There are 5 copies of the Vescovali type which date in the Julio - Claudian period (see note 776, nos. 12-16). Moreover during these decades the Arretium Athena was re-displayed in a domus of this town (see note 776, no. 6). Three out of these 5 copies probably come from Rome (see note 776, nos. 13 and 15-16) although the precise provenance is not known in all these three cases. These copies reveal that the type had become a stable presence in the repertoire of classical creations to be reproduced with copies destined to the Roman market. The fact that the Borghese copy (note 776, no. 16) is Luna marble suggests that a local workshop began carving copies of the Vescovali type in this period. Outside of Rome, the bronze Athena of Arretium (note 776, no. 6) during the early Julio-Claudian age was re-displayed in a domus, perhaps in the baths of this house.802 The possible setting of the statue in baths would suggest that she was Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

151

regarded a healing and sanitizing goddess. In the same domus, there was also a sleeping Eros803 which perhaps adorned the hortus of the house and which also harks back to a Praxitelean creation. The presence in this estate of two sculptures inspired by late classical creations suggests that the owner of the house wanted to exhibit important opera nobilia which suggested both the utile (Minerva) and the dulx (Love), thus proving to be able to combine both these basic principles of a wise life.804 We have already seen that sculptural types sometimes were diffused along the via Appia:805 thus it is hardly surprising that a copy of our type has been found at Beneventum (see note 776, no. 12). The statue was found in the Domitianic Iseum of this city: since it dates in the Claudio / Neronian period, its original context is not known. The reception of the type at Beneventum may be due to the local importance of the cult of Minerva.806 Since Minerva was conceived at Beneventum as a medical goddess,807, the Vescovali iconography was probably thought to express her healing power. Finally a Julio – Claudian copy in Pentelic marble was found on Aegina (see note 776, no. 14) and is probably due to a neo - Attic workshop. The fact that copies of this type come from the Greek world before the neo – sophistic period and prior to the constitution of the Panhellenic League by Hadrian strengthens the suggestion that the original statue of the type was never moved to Rome. The reception of the type on Aegina may be explained with the noteworthy importance of the cult of Athena in the polis of Aegina,808 where this goddess was conceived as Athena Polias under the influence of Athens:809 thus it is hardly sur-

152

Antonio Corso

prising that a copy of a statue of Athena standing on the Acropolis of Athens was set up on this island which during the Julio – Claudian times proudly enjoyed freedom from any local power.810 There are 7 copies of the Vescovali type of Athena which are datable within the Flavian period (see note 776, nos. 1723): most or perhaps all of them come from Rome and the first region of Italy, Latium et Campania. A workshop in which the Parian marble of the highest quality – Lychnites – was carved delivered the copy of very high quality set up in the Imperial Palace on the Palatine (see note 776, no. 20). The love of the imperial patronage for late classical types – and specifically for Praxitelean ones – has been stressed above:811 the setting up of an Athena Vescovali in the palace of Domitian fits this taste rather well. Moreover the well known devotion of this emperor for Minerva812 may have contributed to this choice. The example at Villa Albani (see note 776, no. 17) and the Arundel copy (see note 776, no. 22) coming from Roman collections probably were found in Rome or near by. These copies and another example once at Sotheby’s (note 776, no. 23) are stylistically close to the torso from the Palatine and may have been carved in the same workshop. The bronze copy at Villa Kerylos (note 776, no. 18) reveals the continuity of the practice of bronze imitations of the Vescovali goddess which is known for an earlier period thanks to the Athena from Arretium. Finally two Flavian copies come from Campania and precisely from Herculaneum (see note 776, nos. 19 and 21). Although no information is available about the precise provenance of these two pieces, the most obvious probability

is that the head from Herculaneum (see note 776, no. 19) comes from a domus while the head from Torre del Greco (see note 776, no. 21), outside the centre of ancient Herculaneum, comes from a villa. Thus it is likely that the display of statues of this type in domestic contexts, which happened already during the Julio – Claudian times with the setting of the Arretium Athena in a house of this city, continued throughout the Flavian period. Since we are not aware of the contexts of these two examples, we cannot guess whether Minerva with these two sculptures was regarded the goddess of learning or of health or was attributed other functions. Finally at around 90 AD, the late Julio – Claudian copy from Beneventum (see note 776, no. 12) was set up in the just constituted local sanctuary of Isis.813 The above stressed peculiar function of Minerva at Beneventum, where she was regarded a healing goddess (Minerva medica), may explain the dedication of a statue of Minerva in the sanctuary of a goddess as Isis who promised salvation to her devotees. Moreover, the above mentioned favour enjoyed by Minerva under Domitian may have led to the decision to set up a statue of his divine protector in the new sanctuary. A torso of the Discophorus by Polycleitus also adorned this Iseum.814 The predilection of the Domitian’s patronage for the display of athletic statues decorating new architectures is argued especially from the sculptural display of the Albanum Domitiani.815 There are 7 copies which are datable to the Trajanic period (see note 776, nos. 24-30): two of them (note 776, nos. 24 and 29) come with great probability from Rome, other two may also come from the capital (note 776, nos. 25 and 28) while one copy comes from Tergeste, in the 10th .

region of Roman Italy Venetia et Histria (note 776, no. 26), another one was found at Lebadia, in Boeotia (note 776, no. 27) and finally one head was found at Cyrene (note 776, no. 30). One of the two Trajanic copies from Rome is Parian marble (note 776, no. 29), reveals a very high quality and bears a polishing of the surfaces which is close to that of the copy in the same marble from the imperial palace on the Palatine (note 776, no. 20): thus it is possible that the two copies have been made in the same workshop where Parian marble was carved and which delivered statues to demanding Roman customers. The other Trajanic copy from Rome is Luna marble (note 776, no. 24) and is probably due to a local workshop. The copy from Tergeste adorned the local theatre: Minerva appears here probably as the protector of scribae, histriones and other theatrical players. Since the sculptural display of the scaenae frons included statues of Asclepius and Hygieia, the Vescovali Minerva may have been conceived as a healing goddess. The presence of a copy of the Cnidian Aphrodite in the same stage’s front guarantees the local high appreciation of late classical and particularly Praxitelean styles.816 The importance of Minerva and the praise lavished on the art of Praxiteles reveal the continuity of these two aspects of the Domitianic visual culture during the first years of the Trajanic rule. The copy from Lebadia (note 776, no. 27) was found near the sanctuary of Trophonius and thus probably was set up there: this probability suggests that the Vescovali goddess was regarded a provider of health and salvation even in this Boeotian town. In the early 2nd c. AD, Lebadia was endowed with another opus nobile: a copy of Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

153

the Meter of Agoracritus.817 Both this creation of the beloved pupil of Phidias and our goddess offered appealing draped images of goddesses of the respected classical past and reveal a need for divine protection felt in the local society. At Lebadia, in the same sanctuary in which our copy probably was set up, Praxiteles’ statue of Trophonius could be admired: thus the local community began to appreciate styles conceived in Praxiteles’ workshop already long time earlier. A Trajanic head close to our type has been found at Cyrene in the agora (see note 776, no. 30). It is Pentelic and probably has been carved in a first rate neo – Attic workshop. Athena / Minerva was an important goddess at Cyrene818 and several statues of her have been found in this town.819 In particular the Capitolium of Cyrene was constituted in the upper terrace of the agora and of course was endowed with statues and cults of Zeus / Juppiter, Hera / Juno and Athena / Minerva.820 Moreover a statue of Athena Nike was set up on the top of the Naval Monument in the lower terrace of the agora.821 Thus our goddess was well established in the agora and the dedication of a copy of the Vescovali Athena in this square is hardly surprising. The veneration of this goddess as expression of the Roman imperium, in the Capitolium, as well as a bearer of victory, with the naval monument, may suggest that even this statue could have been attributed these messages. Since Minerva enjoyed a special favour under Domitian, it is possible that the setting up of the new statue was programmed under this emperor but that its actual carving and setting up slipped until the first years of the empire of Trajan. The magnet represented by the renowned statues of Athena on the Acropolis of Athens in the middle impe-

154

Antonio Corso

rial times is revealed by the Cyrenaean copies of the Athena Parthenos822 as well as by the local example of the Athena Medici which probably is the copyist production of Phidias’ Athena Promachos,823 thus the desire to set up also a statue inspired by our late classical Athena on the Acropolis makes sense. This copy foreshadows the wealth of statues echoing Praxitelean original statues which will adorn Cyrene during the Hadrianic and Antonine times.824 There are three copies which can be dated to the Hadrianic period (see note 776, nos. 31-33): all the three copies probably come from Rome or around and two of them (see note 776, nos. 32 with fig. 49, and 33) come from Hadrian’s Villa near Tibur and decorated the same architectural context: the three-lobed hall near the so-called Poecile. One of these two copies from the villa is Luna marble (see note 776, no. 32) and was carved in a local workshop while the other (note 776, no. 33) reveals a higher quality and perhaps was delivered by a neo – Attic workshop. The two Vescovali copies from Tibur confirm that whoever decided the sculptural display of Villa Hadriana had a very high consideration for sculptural types conceived in Praxiteles’ workshop: this conclusion is argued first of all from the copies of the Cnidian Aphrodite (work no. 22), of the Resting Satyr (work no. 29) and of the Apollo Sauroctonus (work no. 36) which adorned this estate. In the context of the three-lobed architectural complex, the two Vescovali copies may have decorated the rectangular columned pavilion containing a pool with fountain which lays between the east – west terrace of Hadrian’s villa – the so – called Poecile – and the threelobed hall.825 This pavilion was adorned with 12 statues, as it is argued from the find of

several bases: 4 statues were disposed along each long side while 2 statues were displayed along each short side. 3 of these 12 statues survive: the 2 copies of the Vescovali Athena and a copy of the so-called ‘Praxilla.’ 826 The latter copyist type represents a poetess or a musician who probably should be identified with the statue of Praxilla created by Lysippus. The association in the same environment of two statues of the Vescovali type of Athena with a statue of a poetess or musician suggests that in our type the circle of Hadrian recognized Athena / Minerva as protectress of the world of learned intellectuals.827 Probably the late classical original statue of the Vescovali type standing on the Acropolis of Athens was perceived as a symbol of Athens in the golden age of the philosophers. The probability that the Vescovali type of Athena and the Lysippan type of Praxilla were displayed in the same pavilion suggests that whoever decided its sculptural display in the late Hadrianic period had a preference for late classical styles. The function of the two Vescovali copies and of the Praxilla from Tibur which can be argued from their setting is that of enhancing the intellectual dignity of the owner of the villa – Hadrian – as well as of his social circle. During the Antonine period, the Vescovali Athena became very trendy: no fewer than 20 copies (see note 776, nos. 34-53) are datable to these years. Probably 12 out of the 20 Antonine copies come from Rome or the first region of Italy – Latium et Campania – (see note 776, nos. 34-37; 39-40; 42-45; 48 and 50): this fact reveals that the interest to have copies of this type is basically a Roman phenomenon. A first rate workshop which carved Parian marble of the best quality – Lychnites – delivered the Vescovali copy found

at Rome on Mt. Palatine (see note 776, no. 39 and fig. 50) which probably adorned the imperial palace. This architectural complex had been already endowed with a copy of the Vescovali Athena (see note 776, no. 20): the setting of a new Vescovali copy may be justified with the practice of the duplicatio, i. e. of displaying copies of the same type in the same environment. This principle was adopted in the same years also in villa Hadriana with the display of two copies of our Minerva in the same pavilion. The Antonine copy of the Vescovali goddess from the Palatine should be included in the series of statues inspired by late classical creations which were set up in the palace during the middle imperial times.828 Another copy may have adorned at Rome a school of liberal arts constituted at NW of the Roman Forum829 and not far from the Lacus Juturnae and from the find spot of the statue (see note 776, no. 43). Athena may have been a symbol of learning and of the school itself. Thus it is clear that the Vescovali type was perceived in the Antonine period as an emblem of culture, perhaps because this goddess, whose original statue stood on the Acropolis of Athens, was associated with the city of the Academy and of the Lycaeum, i. e. of schools of high learning. Another copy (note 776, no. 37) has been found also at Rome in the south – western section of the campus Martius and perhaps was pertinent to the sculptural display of the not distant temple of Mars in circo Flaminio.830 This aedes was endowed with statues of Ares and Aphrodite carved by the famous late classical sculptor Scopas.831 The style of our type of Minerva may have been regarded homogeneous with those of the two original statues of ScoNineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

155

pas admired in that temple. Moreover our copy of a late classical statue of the goddess of learning set up on the Acropolis of Athens may have evoked the idealized late classical times and the emblematic figures of Plato, Aristotle, Menander, etc. If this Minerva stood in this sanctuary of Mars probably she was interpreted as the goddess who grants military victory. Finally the dedication of an Athena in a sanctuary of the god of war may be due to the decision to transfer to Rome the cult of the Athenian pair of gods Ares and Athena Areia which stood in the temple of Ares in the agora of Athens,832 in the context of the idealization of Athens which is typical of the neo - sophistic times. This copy made in Luna marble was carved by a local workshop. In the same time there was also a neo – Attic workshop in which the Pentelic marble was carved and which delivered copies of the Vescovali Athena to Roman patrons (see note 776, nos. 35 and 40). In Campania, a copy of the Vescovali type has been found at Baiae (see note 776, no. 34) and probably decorated the local Imperial Nymphaeum: the series of statues adorning its Severan phase included copies from both early classical and late classical creations.833 Our type of Athena may have suggested military strength, learned wisdom or health and salvation, since in the same architectural complex there were also sculptures of Asclepios, Hygieia, Dionysos, Tyche, Love and Psyche. Another Antonine copy of the Vescovali goddess comes from Capua (see note 776, no. 42) along the via Appia which, as it has been stressed above, favoured the spread of copyist types.834 The reception of opera nobilia at Capua is known especially for the Hadrianic period thanks to the statues which decorated the summa cavea of the large amphitheatre of this

156

Antonio Corso

town. These statues are: the Venus of Capua, which perhaps copied a statue of Aphrodite set up on the Acro-Corinth, the so-called ‘Psyche’ which in fact was another Aphrodite probably looking at her mirror, probably a variation of Euphranor’s Paris and finally the so-called ‘Adonis’ of Capua, loosely inspired for the schema of the figure by the Resting Satyr and for the rendering of the anatomy by representations of Antinous.835 Moreover marble statuettes of Erotes decorated the frons scaenae of the local theatre in its Hadrianic phase.836 This sculptural imagery is focused on the world of love seen through the exempla of well established late classical statuary types: the prevalence of Venus is in keeping both with the importance of this goddess in the cult life of Capua837 as well as with the well known protection guaranteed by her in the Roman world on areas and buildings devoted to spectacula, such as theatres and amphitheatres. Our Minerva may have been also set up in the summa cavea of the large amphitheatre of Capua together with statues of Paris and Venus in the context of the effort to represent the divine figures of the judgment of Paris. This suggestion, which is based on the homogeneity of size and style of this copy with the other surviving statues set up on the top of this building, is also plausible in the context of the neo - sophistic gallant re-interpretation of the ancient mythology regarded a world of pleasure. The presence of the Vescovali type in buildings devoted to performances is confirmed by the find of a Vescovali goddess in the theatre of Firmum (see note 776, no. 49). Perhaps the function of the Vescovali Athena in the theatre of Firmum was the same that she enjoyed in the theatre of Tergeste: that of protectress of theatrical players.

Unfortunately the sculptural display of the theatre of this town in the Picenum is too poorly known to allow any consideration about the context of the statue. Outside of Italy, 7 Antonine copies of the Vescovali type have been found in the Greek world (see note 776, nos. 38; 41; 46-47 and 51-53): one copy comes from Apollonia of Illyria (note 776, no. 41), another example comes from Nicopolis of Epirus (note 776, no. 38), another statue has been found at Perge in Pamphylia (note 776, no. 47), two copies have been found at Cyrene (note 776, nos. 46 and 51) and two variations come from Athens (see note 776, nos. 52-53). These eastern copies guarantee that the Vescovali Athena was felt an important schema of the Greek classical visual heritage during the years of the peak of the neosophistic culture. The copy from Apollonia of Illyria stood between two columns of one of the two peristyles of the largest Roman house discovered in this town which from the find of our Athena takes the name of ‘house of Athena’.838 This setting of the statue is not very different from that of the two copies of the Vescovali Athena discovered in villa Hadriana: clearly throughout the Hadrianic and Antonine periods the Vescovali goddess was regarded appropriate for the decoration of rectangular courtyards with central pools of luxurious estates. Other statues adorned the other intercolumns of this peristyle: a copy of Apollo Lycius has been found839 as well as a statue of togatus who perhaps was the owner of the domus.840 The taste of the owner may have been educated to the formal values of late classical Athenian masters. Moreover Athena may have expressed the learned status of the dominus while Apollo Lycius may have promised sanitization and have meant the strength of the owner.

A few decades later, toward the end of the 2nd c. AD, the fountain at the centre of the second peristyle of the ‘house of Athena’ became also decorated with statues: a putto (Eros?), a copy of the Andrus type of Hermes and a hero seating on a rock.841 The presence of a copy of the Andrus type of Hermes confirms the admiration of the landowner for Athenian styles of the age of Plato, Aristotle and Menander. Moreover perhaps this second peristyle was the courtyard of the domus opened to the world outside the family: the link with the external world may have been expressed by the presence of Eros with a reference to love and of Hermes concerning the area of business. Outside of this house, during the middle imperial period opera nobilia adorned also the stage’s front of the theatre of Apollonia: two headless statues of the type of the Large Herculaneum Lady retrieved in the area of the stage842 probably supported portrait heads of local high ranking ladies. Finally the presence of statues inspired by the art of Praxiteles at Apollonia of Illyria during the Hadrianic and Antonine times is revealed by the find in town of two copies of the Resting Satyr.843 The copy from Nicopolis in Epirus, having been found behind the cavea of the local Odeum, probably stood in the summa cavea of this building844 and thus pertains to the series of copies of the Vescovali type which adorned theatrical buildings (see note 776, nos. 26, 41 and 49): as stressed above, in these institutions Minerva was regarded the protectress of theatrical players. Two statues of Muses may also come from the same Odeum845 in which literary and musical performances were held:846 if our Athena was associated with Muses, she may also have been regarded the Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

157

divine patron of the musical and literary events which took place there. Nicopolis was the seat of the procurator of the province Epirus, was visited by Hadrian and acquired renown in the field of high studies when the philosopher Epictetus resided in this town.847 The mirage represented by monuments of the Athenian Acropolis is apparent also in the so-called ‘Caryatid’ of Nicopolis,848 dated to the times of Hadrian and inspired by the Korai of the Erechtheum. Thus even our Vescovali Athena may reveal the same determination to have in town copies of masterpieces admired on the prestigious rock of Athens. The head from Perge should be included in the rich series of marble copies of opera nobilia carved in Pamphylian workshops during the Hadrianic and Antonine times,849 many of which adorned the public buildings of Perge erected during these decades.850 The magnet represented by the monuments of the Acropolis of Athens has an impact even on this production, as it is possible to argue from the two statues of Athena inspired by Phidias’ Athena Parthenos and retrieved in the southern baths of Perge:851 thus the decision to have an example of the Vescovali type of Athena could be due to the desire to have an imitation of the original statue of this series, standing on the citadel of Athens. Moreover the wealth of copies found at Perge reveals a predilection for late classical and early Hellenistic styles.852 Thus the presence at Perge of a copy of our Athena may be partly explained also with this taste. Finally it must be specified that at Perge Athena was worshiped as Areia,853 i. e. as a war goddess: perhaps the local copy of the Vescovali Athena at Perge was also attributed this specialization. Finally two Antonine sculptures derived from the Vescovali type have been

158

Antonio Corso

found at Cyrene: both are Pentelic and probably have been carved in the same neo – Attic workshop. One comes from the sanctuary of Apollo (see note 776, no. 46) while one head was found in the frigidarium of the large Baths of Cyrene (see note 776, no. 51): both these examples follow the Arretium sub-type. Perhaps the style of the Arretium sub-type had been regarded more appropriate to isolated statues. Moreover the Arretium interpretation of the goddess may have been considered more in keeping with the predilection for fully frontal figures which characterizes the visual taste in the age of the Antonine ‘Stilwandel’.854 The torso found in the main sanctuary of Apollo of Cyrene comes from a sacred land which saw the remarkable presence of Athena as it is known from inscriptions855 as well as statues856. The presence of our goddess in a territory sacred first of all to Apollo might suggest that she was regarded there the patroness of the arts. The head from the frigidarium of the Great Baths of Cyrene decorated an environment which was endowed also with copies of the Woburn Abbey type of Dionysus, 857 of the Capitoline Aphrodite,858 of the Lysippan Eros859, of the naked type of Graces,860 of the Hecataeum of Alcamenes861 and finally of Polycleitus’ Discophorus.862 The Dionysus Woburn Abbey, the Capitoline Aphrodite and our Athena reveal the strong impact of the admiration for Praxitelean styles which is argued from the sculptural display of these baths. The authority of high classical masters such as Polycleitus and Alcamenes is also evident. The statuary display gave emphasis – as usual in large imperial baths – on the deities personifying the enjoyment of life, such as Dionysus, Aphrodite and Eros. Ath-

letic statues probably expressed the concern for health and for the well being of the body and thus are not uncommon in baths. Hecate may have been represented as goddess of the well being. Athena may have suggested learned wisdom which is associated to places devoted to the otium, or health or both concepts. The variation in note 776, no. 52 comes from Athens and was found in the south – eastern slopes of the Acropolis: perhaps it fell down from the upper terrace of the Acropolis and was originally pertinent to the Antonine display of copies from opera nobilia constituted on the Acropolis which has been illustrated in the section devoted to the Apollo Sauroctonus. Alternatively this Athena may have been set up in the quarter of Athens devoted to philosophical schools at south east of the Acropolis and represented the goddess as the protectress of learning and wisdom. The clay copy of the Arretium variation in note 776, no. 53, also comes from the southern slopes of the Acropolis and reveals the appeal also of the frontal interpretation of the type in the same cultural environment of the copy at note 776, no. 52. The practice of copying the Vescovali type dies out in the late Antonine age: that is hardly surprising because in this period copying goes out of fashion. The probable adoption of this type in the triad of Hera, Athena and Hebe at Mantinea might suggest that Athena was asked protection, perhaps both in health and in war. The possible local imitation of a statue set up on the Acropolis of Athens reminds us that we are at the dawn of a classicistic aura, which regards the masterpieces admired on the upper terrace of the Acropolis exemplar. Hera and Hebe may have suggested a divine paradigm for mother and daugh-

ter. The triad of these three goddesses probably was worshiped especially by women. I am unable to recognize derivations from Praxiteles’ Hera and Hebe. It is likely that this triad has never been copied, both because it stood in a peripheral town and because the Mantinean statues of Hera and Hebe must have been overshadowed respectively by Polycleitus’ enthroned Hera and by Naucydes’ Hebe: after all these chryselephantine statues were set up in the renowned Heraeum of Argus! The wealthy copyist series of the Vescovali type of Athena does not contradict this conclusion because it must derive from the corresponding original statue on the Acropolis of Athens.

51. The marble statue of Dionysus in the sanctuary of this god at Elis Praxiteles’ statue of Dionysus at Elis had been seen by Pausanias 6. 26. 1-2: ‘Between the square (agora) and the Menius is an old theatre and a sanctuary (hieron) of Dionysus: the statue (to agalma) is art (techne) of Praxiteles. No god is more revered by the Eleans than Dionysus, and they say that he attends their festival of the Thyia. The place where they hold the festival called Thyia is about eight stades from the city. Three empty pots (lebetes) are taken into a building and deposited there by the priests in the presence of the citizens and of any strangers who may happen to be staying in the country. On the doors of the building the priests and who chose to do so, put their seals. Next day they are free to examine the seals, and on entering the building they find the pots (lebetes) full of wine’ (transl. Frazer with amendments). Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

159

From this passage of Pausanias it is possible to argue that Praxiteles’ statue of Dionysus stood in the sanctuary of this god attached to the theatre. Probably it was a marble statue because Pausanias often does not specify the material when it is marble.863 Moreover it is likely that this Dionysus was the cult statue of the sanctuary because he defines the image to agalma, i. e. the statue par excellence in that sanctuary. Finally it is clear from the testimony of our periegetes that the cult of Dionysus was extremely important at Elis. This fact explains why the Eleans commissioned such an important statue from one of the most renowned marble sculptors of the time: Praxiteles. The circumstance that our sculptor already made statues of Dionysus (see his works nos. 11 and 15), as well as of other figures of the Dionysiac retinue (see his works nos. 1; 7-10; 18 and 29) and sculptural creations occasioned by the theatrical life (see his works nos. 16; 19-20; 29-30 and 32) must have suggested to the Eleans that they did the right choice. The testimony of Pausanias is integrated by three passages of Plutarch. This scholar in Mulierum virtutes 15. 250 f – 253 f confirms the great importance of the cult of Dionysus at Elis. A second passage – in Quaestiones Graecae 36. 299 a – b – is crucial toward understanding both the nature of the Elean cult of Dionysus as well as the iconography which was locally attributed to this god: ‘Why is it that the women of the Eleans, when they sing hymns to Dionysus, call upon him to come to them ‘with the foot of a bull’? The hymn runs as follows: ‘Come, o hero Dionysus, / to thy Elean holy / temple (naos), with the Graces, / to thy temple (naos) / with the bull’s foot hasting’. Then they chant twice the refrain: ‘O worthy bull’ ‘(transl. Loeb with amendments).

160

Antonio Corso

From this hymn it is possible to argue: a. that the Elean sanctuary of Dionysus had a temple (naos). Thus Praxiteles’ statue likely stood inside this temple; and b. that Dionysus was conceived as a bull and in particular was endowed bull’s feet. Of course the conception of Dionysus as bull god must have been meant to stress the natural strength and vitality of this god who cannot be resisted.864 Another passage of Plutarch – De Iside et Osiride 35. 364 f – is also important: ‘Many of the Greeks make statues (agalmata) of Dionysus in the form of a bull (tauromorpha); and the women of Elis invoke him, praying that the god may come with the hoof of a bull’(transl. Loeb). This testimony guarantees that the bull’s form attributed to Dionysus was shown in his statues and that this fact took place also at Elis. The importance of the Elean festivals of Dionysus and the wine miracle described by Pausanias are recorded in a pamphlet attributed to Aristotle (De mirabilibus auscultationibus 3) and by Theopompus (FGrHist 115 F 277, in Athenaeus 1. 34 a): the latter’s testimony implies that the sanctuary of Dionysus was important already during the late classical times as well as that the mentioned miracle was performed already in that period.865 The historical context in which the commission of this statue of Dionysus from Praxiteles took place may be suggested. Probably in the 340s, the Elean pupil of Plato Phormio made a new constitution of Elis.866 Since the first layout of the theatre of Elis dates in the same period,867 probably Phormio promoted a monumental policy which included the

theatre. Thus it becomes rather logical to suppose that he promoted also the statue of Dionysus for the temple of this god attached to the theatre and that he commissioned this agalma from a sculptor, as Praxiteles was, close to the Platonic environment and whose oeuvre probably Phormio had the occasion to admire at Athens when he had been a pupil of Plato’s Academy. In any case the Eleans were familiar with masterpieces of the greatest sculptors because they had a chryselephantine statue of Athena Ergane by Phidias868 as well as a bronze statue of Aphrodite Pandemos by Scopas, to be dated around 370 BC,869 not to mention the many important statues set up at Olympia. Praxiteles’ activity for Elis may be seen also in the context of the competition between Scopas and Praxiteles for important commissions of statues in several regions of the Greek world. Around 345 BC, Elis was in peace both internally as well as with its neighbours and thus may have had also the economic capability to afford an ambitious monumental policy. The effort to understand how Praxiteles’ Elean Dionysus looked like begins with the consideration of a coin type struck by Elis during the empire of Hadrian (fig. 51).870 In the same years the Eleans represented on their coins also the statue of Aphrodite Pandemos by Scopas,871 thus it makes sense that Praxiteles’ Dionysus was also advertized on Elean coins of this period. The god was represented standing with a frontal configuration. His right arm was lifted and the corresponding hand held a rhyton. The god is pouring wine from this vase to a kylix held by him with his left hand. The left arm is lowered with the corresponding forearm forwarded. His head appears, at least in the specimen of

this coin type kept in the Numismatic Museum of Athens,872 in a three quarter position toward the god’s right. On the same coin it is possible to detect the two horns of the bull god. A mantel was fastened at the neck of the god, fell down behind his body and wrapped the lower part of his legs and his feet. The legs were crossed or the feet were put one behind the other. A vertical support covered by the drapery was below the left forearm. The thyrsus stood behind the left shoulder while at the feet of the god there were at his left a tympanum and at his right a panther. The above reported passages by Plutarch and especially the hymn of the Elean women suggest that the god was supposed to have bull feet which in any case were hidden by the drapery. With this statue Dionysus appears to his devotees just after the miracle of the lebetes filled of wine took place. After having taken wine from a lebes with a rhyton, he is now about to pour this wine to the cup, then beginning the festival of the Thyia. The tympanum also refers to this festivity and to its musical component. From a formal point of view, the pouring configuration of the god is a citation of the pouring Satyr, the position of the left arm resting on a vertical support covered by the drapery recalls the analogous pattern in Cephisodotus the Elder’s Hermes carrying the baby Dionysus and of course foreshadows the similar feature in the Hermes of Olympia. The legs either crossed or with the feet one behind the other pursue a research to underline with this solution the temporary suspension of the action which had been already attempted with the Resting Satyr and with the Apollo Sauroctonus. The mantel fastened at the neck and falling down behind and again covering

Fig. 51. AE of Elis struck during the empire of Hadrian, reverse, at Athens, National Numismatic Museum, drawing by Weil.

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

161

Fig. 52. Marble head at Rome, Vaticam Museums, no. 2941, Galleria delle Carte Geografiche, no. 65.

162

Antonio Corso

the lower parts of the legs also reveals the deepening of the master’s study to use the drapery as backdrop of the represented figure: even this study is revealed by the previously considered draped creations attributed to Praxiteles. Finally the presence at the sides of the god of the tympanum and of the panther shows the attempt of the master to enlarge the episode represented in order to express the environment around the god. This creation must have been highly evocative. Here Dionysus is the god who

through his miracle gives to the Eleans the gift of joy and abandonment represented by the wine as well as by the tympanum which refers to the sacred dances accompanying the Thyia festivals. The head of the Elean god is probably known through Roman copies (fig. 52).873 This type of head, currently denominated ‘Dionysos Tauros’, is characterized by an oval face which responds well to the usual Praxitelean anatomical grammar (triangular forehead with upper border curved, narrow and elongated eyes, strong nose, short mouth and slightly protruding chin). The god looks very young, in his late teens. The hair is curling and clustered and held by a twisted taenia, which is knotted at the nape. The general concept of the head is very close to that of the Resting Satyr. Two horns appear above the head. The twisted configuration of the band, the wild look of the hair and the sensual smile of the face convey to the viewer the sensation to have in front a god who appears gentle and beautiful but hides an animal soul. This combination of gentle look and animal sensuality makes this head a true masterpiece: it is logical to assume that the same master of the Resting Satyr conceived it, perhaps a few years after the Satyr. The conception of Dionysus with two horns is probably indebted to the definition of Dionysus by Euripides who defined him ‘the god with the horns of a bull’ (Bakchae 100, transl. Loeb: taurokeros theos) and ‘crowned with garlands of serpents’ (Bakchae 101-102, transl. Loeb: stephanosen … drakonton stephanois). The twisted taenia perhaps represents the snake-like wreath of the god. Praxiteles’ inspiration for his own imagery of Dionysus to the popular tragedy ‘Bakchae’ by Euripides was asserted by

Callistratus 8. 3,874 thus it is hardly surprising. Moreover since the Elean Dionysus was made for a sanctuary attached to a theatre, the influence of the description of Dionysus by Euripides on the conception of the god accepted in this sanctuary cannot be excluded. Equally the above quoted passage in the hymn of the Elean women in which Dionysus is associated with the Charites suggests that in the type of Dionysus Taurus the gentle smile of this god, the attractive beauty of his face and his young look express his tie with the Graces. Copies derived from this masterpiece have been carved from the age of Augustus until the late Antonine period. The period of Augustus shows a revival of the conception of Dionysus with bull horns.875 In particular Ovid, Metamorphoses 4. 18-20 may have had in his mind our type of Dionysus when he writes ‘for thine (scil.: Dionysus) is unending youth, eternal boyhood, thou art the most lovely in the lofty sky; thy face is virgin – seeming, if without horns’ (transl. Loeb). Probably the interpretation of Liber Pater as bull was regarded appropriate to the expression of the freeing energy of this god.876 Moreover in the classicistic milieu of the Augustan elite the presentation of the god with bull’s horns by Euripides and Praxiteles must have been regarded paradigmatic, which is why this iconography became diffused also in the Roman world, both in poetry as well as in the visual arts. The fact that Praxiteles’ Dionysus with bull’s elements stood in the small and peripheral town of Elis does not constitute an argument against the possibility that copies were taken from the statue. At least from the late Hellenistic times copies were taken from monuments of

Olympia,877 which was in the territory of Elis. Thus statues kept at Elis could have been copied as well! The production of copies of the type of head named ‘Dionysos Tauros’ begins in the early Augustan age: the first surviving copy of the type probably comes from Rome or around and is due to a local workshop carving Luna marble (see note 873, no. 1). However in the Julio Claudian times probably an Aegean workshop in which the Parian marble was carved delivered a copy of the Dionysos Tauros to Capua, not surprisingly along the via Appia (see note 873, no. 2). A variation of the Cnidian Aphrodite has been found at Capua and dates in the late Hellenistic times,878 equally a copy of the Apollo Sauroctonus existed in the territory of this town already in the Augustan period,879 while a copy of the Myronian Zeus was set up there in the Julio – Claudian period.880 Thus echoes of Attic and specifically Praxitelean creations were increasingly felt to contribute to the venustas of the Campanian town. There are two examples of the Dionysus Taurus which are dated in the Flavian period (see note 873, nos. 3 and 4): one head comes from the first region of Italy – Latium et Campania (see note 873, no. 4) – while a copy comes from the Gallia Narbonensis (see note 873, no. 3). The former of these two heads was also found along the via Appia and precisely at Minturnae: probably it was reused in the Antonine sculptural display of the scaenae frons of the local theatre. Its original context is not known. The presence of copies from opera nobilia is known at Minturnae already for the late republican times, when Muses close to the types of Philiscus881 and statues perhaps of Juno882 and Proserpina883 Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

163

of which only the heads survive and are inspired respectively by the early classical style and by the neo-Attic one - probably adorned the late republican stage. The late Hellenistic Athenian marble sculptors Callimachus and Gorgias, who signed a colossal statue close to the Lysippan Hermes set up in a temple of Minturnae,884 may have introduced in this town the habit to adorn the most important buildings with copies from renowned masterpieces. In the early Imperial times, the Praxitelean repertoire is evidenced in town for the first time as it is revealed by a copy of the Cephisodotan type of Hermes carrying the baby Dionysus885 as well as by our Dionysus Taurus. A half draped Aphrodite inspired by late classical styles,886 a variation of the Capitoline type of Aphrodite,887 a Dionysus derived from the Attic late classical types with thyrsus and cantharus,888 and copies of the flute – playing type of Satyr and of the Hope type of Hygieia889 complete the list of surviving early imperial statues from Minturnae which echo opera nobilia. Some of these examples reveal a strong interest for the imagery of Dionysus and of his retinue, probably to be connected with the local theatrical life. In particular, the setting up of Dionysus Taurus in the theatre may be due to the impact of the previously mentioned definition of Dionysus with bull’s horns by such a popular author as Euripides in the social environment of this institution. The copy from Gallia Narbonensis was found inside the centuriation of Narbo and thus probably pertained to the sculptural display of a villa. Probably the head was part of a statue: its quality is very high and it should be attributed to an Attic workshop. The probability that Dionysus was set up in a villa suggests that in the Roman world the Dionysus

164

Antonio Corso

Taurus was re-interpreted as a decorative iconography and no longer as a cultic one: probably the god was meant to invite the owners of the villa to enjoy wine and frenzy in the context of a concept of life devoted to the otium. The find at Narbo of a bronze statuette representing Venus according to the Capitoline type890 confirms the reception of Praxitelean styles in the capital of the Gallia Narbonensis. Finally the visual presence in town also of figures of the retinue of Bakchus891 confirms the interest of the local elite to celebrate the pleasures of their lives through the mirror of the Dionysical imagery. During the Hadrianic – Antonine period, the production of copies of the head of Dionysus Taurus continues thanks to the carving of herms delivered to the Roman market (see note 873, nos. 5-9 and fig. 52). The reproduction of a Praxitelean type of Dionysus during the Hadrianic period is hardly surprising. The same villa Hadriana was endowed with copies of the most renowned Praxitelean types, such as the Cnidian Aphrodite,892 the Resting Satyr,893 the Apollo Sauroctonus894 and the Athena Vescovali.895 Moreover the devotion of Hadrian to Bakchus is well known.896 In the Antonine period, probably the statue of Dionysus from Minturnae which survives only in the head (see note 873, no. 4) became part of the new sculptural display of the theatre’s stage of this town. The surviving Antonine statues set up on the stage included a Mercurius Bakchophorus,897 a Diana of the Versailles type,898 a Dionysus inspired by late classical Attic types with sinuous body, thyrsus in his left hand and cantharus in the right one,899 a Venus marina900 and a Tyche901 inspired by middle classical types. The late

republican Muses were also re-displayed in the Antonine stage. The visual culture of Antonine Minturnae was also endowed with copies of the Capitoline type of Aphrodite,902 of the Woburn Abbey type of Dionysus,903 of the Agoracritan type of Meter,904 of the late 5th c. BC Aphrodite so-called ‘Hera Borghese’, probably once supporting a portrait head,905 of an Apollo citharoedus,906 of a sleeping Eros907 as well as with other representations of Dionysus908 and of Satyrs:909 this imagery composed the usual Antonine gallant evocation of ancient myths, with a particular accent on gods and beings personifying the satisfaction of pleasures and instincts and an acceptation of the representations of these subjects according to late classical styles. In this context, the Euripidean Dionysus Taurus with two bull horns conceived as a gentle yet sensual image by Praxiteles may have retained his appeal. As usual, the copyist production of the Dionysus Taurus dies out sometime in the late Antonine period. Among the copies which can be dated only generically to the period of the copyist production, the copy from Athens (see note 873, no. 13) may suggest that the Dionysus Taurus became one of the classical types highly regarded in the ‘Zeitgeist’ of the Panhellenic League, probably because his noble pedigree was guaranteed by two classical authorities: Euripides and Praxiteles. During the Roman period, the type is also found at Tarentum (see note 873, no. 11), where copies of Praxitelean Dionysi were set up,910 as well as at Syracuse (see note 873, no. 10), where a statue inspired by the Resting Satyr911 and a copy of the Apollo Sauroctonus912 had also been erected. Praxiteles’ Dionysus set up at Elis must have been an outstanding creation be-

cause it displayed in front of the viewer the culminating moment of the local sacred story of this god, just after he accomplished the ‘miracle of the wine’, donating thus this precious liquid to the Eleans for their own enjoyment. The bull horns of Dionysus and his smiling expression must have been effective in conveying to the viewers the sense of his vital power. The enlargement of the sculptural creation to the sides must have suggested a sense of magnificence. The Eleans must have felt proud of this statue because in the following years probably they commissioned from Praxiteles another statue.

52. The

marble group of Hermes carrying the baby Dionysus in the temple of Hera at Olympia

This group had also been seen by Pausanias 5. 17. 3. This periegetas listed the statues inside the temple of Hera at Olympia beginning with the two cult statues of enthroned Hera and standing Zeus (5. 17. 1). Then moving from the cult statues toward the entrance of the temple he mentions the statues set up in the northern and southern intercolumns of the temple. Probably in the intercolumns which were closer to the cult statues he noticed the statues of enthroned Horai placed near the two cult statues and made by the Aeginetan Smilis. Next to them he saw a statue of Themis – the mother of the Horai -, made by the Spartan Dorycleidas, a pupil of the Gortynians Dipoenus and Scyllis. Then he sees (5. 17. 2) the Hesperids by the Spartan Theocles, also a pupil of Dipoenus and Scyllis: originally they were part of the group of Heracles and Atlant erected in the treasure of the Epidamnians (Pausanias 6. 19. 8) but at a later Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

165

moment only the Hesperids were moved into the Heraeum. After these statues he mentions an Athena by the Spartan Medon, brother of Dorycleidas and also pupil of Dipoenus and Scyllis: the statue of this goddess originally was part of the group of Heracles and Achelous set up in the treasure of the Megarians (Pausanias 6. 19. 12) but at a later moment she was also moved inside the Heraeum. Concerning when the statues of the Hesperids and of Athena were moved from their treasures to the Heraeum, it is necessary to notice that the statues which were closer to the two cult images were still high archaic, having been made by Smilis and Dorycleidas, while the statues which were closer to the entrance were made, as we shall see, by late classical masters: Cleon and Praxiteles. This means that new dedications were set up in the intercolumns which were closer to the cult statues but were still free. The consequence is that the stratigraphy of the statues dedicated in the Heraeum is in the same time both topographical and chronological. Thus since the moved statues stood between the high archaic images and the late classical ones, the moment when they were transferred from their treasures to the Heraeum must be placed between the flourishing of Smilis and Dorycleidas and that of Cleon and Praxiteles. The occasion which may have led to the change of place of these offerings may have been that when the Arcadians occupied Olympia in 365-363 BC, looting the treasures.913 Thus it is likely that the statues from these treasures with female subjects – thus thought to be pertinent to the kosmos of Hera – and regarded of the highest formal value, had been saved inside the temple by the Eleans prior to the invasion

166

Antonio Corso

of the sanctuary by the Arcadians: the Arcadians, although unscrupolous in stealing precious objects from the treasures, would have been more careful in looting a respected temple as that of Hera. After these statues, Pausanias lists chryselephantine statues of Kore, Demeter, of the Apollinean triad, of Tyche, Dionysus and Nike (5. 17. 3) of unknown masters but very ancient. Then he specifies that ‘afterwards they dedicated other statues in the Heraeum: a marble Hermes bearing the baby Dionysus, art of Praxiteles, and a bronze Aphrodite by Cleon the Sicyonian’ (transl. Frazer with amendments). The passage of Pausanias clarifies that both Cleon’s Aphrodite and Praxiteles’ Hermes were dedications in the Heraeum (anethesan es to Heraion), made long time after the setting of the archaic statues. If the Aphrodite and the Hermes are listed one after the other, probably they stood in opposed intercolumns and were erected in the same period .914 Cleon’s Aphrodite was made in bronze by a master of the Polycleitan school who was active in the same time of flourishing of Praxiteles.915 His Aphrodite may have been a dedication of the Eleans because this goddess was very honoured at Elis.916 Regarding the Hermes carrying the baby Dionysus, it must be stressed that the iconography was traditional of Sparta because it appeared already in the throne of Amyclae917 and again in the agora of Sparta.918 The latter group probably coincides with that made by Cephisodotus the Elder, the father of Praxiteles.919 Thus the mythological theme was both dear to the oligarchic world of the Peloponnesian society as well as in the repertoire of the workshop of Praxiteles. Cephisodotus’ Hermes carrying the baby Dionysus is recognized in the Ma-

drid / Palatine / Agora type.920 The Cephisodotan interpretation of this episode inspired the representation of Hermes carrying the baby Arcas by the Arcadian polis of Pheneus, around the middle of the 4th c. BC.921 Thus Cephisodotus’ group became popular in Arcadia. This dedication agrees with the circumstance that Hermes enjoyed a privileged position in the Arcadian pantheon.922 On the contrary, as I have shown above, Dionysus was very much honoured at Elis. Already in 363 BC, the Eleans dedicated a statue of Zeus in the Altis in order to celebrate the peace with the Arcadians reached in that year and the restitution of Olympia to Elis.923 Twenty years later, in 343 BC, the Elean oligarchs took the power in town with the help of the Arcadians.924 In that occasion the Eleans may have dedicated the group of Hermes carrying the baby Dionysus in the temple of Hera at Olympia: Dionysus personifying Elis was brought to salvation by Hermes personifying Arcadia. This dedication would fit well the growing taste for the allegory which is typical of the advanced 4th c. BC.925 The chosen mythical theme, which was traditional of the Spartan visual culture, would have resulted appealing to the Elean oligarchs. Praxiteles may have been charged with this group both because already his father represented in sculpture the same episode and since the Eleans were happy and proud of the marble Dionysus made for them by this sculptor. Since Hermes carrying the baby Dionysus brought him to salvation from the jealousy of Hera,926 the display of this group in the temple of Hera was appropriate: in fact the revengeful attitude of this goddess was instrumental toward the agency of this sacred story. Most of the group seen by Pausanias was found in the excavations of the Her-

aeum of Olympia (fig. 53): it had been carved from the Parian marble of the best quality (Lychnites).927 Hermes is given a young athletic body which is curved toward the god’s left. His head responds well to usual Praxitelean anatomic grammar: oval face, narrow and elongated eyes and eyessockets, long and strong nose, short and sinuous mouth, slightly protruding chin.

Fig. 53. Hermes carrying the baby Dionysus, Olympia, National Archaeological Museum.

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

167

The god’s hair is made of short locks. His left arm is lowered and his forearm rests on a tree-trunk above which the god has thrown his chlamis. With his left hand which once probably held the caduceus, the adult god carries the baby Dionysus. The body of the child is bent toward the attribute that Hermes held in his right hand: the painted copy of this creation from Pompeii, which will be considered below, clarifies that Hermes held a bunch of grapes in his right hand. The child god outstretched his hands toward this attribute, thus revealing his own nature. The two gods are imagined to have stopped during their journey in a forest, which is ‘cited’ by the three trunk. Since the authoritative version of this sacred story given by Homer, Iliad 6. 132-133 and Hymni 1. 9-10 asserts that Hermes carried Dionysus to the mythical mountain of Nysa, supposed to be far away in the east,928 the place where Hermes and Dionysus rest is also regarded a remote one in a world of tales and forests. The frontal side of Hermes reveals a clear prevalence in the modeling of the anatomy of transitions upon distinctions among muscles and bones. The surfaces are overpolished in order to appear gleaming and to convey the velvety appearance of the skin. The knowledge of the anatomy revealed by the torso is outstanding and reveals the carving of one of the greatest masters of antiquity. Thus it is obvious that the torso has been fleshed out by Praxiteles himself and constitutes the highest example for quality of the late art of Praxiteles, characterized by the concern to express velvety and gleaming surfaces. The head of the god is inspired by that of the Munich type of Oilpourer929 which may have been conceived by a follower of Myron and whose model thus

168

Antonio Corso

probably was available in the workshop inherited by Praxiteles. Perhaps the head of this earlier athlete has been thought to be an excellent starting point in order to express the young athletic charm of Hermes. The back of the statue was left unfinished, probably because Praxiteles was aware that the statue was going to be set up against a wall, thus there was no point in carving it carefully. Moreover this fact has to do with the probability that Praxiteles’ workshop during the late phase of his activity increased its production, delivering sculptures at an industrial pace: this conclusion is argued by the high number of works dated in the decade 345-335 BC which can be attributed to this ergasterion and by the fact that at least other two late statues of this master are known to have been left unfinished: the Aphrodite made for Sparta (Choricius, Declamationes 8. 59) and the Leto for Myra which is specified to have been ‘unfinished on the back’ (Codex Vaticanus Graecus 989. 110). Thus we have to conclude that our master in the late phase of his production took the habit not to finish his statues in the parts which were not destined to be visible. Of course the general inspiration of the group was given by the Hermes carrying the baby Dionysus made around 40-30 years earlier by Cephisodotus the Elder and to be recognized in the Madrid / Palatine / Agora type,930 although the light – and – shade depiction of the surfaces in the Praxitelean Hermes reveals the style of the late phase of Praxiteles. The gaze of Hermes looks far away and reveals concentration: this feature may have been a solution in order to disentangle the two gods from the viewers and suggest the pertinence of the gods to a world which is different from that of the humans. Moreover the concentration

of Hermes expresses the Zeitgeist of the philosophers and the habit of the men of thought to look inside them rather than outside. The chlamis thrown on the tree trunk is one of the most superb examples of drapery rendered in sculpture in antiquity, reproducing in a very plausible way the real folding of a mantle casually thrown on a support: thus the chlamis was certainly carved by one of the greatest experts in marble sculpture of antiquity. The sandals are made of narrow and curved strips and endowed with an indentation between the big toe and the other toes: they are very similar to those of the Artemis of Gabii and were a particularly smart type of footwear in use in the third quarter of the 4th c. BC.931 The baby Dionysus is blatantly inspired by the previous child Dionysus by Cephisodotus the Elder, surviving in the Palatine / Agora type, as well by the Plutus carried by Irene of the same master. The Praxitelean definition of the child god influenced the Attic representations of children in the votive sculpture of the late 4th c. BC.932 Despite that, the rendering of the Dionysus is not very high and thus may have been accomplished by attendants of the master: probably the baby Dionysus was perceived as an attribute and not as a subject with the same authority of the Hermes. Traces of colours have been noted on the hair and on the only surviving sandal of the Hermes: this observation led to the conclusion that the bunch of grapes, the hair, the eyes, the sandals and the drapery were painted (fig. 54).933 Finally Hermes worn a metal wreath perhaps made of ivy leafs sacred to Dionysus: this wreath would stress the function of the adult god as paedophorus of Dionysus.

The group is noteworthy for three reasons: a. it is one of the very few masterpieces at least partially carved by one of the greatest masters of antiquity which still survive and thus gives an idea of the extremely high level of his art; b. it evidences very well the late art of Praxiteles, characterized by surfaces showing a continuous game of light and

Fig. 54. Hermes of Praxiteles, painting by L. Otto, Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Skulpturensammlung.

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

169

Figs. 55-56. Marble fragment at Verona, Archaeological Museum of the Roman theatre, no. 170.

shade, never ending transitions as well as a virtuoso rendering of the folding in the drapery; and c. it shows the progress of the myth of ‘Arcadia’ as an idealized world of groves where the gods are on show. This

170

Antonio Corso

world is in any case unattainable by the viewers. Probably in the early 2nd c. BC, the sculptural display in the Heraeum underwent important changes. A naked child in gilded bronze probably representing Eros was made by Boethus and set up in front of the Aphrodite by Cleon934 and a high base of hard whitish limestone was given to the Hermes carrying Dionysus.935 The new base made Praxiteles’ group more imposing. The display of the group above a monumental base may be explainable with the classicistic aura of the times, which determined a new emphasis lavished on creations of the greatest masters of the past. The Hermes may have been included by Pasiteles in his catalogue of nobilia opera in 5 books (see Varro in Pliny 36. 39). This probability is argued by the circumstance that the fragment of a late republican variation of our group in Pentelic marble (figs. 55 and 56) has been found in the north eastern Italian town of Verona and precisely in an area of the ancient centre which probably was occupied by public buildings.936 The preserved fragment consists of a part of the tree trunk and of the lower folds of the chlamis thrown on it and bears a cut brunch with the label Praxiteles / epoei on its section.937 In the centre of Verona, statues derived from well known female draped types, from the Themis of Rhamnous to the Large Herculaneum Lady, have been found:938 they are attributed to a neo Attic current characterized by the habit not to copy exactly opera nobilia but to flesh out variations inside well know genres. In this context, a representation of Mercurius carrying the baby Bakchus loosely inspired by the authoritative Praxitelean exemplum may have been understandable under the influence of the catalogue of Pasiteles.

During the imperial period, the group by Cephisodotus the Elder became the classical paradigm for the representation of the adult god carrying the baby Dionysus. This creation is advertized by Pliny the Elder 34. 87. Moreover copies derived from the Cephisodotan representation were set up at Rome already in the Julio Claudian period939 and again in the Antonine age in the Imperial Palace on Mt. Palatine,940 at Minturnae probably in the Julio Claudian period941 and at Athens in the Agora in the Antonine period.942 The Cephisodotan masterpiece probably is also the source of inspiration for representations of this episode in the ‘Kleinkunst’ from the Augustan age onwards,943 in a wall painting of the Neronian age at Pompeii944 and in the 2nd and 3rd c. AD on coin types of Sparta,945 Corinth,946 Zacynthus,947, Anchialus948 and Pautalia.949 Finally a cast of the type dated in the Severan period was found at Thysdrus950 and guarantees that copies were taken from the original through casts. The reasons why the Cephisodotan interpretatio of this episode enjoyed a far greater fortune than the Praxitelean one are found in the circumstances that Cephisodotus’ group was in bronze and very likely it stood in an agora or in any case in a public place and thus was much more accessible than the Hermes of Praxiteles in the Heraeum: thus casts for copying could be taken from the original. Moreover the group of Cephisodotus, including a Herm, was more appropriate for the setting in public areas. Finally this creation looked more austere than the group by Praxiteles and thus it may have been liked more from the Hadrianic time onwards because its style was earlier. However a wall painting dated in the Neronian period of an adult figure carrying the baby Dionysus (fig. 57) in the oecus no. 22 of the ‘Casa del Naviglio’ at

Pompeii (6. 10. 11) is likely to derive from the group of Olympia.951 The painted decoration of the house included a Juppiter inspired by Phidias’ Olympian Zeus,952 a Venus interpreted as Urania,953 an enthroned Dionysus,954 an enthroned Demeter,955 a flying Nike carrying Apollo,956 a Polycleitan naked youth,957 a Satyr with a Maenad958 which is represented just below the considered painting, a megalographia with Ariadne and probably Bakchus,959 two Maenads,960 a picture with Heracles and Priamus961 and finally an Eros with a dog hunting a boar.962

Fig. 57. Wall painting at Pompeii, 6. 10. 11, room no. 22.

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

171

The painted representation of the adult paedophorus, of the baby god and of the drapery is so close to the rendering of the corresponding parts in the group of Olympia to leave no doubt that the latter is the source of inspiration of the copy at Pompeii. However the prevailing Bacchic imagery of the house and in particular the circumstance that this wall painting decorated an oecus – i. e. a dining room where drinking sittings took place – led to the change of subject of the paedophorus who is not Mercurius but a Satyr.963 The presence among the paintings of the ‘Casa del Naviglio’ of a Juppiter inspired by the Zeus of Olympia and of a Nike perhaps derived from that of Paeonius and perhaps also the Polycleitan youth, which may echo athletic statues of the Altis, make it clear that the owner of the house wanted that at least 4 paintings were inspired by the imagery of the Altis. Perhaps he traveled to Olympia and these variations of well known masterpieces were souvenirs reminding him of his own ‘grand tour’. Finally Pausanias, although his report on the Altis is selective,964 nevertheless gave notice of the group in the Heraeum. This fact implies that the Olympian Hermes carrying Dionysus was still regarded noteworthy in the Aurelian times.

53. Praxiteles’ Aphrodite made for Sparta, perhaps to be identified with the Pseliumene This bronze statue is known first of all thanks to a long declamation by the rhetor of Gaza Choricius who flourished in the early 6th c. AD (Choricius, Declamations 8 = 29 Foerster). The story narrated by Choricius is the following: the Spartans went to Delphi

172

Antonio Corso

asking the oracle of Apollo what to do in order to improve the beauty of their women because the marriages were diminishing and the new children were fewer and fewer. The oracle ordered them to set up a statue of Aphrodite. The Spartans commissioned the agalma from Praxiteles who made the goddess similar to his girl friend and courtesan Phryne, although he put on the statue the inscription ‘Aphrodite’. The Spartan assembly met in order to decide whether to accept or not the statue, Praxiteles advocated the decision to take the statue while a Spartan spoke against it. This episode is placed by Choricius a little after the oration of Demosthenes, De falsa legatione which is dated in 343 BC and thus it is supposed to have happened in the late 340s.965 However the statue must be earlier than the Aphrodite / Phryne of Delphi, which is dated to 336 / 335 BC, because in the long dialexis of Choricius the latter is never mentioned and on the contrary the boldness of giving the features of a courtesan to the goddess is still regarded something new. The reason of the Spartan request to the oracle of Apollo at Delphi is rooted in the demographic crisis which affected Sparta in the advanced 4th c. BC.966 As we shall see, the statue of Praxiteles will not be accepted by the Spartans and another statue of Aphrodite was dedicated by them instead. This fact is known thanks to Pausanias 3. 18. 1 who saw on the Acropolis of Sparta near the temple of Athena Chalkioikos a statue of Aphrodite Ambologera (‘she who staves off old age’) and specified that ‘it was set up at the behest of an oracle’.967 Since this dedication on the acropolis of Sparta must have been considered by Polemon of Ilium in his catalogue of the votive offerings set up in Sparta (Peri’ ton en Lakedaimoni anathematon) written about 180 BC968 it

is very likely that Polemon wrote details about the response of the oracle, the statue of Praxiteles and the Aphrodite eventually dedicated by the Spartans and that thus he has been also the main source of both Pausanias and Choricius. The long pamphlet by Choricius offers a lot of information about Praxiteles’ Aphrodite, the proceedings of the commission of a statue, the main features of the art of Praxiteles in the period when this Aphrodite was made and the reaction of the most conservative quarter of the Greek society against this art. From the terminology used by the rhetor of Gaza in order to refer to the statue, it is possible to argue that it was bronze.969 In their commission of the statue the Spartans must have indicated to Praxiteles the subject but left him free to decide the configuration of the statue, because Choricius insists often that the latter was exclusively conceived by Praxiteles:970 this fact is in keeping with the information by Pliny 36. 20-22 that Praxiteles carved two statues of Aphrodite, one naked and another draped, exposed them in his workshop and that envoys of the Coans and of the Cnidians bought each one an Aphrodite. That established masters of the middle and late classical times enjoyed a relatively great freedom in deciding the configuration to give to their works is clear also from the ancient presentation of the art of Zeuxis.971 The statue looked so similar to Phryne that it was thought to represent in fact this courtesan:972 thus Praxiteles’ girl friend was no longer just a model as for the Cnidia but the medium through which to express the beauty of the goddess. This change reflects the progressive mundanization of the art of Praxiteles which now mirrors the world of the courtesans.

In Choricius’ dialexis it is specified that in the period when the Aphrodite for the Spartans was made Phryne was thought to have already given her features to statues of the goddess (Choricius, Declamations 8. 21): probably he refers to the function of the courtesan as model for the Cnidian Aphrodite (see the work no. 22) and perhaps also of the Thespian Aphrodite (see the work no. 17). In any case the fact that late classical artists took inspiration from Phryne in order to make images of Aphrodite is known thanks to Clement, Protrepticus 4. 47 and to Arnobius 6. 13: the latter cites the antiquarian literature on Thespiae as the source for this information. Praxiteles’ use of women in order to flesh out ‘Ionian courtesans’ is also known (see Choricius, Declamations 8. 57). Probably the ‘merry courtesan’ (work no. 20) is included in this specialization of our sculptor. In this pamphlet there are also the informations that at the time Praxiteles loves Phryne and is reciprocated by her and that his habit to flesh out her features in his statues is accepted by her as a form of payment for sharing her bed with him. No doubt, this unusual form of payment was accepted by Phryne because she got a great renown from the sculptures of Praxiteles inspired by her. In other cases, Praxiteles pays her favours with the gains of his job as sculptor.973 In any case Praxiteles was love slave of Phryne and his psychological status is described very clearly in this pamphlet (Choricius, Declamation 8. 62 and 71): ‘Praxiteles thinks never of anything else than Phryne, when he is awake and when he sleeps, when he is speaking and when he is silent, when he is alone and when he is with other people, when he works and when he does nothing. (…) He is subjected to love of which he is slave. Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

173

His only concern is to please his beloved from any point of view’. The ideal of life of the servus amoris no longer derives from the Platonic tension to conquire absolute beauty and love974 but on the contrary expresses a life style based on the satisfaction of pleasures which is in keeping with the hedonistic trends in the philosophy of the advanced 4th c. BC from Eudoxus to Epicurus. Thus this important passage in Choricius’ pamphlet reveals the shift of Praxiteles’ art from idealism to hedonism. Choricius also specifies that the Spartans had been able to admire several works of Praxiteles (see Choricius, Declamation 8. 62): this assertion is consistent with the evidence that the Cnidian Aphrodite was a target of the art tourism soon after her setting in her Cnidian temple975 and that in this period small round temples are built in order to display statues destined to be admired by lovers of visual arts:976 thus it is clear that the art tourism begins to be a social phenomenon already during the late classical times. Spartans could have seen works by Praxiteles at Olympia and Delphi, in several cities of the Peloponnese and of the Doric world (Mantinea, Corinth, Megara, Cos, Cnidus which was a Spartan colony), perhaps also in Thespiae, a Boeotian town which had old ties with Sparta.977 This passage of Choricius reveals that at least sometimes patrons commissioned statues from sculptors whose oeuvre they had already seen. Since the Coans rejected a naked Aphrodite by Praxiteles preferring a draped one by the same master (see his work no. 23), it is possible that the decision of this Doric polis was known to the Spartans and influenced their determination not to accept without a proper discussion a naked Aphrodite by Praxiteles inspired by Phryne.

174

Antonio Corso

The specification (Choricius, Declamations 8. 41) that Aphrodite was conceived ‘in the season of the first age’ suggests that, as other Praxitelean statues of deities, even this Aphrodite looked as a teenager. In this pamphlet the fact that Phryne was able to preserve her beauty so well is regarded rather surprising (Choricius, Declamations 8. 37): this statement implies the awareness that Phryne at the time of this creation was no longer so young. This in turn fits well the chronology of this Aphrodite because Phryne was active both as a courtesan and as a source of inspiration for artists at least from around 365 and thus in the late 340s had been renowned for more than 20 years. In the declamation, it is stressed that this Aphrodite revealed a clear imitation of the body of Phryne (Choricius, Declamations 8. 41 and 62): these observations testify again to the shift of the art of Praxiteles toward the realistic representation of the female body and its consideration as a source of pleasures, in hedonistic terms. Of course these statements imply that the goddess was naked. This Aphrodite is declared to have been delicate and soft (Choricius, Declamations 8. 60) with obvious reference to the velvety surfaces of the statues of the late phase of activity of this sculptor, and apt to excite the viewer toward a licentious life style.978 Another formal feature of this Aphrodite specified by Choricius is her smile (Declamations 8. 5; 61; 78 and 83). This feature occurs often in the oeuvre of Praxiteles (see e. g. the Dionysus described by Callistratus, the Cnidia, the smiling courtesan, the archer Eros, the Eros of Parium) and expresses first of all the serenity of the deities conceived by our sculptor. However, as it is specified in the declamation, in this case the smile was meant to excite the erotic desire of the viewer and

thus advertized the life style of the courtesans (see Declamations 8. 75). Choricius specified that the inscription Aphrodite on the statue was made by Praxiteles (see Declamations 8. 2; 17; 24-28; 46; 63 and 90), i. e. in his workshop and upon his decision. These statements strengthen Tracy’s conclusion that dedications and signatures carved on bases of statues of Praxiteles had been often prepared in his workshop by assistants specialized in this activity.979 The circumstance that in the declamation a signature of the sculptor is not mentioned is hardly coincidental because it fits well the epigraphical evidence of bases signed by Praxiteles which are related nearly exclusively to iconic statues.980 Thus this Aphrodite as well as several other statues of deities made by Praxiteles was not signed probably because these agalmata were conceived as epiphanies of the represented deities. In the pamphlet it is stated that if Praxiteles’ Aphrodite will be set up in Sparta, visitors will come to this city in order to admire the statue (Declamations 8. 84): this testimony is in keeping with the evidence that admirers of Praxiteles’ art flocked to Cnidus and Thespiae in order to admire his statues soon after they were erected.981 Once the statue reached Sparta, not differentely from the Coans for the naked Aphrodite later bought by the Cnidians, some Spartans voiced their dissatisfaction for a statue of Aphrodite representing in fact a courtesan (Choricius, Declamations 8. 25-28) and thus managed the meeting of the Spartan assembly or apella in order to decide whether to accept or to reject the statue (see Choricius, Declamations 8. 98).982 Assemblies of poleis used to meet in order to deliberate about the correct re-

alization of public statues:983 thus a meeting of the apella aiming at deliberating about the acceptation of a statue is not out of question. In the pamphlet Praxiteles is said to have gone to Sparta and to have spoken in front of the Spartan assembly. A Spartan man retorted to him. An opposition between two orators asserting opposite views in the Spartan assembly is reported also by Thucydides 1. 67. 3 – 88. 1 and thus may have happened also in this case. Thucydides in the same passage testifies also that non Spartans sometimes were admitted to the Spartan assembly in order to express their reasons. Praxiteles’ defense is summarized by Choricius and is important because it reveals his conception of the agalmatopoiia. Our sculptor asserted that Aphrodite protects the courtesans and approves their behavior (Choricius, Declamations 8. 47 and 65-67): this statement is in keeping with his promotion of the fortunes of Phryne at Thespiae and thus should be accepted. He also claimed that the originality is useful both to the arts, because it favours the progress of artistic knowledge, and to the artists who in this way obtain fame: thus the creation of original works of art must be accepted by the well thinkers (Declamations 8. 19). Praxiteles forwarded a new concept of Eros with his Eros of Thespiae and a new idea of Aphrodite with his naked Cnidia. Thus he certainly was in favour of new visual interpretations of love deities. The concept that new images contribute to the knowledge (epistemai) in the arts is in keeping with the late classical concept of visual arts as a meditative activity prior to being a practical one.984 His assertion that new images give fame to their masters may refer to the Cnidia which, suggesting a new image of the goddess, soon became very Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

175

famous. Finally the specification that the well thinkers must just accept new styles of talented artists is in keeping with the contempt of Zeuxis toward the judgement of paintings by commoners985 and is conceivable only in the individualistic milieu of the great artists of the middle and late classical times. Praxiteles also claims that he made statues of Ionian courtesans using life models and that these works were perfect (see Declamations 8. 56-57): this observation would imply that the gods are benevolent toward his representation of courtesans.986 This phrase attributed to our sculptor fits well: a. his high opinion of himself and of the high quality of his oeuvre, which emerges from his epigram on the base of the Eros of Thespiae, where he dares to assert to have represented Eros as ‘archetype’ (Praxiteles in Athenaeus 13. 591 a-b); b. his closeness to the world of the hetaerae and in particular the fact that at least a bronze statue of smiling courtesan is attributed to him (see his work no. 20); and c. his closeness to the world of Ionia which is argued by his frequent activity for patrons and clients of Asia Minor (for Halicarnassus, Cnidus, Parium, Apollonia ad Rhyndacum, Ephesus, Alexandria ad Latmum and Myra) and in particular his definition with the Sauroctonus and the Eros of Parium of an Ionian canon of youth who expresses the value of the habrosyne. Praxiteles’ ‘study’ of the figure of the Ionian courtesan reveals his aim at fleshing out images expressing a life style based on pleasures and believed to be located in the Ionia of the satraps. Finally Praxiteles is told by Choricius to have asserted also that often deities have not disdained to be similar to human beings (see Declamations 8. 86): this statement would be in keeping with

176

Antonio Corso

his ambition to catch worthy images of deities in human terms. In particular in the ancient critical tradition it was clearly stated that he dared to conceive the beauty of Aphrodite in female terms having the judgment of Paris as witness that the goddess really got the body of a woman in that occasion (see Evenus, Anthologia Graeca 16. 166). These four ideas respond well to what we know of the personality, opinions and oeuvre of Praxiteles. The conception of making agalmata argued by these statements is the following: the gods assumed human shapes, thus it is possible to represent them through models. In particular Aphrodite can be represented with the use of courtesans as models because these women are under her protection. The correctness of Praxiteles’ behaviour is also guaranteed by his high qualitative standard which reveals the divine protection. Finally his new visual conception of deities is useful to the progress of the arts and to the fame of the artist and must be accepted by the well thinkers. This conception of the agalmatopoiia is conceivable only in late classical times because this is the only period in antiquity when a few exceptional artists enjoyed the authority to deliver original representations which are the results of their studies and investigations rather than of suggestions of their patrons.987 The reasoning of Praxiteles is objected by a young Spartan (see Choricius, Declamations 8. 102) – one of the Pythioi, close advisers of the kings (Declamations 8. 15) - who spoke both to the other Spartans as well as to Praxiteles, who thus was still in the Spartan assembly. The Spartan man asserted the following: 1. giving to Aphrodite the features of Phryne is contradictory and blaspheme, because of the

vulgarity of the woman (Declamations 8. 1-2); 2. since it is not possible to see the deities, Praxiteles should have fleshed out either one of the usual images of the goddess, based on the general opinion of the subject, or if he wanted to be original, a statue made using a virtuous woman as a model. If this woman was a Spartan even better (Declamations 8. 3-5); 3. with the label ‘Aphrodite’ put on a statue representing Phryne, Praxiteles declares his girl friend a goddess and becomes blaspheme (Declamations 8. 17-19); 4. if he wants to be original, Praxiteles must find something better than the tradition, as Daedalus and Zeuxis did. However representing Phryne in the place of Aphrodite is not new, because Phryne had been already the model of statues of Aphrodite, and moreover it is dangerous because it corrupts the life style of the Spartans (Declamations 8. 20-25); 5. the principle of the imitation implies that figures must be similar to the subjects represented (Declamations 8. 26-28); 6. Praxiteles should have scrupulously represented the subject of the work of art because in this case there are not other figures clarifying who is fleshed out (Declamations 8. 28-33); 7.  Praxiteles will destroy Sparta because the representation of Aphrodite as a courtesan is blaspheme and will make the goddess even more upset against Sparta (Declamations 8. 33-34);

8. since it is necessary to pay cult honours to statues of deities, the representation of Phryne as Aphrodite implies that we should tribute hymns, prayers and sacrifices to Phryne (Declamations 8. 35); 9. Phryne betrays the gods because probably she asks them that more and more men deal with courtesans in order to increase her gains: thus she corrupts the society and should be regarded an enemy (Declamations 8. 36); 10. thus Praxiteles should have given to the goddess a pure and decent beauty (Declamations 8. 37-38); 11. since the subject is known only through hearsay, Praxiteles should have been inspired by not visual paradigms, i. e. by authoritative poets (Declamations 8. 38); 12. in order to represent the gods, and particularly Aphrodite, it is necessary to increase the beauty of the image, thus going as close as possible to the divine standard: in this way Phidias fleshed out his Zeus of Olympia, translating the worthy presentation of the god by Homer into his statue of Zeus (Declamations 8. 39-41); 13.  Praxiteles corrupts the society because from now onwards the artists will portray their women as goddesses (Declamations 8. 42); 14. thus the Spartans should not be naïve and so brainless to think that Phryne is Aphrodite (Declamations 8. 43-45); 15. in the setting up of this statue in Sparta, the blaspheme beNineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

177

haviour of Praxiteles would be extended to the Spartans (Declamations 8. 45-46); 16. it is necessary that the subject corresponds to the configuration of the image: thus even the association of the name of a goddess with the figure of another goddess should be rejected (Declamations 8. 46); 17. Aphrodite is the goddess of marriages and does not like the courtesans (Declamations 8. 4756); 18. the statues of courtesans of Praxiteles made with the use of life models fit well the corrupted world of Ionia and not the austere life of the Spartans (Declamations 8. 57-59); 19. Praxiteles created this statue not in order to imitate the highest degree of beauty but just with the aim to please his girl friend: thus he should rework the statue (Declamations 8. 59); 20. moreover he created a too soft and delicate Aphrodite, apt to express the licentiousness and the behaviour of the courtesans because he is love slave of Phryne (Declamations 8. 60-63); 21. thus it is necessary to contempt this accomplishment which is totally similar to a courtesan and to condemn her imitation (Declamations 8. 63); 22. only the creation of a statue responding to the standard features of Aphrodite would have the anger of this goddess removed, on the contrary the imitation of a courtesan will make her even more upset (Declamations 8. 63); 23. Praxiteles does not follow the rule of the imitation because he

178

Antonio Corso

does not represent Aphrodite but a subject whose beauty is inferior to that of the goddess (Declamations 8. 64); 24. the Corinthian prostitutes had to pray Aphrodite that the Persians do not conquer Greece because they broke the rule of marriage protected by this goddess: this episode reveals that Aphrodite does not like the behaviour of these women (Declamations 8. 65-70); 25. thus the goddess must be upset against Praxiteles because he is so impudent to make these works. Although he may be excused because he is fallen in love, this reason does not apply to the Spartans (Declamations 8. 71-73); 26. thus we must worry that Aphrodite introduces among the Spartans women as Phryne in order to punish them (Declamations 8. 74); 27. The way of thinking suggested by Phryne in the statue of Praxiteles would be spread to its viewers and we should learn to conceive Aphrodite similar to Phryne (Declamations 8. 75-76); 28. if Phryne is honoured as a goddess, it will be impossible to correct the behaviour of courtesans (Declamations 8. 77-79); 29. thus in Sparta the courtesans will become more honoured than honest women, their way of thinking will corrupt the souls and in the eyes of the Greeks Phryne will appear invincible, Sparta weak (Declamations 8. 80-82); 30. Phryne will become arrogant, her lovers will flock to Sparta

to see the statue and the courtesan will be proud to have vanquished Sparta and will contempt the austere Spartans (Declamations 8. 83-85); 31. it is not true that deities in few cases appeared with human bodies. In any case, even if we admit that goddesses may be similar to women, they would be never similar to those as Phryne (Declamations 8. 86-89); 32.  the behaviour of Praxiteles should be condemned even if he was a poet and in a hymn he celebrates Phryne instead of Aphrodite (Declamations 8. 90); 33. thus the statue of Praxiteles will be dangerous because the statue of a courtesan will be an agalma, the road toward licentiousness will be shown to the Greeks and the Spartan girls will not stop being ugly (Declamations 8 90-95); 34. Praxiteles must worry that Aphrodite makes Phryne ugly in order to punish him for having thought that Phryne’s beauty overcomes the power of the goddess (Declamations 8. 9697); 35. Praxiteles with his statue does not allow that the Spartan girls are beautiful: it is expected that the mothers of these girls with other Spartans protest in front of the assembly and hysterically attack Praxiteles (Declamations 8. 98-100); 36. Praxiteles should have represented Aphrodite with a sweet gaze, showing also the passage in the mood of the goddess from anger to sweetness (Declamations 8. 100-101);

37. thus the Spartans are asked to reject the statue, Praxiteles to break with Phryne (Declamations 8. 102-103). The criticism of the Spartan man forwards the principles that artists should stick to the traditional images of deities – probably implying that Aphrodite should be draped -, that works of art should have the function of improving the moral standard of the citizenship and of making them virtuous, that new configurations are accepted if they promote more worthy representations of the deities, for example with the inspiration by authoritative poets, finally that statues should be expression of the values and identity of the state which promotes them. I have already shown that these assertions are understandable in the context of the debate about the arts of the period of Plato and Aristotle and that it is very likely that most Spartans reasoned that way. The unavoidable conclusion is that Choricius depends on a true talk which probably was summarized by Polemon of Ilium in his Peri’ ton en Lakedaimoni anathematon.988 Thus it is clear that the ‘art of pleasure’ conceived by Praxiteles and his opinion that artists should be free to express their feelings and to mirror their life styles into their creations met a growing criticism: already the Coans did not like the naked Aphrodite later bought by the Cnidians and now the Spartans strongly criticize his concept of Aphrodite. It is obvious that after the suggestion of the Spartan man – who was one of the Pythioi, thus close to the kings989 – to reject the statue, the Aphrodite by Praxiteles was not accepted and a new statue of the goddess was commissioned: that seen by Pausanias on the Acropolis of Sparta. Of course Praxiteles must have put his Aphrodite on sale again. Thus the Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

179

problem arises of her identification with another statue of Aphrodite by Praxiteles handed down by the literary tradition. This Aphrodite should be bronze, naked, conceived in a frivolous attitude, revealing the same face of the other statues inspired by Phryne, her style should be dated in the late 340s and should reveal the seal of the art of Praxiteles. Moreover it is likely that a bronze Aphrodite by Praxiteles made famous by the above reported controversy was not missed by Xenocrates and thus probably appears in the list of the bronze works of Praxiteles handed down by Pliny. Finally it is not impossible that other writers – for example early Christian writers – criticized the statue as immoral. There is only one Praxitelean creation which responds to all of these desiderata: the Aphrodite Pseliumene. This creation is included among the bronze statues of Praxiteles by Pliny 34. 69: Praxiteles (…) fecit (…) ex aere pulcherrima opera: (…) Venerem (…) pseliumenen, etc. ‘Praxiteles (…) made (…) very beautiful works in bronze: (…) the Aphrodite (…) putting a necklace on her’ (transl. Loeb with amendments). This bronze statue since it was listed by Pliny, probably had also been considered by Xenocrates who is widely regarded the main source of Pliny’s catalogues of works of masters.990 Around 175 AD, the same statue was seen in Rome and criticized by the Christian heretic writer Tatian, Ad Graecos 34. 36: ‘Why (…) you (scil.: the Greeks) honoured the Pseliumene made by Praxiteles although she was a bad woman (gynaion)?’ It is possible to argue from this passage that the statue was moved to Rome because Tatian, Ad Graecos 35. 37 de-

180

Antonio Corso

clares to have seen the bronze statues criticized by him at Rome where they had been brought from Greece. Moreover Tatian identifies the subject of the Pseliumene as a ‘bad woman’ (gynaion): this fact implies that he was aware that she represented a courtesan. Since the master of the statue was Praxiteles, of course there is a strong case for the recognition of Phryne in this woman. Phryne had been defined gynaion already by Plutarch, De Pythiae oraculis 15. Since Tatian specified that the Greeks have honoured (tetimekate) the Pselioumene, this detail suggests that the statue originally was set up in a sanctuary where it enjoyed public honours. The Christian writer allows us to understand that Pliny mentioned the statue probably also because both he saw it and it stood in Rome. Since Tatian mentions the Pseliumene together with Leochares’ Ganymedes, it is likely that he saw both statues in the same area of Rome. In the Urbs, the Ganymedes was set up in the templum Pacis,991 thus it is tempting to suggest that the Pseliumene also stood in the same complex. The fact that these statues stood in the sanctuary of Peace implies that they had been removed from Greece by Nero, erected in the domus aurea and restored to the public view by Vespasian with their dedication in the new architectural complex. Thus, the inclusion of this statue in Pliny’s list of bronze works of Praxiteles becomes even more understandable because with the mentions of the statues displayed in the templum Pacis the naturalist from Comum pays his homage to the newly constituted collection of masterpieces of the ruling emperor. Of course Venus and her seduction were in the right place in the templum

Pacis because the gifts of love and beauty are obvious sources of enjoyment in the context of the stability and prosperity guaranteed by the Pax Romana. Moreover even the likely previous pertinence of the Pseliumene to the sculptural display of the domus aurea is hardly surprising both because Nero revealed a deep appreciation for the visual arts of the age of Alexander and since his model of eastern absolute monarch was close to the deities who command the sensual satisfaction of instincts. In the templum Pacis, a base of a bronze statue carved in the age of Septimius Severus bears the following inscription: (---) m (---) / (Prax)ite(lous) / (Athe) na (iou).992 It is tempting to restore the name (Pseliou)m(ene) in the first line: the statue would have been endowed of a new base with the restoration of the complex which occurred in the age of Septimius Severus. Praxiteles’ Pseliumene is recognized in the Pourtales’ type of Aphrodite (fig. 58)993 who is about to fasten her necklace. The stylistic examination of the type will be conducted on the Pourtales bronze copy because it is the earliest example of the type, the best also for quality and since it retains clear features of the Praxitelean art. The goddess stands on her left foot and has her right leg bent and brought behind. The general style of the figure and its anatomy are similar to those of the bronze Aphrodite from Thera which probably echoes Praxiteles’ bronze statue of this goddess for Corinth. Aphrodite is surprised by the viewer while she is about to fasten her necklace which she holds with her subtle fingers. This gesture gives to the goddess a frivolous flavour. The face is the same of the Aspremont / Lynden – Arles type of head, of the Arles

Aphrodite, is similar to those of the figures derived from the smiling courtesan and is very close to that of the bronze statuette from Thera. Since for all of these creations Phryne was the model, even this Aphro-

Fig. 58. Bronze statuette at London, The British Museum, no. 1084.

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

181

dite ‘au collier’ must represent the same courtesan: the beautiful lady of Thespiae. However the face of the Pourtales statuette has lost something of her previous freshness and thus represents the same sitter at a later age and foreshadows her representation with the Townley Aphrodite which portrays the bronze statue of Phryne at Delphi: the latter work dates in the 330s. The hair is divided in the middle, made of wavy thin locks held by a taenia and collected behind on the nape: this concept of hair is basically the same of the Cnidia. The stance of the goddess is nervous and unstable, as it is shown by her right leg with her knee brought close to her left leg as well as by her right foot brought behind and to the side. She looks confident that nobody is watching her beauty as it is revealed by her gaze entirely focused on her action as well as by the fact that she does not feel the need to shield her pubes. These observations suggest that the episode is conceived in an indoor environment: thus the representation of the goddess is filtered through that of the courtesan in her bedroom who is making up while waiting for her lover. The expression of this psychological moment would be conveyed by her nervous and unstable stance. This creation is a masterpiece because it expresses in the same time a peculiar and psychological moment in the daily life of a courtesan and Aphrodite as divine sublimation of the world of the hetaerae. However the mundane notion of this goddess is so clear that the criticism of this interpretation of Aphrodite from the most traditional quarter of the Greek society is hardly surprising. After the Pseliumene was refused by the Spartans, probably Praxiteles put her

182

Antonio Corso

on sale and eventually she was set up in a sanctuary. This conclusion is suggested by Tatian’s specification that the Greeks ‘honoured’ this statue. We do not know in which sanctuary she was erected but she must have stood in one of the Greek centres looted by Nero because the statue will probably be erected in the domus aurea and then in the templum Pacis of Rome. I suggest Athens as a likely place where Praxiteles’ statue stood in a sanctuary of Aphrodite because the Cow of Myron, which originally stood on the Acropolis of this city, was also brought by Nero to Rome.994 In the early Hellenistic period, the type was reproduced in a Corinthian bronze workshop (see note 993, no. 1 and fig. 58): as the same Praxiteles specified in his above summarized oration to the Spartans, at Corinth Aphrodite was the protectress of the courtesans. In the same period, the Pseliumene may have been included by Xenocrates in his catalogue of bronze works by Praxiteles: this probability is argued by Pliny’s consideration of this creation among the ex aere pulcherrima opera of this master; the dependance of Pliny’s catalogues of bronze statues of the greatest Greek masters from Xenocrates is generally assumed. In the advanced 2nd c. BC, the masterpiece is copied on Rhodes (see note 993, no. 2), in a cultural milieu which is very receptive of Praxitelean styles. In the same period, the work is echoed also in the production of clay figurines of Myrina (see note 993, no. 6), not by chance in the same decades when the Cnidian Aphrodite995 began being copied in the ateliers of the same town. Still in this age, the production of bronze statuettes inspired by this type begins in Syria and will continue until the Julio – Claudian period (see note 993, nos. 4; perhaps 5, 8-9 and 11-12, certainly

16-24). The adoption of this type takes place in the same area and period in which statuettes derived from the Cnidia were also made:996 both the type of the Cnidia and that of the Pseliumene give appealing Greek styles to the goddess of Aradus, re-interpreted as Aphrodite and expected to provide good luck in love.997 Not by chance no fewer than 4 of these bronze statuettes have been found at Antaradus (see note 993, nos. 16 and 19-21) on the Syrian coast and just in front of the island with the temple and statue of the goddess. Another statuette was found at Syracuse (see note 993, no. 3): the reception of the Pseliumene in the most important city of Sicily is in keeping with the presence in the visual culture of this town at the time of copies of well known types of goddesses created in the Aegean world in the late classical and early Hellenistic period.998 Moreover, probably in the early Hellenistic age, in Syracuse the sanctuary and statue of the Callipygos Aphrodite was dedicated:999 the latter should be recognized in the Landolina type of this goddess.1000 This cult may have created the condition for the reception of a type of Aphrodite – as the Pseliumene was – conceived as the divine archetype of the sexual appeal of girls. A bronze statuette inspired by the Pseliumene comes from Alexandria and dates in the late Hellenistic period (see note 993, no. 10), although in this case our style is adapted to the representation of the goddess as anadyomene. Again, the re-use of the configuration of the Pseliumene takes place in Alexandria when the Cnidia also becomes a source of inspiration for the local ‘Kleinkunst’.1001 The fact that in the same periods both the Cnidia and the Pseliumene are

copied or imitated on Rhodes, in Myrina, in Syria and in Alexandria is important and deserves an explanation. Probably these two interpretations were regarded to express two different aspects of Aphrodite: the ideal concept of the goddess was conveyed by the Cnidia while the earthly and mundane characterization of the same was offered by the Pseliumene. Finally a late Hellenistic clay figurine derived from the Pseliumene comes from Tarentum (see note 993, no. 13). The appeal of the Praxitelean tradition at Tarentum in this period is shown by two marble heads loosely inspired respectively by the Cnidia1002 and by the Gabii type of Artemis.1003 The presence of a small clay copy of the Pseliumene in Tarentum resulted in the endowment of this Spartan colony with a sculptural type which may have been conceived for the first time for Sparta. During the Augustan age, the Pseliumene, symbol of eastern luxury, is very much against the ideal values of the ‘Zeitgeist’, which is very heavily conditioned by the rhetoric of the restoration of the mores antiqui, and thus goes out of fashion. This is probably the reason why in Myrina the well established choroplast Menophilus signs a variation of the type with which the goddess is no longer naked but wears a chiton (see note 993, no. 15). In the high inperial period, the only region where the type occurs often is Syria, where small bronze copies or variations of this creation are dedicated to the goddess of Aradus (see note 993, nos. 16; 19-21 and perhaps 23). The bronze statuette from Tyrus (see note 993, no. 17) may have been dedicated to Astarte, locally interpreted as Aphrodite.1004 The small copy from Sidon (see note 993, no. 18) comes from a town in which 3 late Hellenistic small statuettes of the Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

183

Cnidia have been retrieved1005 as well as 2 Antonine miniature copies of the same type:1006 these examples reveal the deep impact of the Praxitelean representations of the love goddess on the Roman visual expression of the Phoenician Astarte. Finally an example comes from Marathus (see note 993, no. 22) which in Roman times was in the territory of Aradus:1007 thus even this statuette must have glorified the great goddess of Aradus. It is likely that the Pseliumene was removed from her original context to Rome by Nero and set up in the Domus Aurea for three reasons: 1. in the age of Vespasian, the statue probably will be set up in the templum Pacis and it is well known that several works of art collected by Nero in his palace were restored to the public enjoyment by Vespasian with their re-display in the architectural complex devoted to Pax;1008 2. by the end of the Julio – Claudian period, the Pseliumene is no longer copied or imitated in the Greek and eastern Mediterranean world: that fact suggests that the original statue was no longer available in this part of the empire; 3. the Pseliumene, with her hedonistic flavour, must have been appealing to Nero in keeping with his love for the visual arts of the age of Alexander.1009 In fact Nero’s interest for statues of love deities made by Praxiteles is revealed by the circumstance that he removed the Eros of Thespiae of our master and brought him to Rome (Pausanias 9. 27. 4). Moreover the Ganymedes of Leochares, the Ialysus of Protogenes, the Scylla of Nicomachus and the Battle of Ipsus by Helen, displayed by Vespasian in

184

Antonio Corso

the templum Pacis,1010 probably had been previously set up in the Golden House of Nero and thus would confirm the strong appeal of late classical masters in the Neronian culture. Probably in the age of Vespasian, the Pseliumene was eventually set up in the templum Pacis. This complex was endowed of masterpieces depicting an optimistic and rosy concept of life, in keeping with the benevolent goddess worshiped in the area. Thus there were athletic beauties made by Argive masters (the Pythocles of Polycleitus and the Cimon of Naucydes) as well as heroic beauties forwarded by late classical artists (the Ialysus by Protogenes and the Ganymedes of Leochares). The Cow of Myron and a bronze bull1011 expressed the abundance, fecundity and prosperity brought by Peace. These concepts were underlined also by the statue of the Nile. Helen’s Battle of Ipsus and the Galats gave emphasis to the prevalence of the civilized order upon the barbarians from east and north. Nicomachus’ Scylla may have given emphasis to the opposition of the empire against monsters.1012 In this context the concept of love could not be missed: thus there were a marble Aphrodite (Pliny 36. 27) and probably our Pseliumene. A statue by a Cephisodotus known thanks to the inscribed base of a lost bronze statue found in situ (SEG 51 (2001) 1443) may have been a Peace by Cephisodotus the Elder: a variation of his Peace set up in the agora of Athens. Finally a statue of the early Hellenistic bronze sculptor Parthenocles (SEG 51 (2001) 1444) also set up in the same complex cannot be specified. Pliny paid his homage to this new museum of works of art by mentioning often the statues displayed there,1013 including the Pseliumene.

One copy of Vespasianic times from Pompeii (see note 993, no. 25) testifies to the new Roman setting of the statue. However with the growing spiritualistic mentality of the late 2nd c. AD, the criticism of the Pseliumene as symbol of luxury resumed as it is known by Tatian. After the fire which partially destroyed the templum Pacis in 192 AD1014 the statue may have survived and been endowed with a new base bearing the above reported inscribed label. Finally if the identification of this statue with the Aphrodite made for the Spartans is correct, a belated criticism of the Pseliumene as immoral could still be conceived in the 6th c. AD. The statue is important because it reveals the extent of the secularization of the concept of Aphrodite attempted by Praxiteles in his late age: the goddess was now regarded the divine principle of the life of the courtesans. This notion of the goddess foreshadows the new comedy when the courtesan will be regarded a central figure in any society.

54. The statue of Tyche set up in the sanctuary of this goddess in Megara Pausanias 1. 43. 6 specifies that in Megara ‘near the temple of Aphrodite there is a sanctuary of Fortune (Tyches … hieron): she is also art of Praxiteles (Praxitelous… techne)‘ (transl. Frazer with amendments). The sanctuary of this goddess was thus near the temple of Aphrodite Praxis for which Praxiteles carved two statues – those of Peitho and Paregoros (see above no. 40) – and not distant from the sanctuary of Dionysus for which our sculptor carved a Satyr (see above no. 39). It is likely that these 3 sanctuaries competed each other in order to get

statues of a well established sculptor as Praxiteles was. The closeness of the hieron Tyches to the sanctuary of Aphrodite Praxis suggests that this cult place stood also on south of the valley between the acropoleis Caria and of Alcathous.1015 The circumstance that the Megarian Tyche was topographically associated to Aphrodite worshipped for her agency suggests that she protected not only the good luck of the community but also the happiness in the private life. Moreover in the Doric world Tyche was regarded the sister of Peitho1016, i. e. of a personification illustrated in the near sanctuary of Aphrodite Praxis with a statue by Praxiteles and conceived as a moment of the agency of the love goddess. The link of this goddess with the sphere of love and seduction is confirmed by her representation in the Athenian middle classical vase painting.1017 Praxiteles had already carved a statue of Agathe Tyche which probably stood originally in front of the Pritaneum of Athens (see his work no. 31). Moreover probably in the 360s Xenophon, a pupil of Cephisodotus the Elder, with Callistonicus of Thebes, made the statue of Tyche for Thebes.1018 Thus probably Praxiteles was charged with the Tyche of Megara because he was renowned for his Tyche of the Athenian Pritaneum, moreover because another sculptor of his own school had been responsible also of another important Tyche – that of Thebes – and finally since he carved two statues for the near sanctuary of Aphrodite Praxis, and these two works included a Peitho, regarded the sister of Tyche. Since Pausanias specifies that Tyche herself was art of Praxiteles and other statues of this personification are not mentioned in Megara, the work carved Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

185

Fig. 59. AE of Megara struck under Septimius Severus, reverse, at London, British Museum, Department of Coins.

186

Antonio Corso

by the Athenian sculptor must have been the cult statue of the sanctuary. Since immediately after having mentioned Praxiteles’ Tyche, Pausanias 1. 43. 6 specifies that the Muses by Lysippus were bronze, probably the Tyche was marble. At the dawn of the society mirrored in the new comedy, in which Tyche will be regarded the supreme arbiter of the happiness of persons1019, it is not surprising that she is conceived close to Aphrodite: the extension of the sphere of agency of the goddess from public to private is shown also on Attic reliefs of the late 4th c. BC in which she is begged for good luck in marriage and health.1020 Tyche is represented on Megarian coins (fig. 59) of the period from Commodus to Geta and is given a style appropriated to a statue.1021 The goddess is standing near her altar: this detail identifies her as a cult statue in her Megarian sanctuary. Her left leg stands straight on her rectangular base while her right leg is bent and her corresponding foot is brought to the side. This detail determines a curved configuration. She is draped, the girdle is placed just below her breasts, she wears a chiton characterized by a minute folding while a himation is put across her belly and is endowed with oblique curved folds. Her left arm is lowered with her forearm forwarded in order to hold a horn of plenty while her right arm is also lowered with her forearm brought to the side in order to outstretch a phiale. Her head is represented on these coins turned to right: as usual probably the representation on coins simplifies the rendering of a head in a three quarters position. Her hair is waved and brought behind and her head supports a mural crown. The configuration of Tyche on these coin types reveals a schema which, with few changes, is the same used already for

the Praxitelean statues of Kore, for goddesses of the dodekatheon, for Muses of the Mantinean base and for Opora. The attribute of the corona muralis may have been inspired by its presence on the statue of Megalopolis of Cephisodotus the Elder as well as on the Tyche of Thebes of Xenophon and Callistonicus. The adoption of the horn of plenty was likely inspired by its presence in the left hand of the statue of Eirene of the same Cephisodotus as well as in the right hand of Praxiteles’ statue of Agathe Tyche made for the Pritaneum of Athens. The horn of plenty and the phiale which we must suppose full of wine, convey an optimistic message: the goddess brings joy and prosperity to the community. The phiale is often held by Tyche in her right hand in the Attic late classical imagery.1022 The schema of the Tyche on the above mentioned Megarian coin types is found also in the Vienne / Braccio Nuovo (fig. 60) 1023 type of Tyche. In this type, the folding of the drapery and the relation of the dress with the body are in keeping with these features on the Muses of the Mantinean base: thus they reveal the Praxitelean heritage. The head of this type of Fortuna is only poorly known especially thanks to a statuette from Ostia (see note 1023, no. 11: from the same sanctuary in which the Praxitelean Dodekatheon was also found) and to the statue from the baths of Vienne (see note 1023, no. 19). Particularly the latter example bears a face endowed with the usual Praxitelean anatomic grammar. The hair is divided in the middle and brought behind with wavy locks. Thus the very high quality of the head of this statue probably derives from a masterpiece of our sculptor. However in the Braccio Nuovo type of Fortuna the right hand of the goddess

does not hold the phiale but the rudder on the globe. The first example of the Braccio Nuovo type of Tyche comes from the agora of Athens, is dated in the 330s and pertains to a statue which probably stood in front of the Royal Stoa (see note 1023, no. 1): it is likely that this lady was the Tyche of Athens. The horn of plenty referred to the prosperity brought by this goddess. Thus her message was similar to that of Cephisodotus’ Peace, set up nearby. In her right hand the lady of the agora may have held the rudder on the globe which would have expressed Athens’ lordship on the sea. The copyist tradition of the Roman imperial times would copy the Athenian statue, as it is revealed by their adoption of the rudder on globe, and not the Megarian one, which was endowed with a phiale in the right hand of the goddess. The rudder was an attribute of Tyche from the time of Pindar onwards1024 and is given to her in the Attic imagery from the second quarter of the 4th c. BC.1025 The production of marble copies of the statue from the agora of Athens begins in the Tiberian times when a copy of this type is set up in Herculaneum, perhaps in the theatre (see note 1023, no. 3). The statue may have stressed the important function of Tyche in comic performances of the repertoire of the ‘new comedy’. In any case it fits well the presence in the same building of female draped statues inspired by well known classical types such as the Large and Small Herculaneum Ladies1026 and the socalled ‘Hera Borghese’.1027 In the early Claudian period, a copy of the same type was set up on the coast of Ostia (see note 1023, no. 2): perhaps the statue of Fortuna holding the rudder on the globe set up on the coast would

have advertized to the arriving boats the sea rule of Rome. The adoption of a well known late classical type of Tyche would have made this message more authoritative.

Fig. 60. Marble statue at Vienne, Archaeological Museum St. Peter, no. R 2001 – S – 072.

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

187

The first statue derived from this type found in Rome dates in the Flavian period and was carved by a workshop which used Luna marble (see note 1023, no. 4). Probably the statue was dedicated in the sanctuary of the Fortuna Publica Citerior which stood in the find area of the statue.1028 There are three copies dated in the Trajanic period: all of them come from the first region of Italy, Latium et Campania (note 1023, nos. 5-7) and two of them were found in Rome (see note 1023, nos. 5 and 6). The Mattei variation (note 1023, no. 5) is the first example of this type in which the head instead of having the mural crown is veiled, probably in order to increase the chaste appearance of the goddess. If the notice about the find of this statue in the area of ‘La Navicella’ on Mt. Caelius is accepted, it may have been set up in one of the sanctuaries of Fortuna on the Caelius1029 or in the Castra peregrina1030 which were constituted during the reign of Trajan, i. e. in the same age of the carving of the Mattei statue:1031 in the latter case, our goddess holding the rudder on the globe would have expressed the sea rule of Rome. In this period for the first time the style of this type is adopted for the funerary statue of a deceased lady (see note 1023, no. 7). The production of copies of this type became booming in the Hadrianic period, when no fewer than 10 surviving copies are dated (see note 1023, nos. 8-17). One variation comes from Hadrian’s villa near Tibur (see note 1023, no. 14) and reveals the adoption of the head covered by the mantle: of course the presence of the Braccio Nuovo type of Fortuna in Villa Hadriana is in keeping with the wealth of copies of opera nobilia from the Greek classical period which were set up

188

Antonio Corso

in this architectural complex.1032 Copies of renowned masterpieces set up there conveyed the styles of the Cnidian Aphrodite,1033 of the Resting Satyr,1034 of the Apollo Sauroctonus1035 and of the Vescovali type of Athena.1036 Thus the presence of our Tyche in this villa is hardly surprising. Since the statue stood in the so-called palaestra,1037 near the entrance of villa Hadriana, probably she expressed the fortune of the emperor. Other four Hadrianic examples of the type come from Rome or near by (see note 1023, nos. 8-10 and 16). The Borghese variation (note 1023, no. 16) confirms the success of the version of the type with the veiled head. The copy found in the Roman forum, in the atrium Vestae (see note 1023, no. 8) reveals the reuse of the type in order to represent a priestess of Vesta. This change of subject should be understood in the context of the habit to set up statues of Vestal virgins bearing styles of well known Greek classical female draped types.1038 The representation of the Vestals with classical configurations may have suggested a sense of authority and the respect which is due to a revered tradition. In Ostia, in the sacellum of Attis in the sanctuary of the Magna Mater, a statuette of Fortuna of our type was set up (see note 1023, no. 11): it was carved in Luna marble probably by a local workshop. The sanctuary is the same where the Praxitelean dodekatheon – probably imitating Praxiteles’ statues of the 12 gods of Megara – had been set up in the Julio – Claudian period (see above the work no. 24). Thus the direct inspiration from Praxiteles’ Tyche of Megara in this case is possible. The right arm of this statuette is missing: thus it is not impossible that the corresponding hand held a phiale as the Tyche of Megara.

The Ostian sanctuary of the Magna Mater was endowed with enthroned statues of this goddess derived from the Meter of Agoracritus,1039 with statuettes of Venus close to the Louvre / Naples type1040 as well as with a probable variation of the Cnidia:1041 these examples reveal the habit of the middle imperial patrons of statues set up in this sanctuary to conceive the deities according to the best established styles of the Attic classical tradition, with a particular consideration of Praxitelean styles. The goddess Fortuna, as a guarantee of prosperity, may have been an appropriate presence in the context of the cult of the Magna Mater, goddess of the fecundity, of the abundance as well as protector of the state. During the Hadrianic period, our type continues to be adopted for funerary statues of deceased ladies in Campania (see note 1023, no. 15). For the first time, the type is found in Asia Minor (see note 1023, no. 13) and precisely in Thyateira in Lydia (see note 1023, no. 12). Finally in this period this type is adopted for the body of the Muse Thalia in Cyrene (see note 1023, no. 17), while the other Muses which formed a group with this statue are endowed with Hellenistic styles which were traditionally given to these goddesses.1042 The re-use of the Braccio Nuovo type for Thalia, the Muse of the comedy, may be explained with the circumstances that copies of the Tyche Braccio Nuovo were often displayed in theatres1043and that Tyche was the ruler of the human agency in the plays of the new comedy: thus her successful configuration identified with the Braccio Nuovo type may have been thought to express well the inspiration of the comic poetry. The display of the Muse and of the other virgin goddesses of the

same group in the peristyle of the domus of Jason Magnus took place in late antiquity and thus will be considered below. In any case the reuse of the type in middle imperial Cyrene should be included in the evidence of the noteworthy presence of types derived from Praxitelean creations in this city during these decades.1044 The Muses of the house of Jason Magnus were Pentelic and probably had been carved by a neo-Attic workshop. During the Antonine period, the Braccio Nuovo type becomes one of the most often reproduced Greek classical creations (see note 1023, nos. 18-50 and fig. 60). No fewer than 11 statues of this type come from Rome or around (see note 1023, nos. 18; 22-23; 25-16; 32; 34; 38; 40; 44 and 49). The copy from Via della Stamperia (note 1023, no. 18) may have been set up in or near the templum Florae which was located in the same area:1045 both Fortuna and Flora were goddesses of the abundance and thus the dedication of a statue of the former in a sanctuary of the latter would be hardly surprising. In the Antonine period, the type is used also for portraits of ladies (see note 1023, nos. 23; 26; 32; 40; 44 and 49): the statue of one of these matronae bears the hair style of Faustina the Elder (see note 1023, no. 49). Moreover the Braccio Nuovo style was adopted by Faustina the Younger for the body of one type of her portraits (see note 1023, no. 26). This fact determined also the adoption of the Braccio Nuovo body for the portrait of a private lady with the hair look of the same empress (see note 1023, no. 32). Finally a lady with the hair look of Crispina is also represented with the Braccio Nuovo body (see note 1023, no. 44). The body of the Braccio Nuovo type could be given to statues of the empress Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

189

as well as of women close to the imperial family because the reuse of a renowned type of Fortuna would imply good wishes for the sitters of these portraits. Near Rome, an Antonine statue of the Braccio Nuovo type was found in Cora, along the via Appia (see note 1023, no. 28). This fact confirms the function of the via Appia in the spread of renowned sculptural types through marble copies, which has been already stressed above. The statue was found inside the ancient city near the forum of the town and perhaps was set up in the local sanctuary of Fortuna Opsequens.1046 The appeal of Praxitelean creations in Antonine Cora is revealed by a variation of the Cnidian Aphrodite found in this town.1047 Another Antonine statue close to this type comes from Praeneste (see note 1023, no. 41), pertains to the successful variation velato capite and, needless to say, must have been set up in the famous sanctuary of Fortuna Primigenia above which it still stands. The Athenian mirage in Antonine Praeneste is argued also by a marble enthroned goddess dated around 150 AD from the same sanctuary which echoes the Meter of Agoracritus.1048 Another copy velato capite comes from Lorium (see note 1023, no. 37), probably from the villa of Antonine Pius, where a statue of the Dresden type of Artemis1049 also testifies to the appeal of Praxitelean styles in the imperial circle which decided the sculptural display of the villa.1050 Another copy comes from the villa of Faustina the Elder in Caieta (see note 1023, no. 33), where a statue of Asclepios, generically echoing late classical types,1051 confirms both the predilection of the patronage for late classical styles and the desire to set up in the villa statues of deities promising good luck. In Campania probably the same workshop which delivered the marble

190

Antonio Corso

variation from Puteoli (see note 1023, no. 15) a couple of decades later carved the statue from Capua (see note 1023, no. 36): this atelier may have specialized in female draped statues bearing the Braccio Nuovo style but topped by portrait heads of deceased ladies. During the Antonine period, it becomes trendy to set up copies of our type in public baths: thus the copy from Fanum Fortunae (see note 1023, no. 24) probably comes from the public baths of this town:1052 the architectural complex was adorned also by a variation of the enthroned Meter of Agoracritus,1053 by other two enthroned statues probably inspired by Bryaxis’ Sarapis1054 as well as by an Apollinean triad, by one statue and one head of Diana and by one head of Hercules which also suggested a classicistic aura.1055 The presence of deities promising salvation in baths is in keeping with the rosy and optimistic concept of life forwarded by the baths, which were institutions devoted to the enjoyment of life. Equally, Artemis and Apollo conveyed a message of athletic youth. In this context, our Fortuna may have meant good luck and must have symbolized the same town of Fanum where the most important sanctuary was that of Fortuna. This copy had not the usual rudder on globe because there is no strut connecting the right side of the goddess with this attribute. Thus the right hand of the goddess may have outstretched the phiale as the Megarian Tyche of Praxiteles. This consideration and the close adherence of this copy to the original late classical style suggest that the Fortuna of Fanum may have been directly inspired by the Tyche of Praxiteles. The well known close link of the Adriatic world with the Greek one would strengthen this conclusion. Another copy of our Fortuna adorned the frigidarium of the public baths in

Vienna, in Gallia Narbonensis (see note 1023, no. 19 and fig. 60). This statue is one of the best of the Braccio Nuovo series of copies both because it preserves the Attic late classical style in the anatomic grammar of the face and in the folding of the drapery and since its head is endowed with a mural crown, in keeping with the Praxitelean Tyche on coin types of Megara. However, probably the statue derives from the Tyche of the agora of Athens (see note 1023, no. 1) because she held in her right hand the rudder on the globe and not the phiale outstretched by the Megarian Tyche of Praxiteles. The frigidarium of these baths was also endowed with a Hygieia of the late classical type Broadlands,1056 with a crouching Aphrodite1057 as well as with two Satyrs.1058 This imagery conveyed an optimistic message, epitomizing good luck (our Fortuna), health (the Hygieia), love (the Aphrodite) and enjoyment (the Satyrs). The mirage of the late classical Athenian heritage was testified not only by our Tyche but also by the Hygieia Broadlands. In the period around 150 AD, our type becomes diffused in Africa Proconsularis: a copy from Carthage probably testifies to the reception of this style as Fortuna (see note 1023, no. 43) perhaps with reference to the sea rule of the goddess. Another copy from Hadrumetum (see note 1023, no. 42) may reveal the use of the type for the statue of a deceased lady. These examples found across the Sicilian channel still retain the uses of the type rooted in Italy. However probably in Lambaesis the local patrons and / or a marble atelier conceived the idea to use this type for the cult statue of Hygieia set up in the temple of Aesculapius (see note 1023, no. 47), by changing the position of the arms and endowing the right arm of the god-

dess with a snake drinking from a patera held in her right hand. Possibly the fact that both Fortuna and Hygieia conveyed an optimistic message, promising respectively good luck and health, led to the decision to use the type of the former for a statue of the latter. Perhaps this innovation implied that the competence of Hygieia was not just health but encompassed the well being of the devotee in a broader sense. This innovation became successful in Africa Proconsularis: statues of Hygieia with Braccio Nuovo bodies were set up both in the frigidarium of the baths near the forum of Mactaris (see note 1023, no. 45) and in the theatre of Calama (see note 1023, no. 46). The frigidarium of Mactaris was endowed also with a copy of the Louvre / Naples type of Aphrodite:1059 these two goddesses promised respectively health and love and revealed the lure of classical styles in late Antonine Mactaris. I am unaware of other copies or variations of opera nobilia pertinent to the theatre of Calama. In the decades of the Panhellenic league, the Braccio Nuovo Tyche became a frequently copied type in Greece and one of the creations which fed the nostalgia for the masterpieces of the classical past. Two Antonine copies of the type were found in Attica (see note 1023, nos. 20 and 27): one of them, having been reused in the eastern stretch of the Herulian walls (see note 1023, no. 20) perhaps originally was set up in the space devoted to Agathe Tyche near the Pritaneum.1060 The second example of the Braccio Nuovo Tyche from Attica comes from near the hiera hodos between Athens and Eleusis and precisely from the Aegaleo hill (see note 1023, no. 27). This area was Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

191

characterized by a strong presence of Aphrodite:1061 a statue of Tyche could easily find a place in a land sacred to the love goddess because happiness in love and generic good luck could match together rather well. The interest for this type was shared by the Megarians who began representing Praxiteles’ Tyche on their coin types during the empire of Commodus (see note 1023, no. 50). The production of copies of this type by Attic sculptors during the late Antonine period is shown also by the copy in Pentelic marble signed by the Athenian sculptor Isidotus (see note 1023, no. 48) and set up in Gortys, the capital of the province Cyrenaica et Creta, probably in the agora of this city. This possible setting would suggest the will of the Gortynian patronage to reproduce in Gortys the setting of the original statue in the agora of Athens (see note 1023, no. 1): in this case the colossal statue would have personified the Tyche of Gortys. Not far from the find spot of this statue, a copy of the late classical Asclepios of Cos1062 and a variation of the Cnidian Aphrodite1063 were also found. This circumstance suggests that the frequent association of statues of deities delivering health, love and good luck occurred also in Gortys. Moreover the association of our type of Tyche with the world of Aphrodite harks back to Praxiteles’ Tyche of Megara set up in a sanctuary of this goddess near a temple of Aphrodite. In the Thracian town of Cissus another copy of our Tyche was set up (see note 1023, no. 35): the context of this statuette is not known. In the Antonine times, the Braccio Nuovo type continues to be popular in Asia Minor (see note 1023, nos. 21; 29; 31 and 39). Statues inspired by this

192

Antonio Corso

type were set up in Prusias ad Hypium in Bithynia (see note 1023, no. 29), in Ephesus, probably both in the Odeum – Bouleuterion (see note 1023, no. 31) and in the theatre (see note 1023, no. 39) and finally in Hierapolis, even in this case in the theatre (see note 1023, no. 21). The ancient context of the variation from Prusias is not known, while in the other three cases the statues were erected in buildings devoted to performances. Thus the inclusion of our type in the repertoire of statues destined to decorate theatres contributed to determine its success in Antonine Asia Minor. The statue from Prusias reveals a reinvention of the type according to the baroque magniloquentia: this adaptation of the type to the prevalent taste is due to a late Antonine workshop of Nicomedia which uses Proconnesian marble.1064 Thus the drapery and the hair of the goddess are occasion for never ending plays of light and shade and the horn of plenty is filled with several different fruits. Moreover the head is crowned, from below to the top, by a diadem, by a mural crown, by acanthus leafs as well as by an olive wreath. Finally a baby Plutus is held by the goddess in her left hand. The resulting message is triumphalistic: Tyche delivers wealth and any type of fruits. Moreover the acanthus leafs promise a new flourishing and a renovated cycle of life and generation.1065 Thus this Fortuna becomes one of the typical personifications of the imperial propaganda which foreshadow the happiness of the time. The high quality of this statue is justified also by the importance of Tyche in the pantheon of Prusias.1066 The copy found near the Odeum – Bouleuterion of Ephesus may have been set up in a niche of the frons scaenae of this building which around 150 AD was transformed from a Bouleuterion to an

Odeum.1067 Not by chance our statue was carved in the same years. Other statues set up in the stage of the Odeum included the personification of Demos,1068 Muses,1069 a Silenus1070 as well as portraits of members of the imperial family. Lucius Verus was represented with the body of the Borghese type of Ares.1071 The presence of the statue of Demos – of course that of Ephesus – suggests that our Fortuna represented the Tyche of Ephesus. Her good luck was made even sweeter by the song of the Muses as well as by the sensual appeal of Silenus. The copy from the theatre of Ephesus pertains to the Antonine phase of the building which was renewed between 141 and 144 AD1072 and adorned with a huge display of statues.1073 This series of statues included copies or variations of well known opera nobilia such as the Sciarra and Sosicles types of Amazons, Polycleitus’ Diadumenus, the Richelieu type of Hermes, the Arles, Cnidian and Capitoline types of Aphrodite, Athena with the style of the Dresden type of Artemis, the Mousagetes, Daphnephoros and Antium types of Apollo, Dionysos conceived with the style of the Apollo Lyceus, the Lateran type of Poseidon and the Alexandrian type of Sarapis. Again the presence of personifications of the institutional bodies of the city of Ephesus1074 suggests that our copy represented the Tyche of Ephesus. The re-use of the Braccio Nuovo type of Tyche is in keeping with the setting of copies of the above listed late classical masterpieces. Finally a statue derived from the Braccio Nuovo type decorated the scaenae frons of the theatre of Hierapolis. The substitution of the horn of plenty with a sceptre revealed by this statue must have underlined the ruling status of the goddess upon her function of deliver-

ing abundance. The veiled head reveals the predilection for the more chaste interpretation of the type. Our Tyche was included in a sculptural display which was composed of at least 25 statues.1075 The surviving statues derived from famous types are a seated dramatic poet close to the Posidippus type,1076 a head probably of an Apollo Mousagetes,1077 a Sarapis of the Alexandrian type,1078 an Apollo Citharoedus1079 and an Asclepius of the Campana type.1080 These examples reveal the presence of the classical formal heritage in the statuary decoration of the theatre. Moreover the imagery of the Apollinean triad and of Asclepios is in keeping with the prevalence of the cults of Apollo and Artemis in this town.1081 Probably our Tyche had as pendant another draped female statue with mirrored style1082 which perhaps represented the Tragedy.1083 Thus the rule of Tyche would have been considered through the paradigm of the fabulae performed in the theatre. Finally an Antonine Tyche of the Braccio Nuovo type comes from Alexandria (see note 1023, no. 30). Her find together with a statue of Marcus Aurelius suggests that here she was the protectress of the Roman state and of the imperial house. There are 24 images derived from the Braccio Nuovo type which date in the Severan period (see note 1023, nos. 51-74). This fact is surprising because copies of renowned masterpieces of the classical period go out of fashion during these decades. This exception may be explained with the circumstance that the Braccio Nuovo body offered a dignifying and chaste appearance to several female subjects which include Tyche, Hygieia and women. Probably 6 of these examples come from Rome (see note 1023, nos. 59; 62; 65-66; 70 and 73). Most of these statues may represent Fortuna (see Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

193

note 1023, nos. 62; 65-66; 70 and 73) but at least one of them was a Hygieia (see note 1023, no. 59): since in the Antonine period the use of the Braccio Nuovo type in order to represent the daughter of Aesculapius was trendy in Africa Proconsularis, probably with the Severan dynasty this new identification of the type came to Rome from north – western Africa. Our type continues to be adopted also for statues set up in villas outside Rome (see note 1023, nos. 58 and 74). A statuette comes from the Quintili’s villa, probably from the hippodromus garden of the villa, and still represented Fortuna (see note 1023, no. 74)1084. This area was adorned with a Pan of the Leiden type,1085 a sleeping Eros,1086 portraits of Socrates1087 and of Epicurus,1088 Muses of the so called ‘Thespiads’ types,1089 Boethus’ group of the putto with the goose,1090 a symplegma of a Faunus with a Nymph,1091 a Mercurius,1092 a putto,1093 a baby Hercules,1094 a possible Diana1095 and a probable Apollo,1096 a Bacchus,1097 Sileni,1098 a Satyr1099 and a sleeping Maenad.1100 At the time, the Quintili’s villa was imperial property: several of the above listed subjects compose a gallant mythology which was often represented with statues in areas devoted to leisure of imperial estates. Tyche, promising good luck, was appropriate to a series of images which illustrated the pleasures of life. The presence of copies of the Leiden type of Pan, of the portraits of Socrates and Epicurus, of the sleeping Eros, of the so called Thespiads and of Boethus’ group reveal the importance of late classical and early Hellenistic opera nobilia in the choice of the sculptural display of this part of the villa. Another statue derived from the Braccio Nuovo type comes from the so called ‘Palace of Marius’ near Tusculum

194

Antonio Corso

and was re-interpreted as Hygieia (see note 1023, no. 58). This villa was adorned with statues of Apollo, Asclepios, Muses, Athena as well as with another Hygieia:1101 while most of these statues gave emphasis to the intellectual pleasures, Hygieia, as a bearer of good health, was not out of place and moreover could be included in the circle of Apollo which received here a particular attention. The presence in the villa of a copy of Praxiteles’ Apollo Citharoedus from Megara1102 may suggest a conscious desire on the part of the patrons to have a statue derived from a Megarian masterpiece of Praxiteles also in the case of this copy of the Braccio Nuovo goddess. Needless to say, this statue confirms the reception in Rome of the re-definition of the Braccio Nuovo goddess as Hygieia. Other two Severan copies of the type come from Hispania (see note 1023, nos. 54 and 67): in both cases the type still retains its characterization as Fortuna. Both copies come from the Baetica and precisely respectively from Hispalis (see note 1023, no. 54) and Corduba (see note 1023, no. 67) which was the capital of the province. The original context of the former is not known although its find in a well together with statues of Diana and of Bacchus might suggest that the three statues stood together already in their ancient context. Another Severan copy of the Braccio Nuovo type – that from the Quintili’s villa – may also have stood in an environment adorned with statues of Diana and Bacchus. Indeed, Diana, the goddess of the lush of the groves and of the Arcadian happiness, and Bacchus, the god of the inebriation, could be associated with the divine bearer of good luck! Unfortunately, the archaeology of ancient Hispalis is poorly known and thus we are not aware of displays of opera nobilia in town.

The copy from Corduba was set up in the forum of the province which was adorned with statues of the flamines for the imperial cult.1103 New statues were set up in this square during the late Severan period.1104 and our Fortuna may have been one of them. In a context devoted to the imperial cult, our Fortuna may have protected the Roman state and the imperial family. The worship of Fortuna in Corduba is known thanks to epigraphical evidence.1105 Our Fortuna is included in a noteworthy series of free standing marble statues with ideal subjects carved in local marble workshops and decorating the city centre of the capital of the Baetica.1106 There are three Severan statues inspired by the Braccio Nuovo type which have been found in Africa Proconsularis (see note 1023, nos. 68-69 and 71): these sculptures have been found respectively in Lambaesis (see note 1023, no. 68), Thamugadi (see note 1023, no. 69) and Thysdrus (see note 1023, no. 71). The Severan torso from Lambaesis probably imitates the Antonine Hygieia carved in imitation of the Braccio Nuovo type and set up in the local temple of Aesculapius (see note 1023, no. 47): thus it is likely that the Severan copy was also a Hygieia. The Severan statuette in Thamugadi was a Hygieia too and thus adds to the evidence of the great popularity of the interpretation of the Braccio Nuovo style as the goddess of health in Africa Proconsularis. This Hygieia was associated to a statuette of Aesculapius. A dedicatory inscription to Hygia Augusta 1107 suggests that she protected the good health of the imperial family. The statuettes of Hygieia and Aesculapius may also have advertized the near

large southern baths of the city as a complex devoted to the well being of its customers: in the frigidarium of these baths, a naked Nymph – a variation of the type of the Venus with the shell – and another Hygieia 1108 promised enjoyment and health. Moreover a Juppiter echoing the early classical athletic statuary1109 confirms the desire of local patrons to have statues imitating classical styles. Finally a statuette in Luna marble coming from the early 3rd c. AD large amphitheatre of Thysdrus1110 may have represented Peace or Concord because she held a caduceus in her left hand.1111 The re-use of our iconography which until now visualized the personifications of good luck and health in order to represent the victorious peace or the concord is not surprising because all of these concepts are optimistic and were instrumental to the imperial propaganda. This consideration explains the setting of our goddess in an architectural context as the amphitheatre which was dear to the imperial propaganda. In fact amphitheatres were the setting of statues of Artemis, Apollo, Venus, Minerva, Aesculapius, Bacchus, Satyrs, Hercules and Paris:1112 all of these deities and heroes advertized a peculiar aspect of the enjoyment and thus were not out of place in a building devoted to ludi. Perhaps marble statuettes were erected against the walls of the gangways:1113 this is a possible setting also of our statuette. In the Severan Greece, the Megarians continued to represent Praxiteles’ Tyche on three coin types during the empire of Septimius Severus (see note 1023, nos. 51-53). A statuette of the Braccio Nuovo type carved in Pentelic marble by an Attic workshop represented Hygieia and comes from Sparta (see note 1023, no. Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

195

60). This copy reveals the reception of the re-interpretation of the type as Hygieia in the Peloponnese and should be added to the list of copies from late classical opera nobilia which adorned Sparta during the middle imperial times1114 in keeping with the status of this polis as a respected member of the Panhellenic League. Perhaps this Hygieia was dedicated in one of the sanctuaries of Asclepios of Sparta.1115 Another Hygieia Braccio Nuovo was set up in the building K, which perhaps is to be identified with Antoninus’ baths provided also with a library, of the Asclepieum of Epidaurus (see note 1023, no. 63): it is also Pentelic and carved by an Attic workshop. From the inscription it is argued that the dedicatee was a certain Lysimachus.1116 This Hygieia is one of the several dedications of statues in the Epidaurian Asclepieum made during the Severan times.1117 These sculptures include representations of Asclepios loosely inspired by late classical models,1118 Artemis of the Colonna1119 and of the Rospigliosi types,1120 Aphrodite of the Louvre / Naples1121 and of the Cnidian types1122 and two statuettes of Meter close to the Agoracritan type.1123 These examples reveal the persistence in loco of a classicistic mentality which promotes the continuing reproduction of a selection of privileged masterpieces regarded the best available interpretations of the most important deities. These baths with library were adorned also by several other sculptures: statues of Asclepios according to the Giustini,1124 Este,1125 Eleusis1126 and Velia types,1127, of Hygieia according to the Hope,1128 Berlin1129 and Peplophoros types,1130 of Telesphoros,1131 of Asclepiades,1132, of Apollo of the Antium1133 and Citharoedus types,1134 of Aphrodite of the Armata,1135 Cnidia1136 and Anadyomene

196

Antonio Corso

types,1137 of Athena close to the Parthenos type1138 and of the Epidaurus type,1139 of Hermes,1140 of Dionysus with a Satyr,1141 of Pan,1142 of enthroned goddesses close to the Agoracritan Meter1143 and finally of Kore close to the Praxitelean types.1144 Most of these images appealed to the physical and intellectual enjoyment which was satisfied by the baths and the library. Moreover the many reproductions of renowned masterpieces of the classical period reveal the neosophistic culture of both patrons and customers or pilgrims. Four Severan examples of the type come from Asia Minor (see note 1023, nos. 55; 57; 61 and 72): these statues were found in Sardis (see note 1023, no. 57), in the region of Smyrna (see note 1023, no. 72), in Side (see note 1023, no. 61) while a statue in Constantinople (see note 1023, no. 55) is without provenance. These examples testify to the continuity in the Severan Asia Minor of the use of the Braccio Nuovo type in order to represent Tyche. This preservation of the original identity of the type may be explained with the consideration that the iconography of the Braccio Nuovo type of Tyche and her identification with the goddess of good luck were well rooted in this region from the Hadrianic times onwards (see note 1023, nos. 12-13; 21; 29; 31 and 39). In particular, the Severan copy from the region of Smyrna comes from an area in which a Hadrianic copy of the same type (see note 1023, no. 12) had been previously set up. The copy from Sardis stood in the marble court of the gymnasium – baths of the Lydian metropolis:1145 after its reshape in the age of Septimius Severus, probably this hall was devoted to the imperial cult.1146 Thus our Tyche may have been regarded the protectress of

the imperial family. The imperial hall was rich in representations of Dionysus and of figures of his retinue (Satyrs, probably at least a Maenad and a Faun): thus Tyche conveyed an optimistic message made more explicit by the Dionysiacal imagery. The setting of this Tyche in the baths – gymnasium of Sardis is another example of the Antonine / Severan habit of erecting copies of the Braccio Nuovo type in baths (see also note 1023, nos. 19; 24; 45; 56; 63-64 and 69) probably because the quiet yet elegant appearance of this type was regarded apt to represent goddesses promising good luck, as Tyche / Fortuna, or health, as Hygieia. Of course the presence of these goddesses was in keeping with the functions of baths, devoted to the enjoyment of life. Finally the copy from Side was found near the local theatre. Indeed the Braccio Nuovo Tyche was included in the repertoire of sculptural types regarded apt to decorate theatres from the Tiberian times onwards (see note 1023, nos. 3; 21; 31; 39 and 76). In particular the find of this fragment near the front behind the stage of the theatre looking toward the agora – which thus worked also as porticus post scaenam – suggests that this Tyche was set up in the sanctuary of this goddess which had been constituted in the agora:1147 perhaps this was the cult statue erected in the round naiskos of this goddess which had been built in the section of the agora which was close to the theatre. This naiskos was oriented toward the skene of the theatre.1148 The love for copies of opera nobilia of the classical and early Hellenistic periods in middle imperial Side is well known:1149 thus the desire to have in the central square of the town a copy of our renowned type of Tyche is hardly surprising and probably reveals the wish to imi-

tate the setting of the original statue of the type in the agora of Athens. During the Severan period the Braccio Nuovo type of Tyche spreads also to Syria (see note 1023, nos. 56 and 64). The diffusion of this type from Baetica to Syria in such a late period, when copying from classical masterpieces goes out of fashion, is quite remarkable and is probably due both to the inclusion of the type in the repertoire of figures apt to be displayed in several types of buildings and areas (theatres, baths, square, villas, sanctuaries, etc.) and to the fact that the appearance of this type could express important subjects (Tyche; Hygieia; Concordia; Thalia; Nemesis; empresses, deceased ladies). One of the two Syrian copies comes from a Nymphaeum in Apamea (see note 1023, no. 56) while the other comes from a bath in Antioch (see note 1023, no. 64); in both cases Hygieia was represented. The Hygieia from a late Antonine Nymphaeum in Apamea1150 was in couple with a statuette of Asclepios, loosely inspired by the Eleusis and Chiaramonti types.1151 The Nymphaeum was decorated also by a symplegma of Love and Psyche,1152 by the three Graces,1153 by a Heracles of the Farnese type,1154 by an Athena of the Velletri type,1155 by a reclining goddess, perhaps a Nymph,1156 by a Hermes,1157 by a hunting Artemis1158 as well as by other statues, surviving only in fragments, whose subjects and types cannot be identified.1159 This series of statues puts on show the usual gallant representation of the mythology with Love, Psyche, the Graces and a Nymph. Asclepios and Hygieia fit this context well because they are bearers of good health. The presence of copies of the Velletri type of Athena and of the Farnese type of Heracles reveals the high consideration of a few masterpieces of the classical past. Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

197

Athena and Heracles promise respectively prowess in war and strength and were appropriate choices for a Nymphaeum in a region as Syria which in the Severan times was the headquarter of the Roman army for the Parthic expeditions. The presence, beside the Heracles of the Farnese type, of an Asclepios inspired by the Eleusis and Chiaramonti types as well as of our Braccio Nuovo goddess reveals a predilection for late classical styles. The Hygieia from the baths F of Antioch was also paired with a statue of Asclepios .1160 These two statues reveal the use of the Braccio Nuovo style in order to represent Hygieia – known in Africa Proconsularis, central Italy and Greece – also in this eastern province which, thanks to the Severan dynasty, acquired greater importance in the empire and thus participated more than in the past in the circulation of iconographies across the Mediterranean world. The production of statues inspired by the Braccio Nuovo type dies out during the advanced 3rd c. AD. In this period, a statue probably representing Fortuna comes from Rome or near by (see note 1023, no. 75). The stage of the theatre of Ephesus is adorned with another statuette, which is endowed with a griffon in the right side (see note 1023, no. 76): perhaps she represents Nemesis.1161 Indeed the victorious revenge could also convey an optimistic message and was provided, from the remote times of Agoracritus, with a moral pondus, moreover the presence of this goddess was appropriate to the tragic plays which often ended with a final retaliation, thus she was not out of place in a theatre. Around the middle of the 3rd c. AD, a new statuette of Tyche was set up in Side

198

Antonio Corso

(see note 1023, no. 78) and imitated the Severan Tyche probably erected in the Tycheum in the porticus post scaenam of the town (see note 1023, no. 61). Finally, around 240 AD, in Calama in Africa Proconsularis, a new statue of Hygieia endowed with the Braccio Nuovo style was set up (see note 1023, no. 77): probably it was inspired by the Braccio Nuovo Hygieia erected in the theatre of the same city in the Antonine period (see note 1023, no. 46). There are also two copies which can be dated only generically to the period of the copyist production (see note 1023, nos. 79-80). The statue once in the Casa Hieronymi de Cupis near the Church of St. Mary de anima was of the velato capite subtype (see note 1023, no. 79). Since this church was just west of the stadium Domitiani,1162 perhaps the statue decorated one of the fornices or niches of the stadium. Several copies of opera nobilia beautified this complex: an Apollo of the Kassel type, an Oilpourer of the Munich type, another Apollo of the Lyceus type, a Pothos of the Scopas’ type, the Lysippan Hermes tying his sandal and finally the so-called ‘Pasquino’.1163 In this context, Fortuna may have been the bearer of victory in the athletic contests held in the stadium while the two statues of Apollo, Hermes and the Oilpourer would also refer to the athletic life. The Pothos would put on show another aspect of the life of the youths, while the Pasquino group would suggest the close proximity of athletes to warriors. Our Tyche, the Apollo Lyceus, the Pothos and the Lysippan Hermes reveal the appeal of late classical masterpieces felt by whoever decided this sculptural display. Since the interpretation of the Tyche Braccio Nuovo with a veiled head is typi-

cal of Trajanic, Hadrianic and Antonine copies found in the region of Rome (see note 1023, nos. 5; 7; 14-16; 26; 37; 40-41; 44 and 49), perhaps the statue pertained to the Hadrianic restoration of the stadium.1164 Another copy once stood in Thibica in Africa Proconsularis (see note 1023, no. 80) and thus pertains to the noteworthy fortune of our type in the region of Carthage. After around 250 AD, new copies of the type are no longer carved. However when - probably between the late 4th c. and the early 5th c. AD – collections of old pagan idols were constituted, two statues inspired by this type were preserved. In Cyrene, the statue interpreted as the Muse Thalia, together with the other Muses of the same group, was set up in the house of Jason Magnus (see note 1023, no. 17) which at the time probably worked as a gymnasium,1165 while the Hygieia in the baths F in Antioch (see note 1023, no. 64) was preserved even when a church was created in these baths.1166 If we consider the whole body of copies and variations of the Braccio Nuovo type of Tyche, we realize that no example is a cast of the lady of the agora of Athens (see note 1023, no. 1): probably in this case casts were not allowed and even the most faithful examples are copies taken at some distance from the original statue. With the Tyche of Megara, Praxiteles created a type which conveys the notions that the goddess was powerful in her standing and secure attitude, self confident and a bearer of joy to her worshippers, as the attributes of the horn of plenty and of the phiale would have underlined. Thus he created the most important and authoritative configuration of the ruler of states and of persons of the age of the new comedy. This style will be

important in the visual culture for many years to come, until late antiquity.

55. The labours of Heracles in the pediments of the temple of Heracles in Thebes This work is also known thanks to Pausanias 9. 11. 6: ‘The sculptures in the gables (en tois aetois) (scil.: of the temple of Heracles) for the Thebans are by Praxiteles, and represent most of what are called the twelve labours. The affair of the Stymphalian birds and Heracles cleansing the land of Elis are wanting and in their stead the wrestling with Antaeus has been carved’ (transl. Frazer with amendments). The sanctuary and temple of Heracles in Thebes were located south – east of the Cadmeia, outside the Electran gates.1167 The cult of Heracles was one of the most important in Thebes1168 and was very ancient: the cult statue was a xoanon attributed to Daedalus.1169 In a later moment the two Theban sculptors Xenocritus and Eubius carved a marble agalma of Heracles Promachos:1170 this statue has been recognized on late 5th c. BC Theban coins representing a young Heracles advancing with club and bow.1171 In fact this iconography is appropriate to Heracles Promachos . Thus the statue of the two Theban sculptors should date before the third quarter of the 5th c. BC, perhaps in the period – the 470s BC - when Pindar celebrated this sanctuary giving it a widespread acclaim1172 and mentioned the ‘newly built circle of altars’ inside the hieron (Pindar, Isthmian Odes 4. 62): this building activity would be the ideal context for the setting of the new statue of the hero. Probably in 403 BC, colossal statues of Athena and Heracles in Pentelic by Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

199

Alcamenes were dedicated in the sanctuary by Thrasyboulus and the other Athenians who from Thebes mouved to Athens in order to put down the government of the Thirty.1173 Perhaps from this period onwards the patrons and public of the Theban Heracleion began appreciating creations of Athenian masters.1174 The sanctuary of Heracles continued to be important also in the first half of the 4th c. BC: by 371 BC, weapons were put on the internal walls of the temple.1175 The circumstances that the statue of Heracles was Promachos and that weapons were stored inside the temple clarify that in this sanctuary the hero was the protector of the Theban warriors and of their military fortune. Probably in the 360s, Xenophon of Athens, a pupil of Cephisodotus the Elder, together with the Theban Callistonicus, made the statue of Tyche carrying the child Plutus for the sanctuary of Tyche in Thebes: this group was inspired by the Eirene carrying the child Plutus by Cephisodotus the Elder.1176 With the setting up of this monument, the Thebans must have begun to know the creations of the atelier of Cephisodotus the Elder and Praxiteles. The desire of the Thebans during the central decades of the 4th c. BC to have statues of the most renowned masters is argued also by the agalmata of Athena Pronaia and of Artemis Eukleia by Scopas set up in Thebes.1177 The pedimental sculptures of Praxiteles probably date in the period from 346 to 339 BC when Thebes was allied to Athens.1178 Perhaps the neighbouring sanctuaries of Heracles and of Apollo Ismenios1179 competed each other about holding masterpieces of the most renowned masters: thus the latter hieron which had already been endowed with an Apollo by Canachus (Pausanias 9. 10.

200

Antonio Corso

2) and a Hermes by Phidias (ibidem) was enriched also with a statue of Athena Pronaia by Scopas1180 while the authorities of the Heracleion must have desired sculptures of the most famous contemporary marble sculptor of Greece: Praxiteles. In the late 340s, the alliance of Athens with Thebes would explain the fact that an Athenian sculptor was charged of images in one of the most important sanctuaries of Thebes, which expressed the mythical identity and memory of the polis. Since this sanctuary was a sort of flag of the military strength and of the victorious deeds of Thebes, the mythical yet victorious labours of the Theban Heracles in the gables of this temple probably were regarded the remote antecedents of more recent victories of the polis which occurred during the period of the late classical Theban hegemony.1181 The canon of the labours of Heracles accepted in the sanctuary was different from the usual one in Athens and in the Peloponnese: two athla located respectively in Arcadia (the Stymphalian birds) and in Elis (the cleansing of the Augeian stables) were not included in the Theban series, perhaps because they were not regarded so important in Boeotia and in Thebes. On the contrary the wrestling of Heracles with the giant Antaeus, which in southern Greece was not regarded one of the 12 labours, was included in the Theban canon of the labours, probably because Heracles was thought to have departed from Thebes in order to reach Lybia and meet there the giant. This story had been sang by Pindar1182 and the local authority of this Boeotian poet must have favoured the inclusion of this myth in the Theban canon of Heracles labours. The display of 11 labours in two late classical pediments may look strange because the thematic unity of the representation in a pediment had been estab-

lished already in the middle archaic period and thus must have been regarded obvious in the 4th c. BC. However the temple was very ancient and the pedimental sculptures by Praxiteles may have substituted earlier, archaic ones. For regions of religious conservatism, the narration of these 11 episodes or duels in two gables had to be preserved. Since Praxiteles used to work mainly in his atelier in Athens and sent his sculptures to their final destination, it is likely that he prepared the small size models in his ergasterion, sent them to Thebes and that a local workshop carved the pediments. Probably this working system – well established masters make the models and common craftsmen carve the sculptures - had been used also for the sculptures of the Parthenon, of the Asclepieion of Epidaurus as well as of the Mausoleum (see above, the work no. 35). The sculptures of the pediments of the Heracleion do not survive.1183 However from the specification of Pausanias it is possible to suggest the following sequence of labours displayed in the two pediments: 1. the Nemean lion; 2. the Ler-

Figs. 61-62. Heracles frieze at Delphi, Archaeological Museum, nos. 5431; 2556; 4233 + 2081; 2455 + 1555; 2545 and 5432 + 1798. The drawing is by Leveque. naean hydra; 3. the Erymanthian boar; 4. the Cerynitian deer; 5. the Cretan bull; 6. the mares of Diomedes; 7. the Amazons; 8. Geryon; 9. Antaeus;1184 10. Cerberus and 11. the Hesperids. It is now time to examine the possible link between the labours of Heracles of the Heracleion of Thebes and the marble frieze with the relief representation of the athla of this hero1185 which decorated the proskenion of the theatre of Delphi (figs. 61-64). Probably this frieze dates around 67 AD, when Nero visited Delphi, participating to the Pythian games: the deeds of Heracles would have been regarded a Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

201

Figs. 63-64. Heracles frieze at Delphi, Archaeological Museum, nos. 5431; 2556; 4233 + 2081; 2455 + 1555; 2545 and 5432 + 1798. The drawing is by Leveque.

202

Antonio Corso

mythological antecedent of the glory of Nero because the emperor was lavished with the honours of the hero. 1186 The sequence of the episodes of Heracles narrated in the Delphic frieze is controversial. Here I report the succession suggested by Jacquemin because it looks the most logical:1187 1. Cerberus; 2. the Nemean lion; 3. the Centaurs; 4. the Lernean Hydra; 5. the wrestling with Antaeus; 6. a lost athlon; 7. the Amazon; 8. Geryon; 9. the mares of Diomedes; 10. a lost labour; 11. the Stymphalian birds; 12. a lost labour and 13. the Hesperids. The overly packed and disordered disposition of the episodes suggests that

the frieze is a collage of representations of labours taken from previous models.1188 Boardman1189 suggested that the sources of inspiration for the Delphic frieze were the dodekathla of Lysippus but this suggestion is not convincing first of all because by the time in which the Delphic frieze was carved the Lysippan series was in Rome, moreover because the 12 labours of Lysippus have been recognized in the Roman imagery1190 and they look very different from the styles adopted in our frieze, also since the episode of Antaeus was not included in the Lysippan sequence and finally because no figure of our frieze reveals something of the style of Lysippus.

On the contrary, the inclusion in the Delphic series of the wrestling of Heracles with Antaeus links this frieze with the pediments of the Heracleion of Thebes. Since Thebes and Delphi are rather close, the influence of late classical sculptures of the former city on a relief in the latter sanctuary is not unlikely. Moreover the Praxitelean oeuvre enjoyed a great success under Nero: this conclusion is argued by the many Neronian copies of Praxitelean types (e. g. of the Cnidia, of the Resting Satyr, of the Sauroctonus, etc.). Thus it is not impossible that the Praxitelean athla of Heracles inspired the labours of this hero in a frieze conceived in the context of the Neronian propaganda. These considerations suggest a careful analysis of the Delphic frieze. Of course the episodes in this relief of the Centaurs – which was not one of the 12 labours – and of the birds should be excluded from the possible derivation of the series from Praxitelean models because they were not represented in the Theban gables. All the figures of the Delphic frieze – except in the two specified episodes – bear the following features: 1. the bodies show the prevalence of the skin upon the muscles. Even the depictions of Heracles do not reveal an emphasis of the musculature; 2. the drapery of the Hesperid responds well to the garments of the Praxitelean female figures from the Kore Uffizi to the Muses of Mantinea. In other words there is no indulgence on the over-folding and the garments appear concrete upon concrete bodies. Moreover the sober folding is used for plays of light and shade;

3. the schema of the figure of Marsyas in the Mantinean base is reused in the Delphic frieze in order to represent Heracles at least in the episodes of the hydra, of Antaeus, of Cerberus, of Geryon and of the mares of Diomedes; 4. the faces are oval and the foreheads are triangular and with the upper borders curved. Heracles against Diomedes has also narrow and elongated eyes, short mouth and a slightly protruding chin. All of these features are typical of the Praxitelean anatomic grammar; 5. the figures of Cerberus, of the lion, of the hydra and of the mare have the aura of the fairy tales and in this respect are similar to the horses of the Kidnapping of Kore by Praxiteles (work no. 5); 6. the marked difference of height of the figures, the occurrence of diagonal positions and the reared up mare of Diomedes would be appropriate to pedimental sculptures; 7. the Delphic frieze does not have landscape details: this feature is also shared by the frieze of the Mantinean base and moreover may betray the derivation of the figures in relief from sculptures in the round. 8. The body of the Centaur is quite different from the other bodies: it has large, flat and not detailed surfaces without the creation with the muscles of games of light and shade. Equally the inorganic body of Heracles in the birds episode certainly does not derive from a classical Greek prototype. Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

203

These observations confirm that these two episodes do not derive from the same visual source of the others but probably have been invented ex novo by the not very talented Roman imperial sculptor of the frieze. On the contrary, the visual source of the other episodes must have been a series of athla of Heracles conceived according to the style of Praxiteles and including the wrestling of Heracles with Antaeus. We are aware of only one sequence of the labours of this hero made by Praxiteles and moreover including the episode of Antaeus: that in the pediments of the Heracleion of Thebes. Moreover the frieze of Delphi depends from a model in which the different episodes are not divided with frames or vertical elements and this detail also fits rather well the suggestion that the frieze is inspired by pediments because in the pedimental sculpture there was not a tradition of framing the figures or of placing vertical partitions. On the basis of the schemata used in the Heracles frieze of Delphi, the succession of the episodes in the Praxitelean pediments may have been the following. In one pediment the narration from the left corner may have begun with the Nemean lion because the schema of this episode in the Delphic frieze determines a diagonal configuration which is appropriate to the corner of a pediment, then probably the Lernaean hydra was represented because in this episode in the Delphic frieze the position of Heracles is still diagonal but more erect. In the central part of this pediment probably there were the Erymanthian boar, the Cerynitian deer and the Cretan bull, which probably were the 3 episodes of the Delphic frieze which did not survive. Finally the episode of the mares of Diomedes may have closed the pediment

204

Antonio Corso

in the right corner because in the Delphic frieze the figures of this episode are markedly diagonal and appropriate to this position. The other pediment may have begun from the left corner with the episode of the Amazon because in the Delphic frieze this group has a diagonal configuration which is rather appropriate to this position. Probably next was Geryon because in the Delphic frieze the construction of this episode is rather vertical. The episode of Antaeus may have been displayed in the centre of the pediment because the balanced composition of this group fits well the position in the middle. Then the episode of Cerberus would follow because in the Delphic frieze Heracles probably was kneeling toward Cerberus, finally the Hesperids episode may have closed the pediment in the right corner because in the Delphic frieze the diagonal configuration both of the hero and of the Hesperid is appropriate to this position. This sequence, argued from the shapes of the episodes in the Delphic frieze, coincides with the traditional succession of the enterprises of the hero and thus probably is the correct one. Let us now turn to the analysis of the art of Praxiteles in his visual ‘invention’ of these stories. First of all it has to be stressed that Heracles appears always young, his body is slender, his musculature is moderate and without emphasis, his head has an oval face, narrow and elongated eyes, triangular forehead with the upper borders curved, finally his hair is made of short locks. These representations of the hero are blatantly inspired by the athletic tradition of the Munich type of Oil pourer and of the Hermes of Olympia. In the episode of the Nemean lion, the hero is represented while he has put

his arms across the throat of the lion. The coat of the lion looks sinuous, with games of light and shade. The head of the lion looks that of a toy and places the sacred story in a world of tales. In the hydra’s scene the hero has also put his hand on the throat of the monster. The latter bears sinuous spires which blossom from the phantasy of the master of the sinuosity. Spires and head of the monster suggest to the viewer that s/he has in front a beautiful tale. In the mares’ episode, the hero picks the mare from her mane. The reared up mare has an araldic flavour which is in keeping with the general depiction of the labours of the hero as beautiful tales. The depiction of Heracles over a kneeling Diomedes in oriental cloths was probably added by the sculptor of the Delphic frieze in order to please the new Heracles – Nero – portrayed as victor against barbarians, i. e. for reasons of imperial propaganda. In the story of Heracles with the Amazon, the hero has a diagonal position and is ready to hit the Amazon who is about to fall down, trying in vain to protect herself with her shield. The place in a corner of a pediment of a falling warrior was traditional. In the fight of Heracles with the three bodies of Geryon, the bodies of the latter are also inspired by the late classical model of slender athlete, with oval face and short, curly hair. The episode of Antaeus is represented when the outcome of the wrestling is still undecided. The giant is also conceived according to the late classical model of slender athlete. The episode of Cerberus has Heracles who takes the dog from one head. The dog is conceived in its corporeity which betrays its derivation from the sculpture in the round.

Finally the story of the Hesperids was represented with a slender Heracles inclined to his right with his right arm outstretched in order to pluck the apples from a tree which is not preserved but is implied by the position of the right arm of the hero. On the contrary, the Hesperid has a diagonal configuration toward her left and is inspired by the schema of the running female Niobid from the horti Sallustiani.1191 Since the latter masterpiece also comes from a pediment,1192 it is obvious that the schema of this figure was regarded appropriate for its re-use for a female figure placed in the viewer’s right section of a pediment. Of course this consideration strengthens the suggestion that most of the Delphic frieze is inspired by pedimental sculpture. However, when compared with the running Niobid, the Hesperid reveals her pertinence to the late classical imagery. The folds of her drapery have lost the geometric scansion characterizing the garment of the Niobid. In fact this figure reveals the sense of corporeity of both the body and the drapery with its irregular folding. The sense of the body expresses the teenage sensuality of the young Hesperid. Thus the invention of this figure is appropriate to the Praxitelean conception of a tale of young beautiful figures. The representation of Heracles as young and beardless is appropriate to Thebes where the hero was born and was supposed to have spent his youth:1193 thus probably the decision to show Heracles young and beardless on the gables of the Heracleion was taken by the patrons of the pediments. They charged Praxiteles for this task probably because he was the renowned expert of figures of teenage deities and heroes. As usual Praxiteles re-created the old stories of the hero as beautiful and gentle tales. Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

205

After the completion of this work, the Heracleion appeared an important landmark as it is argued from the narration of the attack of Alexander to Thebes in 335 BC.1194 Thanks to this work, Praxiteles must have enjoyed a good fame in town because, after 315 BC, the Thebans, when they reconstructed their city, asked the two sons of Praxiteles – Cephisodotus the Younger and Timarchus – to carve the sculptural display of the altar of Dionysus Cadmeus on the Cadmeia.1195 In the middle Hellenistic period, Plautus, who depended from an unidentified late classical comedy, placed Antaeus among the labours of the hero,1196 probably reflecting the acceptation of this episode as one of the canonic athla of Heracles in the late classical society. In the Augustan Roman world, the inclusion of Antaeus among the canonic labours is argued from a silver cup from Pompeii.1197 In the Neronian times, Praxiteles’ labours became the main source of inspiration for the frieze which decorated the pulpitum of the theatre of Delphi. The patrons wanted the inclusion in the series of athla of the Stymphalian birds because by the time it was regarded a canonic labour. Moreover they demanded also the representation of the Centauromachy probably because this story had been considered one of the canonic labours by the influential Euripides.1198 The Delphic frieze may have established Antaeus in the series of the canonic labours decorating stages of theatres because in the Hadrianic period this episode was represented together with the 12 labours in the frons scaenae of the theatre of Corinth.1199 Finally in the period of Marcus Aurelius the importance of Praxiteles’ pediments was still clear to Pausanias.

206

Antonio Corso

Notes 717 See Traill (note 649) 10 (2001) 295-296, nos. 567862-567864 and Schultz (note 651) 186-193. 718 For a survey of the mythical associations of Apollo and Poseidon, see S. Vilatte, ‘Apollon – le dauphin et Poseidon l’Ebranleur’, M. -M. Mactoux and E. Geny (eds.), Melanges Pierre Leveque 1, Paris (1988) 307-330. 719 See Pliny 34. 56 and Kreikenbom (note 606) 45-57 and 157-162. 720 About Apollo and Poseidon servants of Laomedon, see J. Boardman, ‘Laomedon’, LIMC 6 (1992) 201-203. 721 See C. Doyen, Poseidon souverain, Brussels (2010) 41; 56; 107-110 and 246. 722 See H. -G. Nesselrath, ‘Lucianus (1)’, Cancik (note 38) 7 (2005) 836-845, particularly 837. 723 See Legon (note 616) 28, map 2, nos. 2; 13; 18; 24 and 37. 724 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 9-30, work no. 27. 725 See P. Zoridis, ‘Megareus’, LIMC 6 (1992) 403. 726 See F. Canciani, ‘Telamon’, LIMC 7 (1994) 852-854. 727 See Pindar, Nemean Odes 3. 36-37 and Isthmic Odes 6. 27-30. 728 This is due to the fact that Megara sided with Sulla against Mithridates: see K. Freitag, ‘Megara (1)’, Cancik (note 38) 8 (2006) 599-603. Moreover if Pausanias could see in Megara so many masterpieces of Praxiteles, Scopas and Lysippus, this fact means that these statues had been overlooked by Nero during his trip through Greece. 729 See J. Jacquemin, Offrandes monumentales a Delphes, Athens (1999) 54; 342, nos. 358359 and 370, no. 659. 730 See Vilatte (note 718). The circumstance that Megara had a sanctuary of Apollo Pythius should not be forgotten: see Pausanias 1. 42. 5. 731 Before 342, the Megarians were in favour of Philip ii who was the real winner of the 4th sacred war (see Legon (note 616) 287-294): thus the policy of Megara at the time would offer a good historical context for a dedication at Delphi with such an allusion to the recent outcome of the war. 732 See Pausanias 10. 7. 1 and 19. 1.

See Pliny 34. 57 and A. Bravi, ‘Immagini adeguate: opere d’arte greche nel templum Pacis’, F. Coarelli (note 273) 176-183. 734 See Bravi (note 733). 735 This Apollo was found in the swimming pool of a villa at Formiae, where it stood together with two statues of Nereids on pistrices and a crouching Aphrodite of the Daedalsas type (see M. Guaitoli, ‘Formia’, EAA, Suppl. 2. 2 (1994) 685-686) and is kept at Naples, in the National Archaeological Museum, no. 145078: see J. -L. Martinez, ‘Les styles praxitelisants aux epoques hellenistique et romaine’, Pasquier and Martinez (note 98) 294-311, particularly 308. About the two Nereids found together with this Apollo, L.A. Scatozza Hoericht, ‘La scultura greco – romana’, E. Pozzi (ed.), Le collezioni del Museo Nazionale di Napoli 2, Milan (1989) 8-41 and 96-153, particularly 104-105, nos. 45-46, and N. Icard – Gianolio and A. -V. Szabados, ‘Nereides’, LIMC 6 (1992) 785-824, particularly 794, no. 106. 736 About the crouching Aphrodite, see Ghisellini (note 348) 663-685. 737 See note 735. 738 See Neudecker (note 135, no. 71) 31. 739 See H. Manderscheid, Die Skulpturenausstattung der Kaiserzeitlichen Thermenanlagen, Berlin (1981) 34. 740 See A. Kloeckner, Poseidon und Neptun, Saarbruecken (1997) 175-184 and 276-279. 741 See Boardman (note720). 742 See the catalogue by Kloeckner (note 740). The 9 examples of this type are the following: a. late classical examples: 1. AE struck by Crane on the island of Cephallenia having on the obverse a naked male figure – probably Poseidon -, his right hand rests on his hip, in left hand trident or spear, probably third quarter of the 4th c. BC (see K.A. Neugebauer, ‘Zeus von Dodona’, JdI 49 (1934) 162-179, particularly 162-163 with fig. 1); b. early Hellenistic examples: 2. bronze statuette from Dodona made in a Corinthian workshop at Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Pergamonmuseum, no. Misc. 10581 ( = Kloeckner 277, no. DB 1) (the attribute once in left hand is missing); c. middle Hellenistic examples: 3. marble statuette from Delus, found in the peristyle of the house of Dionysus in the 733

theatre quarter, on Delus, Archaeological Museum, no. A 4120 (fig. 43) ( = Kloeckner 276-277, no. DS 2) (most of arms and feet are missing as well as the attribute once in left hand); d. early imperial examples: 4. bronze statuette from Herculaneum, at Naples, National Archaeological Museum, no. 5199 (= Kloeckner 278, no. DB 3) (the spear in left hand is modern); 5. bronze statuette at Charlottesville in Virginia, private collection ( = Kloeckner 278, no. DB 4) (the attribute once in left hand is missing); e. middle imperial examples: 6. marble statuette from Carthage at London, The British Museum, Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, no. 1540 (= Kloeckner 276, no. DS 1) (remains of a dolphin near the right leg of the god; head, lower part of legs, left arm, part of right arm and attribute once in left hand are missing); 7. Neptune on a short side of a marble sarcophagus found along Via Appia near the tomb of Caecilia Metella and kept at Rome, Villa Albani, Galleria della Leda, no. 131 (= Kloeckner 279, no. DF 2) (variation: drapery falling from both arms and wrapping the god from behind; a sea monster is in front of the god on sea waves); 8. bronze statuette from Freienwalde, in the valley of the river Oder, and kept at Berlin, Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Antikenmuseum, no. HZ 5151 (= Kloeckner 278, no. DB 2) (variation: left forearm bent; attribute once in left hand missing); 9. Poseidon on marble well head re-used in a modern marble crater at Rome, Vatican Museums, Galleria dei candelabri, Scala Simonetti, no. 2317 (= Kleockner 278-279, no. DF 1) (the trident held in left hand is upside down and rests on a rock). 743 See H. -J. Gehrke and E. Wirbelauer, ‘Akarnania and adjacent areas’, Hansen and Nielsen (note 38) 351-378, particularly 364, no. 125. 744 See note 712. 745 See Jacquemin (note 729) 54-55; 78; 107 and 235-236. 746 See M. Dieterle, Dodona, Zuerich (2007) 36-83; 130-176 and 222-254. The findspot of this statuette in a sanctuary of Zeus does not imply that its subject was Zeus because Poseidon was also important at Dodona (see Dieterle 37; 62; 74; 105; 198-209 and 232) and is represented

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

207

with another small bronze statuette from the same sanctuary in which the trident is preserved (Dieterle 199, fig. 93 a) while the trident alone survives from another bronze statuette found in Dodona (Dieterle 199, fig. 93 b) and a Triton – a figure of the retinue of Poseidon – also appears in a tondo with the same provenance (Dieterle 200, fig. 94). 747 See Corso (note 1) 210-211, note 8, copies nos. 52-71. 748 See e. g. J. Marcade, Au Musee de Delos, Paris (1969) 91-92; 138; 169; 304; 307; 380-397 and 427. 749 See e. g. A.M. Miller, From Delos to Delphi, Leiden (1986). 750 See Kreeb (note 550) 29-33 and 252-261, no. 38. About the House of Dionysus = Quarter of the Theatre, no. 6. 1, see M. Truenker, Wohnen in Delos, Rahden (1998) 301-303, no. 80. 751 See Kreeb (note 550) 254, no. S 38. 3. 752 About these functions of the Meter, see M. Xagorari-Gleissner, Meter theon, Mainz (2008) 69-93. 753 See J. Serrati, ‘Neptune’s Altars’, CQ 56 (2006) 113-134. About the importance of Neptune at Carthage, see also E. Simon, ‘Poseidon / Neptunus’, LIMC 7 (1994) 479-500, particularly 490-491, nos. 86 and 89. 754 See Manderscheid (note 739) 115-117, especially nos. 399-415. 755 See Mandrscheid (note 739) 115-116, no. 399. I have not included among the copies of this type two late Hellenistic gems from the area of Byzantium (E. Simon, ‘Poseidon / Neptunus’, LIMC 7 (1994) 483-500, particularly 488, nos. 51-52) because although the god on these gems holds the trident in one hand while the other hand rests on his hip, the head and the general style of his body look early classical and thus the use of this style testifies to the appeal of Polycleitan models in the late Hellenistic milieu. 756 The manuscript tradition has the reading Mousa and not Mousai: see e. g. A. Corso, Prassitele 1, Rome (1988) 166-167, with note 1064. However the correction Mousai is very probable because Pausanias mentions rarely the reliefs on bases of statues and would not have mentioned a ‘light’ subject as a Muse with the fluting Marsyas. It is obvious that he refers to the Muses judging the music contest be-

208

Antonio Corso

tween Apollo and Marsyas, in which Apollo performs as citharoedus: this episode would have been regarded the founding myth of the love of the Mantineans for the good music, reported by Plutarch, De musica 32. 1142 e – f: thus the correction Mousai was suggested already by O. Jahn, ‘Variarum lectionum fasciculus alter’, Philologus 28 (1869) 1-10. 757 About the cult of the Apollinean triad and of Asclepios at Mantinea, see M. Jost, Sanctuaires et cultes d’Arcadie, Paris (1985) 124-125 and 491-492. 758 See T.H. Nielsen, ‘Arcadia’, Hansen and Nielsen (note 38) 505-539, particularly 517-520, no. 281. 759 See Imhoof-Blumer, Gardner and Oikonomides (note 324) 93. 760 See E. Mitropoulou, The Worship of Asklepios and Hygieia in Arkadia, Athens (2001) 37-41, no. 10. 761 See J.W. Riethmueller, Asklepios, Heidelberg (2005) 1. 144-148 and 2. 208-212. 762 See Jost (note 757) 124-125. 763 An analytical consideration of this expression is found in Corso (note 756) 233, note 1046. 764 See Imhoof-Blumer, Gardner and Oikonomides (note 324) 94; T. Gerasimov, ‘Eine Kopie der Artemis – Statue von der Gruppe des Praxiteles in Mantinea’, E. Akurgal (ed.), Melanges Mansel, Ankara (1974) 913-917 and M. Jost, ‘Pausanias et le temoignage des monnaies severiennes en Arcadie’, RA (2010) 227-257, particularly 230-231 About the cult of Artemis at Mantinea, see I. Solima, Heiligtuemer der Artemis auf der Peloponnes, Heidelberg (2011) 84-89. 765 The slabs are kept at Athens, in the National Archaeological Museum, nos. 215; 216 and 217. See N. Kaltsas, ‘Treis anaglyphes plakes apo ependysi vathrou’, Kaltsas and Despinis (note 40) 82-87. 766 See W. Amelung, Die Basis des Praxiteles aus Mantinea, Munich (1895) 7-76. 767 See Cygielman (note 278). 768 See G. Mostratos, ‘Agalma Dionysou’, Kaltsas and Despinis (note 40) 164-169, nos. 50-52. 769 See Pausanias 9. 30. 1. 770 About this group, see Jost (note 757) 127. 771 About the location of this temple see e.

g. N.D. Papachatzis, Achaika kai Arkadika, Athina (1980) 200, fig. 156; 202, fig. 160 and 207, note 1. 772 See E. Berger, ‘Polykleitos (I)’, Vollkommer (note 8) 2 (2004) 276-287, particularly 276277 and 283-284. 773 See Pausanias 2. 17. 5. This writer uses the verb paristemi in order to suggest the position of Hebe near Hera in the Heraeum of Argus. He uses the same verb also in order to express the positions of Athena and Hebe near Hera at Mantinea. See P.C. Bol, ‘Naucydes’, Vollkommer (note 8) 2 (2004) 110-112. 774 See Jost (note 757) 128-130 and 357391. 775 About this type of Athena, see W. Schuermann, ‘Der Typus der Athena Vescovali’, APl 27 (2000) 37-90; Cygielman (note 278) and I. Altripp, Athenastatuen der Spaetklassik und des Hellenismus, Cologne (2010) 108-147. The often suggested date of this type in the early Hellenistic period cannot be accepted because the type has been reused already as a Muse in one of the Mantinean slabs (see the section no. 49) and for the figures of Demeter and Athena in the Megarian Dodekatheon (work no. 24). Moreover a statue of Athena of the Vescovali type from the Acropolis of Athens may still date in the second quarter of the 4th c. BC and be the original statue of the series (see Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 88-89, fig. 48). In my opinion, the prevalence of the sense of the drapery upon that of the body places this creation still in the art of Cephisodotus the Elder rather than in that of Praxiteles. Cygielman (note 278) 11, note 36 criticizes a passage in my book Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 88-89 in which I compare the position of the right arm of the Vescovali type of Athena with the corresponding one of the Eirene of Cephisodotus. This scholar asserts that I wrongly consider the right arm given to the Arretium Athena prior to the recent restoration of the statue part of the original statue while it was a modern restoration. This scholar does not realize that in my cited passage I am writing about the Vescovali type of Athena, showing in a photo the statue of this type from the Acropolis of Athens and that the right arm of the Vescovali type was probably brought to its side in order to hold a scepre. Thus my comparison of the position of this arm with the corresponding one of Cephisodotus’ Eirene is entirely correct.

For the copies of the Vescovali type of Athena, see the bibliography in note 775. I am aware of the following examples of the type: a. late classical examples: 1. statue in Pentelic marble from the upper terrace of the Acropolis of Athens at Athens, Acropolis Museum, nos. 2393 + 2810 + 3877 + 3882 + 3925 + 6993 + 7062 + 7135 + 8190 + 8379 + 8393 + 8465 (head, arms and feet are missing) (see A. Mantis, ‘Eine wiedergewonnene AthenaStatue auf der Athener Akropolis’, APl 27 (2000) 85-90 and Altripp (note 775) 141-147, no. 1); 2. Praxiteles’ Dodekatheon at Megara, reconstructed on the basis of the Dodekatheon at Ostia, National Archaeological Museum, no. 120: Demeter is a variation of the Vescovali Athena, except that she is without helmet and aegis; Athena is also a variation of the same type although the band of drapery below the chest is substituted by a girdle: see Corso (note 1) 191201, work no. 24; 3. central Muse in the slab in Pentelic marble from Mantinea at Athens, National Archaeological Museum, no. 217 (variation: the left hand holds a capsa for a volumen and the right arm rests on the hip) (see above, the work no. 49); 4. marble torso found at Olbia Pontica and kept at St. Petersburg, Ermitage, no. ii / 129 (the head, the right arm and the legs do not survive) (see Altripp (note 775) 132, no. I. 2); b. early Hellenistic examples: 5. statue in Pentelic marble probably from Alexandria ad Aegyptum at Alexandria, Greek – Roman Museum, no. 3587 (variation: most of left arm is bare, no aegis; head and most of right arm missing) (see Schuermann (note 775) 8283, no. U 2, pl. 47); 6. bronze statue found in a Julio – Claudian domus below the Church of St. Lawrence at Arretium, probably made in an Etruscan workshop, at Florence, National Archaeological Museum, no. 248 (variation: the statue is fully frontal, the aegis is in the middle of the chest, it is much larger than in the Vescovali type and with a gorgoneion in the middle, the head is also frontal) (right arm missing) (see Cygielman (note 278) who favours an early Hellenistic date and Altripp (note 775) 130-140, no. 1, with a date in the early Augustan period); 7. statuette probably in Pentelic marble found at Thebes in the southern slopes of the Cad776

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

209

meian rock, perhaps originally a dedication in the sanctuary of Athena Onka which was located near the find spot of the statuette, at Thebes, National Archaeological Museum, no. 41141 (head and right arm are not preserved) (see V. Aravantinos, ‘Anaskaphikes ergasies’, AD 56-59 (2001-2004) 2. 2. 124-159, particularly 139, fig. 29); c. late Hellenistic examples: 8. statue in Parian marble from Rome, once in the Altoviti collection, then at Turin, formerly in the Savoia collection, kept in the Museo di Antichita’, no. 257 (head and right forearm are missing) (see F. Barello, ‘Minerva di Torino’, Cygielmann (note 278) 37-38 and Altripp (note 775) 306-307, no. ii. 1); 9. marble statuette at Rethymnon, Kastro, Museum, no. 641 (head and right arm missing) (see Schuermann (note 775) 59-60, no. S 21); 10. marble statuette from Utica at Tunis, National Museum of Bardo, no. 2650 (variation: the aegis is in the middle of the chest) (the right forearm is missing) (see Schuermann (note 775) 83-84, no. U 3); d. Augustan examples: 11. statue in Pentelic marble from Rome, Villa Mattei, then in the Ince Blundell Hall Collection, kept at Liverpool, National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside (head and right arm are restored) (see Schuermann (note 775) 50-51, no. S 9 and Altripp (note 775) 307-308, no. ii. 2); e. Julio Claudian examples: 12. statue in Pentelic marble from the sanctuary of Isis at Beneventum at Benevento, Museo Provinciale del Sannio, no. 1934 (head and right arm are missing) (see M. Cygielman, ‘Minerva da Benevento’, Idem (note 278) 33-34); 13. marble torso at Rome, Vatican Museums, storeroom, no. K 112 (head, right arm and legs are missing) (see Schuermann (note 775) 56, no. S 17); 14. torso in Pentelic marble from Aegina at Athens, National Archaeological Museum, no. 2239 (head, right arm and legs are missing) (see Schuermann (note 775) 60-61, no. S 22); 15. marble statuette once at Florence, Bargello Museum (head and right forearm are modern) (see Schuermann (note 775) 84, no. U 4); 16. head in Luna marble at Rome, once in the collection of the Cardinal of Carpi on Mt. Quirinal and then in the Galleria Borghese, no.

210

Antonio Corso

183 (see Moreno and Viacava (note 619) 222, no. 206 and Altripp (note 775) 320, no. v 1); f. Flavian examples: 17. marble head at Rome, Villa Albani, no. 9 (see Altripp (note 775) 321-322, no. v. 4); 18. bronze head from Rome in Villa Kerylos at Beaulieu – sur – Mer (see Altripp (note 775) 321, no. v. 3); 19. marble head from Herculaneum at Naples, National Archaeological Museum, no. 6320 (see Schuermann (note 775) 69, no. K 8 and Altripp (note 775) 320-321, no. v 2); 20. torso in Parian marble from the imperial palace on Mt. Palatine at Rome, Museo Palatino, no. 381644 (see Tomei (note 135, no. 46) 112, no. 83 and Schuermann (note 775) 57, no. S 19); 21. marble head from Torre del Greco, in the ancient territory of Herculaneum, at Basle, Antikenmuseum, no. 235 (see Schuermann (note 775) 66, no. K 4); 22. marble statue from Rome, once at Arundel House, then at Oxford, The Ashmolean Museum, no. 20 M (head and right arm are missing) (see Schuermann (note 775) 51-52, no. S 11 and Altripp (note 775) 309-310, no. ii. 4); 23. torso once sold by Sotheby’s, its whereabouts are not known (head, right arm and lower part of the body are missing) (see Schuermann (note 775) 57, no. S 18 and Altripp (note 775) 317-318, no. iii. 2); g. Trajanic examples: 24. head in Luna marble from Rome, formerly in the Lyde Browne collection, kept at St. Petersburg, Ermitage, no. A 61 = K 245 = W 68 (see O. Waldhauer, Die antiken Skulpturen der Ermitage 3, Berlin (1936) 8-9, no. 224 and Altripp (note 775) 324-325, no. v. 9); 25. marble copy at New York, Herrmann collection (head, right arm and lower section are missing) (see Schuermann (note 775) 55-56, no. S 16 and Altripp (note 775) 318, no. iii. 3); 26. marble statue from the stage of the theatre of Tergeste, probably originally set up in the niche above the royal gate of the scaenae frons, commissioned by Quintus Petronius Modestus between 98 and 102 AD and carved in a local workshop, at Trieste, Civici Musei di Storia ed Arte, no. 3136, Deposit of the Italian State, no. 327 (head and right arm are missing) (see M. Vidulli Torlo, ‘Minerva dal teatro romano di Trieste’, Cygielman (note 278) 35-36);

27. marble statuette found at Lebadia, on the left bank of the river Hercyna, near the sanctuary of Trophonius, at Athens, National Archaeological Museum, no. 1868 (head and right arm are missing) (see Schuermann (note 775) 62-63, no. S 23); 28. marble head once at Bayreuth, now at Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Antikensammlung, no. Sk 80 (see Schuermann (note 775) 67-68, no. K 6 and Altripp (note 775) 323-324, no. v. 7); 29. head in Parian marble from Rome once in the Disney collection and now at Liverpool in the Nelson collection (see Schuermann (note 775) 68-69, no. K 7 and Altripp (note 775) 324, no. v. 8); 30. head in Pentelic marble found at Cyrene, in the agora, and kept at Cyrene, Museum, no. 14. 033 (see Altripp (note 775) 323, no. v 6); h. Hadrianic examples: 31. marble head at Florence, Uffizi, no. 238 (see Schuermann (note 775) 69-70, no. K 9 and Altripp (note 775) 325, no. v. 10); 32. statue in Luna marble found in Hadrian’s villa near Tibur, in the three-lobed hall near the so-called Poecile, at Rome, Roman National Museum, no. 108595 (fig. 49) (head and right arm are missing) (see C. Ciampi, ‘Minerva da Villa Adriana’, Cygielman (note 278) 39-40); 33. marble statue found together with the copy no. 32 in Hadrian’s villa near Tibur and kept there, nos. 484 + 728 + 734 + 737 + 753 + 758 + 787 (head, right arm and most of the lower part of the statue are missing) (see Schuermann (note 775) 55, no. S 15); i. Antonine examples: 34. marble statue from the sea in front of Baiae probably originally pertinent to the local imperial Nymphaeum, at Baia, Castello, no. 180093 (head and right arm are missing) (see Schuermann (note 775) 48, no. S 7 and Altripp (note 775) 314-315, no. ii. 10); 35. statue in Pentelic marble from Rome at Castle Howard, west corridor (head and right arm are restored) (see A. Linfert, ‘Athena Vescovali’, B. Borg et alii (eds.), Die antiken Skulpturen in Castle Howard, Wiesbaden (2005) 29-33, no. 1 and Altripp (note 775) 312-313, no. ii. 8); 36. marble head at Florence, Uffizi, no. 185 (see Schuermann (note 775) 66-67, no. K 5 and Altripp (note 775) 325-326, no. v. 11);

37. statue in Luna marble found at Rome in the south – western section of the campus Martius (exactly where Via Giulia meets Lungotevere dei Tebaldi), perhaps originally pertinent to the sculptural display of the not very distant aedes Martis in circo Flaminio, and kept at Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, no. 2526 (head and right arm are missing) (see Schuermann (note 755) 49, no. S 8 and Altripp (note 775) 313-314, no. ii. 9); 38. marble statue found behind the Odeum of Nicopolis, perhaps originally set up in the summa cavea of this building and kept at Nicopolis, National Archaeological Museum, no. 6 (the right arm is missing) (see G. Riginos and P. Tatsapoulos, ‘Atena di Nikopolis’, Cygielman (note 278) 31-32); 39. statue in Parian marble from Rome, Mt. Palatine, then in the collections Falconieri, Vescovali and Demidoff, kept at St. Petersburg, Ermitage, no. W 27 – A 166 (fig. 50) (right arm restored) (see Schuermann (note 775) 40-41, no. S 2 and V. Saladino, ‘La Minerva di Arezzo’, Cygielman (note 278) 13-29, particularly 14-15, fig. 2); 40. statue in Pentelic marble once in Aygalades Castle near Marseille kept at Bath, Walston collection (right arm missing) (see Schuermann (note 775) 42-44, no. S 3); 41. marble statue found between two columns of the peristyle no. 1 of the ‘House of Athena’ at Apollonia, at Apollonia, Museum in the Monastery of the Lady Mary of Poyani (head and right arm are missing) (see Schuermann (note 775) 44-45, no. S 4 and Saladino (no. 38) 19, fig. 12); 42. marble statue found at Capua, perhaps originally pertinent to the sculptural decoration of the summa cavea of the large amphitheatre of this town, once in the Arndt collection, then in the Rodin collection, now its whereabouts are not known (head and right arm are missing) (see Schuermann (note 775) 54, no. S 14); 43. lower part of marble statue found at Rome, in the Roman Forum, NW of the lacus Juturnae, kept at Rome, Antiquarium forense, no. 39548 (see J. Aronen, ‘Minerva’, LTUR 3 (1996) 251252 and Schuermann (note 775) 57-59, no. S 20); 44. marble statue once at Newton Hall, now at Cambridge, The Fitzwilliam Museum (the right arm is missing) (see Linfert (no. 34) 32, no. 11);

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

211

45. marble head at Florence, Uffizi, no. 214 (see G.A. Mansuelli, Galleria degli Uffizi 1, Rome (1958) 45-46, no. 21 and Altripp (note 775) 326, no. v. 12); 46. torso in Pentelic marble found in the Apollonium of Cyrene and kept at Cyrene, Museum, no. 14. 184 (variation: it is close to the corresponding part of the Athena from Arretium) (see Altripp (note 775) 132, no. I. 1); 47. marble head found at Perge and kept at Antalya, Museum, no. 18. 29. 81 (see Altripp (note 775) 327, no. vi. 2); 48. marble statue once at Rome, in Palazzo Doria Pamphilj (head and right arm are restored), its whereabouts are not known (see Schuermann (note 775) 63, no. S 25 and Altripp (note 775) 316-317, no. ii. 13); 49. low part of marble statue from the stage of the theatre of Firmum, its whereabouts are not known (see Schuermann (note 775) 6364, no. S 26 and Altripp (note 775) 319, no. iv. 3); 50. marble torso once at Paris, Ecole des Beaux Arts, then at London (see Schuermann (note 775) 64-65, no. S 27 and Altripp (note 775) 326-327, no. vi. 1); 51. head in Pentelic marble found in the frigidarium of the Large Baths of Cyrene and kept in the local Museum, no. 14. 181 (variation: it follows the Arretium sub-type) (see Manderscheid (note 739) 102, no. 282); 52. head in Pentelic marble found at Athens, on the south – eastern slopes of the Acropolis, and kept in the Museum of the Acropolis, no. NMA 5240, variation (see C. Vlassopoulou (note 399) 29-33, no. 3); 53. fragment of clay figurine of Athena preserving the torso with the aegis, probably close to the Arretium variation, from the southern slopes of the Acropolis of Athens, at Athens, Museum of the Acropolis, no. 1956. NAP 103 (see Vlassopoulou (note 399) 32, with fig. 10). The following examples can be dated only generically to the period of the copyist production: 54. marble statue once at Rome in Palazzo Giustiniani (head and right arm are restored), its whereabouts are not known (see P. Parigi, ‘Le stampe della Galleria Giustiniana’, Fusconi (note 608) 511-622, particularly 512-513, no. I, 5); 55. low part of marble statue once at Rome in the Sangiorgi collection, now its wherea-

212

Antonio Corso

bouts are not known (see Schuermann (note 775) 65, no. S 28). 777 See Cullen (note 623) 297-301. 778 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 76-108 and 130-134, work no. 3. 779 See J.G. Vinogradov and D.S. Kryzickij, Olbia, Leiden (1995) 112-113. 780 See L. Dubois, Inscriptions grecques dialectales d’Olbia du Pont, Geneva (1996) 116-119, nos. 66 and 68-70. 781 About this phenomenon, see E. Ghisellini, Atene e la corte tolemaica, Rome (1999). 782 See G. Colonna, ‘Athena / Menerva’, LIMC 2 (1984) 1050-1074, particularly 1051; 1053, nos. 16-17; 1060, no. 137 and 1068, no. 218. 783 See C.L. Lyons and S.D. Pevnick, ‘The Chimaera of Arezzo at the Getty Villa’, M. Iozzo (ed.), The Chimaera of Arezzo, Florence (2009) 13-25, particularly 22-23, figs. 20-22. 784 See Corso (note 1) 62-72. 785 See the excavation report by Aravantinos (see note 776, no. 7). 786 About the location of the sanctuary of Athena Onka, see S. Symeonoglou, The Topography of Thebes, Princeton (1985) 130 and N. Pharaklas, ‘Thebaika’, AE 135 (1996) 58-81. 787 See A. Kuehr, Als Kadmos nach Boiotien kam, Stuttgart (2006) particularly 87; 92; 107; 116 and 213 about the cult of Athena Onka. 788 See Pausanias 9. 11. 6 and infra in this book. 789 See Pausanias 9. 12. 4. About the location of this sanctuary, see Symeonoglou (note 726) 127-128. 790 See E. Touloupa, ’Archaiotites kai mnimeia Voiotias. Mouseion Thivon’, AD 19 (1964) chronika 191-203, particularly 194, pl. 226. 791 See Pausanias 9. 11. 6. 792 See V. Schild – Xenidou, Corpus der Boiotischen Grab- und Weihreliefs des 6. bis 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Mainz am Rhein (2008) 339-340, no. 107 and V. Aravantinos, The Archaeological Museum of Thebes, Athens (2010) 312 (the latter example comes from the Cadmeian rock). 793 See Schild – Xenidou (note 792) 319320, no. 87. 794 See Aravantinos (note 792) 269. 795 See above notes 148-149. 796 See Corso (note 1) 211, note 8, nos. 83 and 84. 797 See H. Cassimatis, ‘L’Athena de Gortyne

en Crete et son culte’, Akten des 13. Internationalen Kongresses fuer klassische Archaeologie, Berlin (1990) 467-468. 798 See G.C. Picard, ‚Athena / Minerva (in Africa)‘, LIMC 2 (1984) 1109-1110. 799 See A. Lezine, Utique, Tunis (1970) 38 and 43. 800 See C. Papisca, ‘Utica’, S. Bullo and F. Ghedini (eds.), Amplissimae atque ornatissimae domus, Rome (2003) 2. 335-363. 801 See F. Canciani, ‘Athena / Minerva’, LIMC 2 (1984) 1074-1109, particularly 1075; 1077, nos. 22-23 and 25; 1081, nos. 92 and 94; 1082, nos. 106 and 111-112; 1085, no. 143; 1089, no. 204; 1091, nos. 227 and 235; 1092, no. 243; 1099, no. 357; 1100, no. 367; 1101-1102, nos. 387 and 390; 1104, no. 418; 1105, no. 423, and 1108; L. Ventitelli, ‘ Minerva, aedes (Aventinus)’, LTUR 3 (1996) 254 and R. Cappelli, ‘Vesta, ara, signum, aedes (in Palatio)’, ibidem 5 (1999) 128-129. 802 See S. Vilucchi, ‘Il “... monticello di San Lorenzo...” ‘, Cygielmann (note 278) 73-95 and Eadem, ‘La domus di San Lorenzo’, ibidem 97-109. 803 See Vilucchi (note 802) 101, no. 4. 804 Of course locus classicus for this concept is Horace, Epistulae 2. 3 (ars poetica) 338-344. 805 See above, note 187. 806 See G. Guadagno, ‘Minerva Paracentia e Ceres: persistenza ed assimilazione di culti preromani nella Beneventum romana’, Epigraphica 72 (2010) 91-110. 807 See Guadagno (note 806). 808 See Herodotus 3. 59. 3 = J. Weilhartner, Testimonia. Die literarischen Zeugnisse ueber das antike Aigina, Vienna (2010) 86, no. 392, and IG 4. 2 (2nd ed.) 755; 765; 767; 792-797. 809 See I. Polinskaya, ‘Fifth – Century Horoi on Aigina’, Hesperia 78 (2009) 231-267, particularly 258. 810 The freedom of Aegina was granted by Augustus who passed a winter there probably in 22 – 21 BC: see G.W. Bowersock, Studies on the eastern Roman Empire, Goldbach (1994) 17-18. 811 See above the section concerning the Apollo Sauroctonus (corresponding to the notes 273-286). 812 See E. D’Ambra, Privat Lives, Imperial Virtus, Princeton (1993). 813 About this sanctuary, see V. Gasparini, ‘I culti egizi’, F. Coarelli (ed.), Divus Vespasianus, Milan (2009) 348-353, particularly 351.

814

I. 20.

See Kreikenbom (note 606) 148-149, no.

815 See, e. g. Neudecker (note 135, no. 71) 139-144, particularly 142-143, nos. 9. 15-18. 816 About the sculptural display of the stage’s front of the theatre of Tergeste, see Corso (note 1) 122-124 with previous bibliography. 817 See M. Bonanno Aravantinou, ‘Sculture da Livadeia’, V. Aravantinos (ed.), Epetiris tis etaireias Voiotikon meleton 4 (2008) 399-443, particularly figs. 4-6. 818 See Callot (note 135, no. 70) 55-56; 8182; 87; 131; 140; 152; 158-159; 190; 195-196; 199; 227; 229; 238; 266-267. 819 See Callot (note 135, no. 70) 190; 195196 and 199-200. 820 See N. Bonacasa and S. Ensoli (eds.), Cirene, Milan (2000) 89. A naiskos specifically devoted to Athena has also been recognized in the upper terrace of the agora, however this attribution is just hypothetical (see Callot (note 135, no. 70) 158-159, no. 49). 821 See Bonacasa and Ensoli (note 820) 88. 822 See G. Nick, Die Athena Parthenos, Mainz (2002) 251-252, no. A 42. 823 See Cullen (note 623) 472, no. 5. 824 See Corso (note 1) 165. 825 About this architectural complex, see W.L. Macdonald and J.A. Punto, Hadrian’s Villa, Yale (1995) 103-108 and H. Knell, Der Kaisers neue Bauten, Mainz am Rhein (2008) 97-99. 826 See R. Cittadini, ‘Torso di Prassilla’, P. Moreno (ed.), Lisippo, Milan (1995) 214, no. 4. 31. 2. 827 About this aspect of Athena, see P. Demargne, ‘Athena’, LIMC 2 (1984) 955-1044, particularly 1013-1016, nos. 616-631. 828 See above, notes 331-333. 829 See F. Coarelli, ‘Athenaeum’, LTUR 1 (1993) 131-132. 830 About this temple, which was created by the renowned architect Hermodorus, see P. Gros, ‘Hermodoros’, Vollkommer (note 8) 1 (2001) 303-304 with previous bibliography. 831 See Calcani (note 29) 111-115, nos. 22 and 23 with previous bibliography. 832 See B. Freyer, ‚Zum Kultbild und zum Skulpturenschmuck des Arestempels auf der Agora in Athen‘, JdI 77 (1962) 211-226. 833 See above the text corresponding to the notes 467 and 468.

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

213

See above, note 187. See Pozzi (note 190) 104-107, nos. 53-55. 836 See Fuchs (note 135, no. 65) 20-22, no. A ii b. 837 See F. Coarelli, ‘Venus Jovia, Venus Libitina?’, A. Storchi Marino (ed.), L’incidenza dell’antico 1, Naples (1995) 371-387. 838 See F. Prendi and A. Skenderaj, ‘Les domus d’Apollonia’, V. Dimo et alii (eds.), Apollonia d’Illyrie 1, Athens (2007) 290-300, particularly 294-299 (house D). 839 See I. Pojani, ‘La sculpture’, Dimo (note 831) 111-128, particularly 116-119. 840 See Pojani (note 839) 118, fig. 38. 841 See Pojani (note 839) 118-119, figs. 39-41. 842 See H. von Hesberg and W. Eck, ‚Reliefs, Skulpturen und Inschriften aus dem Theater von Apollonia (Albanien)‘, RM 114 (2008) 31-97, particularly 63-80. Other earlier copies of opera nobilia were settled in the area of the stage: a statue of the so-called ‘Pudicitia’ (von Hesberg and Eck, cited above, 62-63), a copy of the Valentini type of ‘Ariadne’ (von Hesberg and Eck, cited above, 66-68), a copy of Agoracritus’ Nemesis (von Hesberg and Eck, cited above, 68-70) and finally a copy of the Lateran type of Sophocles (von Hesberg and Eck, cited above, 70-71). The ‘Pudicitia’ statue may have been topped by the portrait head of a local lady. The copies of the Valentini type of ‘Ariadne’ and of the Agoracritan Nemesis confirm the fascination of the elite of Apollonia for classical Athens while the presence of a statue of Sophocles may be explained with the local acceptation of Aristotle’s opinion that Sophocles had been the best Athenian tragic poet (see Aristotle, Poetics 3. 4; 4. 16-17; 14. 13-19; 15. 10; 16. 7 and 11; 18. 19; 25. 11 and 26. 12-13). 843 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 129, note 12, copy no. 77 and 139, copy no. 104. 844 About this Odeum, see A. Antonatos, ‘To Odeio tis archaias Nikopolis’, K.L. Zachos (ed.), Nikopolis 2, Preveza (2007) 347-360. 845 See P. Chrysostomou and Ph. Kephallonitou, Nikopolis, Athens (2001) 61. 846 See K.L. Zachos et alii (eds.), Nikopolis, Athens (2008) 121-125. 847 See T. Stephanidou – Tiveriou, ‘The Caryatid – Column of Nicopolis’, Zachos (note 837) 491-510. 834 835

214

Antonio Corso

See Stephanidou – Tiveriou (note 847). See G. Bejor, ‘Lycia et Pamphylia’, EAA Suppl. 2. 4 (1996) 622-626. 850 See E. Oezguer, Perge, Istanbul (1988) 36-47 and 51-77. 851 See M. Pehlivaner (ed.), Skulpturen des Museums von Antalya I, Antalya (1996) nos. 19 and 20. 852 Among the Hadrianic and Antonine copies found at Perge the following examples are noteworthy: 1. a copy of the Hera Borghese (see Pehlivaner (note 851) no. 2); 2. a statue inspired by the Louvre / Naples Aphrodite which once was topped by a portrait head (see Pehlivaner, cited above, no. 44); 3. a copy of the Richelieu type of Hermes (see Pehlivaner, cited above, no. 5); 4. a copy of the Versailles type of Artemis attributed to the circle of Leochares (see Pehlivaner, cited above, no. 8); 5. an example of the Capua type of Aphrodite (see Pehlivaner, cited above, no. 17); 6. a copy of the type of Meleager attributed to Scopas (see Pehlivaner, cited above, no. 10); 7. a copy of Lysippus’ Resting Hermes (see Pehlivaner, cited above, no. 6); 8. a seating Muse close to the Madrid types of Muses, probably echoing Lysippus’ Muses set up at Megara (see Pehlivaner, cited above, no. 15); 9. a copy of the Farnese type of Heracles (see J. Inan, ‘Heraklesstatue vom Typus des Herakles Farnese aus Perge’, O. Brehn and S. Klie (eds.), Mousikos Aner, Bonn (1992) 223-232); 10. a copy of the Capitoline type of Aphrodite (see Pehlivaner, cited above, no. 16); 11. a statue close to the Landolina type of Aphrodite, perhaps representing the Callipygos Aphrodite at Syracuse (see Pehlivaner, cited above, no. 18); 12. the Pudicitia type (see Pehlivaner, cited above, no. 24); 13. the Alexandrian type of Sarapis (see Pehlivaner, cited above, no. 26); 14. the Large Herculaneum Lady (see Pehlivanmer, cited above, nos. 33; 37; 43-44 and 46-47); 15. the Uffizi type of Kore (see Pehlivaner, cited above, no. 48) and finally 16. the naked type of the 3 Graces (see Pehlivaner, cited above, no. 30). 853 See S. Sahin, Die Inschriften von Perge 1, Bonn (1999) nos. 173 and 207. 854 About the most important features of Antonine copies, see e. g. C. Gasparri, ‘Copie e copisti’, EAA Suppl. 2. 2 (1994) 267-280, particularly 276-277. 855 See Callot (note 135, no. 70) 81, no. 13; 848 849

87, no. 49 and 94, no. 82. A naiskos of Athena has been identified in the sanctuary (see Callot (note 135, no. 70) 152, no. 11). The statue in Callot, cited above, 195-196, no. 113, found in this naiskos is probably an Athena and thus would confirm the dedication of the small temple to this goddess. 856 At least three statues of Athena stood in the sanctuary: see Callot (note 135, no. 70) 190, nos. 32-33 and 195-196, no. 113. 857 See Mandersheid (note 739) 100, no. 266. 858 See Manderscheid (note 739) 101-102, no. 274. 859 See Manderscheid (note 739) 102, nos. 275-276. 860 See Manderscheid (note 739) 103, nos. 285 and 286. 861 See Manderscheid (note 739) 103, no. 288. 862 See Kreikenbom (note 606) 151, no. I. 28. 863 See Corso (note 756) 162-163. 864 See V. Bitrakova Grozdanova, ‘Le Dionysos Tauros’, ZA 35 (1985) 117-122. 865 About the theatre of Elis, F. Glaser, ‘Das Theater von Elis’, V. Mitsopoulos Leon (ed.), Forschungen in the Peloponnes, Athens (2001) 252-256. About the cult of Dionysus at Elis, see S. Scullion, ‘Dionysos at Elis’, Philologus 145 (2001) 203-218. The presence of two altars of Dionysus at Olympia is also important: see Herodorus, FGrHist 1. 31. frg. 34 a and Pausanias 5. 14. 10 and 15. 4. One of these two altars was jointly dedicated to Dionysus and to the Graces, in keeping with the association of this god with the Charites also in the above quoted hymn of the Elean women as well as with the testimony of Pindar, Olympic Odes 13. 18-19. Dionysus was thought to have loved an Elean woman, Physcoas, who instituted the chorus of Elean women singing to Dionysus quoted by Plutarch; see Pausanias 5. 16. 6-7. Finally just outside Olympia there was the sanctuary of Dionysus Leucyanites (see Pausanias 6. 21. 5). 866 See Plutarch, Adversus Colotem 1126 c and Praecepta gerendae reipublicae 805 d: S.B. Zoumbaki, Prosopographie der Eleer, Athens (2005) 364-365, no. 43. The constitution of Elis was democratic before 365 BC, oligarchic from 365 to 352 BC, democratic from 352 for a few

years, but then a reconciliation between the two factions took place around 345. With this agreement, an amnesty was declared and the properties were restored to the oligarchs (see N.F. Yalouris, Ancient Elis, Athens (1996) 40-42 and J. Roy, ‘Elis’, Hansen and Nielsen (note 38) 494-498, no. 251 (Elis)). Probably the end of the civic fight was due to the constitutional reform of Phormio, who seems to have reconciled democracy and oligarchy and to have suggested a mixed formula of state: thus his legislation should be dated around 345 BC. 867 See Glaser (note 865) with previous bibliography. 868 See Pausanias 6. 26. 3 and Cullen (note 623) 906-907. 869 See Pausanias 6. 25. 1 and Calcani (note 29) 52-55 and 123. 870 See Rizzo (note 93) 78-79, pl. 118, figs. nos. 1-3. 871 See Calcani (note 869). 872 See Rizzo (note 93) pl. 118, fig. no. 1. 873 I am aware of the following copies of the type of Dionysos Tauros: a. Augustan examples: 1. head in Luna marble once in the Museum of the Abbey of St. Nilus at Grottaferrata, no. 1128, then at Paris, in the Peyrefitte collection: see Vorster (below, no. 9) and L. Buccino, ‘Testa di Dioniso: tipo Dioniso Tauro (inv. n. 1128)’, A. Ambrogi et aliae (eds.), Sculture antiche nell’Abbazia di Grottaferrata, Rome (2008) 14, no. 5); b. Julio – Claudian copies: 2. head in Parian marble from Capua, once in the Castellani collection, then at London, The British Museum, Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, no. 1554 (see Klein (note 90) 416-417, figs. 89-90); c. Flavian copies: 3. marble head found in the centuriation W of Narbo Martius, perhaps originally pertaining to a Roman villa and kept at Narbonne, Archaeological Museum, no. 38 S (see J. Charbonneaux, ‘Una tete de Dionysos Tauros’, Gallia 18 (1960) 39; Y. Solier, Narbonne, Paris (1986) 89, no. 38 and F. Slavazzi, Italia verius quam provincia, Perugia (1996) 46; 94-96 and 174-175, no. 16: this scholar attributes the head to an Attic workshop still of the late Hellenistic times but in that case the surfaces would look more vaporous);

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

215

4. marble head probably from Minturnae, perhaps from the theatre, once in the Nugent collection in Naples, then in Venice, in Trieste and in Tersatto Castle near Fiume, finally at Zagreb, National Archaeological Museum (see R. Schneider, ‘Antikensammlung auf Schloss Tersatto bei Fiume’, Arch. - Ep. Mitt. Oesterreich 5 (1881) 141-174, particularly 165, no. 22 and J. Brunsmid, ‘Komeni Spomenici Hrvatskoga Narodnoga Muzeja u Zagrebu’, Vjesnik 7 (1903) 209-240, particularly 223-224, no. 19); d. Hadrianic copies: 5. marble head at Rome, Vatican Museums, Museo Chiaramonti, no. 410 (see B. Andreae, Museo Chiaramonti 2, Berlin (1995) 649, no. 410); e. Antonine copies: 6. marble head at Rome, Villa Albani, no. 119 (see P.C. Bol, ‘Dionysos oder Iackos’, P.C. Bol (ed.), Forschungen zur Villa Albani. Katalog der antiken Bildwerke ii, Berlin (1990) 346-350, no. 248); 7. marble head once in Arcetri in the Villa del Poggio Imperiale, then at Florence, Uffizi, no. 39 (see G.A. Mansuelli, Galleria degli Uffizi. Le sculture 1, Rome (1958) 49-50, no. 26); 8. marble head at Rome, Vatican Museums, no. 2941, Galleria delle Carte Geografiche, no. 65 (see G. Lippold, Die Skulpturen des Vatikanischen Museums, Berlin (1956) 491-492, no. 65) (fig. 52); 9. marble head at Rome, Vatican Museums, Museo Gregoriano Profano, no. 10121 (see C. Vorster, Roemische Skulpturen des spaeten Hellenismus und der Kaiserzeit 1, Mainz am Rhein (1993) 60-63, no. 24); f. copies which can be dated only generically to the period of the copyist production: 10. marble head at Syracuse (see Institutum Archaeologicum Germanicum Romae, photo no. 71. 1054); 11. marble head once at Taranto (see Institutum Archaeologicum Germanicum Romae, photo no. 74. 28); 12. marble head once in the antiquarian market of Rome (see EA 8 (1914) 13, nos. 22342235); 13. marble head once at Athens, Varvakeion (see F. Wieseler, Archaeologischer Bericht, Goettingen (1874) 52 and Idem, ‘Ueber den Stierdionysos’, Nachrichten Goettingen 11 (1891) 367-388, particularly 379).

216

Antonio Corso

See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 232-244, work no. 15. The horns of Dionysus had been mentioned, in the age of Cimon, by Stesimbrotus, FGrHist 107, frg. 13. Moreover the bull’s horns of Dionysus are recorded by Athenaeus 11. 476 a. Finally horns are given to Dionysus in a picture described by Philostratus, Imagines 1. 15. 2. 875 Loci classici are Horace, Odes 2. 19. 29-30; Tibullus 2. 1. 3-4; Propertius 3. 17. 19 and Ovid, Amores 3. 15. 17; Metamorphoses 4. 18-20 and Fasti 3. 789. 876 About the identity of Liber Pater, see e. g. E. Montanari, ‘Figura e funzione di Liber Pater’, Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni 8 (1984) 245-264. 877 See e. g. Cullen (note 623) 388, no. 63 and 391, no. 69 (Niobids taken from the panels in the side edges of the throne seat of the Zeus of Olympia). 878 See note 188. 879 See note 135, no. 13. 880 See note 190. 881 See Brunsmid (note 873, no. 4) 312-215, no. 3 and 231-232, no. 37 and Fuchs (note 135, no. 65) 38, nos. E ii 2 and 3. 882 See A. Kossatz – Deissmann, ‘Hera’, LIMC 4 (1988) 659-719, particularly 674, no. 120. About the theatre of Minturnae, see F. Di Mario, ‘Minturno’, P. Ciancio Rossetto and G. Pisani Sartorio (eds.), Teatri greci e romani 2, Rome (1994) 507-508. 883 See Fuchs (note 135, no. 65) 38-39, no. E iv 2. 884 See R. Vollkommer, ‚Gorgias (ii) und Kallimachos‘, Vollkommer (note 8) 1 (2001) 271. 885 See A. Adriani, ‘Minturno’, Nsc (1938) 159-226, particularly 178-179, nos. 11 and 12. 886 See Brunsmid (note 873, no. 4)215-216, no. 4. 887 See Brunsmid (note 873, no. 4) 217, no. 6. 888 See Brunsmid (note 873, no. 4) 222-223, no. 17. 889 See respectively Brunsmid (note 873, no. 4) 237-238, no. 51 and I. Leventi, Hygieia, Athens (2003) 166, no. St 34. 890 See Solier (note 873, no. 3) 91-92 with fig. 59, no. c. 891 See e. g. Solier (note 873, no. 3) 90-91 with figs. 57-58. 892 See note 336. 874

See note 337. See above the text before and after the notes 336 and 337. 895 See above note 776, nos. 32 and 33. 896 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 57-58. 897 See Fuchs (note 135, no. 65)37, no. E. 1. 1. 898 See Fuchs (note 135, no. 65) no. E. 1. 2. 899 See Fuchs (note 135, no. 65) no. E. 1. 4. 900 See Fuchs (note 135, no. 65) no. E. 1. 5. 901 See Fuchs (note 135, no. 65) 38, no. E. iii. 1. 902 See Adriani (note 885) 188, no. 31. 903 See Adriani (note 885) 189-190, nos. 3233. 904 See Adriani (note 885) 183, no. 10. 905 See Adriani (note 885) 206-208, no. 54. 906 See Brunsmid (note 874, no. 4) 221-222, no. 14. 907 See Brunsmid (note 874, no. 4) 224-225, no. 22. 908 See Brunsmid (note 874, no. 4) 223, no. 18. 909 See Brunsmid (note 874, no. 4) 238, nos. 52-53. 910 See R. Belli, Taranto. Le sculture in marmo e in pietra, Taranto (1995) nos. v 22-23 (copies of the Woburn Abbey type). 911 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 125-126, note 221, no. 30. 912 See supra, note 221, no. 30. 913 See Xenophon, Hellenica 7. 4. 14-35 and Diodorus 15. 82. 1. See Yalouris (note 866) 4041 and Roy (note 866) 500-501, no. 262. About the cult place of Hera at Olympia, see e. g. A. Moustaka, ‘On the Cult of Hera at Olympia’, R. Haegg (ed.), Peloponnesian Sanctuaries and Cults, Stockholm (2002) 199-205. See also M. Donderer, ‘Das Heraion in Olympia’, Babesch 80 (2005) 7-20; R. Krumeich, ‚Von Haus der Gottheit zum Museum?‘, Antike Kunst 51 (2008) 73-95 and A. Hupfloher, ‚Heraion und Herakult‘, Archiv fuer Religionsgeschichte 13 (2011) 225-252. 914 See Krumeich (note 913) 78, fig. 3. 915 See P.C. Bol, ‘Kleon (I)’, Vollkommer (note 8) 1 (2001) 416-417. 916 See Phidias’ statue of Aphrodite Urania at Elis (see note 868) as well as Scopas’ statue of Aphrodite Pandemos at Elis (see note 869) and clay figurines (see H. Froning and N. Zimmermann – Elseify, Die Terrakotten der antiken Stadt 893 894

Elis, Wiesbaden (2010) 54-55, no. S 5; 103-104, no. T 21-22 and 136, no. T 87). 917 See Pausanias 3. 18. 11 and A. Faustoferri, Il trono di Amyklai a Sparta, Naples (1996) 112-114, no. 1. 10.. 918 See Pausanias 3. 11. 11. 919 See Pliny 34. 87 and Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 77-85. 920 See Corso (note 919). 921 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 55, fig. 45. 922 See Jost (note 757) 439-456. 923 See Pausanias 5. 24. 4 and IvO 260. 924 See Demosthenes 9. 27; 18. 295; 19. 260 and 294; Diodorus 16. 63. 4-5 and Pausanias 4. 28. 4 and 5. 4. 9. 925 See e. g. Smith (note 636) 119-126. 926 See C. Gasparri and A. Veneri, ‘Dionysos’, LIMC 3 (1986) 414-514, particularly 417. 927 See Stampolidis (note 40) 90-97 with previous bibliography. 928 See U.W. Gottschall, ‘Nysa I, Nysai’, LIMC 8 (1997) 902-905 and N. Blanc, ‘Nysis ii’, ibidem 907. 929 See R. Kekule, Ueber den Kopf des Praxitelischen Hermes, Stuttgart (1881). 930 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 77-85. 931 See H. Froning, ‘Die Sandale des Hermes des Praxiteles in Olympia’, E. Christof et alii (eds.), Potnia theron, Vienna (2007) 95-101 and Froning and Zimmermann – Elseify (note 916) 54-56, no. S 5. 932 See A. Stewart, ‘(Yet another) note on the Olympia Hermes and Dionysos’, O. Palagia and H.R. Goette (eds.), Sailing to Classical Greece, Oxford (2011) 51-53. 933 See the restitution of the hypothetic original colours of the group attempted by L. Otto: see K. Knoll, ‘Treus Versuche zur antiken Polychromie’, Eadem (ed.), Das Albertinum, Dresden (1994) 164-179, particularly 174, fig. 161 a. About the strong connection of the ivy with the cult of Dionysus, see F. Graf, ‘Efeu’, DNP 3 (1997) 886-887. 934 See Pausanias 5. 17. 4: A. Linfert, ‘Boethoi’, G. Hellenkemper Salies (ed.), Das Wrack, Cologne (1994) 831-847, particularly 836, and R. Vollkommer, ‘Boethos (I)’, Vollkommer (note 8) 1 (2001) 117-118. 935 See W.B. Dinsmoor, ‘Architectural Notes’,

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

217

AJA 35 (1931) 296-297 and A. Corso, ‘The Hermes of Praxiteles’, NumAntCl 25 (1996) 131-153, particularly 141. P. Moreno, Scultura ellenistica 1, Rome (1994) 507 attributes the new setting of the Hermes to Damophon from Messene. In the past Praxiteles’ Hermes carrying Dionysus has been often regarded a work of a post classical namesake or a Roman copy from the original statue by the late classical master but now these doubts are over thanks to the recent essays by myself (see above in this note), by Stampolidis (see note 927), by Froning (see note 931) and by Stewart (see note 932). 936 The fragment is kept at Verona, Archaeological Museum of the Roman Theatre, no. 170. 937 See Corso (note 935) 144-153; Stampolidis (see note 40) and SEG 57 (2007) no. 981. 938 See M. Denti, Ellenismo e romanizzazione nella X regio, Rome (1991) 250-259, nos. 19-25. 939 See Schroeder (note 135, no. 15) 251255, no. 148. 940 See Tomei (note 135, no. 46) 116, no. 89. 941 See Adriani (note 885) 178-179, nos. 11 and 12. 942 See E.B. Harrison, Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture, Princeton (1965) 162-165,, no. 210. 943 See G. Siebert, ‘Hermes’, LIMC 5 (1990) 285-387, particularly 321, no. 400 and Corso (note 935) 150, pl. 4, fig. 15. 944 See O. Antonsson, The Praxiteles Marble Group in Olympia, Stockholm (1937) 118-121, no. 2 and E.M. Moormann, La pittura parietale romana come fonte di conoscenza per la scultura antica, Assen (1988) 168, no. 198 / 2. 945 See Siebert (note 943) 320, no. 380 b and c and C. Gasparri, ‘Dionysos / Bacchus’, LIMC 3 (1986) 540-566, particularly 552, nos. 143 and 144. 946 See Siebert (note 943) 320, no. 380 a. 947 See Antonsson (note 944) 121-122, nos. 3 a and b. 948 See Siebert (note 943) 321, no. 392 a. 949 See Siebert (note 943) 321, no. 392 b. 950 See S. Stucchi, ‘Un fragment de moulage de El Djem et le groupe d’Hermes et Dionysos de Cephisodote’, R. Martin (ed.), Le Moulage, Paris (1988) 211-214. 951 See V. Sampaolo, ‘VI 10. 11 Casa del naviglio’, G. Pugliese Carratelli (ed.), Pompei pitture e mosaici 4. 1, Rome (1993) 1072-1101, particularly 1090-1092, nos. 35 and 37.

218

Antonio Corso

See Sampaolo (note 951) 1077-1078, nos. 9 b and 10. 953 See Sampaolo (note 951) 1080-1082, nos. 14 and 19. 954 See Sampaolo (note 951) 1082-1086, no. 22. 955 See Sampaolo (note 951) 1085-1086, no. 23. 956 See Sampaolo (note 951) 1086-1090, no. 24. 957 See Sampaolo (note 951) 1086-1090, no. 25. 958 See Sampaolo (note 951) 1091-1092, no. 36. 959 See Sampaolo (note 951) 1094, no. 41. 960 See Sampaolo (note 951) 1094-1097, nos. 42 and 44. 961 See Sampaolo (note 951) 1098-1099, no. 46. 962 See Sampaolo (note 951) 1100-1101, no. 49. 963 The change of subject of the paedophorus of Dionysus from Hermes to a Satyr is rooted in the Hellenistic visual tradition of Asia Minor (see Antonsson (note 944) 130-131, no. ii. 1) and is known also thanks to another wall painting of Pompeii (see note 944). Antonsson (note 944) suggested that the paedophorus of the Olympian group was Pan, in a second moment reworked on the head and shoulders in order to transform the statue into a Hermes. N. Stanpolidis, ‘To symplegma ar. 257 tou E. M. kai oi Platonikoi Silenoi’, Archaiognosia 3 (1982) 127161 asserted that the paedophorus in Praxiteles’ group was originally a Satyr, later transformed into a Hermes. However the expression and nobility of the face and the style of the body are too dignifying to represent these beings: thus these opinions have been abandoned in the last decades. 964 Pausanias 5. 21. 1 specifies that he reports only about the most remarkable dedications. 965 See Choricius, Declamations 8, praefatio 2: he refers to Demosthenes, De falsa legatione 196-199. About Demosthenes’ De falsa legatione, see D.M. Mac Dowell, Demosthenes, On the false Embassy(Oration 19), Oxford (2000). 966 About the demographic decline of Sparta in the late 4th c. BC, see e. g. S. Hodkinson, ‘Inheritage, Marriage and Demography’, A. Powell 952

and P. Cartledge (eds.), Classical Sparta, London (1989) 79-121. 967 The conclusion that both Pausanias and Choricius refer to the same response of the oracle of Apollo at Delphi has been reached by J. Fontenrose, The Delphic Oracle, Berkeley (1978) 336, no. Q 209. For the detailed demonstration that the statue seen by Pausanias is that set up by the Spartans after they had rejected Praxiteles’ Aphrodite, see A. Corso, Prassitele. Fonti epigrafiche e letterarie. Vita e opere 3, Rome (1991) 44-46. 968 See K. Deichgraeber, ‚Polemon 9‘, RE 21. 2 (1952) 1288-1320, particularly 1297, work no. 7. 969 See the passages of Choricius collected by Corso (note 967) 47-48. 970 Relevant passages of Choricius in Corso (note 967) 48. 971 See especially Lucian, Zeuxis 3-8. 972 Relevant passages of Choricius in Corso (note 967) 48-49. 973 Passages of Choricius in Corso (note 967) 49-50. 974 Passages ad hoc in A. Corso, ‘Love as Suffering’, BICS 42 (1997/98) 63-91. 975 See Corso (note 1) 37-49. 976 See P. Schultz, ‘Divine images and Royal Ideology in the Philippeion at Olympia’, J.T. Jensen et alii (eds.), Aspects of Ancient Greek Cult, Aarhus (2009) 125-193. 977 See e. g. M.H. Hansen, ‘Boiotia’, M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford (2004) 431461, particularly 457-458, no. 222. 978 See Corso (note 967) 50-52. 979 See S. Tracy, ‘The Statue Bases of Praxiteles found in Athens’, ZPE 167 (2008) 27-32. 980 See the detailed explanation of this argumentation in Corso (note 967) 54. 981 See for the triad of Thespiae Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 276-277; for the Cnidia, Corso (note 1) 36-40. 982 About the apella, see K.W. Welwi, ‘Apella oder Ekklesia?’, RhM 140 (1997) 242-249. 983 See e. g. the deliberation of the Athenian assembly about the correctness of Phidias in his delivery of the chryselephantine Athena Parthenos to the city of Athens sometime in the 430s (see Plutarch, Pericles 31. 2-3 and G. Marginesu, Gli epistati dell’Acropoli, Athens (2010) 80).

Detailed demonstration of these conclusions in Corso (note 967) 56-58. 985 See Lucian, Zeuxis 3-8. 986 See Corso (note 967) 58-60 and 184, note 2160. 987 See for a detailed explanation of this conclusion, Corso (note 967) 61-62. 988 See Corso (note 967) 27-110. 989 See Corso (note 967) 104-105. 990 See J. Tanner, The Invention of Art History, Cambridge (2006) 235-246. 991 See F. Coarelli, ‘Pax, templum’, LTUR 4 (1999) 67-70 and Bravi (note 733) 176-183, particularly 178. 992 See E. La Rocca, ‘La nuova immagine dei fori imperiali’, RM 108 (2001) 171-213, particularly 195-207 and SEG 51 (2001) no. 1442. 993 See Klein (note 90) 285-291; A. Delivorrias, ‘Aphrodite’, LIMC 2 (1984) 2-151, particularly 59-60, nos. 482-493; S. Besques, ‘Une Aphrodite au collier de Myrina signee par Menophilos’, AK 26 (1983) 22-36 and A. Pasquier, ‘Statuette de femme nue’, Pasquier and Martinez (note 98)198-199, no. 48. I am aware of 25 examples of this type: a. early Hellenistic examples: 1. bronze statuette from the Peloponnese probably of Corinthian craftsmanship, once in the Pourtales collection, then at London, The British Museum, Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, no. 1084 (fig. 58) (see Pasquier, cited above in this note); b. middle Hellenistic examples: 2. marble statuette from Camirus at New York, The Metropolitan Museum, no. 50. 10 (see Delivorrias, cited above in this note, 59, no. 482) (arms and lower parts of legs are missing); 3. marble statuette from Syracuse, found in a well of a house on south of the archaic cemetery of the town, kept at Syracuse, National Archaeological Museum (see Delivorrias, cited above in this note, 60, no. 484) (headless, without arms and legs below the knees); 4. bronze statuette probably from Syria, formerly in the Habich collection, then at Kassel, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, no. Br 662 (see Delivorrias, cited above in this note, 60, no. 486) (variation: head turned to her right); 5. bronze statuette at Paris, Louvre, Department of Greek, Etruscan and Roman Antiquities, no. Br 115 (see A. De Ridder, Les bronzes antiques 984

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

219

du Louvre, Paris (1913) 105, no. 772) (variation: the left hand held a mirror, two braids on shoulders); 6. clay figurine from Myrina once in the Branteghem collection, then at Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, no. 03. 914 (see Delivorrias, cited above in this note, 60, no. 489) (variation: right arm brought up); 7. clay figurine once in the Durand collection, now its whereabouts are not known) (see Klein, cited above in this note, 288, no. 1); c. late Hellenistic examples: 8. marble statue at Paris, Louvre, Department of Greek, Etruscan and Roman Antiquities, no. MA 556 (see Delivorrias, cited above in this note, 59-60, no. 483 and Pasquier, cited above in this note) (variation: braids on shoulders); 9. bronze statuette at Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery, no. 54. 952 (see Delivorrias, cited above in this note, 60, no. 487) (variation: head of goddess toward her right); 10. bronze statuette from Alexandria, once in the Temple collection, then at London, The British Museum, Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, no. 1085 (see H.B. Walters, Catalogue of the Bronzes Greek, Roman and Etruscan, London (1899) 193, no. 1085) (variation: right hand held a lock of hair, in left hand she held a mirror, she wears a sphendone and she has locks on her shoulders); 11. bronze statuette at Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Skulpturensammlung (see Klein, cited above in this note, 283-288, no. 5, fig. 46); 12. bronze statuette once at Leipzig, private collection (see Klein, cited above in this note, 283-288, no. 4, fig. 45); 13. clay figurine from Tarentum once in the antiquarian market at Hamburg (see Delivorrias, cited above in this note, 60, no. 488); 14. clay figurine at Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Skulpturensammlung (see Klein, cited above in this note, 288, no. 2) (variation: she wears a wreath and arm-laces); d. Augustan examples: 15. clay figurine from Myrina signed by Menophilus in a private collection (see Besques, cited above in this note) (variation: she wears a chiton); e. Julio Claudian examples: 16. bronze statuette from Antaradus once in the De Clercq collection (see A. De Ridder,

220

Antonio Corso

Collection De Clercq 3, Paris (1905) 61-63, no. 80) (variation: she already wears the necklace and Eros stands near her right leg); 17. bronze statue from Tyrus, once in the De Clerck collection (see De Ridder, cited above in no. 16, 63, no. 81); 18. bronze statuette from Sidon once in the De Clerck collection (see De Ridder, cited above in no. 16, 63-64, no. 82); 19. bronze statuette from Antaradus once in the De Clercq collection (see De Ridder, cited above in no. 16, 64, no. 83); 20. bronze statuette from Antaradus, once in the De Clercq collection (see De Ridder, cited above in no. 16, 64, no. 84); 21. bronze statuette from Antaradus, once in the De Clercq collection (see De Ridder, cited above in no. 16, 65, no. 85) (variation: diadem on head); 22. bronze statuette from Marathus in Syria, once in the De Clercq collection (see De Ridder, cited above in no. 16, 65-66, no. 86) (variation: crown on head, she already wears a necklace); 23. bronze statuette probably from Syria at Paris, National Library, Cabinet of medals, no. 234 (see E. Babelon and J. - A Blanchet, Catalogue des bronzes antiques de la Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris (1895) 101-102, no. 234) (variation: diadem on head, locks on shoulders); 24. bronze statuette from Syria at Paris, Louvre, Department of Greek, Etruscan and Roman Antiquities, no. Br. 127 (see De Ridder, cited above in no. 5, 65, no. 420) (variation: diadem on head); f. Flavian examples: 25. marble statuette perhaps from Pompeii, once in Malmaison Castle, then in the Pourtales collection, now its whereabouts are not known (see Klein, cited above in this note, 288; for the Malmaison collection, see S. Descamps – Lequime et alii (eds.), De Pompei a Malmaison, Paris (2008)). 994 See A. Corso, ‘La Vacca di Mirone’, NumAntCl 23 (1994) 49-91 and Bravi (note 991). 995 See Corso (note 1) 212, note 8, no. 93. 996 See Corso (note 1) 211-229, note 8, nos. 72-76; 81-82; 142; 154; 160; 291; 298; 300-301; 303; 315 and 320. 997 See Corso (note 1) 256, note 435. 998 See G. Castellana, ‘Su alcune sculture femminili panneggiate di ispirazione tar-

doellenistica del Museo Regionale Archeologico di Siracusa’, RdA 3 (1979) 65-71. 999 See Cercidas and Archelaus in Athenaeus 12. 554 c – e. 1000 See A. Giuliano, Scritti minori, Rome (2001) 25-30. 1001 See Corso (note 1) 211, note 8, nos. 7778. 1002 See Belli (note 910) 108-109, no. v 1. 1003 See Belli (note 910) 110-113, no. v 2. 1004 See e. g. H. Seyrig, ‘Dieux de Tyr’, Syria 40 (1963) 17-32. 1005 See Corso (note 1) 211, note 8, nos. 7375. 1006 See Corso (note 1) 226, note 8, no. 291 and 229, note 8, no. 320. 1007 See H.G. Niemeyer, ‘Marathos’, DNP 7 (1999) 846-847. 1008 See Coarelli (note 991) 67; La Rocca (note 992) 196 and 200 and Bravi (note 733) 177-178 and 182. 1009 About the removal of works of art from Greek centres decided by Nero and the artistic and political reasons which determined the choice of monuments to be brought to Rome, see V.M. Strocka, ‘Neros Statuenraub fuer die Domus Aurea’, J. - M. Croisille and Y. Perrin (eds.), Neronia 6, Brussels (2002) 35-45. 1010 See the articles by Coarelli, La Rocca, Bravi and Strocka cited in notes 1008 and 1009. 1011 For all of these statues, see the list of works of art adorning the templum Pacis given by Coarelli (note 991) except for the bronze bull which is mentioned by Procopius, De bello Gothico 8. 21. 12-13. 1012 See the analysis of the display of works of art by Bravi (note 733). 1013 See Coarelli (note 991). 1014 See Coarelli (note 273) 158-201. 1015 See Legon (note 616) 28, map no. 2, site no. 33. 1016 See Alcman, frg. 66 Edmonds and Plutarch, De Fortuna Romanorum 4. 318 a. 1017 See H.A. Shapiro, Personifications in Greek Art, Kilchberg (1993) 242, no. 51 and 260, no. 129 and L. Villard, ‘Tyche’, LIMC 8 (1997) 115-125, particularly 118, no. 1. About the preHellenistic visual fortune of Tyche, see W. Messerschmidt, Prosopopoiia, Cologne (2003) 61-90 and 198-202, nos. Ty 1-10 and Smith (note 636) 119-122.

See Pausanias 9. 16. 2 and Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 108-109. 1019 About Tyche in the ‘Zeitgeist’ of the new comedy, see G. Vogt – Spira, Dramaturgie des Zufalls: Tyche und Handeln in der Komoedie Menanders, Munich (1992). 1020 Evidence in Smith (note 636) 122. 1021 See Imhoof – Blumer, Gardner and Oikonomides (note 324) 7-8: the Megarian coin types listed as having the same standard figure of Tyche pertain to the empires of Commodus, Septimius Severus, Julia Domna and Geta. 1022 Evidence in Smith (note 636) 119-122. 1023 I am aware of the following examples of this type: a. early Hellenistic variations: 1. torso in Pentelic marble found in Athens in the Agora, in front of the Royal Stoa, and kept in Athens, Agora Museum, no. S 2370, dated around 330 BC: see Smith (note 636) 148, no. S 10, with previous bibliography; b. Julio-Claudian copies: 2. early Claudian marble copy found in Ostia, near the sea coast, and kept in Rome, in the Vatican Museums, Museo Chiaramonti (Braccio Nuovo) no. 2244. The head is not pertinent. Variation (she holds a rudder in her right hand). See C. Nippe, Die Fortuna Braccio Nuovo, Berlin (1989) 76, no. K 1; L. Villard, ‘Tyche’, LIMC 8 (1997) 115-125, particularly 122, no. 71 and F. Rausa, ‘Tyche / Fortuna’, ibidem 125-141, particularly 127-128, no. 16; 3. Tiberian marble statue from the theatre of Herculaneum in Portici, Royal Palace. Head, right forearm and left hand are restored. See Nippe (no. 2) 77, no. K 2 and M. Pagano, ‘Il teatro di Ercolano’, Cronache Ercolanesi 23 (1993) 121156, particularly 123; c. Flavian copies: 4. statue in Luna marble. Head, right arm and left forearm are missing. Found in Rome, Via XX Settembre, on the Quirinal Hill, and kept in Rome, Roman National Museum, no. 2001480. Variation: no horn of plenty in left hand; moreover the right arm was uplifted. Perhaps originally pertinent to the sanctuary of the Fortuna Publica Citerior which stood in this area (see F. Coarelli, ‘Fortunae tres, aedes’, LTUR 2 (1995) 285-287). See D. Bonanome, ‘Statua femminile acefala (inv. n. 2001480)’, A. Giuliano (ed.), Museo Nazionale Romano. Le sculture 1. 8. 2, Rome (1985) 494-495, no. ix. 18; 1018

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

221

d. Trajanic period: 5. marble statue probably from Rome. Right and left forearms, most of face and lower part of the statue are restored. The head is veiled. Probably from Villa Mattei on Mt. Palatine, found in the area of ‘La Navicella’ on Mt. Caelius. Kept in Rome in Palazzo Mattei di Giove, on the second floor in a niche in the eastern side, no. 12/00122321. See F. Carinci, ‘Statua di Tyche – Fortuna’, L. Guerrini (ed.), Palazzo Mattei di Giove. Le antichita’, Rome (1982) 117-119, no. 8; Nippe (no. 2) 77-78, no. K 3 and Rausa (no. 2) 128, no. 22; 6. marble statue probably from Rome. Head, most of right arm and left arm are restored. Kept in Rome, Vatican Museums, Braccio Nuovo, no. 2260. See Nippe (no. 2) 78, no. K 4; 7. marble statue, variation: funerary statue of a lady whose portrait head is veiled. Left forearm and right hand missing. Probably from Italy, perhaps from Naples or nearby. Kept in Sevilla, Palacio de Pilatos, garden’s hall. See Nippe (no. 2) 116-117, no. V d and M. Trunk, Die ‚Casa de Pilatos in Sevilla, Mainz am Rhein (2002) 185-189, no. 20; e. Hadrianic times: 8. marble statue, head and forearms are not preserved, found in Rome, in the atrium Vestae in the Roman forum and preserved in situ, no. 408046: see Nippe (no. 2) 79, no. K 5; Rausa (no. 2) 128, no. 23 and N. Mekacher, Die vestalischen Jungfrauen, Wiesbaden (2006) 227, no. U 3; 9. marble statue probably from Rome. Head, right arm, left forearm and lower part are restored, kept in Rome, Palazzo Cesi, courtyard. See Nippe (no. 2) 79-80, no. K 6 and B. Lichocka, L’iconographie de Fortuna, Varsovie (1997) figs. 371 a and b; 10. marble statue. Head and arms are missing. Perhaps from Rome, once in the Chigi collection, kept in Dresden, Staatliche Skulpturensammlung, storeroom, no. Hm 304. See C. Vorster, ‘Weibliche Gewandstatue. Typus Fortuna Braccio Nuovo’, Knoll (note 135, no. 4) 293-295, no. 44; 11. statuette in Luna marble, most of arms are missing, found in Ostia, in the sanctuary of the Magna Mater, in the sacellum of Attis and kept in Ostia, in the Archaeological Museum, no. 171. See R. Calza, ‘Sculture rinvenute nel santuario’, Memorie della Pontificia Accademia di Arche-

222

Antonio Corso

ologia 6 (1947) 207-227, particularly 227, no. 22; Nippe (no. 2) 81, no. K 8 and A. -K. Rieger, Heiligtuemer in Ostia, Munich (2004) 286, no. MMA 19; 12. marble statue. Head and arms do not survive. Found in Thyateira and kept in Smyrna, Basmane Museum, garden, no. 13. See Nippe (no. 2) 81-82, no. K 9; 13. marble torso from Asia Minor once in the James Dawkins collection and kept in Oxford, The Ashmolean Museum, no. 59. 6. See Nippe (no. 2) 82, no. K 10; 14. marble statue, right arm, left forearm and face restored, probably from the so called palaestra of Hadrian’s Villa near Tibur. The head is covered by the mantle. Kept in Rome, Quirinal Palace, no. DP 1136, once in the fountain of the grove, perhaps in one of the 4 niches, now in the gardens. See E. Ghisellini, ‘Statua femminile, c. d. Cerere’, L. Guerrini and C. Gasparri (eds.), Il Palazzo del Quirinale. Catalogo delle sculture, Rome (1993) 34-37, no. 8; 15. marble statue, variation, found in a niche on a vaulted tomb near Puteoli and kept in Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, no. 34. 113. See M.B. Comstock and C.C. Vermeule, Sculpture in Stone, Boston (1976) 224-225 and Nippe (no. 2) 102, no. V 2 a (the head is the portrait of a deceased lady and is veiled, the shaft of the incense burner at the right of the figure reveals that the lady has been re-interpreted as engaged in an act of sacrifice); 16. marble statue, variation. Restored as Ceres. Right forearm and left hand restored. Head reworked but covered by mantle already in antiquity. From Rome, once in a niche of the main facade of Villa Borghese, then in Paris. Louvre, no. MR 362 = Ma 1062. See Nippe (no. 2) 105-106, no. V 4 a and Fabrega – Dubert (note 586, no. 2) 2. 115, no. 211; 17. statue in Pentelic marble, variation (ribbon of drapery instead of girdle). Head, right arm and left hand missing. Found in Cyrene in the portico of the Muses in the peristyle of the house of Jason Magnus. The plinth of the statue bears the inscription Thalia. Kept in situ, no. 14. 278. See Paribeni (note 135, no. 70) 138, no. 400; Nippe (no. 2) 115, no. V a and O. Menozzi, ‘Un gruppo inedito di Muse da Cirene’, E. Catani (ed.), La Cirenaica in eta’ antica, Macerata (1998) 405-428, particularly 426-427; f. Antonine copies:

18. marble statue found in Rome in Via della Stamperia on the northern slopes of the Quirinal hill, perhaps originally set up in or near the templum Florae. Head, right arm and left hand are missing. Kept in Rome, Roman National Museum, no. 116. 18. See D. Candilio, ‘Statua femminile acefala (inv. no. 11618)’, A. Giuliano (ed.), Museo Nazionale Romano. Le sculture 1. 7. 2 Rome (1984) 410-411, no. xiii. 21; Nippe (no. 2) 82-83, no. K 11 and Rausa (no. 2) 126, no. 17; 19. marble statue (fig. 60) found in the swimming pool of the frigidarium of the baths of the so-called ‘Palais du miroir’ in Saint – Colombe near Vienna (Vienne), perhaps originally set up in a niche of the frigidarium and kept in Vienne, Musee Archeologique Saint – Pierre, no. R 2001 – S – 072. The right forearm is missing, the goddess held the rudder in her right hand. See Nippe (no. 2) 83-84, no. K 12; A. Hermary, ‘Fortuna – Tyche’, D. Terrer et alii (eds.), Vienne (Isere), Paris (2003) 36-37, no. 072 and J. –L. Martinez, ‘Les styles praxitelisants aux epoques hellenistique et romaine’, Pasquier and Martinez (note 98) 294-311, particularly 297 and 301; 20. marble statue found reused in the eastern stretch of the Herulian walls of Athens, then in the royal mews and now kept in Athens, National Archeological Museum, storeroom, no. Gamma 3630. Head, right arm and left forearm are missing. See Nippe (no. 2) 84, no. K 13; 21. statue in Phrygian marble from the hyposcaenium in front of the scaenae frons of the theatre of Hierapolis, probably originally set up in the front of the stage, kept in Pamukkale, Archaeological Museum, storeroom, no. T 77. 10 + T 573 (right arm, left forearm and part of head are missing; variation: in left hand sceptre instead of cornucopia, moreover the head is crowned by a diadem and is veiled): see Nippe (no. 2) 84-85, no. K 14; G. Bejor, Hierapolis iii. Le statue, Rome (1991) 24-25, no. 13 and A.C. Oezren, ‘Die Skulpturenausstattung kaiserzeitlicher Theater’, Thetis 3 (1996) 99-128, particularly 128, no. H 21 22. marble statue, right arm missing, in Rome, Vatican Museums, Braccio Nuovo, no. 2262. See Nippe (no. 2) 86, no. K 16; 23. marble statue, head and right arm restored, once in the grove of statues of the Ludovisi Palace, then in front of the aviary of the palace and kept in Rome, Margherita Palace, on

the walls of the gardens. See B. Palma, ‘Statua femminile panneggiata con ghirlanda’, A. Giuliano (ed.), Museo Nazionale Romano. Le sculture 1. 6, Rome (1986) 174-175, no. vii. 24 and Nippe (no. 2) 86-87., no. K 17; 24. marble statue, head, right arm and left forearm missing, found in Fanum Fortunae in the area of the episcopium, perhaps originally set up in public baths and kept in Ancona, National Archaeological Museum, no. 167. See Nippe (no. 2) 87, no. K 18; E. Catani, ‘Sculture romane nell’area dell’Episcopio’, F. Milesi (ed.), Fano romana, Fano (1992) 300-318, particularly 306-307, no. 3; M. Luni, Studi su Fanum Fortunae, Urbino (2000) 138 and D. Musti, ‘Il contesto cultuale e storico della Fortuna di Fano’, Hesperi’a 15 (2002) 25-60; 25. marble statue, head, left forearm and right arm missing, once in the collection of Maximilian of Absburg in Miramare Castle near Trieste and kept in Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, no. I. 369. See Nippe 87-88, no. K 19; 26. marble statue perhaps from Rome, most of right arm missing, the head is a veiled portrait of Faustina Minor, kept in Sevilla, Palacio de Pilatos, patio grande. See Nippe (no. 2) 88-89, no. K 20; Rausa (no. 2) 128, no. 24; Trunk (no. 7) 201-204, no. 29 and A. Alexandridis, Die Frauen des Roemischen Kaiserhauses, Mainz am Rhein (2002) 195, no. 206; 27. marble statue found near the hiera hodos between Athens and Eleusis, on the Aegaleo hill, and kept in Athens, National Archaeological Museum, no. Gamma 3788. See Nippe (no. 2) 89, no. K 21 (head, right arm and left hand missing); 28. marble statue found in Cora (Cori) on the terrace above the forum of the city, in the area of a sanctuary perhaps to be identified with that of Fortuna Opsequens. Head, right arm and left forearm are missing. Variation: the girdle does not appear. Kept in Rome, Roman National Museum, no. 126102. See E. Paribeni, ‘Statua muliebre acefala (inv. n. 126102)’, A. Giuliano (ed.), Museo Nazionale Romano. Le sculture 1. 2, Rome (1981) 24-27, no. 17; Nippe (no. 2) 89-90, no. K 22; Rausa (no. 2) 128, no. 19 and D. Palombi, ‘Cora’, AC 54 (2003) 197-252, particularly 216-219; 29. statue in Proconnesian marble, right forearm missing, from Prusias ad Hypium in Bithynia, kept in Constantinople, Archaeological Museum, no. I 4410. Variation: the goddess

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

223

holds the baby Plutus in her left hand and a diadem is below her corona muralis which is decorated by acanthus leafs as well as by an olive wreath. Attributed to a late Antonine workshop of Nicomedia. See Nippe (no. 2) 90-91, no. K 23 and G. Traversari, La Tyche di Prusias ad Hypium, Rome (1993); 30. marble statue, head and forearms missing, found in the foundations of the modern theatre of Zizinia in Alexandria with a loricated statue of Marcus Aurelius and a male torso, kept in Alexandria, Archaeological Museum, no. 3870. The goddess held in her right hand the rudder on the globe which survives in its lower part. See Nippe (no. 2) 91, no. K 24; 31. marble torso found between the Basilica and the Odeum - Bouleuterion of Ephesus and kept in London, The British Museum, no. 1259. See Nippe (no. 2) 91-92, no. K 25 and E. Atalay, Weibliche Gewandstatuen des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. aus Ephesischen Werkstaetten, Vienna (1989) 36-37, no. 28; 32. marble statue, the forearms are missing, the head has the hair look of Faustina Minor, probably once in Palazzo Valle – Capranica, kept in Rome, Villa Medici, in the garden toward Mt. Pincius. See C. Gasparri, ‚Statua femminile panneggiata c.d. Giunone‘, A. Cecchi and C. Gasparri (eds.), La villa Medicis 4, Rome (2009) 220221, no. 248. 3; 33. marble statue. Head, right and left forearms missing. Found in Caieta, in the villa of Faustina the Elder and kept in Gaeta in the Museo Diocesano, hall. See M. Conticello – De Spagnolis, Le sculture del Museo Diocesano di Gaeta, Rome (1986) 11-13 and Nippe (no. 2) 9293, no. K 27; 34. marble statue. Head, right arm and left forearm with horn of plenty restored. Kept in Rome, in the Quirinal Palace, no. DP 1179, once near the organum of Clement viii, now in the gardens, fountain of Flora. See E. Ghisellini, ‘Statua femminile, c.d. Flora o Abbondanza’, Guerrini and Gasparri (no. 14) 37-39, no. 9 and Rausa (no. 2) 127-128, no. 18 b; 35. marble statuette, head and right arm missing, rudder on globe partially preserved. From Cissus, today Chortiatis, north - east of Thessaloniki. Kept in Thessaloniki, National Archaeological Museum, no. 9192. See B. Smit-Douna, ‘Akefalo gynaikeio agalmatidio sto typo tis For-

224

Antonio Corso

tuna Braccio Nuovo’, G. Despinis (ed.), Katalogos glypton tou archaiologikou Mouseiou Thessalonikis 2, Thessaloniki (2003) 88-89, no. 227; 36. marble statue, variation. Head ancient but not pertinent. Forearms restored. From Capua, once in the Carafa collection, now kept in Stockholm, Royal Museum, no. NM Sk 13. See Nippe (no. 2) 103, no. V 2 b and A.M. Leander Touati, Ancient Sculptures in the Royal Museum, Stockholm (1998) 153-155, no. 15 (probably the head was a portrait; perhaps by the same workshop of no. 15); 37. marble statue. Arms partly lost. From Lorium, the imperial villa. Variation: the head is veiled. Kept in Rome, Vatican Museums, Prefettura Apostolica. See EA 781 and Nippe (no. 2) 103-104, no. V 2 c; 38. marble statue, variation: left leg bent and right leg standing. Head, arms and low part of drapery restored. Once in Rome in the Pacetti collection, kept in Copenhague, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotheque, no. 1651. See Nippe (no. 2) 106, no. V 4 b and M. Moltesen, Catalogue Imperial Rome iii Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhague (2005) 272-273, no. 133; 39. low part of marble statue, variation (left leg bent and right leg standing), in Ephesus, theatre. See Nippe (no. 2) 107, no. V 4 c; 40. marble statue, the right forearm and the left hand are restored. Variation: the head is the portrait of a lady capite velato. Kept in Rome, Museo di Villa Borghese, Casino, no. 597. See Nippe (no. 2) V 4 d; 41. marble statue, variation: veiled head. No forearms. From Praeneste probably from the sanctuary of Fortuna Primigenia. Set up in a niche in the middle of the facade of Palazzo Barberini in Palestrina. See Nippe (no. 2) 108, no. V 4 e; 42. lower part of marble statue probably found in Hadrumetum or nearby and kept in Sousse, Museum, in the garden. Variation: reversed style, left leg bent and right leg standing, probably pertinent to the funerary statue of a lady. See N. de Chaisemartin, Les sculptures romaines de Sousse, Rome (1987) 141, no. 197 and Nippe (no. 2) 108-109, no. V 4 f; 43. statue in Parian marble, variation. Head and right forearm missing. From Carthage. Kept in London, The British Museum, no. 2060. Variation: reversed style, left leg bent and right leg

standing; See A.H. Smith, A Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities British Museum, London (1904) 3. 201, no. 2060 and Nippe (no. 2) 109, no. V 4 g; 44. marble statue, left hand with attribute restored, variation: the head is the portrait of a lady capite velato; the hairstyle depends on that of Crispina, the left leg is bent and the right leg is standing. Funerary statue: arula at the right side of the lady; kept in Florence, Uffizi, no. 131. See G.A. Mansuelli, Galleria degli Uffizi. Le sculture, Rome (1961) 1. 107-108, no. 134 and Nippe (no. 2) 110, no. V 4 I; 45. marble statue. Head and both arms missing. Found in Mactaris, in the frigidarium of the large baths on south of the Forum and kept in Mactar, in situ. Variation: the presence of the snake suggests that she was a Hygieia. See Manderscheid (note 739) 117, no. 435 and Nippe (no. 2) 111-112, no. V 5 a; 46. marble statue, variation: the presence of a snake suggests that she was a Hygieia; the right forearm is missing, found in Calama, theatre, probably originally set up in one of the niches of the frons scaenae, and kept in Guelma, in situ. See Nippe (no. 2) 112, no. V 5 b; 47. marble statue, variation: left shoulder naked, the presence of a snake on the right forearm suggests that she was a Hygieia. Head, right hand and left forearm missing. Found in Lambaesis in the temple of Aesculapius together with a statue of Aesculapius and kept in Tazoult, Museum, no. S 2. See Nippe (no. 2) no. V 5 c; F. Croissant, ‘Hygieia’, LIMC 5 (1990) 554-572, particularly 559, no. 41 and N. Benseddik, Esculape et Hygie en Afrique, Paris (2010) 1. 77-79 and 2. 119, no. 9; 48. low part of colossal statue in Pentelic marble from the agora near St. Titus in Gortys, signed by the Athenian sculptor Eisidotos, kept in the Antiquarium of Gortys, no. GO 230. See Romeo (note 531, no. 15) 19-276, particularly 139-142, no. 33 and R. Vollkommer, ‘Isidotos (ii)’, Idem (note 8) 1 (2001) 363; 49. marble statue, variation. The right forearm, the left hand and the lower part of the statue are restored. The head is a private portrait capite velato with the hair style inspired by that of Faustina the Elder. Kept in Rome, Rondinini Palace, gallery. See E. Paribeni, ‘I marmi antichi’, L. Salerno (ed.), Palazzo Rondinini, Rome (1965)

205-206, no. 11; Nippe (no. 2) 104, no. V 2 d and G.A. Cellini, ‘Statua femminile panneggiata tipo Fortuna Braccio Nuovo’, D. Candilio and M. Bertinetti (eds.), I marmi antichi del Palazzo Rondinini, Rome (2011) 175-176, no. 172; 50.Tyche on AE struck by Megara during the empire of Commodus, reverse: see Imhoof – Blumer, Gardner and Oikonomides (note 1021); g. Severan copies 51. Tyche on AE struck by Megara during the empire of Septimius Severus, reverse: see Imhoof – Blumer, Gardner and Oikonomides (note 1021); 52. Tyche on AE struck by Megara under Julia Domna, reverse: see Imhoof – Blumer, Gardner and Oikonomides (note 1021); 53. Tyche on AE struck by Megara under Geta, reverse: see Imhoof – Blumer, Gardner and Oikonomides (note 1021); 54 marble statue. Head and both forearms missing. Left hand probably held a horn of plenty, once rudder in right side. Found in a well in the site La Barzola in Hispalis together with two fragmentary statues of Diana and Bacchus and kept in Sevilla, Archaeological Museum, no. 13. 114. See A. Balil, Esculturas romanas de la peninsula iberica iii, Valladolid (1980) 8-10, no. 41 and Nippe (no. 2) 93, no. 28; 55. marble statue. Head, right arm and left hand missing. Kept in Constantinople, National Archaeological Museum, no. 303 in the garden. Nippe (no. 2) 94, no. K 29 and Lichocka (no. 9) 107; 56. marble statuette. Right arm and left hand missing. Diadem on head. The snake, partially preserved, suggests that she was Hygieia. Found reused in a wall SW of a Nymphaeum in Apamea. Kept in Damascus, National Museum, no. 10. 448 (4598). See A. Schmidt – Colinet, ‘Skulpturen aus dem Nymphaeum von Apamea / Syrien’, AA (1985) 119-133, particularly 125, no. 1; Nippe (no. 2) 94-95, no. K 30 and G.A. Aristodimou, O glyptos diakosmos Nymphaion kai krinon sto anatoliko tmima tis Rhomaikis autokratorias, Thessaloniki (2012) 359, no. 298; 57. marble torso found in the marble court of the gymnasium – baths of Sardis and kept there, in the storeroom of the museum, nos. S 60. 11: 2601 and S 60. 29: 3007. See G.M.A. Hanfmann and N.H. Ramage, Sculpture from Sardis, Cambridge Mass. (1978) 89, no. 60 and Nippe (no. 2) 95, no. K 31;

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

225

58. marble statue. Forearms and snake restored. Head ancient but not pertinent. Since traces of the original snake survive on the drapery, she was a Hygieia already in antiquity. From the so-called Palace of Marius in ‘Le Vignacce’ along via Latina near Tusculum. Once in the Polignac collection, then in Berlin, Charlottenburg Castle (Speisesaal), then in the Antikentempel. Kept in Berlin, Altes Museum, Antikensammlung, no. Sk 594. See Neudecker (note 135, no. 71) 210, no. 51. 15; Nippe (no. 2) 95-96, no. K 32; Rausa (no. 2) 128, no. 21 and A. Dostert, ‘Statue der Hygieia mit nicht zugehoerigem antikem Kopf’, Hueneke (note 135, no. 34) 210-211, no. 99; 59. marble statuette. The head is ancient but not pertinent. Both forearms missing. The snake reveals the re-interpretation of the type as Hygieia. From the Catajo, Este collection. Kept in Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, no. I 1248. See EA 62 and Nippe (no. 2) 96-97, no. K 33; 60. statuette in Pentelic marble. Head, right arm and left hand missing. The snake suggests the interpretation of the type as Hygieia. From Sparta, kept in London, The British Museum, storeroom, no. I. 2074. See Smith (no. 43) 205, no. 2074 and Nippe (no. 2) 97, no. K 34; 61. lower part of marble statue found in the midddle gate of the theatre opening on to the agora of Side, perhaps it was the cult statue of the Tychaeum constituted in front of the back side of the skene, and kept there, Museum, no. 126. Rudder on globe at the right side of the statue. See J. Inan, Roman Sculpture in Side, Ankara (1975) 108-109, no. 45; Nippe (no. 2) 97-98, no. K 35 and Lichocka (no. 9) 163; 62. marble statue, variation. Head and arms restored. Once in the castle of Poitou, Richelieu collection. Kept in Paris, Louvre, no. Ma 653 = MR 248. See Nippe (no. 2) 101, no. V 1 c and J. -L. Martinez, ‘Du palais – cardinal au chateau en Poitou’, Martinez (ed.), Les antiques du Louvre, Paris (2004) 20-41, particularly 29; 63. statuette in Pentelic marble, variation. Right forearm and left hand missing. The snake on the right shoulder and the dedicatory inscription clarify that she was Hygieia. From Epidaurus, sanctuary of Asclepios, building K, identified with the middle 2nd c. AD Antoninus’ baths provided also with a library. Kept in Athens, National Archaeological Museum, no. 272.

226

Antonio Corso

See Nippe (no. 2) 100, no. V 1 a and S.E. Katakis, Epidauros. Ta glypta ton Rhomaikon chronon apo to hiero tou Apollonos Maleata kai tou Asklepiou, Athens (2002) 31-32, no. 29; 64. marble statue, variation. Head and hands missing. The snake on the right side suggests that she was Hygieia. Reversed style: left leg bent and right leg standing. From a niche of the Antonine baths F in Antioch, kept in Worcester, Art Museum, no. 1936. 36. See R. Stillwell, Antioch – on – the – Orontes iii, Princeton (1941) 116-117, no. 241; Nippe (no. 2) 101-102, no. V 1 d; Croissant (no. 47) 563, no. 125 and C. Vermeule, ‘Statue of Hygieia’, L. Becker and C. Kondoleon (eds.), The Art of Antioch, Worcester (2005) 247-249, no. 11; 65. marble statue, variation. Head and forearms are restored. Set up in Rome, on a wall of the garden, in front of the entrance of Villa Borghese. See EA, no. 2840 and Nippe (no. 2) 104-105, no. V 3 a; 66. marble statue, variation. Right arm missing. An ancient head was put on the headless statue but was not pertinent and is now missing. Kept in Rome, Villa Doria Pamphilj, in the garden, on the pillar of the entrance from the upper garden to the pine trees road. See P. Pensabene, ‘Statua femminile panneggiata con testa ritratto’, R. Calza (ed.), Antichita’ di Villa Doria – Pamphilj, Rome (1977) 70, no. 68 and Nippe (no. 2) 105, no. V 3 b; 67. marble statue, variation. Head, right forearm and left hand are missing. Found in Corduba, in Calle Angel de Saavedra, probably originally set up in the forum of the province, located near the Church of St. Anna in the area where the statue has been found. The statue is kept in Cordoba, Museo Arqueologico Provincial, no. 24. 628. No rudder on globe in right hand because the size of the base does not allow this possibility. Perhaps a patera was held in right hand. See A.M. Vicent, ‘Situacion de los ultimos hallazgos romanos en Cordoba’, A. Arribas (ed.), xii congreso nacional de arqueologia, Zaragoza (1973) 673-680, particularly 674-675, and Nippe (no. 2) 111, no. V 4 k; 68. marble torso, variation (probably she was a Hygieia), found in Lambaesis and kept in the Museum of Tazoult, courtyard, no. 73-13. 14. See Nippe (no. 2) 113, no. V 5 d; 69. marble statuette, variation, found in

Thamugadi, in front of the House of Sertius along the road to the large Southern Baths together with a statue of Aesculapius and with a dedication to Hygia Augusta, kept in Timgad, Museum. Left hand missing. The snake in the right hand and the dedication reveal the re-interpretation of the type as Hygieia. See A. Ballu and R. Cagnat, Musee de Timgad, Paris (1903) 9, pl. 2, fig. 5; Nippe (no. 2) 113-114, no. V 5 e; Croissant (no. 47) 561, no. 74 and Benseddik (no. 47) 1. 79 and 2. 157-158, no. 6 and 162-163, no. 4; 70. marble statuette, variation. Head ancient but not pertinent. Forearms missing. In Rome, Vatican Museums, Galleria dei Candelabri, no. 215. See G. Lippold, Die Skulpturen des Vatikanischen Museums 3. 2, Berlin (1956) 363364, no. 106 and Nippe (no. 2) 115-116, no. V b; 71. statuette in Luna marble, variation: the goddess holds the caduceus in her left hand and the patera in her right hand: the former of these two attributes suggests that the goddess was reinterpreted as Peace or Concordia. From the large amphitheatre of Thysdrus in Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, no. 1822. See F.L. Bastet and H. Brunsting, Corpus signorum classicorum Musei antiquarii Lugduno – Batavi, Zutphen (1982) 35, no. 69 and Nippe (no. 2) 117118, no. V f; 72. marble torso, variation, from Smyrna or nearby, once kept in Smyrna, Asan Museum, now its whereabouts are not known. See Nippe (no. 2) 118, no. V g; 73. marble statue, head and lower part restored, variation, kept in Rome, Palazzo Colonna, garden. See Nippe (no. 2) 118-119, no. V h; 74. marble statuette, variation: globe in the left side. Head ancient but not pertinent. Right arm and left forearm restored. Found in Rome, in the Villa of the Quintili, probably in the hippodromus garden or near by. Kept in Rome, Vatican Museums, Galleria dei Candelabri, no. 2799. See Nippe (no. 2) 119, no. V I, U. Schaedler, ‘Repertorio dei rinvenimenti scultorei’, A. Ricci (ed.), La villa dei Quintili, Rome (1998) 81-146, particularly 97, no. 41 and for the specific location of the campaign of excavations of 1790 when this statue was discovered, see U. Schaedler, ‘Scavi e scoperte nella Villa dei Quintili’, ibidem 29-79, particularly 45-49; h. advanced and late 3rd c. AD: 75. marble statue. Head and both forearms

restored. Variation: ribbon of drapery instead of girdle. Kept in Rome, Ancient Art Gallery, Barberini Palace. See EA no. 2907 and Nippe (no. 2) 98, no. K 36; 76. marble statuette, variation: griffon in right side and once rudder on globe in left hand. From the skene of the theatre of Ephesus. Kept in Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, no. I 931. Atalay (no. 31) 39-40, no. 33; Nippe (no. 2) 100-101, no. V 1 b; P. Karanastassi, ’Nemesis’, LIMC 6 (1992) 733-770, particularly 750, no. 181; Oezren (no. 21) 126-127, no. E 55 and Lichocka (no. 9) 163, note 48; 77. marble statue, variation: the snake in her left hand suggests that she was Hygieia. Head and left forearm missing, found in Calama and kept in Guelma, Museum. See F. -G. De Pachtere, Musee de Guelma, Paris (1909) 31 and Nippe (no. 2) 114, no. V 5 f; 78. marble statuette, variation: the mantle covers part of the girdle. Head, right forearm and left hand missing. From Side, kept there, in the storeroom of the Museum, no. 678. See Inan (no. 61) 110, no. 46 and Nippe (no. 2) 117, no. V e; i. examples which are datable only generically to the period of the copyist production: 79. marble statue once in Rome, Casa Hieronymi de Cupis near the Church of St. Mary de anima, the right forearm and the left hand were lost. The head was capite velato. Perhaps once pertinent to the sculptural display of the stadium Domitiani which was just east of the Church of St. Mary de anima. Reversed style: left leg bent and right leg standing. See J.B. de Cavalleriis, Antiquarum statuarum Urbis Romae primus et secundus liber, Rome (1585) pl. 91 and Nippe (no. 2) 109-110, no. V 4 h; 80. marble statue, variation, once in Thibica, head, right arm and left hand missing. See S. Reinach, Repertoire de la statuaire grecque et romaine 3, Paris (1904) 199, no. 8 and Nippe (no. 2) 114-115, no. V 5 g. The ‘Claudia Justa’ sub-type of the ‘ Braccio Nuovo’ interpretation of Tyche / Fortuna is probably a variation conceived in the Trajanic period (see E. Ghisellini, ‘Statua femminile, c.d. Tyche’, L. Guerrini and C. Gasparri (eds.), Il Palazzo del Quirinale. Catalogo delle sculture, Rome (1993) 41-44, no. 11 and Rausa (cited above, no. 2) 128, nos. 25-34): this conclusion is argued by the full

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

227

frontality of this interpretation, by the folding of the drapery which is far from those of Greek classical styles as well as by the adoption of this creation in order to represent Fortuna in Ulpia Trajana Sarmizegetusa (see Rausa (cited above, no. 2) 128, no. 29). 1024 Locus classicus is Pindar, Hymni, Hymnus Proserpinae, frgg. 39-41 Snell: Tyche is evoked while she turns the rudder. Other literary evidence in Villard (note 1023, no. 2) 116. 1025 See Villard (note 1023, no. 2) 118, no. 4 and 119-120, no. 32. 1026 See Fuchs (note 135, no. 65) 26-33, particularly 31, nos. E iv 1-3. 1027 See Pagano (note 1023, no. 3) 123, note 15. 1028 See Coarelli (note 1023, no. 4). 1029 The sanctuaries of Fortuna which may have been located on the Caelius are two: 1. the aedes Fortunae Obsequentis (see L. Chioffi, ‘Fortuna Obsequens, aedes’, LTUR 2 (1995) 273) and 2. the cult place of Fortuna Viscata (see J. Aronen, ‘Fortuna Viscata / Viscatrix’, ibidem 280-281). 1030 See E. Lissi Caronna, ‘Castra peregrina’, LTUR 1 (1993) 249-251. 1031 See G. Giannelli, ‘Caelius Mons’, LTUR 1 (1993) 208-211. 1032 See above the observations concerning the copy of the Apollo Sauroctonus set up in Villa Hadriana (note 135, no. 58). 1033 See above, note 336. 1034 See above, note 337. 1035 See above, note 135, no. 58. 1036 See above, note 776, no. 32. 1037 About the so – called palaestra of villa Hadriana, see e. g. J. Raeder, Die statuarische Ausstattung der villa Hadriana bei Tivoli, Frankfurt am Main (1983) 126-128, no. ii 3 and M. de Franceschini, Villa Adriana, Rome (1991) 597600 with a list of statues found there. 1038 See Mekacher (note 1023, no. 8) figs 94; 97; 100 and 102-110. 1039 See Rieger (note 1023, no. 11) 281-282, nos. MM 1 and 2. 1040 See Rieger (note 1023, no. 11) 285-286, nos. MMA 15-17. 1041 See Rieger (note 1023, no. 11) 286, no. MMA 18. 1042 See the bibliography cited in note 1023, no. 17 and particularly Paribeni (note 135, no. 70) 139-140, nos. 401-404. See also P. Min-

228

Antonio Corso

gazzini, L’insula di Giasone Magno a Cirene, Rome (1966) 73-75 and M. Luni, ‘Il quartiere orientale’, N. Bonacasa and S. Ensoli (eds.), Cirene, Milan (2000) 90-99, particularly 96-99. 1043 See note 1023, nos. 3; 21; perhaps 31; 39; 61 and 76. 1044 See note 404. 1045 See F. Coarelli, ‘Flora, templum (in colle)’, LTUR 2 (1995) 254. 1046 See Palombi (note 1023, no. 28) 216-219. 1047 See E. Ghisellini, ‘Teste femminile (inv. N. 125897)’, A. Giuliano, Museo Nazionale Romano. Le sculture i. 12, Rome (1995) 222-225, no. 60. 1048 See N. Agnoli, Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Palestrina. Le sculture, Rome (2002) 132-134, no. i. 36. 1049 See Corso, Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 112, note 25, no. 25. 1050 About this villa, see G. Uggeri, ‘Lorium’, DNP 7 (1999) 442. 1051 See Conticello de Spagnolis (note 1023, no. 33) 7-8. 1052 Evidence in Catani (note 23, no. 24) 300303. 1053 See Catani (note 1023, no. 24) 304-305, no. 1. 1054 See Catani (note 1023, no. 24) 305, no. 2 and 308-309, no. 4. 1055 See Catani (note 1023, no. 24) 309-315, nos. 5-7. 1056 See Manderscheid (note 739) 70, no. 24. About the Broadlands type of Hygieia, see P. Kranz, Hygieia, Moehnesee (2010) 77-80. 1057 See Manderscheid (note 739) 71, no. 28 and Ghisellini (note 348) 671, no. 1. 1058 See Manderscheid (note 739) 70, nos. 25-26. 1059 See Manderscheid (note 739) 117, no. 436. 1060 See Corso, Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 79-84. 1061 This conclusion is based on the presence in situ both of a heroic cult of Aphrodite Pythionike (see I. Drakotou, ‘Iera odos, anatoliko tmima’, M. Korres (ed.), Attikes Odoi, Athina (2009) 112-123, particularly 123) as well as of an important sanctuary of Aphrodite and Eros (see V. Machaira, To iero Aphroditis kai Erotos stin Iera Odo, Athens (2008) 3-97). 1062 See Romeo (note 531, no. 15) 119-122, no. 21.

1063

no. 23.

See Romeo (note 531, no. 15) 123-124,

See Traversari (note 1023, no. 29). For these values of the acanthus in the Roman world, see J. Pollini, ‘The Acanthus of the Ara Pacis’, M. Kubelik (ed), Von der Bauforschung zur Denkmalpflege, Vienna (1993) 181-217. 1066 See W. Ameling, Die Inschriften von Prusias ad Hypium, Bonn (1985) 15-16 and 227, no. 5 (coin type struck under Antonine Pius bearing on the reverse an enthroned Tyche with a mural crown and a horn of plenty in her left hand). 1067 See L. Bier, The Bouleuterion at Ephesos, Vienna (2011). 1068 See M. Aurenhammer and T. Opper, ‘Sculptures found in the Bouleuterion’, Bier (note 1067) 99-114, particularly 112, no. 1. 6. 1069 See Aurenhammer and Opper (note 1068) 112-114, nos. 2. 1-2 and 3. 1-2. 1070 See Aurenhammer and Opper (note 1068) 113, no. 2. 3. 1071 See Aurenhammer and Opper (note 1068) 112-113, nos. 1. 1-5. 1072 See M.D. Ntoouson, ‘Theatro’, A. Sideris (ed.), Ephesos, Athens (2009) 319-325. 1073 See Oezren (note 1023, no. 21) 107-110 and 124-127, nos. E 1-64 (with identification of 64 sculptures decorating the theatre) and Ntoouson (note 1072) 321-325. 1074 See Oezren (note 1023, no. 21) 127, nos. E 57-60 and Ntoouson (note 1072) 324-325. About the Amazons set up in the theatre of Ephesus and inspired by the Sciarra and Sosicles types of Amazons (whose bronze original statues probably stood also in Ephesus, in the Artemisium), see Bol (note 206) 181-182, nos. I 13-14 and 193-194, nos. II 12-13. Statue inspired by the Diadumenus: see M. Aurenhammer, Die Skulpturen von Ephesos. Bildwerke aus Stein. Idealplastik I, Vienna (1990) 185, no. 152. 1075 See Oezren (note 1023, no. 21) 127-128, nos. H 1-25. 1076 See Oezren (note 1023, no. 21) 127, no. H 7. 1077 See Oezren (note 1023, no. 21) 127, no. H 12. 1078 See Oezren (note 1023, no. 21) 127, no. H 15. 1079 See Oezren (note 1023, no. 21) 127, no. H 14. 1064 1065

1080

H 16.

See Oezren (note 1023, no. 21) 127, no.

1081 See e. g. F. D’ Andria and T. Ritti, Le sculture del teatro. I rilievi con I cicli di Apollo e Artemide, Rome (1985). 1082 See Oezren (note 1023, no. 21) 128, no. H 22. 1083 See Bejor (note 1023, no. 21) 26-27, no. 14. 1084 About the Quintili’s Villa, see A. Rotondi et alii, ‘Quintiliorum praedium’, LTUR Suburbium 4 (2006) 279-294. 1085 See Schaedler, ‘Repertorio’ (note 1023, no. 74) 83-84, no. 4. 1086 See Schaedler, ‘Repertorio’ (note 1023, no. 74) 85, no. 8. 1087 See Schaedler, ‘Repertorio’ (note 1023, no. 74) 106-107, no. 75. 1088 See Schaedler, ‘Repertorio’ (note 1023, no. 74) 106, no. 74. 1089 See Schaedler, ‘Repertorio’ (note 1023, no. 74) 97-98, no. 42 and 99-100, no. 47. 1090 See Schaedler, ‘Repertorio’ (note 1023, no. 74) 85-86, no. 9. 1091 See Schaedler, ‘Repertorio’ (note 1023, no. 74) 103-104, no. 58. 1092 See Schaedler, ‘Repertorio’ (note 1023, no. 74) 86, no. 11. 1093 See Schaedler, ‘Repertorio’ (note 1023, no. 74) 84, no. 5. 1094 See Schaedler, ‘Repertorio’ (note 1023, no. 74) 88, no. 16. 1095 See Schaedler, ‘Repertorio’ (note 1023, no. 74) 96, no. 39. 1096 See Schaedler, ‘Repertorio’ (note 1023, no. 74) 85-86, no. 12 1097 See Schaedler, ‘Repertorio’ (note 1023, no. 74) 84, no. 6. 1098 See Schaedler, ‘Repertorio’ (note 1023, no. 74) 84, no. 7 and 86, no. 10. 1099 See Schaedler, ‘Repertorio’ (note 1023, no. 74) 88-89, no. 17. 1100 See Schaedler, ‘Repertorio’ (note 1023, no. 74) 98, no. 43. 1101 See Corso, Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 13. 1102 See Corso, Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 13-14. 1103 About the forum provinciae see A.U. Stylow, ‘Apuntes sobre el urbanismo de la Corduba romana’, W. Trilmich and P. Zanker (eds.), Stadtbild und Ideologie, Munich (1990) 259-282, particularly 274-282.

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

229

See Stylow (note 1103). See R.C. Knapp, Roman Cordoba, Berkeley (1983) 49 and 57. 1106 List of finds of ideal statues in the ancient centre of Corduba in Knapp (note 1105) 59-61. 1107 See the bibliography in note 1023, no. 69. 1108 See Manderscheid (note 739) 122, nos. 477-478. 1109 See Manderscheid (note 739) 122, no. 479. 1110 See J. –C. Golvin, L’amphitheatre romain, Paris (1988) 209-212, no. 186. 1111 About the caduceus as attribute of Peace, see E. Simon, ‘Pax’, LIMC 7 (1994) 204-212, particularly 212; about the branch as attribute of Homonoia / Concordia, see H.A. Shapiro, ‘Homonoia’, ibidem 5 (1990) 476-479, particularly 479 and T. Hoelscher, ‘Homonoia / Concordia’, ibidem 479-498, particularly 494. 1112 See Corso, Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 54 and 134, note 281 and above, the text corresponding to the notes 834-838.. 1113 See Corso (note 1112). 1114 List of copies of opera nobilia from Sparta in Corso, Art of Praxiteles iii (note 59) 68-69. 1115 See Riethmueller (note 761) 138-145. 1116 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) 30. 1117 See Corso (note 1) 279, note 972. 1118 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) nos. 6-10; 12; 16 and 19. 1119 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) no. 46. 1120 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) no. 47. 1121 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) no. 53. 1122 See Corso (note 1) 230, note 8, no. 332. 1123 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) nos. 87-88. 1124 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) nos. 4 and 16. About the building K of the sanctuary, see P. Kavvadias, To ieron tou Asklepiou en Epidauro, Athens (1900) 157-158 and Ch. Kanellopoulos, To ysteroromaiko “teichos”, Athens (2000) 20 and 36. 1125 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) no. 17. 1126 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) no. 19. 1127 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) no. 21. 1128 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) nos. 25 and 28. 1129 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) no. 31. 1130 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) no. 32. 1131 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) no. 34. 1104 1105

230

Antonio Corso

See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) 35-39. See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) no. 43. 1134 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) no. 45. 1135 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) no. 54. 1136 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) no. 56. 1137 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) no. 58. 1138 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) nos. 63 and 67-68. 1139 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) 69-70. 1140 See Katanis (note 1023, no. 63) no. 74. 1141 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) no. 76. 1142 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) no. 79. 1143 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) nos. 8586 and 88. 1144 See Katakis (note 1023, no. 63) no. 93. 1145 About this architectural complex, see F.K. Yeguel, The Bath – Gymnasium Complex at Sardis, Cambridge Mass. (1986): on the marble court, 5-7; 45-66; 134-139 and 152-167. 1146 See Yeguel (note 1145) 6-7. 1147 About the theatre of Side, which had a Severan phase, see H.P. Isler, ‘Turchia. Side, Eski Antalya Side Lycia et Pamphylia’, B. Ciancio Rossetto and G. Pisani Sartorio (eds.), Teatri greci e romani 3, Rome (1994) 498-500. About the agora of Side, see A.M. Mansel, Die Agora von Side, Ankara (1956). The importance of Tyche in the pantheon of Side is argued from the statuary evidence: see Inan (note 1023, no. 61) 105-112, nos. 40-46 and 201-202, nos. 201-211. Tyche appears also on coin types of this town struck under Geta, Tranquillina and Herennia Etruscilla: see S. Atlan, 1947-1967 yillari Side kazilari, Ankara (1976) nos. 96; 110; 114 and 132. Finally the ‘great Tyche of Side’ is acclaimed in the inscription J. Nolle, Side im Altertum 2, Bonn (2001) 555-556, no. 241. 1148 About this Tychaeum, see Mansel (note 1147) 31-37 and Nolle (note 1147) 1 (1993) 121 and 280-281, no. 23. 1149 See Inan (note 23, no. 61) nos. 1-8; 1016; 18-20; 22; 28-29; 32; 35; 38-40; 45-47; 53-59; 61; 67-71; 78; 82 and 84-88. 1150 About this Nymphaeum see Aristodimou (note 1023, no. 56) 359. 1151 See Aristodimou (note 1023, no. 56) 359-360, no. 299. 1152 See Aristodimou (note 1023, no. 56) 360, no. 300. 1153 See Aristodimou (note 1023, no. 56) 360, no. 301. 1132 1133

See Aristodimou (note 1023, no. 56) 360-361, no. 305. 1155 See Aristodimou (note 1023, no. 56) 361, no. 306. 1156 See Aristodimou (note 1023, no. 56) 361, no. 307. 1157 See Aristodimou (note 1023, no. 56) 361, no. 308. 1158 See Aristodimou (note 1023, no. 56) 360-361, nos. 304 and 309. 1159 See Aristodimou (note 1023, no. 56) 360-362, nos. 302-303 and 310-313. 1160 See A.L. Windham, ‘Feet of Asclepios’, Becker and Kondoleon (note 1023, no. 64) 250, no. 12. 1161 About the association of the griffon with Nemesis, see Karanastassi (note 1023, no. 76) 735-736 and e. g. nos. 14; 41; 77; 89 a and b; 97; 123 a and b; 124; 154; 173 a; 174; 175 a and c; 176-177; 179 a and b; 183; 184; 186; 195 and 213-214. 1162 About the stadium Domitiani, see P. Virgili, ‘Stadium Domitiani’, LTUR 4 (1999) 341-344. 1163 See Virgili (note 1162) 342. 1164 About this restoration, see Virgili (note 1162) 341. 1165 See Mingazzini (note 1042) 105-109. 1166 See Vermeule (note 1023, no. 64). 1167 About the location of the Heracleion see Symeonoglou (note 786) 108-109; 133-134 and 182-185 and M. Moggi and M. Osanna, Pausania. Guida della Grecia 9, Milan (2010) 284-287. 1168 See A. Schachter, Cults of Boiotia 2, London (1986) 14-30; V. Schild – Xenidou, Corpus der Boiotischen Grab- und Weihreliefs des 6. Bis 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Mainz am Rhein (2008) 214-223; 303-304, no. 72; 313-315, nos. 82 and 83; V. Aravantinos, The Archaeological Museum of Thebes, Athens (2010) 148-153; 162-163; 317; 374-384 and Moggi and Osanna (note 1167). 1169 See Pausanias 9. 11. 4 and Schachter (note 1168) 24. 1170 See Pausanias 9. 11. 4. 1171 See Imhoof – Blumer, Gardner and Oikonomides (note 324) 111-112. 1172 See Pindar, Isthmian Odes 4. 61-66 and Nemean Odes 4. 19-24. 1173 See Pausanias 9. 11. 6 and W. Mueller, ‘Alkamenes (i)’, R. Vollkommer (note 8) 1 (2001) 24-26, particularly 25, no. 10. 1174 The education of the Thebans to the ap1154

preciation of Athenian styles may have begun already in the time of Phidias who made the statue of Hermes for the Ismenion of Thebes (see Pausanias 9. 10. 2 and Cullen (note 623) 911). 1175 See Xenophon, Hellenica 6. 4. 7; Callisthenes, Hellenica, frg. 22 a Jacoby (= FGrHist 124); Cicero, De divinatione 1. 74-76; Diodorus 15. 53. 4 and Polyaenus 2. 3. 8. 1176 See Corso, The Art of Praxiteles (note 59) 108-109. 1177 See Calcani (note 29) 61-62, works nos. 6 and 7. 1178 See Moggi and Osanna (note 1167) with previous bibliography. 1179 About the location of the sanctuary of Apollo Ismenios south east of the Cadmeia, see Symeonoglou (note786) 132-133 and 237-239. 1180 See note 1177. 1181 See Moggi and Osanna (note 1167). 1182 See Pindar, Isthmian Odes 4. 52-54 and Pythical Odes 9. 105-125. 1183 P. Moreno, ‘Eracle combattente’, Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia 67 (1994-1995) 3-23 suggested that a statue of Heracles in Pentelic marble found in Rome in the area of the horti Maecenatis and kept in the Capitoline collections (Centrale Montemartini, no. iii. 16) comes from the Praxitelean pediments of the Heracleion of Thebes. However, the last emperor who brought works of art from Greece to Rome was Nero. On the contrary the sculptures of the Heracleion were still on their gables in the time of Pausanias. The suggestion that statues were removed from Greece to Rome after Pausanias is unconvincing because there is no evidence that such removals did happen after Nero. The Heracles Montemartini is of very high quality, perhaps pertained to the sculptural decoration of a temple and may be a late classical original. However, the rectangular face, the squarish forehead and the other details of the anatomic grammar are far from those of the Praxitelean creations. The body reveals the prevalence of the muscles upon the skin which is in striking contrast with what we should expect in a Praxitelean original. I would rather attribute the work to a Peloponnesian school influenced by the styles of Scopas and Lysippus and by the sculptures of Bassae and of Tegea. Perhaps the statue pertained to

Nineth Chapter - From the year 345 to the year 340 Bc

231

a Peloponnesian temple and was brought to Rome to the horti Maecenatis during the age of Nero, when these gardens were imperial property. 1184 The standard sequence of the labours of Heracles is reported by Diodorus 4. 11. 3 – 27. 5. This writer specifies that the episode of Antaeus was thought to have taken place immediately after that of Geryon. Other testimonia about the sequence of the labours in J. Boardman, ‘Herakles’, LIMC 5 (1990) 1-192, particularly 6. 1185 The surviving slabs of the frieze are kept in Delphi, Archaeological Museum, nos. 5431; 2556; 4233 + 2081; 2455 + 1555; 2545 and 5432 + 1798. See M. Perdrizet, ‘Les bas – reliefs du theatre de Delphes’, BCH 21 (1897) 600-603; P. Leveque, ‘Un fragment inedit de la frise du theatre de Delphes’, ibidem 74 (1950) 224-232; Idem, ‘La date de la frise du theatre de Delphes’, ibidem 75 (1951) 247-263; M.C. Sturgeon, ‘A New Monument to Herakles at Delphi’, AJA 82 (1978) 226235; A. Jacquemin, ‘Note sur la frise du theatre de Delphes’, BCH 109 (1985) 585-587; Boardman (note 1184) 9, no. 1712; J. Marcade and F. Croissant, ‘La sculpture en pierre’, O. Picard (ed.), Guide de Delphes. Le Musee, Athens (1991) 128130 and R. Colonia, The Archaeological Museum of Delphi, Athens (2006) 354-355. 1186 See R. Weir, ‘Nero and the Herakles Frieze at Delphi’, BCH 123 (1999) 397-404 with previous bibliography. Nero wanted to play the

232

Antonio Corso

role of Hercules and to repeat the labours of this hero (see Svetonius, Nero 53) and was acclaimed as Heracles upon his return from Greece to Rome in 67 AD (see Cassius Dio 62. 20. 5). 1187 See Jacquemin (note 1185). 1188 See Weir (note 1186). 1189 See Boardman (note 1184) 16. 1190 See P. Moreno, ‘Imprese di Eracle’, Moreno (note 503) 266-277. 1191 The comparison had been already suggested by Leveque, ‘Un fragment, etc.’ (note 1185) 231. See M. Moltesen, Catalogue Greece in the Classical Period Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhague (1995) 40-49. 1192 See Moltesen (note 1191) 41. 1193 Evidence in Schachter (note 1168) 1617. 1194 Evidence in Schachter (note 1168) 22, with note 3. 1195 See Pausanias 9. 12. 4. Probably for this monument these two sculptors created the original statue of the Woburn Abbey type of Dionysus (see A. Corso, ‘Praxitelean Dionysi’, Eulimene 1 (2000) 25-53, particularly 42-44). 1196 See Plautus, Persa 3-4. 1197 See G. Calcani, ‘Coppa con imprese di Eracle’, Moreno (note 503) 268-269, no. 4. 39. 1. 1198 See Euripides, Hercules 359-435. 1199 See M.C. Sturgeon, Sculpture. The Reliefs from the Theater. Corinth 9. 2, Princeton (1977) 91-114.

A. General Index Abas 83. Academy 77. 86. 93. 121. 122. 155. 161. Achelous 166. Achaia 50. 51. Achilles 66. 67. 82. 89. 108. Acrocorinth 128. 129. 156. sanctuary of Aphrodite 128. 129. Ada 11. 14. Adana 115. Admetus 25. 28. 29. 33. 38. 93. 101. 136. Adonis 156. Aegaleo 191. 223. Aegean sea 74. 151. 163. 182. Aegina 123. 152. 165. 210. 213. Aegospotami 19. Aelius Lampridius 110. Aelius Spartianus 110. Aemilian 75. 103. 111. 113. Aeneades 46. Aeneas 37. Aeschylus 118. 121. Aesculapius 191. 194. 195. 225. 226. Aesop 34. 122. 132. Aetolia 137. 138. Africa 151. 191. 194. 195. 198. 199. Proconsularis 191. 194. 195. 198. 199. Agathodaimon 48. 53. 54. 63. 87. 106. Agoracritus 56. 59. 107. 141. 150. 154. 165. 189. 190. 196. 198. 214. Meter 56. 59. 107. 141. 150. 154. 165. 189. 190. 196. Nemesis 107. 214. Alba Fucens 42. 81. 95. 104. 115. amphitheatre 104. basilica 81. 115. baths 104. comitium 81. 111. Forum 81. 115. hill of St. Peter 42. macellum 104. sanctuary of Hercules 104. theatre 104. Albani 22. 27. 39. 40. 53. 94. 95. 97. 103. 152. 207. 210. 216. Albanum 46. 104. 153. Alcamenes 83. 86. 107. 142. 143. 150. 158. 200. Aphrodite 86. 107. Asclepios 142. 143. Athena and Heracles for Thebes 150. 200. Dionysus 83. Hecate 158. Hermes 107. Alcathous 83. 137. 185.

Alcestis 25. 28. 33. 100. Alcetas 65. 67. 72. Alcman 221. Alexander the Great 15. 26. 29. 42. 47. 65. 74. 82. 83. 89. 90. 100. 108. 149. 181. 183. 206. Capitoline type 108. Leochares’ type 83. 108. Alexander from Antioch on the Maeander 101. Alexander Severus 75. 114. Alexandria ad Aegyptum 56. 110. 149. 182. 183. 193. 209. 214. 220. 224. theatre of Zizinia 224. Alexandria ad Latmum 176. Alexandria Troas 124. Alopece 132. Altemps 53. Altoviti 150. 210. Amazons 12. 36. 37. 62. 66. 82. 102. 107. 108. 193. 201. 202. 204. 205. 229. Mattei 107. Sciarra type 36. 62. 82. 193. 229. Sosicles type 36. 62. 193. 229. Amiens 44. 95. Amor 75. Amyclae 19. 166. throne 166. Anatolia 24. 51. 85. Anaxandridas 25. 92. Anaximander 122. Anchialus 171. Anchises 37. Ancona 223. Andreae 22. Andrus 157. Antaeus 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 232. Antalya 212. Antaradus 182. 220. Anticyra 76. Antigonus 29. 90. Antinous 156. Antioch of Syria 80. 197. 198. 199. 226. F baths 197. 198. 199. 226. Antiphanes 35. 101. Antium 46. 193. 196. Antonine Pius 23. 29. 48. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 60. 61. 64. 72. 73. 74. 83. 97. 98. 103. 108. 109. 111. 113. 116. 123. 127. 128. 131. 138. 139. 141. 142. 148. 150. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 163. 164. 165. 171. 183. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 211. 214. 216. 222. 224. 226. 229.

General Index

233

Anyte 92. Apamea 197. 225. Nymphaeum 197. 225. Apelles 92. 100. 114. Hercules aversus 92. Aphrodisius 37. Aphrodite 11. 14. 18. 23. 25. 30. 34. 36. 37. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 72. 73. 74. 77. 79. 81. 82. 84. 85. 86. 87. 89. 93. 101. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 113. 116. 117. 118. 122. 125. 126. 128. 129. 130. 131. 134. 139. 140. 141. 142. 150. 151. 153. 154. 155. 156. 158. 161. 163. 164. 165. 166. 168. 170. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 196. 207. 214. 217. 219. 228. Ambologera 172. Anadyomene 42. 48. 55. 56. 73. 107. 182. 196. Arles 25. 30. 48. 73. 87. 108. 130. 151. 181. Armata / armed 73. 74. 196. Aspremont – Lynden / Arles 25. 27. 79. 181. Callipygos 182. 214. Capitoline 51. 53. 73. 81. 108. 110. 116. 158. 164. 165. 193. 214. Capua type 48. 156. 214. Cnidia 11. 14. 18. 23. 24. 25. 30. 34. 43. 44. 45. 46. 50. 51. 53. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 73. 74. 77. 78. 81. 84. 93. 108. 109. 111. 113. 125. 126. 128. 129. 130. 131. 141. 150. 151. 153. 154. 163. 164. 173. 174. 175. 179. 181. 182. 183. 188. 189. 190. 192. 193. 196. 203. 219. Crouching 51. 106. 139. 191. 207. Euploia 11. holding a wreath 107. in the Gardens 86. 107. Landolina 182. 214. Leconfield 23. 79. 130. 140. Loosening her sandal 54. 63. Louvre / Naples 189. 191. 196. 214. Medici 48. 64. 110. of Alcamenes Olympias type 107. on a pillar 107. Pandemos 86. 117. 161. 217. Pourtales type Pseliumene 137. 172. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. Praxis 84. 86. 117. 184. 185. Pythionike 228. Townley type 181. Urania 85. 171. 217. Apollo 11. 13. 17. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 63. 64. 65. 67. 68. 70. 71. 74. 75. 77. 80. 81. 83. 85. 87. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 115. 116. 119. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 146. 149. 150. 151. 154. 157. 158. 159. 161. 163. 164. 165. 166. 171. 172. 173. 188. 190. 193. 194. 195. 196. 198. 200. 203. 206. 207. 208. 212. 213. 219. 228. 231.

234

Antonio Corso



Actaeus 71. Antium type 46. 193. 196. Belvedere 17. 90. 108. Citharoedus 41. 42. 49. 59. 108. 110. 125. 143. 144. 146. 165. 193. 194. 196. 208. Daphneus 80. 110. Daphnephoros 193. Delphinios 124. Didymaeus 24. Formiae type 68. Grannus 48. 51. 53. Iatros 126. Ismenios 200. 231. Kassel type 198. Lycius 42. 51. 53. 54. 64. 103. 108. 125. 138. 157. 193. 198. Medicus 30 Mousagetes 193. of Formiae 125. 138. 139. 140. 142. Omphalos type 47. 54. 59. 107. 110. Palatinus 32. 35. 100. 102. 103. Parnopios 108. Patroos 90. Ptoios 54. Pythius 11. 25. 30. 47. 54. 58. 60. 61. 206. Sauroctonus 22. 23. 25. 26. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 70. 71. 74. 75. 81. 87. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 103. 104. 108. 109. 110. 119. 123. 124. 136. 138. 150. 151. 154. 159. 161. 163. 164. 165. 176. 188. 203. 213. 228. Smyntheus 24. 89. 124. Tutelary 138. Apollodorus 92. 121. 123. 132. Apollonia in Epirus 157. 211. 214. house of Athena 157. 211. monastery of the Lady Mary of Poyani 211. Apollonia ad Rhyndacum 23. 24. 25. 28. 30. 31. 49. 51. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 75. 92. 96. 98. 99. 111. 124. 176. church of St. George 25. 65. temple of Apollo 24. 28. 31. 64. Apolloniatis lake 24. 28. Apollonia Pontica 86. 100. Apollonia Painter 86. Apollonius 62. Appia, via 34. 54. 107. 108. 152. 156. 163. 190. 207. Appian 100. Apuleius 56. 100. 114. Metamorphoses 56. Apulia 28. 29. 71. 93. Aquileia 47. 48. 53. 96. 98. Aradus 182. 183. Arcadia 14. 26. 42. 46. 83. 91. 92. 135. 142. 143. 147. 166. 167. 170. 194. 200. Arcas 167.

Arcetri 216. Villa del Poggio Imperiale 216. Archelaus 221. Archippe 120. 131. Archytas 28. 71. 114. Ares 13. 14. 55. 82. 85. 107. 155. 156. 193. Borghese type 55. 107. 193. Argonauts 25. Argus 39. 64. 85. 87. 129. 143. 147. 159. 184. 209. Heraeum 147. 159. 209. Ariadne 171. 214. Valentini type 214. Aristander 19. Aristophanes 122. Aristotle 156. 157. 160. 179. 214. Arles 25. 27. 30. 48. 73. 79. 87. 108. 130. 151. 181. 193. Arndt 211. Arnobius 117. 173. Arretium 108. 140. 146. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 158. 159. 209. 212. Church of St. Lawrence 209. domus 151. 152. 209. Arrian 89. 100. C. Arrius Crescens 115. Artabazus 24. 66. 67. 70. 92. 112. Artemidorus 93. 117. Artemis 18. 32. 37. 42. 49. 53. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 69. 71. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 86. 102. 103. 108. 110. 115. 116. 117. 119. 137. 138. 140. 142. 143. 144. 146. 169. 183. 190. 193. 195. 196. 197. 200. 208. 214. 229. Brauronia 18. 42. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 108. 116. 119. Colonna 108. 196. Dresden 79. 190. 193. Ephesia 62. 102. 110. Eucleia 117. 200. of Dresden 79. 138. of Gabii 18. 42. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 86. 103. 115. 116. 169. 183. of Larnaka 69. Rospigliosi type 53. 196. Saviour / Soteira 78. 138. Strongylion’s type 59. 75. 78. Tauric 75. Versailles type 58. 164. 214. Artemisia 11. 13. 14. 90. Artemisium 108. Arundel 152. 210. Ascanius 37. Asclepiades 92. 196. Asclepius 14. 16. 17. 30. 47. 48. 57. 58. 59. 62. 63. 72. 80. 82. 85. 93. 100. 108. 110. 116. 124. 142. 143. 153. 156. 190. 192. 193. 194. 196. 197. 198. 201. 208. 226. Campana type 193. Chiaramonti 197. 198. Eleusis type 196. 197. 198. Este type 143. 196. Giustini type 48. 57. 58. 108. 196.

Mounychia type 82. of Cos 192. Velia type 196. Asia 12. 13. 14. 21. 24. 26. 28. 29. 57. 58. 59. 65. 66. 67. 69. 74. 109. 110. 111. 112. 137. 176. 189. 192. 196. 218. 222. Minor 12. 13. 14. 21. 24. 26. 28. 29. 57. 58. 59. 65. 66. 67. 69. 74. 109. 110. 111. 112. 176. 189. 192. 196. 218. 222. Aspasia 53. 106. Aspremont 25. 27. 79. 130. 181. Astarte 183. Astycratea 83. Athena 12. 14. 38. 46. 48. 52. 53. 57. 59. 62. 72. 73. 79. 80. 82. 83. 87. 105. 106. 108. 110. 117. 122. 123. 124. 136. 140. 142. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 161. 164. 166. 172. 188. 193. 194. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 215. 219. Alea 14. Areia 156. 158. Arretium type 108. 140. 146. 149. 151. 152. 153. 158. 159. 209. 212. Chalkioikos 172. Epidaurus type 196. Ergane 161. Giustiniani 82. 83. 108. 117. Hope / Farnese 82. 87. 117. Hygieia 79. 80. 82. Libyan 151. Lindia 72. Medici 154. Nike 154. Onka 150. 210. 212. Parthenos 48. 149. 150. 154. 158. 196. 219. Polias 122. 123. 124. 152. Promachos 53. 108. 154. Pronaia 117. 200. Sunias 82. Velletri type 197. Vescovali type 46. 62. 105. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 164. 188. 209. Athenaeus 62. 115. 124. 128. 160. 176. 216. 221. Athenis 32. Athens 13. 26. 35. 37. 38. 39. 51. 54. 55. 57. 58. 65. 71. 75. 76. 77. 79. 80. 82. 83. 84. 86. 87. 88. 90. 97. 114. 116. 117. 119. 120. 121. 122. 124. 125. 126. 128. 133. 135. 136. 141. 143. 144. 148. 149. 150. 152. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 161. 164. 165. 171. 181. 182. 184. 185. 186. 187. 191. 192. 197. 199. 200. 201. 208. 209. 210. 212. 214. 216. 219. 221. 223. 226. 231. Academy 26. 28. 69. 70. 71. 77. 86. 93. 121. 122. 155. 161. Acropolis 55. 75. 76. 77. 79. 80. 82. 90. 97. 108. 116. 119. 120. 148. 149. 152. 154. 155. 156. 158. 159. 182. 209. 212. sanctuary of Athena 79. 148. agora 82. 156. 167. 168. 169. 171. 184. 187. 191. 192. 197. 199. 221. Brauronium 75. 76. 77. 78. 108. Eleusinium 120. 132. Erechtheum 107. 143. 158.

General Index

235

Herulian walls 191. 223. Parthenon 16. 119. 201. pritaneum 185. 186. 191. propylaea 76. 80. 119. royal stoa 187. 221. sanctuary of Artemis Brauronia 75. 76. 77. 78. 108. 119. sanctuary of Athena Hygieia 79. 80. sanctuary of Dionysus Eleuthereus 83. Stadium 107. temple of Ares 156. theatre of Dionysus Eleuthereus 121. Tripodes’ Street 113. Varvakeion 216. Atlant 165. Atlantic sea 43. Attalus ii 123. Attica 31. 40. 41. 42. 43. 45. 50. 51. 54. 55. 58. 59. 62. 65. 81. 82. 86. 87. 106. 109. 123. 128. 129. 131. 135. 141. 144. 150. 151. 152. 154. 156. 158. 163. 164. 169. 170. 185. 186. 187. 189. 191. 192. 195. 196. 215. Attis 188. 222. Audeoud 96. Augeias 200. Augustodunum 50. 51. 97. Augustus: 22. 24. 31. 32. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 52. 56. 57. 62. 82. 94. 100. 101. 102. 103. 106. 109. 151. 163. 171. 183. 206. 209. 210. 213. 215. 220. Autolycus 100. Autun 97. Avezzano 42. 95. Avignon 35. 94. Bacchus 37. 43. 52. 62. 164. 170. 171. 172. 194. 195. 225. Baelo Claudia 43. 44. 95. forum 43. 95. Baetica 40. 43. 95. 104. 194. 195. 197. Baiae / Baia 36. 37. 47. 62. 94. 102. 106. 156. 211. harbour 211. Nymphaeum 36. 37. 62. 94. 102. 156. 211. Baltimore 86. 118. 220. Barberini 99. 224. 227. Bargylia 108. Barracco 41. 42. 101. Basle 31. 94. 96. 210. Bassae 231. Batavian 38. Bath 211. Bayreuth 211. Beaulieu – sur – Mer 210. Villa Kerylos 152. 210. Belenus 48. Beneventum / Benevento 152. 153. 210. Sanctuary of Isis 152. 153. 210. Berlin 43. 53. 93. 95. 96. 104. 108. 116. 130. 134. 196. 207. 211. 226. Charlottenburg 115. 226. Bessarion 97. Billarus 100. Globe of Heaven 100.

236

Antonio Corso

Bithynia 51. 59. 89. 192. Blacas 95. Black Sea 25. 124. Boboli 43. 104. Boethus 108. 170. 194. Boy 108. 194. Eros 170. Boeotia 54. 123. 153. 174. 200. Bona Dea 39. 94. subsaxana 39. 94. Borghese 22. 28. 36. 37. 40. 44. 55. 62. 80. 81. 94. 97. 102. 108. 113. 115. 116. 117. 165. 188. 193. 210. 222. 224. 226. Boston 220. 222. Boulton 95. Boupalus 32. 123. 132. Charites 123. Branteghem 220. Brauron 75. 76. 80. Brigetio 48. 96. 105. Broadlands 191. 228. Brunn 22. Brussels 94. Brutus 37. 38. Bryaxis 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 21. 53. 56. 80. 83. 127. 128. 190. Apollo 13. 80. Asclepius 82. Dionysus 13. Sarapis 53. 56. 190. Zeus 13. Budapest 96. Byzantium 69. 111. 144. 208. Cades 43. 96. Cadiz 95. Cadmus 206. Caecilia Metella 207. Caeranus 83. Caere 52. 97. Theatre 52. 97. Caieta 190. 224. villa of Faustina the Elder 190. 224. Calama 191. 198. 225. 227. theatre 191. 198. 225. Calamis 100. Apollo 100. Caligula 37. 42. 56. Callimachus (poet) 92. Callimachus (sculptor) 164. Callipolis 83. Callisthenes 231. Callistonicus 150. 185. 186. 200. Tyche 150. 185. 186. 200. Callistratus 69. 117. 125. 163. Calvus 39. Cambridge 50. 96. 211. Camirus 67. 219. Campana 95. 193.

Campania 31. 35. 45. 60. 65. 81. 94. 102. 141. 152. 155. 156. 163. 188. 189. 190. Canachus 85. 200. Aphrodite 85. Apollo 200. Canary islands 43. Candia 113. Capranica 224. Capua 34. 35. 48. 94. 101. 156. 163. 190. 211. 214. 215. 224. amphitheatre 156. 211. sanctuary of Diana Tifatina 34. Caracalla 60. 61. 99. 129. 131. Carafa 224 Carcaricola 41. 95. 103. Roman villa 41. 95. 103. Cardinal of Carpi 210. Caria 11. 13. 14. 17. 18. 21. 66. 85. Carthage 142. 191. 199. 207. 208. 224. Antonine’s Baths 142. Caryatids 106. 107. Erechtheum type 107. Casale di Piazza Armerina 97. Cassander 150. Castellani 215. Castle Howard 211. Castor 55. Catajo 226. Catullus 39. Celts 48 Centaurs 12. 202. 203. 206. Centocelle 48. Cephallenia 140. 141. 207. Cephisia 54. 55. 97. 107. 108. villa of Herodes Atticus 54. 55. 97. 107. 108. Cephisodotus the Elder 46. 60. 61. 68. 77. 108. 138. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 161. 164. 166. 167. 168. 171. 184. 185. 186. 187. 200. 209. Eirene 108. 148. 150. 169. 184. 186. 187. 200. 207. Hermes carrying the baby Dionysus 60. 62. 138. 161. 164. 166. 167. 168. 169. 171. Muses 146. triad of Megalopolis 186. Cephisodotus the Younger 32. 81. 103. 120. 123. 132. 133. 135. 150. 206. Aphrodite 81. Leto 32. 103. sculptures for the altar of Dionysus at Thebes 150. 206. Symplegma 123. 133. Cerberus 47. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. Cercidas 221. Ceres 222. Ceryne 201. 204. Chamay Painter 28. 29. 93. Charidemus 76. Charites 107. 116. 163. 215. Socrates type 116.

Charlottesville 207. Chiaramonti 107. 197. 198. 216. 221. Chigi 93. 222. Chiparissi 146. Choiseul – Gouffier 94. Choricius 26. 89. 100. 168. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 218. 219. Chortiatis 224. Christ 25. 66. 111. 128. 180. Christie’s 96. Christine of Sweden, Queen 94. Chryse 24. 89. Cicero 39. 89. 99. 105. 114. 127. 129. 131. 231. Cilicia 80. 115. Campestris 80. 115. Cimon (athlete) 184. Cimon (politician) 216. Cissus 192. 224. Claudia Justa 227. Claudius 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 57. 102. 126. 128. 131. 152. 187. 221. Clement viii 224. Cleon 166. 170. Aphrodite 166. 170. Cleveland 26. 27. 28. 40. 93. Cluny 96. Cnidus 11. 13. 14. 18. 23. 24. 26. 30. 35. 39. 44. 45. 50. 51. 53. 54. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 73. 74. 77. 78. 81. 84. 85. 93. 108. 109. 111. 113. 125. 126. 128. 129. 130. 131. 141. 150. 151. 153. 154. 163. 164. 173. 174. 175. 176. 179. 181. 182. 183. 188. 190. 196. 203. 219. sanctuary of Aphrodite Euploia 11. 78. 174. Collignon 22. Colonia Ulpia Trajana 53. 98. Colonna 108. 196. 227. Commodus 59. 60. 75. 91. 98. 113. 123. 124. 185. 192. 221. 225. Comum 44. Concordia / Concord 195. 197. 227. 230. Constantine 64. 73. 75. 111. 113. Constantinople 69. 75. 111. 196. 223. 225. Cook 53. Copenhague 82. 83. 95. 116. 224. Cora / Cori 190. 223. forum 190. 223. sanctuary of the Fortuna Opsequens 190. 223. Corduba / Cordoba 194. 195. 226. 230. Church of St. Anna 226. forum of the province 195. 226. 229. Corinna 108. 121. Corinth 22. 37. 45. 56. 104. 107. 108. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 134. 140. 148. 171. 174. 178. 181. 182. 206. 207. 219. agora / forum 129. 130. 131. 134. Peirene fountain 107. 108. theatre 206. Corinthiad Cos 24. 72. 73. 74. 112. 113. 125. 173. 174. 175. 179. 192. Roman House 72. 73. 74. 112. Crane 140. 207.

General Index

237

Craufurd 97. Cresilas 62. Amazon 62. Crest 120. 121. 122. Roman villa 120. 121. 122. Creta / Crete 151. 192. 201. 204. Crispina 60. 98. 189. 225. Cupid 65. 69. 75. 112. 113. 127. Cyclads 50. Cyclops 25. 136. Cyniscus 48. Cyprus 73. 85. Cyrenaica 192. Cyrene 35. 54. 55. 56. 60. 97. 108. 153. 154. 157. 158. 189. 199. 211. 212. 213. 222. agora 154. 211. 213. Apollonium 212. Capitolium 154. gymnasium 199. house of Jason Magnus 189. 199. 222. large baths 158. 212. Naval monument 154. sanctuary of Apollo 158. temple of Isis and Serapis 55. 56. 97. Cythera 129. 131. 134. Cyzicus 112. Cupid’s spring 112. Daedalsas 51. 139. 177. 191. 207. Aphrodite 51. 106. 139. 191. 207. Daedalus 199. xoanon of Heracles at Thebes 199. Damascus 100. 225. Damaskos 22. Damophon 218. Danae 37. 38. 102. Danube 52. Daphne 60. 63. 80. sanctuary of Apollo 80. Daphnis 42. 103. Dascylium 24. 66. 67. 71. 92. Dawkins 222. De Clercq 220. de Janze 113. Della Porta 94. 97. Della Valle 81. 115. Delphi 11. 25. 34. 54. 92. 108. 130. 137. 138. 140. 141. 142. 172. 174. 181. 201. 202. 203. 204. 206. 219. 232. sanctuary of Apollo 11. 137. 138. 141. theatre 201. 206. Delus 35. 72. 124. 139. 140. 141. 142. 145. 151. 207. 208. house of Dionysus 141. 207. 208. house of Hermes 145. theatre quarter 207. 208. Demeter 53. 59. 60. 79. 108. 110. 120. 140. 149. 166. 171. 209. Large Herculaneum lady type 59. Demetrius 123. 132.

238

Antonio Corso

Demidoff 211. Demos 193. Demosthenes 108. 114. 172. 217. 218. De falsa legatione 172. Despinis 76. Diadumenian 60. 61. 63. 99. Diana 34. 37. 41. 42. 76. 77. 80. 81. 82. 95. 103. 115. 164. 190. 194. 225. Planciana 41. 95. Tifatina 34. Didyma 24 Dio Cassius 126. 232. Diodorus 89. 217. 231. 232. Diogenes Laertius 116. 117. Diomedes 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. Dionysus 13. 14. 25. 42. 48. 51. 52. 53. 58. 59. 60. 62. 64. 68. 69. 70. 74. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 89. 91. 101. 106. 107. 108. 110. 117. 121. 125. 138. 141. 142. 146. 150. 156. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 174. 185. 193. 196. 197. 206. 207. 208. 215. 216. 217. 218. 232. Cadmeus 150. 206. Dasyllius 83. Eleuthereus 83. 121. Leucyanites 215. Paternal 83. Pyraeus type 53. Richelieu 53. Sardanapallus type 108. 146. Sambon type 74. Taurus 101. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 215. 216. Woburn Abbey type 108. 158. 165. 232. Dioscuri 53. 55. 107. Montecavallo type 53. Dipoenus 165. 166. Disney 211. Dodecannese 72. Dodona 140. 141. 207. 208. sanctuary of Zeus 140. 207. Doerpfeld 76. Domitian 23. 32. 37. 38. 43. 45. 46. 47. 49. 51. 56. 75. 96. 100. 104. 105. 152. 153. 154. 198. 227. 231. Doria Pamphilj 115. 212. 226. Dorians 131. 174. 185. Dorycleidas 165. 166. Themis 165. Dotis 48. 96. Dresden 31. 47. 56. 79. 82. 83. 93. 99. 107. 138. 169. 190. 220. 222. Duchalais 22 Duques de Frias 97. Durand 220. Durazzo – Pallavicini 94. Duris 15. 80. 112. 116. Eirene 108. 148. 150. 169. 184. 186. 187. 200. 209. Eisidotus 192. 225. Elagabalus 60. 99. Electra 199. Eleusis 60. 79. 87. 107. 146. 191. 196. 197. 198. 223.

hiera hodos 191. 223. sanctuary of Aphrodite and Eros 228. Elis 70. 85. 91. 117. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 199. 200. 215. 217. Sanctuary of Dionysus 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 215. theatre 159. 160. 161. 163. 215. Elpinice 54. 55. Ephesus 37. 62. 74. 82. 85. 89. 93. 102. 108. 110. 176. 192. 193. 198. 224. 227. 229. Artemisium 37. 89. 93. 117. 229. Basilica 110. Bouleuterion 192. 224. Odeum 192. 193. 224. theatre 192. 198. 224. 227. 229. Epicurus 108. 128. 174. 194. Epidamnum 165. Epidaurus 14. 15. 16. 17. 74. 108. 196. 201. 226. Antoninus’ baths 196. 226. 230. temple of Asclepius 14. 16. 17. 201. 226. Eretria 16 Eros 24. 30. 36. 37. 41. 42. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 52. 53. 55. 56. 57. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 77. 80. 81. 84. 85. 86. 87. 93. 94. 95. 97. 98. 102. 106. 108. 110. 111. 112. 113. 117. 118. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 127. 128. 129. 142. 149. 150. 151. 152. 156. 157. 158. 165. 170. 171. 174. 175. 176. 184. 194. 220. 228. Archer Eros 30. 46. 61. 68. 69. 87. 123. 125. 174. Centocelle 48. Diadoumenos 53. Farnese / Steinhaeuser 50. 68. 72. 110. in fetters 36. 37. 62. 102. Myndus type 55. 108. of Lysippus 46. 55. 80. 81. 158. of Parium 24. 30. 57. 59. 60. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 77. 81. 87. 93. 112. 124. 125. 150. 151. 174. 176. of Phidias 149. of Thespiae 48. 57. 67. 68. 69. 71. 77. 85. 121. 124. 127. 129. 175. 176. 184. Palestritas 80. Sauroctonus 36. 37. 41. 42. 47. 55. 56. 60. 62. 94. 95. 97. 98. Sleeping 51. 124. 152. 165. 194. Erymanthus 201. 204. Erythrae 111. Este 143. 196. 226. Etruria 38. 52. 149. 150. 209. Eua Cynourias 54. 107. 108. villa of Herodes Atticus 54. 107. 108. Eubius 199. Heracles Promachos 199. Eubuleus 79. 108. 140. Euchenor 83. Euclides 85. Erotikos 85. Eudoxus 13. 26. 69. 78. 174. Eumenes ii 123. Euphranor 50. 53. 54. 61. 64. 66. 67. 99. 110. 156.

Agathodaimon 53. 54. Apollo Lycius 64. Paris 50. 61. 66. 67. 99. 110. 156. Euripides 25. 33. 92. 121. 122. 162. 163. 164. 165. 206. 232. Europa 38. Eustathius 24. 111. Evenus 115. 176. Falconieri 211. Fanum Fortunae 190. 223. baths 190. 223. episcopium 223. Farnese 50. 68. 72. 78. 80. 82. 87. 96. 110. 115. 117. 197. 198. 214. Faunus 39. 194. 197. Fausta 64. Faustina the Elder 116. 189. 190. 224. 225. Faustina the Younger 23. 58. 59. 98. 189. 223. 224. Felicitas 126. 127. 128. 129. 134 Firmum 156. 212. theatre 156. 212. Fiume 216. Tersatto Castle 216. Flavians 32. 36. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 50. 52. 74. 96. 100. 103. 122. 152. 153. 163. 188. 210. 215. 220. 221. Flora 189. 223. 224. Florence 29. 93. 95. 96. 209. 210. 211. 212. 216. 225. palazzo Medici – Riccardi 95. Fol 95. 96. Formiae 68. 125. 138. 140. 142. 207. villa 139. Fortuna 34. 184. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 197. 198. 223. 224. 227. 228. Claudia Justa type 227. Opsequens 190. 223. 228. Primigenia 190. 224. Publica Citerior 188. 221. Vienne / Braccio Nuovo type 186. 188. 227. Viscata 228. Frankfurt 106. Freienwalde 207. Friedrich ii, King 115. Friedrich Wilhelm IV, King 95. Friederichs 22 Fucinus lake 42. Furtwaengler 22 Gabii 18. 42. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 86. 103. 115. 116. 169. 183. forum 80. 115. temple of Apollo 80. 115. Gaeta 224. Galats 184. Gallia 40. 43. 50. 53. 95. 120. 163. 164. 191. Lugudunensis 50. Narbonensis 40. 43. 95. 120. 163. 164. 191. Gallien 23. 63. 64. 99. Ganymedes 90. 137. 138. 180. 184. Gaza 172. 173. Geminus 103.

General Index

239

Geneve 41. 95. 96. Genua 94. Germania 38. 45. 53. 98. 104. 142. Inferior 53. 98. Geryon 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 232. Geta 60. 61. 99. 185. 221. 225. 230. Giustini 48. 57. 58. 108. 196. Giustiniani 82. 83. 108. 212. Glaucus 117. Glycera 100. Gnathia 112. Gorgias 164. Gorgon 106. Gordian iii 63. 75. 99. Gortys 74. 113. 165. 192. 225. agora 192. 225. Nymphaeum 74. St. Titus 225. Goths 64. 111. Graces 55. 158. 160. 197. 214. 215. Greece 17. 19. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 29. 30. 31. 32. 34. 35. 36. 40. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 63. 67. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 77. 80. 81. 83. 85. 88. 90. 91. 92. 93. 103. 105. 106. 108. 110. 112. 114. 115. 119. 121. 122. 125. 126. 127. 128. 130. 135. 139. 140. 142. 150. 151. 152. 157. 160. 163. 165. 173. 178. 179. 180. 182. 183. 188. 189. 190. 191. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 200. 203. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 215. 218. 219. 220. 221. 228. 231. 232. Grimani 87. Grottaferrata 215. Abbey of St. Nilus 215. Guelma 225. 227. Gustaf iii, king 97. Habich 219. Hades 33. 47. 55. Hadrian 34. 43. 47. 50. 51. 52. 56. 61. 73. 74. 80. 81. 96. 97. 106. 113. 115. 121. 122. 138. 141. 152. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 161. 164. 171. 188. 189. 196. 199. 206. 211. 214. 216. 222. 228. Hadrumetum 191. 224. Halicarnassus 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 20. 21. 85. 89. 176. Mausoleum 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 66. 88. 89. 201. sanctuary of Ares 13. 14. Hamburg 220. Hebe 147. 149. 159. 209. Hecataeus 120. 121. statue of Phil(e)itas 120. 121. 122. Hecate 158. 159. Hecatomnids 11. 13. 14. 21. 24 Hegesias 71. 112. Heracles 71. Helen (heroine) 55. 66. 107. Helen (paintress) 184. Battle of Ipsus 184. Helicon 146. Hera 36. 37. 47. 62. 82. 108. 147. 149. 159. 154. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 187. 209. 214. 217.

240

Antonio Corso

Borghese 36. 37. 47. 62. 82. 108. 165. 187. 214. Heracles 28. 38. 47. 53. 57. 62. 64. 71. 73. 74. 81. 82. 83. 85. 100. 101. 108. 110. 117. 150. 165. 166. 171. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 214. 231. 232. Altemps type 53. Copenhague / Dresden type 82. 83. Epitrapezios 64. Farnese type 110. 197. 198. 214. Lansdowne type 64. 108. Polycleitan type 81. 82. Promachos 199. 200. Herculaneum 59. 73. 74. 92. 108. 141. 152. 153. 157. 170. 187. 207. 210. 214. 221. Basilica 92. theatre 187. 221. Hercules 104. 190. 194. 195. Hercyna 211. Herennia Etruscilla 230. Hermaphrodite 38. 39. 123. Hermes 18. 23. 25. 26. 32. 35. 42. 52. 60. 62. 68. 79. 84. 89. 90. 91. 106. 107. 108. 110. 119. 136. 138. 140. 145. 157. 161. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 193. 196. 197. 198. 200. 204. 214. 218. Andrus type 157. Cephisodotan type 60. 62. 68. 138. 161. 164. 166. 167. 168. 171. Ingenui type 32. Lansdowne / Berlin / Pitti 53. Madrid / Palatine / Agora type 166. 167. 168. 171. of Alcamenes 107. of Olympia 18. 23. 25. 26. 52. 60. 68. 79. 84. 89. 90. 91. 119. 136. 138. 140. 161. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 204. 218. of Lysippus 48. 164. 198. 214. of Polycleitus 136. Propylaeus 108. Richelieu type 35. 42. 193. 214. Hermocreon 71. altar of Artemis and Apollo Actaeus 71. Hermodorus 213. 215. temple of Mars 213. Hermogenes 129. 131. 134. statue of Aphrodite 129. 131. 134. Herodes Atticus 54. 55. 97. 107. Herodorus Herodotus 114. 213. Herrmann 210. Herulians 64. 111. 191. Hesiod 92. 122. Hesione 137. Hesperids 165. 166. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. Hestia 14. 89. Hierapolis 192. 193. 223. theatre 192. 193. 223. Hieronymus: 114. Hieronymus de Cupis 198. 227. Himerius 100.

Himeros 84. 85. 86. 117. Hispalis 194. 225. La Barzola 225. Histria 48. 153. Homer 24. 39. 112. 122. 136. 168. 177. Batrachomyomachia 39. Iliad 24. 39. Odyssey 39. Homonoia 230. Hope 32. 33. 82. 87. 94. 101. 117. 164. 196. Horace 99. 100. 213. 216. Horai 165. Hyacinthus 29. 33. 37. 38. 102. Hydra 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. Hygi(ei)a 32. 47. 59. 62. 79. 80. 82. 110. 116. 153. 156. 164. 191. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 225. 226. 227. 228. Augusta 195. 227. Berlin type 196. Broadlands type 191. 228. Hope type 32. 164. 196. Peplophoros type 196. Hyginus 92. Hypius 192. 223. Hypnos 97. Ialysus 184. Iberia 43. Ibycus 120. 121. 122. 132. Idrieus 11. 13. 14. Ilium 24. 172. 179. Ince Blundell 46. 96. 104. 210. Ingenui Ionia 11. 12. 16. 26. 31. 35. 37. 49. 50. 56. 59. 60. 61. 65. 94. 95. 96. 98. 99. 111. 176. 178. Ipsus 184. Isis 55. 56. 97. 108. 152. 153. 210. Islahiye 115. Isocrates 11. Issus 80. 115. Ister 23. 57. 58. 63. 74. 98. 99. 113. Italy 37. 40. 42. 45. 48. 50. 52. 54. 65. 71. 80. 81. 82. 83. 94. 105. 136. 141. 152. 153. 155. 157. 163. 170. 188. 191. 198. 210. 222. Jubas 104. Julia Domna 60. 143. 221. 225. Julio -Claudians 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 48. 52. 74. 94. 103. 151. 152. 153. 163. 171. 182. 183. 188. 209. 210. 215. 220. 221. Junius Pisciculus 127. 128. Juno 154. 163. Juppiter 154. 171. 172. 195. Karl iii, king 97. Karos 47. Tyche 47. Kassel 198. 219. Kiev 125. 126. 133. Kizada island 28 Klein 22 Kore 30. 71. 74. 79. 87. 101. 106. 108. 120. 125. 146. 151. 166. 186. 196.

203. 214. Uffizi type 30. 74. 108. 151. 203. 214. Labicana, via 41. Lacedaemon 19. 172. 179. Lambaesis 191. 195. 224. 226. temple of Aesculapius 195. 224. Landolina 182. 214. Lansdowne 53. 64. 96. 104. 108. Laomedon 136. 137. 140. 141. 206. Larnaka 69. Lartus 30. 93. Latina, via 226. Latium 15. 31. 45. 60. 65. 81. 88. 141. 152. 155. 163. 188. Latmus 176. Leander 38. Lebadia 153. 154. 211. Sanctuary of Trophonius 153. 154. 211. Lecce 115. Leconfield 23. 79. 130. 140. Leda 46. 50. 55. 61. 108. 100. 207. Leiden 194. 227. Leipzig 220. Leochares 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 21. 83. 90. 108. 137. 180. 184. 214. Alexander 83. 108. Apollo Patroos 90. Ares 13. Ganymedes 90. 137. 138. 180. 184. Leocrates 126. Lerna 201. 202. 204. Leto 32. 87. 89. 93. 103. 117. 142. 143. 168. Liber Pater 163. 216. Libya 151. 200. Licinia gens 30. Lindus 72. sanctuary of Athena Lindia 72. Lisanias Lisbon 94. Liverpool 96. 210. 211. Livia 34. 39. 40. Livy 39. London 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 37. 45. 58. 93. 94. 95. 99. 181. 186. 207. 212. 215. 219. 220. 224. 226. Lorium 190. 224. imperial villa 190. 224. Love 37. 70. 71. 72. 84. 85. 86. 152. 156. 197. Lucan 39. Lucian 69. 114. 115. 136. 139. 219. Lucius Verus 58. 59. 98. 193. Lucullus 30. 100. 126. 127. 128. Ludovisi 94. Lugudunum 52. 98. theatre 52. 98. Luna 33. 40. 45. 50. 52. 80. 81. 94. 95. 96. 97. 115. 153. 154. 156. 163. 188. 195. 210. 211. 215. 221. 222. 227. Lupiae 81. 83. 115. theatre 81. 115.

General Index

241

Lycia 12. 13 Lycius 55. 76. 77. 107. boy who holds the sprinkler 76. Dioscuri 55. 107. Lycurgus 121. Lyde Browne 210. Lydia 189. 196. Lynden 25. 27. 79. 130. 181. Lyon 98. Lysanias 132. Lysias 122. Lysimache 108. Lysimachus 196. Lysippus 16. 29. 46. 48. 51. 55. 64. 65. 80. 81. 100. 111. 155. 158. 164. 185. 198. 202. 206. 214. 231. Aphrodite 64. dodekathla 202. Eros of Myndus 55. 108. Eros of Thespiae 46. 55. 80. 81. 158. Heracles epitrapezios 64. Heracles of Tarentum 111. Hermes 48. 164. 198. 214. Muses 46. 185. 214. Praxilla 155. Macedonia 23. 29. 125. 129. Macrinus 23. 61. 99. Macrobius 39. Mactaris / Mactar 191. 225. forum 191. 225. large baths 191. 225. Madrid 53. 94. 97. 113. 166. 167. 168. 214. Palacio Real 97. Maeander 101. Maecenas 231. 232. Maenads 53. 71. 87. 107. 171. 194. 197. Magna Mater 188. 189. 222. Malmaison Castle 220. Mantinea 21. 30. 79. 87. 140. 142. 143. 144. 146. 147. 149. 151. 159. 174. 186. 203. 208. 209. agora 147. temple of Asclepios 142. 143. temple of Hera 147. temple of the Apollinean triad 142. 143. Manto 83. Marathon 107. Marathus 183. 220. Marcus Aurelius 58. 59. 75. 98. 172. 193. 206. 224. Marcus Terentius Varro Lucullus 100. Mariette 22. Marius 194. 226. Mars 106. 155. 156. 211. Ultor 106. Marsyas 107. 142. 144. 203. 208. Marseille 211. Aygalades Castle 211. Marsyas 26. 108. 142. 146.

242

Antonio Corso

Martial 22. 37. 38. 39. 45. 46. 91. 102. Martinez 22. 100. 103. 104. Massimo 94. Matera 112. Matera Painter 112. Mattei 107. 151. 188. 210. 222. Mauretania 43. Mausolus 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 26. 66. 88. 90. 93. Maximian 64. 97. Maximilian of Absburg 223. Mazara 99. Medici 48. 64. 95. 110. 154. 224. Mediterraneum 35. 89. 141. 183. 198. Medon 166. Heracles and Achelous 166. Medusa 108. Rondanini type 108. Megalopolis 186. Megara 46. 78. 83. 84. 85. 88. 117. 118. 125. 137. 138. 142. 143. 144. 149. 166. 174. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 190. 191. 192. 194. 195. 199. 206. 209. 214. 221. 225. Acropolis of Alcathous 83. 185. Acropolis Caria 83. 185. sanctuary of Artemis Saviour 138. sanctuary of Dionysus 83. 84. 86. 185. sanctuary of Olympian Zeus 84. sanctuary of the Tutelary Apollo 138. sanctuary of Tyche 184. 185. 186. 188. 190. 192. temple of Aphrodite Praxis 84. 86. 184. 185. 192. Megareus 137. Melampus 83. Meleager 46. 53. 115. 214. Melus 35. 94. 101. gymnasium 101. stadium 35. 101. Memnon 100. Menander 39. 61. 65. 128. 156. 157. Thais 39. Men(e)rva 149. Menius 159. Menodorus 57. 129. Eros 57. 129. Menophilus 183. 220. Aphrodite 183. 220. Mercurius 164. 170. 172. 194. Messene 218. Meter 56. 59. 107. 141. 150. 154. 165. 189. 190. 196. 208. Agoracritan type 56. 107. 141. 154. 165. 190. 196. Methe 48. 53. 54. Miletus 11. 24. 111. 124. Minerva 104. 106. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 195. medica 152. 153. Minturnae 163. 164. 165. 171. 216. theatre 163. 164. 165. 216. Mithridates 30. 100. 206. Mocenigo 107.

Moon 62. 110. Mucianus 15. 67. 112. Mummius 126. 127. 129. Muses 30. 46. 47. 53. 54. 72. 73. 79. 87. 106. 121. 122. 127. 128. 140. 142. 144. 145. 146. 147. 149. 151. 157. 163. 165. 185. 186. 189. 193. 194. 199. 203. 208. 209. 214. Dresden / Zagreb type 47. Frankfurt type 106. Lysippus’ Muses 46. 214. Mantinean Muses 30. 79. 87. 140. 142. 144. 145. 146. 151. 186. 203. 209. Philiscus type 163. Mylasa 48. Myndus 55. 108. Myra 89. 93. 168. 176. Myrina 182. 183. 220. Myron 29. 32. 55. 57. 76. 77. 99. 101. 107. 108. 122. 123. 132. 137. 146. 163. 168. 182. 184. Athena and Marsyas 107. 108. 146. Cow 137. 182. 184. Discus-thrower 29. 99. Perseus 76. Samian triad 57. 100. 163. Oxen 32. Mysia 23. 24. 25. 49. 57. 63. 64. 65. 74. 92. 123. Naples 36. 46. 65. 83. 94. 96. 99. 101. 115. 116. 138. 189. 191. 207. 210. 214. 216. 222. Napoleon 115. Narbo Martius / Narbonne 164. 215. Naucrates 11. Naucydes 53. 147. 159. 184. Cimon 184. Hebe 147. 159. Hermes 53. Naxus 96. Nelson 211. Nemea 62. 201. 202. 204. Nemesis 81. 107. 110. 197. 198. 214. 231. Agoracritus type 107. 214. Neptune 135. 139. 141. 142. 207. 208. Nereids 12. 82. 139. 207. Nero 39. 42. 44. 81. 104. 131. 137. 138. 141. 152. 171. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 201. 202. 203. 205. 206. 221. 231. 232. Nerva 49. 56. 96. Newby Hall 95. Newton Hall 211. New York 42. 95. 210. 219. Nicias 37. 38. 102. 136. 137. Danae 37. 38. 102. Hyacinthus 37. 38. 102. Nicodemus 132. Nicomachus 16. 184. Scylla 184. Nicomedia 74. 192. 224. Nicopolis in Epirus 157. 158. 211. Odeum 157. 211. 214.

Nicopolis ad Istrum 23. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 63. 74. 98. 99. 109. 110. 113. agora 61. 74. 110. basilica 61. 110. Nike 53. 59. 87. 125. 146. 166. 171. 172. Nile 184. Niobe 48. 71. 146. Uffizi 48. Niobids 71. 205. 216. Nugent 216. Nymphs 72. 73. 87. 125. 194. 195. 197. Nysa 168. Oakley 86. Octavia 139. Octavian 35 Oder 142. 207. Odescalchi 94. Olbia Pontica 71. 119. 124. 125. 126. 133. 138. 149. 209. Acropolis 124. agora 124. temple of Apollo Delphinios 124. Olympia 18. 23. 26. 60. 68. 79. 84. 89. 90. 91. 107. 119. 136. 138. 140. 161. 163. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 174. 177. 204. 215. 216. 217. 218. altars of Dionysus 215. Altis 167. 172. Nymphaeum 107. sanctuary of Dionysus Leucyanites 215. Stadium 107. temple of Hera 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 217. treasure of the Epidamnians 165. treasure of the Megarians 166. Olympias 107. 116. Olympiodorus 114. Olympus 59. 91. 98. Onatas 123. 132. Apollo 123. Opora 22. 71. 87. 125. 146. 186. Oreos 123. Orosius 100. Orpheus 64. Ortygia 117. Ostia 186. 187. 188. 189. 209. 221. 222. sacellum of Attis 188. 222. sanctuary of the Magna Mater 186. 188. 189. 222. Otacilia Severa 75. 113. Overbeck 22 Ovid 38. 39. 91. 117. 163. 216. Metamorphoses 38. 39. 91. 163. Oxford 210. 222. Pacetti 224. Paeonius 53. 172. Nike 53. 172. Palestrina 224. Palazzo Barberini 224. Palladas 69. 70. 75. Pamphylia 157. 158.

General Index

243

Pamukkale 223. Pan 28. 42. 103. 122. 194. 196. 218. Leiden type 194. Pannonia 48. 53. 96. Superior 48. 96. Paphus 73. 85. 113. temple of Aphrodite 73. 113. Paregoros 84. 85. 86. 87. 118. 185. Paris (city) 41. 61. 73. 74. 75. 78. 94. 96. 97. 113. 115. 116. 117. 212. 215. 219. 220. 222. 226. Ecole des Beaux Arts 212. Paris (hero) 46. 50. 61. 66. 67. 69. 70. 99. 110. 112. 156. 176. 195. Parium 24. 30. 57. 59. 60. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 77. 81. 87. 93. 111. 112. 113. 114. 124. 125. 128. 150. 151. 174. 176. agora 66. 67. altar of Artemis and Apollo Actaeus 71. Parma 46. Parmenides Parthenocles 184. Parus 11. 13. 14. 19. 21. 32. 33. 35. 40. 65. 72. 76. 77. 79. 80. 81. 83. 84. 85. 86. 94. 95. 99. 101. 111. 112. 115. 130. 150. 152. 153. 155. 163. 167. 210. 211. 215. 224. Pritaneum 14. Pasiteles 15. 30. 34. 67. 73. 80. 88. 94. 100. 150. 151. 170. Patara 13 Pausanias 49. 57. 65. 68. 75. 76. 77. 80. 83. 84. 90. 108. 109. 111. 113. 116. 117. 118. 125. 132. 134. 142. 144. 147. 149. 150. 159. 160. 165. 166. 172. 173. 179. 184. 185. 186. 199. 200. 201. 206. 208. 209. 212. 215. 217. 218. 219. 221. 231. 232. Pausias 100. Glycera 100. Pautalia 171. Pax / Peace 137. 138. 139. 141. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 187. 195. 221. 227. 230. Payne Knight 99. Peitho 84. 85. 86. 87. 117. 185. Peleus 141. Peloponnese 29. 129. 134. 139. 166. 174. 196. 200. 219. 231. 232. Pentelic 18. 31. 32. 34. 40. 45. 46. 50. 51. 54. 55. 81. 90. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 113. 144. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 154. 156. 158. 170. 189. 192. 195. 196. 199. 209. 210. 211. 212. 221. 222. 225. 226. 231. Penthesilea 108. Peregrinus Proteus 74. 75. 114. Peretie 113. Pergamum 35. 92. 106. 122. 123. 124. 132. sanctuary of Athena Polias 122. 123. 124. Perge 157. 158. 212. 214. Persephone 28. 33. 86. 125. Persia 17. 24. 63. 65. 71. 92. 93. 178. Petronius 42. 75. 76. 77. 78. 80. 81. Peyrefitte 215. Phaedrus: 103. Pharnabazus 92. Pheneus 167. Pherecydes 92. Phidias 16. 17. 48. 53. 56. 84. 85. 108. 110. 125. 132. 136. 149. 150. 154.

244

Antonio Corso

158. 161. 171. 177. 200. 216. 217. 231. Aphrodite Urania of Elis 85. 217. Athena Parthenos 47. 149. 150. 154. 158. 196. Athena Promachos 53. 154. Athena of Elis 161. Eros 149. Hermes 200. 231. Zeus of Megara 84. Zeus of Olympia 53. 110. 136. 171. 172. 177. 216. Phil(e)itas 120. 121. 122. 132. Philip ii 206. Philip V of Spain, King 94. 113. Philip the Arab 75. 113. Philippopolis 23. 58. 59. 98. Philiscus 163. Muses 163. Philodemus 114. Philosophiana 64. 97. Maximian’s palatium 64. 97. Philostephanus: 117. Philostratus Major 29. 62. 216. Life of Apollonius of Tyana 62. Philoxenus 16 Phocis 76. Phormio 160. 161. 215. Phrygia 67. 110. 136. 223. Phryne 49. 130. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. Physcoas 215. Piazza Armerina 52. 97. Picard 22 Pincket 94. Pindar 122. 187. 199. 200. 206. 215. 228. 231. Piraeus 53. Mounychia 82. Pisa 95. Camposanto 95. Pisistratus 76. Pitti 53. Plancii 41 Planudes 69. Plato 13. 15. 26. 28. 39. 61. 65. 66. 69. 70. 71. 77. 84. 85. 88. 89. 114. 115. 117. 121. 128. 132. 156. 157. 160. 161. 174. 179. Parmenides 121. Symposium 66. 69. 84. 117. Plautilla 61. 99. 143. 144. Plautus 206. 232. Pliny 11. 12. 14. 15. 19. 21. 22. 23. 24. 29. 37. 38. 39. 44. 45. 47. 51. 65. 66. 67. 72. 73. 75. 81. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 99. 100. 105. 112. 113. 114. 116. 117. 118. 125. 126. 127. 128. 131. 135. 136. 137. 138. 141. 150. 170. 171. 171. 180. 182. 184. 206. 207. 217. Natural History 116. 138. Plutarch 39. 99. 100. 114. 122. 132. 144. 160. 161. 180. 208. 215. 219. 221. Plutus 150. 169. 192. 200. 224. Poitou 97. 226. Polemon 172. 173. 179.

Peri’ ton en Lakedaimoni anathematon 172. 179. Polignac 81. 115. 226. Polyaenus: 231. Polycleitus 34. 37. 42. 48. 62. 75. 81. 82. 115. 127. 128. 132. 136. 147. 153. 158. 159. 166. 171. 172. 184. 193. 208. Amazon 62. 82. Cyniscus 48. Diadoumenus 34. 193. 229. Discophorus 82. 153. 158. Doryphorus 32. 82. Hera 147. 159. Heracles 81. 82. Hermes 136. statue of Pythocles 184. Polycles 38. 39. 103. Hermaphrodite 38. 39. Polydeuces 55. Polydeucion 55. Polyiidus 83. Polymnestus 123. 132. Pompeii 81. 115. 168. 171. 172. 184. 206. 218. 220. casa del Naviglio = vi. 10. 11: 171. 172. domus of C. Arrius Crescens = iii. 4. 2. 13: 115. Pontus 25. 30. 58. 70. 112. Portici 221. Royal Palace 221. Poseidon 89. 135. 136. 137. 139. 140. 141. 142. 193. 206. 207. 208. Delus type 139. 140. 141. 142. Lateran type 193. Posen 116. Castle 116. Posidippus 102. 193. Pothos 84. 85. 86. 101. 117. 118. 198. Scopas type 84. 85. 86. 101. 198. Potsdam 95. Neue Palais 95. Sanssouci 95. Pourtales 181. 219. 220. Poznan 116. Praeneste 190. 224. sanctuary of Fortuna Primigenia 190. 224. Praxilla 155. Praxiteles Agathe Tyche 185. 186. Agathodaimon 48. 53. 87. 106. Aphrodite for Alexandria ad Latmum 130. Aphrodite for the Spartans / Pseliumene 89. 130. 137. 168. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. Aphrodite / Phryne of Delphi 130. 172. 181. Apollinean triad of Mantinea 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 149. 186. 208. Apollinean triad of Megara 83. 125. 137. 138. 143. 146. 194. Apollo Sauroctonus 22. 23. 25. 26.28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 70. 71. 74. 75. 81. 87. 91. 92.





93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 103. 104. 108. 109. 110. 119. 123. 124. 136. 138. 150. 151. 154. 161. 163. 164. 165. 176. 203. 213. 228. Apollo and Poseidon 68. 135. 136. 137. 142. 206. 207. Archer Eros 30. 46. 61. 68. 69. 87. 123. 125. 174. Archippe 120. Artemis Brauronia 18. 42. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 83. 84. 119. Artemis of Anticyra 76. Athena, Hera and Hebe at Mantinea 147. 149. 159. 209. 210. 211. 212. 313. 214. bronze Aphrodite 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 181. Catagusa 22. 86. 87. 120. 146. Charioteer 71. Cleiocratia 145. Cnidian Aphrodite 11. 14. 18. 23. 24. 25. 30. 34. 40. 43. 44. 45. 46. 50. 51. 53. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 73. 77. 78. 81. 84. 93. 108. 109. 111. 113. 125. 126. 129. 130. 131. 141. 151. 153. 154. 163. 164. 173. 174. 175. 179. 181. 182. 183. 188. 189. 190. 192. 193. 196. 203. 219. Coan Aphrodite 113. 173. 179. Dancing girls 108. Dionysus and Nikai 87. 125. 146. Dionysus of Elis 70. 101. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 167. Dionysus, Sambon / Grimani type 87. 174. Dodekatheon 83. 87. 122. 125. 137. 138. 140. 146. 149. 186. 188. 209. Eleusinian triads 79. 87. 108. 120. 125. 146. 186. 196. Eros of Parium 24. 30. 57. 59. 60. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 77. 81. 87. 93. 112. 124. 125. 150. 151. 174. 176. Eubuleus 79. 108. 140. Hermes of Olympia 18. 23. 25. 26. 52. 60. 68. 79. 84. 89. 90. 91. 119. 136. 138. 140. 161. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 204. 217. 218. Ibycus 120. 121. 122. iconic statues on the Acropolis of Athens 119. 120. Kidnapping of Kore 71. 120. 125. 203. Leto at Myra 89. 93. Lysanias 132. Maenads 71. 87. Methe 48. 53. Niobe and Niobids 71. 146. Opora 22. 71. 87. 125. 146. 186. Pan, Nymphs and Danae 87. 122. 125. Peitho and Paregoros 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 185. Pouring Satyr 23. 46. 83. 87. 91. 108. 113. 150. 161. Resting Satyr 23. 24. 26. 44. 46. 50. 51. 52. 58. 62. 83. 87. 108. 109. 117. 119. 123. 140. 143. 154. 156. 157. 161. 162. 164. 165. 188. 203. Satyr of Megara 83. 86. 117. 185. Sculptures for the altar of the Artemisium of Ephesus 93. Sculptures for the Heracleum of Thebes 150. 199. 200. 201. 203. 204. 205. 231. Sleeping Eros 51. 124. 152. 165. 194.

General Index

245



Statues moved to Pergamum 122. Statue set up at Olbia Pontica 71. 119. 124. 126. Triad of Thespiae 48. 49. 57. 67. 69. 71. 77. 85. 121. 124. 125. 127. 129. 130. 173. 175. 176. 184. 219. Trophonius 154. Tyche of Megara 184. 185. 186. 188. 190. 191. 192. 195. 199. Warrior 122. Weeping Matron and smiling Courtesan 7 1. 85. 125. 140. 146. 173. 174. 178. 181. Preisshofen 22. 100. Priamus 171. Priene 12. 21. temple of Athena 12. Proconnesus 192. 223. Procopius 221. Propertius 39. 90. 100. 101. 216. Propontis Sea 24. 65. 112. Proserpina 163. Protogenes 184. Ialysus 184. Prusa ad Olympum 59. 60. 91. 98. 109. Prusias ad Hypium 192. 223. Psyche 62. 156. 197. Pudicitia 214. Puteoli 190. 222. Pygmalion 85. Pythagoras 53. 114. Pytheus 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 20. 88. Pythocles 184. Quintili 194. 227. 229. Quintus Petronius Modestus 210. Raetia 52. Rayet 22 Red Jaspers Workshop 53. 98. Regensburg 98. Cathedral 98. Regina Castra 52. 98. Rethymnon 151. 210. Kastro 210. Rhamnous 107. 170. Rhianus 92. Rhodes 13. 29. 30. 48. 65. 67. 72. 93. 100. 112. 151. 182. 183. Acropolis 30 sanctuary of Asclepius 30. 93. 100. temple of Apollo Pythios 30 Rhyndacus 2 3. 24. 25. 28. 30. 49. 51. 56. 58. 59. 63. 65. 66. 92. 96. 98. 99. 124. 176. Riccardi 95. Richelieu 35. 42. 53. 79. 97. 193. 214. 226. Rizzo 22 Rodin 211. Rolley 22 Rome 13. 22. 24. 27. 28. 30. 31. 32. 34. 35. 36. 37. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 56. 57. 60. 62. 65. 68. 73. 74. 75. 80. 81. 83. 88. 91. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 99. 100. 103. 104. 106. 107. 110. 111. 112. 113. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122.

246

Antonio Corso

126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 135. 136. 137. 139. 141. 142. 143. 148. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 162. 163. 164. 165. 171. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 187. 188. 189. 190. 193. 194. 195. 198. 199. 202. 204. 206. 207. 210. 211. 212. 215. 216. 218. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227. 228. 231. 232. aedes Dianae Plancianae 41. aedes Martis in circo Flaminio 155. 156. 211. atrium Vestae 188. 222. Aventinus minor 39. 94. 103. baths of Constantine 73. 75. 113. Caelius 188. 222. 228. Campus Martius 155. 211. Casa del Bessarione 97. Casa Hieronymi de Cupis 198. 227. castra peregrina 188. Church of St. Balbina 39. 94. Church of St. Mary de anima 198. 227. circus Flaminius 155. 211. comitium 100. Domus Aurea 44. 137. 138. 139. 141. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. domus of Augustus 32 forum 127. 128. 155. 188. 211. 222. forum of Augustus 106. horti Maecenatis 231. 232. horti Luculliani 30 horti Sallustiani 205. lacus Juturnae 155. 211. Lateran 193. 214. Lungotevere dei Tebaldi 211. Montecavallo 53. Palatine 24. 31. 32. 37. 39. 45. 46. 47. 49. 50. 56. 61. 94. 96. 103. 104. 152. 153. 155. 167. 168. 169. 171. 210. 211. 222. Domitian’s palace 32. 45. 46. 49. 96. 100. 104. 152. 171. 210. palazzo Barberini 99. 227. palazzo Cesi 222. palazzo Colonna 227. palazzo Costaguti 22. 93. palazzo Doria Pamphilj 212. palazzo Farnese 96. palazzo Giustiniani 212. palazzo Ludovisi 223. palazzo Margherita 223. palazzo Mattei di Giove 222. palazzo Rondinini 225. palazzo Rospigliosi 113. palazzo Valentini 95. 214. Palazzo Valle – Capranica 224. palazzo Verospi 83. 116. Pincius 224. porticus Octaviae 139. Quirinal 99. 113. 210. 221. 222. 223. 224. rostra 100. sanctuary of Diana Planciana 95. sanctuary of the Bona Dea subsaxana 39. 94. sanctuary of Fortuna Publica Citerior 188. 221.

stadium Domitiani 198. 199. 227. 231. Giulia Street 211. Serpenti Street 41. 94. Stamperia Street 189. 223. XX Settembre Street 221. temple of Apollo Palatinus 32. 35. 100. 102. 103. temple of Augustus: 22. 24. 37. 38. 39. 45. 47. 56. 102. temple of Felicitas 126. 127. 128. 129. templum Pacis 137. 138. 139. 141. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 221. templum Florae 189. 223. tomb of Caecilia Metella 207. Vatican 27. 32. 44. 46. 57. 90. 94. 97. 130. 131. 162. 207. 210. 216. 221. 222. 223. 224. 227. Villa Albani 22. 39. 40. 94. 95. 97. 152. 207. 216. Villa Borghese 22. 222. 224. 226. Villa Doria Pamphilj 115. 226. Villa Magnani 32. 94. 100. 101. Villa Mattei 210. 222. Villa Medici 224. Villa of the Quintili 194. 227. 229. hippodromus garden 194. 227. Viminalis 41. Rondanini / Rondinini 108. 225. Rospigliosi 196. Rubi 112. Ruvo 112. Sabina 40. 42. 43. Saint – Colombe 191. 223. Palais du Miroir 191. 223. Sallustius 39. 100. 205. Salzburg 95. Sambon 74. 87. Samnium 40. 42. Samothrace 118. Samus 57. 101. 112. Sangiorgi 212. San Ildefonso 33. 94. 113. Palacio Real 94. 113. Sankt Petersburg 149. 209. 210. 211. Sannio 210. Sappho 121. 122. Sardanapallus 108. 146. Sardis 106. 196. 197. 225. gymnasium – baths 196. 197. 225. Sassi 96. Satyr 23. 24. 26. 28. 44. 46. 47. 50. 51. 52. 53. 58. 62. 72. 73. 83. 86. 87. 91. 99. 106. 108. 109. 117. 119. 123. 140. 143. 150. 154. 156. 157. 161. 162. 164. 165. 171. 172. 188. 191. 194. 195. 196. 197. 203. 218. Cook type 53. Dancing Satyr 99. Pouring Satyr 23. 46. 83. 87. 91. 108. 150. 161. Resting Satyr 23. 24. 26. 44. 46. 50. 51. 52. 58. 62. 83. 87. 108. 109. 117. 119. 123. 140. 143. 150. 154. 156. 157. 161. 162. 164. 165. 188. 203. Satyriscus 108.

Satyrus 11. 13. 15 Savoia 210. Sciarra 36. 62. 82. 193. 229. Scopas 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 19. 21 24. 32. 46. 53. 64. 66. 84. 85. 86. 89. 101. 108. 117. 118. 124. 125. 155. 156. 161. 198. 200. 206. 214. 217. 231. Aphrodite and Ares 155. Aphrodite of Elis 117. 161. 217. Apollo from Rhamnus 32. 85. Apollo Smintheus 24. 85. 89. 124. Artemis Eucleia 117. 200. Athena of Cnidus 14. Athena of Thebes 117. 200. Columna caelata for the Artemisium of Ephesus 89. Dionysus 14. 85. Eros, Himeros and Pothos 84. 85. 101. 118. group of Samothrace 101. 118. Heracles 64. Leto and Ortygia 117. Meleager 46. 53. 214. Poseidon, Achilles, Thetis with sea thiasos 89. Pothos 101. 118. 198. Scylla 108. 184. Bargylia / Sperlonga type 108. Scyllis 165. 166. Scythia 126. 133. 144. 146. Seleucids 80. Seleucus I 80. Seneca 34. 91. 132. Septimius Severus 60. 61. 62. 98. 181. 186. 195. 196. 221. 225. Serapis 53. 55. 56. 97. 110. 190. 193. 214. Alexandrian type 56. 110. 190. 193. 214. Sertius 227. Servandus 54. Severans 36. 60. 61. 62. 63. 98. 109. 110. 113. 124. 131. 143. 144. 156. 171. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 225. 230. Sevilla 222. 223. 225. Palacio de Pilatos 222. 223. Sicily 45. 47. 52. 64. 97. 182. 191. Sicyon 64. 85. 129. 166. sanctuary of Aphrodite 85. Side 196. 197. 198. 226. 227. 230. agora 197. 226. 230. theatre 197. 198. 226. 230. Tychaeum 197. 198. 226. 230. Sidon 183. 220. Silanion 121. 123. 132. Apollodorus 121. Corinna 108. 121. Plato 121. Sappho 121. Sileni 43. 123. 193. 194. Silius Italicus 47. Simon 86. Sinope 100. Smilis 165. 166.

General Index

247

Horai 165. Smintheum 66. Smyrna 196. 222. 227. Socrates 53. 85. 116. 121. 122. 194. Albani type 53. Charites 116. Sophocles 121. 122. 214. Lateran type 214. Sofia 113. Sosicles 36. 62. 193. 229. Sosus 35. 101. Sotheby’s 152. 210. Sousse 224. Spain 47. 94. 96. 113. 127. 194. Sparta 19. 35. 89. 97. 101. 107. 165. 166. 167. 168. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 182. 183. 184. 195. 196. 218. 219. 226. agora 166. sanctuaries of Asclepios 196. temple of Athena Chalkioikos 172. Sperlonga 38. 102. 108. Spoudias 145. Statius 47. 122. Steinhaeuser 50. 68. 72. 110. Stephanos 34. 94. Stesimbrotus 216. Stevens 76. Stockholm 96. St. Anna 226. St. Balbina 39. 94. St. George 65. 111. St. Lawrence 209. St. Mary 198. 227. St. Nilus 215. St. Peter 42. St. Titus 225. Sthennis 100. Autolycus 100. Stockholm 96. 97. 224. Strabo 24. 93. 100. 109. 111. 117. 126. 128. Stratonides 126. 149. statue of Apollo Iatros 126. Strongylion 37. 38. 59. 75. 77. 78. 144. Artemis 59. 75. 78. 144. Brutus boy 37. 38. Trojan horse 76. 77. Stymphalus 199. 200. 202. 206. Sulla 128. 133. 134. 206. Sulmona 38. Sun 61. Surrentum 103. Svetonius 105. 232. Sweden 94. 97. Syracuse 47. 96. 165. 182. 214. 216. 219. Ortygia 47. 96. sanctuary of Aphrodite Callipygos 182. sanctuary of Apollo 47. 96.

248

Antonio Corso

Syria 80. 182. 183. 197. 198. 219. 220. Tarentum / Taranto 28. 71. 111. 112. 114. 165. 183. 216. 220. Tarracina 94. forum 34 Tatian 180. 182. 184. Tazoult 225. 226. Tegea 14. 92. 231. temple of Athena Alea 14. Telamon 137. Telephus 25 Telesphoros 196. Temple 220. Terracina 34. 94. Tergeste 153. 156. 210. 213. theatre 153. 210. 213. Thalia 189. 197. 199. 222. Thamugadi / Timgad 195. 227. House of Sertius 227. Southern Baths 195. 227. Thasus 42. 111. Thebes 85. 150. 185. 186. 199. 200. 201. 203. 204. 205. 206. 209. 210. 231. Cadmeia 150. 199. 206. 209. 210. 231. Electran gates 199. Heracleum 117. 150. 199. 200. 201. 203. 204. 205. 206. 231. Ismenion 200. 231. sanctuary of Athena Onka 150. 210. 212. sanctuary of Dionysus Cadmeius 150. The Hague 94. Themis 165. 170. Rhamnous type 170. Theocles 165. Heracles and Atlant 165. Theocosmus 84. Zeus 84. Theodectes 11. Theopompus 11. 28. 160. Theotokiana 65. 111. Thera 129. 131. 140. 181. Thetis 89. Theron 123. Thespiads 127. 128. 194. Thespiae 46. 48. 49. 55. 56. 57. 66. 67. 68. 69. 71. 77. 80. 85. 112. 113. 121. 124. 125. 127. 128. 129. 130. 173. 174. 175. 176. 181. 184. 219. temple of Eros 49. 66. Thessaloniki 224. Thessaly 25. 136. Thetis 141. Theudorus: 72. Thibica 199. 227. Thrace 23. 57. 58. 59. 192. Thrasyboulus 200. Thrasyllus 39. Thucydides 175. Thyateira 189. 222.

Thysdrus 171. 195. 227. large amphitheatre 195. 227. Tiberius 37. 39. 43. 44. 47. 102. 187. 197. 221. Tibullus 39. 216. Tibur 50. 97. 121. 154. 155. 164. 188. 211. 222. Hadrian’s villa 50. 97. 121. 122. 154. 155. 157. 164. 188. 211. 222. 228. palaestra 188. 222. 228. Pantanello 97. Poecile 154. 211. Timarchus 127. 128. 150. 206. Timotheus 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 32. 46. 50. 61. 100. 149. Ares 14 Artemis 32. Leda 46. 50. 61. 100. Tisicrates 127. 128. Todisco 22 Torre del Greco 153. 210. Torre Nova 95. Townley 36. 94. 102. 181. Tragedy 193. Trajan 50. 57. 96. 121. 122. 153. 154. 188. 199. 210. 222. 227. Tranquillina 230. Trebellius Pollio 111. Trieste 210. 216. 223. Miramare Castle 223. Triopion 54. Triton 208. Troad 24. 66. Troezen 53. Troja 37. 66. 67. 76. 136. 137. 138. 140. 141. 142. Trophonius 153. 154. 211. Tunis 210. Turin 210. Tuscanic 38. Tusculum 194. 226. Le Vignacce 226. Palace of Marius 194. 226. Tyana 62. Tyche 34. 47. 58. 59. 60. 62. 72. 73. 74. 110. 156. 164. 166. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. Agathe Tyche 185. 186. 191. Claudia Justa type 227. Vienne / Braccio Nuovo type 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 227. Tyrus 183. 220. Tzetzes 75. 114. Ulpia Trajana Sarmizegetusa 228. Utica 151. 210. Vaison – la – Romaine 43. 95. Valentini 95. 214. Valerius Maximus 99. 103. 114. Valladolid 97. Valle 224. Van der Marck 22. 99.

Varro 67. 73. 100. 127. 128. 131. 150. 170. Vasio Vocontiorum 43. 52. 95. theatre 43. 95. Velia 196. Venetia 48. 153. 216. Venus 36. 37. 39. 43. 46. 52. 54. 65. 74. 81. 102. 128. 131. 133. 156. 164. 171. 180. 189. 195. Armata 74. Capitoline type 81. 164. Cnidia 39. Felix 128. 133. of Capua 156. victrix 54. with the shell 195. Vergil 38. 39. Aeneid 37. 38. 39. Bucolics 39. Culex 39. Georgics 39. Verona 170. 218. theatre 170. Verospi 83. 116. Verres 15. 89. Vescovali 46. 62. 104. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 164. 188. 209. 211. Vespasian 44. 137. 141. 180. 183. 184. Vesta 188. 222. Victory 38. 104. Vienna / Vienne 186. 187. 191. 223. Virginia 207. Visconti 22 Vitruvius 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 21. 88. Volterra 150. von Stosch 22. 96. Vulca 38. Heracles 38. Walston 211. Westmacott 32. Westmacott athlete Woburn Abbey 108. 158. 165. 232. Worcester 226. Wuerzburg: 50. 96. Xanten 53. 54. 98. Xanthus 12. Nereids monument 12. Xenocrates 22. 29. 90. 100. 122. 123. 180. 182. Xenocritus 199. Heracles Promachos 199. Xenophon (sculptor) 150. 185. 186. 200. Tyche 150. 185. 186. 200. Xenophon (writer) 92. 122. 217. 231. Xypete 132. Zacynthus 171. Zagreb 47. 216. Zeus 13. 48. 52. 53. 56. 59. 84. 106. 107. 108. 110. 122. 136. 140. 147. 149. 154. 163. 165. 167. 171. 172. 177. 207. 216.

General Index

249



250

Artemisium type 108. Dresden type 56. 107. Mylasa type 48. Phidian type 53. 110. 136. 171. 172. 177. 216.

Antonio Corso

Sardis type 106. Zeuxis 114. 173. 176. 177. Zizinia 224. Zosimus 111.

B. Index of Written Sources Acta passionis Sancti Caesarii 1-16: 34. Aelius Lampridius, Antoninus Heliogabalus 8. 2: 110. 9. 1-2: 110. Aelius Spartianus, Antoninus Caracalla 7. 3-5: 110. 7. 66: 110. Aemilianus, Anthologia Graeca 9. 756: 103. Aeschylus, Supplices 1038-1042: 118. Alcman, frg. 66 Edmonds: 221. Anaxandridas, FGrHist 404 F 5: 92. Appian 12. 11. 75: 100. Apollodorus 3. 10. 4: 92. Apuleius, Florida 7: 100. Plato 1. 3: 114. Aristotle, De mirabilibus auscultationibus 3: 160. Poetics 3. 4: 214. 4. 16-17: 214. 14. 13-19: 214. 15. 10: 214. 16. 7: 214. 16. 11: 214. 18. 19: 214. 25. 11: 214. 26. 12-13: 214. Arnobius 6. 13 : 173. 6. 22: 117. Arrian, Anabasis 1. 20. 5 – 23. 6: 89. 1. 164-165: 100. Artemidorus in Strabo 14. 1. 23. 641: 93. 117. Asclepiades, FGrHist 12 F 9: 92. Athenaeus 1. 34 a: 160. 11. 476 a: 216. 12. 554 c – e: 221. 13. 591 a-b: 115. 124. 176. Athenagoras, Legatio pro Christianis 26. 3-4: 66. 111. 112. 114. Augustus, Res gestae 4. 49: 109. Callimachus, Hymns 2. 47-54: 92. Callisthenes, Hellenica, frg. 22 a Jacoby = FGrHist 124: 231. Callistratus 2. 2: 117. 3. 3: 69. 125. 8. 3: 163. Choricius, Declamationes 8 = 29 Foerster: 26. 89. 168. 172. 173. 174.175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 218. 34. 1-3: 100. Cicero, Ad familiares 5. 12. 6-7: 99. Ad Quintum fratrem 1. 1. 25: 89. De divinatione 1. 74-76: 231. De finibus 5. 29. 87: 114. De re publica 1. 10. 16: 114. In Verrem 2. 1. 49: 89. 2. 4. 2. 4: 127.

2. 4. 53: 105. Tusculaneae disputationes 5. 23. 64: 114. CIL 6. 1. 1156: 133. 6. 1. 1658 a-e: 133. 6. 1. 3864: 133. 6. 2. 10038-10043: 133. 6. 4. 2. 31883-31886: 133. 6. 8. 3. 41337-41338: 133. Clement, Protrepticus 4. 47: 89. 173. Codex Vaticanus Graecus 989. 110: 89. 93. 168. Demosthenes 9. 27: 217. 18. 295: 217. 19. 196-199: 218. 19. 260: 217. 19. 294 : 217. 61. 44: 114. Dio Cassius 22. 76. 2: 126. 62. 20. 5: 232. Diodorus 4. 11. 3 – 27. 5: 232. 15. 53. 4: 231. 15. 82. 1: 217. 16. 63. 4-5: 217. 17. 23. 4 – 27. 6: 89. Diogenes Laertius 2. 18-19: 116. 2. 106-108: 117. 3. 6: 117. Euripides, Alcestis 1-71: 33. 92. Bakchae 100-102: 162. Hercules 359-435: 232. Eustathius, Ad Homeri Iliadem 2. 34. 16: 24. Commentarii ad Dionysium Periegetam 517: 111. Evenus, Anthologia Graeca 16. 166: 115. 176. Geminus, Anthologia Graeca 6. 260: 103. 16. 205: 103. Glaucus, Anthologia Graeca 2. 774: 117. Herodorus, FgrHist 1. 31, frg. 34: 215. Herodotus 3. 59. 3: 213. 7. 99. 3: 114. Hesiod, Catalogus mulierum, frg. 52 M: 92. Hieronymus, Contra Rufinum3. 40: 114. Himerius, Meletai kai logoi 31. 5: 100. Homer, Hymni 1. 9-10: 168. Iliad 3. 39: 112. 6. 132-133: 168. Horace, Epistulae 2. 1. 232-244: 99. 2. 3. 338-344: 213. Odes 2. 19. 29-30: 216. Hyginus 49: 92. Ibycus, frgg. 286-287 Campbell: 132. IG 2 (second ed.) 3882 / 4117: 131.

Index of Written Sources

251

3886: 4181: 4. 102. ll. 36-37: 7. 19-20: 12. 3. 1104: 12. 3. 1116: 12. 3. 1276: Jubas, FgrHist 275, frgg. 43-44: Laterculi Alexandrini 7. 15-17: Lucian, Amores 13: De morte Peregrini 4: 8: 9: 10: 14-16: De sacrificiis 4: 11: Juppiter tragoedus 10: Zeuxis 3-8: Macrobius, Saturnalia 1. 12. 24-25: Martial 2. 77: 9. 51: 11. 80. 1: 14. 170-196: Meleager, Anthologia Graeca 12. 56: Memnon, De Heraclea, frg. 28, FGrHist 3 B 434: Notitia regionum 10: Olympiodorus, Ad Platonis Alcibiadem I 86-93: Orosius 6. 12. 15: Ovid, Amores 3. 15. 17: Fasti 3. 789: 5. 147-158: Heroides 18-19: Metamorphoses 2. 833-875: 4. 18-20: 4. 285-388: 10. 162-218: 10. 243-297: Palladas, Anthologia Graeca 16. 207: Pausanias 1. 20. 1-2: 1. 23. 4: 1. 23. 7: 1. 24. 1: 1. 28. 4: 1. 42. 5: 1. 43. 5-6: 2. 2. 8: 2. 10. 4-5: 2. 17. 5: 3. 11. 11: 3. 18. 1: 3. 18. 8: 3. 18. 11: 4. 28. 4: 5. 4. 9 : 5. 14. 10:

252

Antonio Corso

132. 131. 89. 117. 102. 102. 104. 104. 88. 69. 115. 114. 114. 115. 114. 114. 136. 136. 115. 114. 219. 39. 38. 38. 102. 22. 37. 38. 39. 45. 115. 100. 100. 114. 100. 216. 216. 39. 38. 38. 163. 216. 38. 38. 117. 69. 75. 113. 125. 80. 116. 75. 132. 108. 206. 83. 84. 184. 185. 134. 117. 209. 217. 172. 90. 217. 217. 217. 215.

5. 15. 4: 215. 5. 16. 6-7: 215. 5. 17. 1-4: 165. 217. 5. 21. 1: 218. 5. 24. 4: 217. 6. 19. 8: 165. 6. 19. 12: 166. 6. 21. 5: 215. 6. 25. 1: 117. 215. 6. 26. 1-3: 117. 159. 215. 8. 9. 1: 142. 8. 9. 3: 147. 149. 8. 43. 4: 109. 9. 10. 2: 117. 200. 231. 9. 11. 4 : 231. 9. 11. 6: 117. 199. 212. 231. 9. 12. 4: 212. 232. 9. 16. 2: 150. 221. 9. 17. 1: 117. 9. 27. 1: 65. 68. 111. 9. 27. 3-4: 57. 109. 9. 30. 1: 208. 10. 7. 1: 206. 10. 37. 1: 76. Petronius 126: 42. 75. 80. Phaedrus 5 prologus: 103. Pherecydes, Historiae 8 FGrHist 3 F 35 a: 92. Philodemus, Historia philosophorum, PHerc 1021. 5. 32 – 6. 12: 114. Philostephanus, De Cypro, in Clement, Protrepticus 4. 50-51: 117. Philostratus Major, Imagines 1. 15. 2: 216. 1. 23: 29. Pindar, Hymni, hymnus Proserpinae, frgg. 39-41 Snell: 228. Isthmic Odes 4. 52-54: 231. 4. 61-66: 199. 231. 6. 27-30: 206. Nemean Odes 3. 36-37: 206. 4. 19-24: 231. Olympian Odes 13. 18-19: 215. Pythical Odes 9. 105-125: 231. Plato, Anthologia Graeca 9. 506: 132. 16. 160-161: 115. Cratylus 419 e – 420 b: 117. Epistulae 7. 339 d-e: 114. 7. 350 a: 114. 13. 361 a: 88. Gorgias 453 a – 454 e: 117. Leges 720 d – 722 b: 117. Parmenides 9. 137 A: 121. Phaedrus 251 c: 117. Plautus, Persa 3-4: 232. Pliny 6. 201-204: 104. 7. 125: 99. 12. 94: 105. 31. 19: 112. 34. 37: 89. 34. 42-43: 38. 89. 105.

34. 52: 19. 34. 56: 206. 34. 57: 207. 34. 65: 47. 34. 69: 23. 126. 127. 128. 180. 34. 70: 22. 44. 34. 77-78: 66. 112. 34. 80: 38. 39. 34. 82: 38. 34. 87: 171. 217. 35. 79: 47. 35. 84-85: 99. 114. 35. 94: 92. 35.110: 89. 35. 131: 37. 38. 35. 133: 136. 35.145: 89. 35.157: 38. 36. 13: 100. 36. 14-43: 65. 36. 20-21: 67. 113. 125. 173. 36. 22: 24. 65. 67. 72. 73. 89. 93. 125. 173. 36. 23: 65. 135. 36. 24-25: 100. 118. 36. 27 : 184. 36. 30-32: 11. 12. 14. 15. 88. 100. 36. 39-40: 67. 73. 100. 127. 128. 150. 170. 36. 95: 117. 37. 8: 99. Plutarch, Adversus Colotem 1126 c: 215. Alexander 4. 1: 100. Caesar 9. 3: 39. Comparatio Lycurgi et Numae 25: 122. De Alexandri fortuna aut virtute 2. 2-3: 99. De Fortuna Romanorum 4. 318 a: 221. De Iside et Osiride 24 d: 99. 100. 35. 364 f: 160. De musica 32. 1142 e -f: 144. 208. De Pythiae oraculis 15: 180. Dion 18. 5 – 20. 2: 114. Lives of the Ten Orators 841: 132. Lucullus 11. 2-4: 100. Mulierum virtutes 15. 250 f – 253 f: 160. Pericles 31. 2-3: 219. Praecepta gerendae reipublicae 805 d: 215.

Quaestiones conviviales748 c: 122. Quaestiones Graecae 36. 299 a – b: 160. Polyaenus 2. 3. 8: 231. Posidippus 3-20 Gigante – Lanzara: 102. Praxiteles, Anthologia Graeca 16. 204: 115. 124. 176. Procopius, De bello Gothico 8. 21. 12-13: 221. Propertius 2. 31: 100. 101. 3. 17. 19: 216. Rhianus, FGrHist 265 F 56: 92. Sallustius, Historiae 3, frgg. 28-29 M: 100. Scholiast to Euripides, Alcestis 1: 92. Scholiast to Horace, Epistulae 2. 1. 139-240: 100. Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Pius 8. 3-4: 109. Statius, Silvae 5. 3. 146-149: 122. Stesimbrotus, FgrHist 107, frg. 13: 216. Strabo 8. 6. 23. 381: 126. 10. 5. 7: 111. 12. 8. 11. 576: 100. 13. 1. 14: 111. 13. 604: 24. 14. 637 b: 109. 14. 640: 117. 14. 23. 641: 93. 117. Svetonius, Nero 53: 232. Tiberius 74: 105. Tatian, Ad Graecos 34. 36: 180. 35. 37: 180. Theopompus, Admetus, frgg. 1-2 K – A: 28. FGrHist 115 F 277: 160. Thucydides 1. 67. 3 – 88. 1: 175. Tibullus 2. 1. 3-4: 216. Trebellius Pollio, Gallieni duo 6. 2: 111. Tzetzes, Historiae 10. 988-992: 114. Letters 75: 114. Valerius Maximus 8. 7. ext. 3-4: 103. 114. 8. 11. ext. 2: 99. Varro in Pliny 36. 39-40 : 67. 73. 100. 127. 150. 170. Vergil, Aeneid 8. 287-289: 38. Vitruvius 2. 8. 11: 12. 14. 88. 7. praefatio 12-13: 12. 13. 88. Xenophon, Hellenica 4. 1. 15: 92. 6. 4. 7: 231. 7. 4. 14-35: 217. Zosimus 1. 42. 2-43. 1: 111.

Index of Written Sources

253

C. Museographic index Adana, R egional Museum, 2 876: 115. Alexandria, Greek – Roman Museum, 3 587: 209. 3870: 224. Amiens, Musee de la Picardie, 1874 – 75: 44. 95. Ancona, National Archaeological Museum, 1 67: 223. Antalya, M  useum, 18. 29. 81: 212. Aquileia, A rchaeological Museum, 4 8815: 98. Athens, Acropolis Museum, 1 352 = 13601: 116. 1956 NAP 103: 212. 2374: 97. NMA 5240: 212. 2393+2810+3877+3882+3925+6993+70 62+7135+8190+8379+8393+8465: 209. Agora Museum, I 4165: 132. I 4568: 131. S 2370: 221. Benaki Museum, 2 3722: 54. 97. Ephoria Gamma, L ambda 6866: 132. Epigraphical Museum, 1 2807: 132. National Archaeological Museum, 2 15: 144. 145. 208. 216: 144. 145. 208. 217: 144. 145. 208. 209. 272: 226. 1282: 87. 118. 1623: 51. 97. 1868: 211. 2239: 210. Gamma 3630: 223. 3788: 223. 63578: 117. Autun, M  usee Rolin, M  . L. 824 (S. E. 314): 97. Avignon, Musee Calvet, E 37 = 371: 35. 94. Baia, C astello, 180093: 211. Baltimore, The Walters Art Museum, 4 8. 84: 86. 118. 54. 952: 220. Basle, Antikenmuseum und Sammlung Ludwig, 235: 210. Lu 237: 31. 94. Cades collection, Cl 1 L, 6 6: 96. Benevento, Museo Provinciale del Sannio, 1 934: 210. Berlin, A ltes Museum, A ntikensammlung, Sk 48: 93. Sk 80: 211. Sk. 594: 226. 1941: 95. 7101: 130. 134. F 9501: 96. Pergamonmuseum Misc. 10581: 207. Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Antikenmuseum, HZ 5151: 207. Boston, M  useum of Fine Arts, 03. 914: 220. 34. 113: 222.

Budapest, National Museum, 35. 1889. 2: 96. Cambridge, The Fitzwilliam Museum, GR 94. 1937: 96. Candia, National Archaeological Museum, H 448: 113. Cleveland, Museum of Art, 2004. 30: 27. 93. Constantinople, Archaeological Museum, 303: 225. I 4410: 223. Copenhague, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 1462: 116. 1651: 224. 2330: 95. Cordoba, Museo Arqueologico Provincial, 24. 628: 226. Cos, Archaeological Museum, 54: 72. 112. Cyrene, Museum, 14. 033 : 211. 14. 181: 212. 14. 184: 212. 14. 278: 222. 14. 353: 97. Damascus, National Museum, 10. 448 (4598): 225. Delphi, Archaeological Museum, 5431+2556+4233+2081+2455+155 5+2545+2432+1798: 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 232. Delus, Archaeological Museum A 4120: 139. 207. Dresden, StaatlicheKunstsammlungen, Skulpturensammlung, 197 (Hm 110): 31. 93. Hm 109: 99. Hm 304: 222. Florence, National Archaeological Museum, 248: 209. Uffizi, 3 9: 216. 131: 225. 185: 211. 214: 212. 238 : 211. 249: 96. 1008: 95. Villa La Pagliaiuola, 116: 29. 93. Geneve, Musee d’Art et d’Histoire, MF 1316: 95. Fol collection, 1609: 96. Genova – Pegli, Archaeological Museum, no. 590: 94. Gortys, Antiquarium, GO 230: 225. Grottaferrata, Museum of the Abbey of St. Nilus, 1128: 215. Kassel, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Br 662: 219. Lecce, Museo Provinciale S. Castromediano, 4563: 115. Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, 1822: 227. Lisbon, National Museum of Ancient Art, 745: 94. London, The British Museum, MRG 113 Reg. 1857. 12-20. 254: 20 MRG 114 Reg. 1857. 12-20. 246: 20 MRG 116 Reg. 1857. 12-20. 244. 283: 19 1000: 17 1001: 17 1045: 17 1047: 17 1051: 17 1052: 17. 18

Museographic Index

255

1054: 16 1055: 17 1056: 17 1058: 17 1075: 19. 20 1076: 19 1077: 20 1078: 20 1079: 21 1080: 21 1081: 19 1082: 19 1083: 19 1084: 19. 181. 219. 1085: 19. 220. 1086: 19 1259: 224. W 1311: 37. 94. W 1312: 45. 95. 1534: 93. 1540: 207. 1554: 215. NI 1914: 99. 1972. 4-2. 172 (261): 18 2060: 224. I. 2074: 226. 2743: 95. Lyon, M  usee de la Civilisation Gallo – Romaine, 2000-0-557: 98. Madrid, Museo del Prado, 12 – E: 113. 28 – E: 94. 89 – E: 97. Naples, National Archaeological Museum, 5 199: 207. 6199: 115. 6320: 210. 145078: 138. 207. 150381: 36. 94. Narbonne, A rchaeological Museum, 3 8 S: 215. New York, The Metropolitan Museum, 2 4. 97. 14: 42. 95. 50. 10: 219. Nicopolis, National Archaeological Museum, 6 : 211. Ostia, N ational Archaeological Museum, 1 20: 209. 171: 222. Oxford, The Ashmolean Museum, 2 0 M: 210. 59. 6: 222. Pamukkale, Archaeological Museum, storeroom, T 77. 10 + T 573: 223. Paris, B ibliotheque Nationale de France, B r 234: 220. Br 306: 74. 112. Musee du Louvre, B r 115: 219. Br 127: 220. MA 186 = MR 1012: 116. Ma 364 = MR 351: 116. Ma 377 = MR 304: 117. Ma 441 = MR 78: 41. 94. Ma 489 = MR 115: 97. Ma 529 = MR 154: 78. 115. Ma 545 = MR 140: 73. 113. Ma 556: 220.

256

Antonio Corso

Ma 653 = MR 248: 226. Ma 675 = MNC 887: 96. Ma 1062 = MR 362: 222. Ma 2305 = MR Suppl. 1: 97. Ma 4719 = MR 382: 116. Ma 4802 = MR 86: 97. Ma 4868 = MR 209: 116. Pisa, Camposanto, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, 1 963. S 7 (12): 95. Poznan, Muzeum Narodowe, A 604 = 384: 116. Regensburg, Museum, 116: 98. Rethymnon, Museum, 641: 210. Rhodes, Archaeological Museum, E 498: 112. 1010 / P. B. E. 1775: 93. Rome, Antiquarium forense, 39548: 211. Antiquarium on the Palatine, 12. 477: 96. 381644: 210. Atrium Vestae, 4 08046: 222. Centrale Montemartini, iii. 16: 231. Galleria Borghese, 183: 210. 597: 224. Museo dell’Arte Classica, Universita’ di Roma ‘La Sapienza’, 39 / 4453: 95. Palazzo dei Conservatori, 2526: 211. storeroom, 1155: 97. Palazzo Mattei di Giove, 12/00122321: 222. Quirinal Palace, DP 1136: 222. DP 1179: 224. Roman National Museum, 108595: 148. 211. 11618: 223. 126102: 223. 129185: 116. 2001480: 221. Vatican Museums, Braccio Nuovo, 2260: 222. 2262: 223. Galleria dei Candelabri, 215: 227. 2799: 227. Scala Simonetti, 2317: 207. Galleria delle Carte Geografiche, 65 = 2941: 62. 216. Galleria delle Statue, 264 (750): 32. 94. Museo Gregoriano Profano ex Lateranense, 9941: 97. 10121: 216. Museo Chiaramonti, 410: 216. 2244: 221. Storerooms, K 112: 210. Villa Albani, 1: 95. 9: 210. 952: 40. 94. 999: 97. Galleria del Canopo, 662: 95. Galleria della Leda 131: 207. Ruvo, Jatta Museum, 1290: 112. Sankt Petersburg, Ermitage, ii / 129: 209. A 61 = K 245 = W 68: 210. W 27 – A 166: 149. 211. Sardis, Museum, S 60. 11: 2601: 225. S 60. 29: 3007: 225.

Sevilla, A rchaeological Museum, 1 3. 114: 225. Side, Museum, 126: 226. 678: 227. Sofia, N ational Archaeological Museum, 8 410: 113. Stockholm, A ntiken Museet, Sk 15: 97. Royal Museum, N M Sk 13: 224. Syracuse, M  useo Archeologico Regionale, 6 422: 96. Tazoult, M  useum, S 2: 225. 73-13. 14: 226. Thebes, N ational Archaeological Museum, 4 1141: 210. The Hague, The Royal Coin Cabinet, 1956 / 819: 94. Thessaloniki, National Archaeological Museum, 9192: 224. Tibur, Hadrian’s villa, Antiquarium, 484+728+734+737+753+758

+787: 211. Trieste, Civici Musei di Storia ed Arte, 3136 = 327: 210. Tunis, National Museum of Bardo, 2650: 210. Turin, Museo di Antichita’, 257: 210. Verona, Archaeological Museum of the Roman theatre, 170: 170. 218. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, I 369: 223. I 931: 227. I 1248: 226. Vienne, Musee Archeologique Saint – Pierre, R 2001 – S – 072: 187. 223. Worcester, Art Museum, 1936. 36: 226. Wuerzburg, Martin von Wagner – Museum der Universitaet, H 5791: 50. 96. Xanten, Regionalmuseum, XAV 332 – L 51: 98.

Museographic Index

257

S T U D I A A R C H A E O L O G I C A 190   50 - Uhlenbrock, J.P.   51   52   53   54   55

- Cavagnaro Vanoni, L. Serra Ridgway, F.R. - Rallo, A. (a cura di) - Calcani, G. - Morandi, A. - Favaretto, I.

  56 - Bonghi Jovino, M. (a cura di)   57 - Strazzulla, M.J.   58 - Buranelli, F.   59   60   61   62

- Jongste P, F.B. - Medri, M. - Equini Schneider, E. - Milanese, M.

  63 - Deichmann, F.W.   64 - Ciaghi, S.   65 - Renzi, G.C. (a cura di)   66   67   68

- Marconi Cosentino, R., Ricciardi, L. - Szabò, M. - Calcagni, G.

  69   70   71   72   73

- Manzelli, V. - Scarfì, B.M. - Varone, A. - Pollak, L. (M.M. Guldan ed.) - Charalampidis, C.P.

  74   75   76   77

- Viacava, A. - Modonesi, D. - Dolce, R., Nota Santi, M. (a cura di) - Barbanera, M.

  78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86

- The Terrecotta Protomai from Gela: A Discussion of Local Style in Archaic Sicily, 1989. - Vasi etruschi a figure rosse. Dagli scavi della Fondazione Lerici nella necropoli dei Monterozzi a Tarquinia, 1989. - Le donne in Etruria, 1989. - Cavalieri di bronzo. La torma di Alessandro opera di Lisippo, 1989. - Epigrafia di Bolsena etrusca, 1990. - Arte antica e cultura antiquaria nelle collezioni venete al tempo della Serenissima, 1990. - Artigiani e botteghe nell’Italia preromana. Studi sulla coroplastica di area etrusco-laziale-campana, 1990. - Il principato di Apollo. Mito e propaganda nelle lastre «Campana» dal tempio di Apollo Palatino, 1990. - Gli scavi a Vulci della società Vincenzo Campanari - Governo Pontificio (18351837), 1991. - The Twelve Labours of Hercules on Roman Sarcophagi, 1992. - Terra sigillata tardo italica decorata, 1992. - Septimia Zenobia Sebaste, 1993. - Genova romana. Mercato e città dalla tarda età repub­blicana a Diocleziano dagli scavi del colle di Castello (Genova-S. Silvestro 2), 1993. - Archeologia Cristiana, 1993. - Le terrecotte figurate da Cales del Museo Nazionale di Napoli. Sacro stile committenza, 1993. - Monumenti e culture nell’Appennino in età romana. Atti del Convegno. Sestino, 12 nov. 1989, 1993. - Catacombe di Comodilla. Lucerne e altri materiali dalle gallerie 1, 8, 13, 1993. - Archaic terracottas di Boeotia, 1993. - L’antichità marginale. Continuità dell’arte provinciale ro­mana nel Rinascimento, 1993. - La policromia nella statuaria greca arcaica, 1994. - Studi di archeologia della x Regio in ricordo di Michele Tombolani, 1994. - Erotica pompeiana. Iscrizioni d’amore sui muri di Pom­pei, 1994. - Römische Memoiren, Künstler, Kunstliebhaber und Gelehrte (1893-1943), 1994. - The Dendrites in pre-Christian and Christian Historical­Literary Tradition and Iconography, 1994. - L’atleta di Fano, 1994. - Museo Maffeiano. Iscrizioni e rilievi sacri latini, 1995. - Dai Palazzi assiri, 1995.

- Il guerriero di Agrigento. Una probabile scultura fronto­nale del Museo di Agrigento e alcune questioni di ar­cheo­­logia «siceliota», 1995. - Le coppe megaresi in Italia, 1995. - Puppo, P. - Ambrogi, A. - Vasche di età romana in marmi bianchi e colorati, 1995. - Carafa, P. - Officine ceramiche di età regia. Produzione di ceramica in impasto a Roma dalla fine dell’viii alla fine del vi se­colo a.C., 1995. - Pavese, C.O. - L’Auriga di Mozia, 1996. - Cavagnaro vanoni, L. - Tombe tarquiniesi di età ellenistica. Catalogo di ventisei tombe a camera scoperte dalla Fondazione Lerici in lo­ca­­lità Calvario, 1996. - Rossetti Tella, C. - La terra sigillata tardo-italica decorata del Museo Nazio­nale Romano, 1996. - Bellelli, G.M., Bianchi, U. - Orientalia Sacra Urbis Romae. Dolichena et Heliopo­lita­na. (a cura di) ‑ Recueil d’études archeologiques et historico-religieuses sur les cultes cosmopolites d’origine commagénienne et syrienne, 1997. - Cambitoglou, A., Harari, M. - The Italiote Red-Figured Vases in the Museo Camillo Leo­ne at Vercelli, 1997. - Bettelli, M. - Roma. La città prima della città: i tempi di una nascita. La cronologia delle sepolture ad inumazione di Roma e del Lazio nella prima età del ferro, 1997.

S T U D I A A R C H A E O L O G I C A 190 - Edición y comentario de las inscripciones sobre mosaico de Hispania. Inscripciones no cristianas, 1997.   88 - De Cesare, M. - Le statue in immagine. Studi sulle raffigurazioni di sta­tue nella pittura vascolare greca, 1997.   89 - Spanu, M. - Keramos di Caria. Storia e monumenti, 1997.   90 - Rebecchi, F. (a cura di) - Spina e il delta padano. Riflessioni sul catalogo e sulla mostra ferrarese. Atti del convegno (Ferrara 1994), 1998.   91 - Bonanno, C. - I sarcofagi fittili della Sicilia, 1998.   92 - Sannibale, M. - Le armi della collezione Gorga al Museo Nazionale Ro­mano, 1998. - Le Ville Romane della x Regio (Venetia et Histria). Cata­logo e carta archeologica   93 - De Franceschini, M. del territorio dall’età repubbli­cana al tardo impero, 1998.   94 - Chrzanovski, L., - Lamps from Chersonesos in the State Historical Mu Zhuravlev, D. seum-Moscow, 1998.   95 - Giavarini, C. (a cura di) - Il Palatino. Area sacra sud-ovest e Domus Tiberia­na, 1998.   96 - Drago Troccoli, L. (a cura di) - Scavi e ricerche archeologiche dell’Università di Roma «La Sapienza», 1998.   97 - Zaccagnino, C. - Il thymiaterion nel mondo greco. Analisi delle fonti, tipo­logia, impieghi, 1998.   98 - Barich, B.E. - People, water and grain: The beginnings of domestica­tion in the Sahara and the Nile valley, 1998.   99 - Chiesa, F. - Demoni alati e grifi araldici. Lastre architettoniche fittili di Capua antica, 1998. 100 - Pensabene, P., Panella, C. (a cura di) - Arco di Costantino. Tra archeologia e archeometria,1999. 101 - Pensabene, P. - Le Terrecotte del Museo Nazionale Romano. Gocciolatoi e protomi da sime. Appendice: aggiornamento al catalo­go delle Antefisse, 1999. 102 - Genovese, G. - I santuari rupestri nella Calabria greca, 1999. 103 - Morandi, A. - Il cippo di Castelciès nell’epigrafia retica, 1999. 104 - Messineo, G. - La tomba dei Nasonii, 2000. 105 - Agostiniani, L., Nicosia F. - Tabula Cortonensis, 2000. 106 - de’ Spagnolis, M. - La Tomba del Calzolaio. Dalla necropoli monumentale romana di Nocera Superiore, 2000. 107 - Accardo, S. - Villae romanae nell’ager Bruttius. Il paesaggio rurale ca­la­­brese durante il dominio romano, 2000. 108 - Zampieri, G. - Claudia Toreuma. Giocoliera e mima. Il monumento funerario, 2000. 109 - Taylor, R. - Public Needs and Private Pleasures. Water Distribution, the Tiber River and the Urban Development of Ancient Rome, 2000. 110 - Monaco, M.C. - Ergasteria. Impianti artigianali ceramici ad Atene ed in Attica dal protogeometrico alle soglie dell’Ellenismo, 2000. 111 - de’ Spagnolis, M. - Pompei e la Valle del Sarno in epoca preromana: la cultura delle tombe a fossa, 2001. 112 - Pensabene, P. - Le terrecotte del Museo Nazionale Romano. II. Materiali dai depositi votivi di Palestrina: collezioni «Kircheriana» e «Palestrina», 2001. 113 - Ambrosini, L. - I thymiateria etruschi in bronzo di età tardo classica, alto e medio ellenistica, 2002. 114 - Ognibene, S. - Umm Al-Rasas: la chiesa di Santo Stefano ed il «pro­blema iconofobico», 2002. 115 - La Greca, F. (a cura di) - Fonti letterarie greche e latine per la storia della Lucania tirrenica, 2001. 116 - Varone, A. - Erotica Pompeiana. Love Inscriptions on the Walls of Pompeii, 2002. 117 - Giudice Rizzo, I. - Inquieti “commerci” tra uomini e dei. Timpanisti, Fineo A e B di Sofocle. Testimonianze letterarie ed iconografiche, itinerari di ricerca e proposte, 2002. 118 - Söderlind, M. - Late Etruscan Votive Heads from Tessennano. Production, Distribution, Sociohistorical Context, 2002. 119 - de’ Spagnolis, M. -­­­­­ La villa N. Popidi Narcissi Maioris in Scafati, suburbio orientale di Pompei, 2002. 120 -  Pieraccini, L.C. - Around the Hearth. Caeretan Cylinder-Stamped Braziers, 2003. 121 - Stibbe, C.M. - Trebenishte. The Fortunes of an Unusual Excavation, 2003. 122 - Attanasio, D. - Ancient White Marbles. Analysis and Identification by Paramagnetic Resonance Spectroscopy, 2003. 123 - Zampieri, G. - La Tomba di “san Luca Evangelista”. La cassa di piombo e l’area funeraria della Basilica di santa Giustina in Padova, 2003. 124 - Agati, M.L. - Il libro manoscritto. Introduzione alla codicologia, 2003. 125 - Barresi, P. - Province dell’Asia Minore. Costo dei marmi, architettura pubblica e committenza, 2003.   87 - Gómez Pallarés, J.

S T U D I A A R C H A E O L O G I C A 190 - L’ager nord-occidentale della città di Mutina. Il popolamento nel carpigiano e nella media pianura dalla romanizzazione al tardoantico-altomedioevo, 2004. 127 - Minetti, A. - Orientalizzante a Chiusi e nel suo territorio, 2004. - Il mito omerico di Dionysos ed i pirati tirreni in un documento da Nuceria Alfater128 - de’ Spagnolis, M. na, 2004. 129 - Nicotra, L. - Archeologia al femminile. Il cammino delle donne nella disciplina archeologica attraverso le figure di otto archeologhe classiche vissute dalla metà dell’Ottocento ad oggi, 2004. 130 - Conventi, M. - Struttura ed urbanistica delle città romane. Quaranta casi a confronto, 2004. 131 - Di Matteo, F. - La villa di Nerone a Subiaco. Il complesso dei Simbruina Stagna, 2004. 132 - Medas, S. - De rebus nauticis l’arte della navigazione nel mondo antico, 2004. 133 - Corso, A. - The Art of Praxiteles. The Development of Praxiteles’ workshop and its cultural tradition until the sculptors’ acme (364-1 BC), 2004. 134 - Ciarallo, A. - Flora Pompeiana, 2004. 135 - Morandi Tarabella, M. - Prosopographia etrusca I. Corpus, 1, Etruria meridionale, 2005. 136 - Ambrogi, A. - Labra di età romana in marmi bianchi e colorati, 2005. 137 - Giavarini, C. - La Basilica di Massenzio. Il monumento, i materiali, le strutture e la stabilità, 2005. 138 - Carè, A. - L’Ornato architettonico della Basilica di Massenzio, 2005. 139 - Sciacca, F. - Patere baccellate in bronzo. Oriente, Grecia, Italia in età orientalizzante, 2005. 140 - Giavarini, C. - The Basilica of Maxentius. Monument, Materials, Construction and Stabillity, 2005. 141 - Zampieri, C. - I sepolcri padovani di Santa Giustina. Il sarcofago 75-1879 del Victoria and Albert Museum di Londra e altri sarcofagi della Basilica di Santa Giustina in Padova, 2006. 142 - Bellelli, V. - La tomba “principesca” dei Quattordici Ponti nel contesto di Capua arcaica, 2006. 143 - Pesando, F. - Gli ‘ozi’ di Ercole. Residenze di lusso a Pompei ed Erco Guidobaldi, M.P. lano, 2006. 144 - Cuomo di Caprio, N. - Ceramica in archeologia 2. Antiche tecniche di lavorazione e moderni metodi di indagine. Nuova edizione ampliata, 2007. 145 - Attanasio D., Brilli M., Ogle, N. - The Isotopic Signature of Classical Marbles, 2006. 146 - Bonfante, L., Fowlkes, B. (eds.) - Classical Antiquities at New York University, 2006. 147 - Pandolfini Angeletti, M. - Archeologia in Etruria meridionale. Atti delle Giornate di studio in ricordo di Ma (a cura di) rio Moretti, Civita Castellana, 14-15 novembre 2003, 2006. 148 - Equizzi, R. - Palermo San Martino delle Scale, la collezione archeologica. Storia della collezione e catalogo della ceramica, 2006. 149 - Petraccia, M.F. (a cura di) - Camillo Ramelli e la cultura antiquaria dell’Ottocento, (Sentinum II) 2006. 150 - Cavallini, M., Gigante, G.E. - De Re Metallica, dalla produzione antica alla copia (a cura di) moderna, 2006. 151 - De Carolis, E. - Il mobile a Pompei ed Ercolano. Letti, tavoli, sedie e armadi. Contributo alla tipologia dei mobili della prima età imperiale, 2007. 152 - Giudice, G. - Il tornio, la nave, le terre lontane. Ceramografi attici in Magna Grecia nella seconda metà del V sec. a.C. Rotte e vie di distribuzione, 2007. 153 - Corso, A. - The Art of Praxiteles II. The Mature Years, 2007. 154 - Caprioli, F. - Vesta Aeterna. L’ Aedes Vestae e la sua decorazione architettonica, 2007. 155 - Thorn, D.M. - The Four Season of Cyrene, 2007. 156 - De Miranda, A. - Water Architecture in the Lands of Syria. The Water-Wheels, 2007. 157 - Melfi, M. - I santuari di Asclepio in Grecia. I, 2007. 158 - Marchesini, S. - Prosopographia etrusca. II, Studia, 1, Gentium Mobilitas, 2007. 159 - Luni, M. (a cura di) - Domus di Forum Sempronii. Decorazione e arredo, 2007. 160 - Montanaro Andrea, C. - Ruvo di Puglia e il suo territorio. Le necropoli. I corredi funerari tra la documentazione del XIX secolo e gli scavi moderni, 2007. 161 - Thorn, D. M., Thorn, J.C. F.S.A - A Gazetteer of the Cyrene Necropolis, 2008. 162 - Medri, M. (a cura di) - Sentinum. Ricerche in corso I, 2008. 163 - Medri, M. (a cura di) - Sentinum 295 a.C. - Sassoferrato 2006. 2300 anni dopo la battaglia. Una città romana tra storia e archeologia, 2008. 164 - Pisani, M. - Camarina. Le terrecotte figurate e la ceramica da una fornace di V e IV secolo a.C., 2008. - Il Pittore di Arpi. Mito e società nella Daunia del tardo IV secolo a.C., 2008. 165 - Todisco, L. 126 - Corti, C.

S T U D I A A R C H A E O L O G I C A 190 166 - Agati, M.L. 167 - De Puma, R.D. 168 - Pedrucci, G.

- Il libro manoscritto. Da oriente a occidente. Per una codicologia comparata, 2009. - Art in Roman Life: Villa to Grave, 2009. - Il culto di Cibele frigia e la Sicilia. Santuari rupestri ed iconografia della dea, 2009. - Nostoi. Tradizioni eroiche e modelli mitici nel meridione d’Italia, 2009. - Icone del mondo antico, 2009.

169 - Genovese, G. 170 - Harari, M., Paltineri, S., Robino, M. (a cura di) 171 - Barich, B.E. - Antica Africa. Alle origini delle società, 2009. - Theodor Mommsen e il Lazio antico. Giornata di Studi in memoria dell’illustre 172 - Mannino, F., Mannino, M., Maras, D.F. (a cura di) storico, epigrafista e giurista, 2009. 173 - liberati, A.M., Silverio, E. - Servizi segreti in Roma antica. Informazioni e sicurezza dagli initia Urbis all’Impero universale, 2010. 174 - Balice, M. - Libia. Gli scavi italiani: 1922-1937: restauro, ricostruzione o propaganda?, 2010. 175 - Pensabene, P. (a cura di) - Piazza Armerina. Villa del Casale e la Sicilia tra tardoantico e medioevo, 2010. 176 - De Miranda, A. - L’Hammam nell’Islam Occidentale tra VIII e XIV sec., 2010. 177 - Corso, A. - The Art of Praxiteles III. The Advanced Maturity of the Sculptor, 2010. 178 - Serra Ridgway F.R., - Pithoi stampigliati ceretani. Una classe originale di ceramica etrusca, 2010. Pieraccini, C. (a cura di) 179 - Tusa, S. (a cura di) - Selinunte, 2010. 180 - Sposito, A. - Teatro ellenistico di Morgantina, 2011. 181 - Pitzalis, F. - La volontà meno apparente, 2011. 182 - Ascalone, E. - Glittica Elamita, 2011. 183 - Anguissola, A. - Difficillima Imitatio. Immagine e lessico delle copie tra Grecia e Roma, 2012. 184 - Montanaro, A.C. - Ambre figurate. Amuleti e ornamenti dalla Puglia preromana, 2012. 185 - Lambrugo, G. - Profumi di argilla, 2013. 186 - Bellelli, V. (a cura di) - Origini degli Etruschi. Storia archeologia antropologia (Le), 2012. 187 - Trofimova, A. - Imitatio Alexandri in the Hellenistic Art, 2012. 188 - Harari, M., Paltineri, S. (a cura di) - Segni e colore. Dialoghi sulla pittura tardoclassica ed ellenistica, 2012. 189 - Wade Meade, C. - Seat of the world. The Palatine of Ancient Rome, 2013.

Finito di stampare in Roma nel mese di maggio 2013 per conto de «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER dalla Tipograf Srl – Via Costantino Morin 26/a