CC BY
33
A. Corso
Concerning the catalogue of Praxiteles' exhibition held in the Louvre
The aim of this paper is to analyze the 13 essays included in the catalogue of the first exhibition which has ever been organized on Praxiteles:
Praxitele, sous la direction d'ALAIN PASQUIER et de JEAN-LUC MARTINEZ, Paris, Louvre 2007, pp. 456.
I shall summary the contents of this book and make my comments on the assertions of the authors of these essays.
Given the fame of the museum publishing this catalogue - the Louvre - it is likely that many readers and even scholars will take the opinions asserted in this book as facts.
On the contrary, I anticipate here, and I shall demonstrate throughout this paper, that the competence of the two editors of the volume in the Praxitelean field is blatantly insufficient and that several assertions of these two scholars are below the scientific level and often very idiosyncratic.
In particular, the continuous attacks and even offences against my publications in the field will be found not to be justified from a scientific point of view.
The order in which I shall consider the essays of the catalogue is the same in which these articles appear in the book.
Alain PASQUIER, Exposer Praxitele, pp. 12-15.
In this introduction, Pasquier explains why the decision to make an exhibition on this sculptor has been taken: this is due partly to the circumstance that the Louvre is rich in copies of types attributed to the artist, partly to the fact that the Athenian sculptor had not been considered in previous exhibitions on ancient masters and finally to the widespread disagreement existing among contemporary scholars, on the general concept of Praxitelean art as well as on single attributions of sculptural types to the master. Then, he outlines the history of the research on Praxiteles, from Winckelmann to Furtwaengler, Rizzo, Ridgway, Despinis, and Moreno. In this section, Pasquier distances himself from the minimalist view of Ridgway, who accepts only the attribution of the Cnidia to the master. He also condemns my own reconstruction of the life and works of Praxiteles, as allegedly based on imagination rather than
evidence. I have to stress that this is hardly true. On the contrary, whoever reads my essays on the master realizes that I used all available literary and epigraphic data in order to outline his life, moreover taking into account also the cultural environment (philosophers, writers, etc.) in which he lived. My recognition of echoes and copies derived from Praxitelean works is based on very detailed evaluations of anatomy and drapery of the figures analyzed and on their comparison with other creations, whose attributions to Praxiteles are well-established. Only when all of this multifarious study encourages an attribution, I dare to suggest it. I acknowledge that several of these attempts remain hypothetical, but they are the result of a serious study and should not be despised.
On the contrary, Pasquier supports Despinis' recognition of a head in the Museum of the Acropolis as the original head of the Artemis Brauronia, while he rejects Moreno's opinion that the Satyr of Mazara is an original made by our master.
IDEM, Elements de biographie, pp. 18-25.
In this second contribution, Pasquier analyzes the evidence which may shed some light on the life and family of Praxiteles. He rejects the ancient information on the collaboration of Praxiteles to the enterprises of the Maussoleum in Halicarnassus and of the altar of the Artemision in Ephesus, but accepts that the master was one of the 300 or so wealthy Athenians who had to pay the public dues. Also, Lauter's date of his death around 326 BC is regarded convincing.
On the contrary, the author is skeptical on the historicity of the gossip concerning Praxiteles' love to Phryne as well as on the possibility to place the love affair in the context of his life.
A mistake is Pasquier's assertion that Phryne offered to rebuild the walls of Thespiae with her own money in 312 BC. This episode is referred to the walls of Thebes and is dated to 315 BC according to Athenaeus (13. 591 d).
Concerning Praxiteles' signatures on bases supporting statues, the author underlines that they reveal a different face of the sculptor, concerned with iconic statues, versus the image of the artist as agalmatopoios which is handed down by ancient writers.
Pasquier rejects Picard's theory that Praxiteles was an itinerant sculptor, stressing that he worked mainly in his own workshop. Moreover, he is skeptical about Praxiteles initiation to the Eleusinian mysteries but accepts the suggestion that the sculptor was close to Plato. However, he rejects my conclusion that our sculptor wanted to
attain the absolute beauty of the goddess with the Cnidia although this assertion is found in the epigrammatic tradition (Anthologia Graeca 16. 259-163, 166, 168-170).
Jean-Luc MARTINEZ, Les oeuvres attribuees a Praxitele, pp. 28-59.
In an introduction to this chapter, the French scholar endorses the skepticism of Ridgway and her Bryn Mawr School towards the lists of works of ancient sculptors taken from written sources and asserts that the written tradition on Praxiteles has been overvalued.
He wrongly states (p. 29) that the "philological archaeology" got this name because it is primarily based on literary sources. On the contrary, this denomination is due to its methodology, consisting in the consideration of Roman copies in order to discovery lost Greek originals: this approach has been regarded similar to the use of late manuscripts in order to establish the lost archetype of a literary work and for this reason it has been denominated "philological"1. Then, Martinez lists 74 works attributed to the sculptor. This oeuvre is divided among 4 categories:
1. Works identified with a high degree of probability;
2. Works whose identification is possible but far from certain;
3. Unidentified works;
4. Erga with a dubious or wrong Praxitelean pedigree.
The Cnidia is the first statue of the first category. Martinez' opinion that the King Nicomedes who offered to buy the Cnidia is the third king with this name is hardly convincing, since Nicomedes is mentioned without specification by Pliny (7. 127 and 36. 20) and must be the most famous king with this name, i. e. the first, the founder of Nicomedia. Probably, he thought to set up this masterpiece in the newly founded capital of his kingdom.
This scholar asserts that the inscribed base found in Cnidus (Muller-Dufeu 1446) could have been the new, middle Hellenistic base of the statue. This opinion is impossible because I can guarantee that no socket for the plinth exists on the upper face of the base. Perhaps the base supported a small gift from a lover of the Cnidia. Martinez seems unaware of the interpretation of the dedication as
1 On the concept of 'philologische Archaeologie' and its meaning, see R. Bianchi Bandinelli, Klassische Archaeologie, Munich (1978) 49-71.
addressed to Athena that was suggested by Blumel2. Beside the Cnidia, the well identified Praxitelean works are the Sauroctonus, the Artemis Brauronia, the Hermes of Olympia, the Apollinean triad in Mantinea - of which only slabs of the base survive - the Leto with Chloris in Argus, represented on coins of the city, and finally the Apollinean Triad in Megara, which is also exhibited on the local coins.
Concerning the Artemis Brauronia, Martinez (p. 33) asserts that, in the sanctuary of this goddess on the Acropolis of Athens, there was no temple: he seems unaware that, according to Despinis, a temple did exist in that sanctuary3. Concerning the Hermes of Olympia, he thinks that it is unclear whether the label on the fragmentary variation in Verona reads 'Praxiteles' or 'Pasiteles'. However, the excellent photo of the label provided by me in an article a few years ago clarifies that the correct reading is Praxiteles4: this photo has been regarded very clear in the 'Bulletin Epigraphique'5, so it is no longer possible to support the reading Pasiteles.
In the works whose identification is far from certain, the Satyr from the Tripodes Street is included: Martinez does not believe that the copies of the Pouring Satyr derived from this creation and the fact that three miniature reproductions of the pouring type came from the area of this street6 does not look to him as important evidence which confirms the usual identification. The Satyr seen by Pausanias in Megara, the statues of Dionysus, Methe, and the Periboetos Satyr cited by Pliny are also included among the statues with uncertain identification. Martinez wrongly asserts that Pliny located the latter three statues in Rome, but the writer from Comum does not state that fact.
Other Praxitelean works regarded of uncertain identification are the Dionysus in Elis described by Callistratus, the two Eleusinian triads, the Kidnapping of Persephone, and the Catagusa.
2 See W. Blümel, Die Inschriften von Knidos, Bonn (1992) no. 178.
3 See G. Despinis, 'Zum Athener Brauronion', W. Hoepfner (ed.), Kult und Kultbauten auf der Akropolis, Berlin (1997), 209-217, fig. 1.
4 See A. Corso, 'The Hermes of Praxiteles', NumAntCl 25 (1996), 131153, fig. 21.
5 See REG 110 (1997), 497, no. 80.
6 See A. Corso, The Art of Praxiteles, Rome (2004), 283, nt. 477.
Martinez criticizes (p. 36) my interpretation of catagusa (scil.: Proserpina, just mentioned above) in Pliny 34. 69 as "Persephone in her descent to the Underworld": in his opinion in that case it should be necessary to correct catagusa in anagusa. This is not correct because ago expresses movement and kata specifies this movement as a descent (see Liddell and Scott, svv.): so, my interpretation makes perfect sense. The French scholar also criticizes my opinion that a type of Persephone holding two torches is inspired by Praxiteles' catagusa, on the ground that the draperies of the figures representing the goddess in this action differ from each other, but I do not regard these figures as exact copies, but as echoes of this Praxitelean creation. In fact, the general concept of the figures fits well into Praxiteles' representation of young goddesses as fresh teenagers and his re-interpretation of mythical episodes as beautiful tales. Moreover, the anatomy of the head, the general drawing of the drapery, and the silhouette of the body of these figures are very close to the corresponding features of other Praxitelean creations7. The Triad of Thespiae is also regarded of uncertain interpretation: Martinez asserts that the Aspremont-Lynden/ Arles type head is an artificial type, since too many differences distinct each of these heads. I cannot agree with this opinion: in fact, the basic features of the anatomy of the head, the directions of the wavy, thin locks of the hair and the band are so similar to justify their derivation from a unique prototype. However, probably, these heads are copies taken at some distance from the original, which could explain the small differences among them.
The Archer Eros described by Callistratus, the Eros of Parion, the Twelve Gods in Megara, the Hera teleia and the Rhea of Plataeae, the choregic monument with Dionysus and Nikai, the athla of Heracles on the Herakleion of Thebes, the Tyche in Megara, the Artemis of Anticyra, the Aphrodite on Cos, the Stephanusa, the Pseliumene, the Opora, the Phryne in Delphi complete Martinez catalogue of Praxitelean erga with uncertain identification. This scholar wrongly asserts (pp. 38, 54, 352-353) that the Eros of Parion was bronze, while this Eros was marble, included among the marble statues of the master by Pliny 36.22-23.
The list of works which cannot be identified in the visual evidence begins with the Triad of Hera, Athena and Hebe in
Mantinea. Martinez rejects my suggestion that Praxiteles' Athena may have been close to the Arezzo type. However, the attribution of the Arezzo/ Vescovali types to the workshop of Praxiteles is communis opinio8, because of the closeness of these types to two Muses of the Mantinean slabs both in the general configuration and in the folding of the drapery: the conclusion that Praxiteles' Athena in Mantinea should be seen in this iconographical tradition, which was certainly reused in Mantinea by Praxiteles workshop, as it is possible to argue from the slabs of Mantinea, is just plain common sense.
Praxiteles' Apollo and Poseidon brought to Rome, his Maenads, Thyiads, Caryatids, and Sileni are also regarded as unknown works. Martinez criticizes my suggestion to regard the Thyiads of the western pediment of the temple of Apollo in Delphi as indebted to Praxiteles' creation with the same subject. However, it is again just common sense to suppose that the Athenian sculptors Praxias and Androsthenes, when they carved pediment statues of Thyiads, did not forget the previous group with the same subject of their great fellow citizen Praxiteles, who at the time was old and probably at the peak of his glory.
The French scholar also criticizes my suggestion that the Sileni of the type of the Sosibius crater depend on Praxiteles' Sileni, but my conclusion has been the result of a very analytical study of general configuration, anatomy, and nebris of these neo-Attic figures as well as of a very specific comparison with the corresponding features of other works, whose attribution to Praxiteles is well established9. Therefore it deserves a more careful consideration.
Martinez also criticizes my identification of Praxiteles' group of Pan, Danae, the Nymphs, in the Kairo type of Pan, in the Marbury Hall/ Barracco/ Delus/ Cos types of Nymphs and in the Sangiorgi type of Danae. However, the styles of these figures are blatantly interrelated and therefore likely to depend on the same group. Again, also in this case, a very analytical stylistic comparison10 obliges the careful scholar to suggest the dependence from a Praxitelean group.
8 See especially W. Schürmann and A. Mantis, 'Der Typus der Athena Vescovali und seine Umbildungen', Antike Plastik 27 (2000), 37-90.
9 See Corso (nt. 6), 167-172.
10 See Corso (nt. 6), 289-308.
The statues of Peitho and Paregoros in Megara, of Agathos Daimon and Agathe Tyche in Rome, of Aphrodite in bronze, of Trophonius in Lebadia are also regarded as entirely unknown.
Concerning the Aphrodite in Alexandria of Caria, Martinez criticizes my suggestion that the Leconfield head should be seen in the tradition of this creation. However, that Aphrodite is the last made by our master, since Alexandria in Caria probably was founded by Alexander in 334 BC, and therefore it seems to be common sense to regard the late-Praxitelean or just post-Praxitelean Leconfield head indebted to the last definition of the goddess by this master. The considerations that Alexandria of Caria was close to Cnidus, therefore that the new town likely wanted an Aphrodite from Praxiteles similar to the famous Cnidia and that the Leconfield head is just a variation of the head of the Cnidia strengthen my point of view.
Then, the portraits of Cliocratia, Archippe, Chaerippe, Thrasymachus, inscribed bases from Delus, and Olbia Pontica are listed.
Concerning the Diadumenus described by Callistratus (11), my recognition of the type in the Chigi Eros is regarded wrong. I wish to stress that Callistratus describes only statues of deities and heroes, because he wants to demonstrate that the divine or heroic personalities represented dwell inside their statues. Since, in his description of Praxiteles' Diadumenus, he takes expressions from Plato's description of Eros, it is likely that the statue was an Eros Diadumenus. Since the style of the statue described by the neosophist corresponds with that of the Chigi Eros, whose anatomy is Praxitelean and whose style is found already in the late classical 'Kleinkunst'11, my conclusion is logical.
Concerning Praxiteles' statue of a knight standing near his horse in Athens, Martinez does not believe that the Attic funerary reliefs which, from around 370 BC, bear the same basic iconography, are influenced by the work of the master. In this case, he misses the 'quality' factor. In particular, the Tyszkiewicz Attic relief in Moscow with this iconography is blatantly vivified by the influence of a great master12.
The bronze statues brought to Rome near the temple of the Happiness are also regarded unknown, as well as the two statues of
11 See Corso (nt. 6), 322-323.
12 See Corso (nt. 6), 125-130.
the weeping woman and of the laughing courtesan. Martinez asserts not to understand why I detect the styles of these statues in the late classical imagery.
I am happy to explain. The weeping women on the homonymous sarcophagus from Sidon are close in their general style and in the drapery to the Eirene of Cephisodotus. One of these weeping women is very close to one Muse of Mantinea: therefore, the conclusion that her style is indebted to a creation of Praxiteles when he was young gains momentum. The laughing courtesan is recognized in the late classical vase paintings, because these representations of the subject depend from a common prototype and their style is very similar to that of the Arles Aphrodite13.
The fourth category - the dubious attributions - includes the Eros of Messana, the Charioteeer on a quadriga by Calamis, sculptures in late classical altar of Artemis in Ephesus, works in the Maussoleum of Halicarnassus, the Niobids, the Hermes Dikephalos, the Eros Keraunophoros, and the Tyrant-slayers. Martinez asserts that, since the altar of Artemis in Ephesus was made toward 330 BC, Praxiteles could not have worked for this enterprise. However, if Praxiteles died around 326 BC, he could have made sculptures set up in this altar. Equally, the skepticism of this scholar on the collaboration of Praxiteles to the Maussoleum seems not acceptable, since the free standing sculptures from the southern side of this monument reveal Praxitelean styles and anatomy.
Pliny's assertion that Praxiteles made a group of Tyrant-slayers (34. 70) is rejected, but the circumstance that Timotheus, the political patron of Cephisodotus the Elder, used the Tyrant-slayers for his own propaganda and that another group of Harmodius and Aristogeiton by Antignotus was made in the age of Demetrius Phalereus, suggest that a Praxitelean interpretation of the subject did exist.
Martinez list of fake signatures includes that of the Negroni herm, which supported a head of Eubuleus, another two on a base from Pergamum, another from the Roman Forum, that on the Venus Richelieu, that on a bust of Ibycus, that on one of the Quirinal Dioscuri in Rome, alleged signatures on a statue in the Prado, and on a stele of a certain Eutychides.
Martinez wrongly asserts that the signature on the Richelieu Aphrodite is in Latin, while it is in Greek. The mention of Praxiteles
in the funerary inscription of Eutychides is not a signature, because our sculptor is cited only as a term of comparison, in order to stress the high quality of the marble sculptor Eutychides, who died young .
Martinez forgets to include in his lists the bronze Aphrodite made by Praxiteles for Sparta, described by Choricius (Declamatio-nes 8), the Leto set up in Myra, known thanks to Codex Vaticanus Graecus (989. 110), the Sleeping Eros (see Scholiast R to Pausanias, 144 Spiro). Moreover, he does not seem aware of the base with the Praxiteles label from the Forum Pacis in Rome (see SEG 51 (2001) 1442).
Finally, he claims (p. 47, nt. 154) that Praxiteles' signature on the base of the Acanthus Column in Delphi does not exist, since it has been read only by Vatin and me. This is not correct: the reading is supported also by De Waele15 as well as by K. Seaman16.
Philippe JOCKEY, Praxitele et Nicias, pp. 62-81.
This scholar traces the history of the debate on the painting of sculptures in classical Greece from the beginning of the 19th c. onwards. He focuses his attention on the circumlitio applied by the painter Nicias on statues of Praxiteles and regards the painting of the drapery on a copy of the small Herculanensis from Delus and of the hair of the Hermes of Olympia as possible traces of the painting applied by Nicias on Praxitelean statues.
He regards as obvious that the Hermes of Olympia is a Roman copy, probably ignoring that most scholars now consider the statue as an original.
Concerning the problem of what the ganosis was, he is agnostic.
Alain PASQUIER, Praxitele aujourd'hui? La question des originaux, pp. 82-117.
The author surveys the most frequent attributions of original late-classical sculptures to Praxiteles.
He rejects the attribution of sculptures of the late classical altar of Artemis in Ephesus to Praxiteles, based on the explicit assertion of Artemidorus in Strabo 14. 23. 641, for chronological considerations:
14 See my article 'Iscrizione di un artista greco da Venezia', Archeologia Veneta 8 (1985), 201-207.
15 See J. De Waele, Revue Archeologique (1993), 123-127.
16 This scholar informed me of her reading of Praxiteles' signature.
the altar, having been completed in 334 BC or shortly after that date, should be too late for the chronology of Praxiteles. This is not correct since Praxiteles died around 326 BC, so he could have been able to deliver sculptures to this sanctuary in the late 330s BC.
Equally, he rejects any attribution of sculptures of the Maussoleum to Praxiteles, despite Vitruvius (7. praef. 13) assertion that our master accomplished sculptures for this monument. In my opinion, the statues from the southern side of the Maussoleum are Praxitelean in concept and anatomy and therefore it is possible that Timotheus made the architectural sculpture on this side, while Praxiteles delivered the statues set up there.
Pasquier also rejects Moreno's attribution of a fighting Heracles from the Capitoline Museums to the master, as well as the carving by our sculptor of the Acanthus Column in Delphi. Concerning the latter monument, he wrongly asserts that Vatin and I read the signature of the sculptor on the W side of the base, while we read the inscription on the E side!
Finally, Pasquier ignores the compelling stylistic observations forwarded by me 7, which place the dancing girls of the column close to the style of the workshop of Cephisodotus the Elder in the period of the Eirene (middle 370s BC). Likewise, he ignores my observation that the acanthus with long leaves of the column favors an early date, before the Corithian capitals of the temple of Athena Alea in Tegea.
He also dismisses Moreno's attribution of the Satyr from Mazara. Concerning the attribution of the bust of the so-called Eubuleus to Praxiteles, he appears agnostic. He is more confident in rejecting the attribution of the choregic monument in Athens (Nat. Museum 1463) to our workshop. On the contrary, he keeps the attribution of the slabs of Mantinea to this atelier and states that the Youth from Marathon should be given to the ergasterion of the two sons of Praxiteles.
Concerning the Leconfield head, Pasquier leaves the problem of its relation with Praxiteles open and criticizes my suggestion to see the head in the tradition of the Carian Aphrodite of the master. However, since the head looks late Praxitelean or just post-Praxitelean and certainly influenced by the Cnidia, it is just common sense to link this Aphrodite to the last statue of the goddess made by our master, not earlier than 334 BC, for a city which was not far from Cnidus.
The conclusion is left open also for the Aberdeen head.
Concerning the Hermes of Olympia, Pasquier still believes that the indentation in Greek footwear appears only toward 300 BC, although examples of this type of sandals are known from the second quarter of the 4th c. BC18. Moreover, he asserts that the label on the tree trunk from Verona reads either Praxiteles or Pasiteles, but this doubt is excluded by the photo published by me in 1996: the only possible reading, on this variation of the Hermes, is Praxiteles19. The author believes that the Hermes is a Roman copy.
On the contrary, Pasquier endorses Despinis' identification of the head of Praxiteles' Artemis Brauronia with a head in the Acropolis Museum. He should have read my objections to this identification20.
IDEM, Les Aphrodites de Praxitele, pp. 130-201.
The scholar traces the development of the imagery of Aphrodite from the late 5th c. BC until the late Hellenistic period and, of course is particularly concerned with the Praxitelean statues of the goddess. In a short paragraph devoted to early classical statues of deities, he still regards the Artemision god as a Poseidon, despite a growing consensus that the statue was a Zeus21.
The endowment of Aphrodite with transparent drapery, which characterizes the rich style, is regarded as the beginning of the trend which will eventually lead to the full nakedness of the goddess. In the first decades of the 4th c. BC, the Venus Armata of Epidaurus and the Aspremont-Lynden/ Arles type of head are regarded as the landmark creations of this process.
Concerning the latter creation, Pasquier follows the minority point of view of Croissant, who regards the creation of this head as pre-Praxitelean, against the common opinion that the work is an early creation by Praxiteles, and states that this head topped the body of the Brazza' type of Aphrodite. My objections to this opinion are ignored22. He sees the Ariadne on the crater in Athens (Nat.
18 See my article 'Small Nuggets about late-classical Sculpture', NumAntCl 29 (2000), 125-161.
19 Corso (nt. 4), 152, fig. 21. See also REG 110 (1997), 497, no. 80.
20 See A. Corso, 'Praxiteles and the Parian Marble', D. Schilardi (ed.), Paria Lithos, Athens (2000), 227-236, esp. 233.
21 See, e. g., C. Piteros, 'O Dias tou Artemisiou', D. Pandermalis (ed.), Agalma, Thessaloniki (2001), 99-121.
22 See Corso (nt. 6), 265-266, nt. 442.
Museum, 12592) as an echo of the Brazza' Aphrodite. The latter opinion is unacceptable, because the Brazza' goddess has her upper body draped, while Ariadne's chest is bare! In fact, this figure is a translation of the Arles type of Aphrodite in vase painting.
Concerning the Arles Aphrodite, Pasquier rejects the opinion of several American scholars that the creation is Augustan and accepts the common opinion that the type is the copyist tradition of Praxiteles' Aphrodite set up in Thespiae. However, he ignores the miniature copy of the Arles type of Aphrodite found in Thespiae23, which of course strengthens this suggestion.
Concerning the statue of Arles, he criticizes (p. 150, nt. 22) my opinion that the head of the goddess turned to her right, not to her left, based on the study of the musculature of the neck, without stating why this is the case. It should be noted that the headless copy of the Arles type in the Capitoline Museums has the neck nearly fully preserved and it clearly shows that the head, in a three/quarters position, was turned right.
Concerning the other Praxitelean statues of Aphrodite and of Phryne, he rejects Furtwaengler's suggestion to recognize the Phryne of Delphi in the Townley type, ignoring my analytical demonstration in favor of this conclusion24, as well as my attempt to see the Leconfield head in the tradition of the Carian Aphrodite, made by this master. However, it is just logical to assume that this late-Praxitelean or just post-Praxitelean head of the goddess has to do with the last definition of Aphrodite made by our sculptor. He recognizes the Stephanusa in the Thera type, the Pseliumene, as usual, in the Pourtales type.
Concerning the Cnidia, he leaves open the question whether the statue stood in the round temple discovered in Cnidus. He regards my reconstruction of the historical environment explaining the creation of the Cnidia as due to imagination rather than facts. However, it should be noted that Maussolus, the satrap of Caria which included Cnidus, wanted his satrapy to be endowed with works of the greatest Greek sculptors of the time. Moreover, the Cnidian Eudoxus changed the constitution of Cnidus, in the same time when the synoecism of the city took place: it is obvious that this change determined the need of new statues. Finally, the family of the
23 See Corso (nt. 6), 266, fig. 108.
24 See my article 'The Monument of Phryne at Delphi', NumAntCl 26 (1997) 123-150.
Athenian general Timotheus was both linked to the sanctuary of the Cnidian Aphrodite and to the workshop of Cephisodotus the Elder, who made his Eirene in celebration of the victorious peace secured by the politician25. Therefore, it is just logical to place the creation of the Cnidia in this context.
In p. 140, in the caption of fig. 99, Pasquier asserts that the late-classical head from Cnidus in the British Museum (GR 1859.1226.74) is an early variation of the Cnidia: he should have cited me, since I have stressed this fact already in 200426. Pasquier thinks that it is impossible to decide, between the two main types of Cnidia existing in the copyist tradition, i.e. the Belvedere and the Colonna, which one is the most faithful to the Praxitelean original. In p. 151, nt. 68, he asserts that I regard the Belvedere type of the Cnidia as a "reprise" of the original: this is not correct. I have never stated that fact, on the contrary, I asserted that the Belvedere type offers the most faithful copyist tradition of the Cnidia27.
Pasquier also does not decide whether the Cnidia is indebted to the Platonic environment. However, the attempt by the artist to overcome the mimesis of earthly semblances, in order to define a "wise" form of the goddess, is argued by the above listed epigrams of the Greek Anthology: two of them (16.160-161) are attributed to the philosopher.
Concerning the fortune of the Cnidia, Pasquier focuses his study on the Capitoline type, of which he lists the different attributions and dates asserted by scholars: he wrongly gives the recognition of Cephisodotus the Younger's Aphrodite in the Capitoline type to Andreae, while the demonstration in favor of this conclusion is, in fact, mine28 and Andreae just endorsed it. Then, he surveys the Medici type, the Troad one and the Esquilinum one, repeating the usual dates and ideas, without original suggestions29.
25 Evidence supporting these statements in A. Corso, 'Il sostrato storico-politico dell'Afrodite Cnidia', ASAIA 82 (2004), 343-365.
26 See Corso (nt. 25), 358-359, fig. 6.
27 See A. Corso, 'The Cnidian Aphrodite', I. Jenkins and G. B. Waywell (eds.), Sculpture and Sculptors of Caria and the Dodecannese, London (1997), 91-98.
28 See A. Corso, 'L'Afrodite Capitolina e l'arte di Cefisodoto il Giovane', NumAntCl 21 (1992), 131-157.
29 Concerning the Medici type, it is remarkable that Pasquier seems to ignore the attribution of the original statue to Lysippus: see R. Cittadini,
In several entries devoted to Praxitelean Aphrodites included in the exhibition, Pasquier dates these copies not to a specific period (for example, to the Julio-Claudian period or to the Hadrian age), but to the "Roman Imperial age" (see pp. 164, 168, 170, 172, 175, 184, 188): indeed, a comprehensive and all-inclusive date! In other cases, the dates given are "1st-3rd century A.D." (pp. 190 and 191), that is from the period of August to the empire of Diocletian!
Concerning the entry on the Belvedere Aphrodite, the author appears to ignore that the statue is early Antonine and that two other heads of the Cnidia (in the Hermitage and from Italica) are attributed to the same workshop: in fact, these three heads share the same wide drill channels among the locks of their hair30.
Concerning the copy of the Cnidia from Chiragan, the author does not contextualize the copy in this Roman villa and does not write about the wealth of copies from opera nobilia which were displayed there. This way of approaching Roman copies, without consideration for their architectural and visual contexts, is, in my opinion, no longer acceptable.
Concerning the bronze Aphrodite from Thera, he suggests that she echoes the Stephanusa. My alternative view that the configuration of the Stephanusa was close to the Aphrodite of the Ostia's Dodekatheon is just ignored. The hair-look of the Thera bronze is close to that of the Lykeios Apollo, which has been convincingly placed by Dontas in the environment of Euphranor31, and this circumstance does not encourage the suggestion of a derivation from a Praxitelean prototype.
In the entry devoted to the Pourtales Aphrodite, Pasquier sees the goddess in the tradition of Praxiteles' Pseliumene. However, he does not inform the reader that Praxiteles' statue was brought to Rome, where Tatian saw it (Oratio ad Graecos 34. 36), nor is aware of the suggestion that a base with a Praxiteles' label discovered in Rome in the Forum Pacis supported the statue, once it has been moved to the
'Figure femminili di Lisippo', BdA 100 (1997), 55-80. This attribution has been endorsed by me in my entry to 'Medici Venus', A. Bostrom (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Sculpture, New York (2004), 1035-1036.
30 See S. F. Schroeder, Katalog der antiken Skulpturen des Museo del Prado in Madrid, Mainz am Rhein (2004), 116-120.
31 See G. Dontas, 'Ein verkanntes Meisterwerk im Nationalmuseum von Athens', H.-U. Cain, H. Gabelmann, D. Salzmann (eds.), Festschrift für Nikolaus Himmelmann, Mainz am Rhein (1989), 143-150.
Urbs in aeternum condita32. Finally, he seems not to know the suggestion that the Aphrodite made by Praxiteles for the Spartans, but refused by them, was in fact the Pseliumene33.
Concerning the Richelieu Aphrodite, Pasquier rejects Furtwaeng-ler's suggestion that this is the copyist tradition of the Coan Aphrodite. However, he does not explain why the drapery of the goddess is so similar to the corresponding garments of the Mondragone/Kyparissi type of Demeter, attributed to Praxiteles, and also to that of the Cephisodotan Eirene.
Jean-Luc MARTINEZ, L'Apollon Sauroctone', pp. 202-206 and 209-235.
First of all, Martinez accounts on the history of the identification of the type. In his consideration of Martial (14. 172), he seems unaware that Martial's description of a miniature copy of the Sauroctonus is included in a series of poetical descriptions of small copies of masterpieces displayed in the temple of August on the Palatine34: therefore, this poetical context tells where Praxiteles' original stood in Rome, during the early Imperial period. He thinks that the definition of the god as puer by Martial implies the reference to a baby and not to the teenager represented by the copies of the type, but this argumentation is not convincing, because in ancient Rome boys were pueri until they became 1435: this age may be that of the Sauroctonus.
Concerning the survey on possible vicissitudes of the masterpiece, Martinez reports my thesis that the statue was brought to Rome. However, he does not give the main reason which I forwarded in support of this probability: as stressed above, Martial included one epigram in which he describes a miniature copy of the statue in a series of poetical descriptions of copies taken from masterpieces set up in the temple of August on the Palatine. The logical conclusion is that the Sauroctonus also stood there. Against my opinion, he asserts
32 See E. La Rocca, 'La nuova immagine dei fori imperiali', RM 108 (2001), 171-213, esp. 197-198.
33 This suggestion is argued from Choricius, Peri' Praxitelous. See A. Corso, Prassitele. Fonti epigrafiche e letterarie. Vita e opere 3, Rome (1991), 27-110.
34 See L. Lehmann, 'A Roman Poet Visits a Museum', Hesperia 14 (1945), 259-269.
35 See W. Eder, 'Puer, pueri', DNP 10 (2001), 586.
that Pliny does not say that the statue was in Rome. However, Pliny just writes nothing about the location of the statue. Therefore it is obvious that this testimony cannot be used against my suggestion.
Martinez does not have a proper, original opinion about where, when and why the Sauroctonus has been made. He is even skeptical about the possibility to ascertain the message of the statue, as well as its position in the development of Praxiteles' style. However, he rejects the consideration of the type as Roman suggested by a few American scholars.
He also gives a list of copies of the Sauroctonus: it is rather surprising that a French scholar forgets the probable copy from Augustodunum36.
Michael BENNETT, Une nouvelle replique de l'Apollon Sauroctone au musee de Cleveland, pp. 206-208.
Bennett gives the most important details of the bronze Sauroctonus in Cleveland and suggests that it is Praxiteles' original statue. Despite its shortness, this article is excellent. The author cleverly argues that the statue introduces the viewer to the presence of the god and therefore creates an intimate relationship which is one of the innovations of Praxiteles. His argumentation on the importance of the landscape in the creation is also convincing.
Jean-Luc MARTINEZ, Les Satyres de Praxitele, pp. 236-291.
First of all, the author surveys the ancient testimonia on the Satyrs of Praxiteles, i.e. the Periboetos Satyr, the statue which stood in Megara and that from the Tripodes' Street in Athens.
The scientific standard of this article is undermined by the circumstance that Martinez does not know the base with Praxiteles' signature found near the Lysicrates monument, in Tripodes' Street (SEG 48 (1998), 227): given the coincidence between the find spot of this base and the area where Praxiteles' Satyr from the Tripodes' Street stood, it is probable that this base supported that Satyr! The French author criticizes me, because I identify the Satyr from the Tripodes' Street with the Pouring Satyr, but the circumstance that three miniature copies of this type come from Tripodes' Street (see the details reported above) lends support to this identification.
36 See M. Pinette, 'Base de statue masculine', Idem (ed.), Autun Augustodunum, Autun (1987), 329, no. 653.
Martinez, with caution, endorses the attribution of the Resting Satyr to Praxiteles. Concerning the Pouring Satyr, he attributes to me the thesis that the creation had no specific meaning, but I never asserted that: I just stated that Praxiteles worked not only for specific commissions, but also for the market, making statues in advance and then exposing them on sale. He accounts on the debate concerning the pouring type. However, when he reports on the theory by American scholars that the late-classical, small size relief figures of pouring young boys are the models of the Roman creation of statues of Pouring Satyrs, he does not inform on my objection to this reasoning: that, in the 'Kopistenzeit', the model copied must have been an opus nobile and that these small figures were hardly considered opera nobilia37.
Martinez asserts that the Pouring Satyr was created around 320 BC, not by Praxiteles. This date is not convincing, because, if conceived in this period, the Satyr should have been more three-dimensional and realistic. Moreover, the concept of the 'mellephebos' Satyr is understandable in the context of a culture based on the value of the habrosyne, which is typical of Greece after the Peace of Antalcidas (387-386 BC), when, in fact, Greece became a protectorate of the King of Persia. Placing the Pouring type in the period of the Macedonian hegemony, characterized by a heroic ideal of life, is a more serious mistake than just suggesting the wrong date. Finally, the representations of nekrodeipna in which pouring young boys are often represented, are themselves the spread of an eastern habit, which takes place after the Antalcidas peace, and therefore cannot be dated to the Macedonian period.
Then, Martinez gives the catalogue of the copies of the Resting Satyr and of the Pouring one. In the former list, he misses the beautiful copy set up in the Summer Palace in Pushkin, south-east of St Petersburg. In the latter list, he misses the clay miniature variation in Athens (Acropolis Museum, no. 1957 - NAP 206). Moreover, he does not give the list of pouring figures in late-classical representations of nekrodeipna.
Finally, Martinez surveys the case of the Satyr of Mazara. He is skeptical about Moreno's attribution of the statue to Praxiteles. He also lists the opinions of other scholars on the statue. However, he does not report my suggestion that the Satyr is of the same workshop
of the Derveni crater38. He does not give any original opinion on this matter.
IDEM, Les styles praxitelisants aux epoques hellenistique et romaine, pp. 294-359.
In the beginning of this article, Martinez (p. 294) asserts that only the Cnidia and the Sauroctonus are certainly attributed to our sculptor. This opinion conflicts with that of Pasquier, who recognizes the Mantinean slabs, the Hermes of Olympia (as a copy), the Arles Aphrodite, the Aphrodite from Thera, and the Pourtales goddess as derived from creations of the Athenian master. Moreover, this view contradicts what Martinez asserted a few pages above (p. 246), that the attribution of the Resting Satyr should be kept.
Then, he re-dates creations which usually are attributed to Praxiteles in the Hellenistic or Roman Imperial periods.
Therefore, he rejects the recognition of Praxiteles' Tyche in Megara in the Sambon type, without explaining why this is the case. I think this recognition should be kept, since this Tyche, given by Pausanias (1. 43. 6) to Praxiteles, is represented on Megarian coins according to the Sambon configuration, moreover, because the anatomy of the face and the folding of the drapery, close to those of the Mantinean Muses, are blatantly Praxitelean39. He also rejects the attribution of the Dodekatheon of Ostia to Praxiteles, again, without asserting any reason leading to this conclusion. I think the coherence of the Ostian gods with everything we know of the formal world of our master makes this hyper skeptical opinion hard to believe. He also rejects the identification of Praxiteles' Dionysus described by Callistratus 8 with the Sambon/Grimani type of Dionysus. Again, the detailed description of Callistratus, the general configuration of the type and the anatomy do not leave doubts about the pertinence of the type to the oeuvre of our master40. Equally, he does not keep the attribution of the Dionysus Taurus to Praxiteles. The type cannot be split from the Hermes of Olympia and therefore should be identified
38 See Corso (nt. 6), 170, nt. 309.
39 See A. Corso, Prassitele. Fonti epigrafiche e letterarie. Vita e opere 1, Rome (1988), 152-153.
40 See Corso (nt. 6), 232-239.
with the Dionysus of our master from Elis, also because in this town the god was worshipped as a bull41.
In these pages, Martinez appears to share the methodology of the Bryn Mawr School: he forgets that we have only a minimal part of the ancient world and uses the argumentum ex silentio in order to take away creations from the late classical period and to re-date them in the late Hellenistic and Roman Imperial periods, especially in the First c. BC.
So, he dates the Richelieu type of Dionysus to the First c. BC, despite the fact that this type is represented on a gem already in the Third c. BC42. He places the Apollo from Formiae in the same period: this opinion is also debatable and the slender style of the god seems to me truly late-classical.
Finally, Martinez asserts that no one of the Erotes by Praxiteles can be identified. This is not correct. The Thespian Eros is represented on Sullan coins struck in Boeotia and his presence there is meant to please Thespiae, the only Boeotian city which sided with the Romans against Mithridates: the style of the figure on coins allows us to recognize this Eros in the Centocelle type. The Eros of Parion is also recognized on coins and therefore on the Cos type. Finally, the Eros described by Callistratus 3 coincides so well with the Farnese Steinhaeuser type, to discourage any attempt to split literary description and sculptural type43.
Martinez also dates the Gabii type of Artemis around 300 BC. This conclusion is impossible, because a head of this type still dates to the late 4th c. BC 4. Moreover, the wavy locks of hair, the wide neckline, the anatomy of the head, the folding and finally the same poetical evocation of the teenage goddess impose to recognize in this type the creative power of the master who made the Dancers of Delphi, the Aspremont-Lynden type, the Arles one, the Cnidia, the Richelieu type of Aphrodite, etc. Since Despinis' identification of the Artemis Brauronia in a head of the Acropolis Museum is not convincing, because eyes and hair style of this head are not Praxitelean, I think the Gabii type derives from the Artemis
41 See A. Corso, 'Praxitelean Dionysi', Eulimene 1 (2000), 25-53, esp. 3740.
42 See Corso (nt. 41), 44-46, nt. 103.
43 See Corso (nt. 6), 244-281 and 317-325.
44 See Corso (nt. 20), 233, fig. 16.
Brauronia. The type of sandals is the same of the Hermes of Olympia and suggests a place in the late production of the master.
Martinez is also skeptical about the derivation of the Mondragone/ Kyparissi types of Demeter and Kore from the Eleusinian deities of Praxiteles. In order to distance these types from Praxiteles, he adopts a reasoning which is typical of the Bryn Mawr School: he opposes the opinion shared by nearly everybody - that these creations are Praxitelean - to a very minority point of view -their attribution to Euphranor - and concludes that the evidence is puzzling and any conclusion on authorship is not possible.
Again, the closeness of the Mondragone/Kyparissi types to the Mantinean Muses strongly suggests a Praxitelean pedigree.
In the bibliography on these Eleusinian types, Martinez cites Baumer's book of 1997, which offers only partial evidence on these iconographies45: he should rather have cited the complete repertoire of A. Filges46.
Martinez is open to a re-date of a famous Attic stele (Athens, Nat. Museum, no. 1005), usually regarded late-classical, in the middle Hellenistic period, because the type of sandals worn by the deceased lady should be unparalleled in the 4th. c. BC. The suspicion that we may just have not enough evidence and that therefore the argumentum ex silentio is not valid, clearly is not cultivated by this scholar. Moreover, he uses the book of Dohan Morrow on Greek footwear, without realizing that it is based only on the evidence offered by sculpture and not on that offered by vase-painting, mosaics, etc and therefore that her conclusions should be used with great care.
Martinez is also skeptical about the recognition of Praxiteles' Artemis in Megara in the Dresden type. On the contrary, I think the evidence of Megarian coins, which bear an Artemis according to the Dresden type, imposes exactly this conclusion. Moreover, the outstanding quality of the Dresden type, the internalized expression of the goddess, the simple folds of the drapery are unimaginable outside the poetical world of Praxiteles.
Concerning the Sardanapallus, Martinez supports a date toward 300 BC. This chronology is hardly acceptable. This interpretation of Dionysus, inspired by the value of the habrosyne, is blatantly a creation of the decades after the Antalcidas peace of 387/386 BC,
45 L. Baumer, Vorbilder und Vorlagen, Bern (1997).
46 See A. Filges, Standbilder jugendlicher Goettinnen, Cologne (1997).
when Greece was subjected to the 'supervision' of the Great King of Persia. Placing it in the Macedonian period, characterized by a heroic mood, is not convincing.
Then, Martinez down dates the Eros Farnese/ Steinhaeuser to the Roman period. He is aware that the type appears in the 'Kleinkunst' of the Fourth c. BC (examples from Myrina, Sidon and Bucarest), but, adopting a reasoning which is typical of the Bryn Mawr School, he thinks that it has been fleshed out with free standing statues only in Roman Imperial periods. This suggestion is definitely not convincing: the Romans imitated opera nobilia and miniature representations of a type cannot be included in this definition. Moreover, the closeness of the anatomy of the type to that of the Pouring Satyr makes it likely that the two types came from the same workshop, which, of course, is that of Praxiteles.
Concerning the Eros of Parion, this author wrongly asserts (pp. 352-353) that it was bronze. On the contrary, Pliny (36. 22) includes it among the works of our sculptor made of marble. Martinez fails to see that the Eros of Cos, whose anatomy is very Praxitelean, is an excellent candidate as a copy derived from the masterpiece of Parion.
Finally, Martinez regards even the Centocelle Eros as Roman. He asserts that the circumstance that the type existed in vase painting in the 4th c. BC does not mean that it existed as a statue in the same period. He also states that we know nothing of the Eros of Thespiae. This is not correct: we know from Anthologia Graeca (16. 204, a poem by the same Praxiteles) that the statue portrayed a sad Eros. So, the sad Eros of the Centocelle tradition satisfies this feature rather well. Moreover, the Centocelle Eros is represented on Sullan coins struck in Boeotia, no doubt in order to please Thespiae, the only Boeotian town which as stated above sided with the Romans. Finally, Martinez assertion that the Eros of Thespiae could not be dedicated in this town after the late 370s BC, because the Thespians had been scattered kata komas, is unbelievable. It is clear that, even after 371 BC, Thespian sanctuaries, and especially the important sanctuary of Eros, were not destroyed and continued to work: probably, they were administered by the Boeotian Confederation. This scholar should be reminded that Greek poleis, even when they destroyed, other city-states, usually saved the sanctuaries: the gods were the same and ready to take revenge!
Finally, Martinez regards Furtwaengler's comparison of the Centocelle Eros with the Dresden Youth as not in favor of a late classical date, because in his opinion the Dresden Youth is Roman.
On the contrary, I think the Dresden Youth is either a work of Polycleitus or of the first generation of his school.
In the end, Martinez asserts the Roman date of the Centocelle type, because it is an eclectic work, having both Polycleitan and Praxitelean features: he clearly thinks that the eclecticism is only Roman. On the contrary, Borbein has shown that a lot of late classical sculpture is eclectic47.
In his survey of Praxitelean Erotes, Martinez forgets the Sleeping Eros, whose Praxitelean authorship is asserted in an epigram (Scholiast R to Pausanias, p. 144 Spiro), which led M. Soeldner to identify the Sleeping Eros by our master in the Turin type48.
Edouart PAPET, Phryne' au xixe siecle, pp. 362-393.
The author outlines the history of the representation of Phryne and of other ancient courtesans by French artists of the 19th c. The essay is written with competence and with a sense of the historical and cultural environment surrounding these artistic creations.
IDEM, "L'art a des exigences et des dedains que l'archeologie ne connaitpas.", pp. 394-415.
In this beautiful essay, the author, whose command of the 19th c. visual arts is exemplar, outlines the development of the myth of Praxiteles in the French artistic environment throughout that century.
Alain PASQUIER, L'art de Praxitele, pp. 416-422.
This author begins the conclusive article by condemning, with harsh words, scholars who supposedly use too much imagination and hypotheses in order to flesh out life and works of the artist. Pasquier, since he refers to my interpretation of the name Praxiteles as derived from prasso and tele and meaning "who attends the mysteries"49, probably targets me with these harsh words. I have already retorted above to these allegations.
On the contrary, his conclusions are regarded to stem from the virtue of prudence: Praxiteles' art is characterized by the predilection
47 See A. H. Borbein, 'La nascita di un'arte classica', S. Settis (ed.), I Greci 2. 2, Turin (1997), 1275-1303: see in particular the chapter 'L'eclettismo nell'arte di IV secolo', 1282-1292.
48 See M. Soeldner, Untersuchungen zu liegenden Eroten, Frankfurt am Main (1986), 123-128, 353 and 371.
49 See Corso (nt. 6), 113.
for certain deities (Aphrodite, Eros, Dionysus, Apollo, etc.), by the 'scenic' presentation of his creations, by the first life size definition of the female nude, by the bi-dimensionality of his statues, by the adoption of the Polycleitan chiasmus, by the predilection for sinuous lines, by the sense of the skin and the rendering of the flesh, by the softness, by the wavy look of the hair, by the 'humid' gaze, which does not meet that of the viewer, by the sfumato, finally by the remoteness of these deities from the world of the viewers.
All of these features have been often repeated as characterizations of Praxiteles' art, no one of these ideas is an original contribution of this author.
Christophe PICCINELLI-DASSAUD and Jean-Luc MARTINEZ, Principales sources litteraires antiques mentionnant Praxitele et ses oeuvres, pp. 423-428.
This selection of testimonia does not include the epigram on Praxiteles' Sleeping Eros (Scholiast R to Pausanias, p. 144 Spiro) and especially the 109 paragraphs treatise, which is entirely devoted to Praxiteles by Choricius of Gaza (Declamationes 8): the latter is a rather salient omission, since it gives a great wealth of information on the art of the master. In p. 425, the date given for Aulus Gellius (beginnings of 2nd c. AD) is, of course, wrong (Gellius' floruit is around 160 AD).
Bibliographie, pp. 429-445.
This bibliography does not include very important contributions, such as those by Geominy50 and Maderna51.
In conclusion, the competence of the two editors of the volume in the Praxitelean field is far from desirable. The mistakes and shortcomings are many and concern even statues kept in the Louvre! The statement (p. 44) that Praxiteles' label on the Richelieu Aphrodite is in Latin is unforgivable!
The scientific quality of this endeavor is undermined by the tendency to re-date creations which until now have been regarded
50 W. Geominy, 'Praxiteles', R. Vollkommer (ed.), Künstlerlexikon der Antike 2, Munich (2004), 304-319.
51 C. Maderna, 'Die Gleichzeitigkeit des Andersartigen', P. Bol (ed.), Die Geschichte der antiken Bildhauerkunst 2, Mainz am Rhein (2004), 321330.
late-classical in the Roman period (for example, the Eros Famese and the Eros Centocelle). This is the result of the forgetting that only a minimal part of the ancient world survived and of the consequential systematic use of the argumentum ex silentio. The unsubstantiated assumption that eclectic means Roman and the idea that the presence of a sculptural type in the small arts of late classical times does not mean that this type already existed by the time also as a statue, go against the common sense.
Moreover, these two authors apparently do not have a very good visual sense of the artistic creation. They fail to understand that the anatomy of the Pouring Satyr, of the Sauroctonus, of the Hermes is basically the same and do not realize that the Mantinean Muses, the Demeter and Kore of the Kyparissi/ Mondragone type, the Dresden Artemis, the Gabii Artemis and the Richelieu Aphrodite stem from the same concept of the draped body.
Finally, they study these statues from a prehistoric point of view, forgetting completely the intellectual and political history of the age of Praxiteles.
As noted above, the conclusions are not original and the reader is warned to use this book with great care.
