CC BY
4yflK: 7.032 BBK: 85.133(0)32 A43
DOI: 10.18688/aa177-1-12
Allison Surtees
Contextualizing Greek 'Originals': The "Pouring Satyr" in Athens
The Pouring Satyr statue-type is preserved in a copy series of thirty works from the Roman period1 (Fig. 1). In the late 19th century, the German scholar Adolf Furtwangler attributed the statue to the 4th century BCE2 sculptor Praxiteles using Kopienkritik, a methodology which seeks to recover lost Greek 'originals' from Roman copies using the tenets of Morellian connois-seurship and textual criticism [24]. This attribution relied primarily on a reference in Pausanias, and on stylistic comparison with the Hermes of Olympia, then newly-discovered and thought to be an original work of Praxiteles [8, p. 310]3. As a result, the Pouring Satyr has been studied not just as a work of Praxiteles, but almost exclusively as a work of Praxiteles. The lack of context for the statue outside this attribution has further limited the scope of inquiry, with little discussion of the statue as an individual work in its own right. This has necessarily restricted understanding of the statue-type and the copy series as a whole. Moreover, the methodology of Kopienkritik itself has been challenged in the last several decades, leading to a scholarly movement away from artistic attribution and an increased focus on the copies as Roman statuary4. If, in keeping with this program, we are to reject artistic attribution, the Pouring Satyr is then stripped of its primary scholarly identification. Without the framework of the Praxitelean corpus, it is through the statue's iconography that we can situate the Pouring Satyr in the 4th century, and can understand the statue not as something entirely new by a famous artist, but as part of a longer tradition of satyrs and banqueting iconography in Classical Greek art (Fig. 1).
The Roman copies of the Pouring Satyr statue-type range in date roughly from late Republican to Antonine periods and exist in various states of preservation [10; 25; 35]. Their iconography, however, is remarkably consistent, sharing virtually the same dimensions and varying only slightly in their pose. The satyr stands in contrapposto pose, with his weight shifted onto his left leg. He holds an oinochoe high over his head with his right hand and pours into a vessel in his
1 I would like to thank the University of Winnipeg for the financial support in the completion of this project.
1 also wish to thank Antonio Corso, Ralf von den Hoff, and Matt Gibbs for commentary, suggestions, and support. Any errors in the text are mine, and mine alone.
2 All dates following are in BCE.
3 On the literary sources connecting Praxiteles to the Pouring Satyr and Resting Satyr statue see Gercke [10, pp. 71-84]. The primary textual evidence for this attribution is Paus. 1.20.1-2. As Furtwangler [8, p. 310] himself noted, Pausanias' text is problematic and unclear, and many different readings have been presented. Ajootian [1, p. 111] gives various interpretations of the text from the 19th century onwards. See also Corso [4].
4 Scholars critical of Kopienkritik include [9; 19; 21; 22; 26; 29; 30; 37]. Scholars in support of Kopienkritik include [4; 5; 11; 17; 23; 24; 25].
left hand, held at hip level. He is youthful and almost human, more a boy than a satyr, but his true identity is revealed by his pointed ears, the clumps of berries in his hair, and on a few copies either a tail or a panther skin draped over the support at the leg. Scholars have long commented on this almost-human, youthful satyr calmly pouring wine, asserting its uniqueness and incongruity with the typical satyrs of contemporary art, who are older and hairier in appearance, and more active and lascivious in demeanour. As the statue-type is almost exclusively treated as a work of Praxiteles, this iconography is treated as appearing ex nihilo, and is attributed to the genius and creativity of the master sculptor. Attempts to further understand this seemingly new iconography in Greek art have been limited, and not entirely satisfactory [5; 27; 32; 33; 36] and have even led some scholars to suggest that the statue belongs instead to the Hellenistic or Roman period, and that the statue may be a Roman, rather than Greek, creation [1; 28; 30].
That there is so little variation between the copies suggests that they do stem from a common prototype, and technical details in the working of the marble suggest this prototype was a bronze statue [10, p. 18; 27, p. 418; 33, p. 247]. The one significant difference between the copies is in the placement of the struts and supports, which itself may offer some evidence for the form of the prototype. The variation in structural supports suggests the possibility that the prototype had none of these, which would be the case on a bronze statue which would not need them [28, p. 77; but see 14]. All of the statues have a support against the left leg, with the exception of the Palermo statue (Fig. 1), which is supported on the right. The support may be a simple quadrilateral bar or an elaborate spiral, but most take the shape of a knotted tree trunk, to which leaves, grapes, or a panther skin may be added. Some sit right up against the leg, while others are separated and attached to the leg by struts at the knee and/or hip. Two copies have a strut between the head and the oinochoe, while another has a strut between the two legs, and one has a long, large strut from the left hand to the upper thigh [14, pp. 118, 146] (Fig. 2).
While the precision and accuracy of the Roman works suggest a series based on a bronze archetype, the copy series alone does not indicate whether such an archetype would have been Greek, Hellenistic, or Roman. To address this question, we must look to the broader use of this pose in the material record to determine when and where this imagery developed. The earliest extant usage of this particular stance appears in 4th-century Athens, clearly indicating that this specific composition was used before the Roman period. The pose is first found on a large series of Attic 4th-century banquet reliefs dating from roughly 400 to 300 BCE [7]. The images in the series depict a reclining male banqueter, a female seated at the end of the kline, and a slave serving wine. The earliest known works in this series appear in Athens ca. 400 BCE and initially depict the cup-bearer standing frontally, facing the viewer, holding the oinochoe in one hand and a phiale in the other (Fig. 2). Beginning from ca. 350, the cup-bearer in the scenes adopts a new pose, that of the Pouring Satyr (Fig. 3). The similarities between the
Fig. 1. The Pouring Satyr, c. 375 BCE. Palermo Archaeological Museum
Fig. 2. Attic Banquet Relief, c. 400 BCE. Athens Fig. 3. Attic Banquet Relief, c. 350 BCE. Athens National
National Museum, inv. 3872 Museum, inv. 1503
cup-bearer on banquet reliefs and the later Roman statues have long been recognized and the two sets of images are undeniably linked [18, p. 193; 31, p. 20; 7, p. 325; 25, p. 254]. The question then is whether the reliefs were the archetype for the Roman statues, or if the reliefs and statues share a common source [1, pp. 112-113; 30, p. 266]5. If we posit, as we have, a bronze archetype for the copy series, then we must think about where such a bronze statue fits into the image transmission. If the reliefs are in fact the source of the image, then they must have first inspired a bronze statue of at least the 3rd century which then inspired the Roman series. What seems more plausible is that the image was transmitted from a three-dimensional, full scale bronze statue into the small-scale, two-dimensional banquet reliefs. In this scenario, it is the bronze statue which inspired both the relief series and the Roman statue series (Fig. 3).
The genesis of the cup-bearer on the 4th-century banquet reliefs further supports this proposed image transmission. The cup-bearer is not simply a stock figure taken from an established iconographic tradition and placed in the relief scenes. It is a new pose, not previously seen in banquet imagery, and moreover, it is a new pose added to a relief tradition which had been established about half a century earlier. While innovation was certainly possible within that tradition, it does not appear to have been one of the goals. The Attic banquet reliefs span a period of roughly a century, and once the iconography is established, the scene itself and the figures within it undergo little change, the one and only exception being the new pose of the cup-bearer [7, p. 324]. Given that no real innovation is associated with the larger, more important figures in the scene, it stands to reason that a major change in the presentation of the less important cup-bearer is significant. Moreover, the individual cup-bearers, despite being remarkably homogenous, vary slightly with respect to the placement of the left arm. While this variance in detail may seem a minor point, Dentzer notes that it is best explained by the existence of an archetype which was faithfully copied initially, then subsequently less precisely [7, p. 326]. This same reproduction with minor differentiation is seen in the Roman copy series as well, and is the primary reasons for identifying the series as such (Fig. 4).
The pose is also depicted on the relief frieze on the Lysikrates Monument in the Street of Tripods in Athens, dated back to 334 BCE. The frieze runs around the top of the monument
Counter to this claim see [2, p. 243, no. 637; 34, p. 228; 25, p. 254].
Fig. 4. Lysikrates Monument frieze detail, 334 BCE. Athens (line drawing by Simone Reis)
and illustrates the myth of Dionysus and the Tyrrhenian pirates, who captured Dionysus and were then turned into dolphins by the angry god. The frieze depicts a frenetic scene as satyrs chase and punish pirates, some of whom escape into the sea in mid-transformation. In the midst of all the action is a pair of satyrs on either side of a krater, both in a pose reminiscent of Pouring Satyr (Fig. 4). The satyr on the left is in three-quarter frontal profile and moves toward the krater, holding in his right hand an oinochoe from which he pours into a phiale in his left. On the other side of the krater stands a second satyr in a similar, though not identical pose. He stands in three-quarter dorsal profile and in his right hand holds up a phiale, rather than an oinochoe, while his left arm hangs down, obscured by the drapery hanging off his left shoulder. Not only do the two satyrs utilize the pouring pose, but also present both a frontal and dorsal view of the same composition, perhaps both sides of a statue they are quoting. In addition, the pose is awkwardly rendered and does not seem to lend itself particularly well to the medium, further suggesting that the satyrs are specifically quoting or referencing a representation in a different medium, as are the cup-bearers on the banquet reliefs. Given the Athenian context for both the banquet reliefs and the Lysikrates Monument, and hence the specifically Athenian usage of the pose, an Athenian prototype seems most likely, perhaps set up near the sanctuary of Dionysus Eleuthereus just down the road from the Lysikrates Monument. This archetype would predate the appearance of the pose on the banquet reliefs (ca. 350) and the Lysikrates Monument (334), suggesting a date in the first half of the 4th century6.
While none of the individual pieces of evidence by themselves are conclusive, taken together they form a strong argument for a common archetype for the relief sculptures and the Roman copies, which took the form of a bronze statue, and was prominently displayed and easily recognizable. The question then is whether the young, almost human satyr is, in fact, incongruous with the iconography of the satyrs who came before him. And satyrs of the 5th and early 4th centuries are primarily found not in sculpture, but in Attic vase-painting. In fact, it is in 6th-century vase-painting that the iconography of the Athenian satyr has its origins [3; 12]. These early satyrs are hairy, bearded figures regularly engaged in music, dancing, drinking, and sexual gratification [15]. Through the 5th century, though, satyrs begin to lose their beard, becoming younger and younger, and by the second half of the 5th century, satyrs may be of all ages; old, middle-aged, adolescent, child, and baby. They may even all exist together, as a sort of satyr family7. Concurrent with this change is a change in the activities in which the satyrs
6 The pose of the Pouring Satyr was later adopted for the top (human) half of two centaurs in a painting in the third room of the Tumulus Kasta near Amphilopis, dating to the late 4th century [6]. That the pose was appropriated and applied to the centaurs is further evidence to suggest the pose was found in a monument of some significance and/or visibility.
7 For example, Karlsruhe 208, BA 207151, ARV2 618.3, Add2 270, LIMC VIII, pl. 754, Silenoi 46a.
engage. Satyrs in the 5th century take up various activities in which their 6th-century counterparts did not engage; the symposium, athletics, courtship, and religious rituals, all the while dressing and behaving like Athenian citizens [13; 20]. And as the satyr becomes younger and co-opts human and specifically civic activities, he loses much of his wild demeanour and develops a calm outward appearance, belying his animal nature. The increasingly anthropomorphic character of the satyr is not just a function of his physical appearance but is also a matter of his more tranquil conduct [35].
It is not difficult to see how the Pouring Satyr fits into this iconographical framework. The Pouring Satyr is youthful, with the lean, lightly muscled body of an adolescent, like the beardless satyrs found on vases. His manner is quiet and calm; he is oblivious to the external world and focuses all his attention on the act of pouring wine. There is no frenetic action, no engagement with satyr companions, only the solitary youth solemnly engaged in the task at hand. Within this developmental framework, the act of wine pouring itself deserves attention. Mirroring the general trajectory of satyr behaviour from the start of the 6th to the end of the 5th century, wine pouring scenes full of movement, energy, and sexuality become primarily, although not exclusively, calm, solemn affairs. On 6th-century vases, satyrs and wine are often found together in the vineyard, where they prepare wine and occasionally serve it to Dionysus, who may be standing, seated, or reclining8. Satyrs also serve Dionysus his wine, unmixed from a wine skin or amphora, in a thiasos context as part of thiasos scenes that are frenetic and energetic, including music, dancing, drinking, and ithyphallic satyrs9.
By contrast, red-figure scenes of wine service, particularly towards the end of the 5th century, tend towards a different presentation, and it is in these scenes that we most closely see the vase-painting counterpart to the Pouring Satyr statue [35]. On a stamnos in Paris, Dionysus and Heracles recline on the ground playing a game of kottabos while a satyr stands at the end of the couch, to the left of the scene10. He holds an oinochoe in his raised right hand, ready to pour for the two banqueters. The mood is relaxed; there is no music, no dancing, and no lascivious behaviour. The satyr is a young boy, standing calmly in profile, identified as a satyr by his tail alone. A fragment in Tubingen presents a similar pouring figure, standing calmly in profile holding a kantharos and oinochoe11. He stands at the far left of the scene, looking towards the centre, where a standing Dionysus faces a seated Ariadne on his right. His head and backside are broken off, so the image is missing the ears and tail to confirm his identity, but given the context the figure is most likely a satyr. However, the ambiguity speaks to the interchangeability of the satyr boy and the human boy. This ambiguity is underscored by comparison with the pouring
8 For example, Basel Ka420, BA 350468, Add2 43, Para 65, Isler-Kerenyi 2007, fig. 67-68; Wurzburg HA446 (L356), BA 330867, ABV 455, LIMC III, pl. 344, Dionysus 404; Boston 63.952, BA 350462, Add2 41, Para 62, 317, LIMC VIII, pl. 763, Silenoi 108; Oxford 1925.140, BA 11824, LIMC III, pl. 333, Dionysus 326; Boston 01.8052, BA 302258, ABV 259.26, 242.35, 257, Add2 67, Para 110, 114, Hedreen 1992, pl. 16; Munich 1562, BA 1160, LIMC III, pl. 388, Dionysus 758.
9 For example: Würzburg L265, BA 310451, Add2 43, Para 63, Hedreen 1992 pl. 29; Copenhagen Chr VIII 807, ARV 337,1, LIMC III, pl. 413, Dionysus 459; Gravisca, Grabungsinv. 72/221, BA 24689, Heinemann p. 117, fig. 54.
10 Louvre G114, BA 202932, ARV2 257.14, Add2 83, Heinemann 72, fig. 20.
11 Tubingen, Arch. Inst. 5439, BA 213727, ARV2 1057.97, Para 445, Heinemann 214, fig. 136.
figure on a chous in Athens12. A bearded man stands to the right of the altar in the centre of the scene, onto which he lays branches. To the left, is a frontal facing youth, drinking from a skyphos in his right hand. To the far right of the scene is the young wine pourer. He stands in profile, looking towards the worshippers, and holds an oinochoe in his hand. He is clearly human; there is nothing either in context or physicality to suggest otherwise. Nonetheless, both his physi-cality and his pose look like that of the pouring satyrs on the Louvre stamnos and Tubingen fragment.
A second set of images further proves this point. A krater in Agrigento, dating back to the end of the 5th century, depicts a young satyr acting as cup-bearer at a divine banquet13 (Fig. 5). Dionysus and Hephaestus, identified by inscription, recline on a kline; at the foot of the couch stand a maenad and satyrs, while at the head of the couch is a young satyr as cup-bearer. The satyr cup-bearer, identified only by his pointed ears, stands calmly, frontally, holding an oinochoe, ready to pour wine as needed. A similar banqueting figure, this time human, is found on a lebes fragment in Palermo. The youth stands between two couches of banqueters, wreathed and holding an oinochoe in his hand14. Like the satyr on the Agrigento krater, he stands frontally, ready to pour wine for the banqueters from the krater to his left. There is little difference between the two figures either in physicality or pose beyond their respective immortal and mortal statuses (Fig. 5). Moreover, both frontal and profile poses are echoed on 4th century reliefs. A commemorative relief from Piraeus, dating to the second half of the 4th century, depicts a young satyr as cup-bearer to Dionysus15. On the right, Dionysus is shown seated in profile, holding out his kantharos and facing left, looking toward the young satyr. The satyr, also in profile, approaches with an oinochoe in his right hand. There are similarities between this young satyr and the pouring figures on the vases from the Louvre, Tubingen, and Athens. The frontal pouring figure from the Agrigento and Palermo vases is reproduced in the cup-bearing youth of the Attic banquet reliefs discussed above. The Attic banquet reliefs with the frontal figure then are linked to those with the dorsal pouring figure, which finally is linked to the Pouring Satyr statue.
It is clear, then, that there exists a tradition of youthful satyrs pouring wine on Attic vases in the latter half of the 5th century. It is also clear that these satyrs are not only iconographically linked to human boys pouring wine at banquets, but that these figure are interchangeable in their portrayal. This iconography for both human and satyr boys extends into 4th century re-
12 Athens, 3. Ephorie Inv. 3500, BA 28128, Heinemann. p. 459, fig. 310.
13 Agrigento 1501, BA 217596, ARV2 134.7, Para 482, LIMC III pl. 363, Dionysos 560.
14 Palermo Arch. Mus. O. Inv., ARV2, BA 215258, Heinemann p. 38, fig. 9.
15 AthMusEpi 13262, LIMC III pl. 854, Dionysos 495.
Fig. 5. Attic red-figure krater, c. 425 BCE. Agrigento Museo Archeologico Regionale, inv. 1501
liefs sculpture. The transfer of iconography between vases and sculpture underscores the visual communication between media, offering a place in this tradition for sculpture in the round. This confirms that the iconography of the Pouring Satyr need not be ex nihilo or incongruous, as it was previously thought. Rather, the Pouring Satyr is very much a counterpart to the young cup-bearers of the 5th and 4th centuries, and part of a natural progression of a well-established iconography that confirms the statue's place within the 4th century artistic tradition.
References
1. Ajootian A. Praxiteles. Personal Styles in Greek Sculpture. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Publ., 1996, pp. 91-129.
2. Brusini S. La DecorazioneScultorea della Villa Romana di Monte Calvo. Rome, Istituto nazionale d'archeologia e storia dell'arte Publ., 2001. 312 p. (in Italian).
3. Carpenter T. H. Dionysian Imagery in Archaic Greek Art: Its Development in Black-Figure Vase Painting. Oxford, Oxford University Press Publ., 1986. 192 p.
4. Corso A. Prassitele I-III. Rome, DeLuca Publ., 1988-91 (in Italian).
5. Corso A. The Art of Praxiteles I-V. Rome, L'Erma di Bretschneider Publ., 2004-2014.
6. Corso A. The Scultpure of the Tumulus Kasta near Amphipolis. Journal of Intercultural and Interdisciplinary Archaeology, 2015, vol. 2, pp. 193-222.
7. Dentzer J. M. Le motif du banquet couche dans le Proche-Orient et le monde grec du VIIe au IV siecle avant J.-C. Rome, École française de Rome Publ., 1982. 673 p. (in French).
8. Furtwängler A.; Strong E. (transl.). Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture. London, William Heinemann Publ., 1895. 477 p.
9. Gazda E. (ed.). The Ancient Art of Emulation. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press Publ., 2002. 320 p.
10. Gercke P. Satyrn des Praxiteles. Hamburg, dissertation der Universität Hamburg, 1968. 101 p. (in German).
11. Hallett C. Kopienkritik and the Works of Polykleitos. Polykleitos, the Doryphoros, and Tradition. Madison, University of Wisconsin Press Publ., 1995, pp. 121-160.
12. Hedreen G. Silens in Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painting: Myth and Performance. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press Publ., 1992. 272 p.
13. Heinemann A. Der Gott des Gelages. Berlin, De Gruyter Publ., 2016. 775 p. (in German).
14. Hollinshead M. B. Extending the Reach of Marble: Struts in Greek and Roman Sculpture. The Ancient Art of Emulation: Studies in Artistic Originality and Tradition from the Present to Classical Antiquity. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press Publ., 2002, pp. 117-152.
15. Isler-Kerenyi C.; Sena E. C. de (transl.). Civilizing Violence: Satyrs on 6th-Century Greek Vases (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, 208), vol. 1. Göttingen/Fribourg, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht/Academic Press Fribourg Publ., 2004. 123 p.
16. Isler-Kerenyi C.; Watson W. G. E. (transl.). Dionysos in Archaic Greece. Leiden, Brill Publ., 2007. xx + 291 p.
17. Katsonopoulou D.; Stewart A. (eds.). Skopas of Paros and His World: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Archaeology of Paros and the Cyclades. Athens, The Paros and Cyclades Institute of Archaeology Publ., 2013. 570 p.
18. Klein W. Praxiteles, vol. 1. Leipzig, Verlag von Veit & Comp. Publ., 1898. viii + 448 p. (in German).
19. Kousser R. Hellenistic and Roman Ideal Sculpture: The Allure of the Classical. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008. 226 p.
20. Lissarrague F. La cité des satyres. Paris, Éditions de l'École des hautes études en sciences sociales Publ., 2013. 315 p. (in French).
21. Marvin M. Copying in Roman Sculpture: The Replica Series. Retaining the Original: Multiple Originals, Copies and Reproductions. Washington, National Gallery of Art Publ., 1989, pp. 29-45.
22. Marvin M. The Language of the Muses: The Dialogue between Roman and Greek Sculpture. Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum Publ., 2008. 344 p.
23. Moon W. (ed.). Polykleitos, the Doryphoros, and Tradition. Madison, University of Wisconsin Press Publ., 1995. xii + 364 p.
24. Palagia O.; Pollitt J. J. (eds.). Personal Styles in Greek Sculpture. Cambridge; New York, Cambridge University Press, 1996. xi + 187 p. [48 pl.].
25. Pasquier A.; Martinez J. L. Praxitèle. Paris, Musée du Louvre Ed.; Somogy éditions d'art Publ., 2007. 48 p. (in French).
26. Perry E. The Aesthetics of Emulation in the Visual Arts of Ancient Rome. Cambridge; New York, Cambridge University Press Publ., 2005. 226 p.
27. Picard C. Manuel d'archeologie grecque. Paris, Éditions Auguste Picard Publ., 1948, 2 vols.: 898 p., 395 figs., 12 pl. (in French).
28. Reeder E. D. Hellenistic Art in the Walters Art Gallery. Baltimore, Trustees of the Walters Art Gallery Publ., 1988. 260 p.
29. Ridgway B. Roman Copies of Greek Sculpture. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press Publ., 1984. 111 p., [73] p.
30. Ridgway B. Fourth-Century Styles in Greek Sculpture. Madison, University of Wisconsin Press Publ., 1997. 360 p.
31. Rizzo G. Prassitele. Milan; Rome, Treves-Treccani-Tumminelli Publ., 1932. 129 p., 159 pl. (in Italian).
32. Rolley C. La Sculpture Grecque: La période classique, vol. 1. Paris, Éditions Auguste Picard Publ., 1999. 439 p. (in French).
33. Stewart A. Art, Desire, and the Body in Ancient Greece. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Publ., 1997. 272 p.
34. Stewart A. Review: B. Ridgway. Fourth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture. Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1999, vol. 119, pp. 227-228.
35. Surtees A. The Pouring Satyr; Copies and Context in Greece and Rome. Ph. D. dissertation. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University, 2011.
36. Todisco L. Scultura greca del IV secolo: a maestri e scuole di statuaria tra classicità ed ellenismo. Milan, Lon-ganesi Publ., 1993. 512 p. (in Italian).
37. Zanker P. Klassizistische Statuen: Studien zur Veränderung des Kunstgeschmacks in der römische Kaiserzeit. Mainz am Rhein, P. von Zabern Publ., 1974. 138-[88] p. (in German).
Title. Contextualizing Greek 'Originals': The "Pouring Satyr" in Athens.
Author. Allison Surtees — Ph. D., assistant professor. University of Winnipeg, 515 Portage Ave. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3B 2E6. [email protected]
Abstract. The study of Greek sculpture has a long and complicated history; from Winkelmann's 'rise and fall' narrative of Greek and Roman art, to Furtwängler's hunt of Greek originals from Roman copies through the application of Kopienkritik, to the rejection of Greek context and subsequent focus on Roman contextualization of the late 20th century by parts of scholarly community. While all three views have disparate goals and approaches, all are centred on the cult of the ancient artist. This paper steps back from the question of authorship and looks towards contextualization, using the Pouring Satyr as a case study. The Pouring Satyr statue-type exists only in Roman copies and has been attributed to the 4th-century BCE sculptor Praxiteles, based primarily on literary evidence and stylistic analysis with other Roman copies. This paper re-examines the statue solely with respect to original Greek archaeological evidence connected to the statue and its identification, focusing on the pose, composition, and iconography. This analysis provides strong evidence for a putative 4th-century BCE prototype for the Roman copies. Moreover, comparison of the statue with Classical Athenian satyr iconography, almost exclusively found in vase painting, shows that the statue fits firmly into the broader satyr iconography of the 4th century. In this way, we are able to contextualize the Satyr within the known Classical Greek artistic landscape that is with respect to works firmly dated to this period. This contextualization allows us to move beyond artistic attribution and stylistic analysis, and explore the statue as an integral part of the Classical Athenian visual landscape, so that we might assign a deeper meaning for the work and for the figure of the satyr more broadly.
Keywords: Greek sculpture; Satyr; Ancient Greek art; Praxiteles; Greek pottery; Dionysus; Banquet iconography.
Название статьи. В поисках контекста греческих «оригиналов»: статуя Сатира, наливающего вино, в Афинах.
Сведения об авторе. Сюрте Эллисон — Ph. D., доцент. Университет Виннипега, Портидж авеню, 515, Виннипег, Манитоба, Канада, R3B 2E6. [email protected]
Аннотация. Изучение греческой скульптуры имеет продолжительную и непростую историю: от Винкельмановских рассуждений о «расцвете и закате» античного искусства и Фуртвенглеровского поиска греческих оригиналов на основе анализа римских копий (Kopienkritik) до отрицания греческого
контекста и оформившейся в конце ХХ столетия сосредоточенности части научного сообщества на римской контекстуализации. Хотя у адептов трех позиций в корне различались задачи и подходы к их решению, в центре внимания всех всегда оказывался культ античного художника. Автор статьи отходит от проблемы авторства и на примере статуи Сатира, наливающего вино, обращается именно к контекстной стороне вопроса. Появление этого статуарного типа, известного только в римских копиях, всегда связывалось с именем Праксителя — скульптора, творившего в IV в. до н. э. Такая атрибуция была основана на данных письменных источников и стилистическом анализе при сопоставлении с другими копиями римского времени. В статье статуя переосмысливается исключительно с позиций учёта подлинных греческих археологических свидетельств, относящихся к самой статуе и к решению о ее атрибуции. Внимание автора сосредоточено на композиции скульптуры, позе и иконографии персонажа. Подобный анализ представляет убедительные аргументы в пользу реального существования в IV в. до н. э. прототипа для известных сегодня римских копий. Более того, сопоставление статуи с известной почти исключительно по аттическим вазовым росписям иконографией сатиров классического времени подтверждает её точное «попадание» в иконографические схемы IV в. до н. э. в самом широком смысле. Таким образом, появляется возможность поместить Сатира в конкретный «художественный пейзаж» классической Греции, т. е. в общий контекст с теми произведениями искусства, датировка которых бесспорна. Контекстный анализ позволяет выдвинуть исследование за пределы стилистического анализа и художественной атрибуции и начать рассматривать произведение как неотъемлемую часть визуального ландшафта классических Афин с тем, чтобы точнее определить значение произведения и самой фигуры сатира в более широком смысле.
Ключевые слова: греческая скульптура; Сатир; искусство Древней Греции; Пракситель; древнегреческая керамика; Дионис; иконография пира.
