CC BY
24
A. Corso
OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING A NEW BOOK ABOUT PRAXITELES
Статья посвящена интерпретации нескольких свидетельств о творчестве Праксителя, основанных на многолетних исследованиях автора и полемичных по отношению к книге L. Todisco.
Ключевые слова: Пракситель, древнегреческая скульптура.
In March 2017, a new book about Praxiteles has been published:
L. Todisco, Prassitele di Atene, 'Maestri dell'Arte classica' vi, Giorgio Bretschneider Editore, Rome 2017, ISSN 2035-3634, ISBN 978-88-7689-301-8, pp. XII+148, pls 26.
This short book, devoted to the most important Athenian sculptor of late classical times, is composed of an introduction (pp. XI-XII), of a first chapter about the life of the artist (pp. 3-5), of a second chapter about the works of Praxiteles (pp. 9-14), of a third chapter about original works and copies attributed to this master (pp. 17-39), of a fourth chapter about his own style (pp. 43-49) e finally of the fifth chapter about written testimonia.
The last chapter is followed by endnotes (pp. 115-123), bibliographies (pp. 125-140), indexes (pp. 141-148) e 26 plates.
In the introduction (p. XI) the author condemns the 'strada avventurosa, favorita da alcune ricorrenze epigrafiche e soprattutto dall'elenco disposto da Plinio il Vecchio di opere connesse con il nome di Prassitele, che hanno portato a proporre una ricostruzione ipertrofica dell'attivita' dello scultore e bronzista del IV secolo'. The author in note 4 clarifies that he refers to my 5 books about the art of Praxiteles (Corso 2004; 2007; 2010; 2013 e 2014).
I wish to stress that in these books I supported any my statement with a huge body of evidence, both visual and written (from inscriptions, papyri and literary sources). Whoever wishes to object to my reasoning and conclusions must specify with a detailed analysis why these materials do not lead to the conclusions asserted by me. Dismissing my oeuvre without giving any reason is not allowed by any good scientific methodology and foreshadows the methodological weakness which characterizes this essay.
The conscience of the importance of my huge research about Praxiteles in the international scientific community is proved by the many awards lavished on me for that reason (fellowships of the Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene, of the German Archaeological Institute, of the British Academy, of the Onassis Foundation, of the Institute for Advanced Study of Budapest, of the 1984 Foundation of Philadelphia, of the Leventis and Hellenic Foundations, of the 7 Pillars of Wisdom Trust, of the Lord Marks Charitable Trust, of the State Scholarships Foundation of Greece, of the Ministry of National Education of Greece, of the Kostopoulos Foundation, etc.), by lectures and papers delivered in important academic centers such as Cambridge, the British Museum, the Institute of Classical Studies of London, the Universities of Aix en Provence, Cologne, Berlin, Sankt Petersburg, Moscow, the Hermitage as well as all the most important academic institutions of Greece. Moreover my books and articles about Praxiteles have been cited by many scholars everywhere in the world, from the United States to Russia, from Scandinavia to Greece.
In note 4, the author condemns also a great scholar as Andy Stewart, who probably is the greatest living expert of classical Greek sculpture in the world. Thus I wish to thank the author for placing my name near that of such a renowned scholar.
Still in the introduction, the author states (p. XII) that 'nei primi decenni del III secolo aveva operato a Delfi un diverso scultore ateniese di nome Prasssitele'. He refers to the base of the statue of Charidemus at Delphi which, pace Todisco, bears the signature of the late classical Praxiteles and not of a later namesake. This conclusion has been proved by Ajootian 2007: 31, note 22 and has been accepted by me (Corso 2014: 55-56).
Then the author states that 'uno (Prassitele III) operava a Pergamo nella prima meta' del II secolo'. This Praxiteles active at Pergamum is an illusion: it has been recognized that labels bearing the name of Praxiteles on bases from Pergamum testify the collection of statues of the late classical Praxiteles by the Pergamene royalty (DNO 2014: nos. 1985-1986). In note 6, the author claims that the existence of this 2nd c. BC Praxiteles is proved by the inscriptions DNO 2014: nos. 3706-3710, but these signatures come from Attica and are 1 c. BC.
Thus the author writes the following: 'non sussistendo, in numerosi casi, elementi tali da giustificare una selezione che riguardasse le testimonianze riferibili al maestro del IV secolo, etc.'. Ancient writers, when they refer to Praxiteles without specifications,
of course refer to the most renowned sculptor bearing this name, i. e. to the late classical master. My very detailed researches about the historical and monumental contexts of all works attributed to Praxiteles by ancient sources, published in my volumes, confirmed that these works had been made by the late classical master. Thus the skepticism of the author is not well founded, unless he specifies why does not accept these conclusions.
The biography of Praxiteles at pp. 3-5 is ok and offers a good synthesis.
The second chapter, about the oeuvre of the master, begins with a short summary about the signatures of this sculptor on bases of statues (pp. 9-10). At p. 10, the author mentions 'firme in latino incise sulle statue romane di Afrodite con Eros (Parigi, Louvre) etc.' However the Praxiteles label on this group in the Louvre has been written in Greek (DNO 2014: no. 1997). This mistake is a serious one and suggests a rather superficial and perhaps too quick compilation of this short book.
The section about the inscriptions is followed by one about statues of deities in marble. (pp. 10-11). This part bears the following title: 'opere attribuite ad uno scultore e/o bronzista di nome Prassitele' which suggests that this sculptor is not always the late classical one, but sometimes a later namesake. This skepticism is not acceptable for the above written considerations.
In the section about marble statues of deities, the author specifies (p. 10) that 'una copia dell'Eros di Tespie era molto probabilmente la statua sottratta da Verre alla collezione di Eio di Messana'. However the testimony of Cicero and historical considerations make it clear that this Eros was an original statue of the lover of Phryne (Corso 2012).
At pp. 13-14, the author writes that 'quali autori di non poche di queste opere bisogna individuare maestri di nome Prassitele diversi dall'artista del IV secolo'. However ancient writers attribute these works to Praxiteles sic et simpliciter and thus refer them to the most famous sculptor with this name, i. e. to the late classical one. Thus the proposal by Todisco works only if we admit that these ancient writers were unable to distinct late classical statues from others which were much later. I wish to stress that several of these writers were experts in the field of the videndae artes, such as Cicero, Pliny, Pausanias, Callistratus. It is very unlikely that these experts committed so serious mistakes, because at their times the most important masterpieces of the classical past were still preserved. Thus from this respect they were in the same situation enjoyed by
us: we can still admire the most noteworthy works of art from the late Middle Age onwards, which is why we would never attribute a neoclassical work to the late Gothic period.
The author states also that (p. 14) 'non e' possible escludere, come provare, che il Prassitele del IV secolo abbia realizzato opere (...) per Megara (Attica), Platea (Beozia), Tebe (Beozia), Libadeia (Beozia), Anticira (Focide), Argo (Argolide), Mantinea (Arcadia), Elis (Elide), Alessandria (Caria), Parion (Propontide).' On the contrary the knowledge of the monumental contexts of several of these works as well as of their historical contexts makes it clear that these statues were works of the late classical Praxiteles, as I demonstrated in my books. If the author doubts about my conclusions, he should demonstrate with a detailed analysis why I am wrong.
This way to go on with unsupported sentences is not scientific.
Then the author begins his consideration of the works attributed to Praxiteles (pp. 17-39), beginning with a few 4th c. BC original sculptures (pp. 17-21). The author begins this survey with the Aberdeen head (pp. 17-18), in second place he considers the Despinis head (pp. 18-19). The statement of the author (p. 11) about the 'statua di Artemide Brauronia, ricordata da Pausania quale prodotto della techne di uno scultore di nome Prassitele' stresses his determination to tear apart the personality of the lover of Phryne, distributing his works among several namesakes who flourished until the Roman period. I already explained why this opinion has no scientific dignity.
Thus the author, in the same page, remembers 'altre statue di un Prassitele, quali l'Era Teleia a Platea (marmo) e l'Artemide ad Anticira'. These statues are of Praxiteles - of the late classical master - and not of an undetermined Praxiteles. I provided in my books a detailed analysis of the monumental and historical contexts of these statues which make their attributions to late Hellenistic or Roman namesakes entirely impossible. Moreover both these statues are recorded by Pausanias who rarely mentions late Hellenistic and Roman statues.
After the Despinis head, the author considers the slabs from Mantinea (pp. 19-21). Even in this case, the author writes that (p. 20) 'uno scultore di nome Prassitele eresse nel santuario dei Letoidi a Mantinea' statues of the Apollinean triad, once again revealing his determination to tear apart the corpus of the oeuvre attributed to the lover of Phryne. My criticism of this reasoning applies also to this passage. Moreover Pausanias 8. 9. 3 specifies that Praxiteles carved this triad 'three generations after Alkamenes':
thus no doubt can exist about the late classical chronology of this creation.
I cannot understand why the author has not included the sculptures of the late classical altar of the Artemisium of Ephesus among the original works of our master: in fact Artemidorus in Strabo 14. 23 wrote that they were works of Praxiteles.
Then the author begins the section devoted to Praxitelean creations known through copies. He begins this series with the Pouring Satyr (pp. 21-23), in second place he considers the Knidian Aphrodite (pp. 24-28). The author (p. 24) accepts the proposal that the Knidia coincides with the zenith of the artist in 364-361, but does not records that this idea was suggested by me (Corso 1988: 78).
At p. 25, the author asserts that the Belvedere sub-type of the Knidia is closer to the original statue by Praxiteles than the Colonna sub-type: even in this case, he does not cite my demonstration of this conclusion (Corso 1988: 137-138).
At p. 27, the author suggests an interpretation of the Knidia closed in her own divine world and far from mortals: even in this case my demonstration (Corso 1988: 65) is not recorded.
After the Knidia, the author considers the Apollo Sauroktonos (pp. 28-31). The author asserts (p. 28) that this statuary type 'e' testimoniato da oltre venti copie romane', while in fact it is known thanks to 113 examples (Corso 2013: 93-99, note 135).
Then he considers the Hermes carrying Dionysus at Olympia, which Todisco regards a neo-Attic copy and not a late classical original (pp. 31-35). The author includes among the reasons against a IVth c. date 'la tipologia dei sandali'. Thus he appears to ignore the studies by H. Froning which reveal that this type of sandals was used in the IVth c. (Froning 2007 and 2010: 54-56, no. S 5).
The anthology of Praxitelean types known by copies suggested by Todisco ends with the Resting Satyr (pp. 35-39). Even in this case, the author does not show any care in citing his evidence: for an episode dated in 346, he cites Xenophon, Hellenics 6. 3. 3, which concerns the year 371! Immediately after this citation, he refers to the reconstruction of the walls of Thespiae an offer by Phryne which on the contrary concerns the walls of Thebae (Atenaeus 13. 591 d). Any comment is redundant.
In his analysis of the Resting Satyr, the author endorses my idea that this creation foreshadows the Arcadian dream (Corso 2010: 47, 50,55, 57 e 64), but he does not cite me.
The fourth chapter concerns the style of Praxiteles (pp. 43-49). In these pages the author links the blossoming of the art of Praxiteles with the optimism felt at Athens after the military victories reported by Chabrias and Timotheus. This notion had been forwarded first of all by me (Corso 2004: 91-99 e 115-134) and the fact that he does not record me for this suggestion is truly beyond good and evil.
Another statement of Todisco concerns the link of Praxiteles with the world of the Academy: even this idea had been suggested by me already in 1988 (Corso 1988, 42-43) and was deepened afterwards (Corso 1997-1998). Even in this case the author should have cited my publications.
Another statement of the author focuses the link of Praxiteles with the Myronian tradition, which had been suggested first of all by me (Corso 1989). Even in this case, no information is provided that the idea is mine.
The fifth chapter focuses the written testimonia (pp. 53-112).
In the introduction to this chapter, the author repeats (pp. 53-54) that 'non si puo' escludere, ma nemmeno provare, che il Prassitele del IV secolo abbia lavorato (...) per Megara, Lebadeia, Anticira, Tebe, Platea, Argo, Elide, Alessandria (Alinda) di Caria, Parion in Propontide'. I already explained above that this doubt regarding the attribution of statues set up in these centers to the late classical Praxiteles is groundless.
The notes about these sources are often wrong. For example, the dedication by Spoudias and Kleiokrateia (p. 54) is dated in 360 BC, when the couple had already divorced (!): see Demosthenes, Orations 41.
The translation of these passages often is not good: at p. 56, ^sxa xa nspoiKa is translated 'tra le spoglie persiane' while it means 'after the Persian wars'.
The testimonia are followed by notes, bibliographies and indexes and finally by 26 plates, provided with captions.
Plate XII depicts the bronze Sauroktonos at Cleveland and the caption defines this statue as 'copia di eta' romana (!?!). I do not know whether the author went to Cleveland to study this important statue, I examined it throughout three whole days and I can state that this statue has no peculiarities typical of the Roman age, it is an original work, probably still of late classical times and in any case one of the greatest masterpieces of this period. It is unbelievable that someone believes it is a Roman copy.
In conclusion, this pamphlet is an extremist product of the tendency to interpret Greek art in primitivistic and minimalistic terms: according to this reasoning, we known nearly nothing of ancient masters, most works attributed to them should be in fact late-Hellenistic or Roman, the art of that period would be uniform and anonymous. Since many ancient authors contradict this picture, in order to make this concept of the classical period successful, it is necessary to be hyper-skeptical toward literary testimonia, to write continuously that they are wrong and that they reflect experiences and works which are much later than the classical period. In other words, if there is conflict between the minimalist dogma and the evidence, it is the dogma which prevails upon the evidence and not vice versa. The fans of this pseudoscientific concept of classical Greece conquered the whole academic power in classical archaeology in Italy and are intolerant: the damnatio memoriae of my publications, which do not support their fragile dogmas, in Todisco's pamphlet stems from this situation.
Thus the short book reviewed here reflects fully this not exciting cultural situation of classical archaeology in Italy.
Bibliography
Ajootian, A. 2007: Praxiteles and Fourth-Century Athenian Portraiture. In: Schulz, P, von den Hoff, R. (eds.). Early Hellenistic Portraiture: Image, Style, Context. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 13-33. Corso, A. 1988: Prassitele, Rome.
Corso, A. 1989: Prassitele e la tradizione mironiana. NumAntCl 18, 85117.
Corso, A. 1997-1998: Love as Suffering. BICS 42, 63-91. Corso, A. 2004: The Art of Praxiteles. Rome. Corso, A. 2007: The Art of Praxiteles II. Rome. Corso, A. 2010: The Art of Praxiteles III. Rome. Corso, A. 2012: Heius di Messana. NumAntCl 41, 91-96. Corso, A. 2013: The Art of Praxiteles IV. Rome. Corso, A. 2014: The Art of Praxiteles V. Rome. DNO 2014 - Der neue Overbeck, Berlin.
Froning, H. 2007: Die Sandale des Hermes des Praxiteles in Olympia. In:
Christof, E. et al. (eds.). Potnia Theron. Vienna, 95-101. Froning, H. 2010: Die Terrakotten der antiken Stadt Elis. Wiesbaden.
