Creating The Past: The Vénus de Milo and The Hellenistic Reception

Creating the Past: The Vénus de Milo and the Hellenistic Reception of Classical Greece
Author(s): Rachel Kousser

Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 109, No. 2 (Apr., 2005), pp. 227-250
Published by: Archaeological Institute of America
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40024510
Accessed: 20-06-2019 22:09 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40024510?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to American Journal of Archaeology
This content downloaded from 80.194.30.229 on Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:09:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Creating the Past: The Venus de Milo and the
Hellenistic Reception of Classical Greece
RACHEL KOUSSER
Abstract ture echoed the visual format of a fourth-century

B.C. cult statue of Aphrodite; its altered attributes
This article reexamines the well-known Hellenistic
and style, however, made the Hellenistic work ap-

statue of Aphrodite from Melos (the Venus de Milo),
drawing on recently published archaeological evidence
propriate for its new context, the Melos civic gym-
and archival sources relating to its excavation to propose
nasium.2 In addition, sculptural fragments found
a new reconstruction of the sculpture's original appear-
ance, context, and audience. Although scholars with
have the statue and newly accessible for study sug-
often discussed the statue as a timeless ideal of female gest that the Aphrodite originally held an apple
beauty, the Aphrodite was in fact carefully adapted toto
itssignal her victory in the Judgment of Paris and
contemporary setting, the minor Hellenistic polisto ofallude to her island home, Melos ("apple" in
Melos. With its conservative yet creative visual effect,
Greek) (figs. 2, 3).3 In so doing, the sculpture gave
the sculpture offers a well-preserved early example of
compelling
the Hellenistic emulation of classical art, and opens a visual form and local meaning to a myth
canonical from the time of Homer onward, and
window onto the rarely examined world of a traditional
interpreted
Greek city during a period of dynamic change. The statue, in the Hellenistic period as an alle-
it is argued, was set up within the civic gymnasium of for humankind's choice of a way of life.4 As
gory
Melos. Furthermore, Aphrodite likely held out an apple
Aphrodite held out her prize of victory, she en-
in token of her victory in the Judgment of Paris, as newly
accessible sculptural fragments found with the statue
couraged the viewer to reflect upon the decision
demonstrate. The sculpture responds to and transforms faced by Paris: what is best - political power, mili-
tary
both classical visual prototypes and earlier narratives of success, or love? This article's reexamination
the Judgment, familiar to Greek audiences from theof pe-the celebrated statue, drawing on newly avail-
riod of Homer onward. And the Aphrodite not only was
able archaeological evidence and archival sources
appropriate for display within a gymnasium but indeed
relating to its excavation, can thus greatly enhance
exemplifies a critical aspect of that institution's role dur-
our understanding of the reception of classical
ing the Hellenistic period: the creation of a standard-
ized and highly selective vision of the past to serve sculpture
as a and mythological narrative in Hellenis-
model for the present. Thus the statue, analyzed within
tic Greece.
its original context, greatly enhances our understanding
In the following discussion, I set the Aphrodite
of the reception of classical sculpture and mythological
narrative in Hellenistic Greece.* of Melos within its original context: the world of a
minor Hellenistic city and in particular its gymna-
sium. While previous scholars have described the
INTRODUCTION
statue as a timeless ideal of female beauty, they have
The monumental statue of Aphrodite from
paid insufficient attention to its contemporary ap-
Melos, dated ca. 150-50 B.C., represents pearance and onefunction,
of and to its calculated re-
the earliest and best-documentedsponse examples ofimages
to earlier the and texts. The narrowness
Hellenistic emulation and transformation of clas- of previous research, and the advantages to be de-
sical art (fig. I).1 The over-life-sized marble sculp-
rived from a wider inquiry, justify my investigation
* Thanks are due to Evelyn Harrison, Katherine Welch,the Aphrodite of Melos makes close analysis of the archaeo-
R.R.R.
Smith, Sheila Dillon, and the editors and anonymous readers
logical evidence possible. In addition, the topography of Melos
of A/A for their extensive and very helpful commentsin onthe
ear-Hellenistic period has been recently studied (Cherry
lier drafts of this paper; any errors are of course my own.
and Sparkes 1982). Many archival sources relating to the dis-
covery
1 Musee du Louvre, inv. no. MA 399. Most scholars agree on of the Aphrodite have recently been collected by de
a date within the period ca. 150-50 B.C., although more Lorris
precise(1994), although they must still be supplemented with
earlier material collected by Vogue (1874) . For a recent popu-
dates are disputed; for a summary of recent views and general
bibliography, see UMC2 (1984), s.v. "Aphrodite," 73-4. lar account of the statue's discovery and early history, see Curtis
2003.see
^On the statue s fourth-century B.C. antecedents,
3 Musee du Louvre, inv. no. MA 400-401.
Kousser 200 1 , 1 2-6. The new publication by Marianne Hamiaux
(1998, 41-50) of all the sculptures and fragments acquired4with
1 thank Tonio Holscher for first suggesting this to me.
227
American Journal of Archaeology 109 (2005) 227-50
228 RACHEL KOUSSER [AJA109
Aphrodite of Melos to offer a full restoration and

architectural context for the statue. The second sec-
tion uses the insights gained from this reconstruc-

tion to analyze the statue as a well-preserved and
attractive, but in many ways conventional, example
of the Hellenistic reception of classical culture. The
final section opens to a broader consideration of
the Hellenistic gymnasium - the initially surpris-
ing, but in fact highly appropriate, setting for this
retrospective sculpture - and its role in preserving
the classical past.
Much more than an athletic facility, the gymna-
sium of the Hellenistic period became the preemi-
nent educational and cultural institution of the
Greek cities.6 It furthermore served, in an increas-
ingly cosmopolitan world, to define the essential
components of Greek identity. With its conserva-
tive architectural forms and classicizing sculptures,
the gymnasium provided a fitting site for athletic,
military, and intellectual practices inherited from
the Classical period. It thus helped create a cul-
ture of reception and retrospection that shaped
later responses to the Greek past, from Roman times
to the present.
In combination, the three sections outlined
above bring into focus the importance of the
Aphrodite of Melos for an understanding of civic
art and culture in Hellenistic Greece. Scholars of
Hellenistic sculpture have often stressed the criti-

cal role played by new patrons, particularly the
ambitious and fabulously wealthy Hellenistic mon-
archs, in creating styles and genres radically at
odds with those of the classical past.7 The
Aphrodite of Melos - a monumental statue of an
Olympian deity, executed in a classicizing style
and set up in the gymnasium of a minor polis -
exemplifies instead a different and often ne-
Fig. 1. Aphrodite, Melos, ca. 150-50 B.
glected aspect of Hellenistic art: its self-consciously
Louvre. (© Louvre, Dist RMN/P. Lebaude
retrospective quality, visible particularly in the
public monuments of long-established Greek cit-
of a statue thaties.is When seen within this contemporary cultural
exceedingly wel
well understood.5 and civic setting, the statue opens a window onto
The first of three broad sections reexamines writ- the rarely examined world of a traditional Greek
ten and visual accounts of the excavation of the city during a period of dynamic change. It demon-
5 The bibliography concerning the Aphrodite of Melos is include Charbonneaux 1959; Linfert 1976, 116-7; Pasquier
immense. The two major studies of the statue's context are 1985; Triante 1998. The best modern discussion of the
more than 100 years old (Reinach 1890; Furtwangler 1895, Aphrodite as a copy occurs in Niemeier (1985, 142-3), again
367-401 ) . The problem has been more recently though briefly focusing primarily on style.
treated by Corso 1995; Maggidis 1998; Ridgway 2000, 167-71; b For an introduction to the Hellenistic gymnasium, see
Beard and Henderson 200 1 , 1 20-3. Works drawing particularly Delorme 1960; cf. Moretti 1977.
upon the archival sources include de Marcellus 1840; Aicard 7On Hellenistic monarchs and their role as patrons of art,
1874; Vogue 1874; Doussault 1877; Alaux 1939; de Lords 1994. see, e.g., Pollitt 1986, 19-46; see also Smith 1988; 1991, 19-
More recent works, which primarily discuss questions of style, 32, 155-80, 205-37.
2005] CREATING THE PAST: THE VENUS DE MILO 229
Fig. 2. Hand holding an apple, found together with the Aphr

(© Louvre, Dist RMN/P. Lebaude)
strates both the conservative tendencies of a Hel-

Aphrodite of Melos thus needs to be interpreted
lenistic polis struggling to maintain its ties with
to thethe period's political background in mind. In
classical past and - as the statue transformed its the popularity of the statue at the time,
addition,
classical models in terms of style, iconography,
and its attribution to a fifth-century B.C. student of
function, and meaning - the gulf between Phidias,
that the great Athenian sculptor, should be un-
derstood in relation to the French desire to build a
idealized past and the reality of the city's narrowly
circumscribed present. national collection of ancient sculpture to rival that
of Britain, after the British Museum's recent acqui-
MELOS IN l82O: THE DISCOVERY OF THE
sition of the Elgin Marbles.9
APHRODITE
Given the political circumstances attending the
At the time of the Aphrodite's discovery
Aphrodite'sindiscovery,
1820, it is not surprising that the
written
the small Cycladic island of Melos was and visual sources
officially stillfor the statue's excava-
tion internal
part of the Ottoman empire, but its are all French. Several have been recently re-
poli-
published,
tics - and, significantly, the dispersal of itsand all are worth examining in greater
antiqui-
detail than
ties - were also subject to the influence is often done for the information they
of France:8
French naval officers stationed on the island en- offer regarding the sculpture's context and resto-
couraged and recorded the excavation of the ration. The most important include the account
Aphrodite and its associated sculptures; a French published by the French naval officer, Dumont
diplomat, backed by his country's warship in the d'Urville (1821); correspondence regarding the find
island's harbor, purchased the statue; and the between the French consul on Melos, Louis Brest,
French king, Louis XVIII, subsequently acquiredthe consul general of Smyrna, Pierre David, and
the work and donated it to the Louvre, where itthe ambassador to Constantinople, the marquis de
remains to this day. The modern history of the Riviere (written at the time of the discovery but
8 On Melos, France, and the Ottoman empire in the early 9 On the attribution to a fifth-century sculptor, see Reinach
19th century, see de Lorris 1994; Curtis 2003, 3-36. On the (1890, 384) , with earlier bibliography. On rivalry between the
19th-century reception of the statue, see Hales 2002; see also Louvre and the British Museum, see Havelock 1995, 94; Beard
Haskell and Penny 1981, 328-30; Curtis 2003, 50-163. and Henderson 2001, 120-3; Hales 2002, 253-4.
Fig. 3. Left upper arm found together w

Dist RMN/Les freres Chuzeville)
not published untilUsing these1874); and

sources, a tentative the
history emerges as a
of the comte de follows:
Marcellus,
On 8 April 1820, a Greekde farmer Rivie
digging in
(1840). 10 Of these, the
his field began letters
to unearth the Aphrodite.13are
He was u
encouraged by Voutier
temporary documents to continue, and excavated
written by p
with the the statue
discovery but and the two herms depicted
giving only in Voutier's
a fr
ture of events rather than a coherent narrative. De drawing (figs. 6, 7).14 The Aphrodite had been
Marcellus' discussion, written later, presents the
sculpted in antiquity in two main parts (upper and
view of one not directly involved with the excava-
lower body) and doweled together. It was uncovered
tion. D'Urville's account is near contemporary, with these two parts separated, and with some
though possibly elaborated for publication, and smaller pieces of drapery and hair also broken off.15
It was drawn in this condition by Voutier. At the
written by one who viewed the results of the excava-
tions but was not present for them. In addition, same
two time, two fragments, a left hand holding an
drawings exist. The first is by Olivier Voutier, a and an upper arm, were also found (figs. 2, 3).16
apple
French sailor and amateur archaeologist who These was were assumed by contemporaries to be associ-
present when the statue was discovered (fig. 4). It with the Aphrodite. Brest, on 12 April, wrote to
ated
David describing the discovery of the two herms and
shows the Aphrodite of Melos along with two herms.11
The second drawing, showing the Aphrodite only, "Venus tenant la pomme de discorde dans sa main."17
The architectural surrounding in which the stat-
was done by A. Debay in 1821, after the statue arrived
at the Louvre (fig. 5).12 ues were found was subsequently destroyed, since
naval captain, Dauriac, who refers to the excavations. The let-

10 D'Urville's narrative is quoted verbatim in Aicard 1874,
ter is reprinted in Vogue 1874, 162. For the circumstances of
while de Marcellus' account is preserved in his autobiography
(de Marcellus 1840). The letters, found in the diplomatic the
ar-discovery, see also Reinach 1890; Alaux 1939, 95-6; de
Lorris 1994.
chives of Smyrna and Constantinople, are assembled in Vogue
1874. 14 Musee du Louvre, inv. no. MA 405 (bearded) and MA 404
11 For an account of Voutier's life, his participation in(unbearded)
the .
discovery of the Aphrodite, and excerpts from his memoirs, 15 Pasquier 1985, 24.
see Alaux 1939; de Lorris 1994; Curtis 2003, 3-9. 16 The fragments are Louvre MA 400 (hand) and MA 401
(arm) ; on their discovery, see Aicard (1874, 176) , drawn from
12 The drawing was done for the painter Jacques-Louis David,
then in exile in Belgium (Pasquier 1985, 40). the account of d'Urville.
13 The date is given in a letter written three days later by 17

a Vogue 1874, 163.
Fig. 4. The Aphrodite of Melos and two herms shortly aft
it lay on a Greek farmer's arable

tors have land.
suggested that theSome de-
name be emended as
scriptions of its appearance Sattos
are(a well-known
preserved, Greek name of the period) or
however.
Brest later described the area to architect Charles S. Atios (i.e., Sextus Atius), the name of an old and
well-established plebeian Roman family.23
Doussault as a hemispherical niche, with the Aphro-
A second inscription from Melos, likewise lost,
dite in the center and the herms flanking her. From
his testimony, Doussault made a sketch, which was
Brest
recorded by Debay at the Louvre in 1821 in his
agreed fit his recollections (fig. 8).18 drawing of the Aphrodite (fig. 5). In the drawing
D'Urville, when he viewed the statue three weeks
the fragmentary inscription serves as the statue's
plinth and reads "[?]andros son of [M]enides of
after its excavation, described an "espace de niche,"
[Ant] ioch-on-the-Maeander made [it]."24 It too has
surmounted by an inscription, which he transcribed.19
According to d'Urville, the inscription read, an approximate date of ca. 150-50 B.C., according
"Bakchios, son of Satios, assistant gymnasiarch, to the letterforms.
[dedicated] this exedra and this [?] to Hermes and Several other sculptural fragments were found
Herakles."20 The letterforms transcribed by d'Urville at approximately the same time and have entered
suggest that the inscription dates to ca. 150-50 B.C. the Louvre collections. A third herm was found in
It has since been lost.21 No prosopographical infor-

the same area shortly after the original discoveries
mation is available about the dedicator. His name is
(fig. 9). A foot wearing a sandal, likely found near
the sepulchral caves of Klima, was also added to the
unusual: although Bakchios is a fairly common Greek
name, Satios is otherwise unattested.22 Commenta-
collection.25 Two additional arms were presented
18 The conversation, however, took place in 1847, and24/GXII.3.1241:-av5poq Mrrvi6ou/['

Maidv5pou/8noir]O8v. D 'Urville also describ
Doussault's drawing was published only in 1877, so the informa-
tion depends on memories recorded long after the event
an inscription that he considered too wea
(Doussault 1877). its present whereabouts are unknown (Ai
19Aicard 1874, 175. 25 Herm: Musee du Louvre, inv. no. MA
(Hamiaux 1998, fig. 56). On the location
20/GXII.3.1091: BctKxioqE 'Atiou i)noyu[uvacn,apxr[a]ao/
xdv T8 e^eSpav ml to Lorris (1994, 61), quoting de Marcellus. T
21 Pasquier 1985, 83-4. foot had already been discovered by the time
22 RE 2 (1896), s.v. "Attios/Atius." on the island on 23 May 1820 (de Marcellu
23Sattos: Collignonin/GXII.5.1091; S. Atios: de Clarac 1821.
might be suspect.26
and perhaps the in
Aphrodite, were al
at this time.27
The French, despit
statue, had some di
alerted David four d
but could not afford
statue on 19 April, a
of it to de Marcell
stantinople. His desc
of de Riviere, who g
visit Melos and acqu
matic mission to th
rived on Melos on 23
after the statue's d
Greek farmer who discovered the statue had re-
ceived another offer from Oikonomos Verghi,
an inhabitant of Melos wishing to present the
Aphrodite to Nicolas Morusi, interpreter at the
Arsenal of Constantinople.30 The statue had actu-
ally been loaded on a ship bound for Constan-
tinople and Morusi when the French intervened,
and de Marcellus bought the Aphrodite on behalf
of de Riviere for 834 piastres.31 At the same time,
de Marcellus also acquired the three herms, the
hand with the apple, the arm fragment, and the
marble foot.32 The statues were then sent to France,
bought by Louis XVIII for LL 299, and set up in the
Louvre.33
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE APHRODITE
The Aphrodite of Melos, perhaps becaus

dramatic circumstances of its excavation an
sition by the French, or because of its p
placement in the Louvre, early on attract
Fig. 5. Aphrodite of Melos, with plinth.
ars' frequent and diverse reconstructions
Debay, 1821) (Salomon 1895, pl. 1) (Cou
Bonniers Forlag) Reinach and Adolf Furtwangler enuncia
opposing viewpoints in the 1890s.34 More r
the scholarly focus has shifted from an an
to de Riviere the statue's
upon his context
visit to an examination
and clai of it
with particular emphasis
finds. This presentation, on close dating
however,
months after thenections to regional artistic
excavation of centers.35
the In Aa
so the ticle,of
association for instance,
the Christofilis
finds Maggidis
wit
26 Only one arm is mentioned in the Louvre 30Pasquierl985,

catalogue 25. (inv.
no. MA 402) . On it, see Hamiaux 1998, fig. 55;31 Pasquier
cf. the 1985,account
25; for a rather dramatic account of the
in Furtwangler 1895, 375. affair, see Curtis 2003, 26-33.
27 De Lorris 1994, 66 (de Marcellus). 32De Lorris 1994, 59-61 (de Marcellus) ; de Marcellus 1840,
198.
28 The letter from Brest to David is given by Vogue 1874,
33Hamiauxl998,44.
163; Dauriac, in a letter to David, notes that the Greek farmer
34 Reinach 1890; Furtwander 1895, 367-401.
wanted 1,000 piastres for the statue and that Brest, though he
35 For
wished to buy the statue, could not afford to do so general
(Vogue discussions
1874, of the work's style, see Alscher
162). 1957, 81-3; Charbonneaux 1959; Pasquier 1985; Havelock
29 De Marcellus 1840, 190-1. 1995, 93-7; Ridgway 2000, 167-71; on its connections to re-
the Aphrodite's style, carving technique, and re-

construction (largely endorsing Furtwangler's
views) but aims primarily to set the work within the
context of Melian sculptural production and to
connect it with the workshop that produced the
Hellenistic Poseidon from the same island.36 A re-
evaluation of the sculpture's reconstruction must

consequently begin with the theories put forward
by Reinach and Furtwangler, which I will evaluate
in light of Maggidis' discussion and other recent
research.
In an influential article of 1890, "La Venus de

Milo," Reinach discussed the context in which the
Aphrodite of Melos was discovered, and the evi-
dence this furnished for possible reconstructions.37
Examining the various contemporary accounts of
the sculpture's discovery, he argued that the other
sculptures and fragments found along with the
Aphrodite were not a coherent group but were,
instead, a later assemblage brought together in a
post-Antique lime kiln and fortunately preserved.38
Although he admitted that early visitors described
an architectural niche surmounted by the gymn-
asiarch's inscription, he concluded that the niche
did not preserve an authentic ancient setting, and
that the inscription had nothing to do with the
statue.39 Furthermore, because d'Urville did not
describe the inscription preserving the artist's sig-
nature, Reinach disassociated this signature from
the Aphrodite, and argued that Debay's drawing was
simply an imaginary reconstruction; if the inscrip-
tion had in fact fitted the statue so well, he suggested,
it would still be preserved.40
Reinach's theory that the Aphrodite of Melos
was found in a lime kiln, and thus had no neces-
sary connection to the sculptures and inscriptions
with which it was found, left the statue without a
context, date, or artist. This permitted Reinach to
suggest his own dating, based on the style of the
piece. He posited a date in the late fifth century
B.C. and a sculptor who was a student of Phidias.41
Reinach also dissociated the hand holding the Fig. 6. Bearded herm found together with the Aphrodite of
apple from the statue, admitting that while the Melos, second century B.C. Paris, Musee du Louvre MA
405. (© Louvre, Dist RMN/R Lebaude)
marble was the same, and that it fit the scale of the
Aphrodite "to a millimeter," the workmanship was
far inferior to the rest of the sculpture.42 While he The flaws in Reinach's argument are well exposed
provided a history and critique of previous recon- by the more thorough consideration of the evidence
structions, Reinach did not propose one of his own. in Furtwangler's Meisterwerke der Griechischen Plastik
gional centers, see esp. Linfert 1976, 116-7; Maggidis 1998; 39 Reinach 1890,380.
Triante 1998. 40 Reinach 1890,383-4.
36 Maggidis 1998. 41 Reinach 1890,384.
37 Reinach 1890,376-94. 42 Reinach 1890,388.
38 Reinach 1890,382.
found with the Aph

the statue, as early
My own examinati
that they are made
marble analogous to
weathered on the u
lowish tinge.44 The
of the Aphrodite's
parable.45 In each ca
while other surfac
roughly executed a
claw chisel. Finally,
mains of dowel hole
attached through a
that of the statue: the hand has a small oval hole
visible where the wrist breaks off, and the arm has a
larger oval extending parallel to the length of the
arm (figs. 10, 11). The size and shape of the dowel
hole in the arm suggested to Furtwangler that it
Fig. 7. Beardless herm found together wit

of Melos, second century B.C. Paris, Mus
404. (© Louvre, Dist RMN/P. Lebaude)
of 1893. Furtwangler argued vehem

Reinach's theory of a lime kiln. He
contemporary accounts and separate
excavated at the same time as the A
herms, the hand and arm fragment
scriptions) from that discovered later
(the foot, additional arm fragmen
gether, these pieces appeared less lik
assortment of a lime kiln than a pu
tural assemblage, since they consist
four near-complete statues and ins
Fig. 8. Aphrodite of Melos in its original setting. (Drawing
might reasonably be associated
by the architect Charles Doussault, aided by Louiswit Brest,
wangler suggested
fromthat
a conversationthe hand
in 1847, published in 1877) and
43 Furtwangler 1895, 367-78. the area of this crease that the yellowish weathering is discern-
44 The hand fragment has yellowish weathering on theible.
sideThe bottom surfaces of hand and arm are paler and grayer,
of the palm, presumably upturned to display the apple. perhaps
The through more limited exposure to the elements.
45 E.g., the arm is 13 cm in width, comparable to the pre-
lower edge of the arm (opposite the dowel end) has a slight
served
crease, perhaps signaling the beginning of the elbow; it is in portion of Aphrodite's right arm.
though by no means a certain on

the apple not only with the Jud
also with the name Melos.47
Furtwangler suggested, furthermore, that the
sculptor's inscription recorded by Debay should
indeed be associated with the Aphrodite. He ad-
duced as evidence the arguments preserved in the
comte de Clarac and quatremere de Quincy's early
publications about whether the signature was origi-
nal or a later replacement, which suggested that its
connection to the statue was beyond dispute.48 He
also considered that the inscription's disappearance
was "only a proof of its genuineness," since it iden-
tified the statue as coming from the Hellenistic era
and an unknown artist instead of a fifth-century
student of Phidias.49 Since Debay's drawing showed
a square hole in the plinth above the inscription,
Furtwangler reconstructed the Aphrodite with her
lower arm resting on a waist-high pillar, and her
hand holding the apple facing palm up (fig. 13).50
Recently Maggidis has reiterated the arguments
in support of Furtwangler's hypothesis. He has
drawn particular attention to the evidence offered
by the statue's fragmentary base (e.g., the roughly
carved surface of the diagonal left side and the
dowel hole for the left foot, now filled in plaster) .51
He has also examined the flat front portion of the
base, which is neither square with the other pre-
served sides nor as finely worked, and has proposed
that here, too, an additional piece was added to
complete the plinth.52 It is plausible, as Maggidis
Fig. 9. Beardless herm found together with the Aphrodite
argues, that the Aphrodite had one or several attach-
of Melos, second century B.C. Paris, Musee du Louvre MA
ments, which extended the statue forward to sup-
403. (© Louvre, Dist RMN/P Lebaude)
port the projecting left foot, and to the left to
continue the line of the drapery. A support for the
was part of the same dowel left arm wouldon
visible also the
be appropriate,
left since
shoul-it seems
der of the Aphrodite, althoughto have extended
it did awaynot
from the body, and
join. Thisno struts
seems possible, given the are oblong shape
preserved.53 However, of isboth,
Maggidis less convinc-
the fact that they are locateding in
in histhe
argument
samethat the base drawn
part of by the Debay
arm, and their size (fig. 12).best
46 fits the statue's requirements.54 My own ex-
Furtwangler consequently amination of the statue and
concluded the drawings
that theof the
statue should be reconstructed as
base has led me an this
to view Aphrodite
part of the reconstruc-
holding an apple, the mosttion
plausible
skeptically: first,hypothesis al-
because the base directly joins
46 Furtwangler 1895, 367; Saloman 1895, 23-4. The dowel and other Aphrodite types show the goddess holding an apple
hole in the shoulder of the Aphrodite is approximately 6.5 cm and resting an arm on a pillar. Late Antique statuette: Dresden,
long, while that in the arm is at its smallest 4 cm long. Albertinum 191. For Aphrodite holding an apple, see, e.g.,
47 Furtwangler 1895, 369, 381-2. Coins of Melos from the Mollard-Besques 1954-1986, 2:pl. 27b.
fourth to first centuries B.C. generally showed an apple on the 51 Maggidis 1998, 177-80.
obverse, so the connection was presumably familiar to contem- 52 Maggidis 1998, 180-1.
porary viewers (Wroth 1976, 103-5, nos. 1-31). 53 Maggidis 1998, 180.
48 de Clarac 1821; de Quincy 1821. 54 Maggidis does not in fact provide an illustration of the
49Furtwander 1895, 369. Debay drawing (here fig. 5) nor of the same base, drawn by
50 As he noted, other copies of the Aphrodite of Capua type Voutier as the plinth for a herm (here fig. 4) . He shows only
use a pillar support, e.g., a Late Antique statuette nowin Dresden, Furtwangler's reconstruction (here fig. 13; his fig. 7).
Fig. 10. Hand found Fig.

with 11.
theArm found wit
Aphrodite, sh
hole. (R. Kousser) hole. (R. Kousser)
the Aphrodite Romans

but as the catalyst for the development
includes no foot of ma- or
ments, and jor artistic genres,
second, because for instance, the female
it nude,
appea
drawing as the and stylesfor
base such as neoclassicism.59
one This is a reason-
of the her
able interpretation
ing that it also fit well of the available evidenceHowe
there. but
not an inevitable one. It is no
sence of the fragment, not clear, for instance,
definitiv
possible, as Marianne
that the inscriptionHamiaux
refers to the statue, and indeed has
recent publication ofwonder
one might thewhy thestatues for
image of a goddess, Aph- t
Since Furtwangler rodite, would be dedicated to two gods, Hermes
suggested that t
was found in situ, its location and architectural sur- and Herakles.60 More broadly, scholars' focus on
roundings took on a new importance. Both Brest the possible Roman patron of the Aphrodite of
and d'Urville describe the place in which the Melos has tended to obscure the significance of
Aphrodite was found as a "niche"; the Greek farmer its context. As Furtwangler argued, exedrae like
unearthed stones suitable for building a house, the one in which the statue was found were often
which suggests an architectural structure.56 The funded by gymnasiarchs, formed part of gymnasia,
niche was surmounted by the gymnasiarch's inscrip- and were used for teaching or for the display of
tion, restored by Furtwangler as a dedication of "the statues, as here. He consequently suggested that
exedra and the [agalma ('sculpture')]" (i.e., the the statue was set up within the civic gymnasium of
niche and the Aphrodite).57 Melos.61 The statue's appropriateness for a Helle-
Some scholars, arguing from the inscription and nistic gymnasium context and for its primary audi-
reconstructing the patron's name as S. Atius, have ence, the young Greek students and athletes in
claimed the Aphrodite as a Roman work of art.58 attendance, will be the central focus of attention
Their view of the statue fits in with much recent here.
scholarship on late Hellenistic sculpture, which

As has been suggested, Furtwangler's argument,
stresses the romanitas of such works, and sees the
based on close reading of the primary sources and
55 Hamiaux 1998, 41. 59 E.g., Zanker 1974; Havelock 1995 (cf. Marvin 1996); Ful-
56Aicard 1874, 175; Furtwander 1895, 375. lerton 2003, 108-12.
57 The evidence for the restoration of the word agalma 60 1 thank Brunilde Ridgway for bringing my attention to
comes from a preserved diagonal slash at the beginning ofthis question.
the word, which Furtwangler (1895, 377) suggested was an 61 On gymnasiarchs, see Giovannini 1993; cf. Rostovtzeff
alpha; the rest of the word is lost. 1941, 1059-60; Moretti 1977, 489. On gymnasium exedrae,
58Maggidisl998, 193-4. see Delorme 1960, 325-8; von Hesberg 1995, 18-20.
Fig. 13.
Fig. 12. Left side of Aphrodite of Melos. (© Reconstruction
Louvre, Dist of the Aphrodite pr
RMN/Les freres Chuzeville) Furtwangler. (Furtwangler 1895) (Courtesy C
Sons)
supported by appropriate archaeological compari- with the illustrious fifth century influenced his
sons, makes the best use of the available evidence interpretation of the archaeological evidence.
and is lent additional plausibility by more recent I use Furtwangler's reconstruction as the start-
investigations. Further excavation, or the rediscov- ing point for my own analysis of the Aphrodite of
ery of the lost inscriptions, might contradict it, but Melos and its transformation of the classical past.
for now it stands as the most convincing reconstruc- To this I will now turn.
tion of the Melian Aphrodite appearance and con-

THE RECEPTION OF STYLE: RETROSPECTION
text. Reinach's hypothesis of a lime kiln, by contrast,
IN HELLENISTIC SCULPTURE
disregards contemporary accounts and unjustifiably
brings together a heterogeneous collection of sculp- The Aphrodite of Melos - visually impr
ture discovered at different times and in different widely famous, and Greek in origin - has so
been claimed by scholars as a Greek "origi
areas. His attempt to remove the Aphrodite of Melos
from its original context allows him to assign themodel for many subsequent Hellenistic an
versions
statue to a more prestigious date and sculptor, and (e.g., fig. 14) .62 Recent discoveri
ever, cast doubt on this hypothesis. Most no
it may be suspected that this desire to link the statue
62E.g., Havelock 1995,97.
statue in Corinth;
and extensive serie
the type.64 Furtherm
selectively on classic
pressive, elevated air
inspiration were filt
sibility, seen, for ex
drapery and sensuo
visually compelling
rooted in the past bu
this way it was a ch
tic art.
The Melian statue's relationship to its classical

model should first be considered. While the
Corinthian statue has not been preserved, the later

versions of the type are remarkably consistent
their visual format and allow us to reconstruct this
aspect of the original with confidence. In each work

the goddess stands with her weight on the right
leg, with the left leg bent; the left foot, no longer
preserved in the Melian statue, was slightly el-
evated. Often, as on Melos, Aphrodite's upper body
and especially her head turn toward the left side,
and her level gaze is also directed out to the left.
The overall impression given by the pose is of a
dynamic, three-dimensional, and open form. The
drapery, like the pose, is consistently replicated: a
mantle wrapped about the hips with a thick roll at
the waist, one end draped over the left knee and
falling between the legs, and a heavy diagonal fold
of fabric starting at the right knee. This pose and
drapery form the visual signature of the type.
But while the Aphrodite of Melos adopted a
familiar visual format - one similar to other half-
Fig. 14. Venus, Amphitheater, Capua, Ha
nude Greek images
Museo Nazionale 6017. of the love goddess, (Cour
(Shwanke) such as
83.2259) the Aphrodite of Aries - the Melian statue, like the
other later versions of the type, departed from the
terracotta model in
statuette the position of
from the arms and in its at-sec
Corinth,
the late fourth tributes.
to The classical statue,
early third likely set up in the
centu
gests that the Temple of
visual Aphrodite on the Acropolis
format was offamili
Corinth,
the Melian seems to have held
sculpture wasout a shield created.63
in celebration of
military victory. Its

sisting upon the statue's model, however, offered only
originality, on a
fruitfully consider it
starting pointas a artists'
for later creative, bu
imaginative reworkings
ately of the work
retrospective, type.65 The moreof than 300 Hellenistic
art. As and F
others have argued, in
Roman versions its
of the pose
Aphrodite of Capuaand
ranged
Melian sculpturewidely
echoed a classical
in their appearance, including, for instance,t
the Aphrodite of Capua,
an amorous likely
Venus embracing crea
Mars in the Augustan
fig.
63 1 thank Gloria Merker for sharing this information 45; Davidson 1952, pl. 18.222.
with
64 Furtwangler 1895, 384-5; on the Hellenistic variants, see
me from her upcoming monograph on the tile works of Corinth.
Several other terracotta statuettes from Corinth, likelyKousser
dating 2001, 48-54.
before the sack of the city in 150 B.C. by L. Mummius,65also
Roman versions of the Aphrodite of Capua type from
suggest that the model was a Corinthian statue createdCorinth
well offer the best clues to the type's initial appearance
before the Melian one; on these terracottas, see Broneer
and1930,
function; they include marble statuettes, lamps, coins, and
Forum, and a martial Victoria adapt the flanked

baroque style by trophies
of works such as the Alta
on the Column of Trajan.66 Too
of Zeus numerous
at Pergamon to createto cata-
a sense of energy
logue here, these many versions and excitement
merit in anfurther
otherwise rather
in- static fig
vestigation, and I discuss them ure.70 With the upper body
in another of the Aphrodite o
forum.67
For now, it must suffice to Melos, the sculptor
recognize looked
that elsewhere
the Melianfor inspira
Aphrodite was also a creative adaptation
tion. The of its
soft, fleshy contours clas-
of the torso, with its
sical model. Because of the slenderpresent fragmentary
waist, spreading belly, and broad hips, re
condition of the statue's arms, one cannot recon- call Hellenistic goddesses such as the Medici and
struct them with certainty. However, the fragments Capitoline Aphrodites, and especially the
suggest that this Aphrodite gestures with her right "Crouching Aphrodite" type. Here the artist drew
arm toward the left, rests her left elbow on a sup- upon the extensive development of the female
port, and holds an apple palm up in that hand (fig. nude in Hellenistic art to give a convincing repre-
13) .68 As such, the statue represents Aphrodite as sentation of a heavyset, almost matronly, image of
the winner of the Judgment of Paris. The image's the mature goddess.71 And finally, as Maggidis has
iconography is less martial than that of many other shown, the sculptor used classical elements for the
Hellenistic and Roman versions, though no less head - for example, the small, extremely regular
victorious. eyes and mouth; the strongly delineated brow line,
The sculptor of the Aphrodite of Melos re- eyelids, and nose bridge; the full lower face and
sponded not only to the visual format of a particu- heavy chin - combined with typically Hellenistic
lar statue type but more broadly to a range of earlier ones, such as the "Venus rings" of the neck and
and contemporary artistic styles. Above all, he al- the smooth but fleshy rendering of the skin.72 The
tered the effect of the statue's classical icono-
neoclassical style helps to impart an impressive
graphic format by executing it in a thoroughly appearance to an over-life-sized statue of a major
Hellenistic manner: an eclectic mixture of neo- Olympian goddess.
classical and "baroque" features.69 The drapery, Asthe
these examples suggest, the sculptor of the
nude upper body, and the face offer particularlyAphrodite of Melos did not intend to create an
good examples of his method. The drapery, fororiginal work of art, but he did not simply
entirely
instance, is carved in a bravura Hellenistic style,
copy a model either. Hellenistic sculptors were, of
with deeply undercut folds of cloth that course,create eminently
a capable of precise copying - a
richly varied play of light and shadow. These version
con-of Polykleitos' Diadoumenos, executed ca.
trasts, and the fabric's strongly diagonal100 folds,
B.C. on nearby Delos, furnishes a good ex-
a recently discovered wall painting, which consistently show ered, no breaks or remains suggest that a hand was attached to
the goddess holding a shield in her outstretched arms. For the it. On the left shoulder, the oval dowel hole shows that the
Roman statuettes, see Soles 1976, 43-58; for lamps, see Broneer arm was worked separately and attached, and may be associ-
1930, 98-9, 192; for coins, see Edwards 1933, nos. 101, 175, ated with the left arm fragment, as discussed above. Judging
208; for the wall painting, see Gadbery 1993, 61-4. On the from the orientation of the dowel holes, the arm extended
type's original context, see Kousser 2001, 12-6. outward and slightly down from the shoulder (figs. 11, 12)
66 On the Forum Augustum statue, see Kleiner 1981; on the (Saloman 1895, 23-4). The hand was likewise doweled to the
Victoria from the Column of Trajan, see, e.g., Wegner 1931, lower arm, although again the fragments do notjoin. The ring
62-72. and little fingers wrap closely around the apple, while the oth-
67 On the more than 300 Hellenistic and Roman versions of ers, originally extended, have been broken off (fig. 2). The
the Aphrodite of Capua type, see Kousser 2001. hand presumably rested on a support, perhaps a pillar, as in
68 The argument for the restoration of the Aphrodite of other Hellenistic half-draped statues of Aphrodite (e.g. , Mollard-
Melos is as follows: The right shoulder is lower than the left, Besques 1954-1986, 2: pl. 27b). In the case of the Aphrodite
and the remains of that arm pressed closely to the goddess' of Melos, a pillar might usefully have shielded the left side of
side. The arm seems to have been held in place by a tenon the statue from close viewing; the drapery on this side is ex-
extending from the body at waist level; the hole for the tenon ecuted in a much more summary fashion than that of the right
is still visible, though filled in plaster. Generally, in preserved side, with broad flat swathes of fabric interrupted only by a few
copies of the Aphrodite of Capua type, the right arm crosses sketchy folds (fig. 12).
the body at waist level, directing the viewer's attention again 69 On the concept of the Hellenistic "baroque," see Pollitt
towards the left side, and this also seems likely here. The posi- 1986, 111-26.
tion of the right hand is unclear. D'Urville states that it grasped70 Pollitt 1986, figs. 99-107.
the drapery at the waist, but he gives no evidence for this as- 71 Stewart 1990, pls. 503, 719-720. On Aphrodite in the Hel-
sertion (Aicard 1874, 176). Furtwangler (1895, 382-3) sug- lenistic period, see also Neumer-Pfau 1982; von Prittwitz and
gested that it rested on the left knee, as the drapery was drawn Gaffron 1988; Havelock 1995; Zanker 1998.
up on this side, but although the surface of the knee is weath- 11 Maggidis 1998, 184.
statue of
ample73 - but this Aphrodite, particularly
practice one that was
remains
rather than the monumental
rule. work More in an important
frequen public build
ing. Furthermore,
treated earlier models in in a the gymnasium, the statue
contempor
for instance, in the Hellenistic
primary viewers were young menversion
like Paris. As po
Parthenos trayedfor
executed in Homeric epic andLibrary
the Greek tragedy, the of
Tro
or combined jan adulterer hardly
disparate seems an appropriate
sculptural prro
model.
a new synthesis, as in Thusthe
it is worth considering group
statue in what way
the myth might be understood positively
in Lykosoura.75 Appropriately, it by isviewer
in
as they faced Aphrodite
well that we can trace with the apple in her out-
the beginnings
as a discipline, as theorists
stretched enuncia
hand and were encouraged by the statue's
narrative for the evolution of Greek art and selected gesture to consider the question posed by the Judg
ment and their own verdict.79
a set of artists as exemplary and canonical.76 Al-
though the sculptor of the Aphrodite may not have Two aspects of the Judgment of Paris, well docu-
followed such dicta consciously, the work is none- mented in the literature of the late Classical and
Hellenistic periods, help to explain why the myth

theless a product of this receptive and scholarly en-
vironment, combining different styles of past andmight be appropriate for the Aphrodite of Melos.
present to produce a recognizable, authoritative, First, in the Hellenistic era especially, the myth
and attractive image. served as the prototypical example of the beauty con-
test, with an emphasis on Aphrodite's praiseworthy
THE RECEPTION OF MYTH: THE JUDGMENT OF and victorious beauty rather than on the destructive
PARIS IN THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD
aftermath of the contest. Hellenistic epigrams on
Just as the style and visual formatimages
of theof Aphrodite,
Aphrodite for instance, often praised
the so
of Melos responded to earlier works, works
too,by Ialluding
wouldto the Judgment, and sug-
argue, the statue's iconography recalled a canoni-
gested that the image offered clear visual evidence
for why
cal myth, the Judgment of Paris. The mythAphrodite
was, won.
fur-An epigram by Antipater of
thermore, evoked in such a way Sidon as todescribes
suggestApelles'
itspainting of Aphrodite ris-
ing from the sea and has Athena and Hera com-
relevance for the statue's audience and for its set-
ment, "No longer do we enter into the strife of

ting, Melos. The apple held by the goddess pro-
vides the critical visual cue. As a visitor to the beauty with you."80 A similar treatment of the Judg-
gymnasium observed Aphrodite extending mentit as
to-
a topos for beauty appears in Herodas' first
ward him, he could reflect upon the fruit'smime: a young wife whose husband has gone on a
local
significance, since it had served as the city's em-to Egypt was warned of the myriad attrac-
long trip
blem on coins from the fourth century onward.77
tions of Alexandria, including women "in form like
The spectator might then focus on the goddess'
the goddesses who hurried to Paris to judge their
connection to the city, appropriately for herbeauty"
setting(1. 34-35). 81 Even in Callimachos' hymn in
within the gymnasium, a major civic building.praise of Athena, the poet alludes to Paris' choice
not to
But in the hands of Aphrodite, the apple was criticize it but to contrast the types of beauty
also
exhibited
intimately associated with sexual desire and mar- by Athena and Aphrodite. Athena has a
riage, as seen, for instance, in the myth of natural
Hippo- and unadorned beauty, and at the Judg-
ment, forbears to look in a mirror or anoint herself
menes and Atalanta, and above all in the Judgment
with anything more luxurious than olive oil. In fact,
of Paris. Given the frequently negative interpreta-
tions of the Judgment in preserved literatureshe runs -120 laps around the race track beforehand
(5.15-28).
Homer, for instance, blames Paris for selecting the Aphrodite, in comparison, exhibits a
goddess "who furthered his grievous lust" (//. beauty, primping before a mirror and re-
contrived
arranging
24.30) 78 - this allusion might seem surprising for a her hair again and again (5.21-22).
73 On the Diadoumenos and the evidence it provides for 78 f] oi nope uaxAoouvnv aXeyewr[\.
Hellenistic copying in the strict sense of the term, see Ridg- 79 1 thank Clemente Marconi for first suggesting this to me.
way 1989. 80Ov)K8Ti ooi uopcj)ac; eiq epiv epxoueOa (Anth. Plan. 178)
74Pollitt 1986, fig. 171. cf. also Anth. Plan. 182 (Leonidas of Tarentum) , Anth. Pal. 7.709
75Pollitt 1986, figs. 166-168; Holscher 1987, 62-3. (Alexander Aetolus) .
76 On the Hellenistic origins of the discipline of art history, 81 to o eiooc; oiai npoq Ildpi[v] ko <t> oopuqaav 0(e)ai
see Holscher 1987, 62-3. Kpi] (O)fjvai KaAAovrjv.
77 See supra n. 47.
law courts or council

A second aspect of the Judgment ofhouseParis
but for an is
educational
also
relevant here: its interpretation
institution suchas an
as the allegory
gymnasium, where itfor served
as an example
man's choice of a way of life. of accomplished
This theme, firstoratory. Encomia,
enun-
ciated by dramatists of the like later fifth
that of Isokrates, century
were widely popular, B.C.,
as is dem-
gave the myth of the Judgmentonstrated notbroadonly by the well-known defense of
philosophi-
cal implications.82 Paris is Helenforced
by Gorgias to choose
but also among
by a recently discovered
three goddesses who appear as found
school text representatives
in a Byzantine codex that of para-
three very different realms phrasesof theexperience:
story as part of a rhetorical
"Cypris exercise.85
delighting in desire, Pallas in The the spear,
rhetorical debates onand for of
the subject Hera,
the Judg-
ment seen in Isokrates
royal marriage with lord Zeus."83 Among and other school
thetexts must
tragedi-
be understood
ans, Paris' choice is presented aswithin a broader historical
a serious frame-
decision
among three powerful, radically
work. For studentsopposed options,
in a traditional Greek polis like
while a more light-hearted view
Melos, was
political taken
power in Soph-
and military success were in-
ocles' roughly contemporary
creasingly
satyroff-limits,
play as on
Greece
the
surrendered
sub-its au-
tonomy first
ject of the Judgment, the Krisis. The to Hellenistic
play is monarchs,
lost, andbut then,
a by
description is preserved the
inmidAthenaeus.
second century, to Aphrodite
Rome. Rule by foreign
powers left Greek
appears as the goddess Pleasure, citizens a somewhat
perfuming herself circum-
scribed sphere
with myrrh and looking at herself in of
a action,
mirror.one inAthena,
which individual
in contrast, appears as Wisdom, Mind,
fulfillment through andtake
love might Virtue,
on greater im-
anointing herself with oil portance
and acting
than it had like an athlete
previously.86 The Aphrodite of
(Deipnosophistae 15.687). Melos embodied the attractions of such a choice
for the
Such characterizations of an audience - the young
goddesses men of of
were the gymna-
course connected with the gifts
sium, of Paris' they promised
age and like to
him nearing the time of
Paris: martial prowess and marriage
victory - for over Greece,
whom her message wasrule
particularly
of Asia and Europe, marriage apropos. with Helen (as enu-
merated by Helen herself in Euripides' Troades,
APHRODITE IN THE GYMNASIUM
925-931). The gifts are central to the allegorical
interpretation of the Judgment Aphrodite, and the much goddess
empha- of a refined
sized by those who sought vated beauty, might
to present seem an in
the verdict unusual p
positive terms. So, for instance, the gymnasium. the late Indeed, the idea that
Classical
rhetorician Isokrates, in his defense of Helen, Aphrodite belonged within one has fr
claimed that Paris could not come to a decision on been questioned (e.g., by Jean Delorme
the basis of the goddess' beauty alone - they were theless, the statue can most plausibly
all, of course, exceptionally attractive - and based structed within a gymnasium context, ac
the preserved archaeological evidence.
his verdict instead upon the gifts offered (Helen 41).
Isokrates' choice was motivated not by pleasure, as
goddess' role as a protector of young m
Homer thought, but by Helen's nobility of birth and all, as their guide during the transitio
beauty, since "How would [Paris] not have been hood via marriage and sexuality - help
feeble-minded, if, knowing that the gods were en- her presence here. The argument concerning
gaged in rivalry on account of beauty, he had him- Aphrodite's appropriateness in the gymnasium,
self despised beauty, and not rated it as the very it is argued, reflects modern perceptions of the
greatest of gifts, about which he saw the goddesses goddess' role rather than ancient beliefs and prac-
themselves were most zealous?"84 tices. Aphrodite's sphere of influence was broader
The context of Isokrates' speech is also relevantthan most contemporary scholarly accounts
here, since it was a declamation meant not for the indicate.
ecopa udAiora onouSa£pi3aac;; (Helen 48). Paris' choice not

82Stinton 1990; for a discussion of possible earlier prece-
dents, see Walcot 1977; for the Judgment and its rendering
for in
pleasure (Helen 42) ; for nobility (43-4) ; for beauty (48) .
art, see Hedreen 2001, 182-220. 85 Gorgias, Encomion of Helen. Isokrates, Encomion of
Helen. P.I.F.A. O. 320. The school exercise is discussed in Mor-
83 a uev enl noOco TpixjxSaa Kunpiq, a 8e 5opi IlaAAdc;,
"Hpa T8 Aide; dvctKToc; euvaTai pacnAiaiv (Eur. IA 1 304-1gan 1998, 203.
307).
84 Ilcoq 5' ouk dv fjv dvoqtoc;, ei tovq, Oeouc; eiScoc; nepi
86 For the impact of these developments on the art of the
KdAAouq (JMAoviKotivrac; aikdc; KdAAouc; Kax£(j)p6vnae,Hellenistic
xai uq period, see Zanker 1998, esp. 548-51.
87 Delorme 1960, 164.
Tautnv evouioe ueyiornv eivai xwv 5cop8cov, nepi qc; KaKeivac;
The archaeological evidence for the

the statue strongly suggests that the A
rated an exedra within the civic gy
Melos. In addition to the gymnasiarch
discussed above, sculptural finds from
best explained as fitting within such a
In 1891 a marble statue of a young bo
covered in the area of the Aphrodit
whereabouts are unclear, but its ap
for a gymnasium is striking.88 So too
after the Aphrodite was excavated, a m
of Hermes was unearthed nearby by
chant (fig. 15). 89 A preserved inscrip
name of the sculptor as Antiphanes, s
of Paros, and this combined with ot
evidence dates the sculpture to ca. 50 B
of Hermes were particularly appropria
sia, given the god's traditional depictio
ful, athletic young man and his role a
of the gymnasium.91 This one provide
ing parallel to the Aphrodite of Mel
classicizing version of a fourth century
Hermes Richlieu), created by a scul
pears to have specialized in such ret
ages.92 As with the Aphrodite, the He
the classical past to lend dignity and
the image of the patron god of the gy
But it is the herms found with the Ap
most clearly indicate the gymnastic ch
site. According to Cicero, herms were g
characteristic and appropriate adorn
"Academy," patterned after Plato's.93
evidence is bolstered by inscriptions
an inventory of 156/5 B.C. from the g
Delos lists 41 herms in marble, and five have been
excavated from an exedra there.94 On Melos, one
herm, drawn by Voutier and thus clearly discovered Fig. 15. Hermes, made by Antiphanes son of Thrasides,
found on Melos near the Aphrodite, ca. 50 B.C. Berlin,
with the Aphrodite, shows an Archaistic bearded
Antikensammlung SK200. (Bildarchiv Preussischer
Hermes (fig. 6) . It was appropriate for a gymnasium Kulturbesitz/Art Resource, N.Y.)
but not particularly distinctive.
The other two herms found in the exedra with
right appears lower than the left) and a somewhat
the Aphrodite of Melos especially resemble those
battered ear. Both wear bands wrapped around their
found in gymnasia because they have youthful,
foreheads and tied in a knot at the back of the head,
unbearded faces, rather long wavy hair, and distinc-
tive, almost portraitlike, features (figs. 7, 9).with
Onethe ends hanging down the neck. The herms
has an unusually broad forehead and thick neck. found in the gymnasium on Delos are similar to
those from Melos in their youthful appearance, wavy
The other has deep-set, irregularly placed eyes (the
88Reinach 1891, 192. 92Rubensohn 1935,58.

89 Berlin Antikensammlung, inv. no. K237 (Blumel 1938, 93 Alt. 1 .9. For a useful recent review of herms and their con-
23-4). nections to gymnasia, see Wrede 1985.
90Rubensohn 1935,52-3. 94 The inscription is ID 1417; for the herms excavated from
91 On Hermes as patron deity of the gymnasium, see De- room G, see Michalowski 1930.
lorme 1960, 338-9.
hair, headbands, and portraitlike features.

Aphrodite in Another
the Kraneion, the area of the gymna-
youthful herm, found in the Gymnasium
sium of the
frequented by Diogenes Amphi-
Cynic.
On Melos the goddess
polis, shows the widespread popularity of wassuch probably
im- included
ages in gymnasia.95 A herm within
from Rhamnous,
the gymnasium because ofsimilar
her role as a pro-
to these but even younger inof appearance,
tector with
young men. This role was alludedato in
slim, boyish torso and soft certain
face, contains
myths, a dedica-
and also appeared in several cults of
tory inscription by the ephebes of
Aphrodite. At the Erechtheid
Phaleron, for instance, Aphrodite
tribe after their victory in was
a torch
worshipped race.96
as protector Although
of Theseus during his
adventures on Crete,
the herm presumably represents where he defeated
Hermes, the the Min-
god
is envisioned in the likeness of the
otaur with the
help ofyouthful ath-
the love-struck Ariadne.101
letes, with the fillet of a victor Here, Aphroditeand a portraitlike
was explicitly invoked by Theseus
square face and swollen ear.97 and oversaw Analogous dedica-
his transition to adult sexuality, al-
tions by athletic victors have thoughbeen found
his "marriage" on herm
to Ariadne proved abortive
bases in Delos, although the herms
(Plut. Thes. themselves
18). In Athens, likewise, Vincianne
are not preserved.98 The Pirenne-Delforge archaeological and
has suggested epi-
that the goddess
graphic evidence, then, suggests Hegemonia, invoked that youthful
by Athenian ephebes in their
herms were particularly appropriate oath, was Aphrodite infor a asgymna-
her role guide for these
sium setting, and that they were
mortal young men,probably dedica-
as for mythological heroes.102
tions of athletic victors, divine but assimilated to Elsewhere, as was likely at Symi Viannou in Crete,
their mortal patrons. Aphrodite was connected to Hermes in initiatory
Finally, the other civic buildings of the area fit contexts in which both deities cared for youths.103
well with a reconstruction of the site as a gymna- Aphrodite's connection to youths, athletics, and
sium (fig. 16). Near the fmdspot of the Aphrodite marriage is most cogently expressed in the myth of
are the undated remains of a stadium, with a po- Hippomenes and Atalanta. When Hippomenes
lygonal retaining wall and steps or seats for specta- prays to Aphrodite for assistance in his race against
tors. Also nearby was a theater, probably originally the invincible girl athlete Atalanta, she brings him
constructed in the Hellenistic era and refurbished three golden apples, which he throws off the path
in Roman times.99 These remains suggest the to cul-
distract his rival in the race. Hippomenes wins
tural and athletic character of the area.100 and therefore marries Atalanta. Both partners have
Since the archaeological evidence for the site made the transition to adult sexuality through the
best fits a gymnasium setting, it is worth consider- intervention of Aphrodite.104
ing in what ways Aphrodite might be appropriate The cults and myths detailed above show that
for such a context. It is true that preserved ancient Aphrodite had, in fact, a natural role within the
references to Aphrodite's involvement with gym-gymnasium. Her presence in that institution on
nasia and athletics are rare, but they do occur. For Melos has been disputed, I would argue, because
instance, Dionysios of Halikarnassos (1.50.2) pre-of contemporary scholarly preconceptions rather
served a description of an athletic festival, includ- than an open-minded evaluation of the available
ing a race ending in the Temple of Aphrodite, evidence. In particular, scholars have based their
supposedly established on Zakynthos by Aeneas. analyses upon an understanding of Aphrodite's lit-
In Corinth, Pausanias (2.2.4) recorded a Temple oferary persona and not her role in cult. This is prob-
95 For the Amphipolis herm, see Mylona 1982. Hegemone of the Demos (/Gil2 2798). Here, Aphrodite
96 /Gil2 3105. On the herm and the inscription, see Palagia Hegemone is a goddess of civic government, perhaps a savior
and Lewis 1989; for a new, more extensive publication of the in political and military contexts. For this interpretation and a
inscription, see Petrakos 1999, 84-5, no. 98. discussion of a monumental Hellenistic statue likely associated
97 On the portraitlike qualities of the Rhamnous herms, see with the altar, see Harrison 1990.
Harrison 1965, 126. 103 Pirenne-Delforge 1994, 457-8.
98 For the Delos herm bases, see Jacquemin 1981. 104 As with the "marriages" of Paris and Theseus, Aphrodite's
"Cherry and Sparkes 1982, 56. intervention does not result in a long and happy married life.
100 Hellenistic gymnasia, esp. those of the second century Hippomenes fails to thank the goddess adequately, and he and
B.C., are often set up near stadia in the "cultural center" of the Atalanta are turned into lions. On the literary and visual sourc-
town (von Hesberg 1995, 17). es for the myth of Hippomenes and Atalanta, see Gantz 1993,
101 Pirenne-Delforge 1994, 35-8. 1:335-9. As the example of Theseus shows, however, an un-
102 Pirenne-Delforge 1994, 38-9. In 197 B.C. the Athenians fortunate outcome in myth does not necessarily discourage a
erected an altar in the agora to the Graces and Aphrodite cult based on the situation.
Fig. 16. Plan of ancient city of Melos,

Theater (T). (After Cherry and Sparke
lematic becauseadequately thereflected

goddess'
her many sphereschar
of influen
- irresistibly in Greek religion.105
beautiful, For example, while her
seductive, anco
- became canonical in later literature but never nection to desire and sexuality is universally
105Pirenne-Delforge 1994, 11.
knowledged, she also served as served,

of those a goddess of range
so too the mar- of activ
riage, of political harmony, of offered
were fair sailing, and
expanded. of with
Along the tradit
defense of her chosen city letic
in times of war.106
and military training, the youths
In the Melos gymnasium, receive
the statue of Aphrodite
instruction in newly popular acad
embodied the delights of jectslovesuchand marriage
as philology, for and p
rhetoric,
an audience of young men Theyparticularly
did so in buildings attuned
that were tofor the
such matters. But the image also spoke
monumental to broader
civic structures, prominen
concerns. In evaluating the in the statue's
city center appeal,
rather than it is on the o
useful to consider in greater before.109 And their endeavors
detail this received increased
audience,
the conditions under which they viewed the public funding and recognition. The official in
Aphrodite, and the expectations fostered by the charge, known as the gymnasiarch, became in the
place of viewing. Hellenistic period one of the most important pub-
The final part of this article thus examines the lic magistrates, and the festivals associated with the
gymnasium, stressing its importance as a site where gymnasia grew to major civic affairs, with proces-
the Greeks reenacted and reinterpreted the prac- sions, sacrifices, contests, and banquets.110 Although
the reasons behind these developments are com-
tices and texts of the past to create a timeless vision
of Hellenic culture. While scholars have tended to
plex, one in particular should be noted here. The
stress the role of the Romans in the reception ofgymnasia,
the with their broadly defined educational
Greek past107 (e.g., to take the case of sculpture,
mission - athletic, military, and intellectual instruc-
through art historical texts emphasizing master- tion; religious observance; community service -
pieces and widespread replication of classical works) ,
offered myriad opportunities for civic participation.
the contribution of the Hellenistic Greeks and their
They thrived at a time when more traditional insti-
gymnasia will be further explored here. Examin- tutions, such as city councils, had their powers cir-
ing archaeological and epigraphic evidence for cumscribed under monarchic rule.111
gymnasia, I suggest that the complex interplayThe Hellenistic gymnasia thus differed in im-
between tradition and innovation outlined above for portant ways from their classical predecessors. At
the Aphrodite of Melos can be understood as im- the same time, they looked back to, and institution-
alized, texts and practices that were explicitly de-
pressive but by no means unique. Rather, it was char-
acteristic of the retrospective yet creative culturerived from Hellenic tradition. The young men were
that grew up around the gymnasium and influenced taught boxing, wrestling, and running, events fa-
the reception of the Greek past in later periods. miliar from time-honored festivals like the Olym-
pic Games and immortalized in Pindar's odes
THE HELLENISTIC GYMNASIUM AND THE
celebrating aristocratic athletes of the early fifth cen-
RECEPTION OF THE PAST
tury.112 Military training had a similarly archaic and
During the Hellenistic period, the elite flavor. Youths
audience, learned to shoot with bow and
func-
tion, and appearance of the gymnasiumarrow, to throwchangedthe javelin and the shot put, and to
radically. Those with the leisure time
fight and financial
wearing the conventional hoplite panoply.113
resources required for participation Even might begin
academic instruction, a novel offering for the
attending a gymnasium as early as 1 gymnasia,
2 years old, looked back to the Classical period and
con-
tinue their studies through young earlier for material
adulthood, to reinforce a conservative, aris-
and
when mature, form groups of alumni
tocraticwho helped
ethos.114 Homer was preeminent, and his
with administration and finance.108 heroic
As with theof
warriors ages
the Iliad were seen as exemplars
106 Marriage: Pirenne-Delforge 1994, 421-6; political to

har-the elite male population. On the subject of girls' educa-
mony: Farnell 1971, 618; Pirenne-Delforge 1994, 446-50; tion,
sail- see Moretti 1977, 482; Cribiore 2001, 74-101.
ing: Paus. 2.2.3; Pirenne-Delforge 1994, 433-7; war: Farnell109 On the development of the Hellenistic gymnasium as
1971, 635; Pirenne-Delforge 1994, 450-4. an architectural form, see Delorme I960: von Hesbers 1995.
110 Rostovtzeff 1941, 1059; Delorme 1960, 337-61; Moretti
107 Among recent treatments of the subject, the essays col-
1977, 478-89; Giovannini 1993, 271; Gauthier 1995, 7-10.
lected in Gazda (2002) offer a particularly useful broad over-
view. 111 Gauthier 1995, 10.
108Moretti 1977, 475; on the alumni groups in particular,112 On the athletic training offered by gymnasia, see esp.
Moretti 1977, 481.
see Rostovtzeff 1941, 1058-61. The epigraphical record sug-
gests that, although in some cases primary education might 113
be Moretti 1977, 477-82; Gauthier 1995, 4.
provided for both girls and boys, the more advanced academic
114 For an introduction to the subject of academic instruc-
tion in gymnasia, see Delorme 1960, 317-35; Moretti 1977.
subjects offered in the gymnasium would be largely restricted
of physical prowess
building form an andimpressivecourageo
effect, derived from
its resemblance
Statues of ephebes into earlier
themonumental com-
guise o
athletic Achillesplexes.122
were Although also the appearance
popular of individ
Among the tragedians,
gymnasia varied in detail, Euripides
from at least the secon
A catalogue of the gymnasium
century onward, they had a canonical formlib and m
be easily recognized
also mentions classical in cities throughout
orators, the H
per
lenistic world,
tion with the city's fame from Afghanistan
as a to Sicily.123
center
The sculptural
Such authors, already decoration of the gymnasia
ancient, were ha
similarly standardized
that reinforced both their and distance
retrospective quality.1
f
and their power asfrom
The finds models
Melos are typical for em
in their range o
case of Homer, subjects
endowed - gods (Aphrodite, Hermes), athletes (
professor
to explain the author's complex
boxer), herms - in their gr
somewhat repetitive cha
acter (seen
of-date vocabulary to particularly
those in thewho
herms), andspo
in the
very eclectic combination
different koine Greek.117 of styles. ForAs
instance,
st t
authors aloud, scanned them
Aphrodite and Hermes for
adopt the visual formatm
classical statues and
them for grammatical are executed with classiciz
peculiarities,
details (figs.they
and recited passages, 1, 15). The herms,
fixed by contrast,
such re
minds as canonical
cate a formatexamples of
familiar from the Archaic G
period o
while others, forward: sculpted heads set on
instance flat pillars, trunca
Aristopha
favor.118 And at arms, and erect phalloi. On Melos,
competitions the bear
spons
herm,a
sia and popular on whose classicizing
local features suggested
level throu rev
ence due to
lenistic world, the his antique cult,men
young was juxtaposed
rac wi
athletes, foughtsculptures
like bearing up-to-date portraitlike
classical hopl ima
Homeric passages.119 Thus
that probably resembled the
the athletes who tex
dedicat
them (figs. 6, 7, 9).
considered exemplary In other gymnasia,
might be statues
tr
wider audience. benefactors round out the picture. These might b
local worthies whose pose, costume, and expr
These activities took place at a site whose archi-
tectural form evoked the grand civic spaces ofsion
the stressed their ties to the past, or Hellenis
classical city. The entrance was a monumental monarchs
gate- depicted in a novel and heroic manner.1
To sum up, the audience, function, and visu
way, often set off with steps, columns, and a pedi-
form of the Hellenistic gymnasium made view
ment in the manner of a conventional Greek temple
there particularly receptive to the Aphrodite
(fig. 17).120 Within was a large open-air courtyard
enclosed on all four sides by roofed colonnades,Melos,
in in terms of both its appearance and of
form resembling the agora, the economic and message.
po- The statue represented the delights
litical center of the classical polis, although love
withfora an audience of youthful male viewers ne
more regularized plan and restricted accessing (fig.
the age of marriage. Examining the statue
18). 121 Architectural details, such as the columns
its mythological referent, these young men co
and entablature, and the use of marble for recallhigh- the varying interpretations of Paris' cho
profile areas like the entrance, also gave the putnew
forth in the texts they studied, from Hom
115 On the use of Homer in education, see Delorme 1960,

readers, see Cribiore 2001, 142, 204-5.
318; Walbank 1981, 182; Morgan 1998, 219-20; Cribiore 2001,
118 On general methods of studying in the Hellenistic pe
194-7, 204-5. Isokrates disdainfully mentions instructors
od, seeteach-
Cribiore 2001; Morgan 1998, with earlier bibliograph
ing Homer and Hesiod in the lyceum gymnasiumOn in the
Athensneglect of Aristophanes see, e.g., Cribiore 2001,
(Panath. 33). Pliny mentions the statues of ephebes 119 On the competitions, see, e.g., Moretti 1977, 480
as Achil-
les CfflV 34.5.10). Gauthier 1995, 4-6.
120vonthe
116 Lists of books donated by the ephebes attending Hesberg 1995, 18-9.
Ptolemaion gymnasium in Athens probably include both
121 On
Hom-
the gymnasium as a "second agora" for the city, see
Gauthier
er's Iliad, and works by Euripides (Delorme 1960, 332; 1995, 10.
/Gil2
122 von
1041.2). On the library catalogue atRhodes, see Delorme Hesberg 1995, 18-20. See, e.g., the gymnasium at
1960,
Delos, as
331 ; for another library catalogue of historical authors, atdiscussed
Tau- in Delorme 1960, 150-2; Gauthier 1995, 3.
romenion, see Yegiil 1992, 427 n. 54. 123von Hesberg 1995, 17-21.
117 A second- to first-century B.C. inscription from124 Eretria
For an introduction to sculptural decoration in gymnasia,
commemorates the endowment by the gymnasiarchs see of
Delorme
chairs1960, 362-73.
125 On lines
in, among other things, Homeric philology (/GXII.9.235, honors accorded to benefactors, see Delorme 1960,
341-6. to later
10-12) . On the difficulties Homer's language presented
Fig. 17. Restored perspective of Hellenistic gymnasium, Miletus.

MIT Press)
Fig. 18. Plan of gymnasium, Miletus. (After Yegiil 1992, f
and the tragedians

Alscher,to
L. 1957. Isokrates, and
Griechische Plastik. Vol. 4, Hellenismus.
Berlin: Deutscher
their own rhetorical exercisesVerlag der Wissenschaften.
on the
Beard, M., andj. Henderson.
observing the statue's monumental, 2001. Classical Art: From
Greece to Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
appearance, together with its placem
Blumel, C. 1938. Katalog der Sammlung antiker Skulpturen:
imposing public space
Staatliche Museen of the
zu Berlin. gymna
Vol. 5, Rbmische Kopien
could conclude that its valorization of individual griechischer Skulpturen des vierten Jahrhunderts v. Chr.
fulfillment through love was compatible with Berlin:
the Verlag fur Kunstwissenschaft.
duties of a responsible public citizen. Broneer, 0. 1930. Corinth.Vol 4.2, Terracotta Lamps. Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Scholars and the general public have oftenCharbonneaux,
ap- J. 1959. Die Venus von Milo. Translated
preciated the Aphrodite of Melos as a timeless work
by Rosmarie Elgnowski. Bremen: Walter Dorn Verlag.
of art, but as this article has demonstrated, ourCherry,
un- J., and B. Sparkes. 1982. "A Note on the Topog-
derstanding of the statue is enhanced by a consid- raphy of the Ancient Settlement of Melos." In An
Island Polity: The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos,
eration of its particular architectural, cultural, and
edited by C. Renfrew and M. Wagstaff, 53-7. Cam-
historical context. Furthermore, close analysis of
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
the sculpture suggests that it is best examined Corso,
not A. 1995. A Short Note about the Aphrodite of
in isolation but rather as exemplary of a much Melos." Xenia 4:27-32.
broader tendency in Hellenistic culture: theCribiore,
cre- R. 2001. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education
in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton, N.J.:
ation of a standardized and highly selective vision
Princeton University Press.
of the past to serve as a model for the present. While
Curtis, G. 2003. Disarmed: The Story of the Venus de Milo.
this "creation of the past" can be detected through-
New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
out the Hellenistic world - the kingdom of Perg- Davidson, G. 1952. Corinth. Vol. 12, The Minor Objects.
amon, with its selective invocation of classical Princeton, N.J.: American School of Classical Studies
at Athens.
Athens, is a good case in point126 - the gymnasia of
de Clarac, F. 1821. Sur la Statue Antique de Venus Victrix.
traditional Greek cities had a particularly impor- Paris: E. Didot.
tant role to play. Offering athletic, military, and aca-Delorme, J. 1960. Gymnasion: Etude sur les monuments
demic training to the youthful male elite, these consacres a V education en Grece. Paris: E. de Boccard.
institutions not only helped standardize an evolv-de Lorris, A., ed. 1994. Enlevement de Venus: Dumont
d'Urville, De Marcellus, et Voutier. Paris: Editions la
ing series of texts and practices but also aided in
Bibliotheque.
promulgating these activities to successive genera- de Marcellus, M.-L. 1840. Souvenirs de I Orient. Brussels:
tions. In so doing, the gymnasia stressed the con- Societe Beige de Librairie.
temporary relevance of traditions inherited fromDoussault, C. 1877. La Venus de Milo: Documents inedits.
Paris: Paul Ollendorff.
earlier periods despite the passage of time and
Edwards, K 1933. Corinth. Vol. 6, Coins. Cambridge, Mass.:
the radically altered political and cultural situa- Harvard University Press.
tion of the present. The Aphrodite of Melos offers Farnell, L. 1971. The Cults of the Greek States. Vol. 2. Chi-
a useful demonstration of the authoritative and at-
cago: Aegean Press.
Fullerton, M. 2003. "'Der Stil der Nachahmer': A Brief
tractive qualities of this vision of the past, for mod-
ern as well as ancient viewers. Historiography of Stylistic Retrospection." In Ancient
Art and Its Historiography, edited by M. Fullerton and
A. Donohue, 92-117. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
DEPARTMENT OF ART sity Press.
BROOKLYN COLLEGE Furtwangler, A. 1895. Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture. Trans-
29OO BEDFORD AVENUE lated by E. Sellars. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Gadbery, L. 1993. "Roman Wall-Pain ting at Corinth: New
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 1 1 2 IO-2889 Evidence from East of the Theater." In The Corinthia
RKOUSSER@BROOKLYN.CUNY.EDU
in the Roman Period, edited by T. Gregory, 47-64. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Gantz, T. 1993. Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and
Works Cited Artistic Sources. Vol. 2. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Gauthier, P. 1995. "Notes sur le role du gymnase dans les
Aicard, J. 1874. La Venus de Milo: Recherches sur VhistoireCites Hellenistiques." In Stadtbild und Burgerbild im
de la decouverte. Paris: Sandoz et Fischbacher. Hellenismus, edited by M. Worrle and P. Zanker, 1-10.
Alaux, J.-P. 1939. La Venus deMilo et Olivier Voutier. Paris: Munich: C. H. Bech'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Collection du Galion d'Or. Gazda, E., ed. 2002. The Ancient Art of Emulation: Studies
126 On Pergamon and Athens see, e.g., Pollitt 1986, 166-7; Rhodes 1995, 156-60; on its subsequent influence on Rome,
Kuttner 1995.
Morgan, T. 1998.
in Artistic Originality and Tradition fromLiterate Education
the in the Hellenistic
Present to and
RomanUniversity
Classical Antiquity. Ann Arbor: Worlds. Cambridge: of
Cambridge University Press.
Michigan
Press. Mylona, G. 1982. "ArchaiaAmphipolis."£rPwzl982: 14-16.
Giovannini, A. 1993. "Greek Cities and Greek Common- Neumer-Pfau, W. 1982. Studien zur Ikonographie und
wealth." In Images and Ideologies: Self-Definition in the gesellschaftlichen Function hellenistischer Aphrodite-statuen.
Hellenistic World, edited by A. Bulloch, E. Gruen, A. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH.
Long, and A. Stewart, 265-86. Berkeley and Los An- Niemeier, J.-P. 1985. Kopien und Nachahmungen im
eeles: University of California Press. Hellenismus. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH.
Hales, S. 2002. "How the Venus de Milo Lost Her Arms." Palagia, O., and D. Lewis. 1989. "The Ephebes of Erech-
In The Hellenistic World: New Perspectives, edited by D. theis 333/2 B.C. and Their Dedication." BSA 84:333-
O^den, 253-74. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. 44.
Hamiaux, M. 1998. Les Sculptures Grecques: Musee du Lou- Pasquier, A. 1985. La Venus de Milo et les Aphrodites du
vre. Vol. 2, Laperiode hellenistique. Paris: Editions de la Louvre. Paris: Editions de la Reunion des Musees
Reunion des Musees Nationaux. Nationaux.
Harrison, E. 1990. "Aphrodite Hegemone in the Athe- Paulys Realencyclopddie der Classischen Alltertumswissenschaft.
nian Agora." In Akten des XII. Internationalen Kongresses 1896. s.v. "Attius/Atius" [Klebs et. al.], col. 2252-2259.
fur Klassische Archdologie Berlin 1988, 346. Mainz Stuttgart:
am J. B. Metzlersche.
Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Petrakos, B. 1999. O demos tou Rhamnountos. Vol. 2, Hoi
epigraphes. Athens: Bibliotheke tes en Athenais Arch-
Archaistic Sculpture. Princeton, aiologikes
N J.: Hetaireias.
American School
of Classical Studies. Pirenne-Delforge, V. 1994. L 'Aphrodite Grecque. Athens-
Haskell, E, and N. Penny. 1981. Taste and the Antique: TheLiege: Centre Internationale d'Etude de la Religion
Lure of Classical Sculpture, 1500-1900. New Haven: Yale Grecque Antique.
University Press. Pollitt, J. 1986. Art in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge:
Havelock, C. 1995. The Aphrodite of Knidos and Her Succes- Cambridge University Press.
Quatremere de Quincy, M. 1821. Sur la statue antique de
sors: A Historical Review of the Female Nude in Greek Art.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Venus, decouverte dans Hie deMilo. Paris: Debure Freres.
Hedreen, G. 2001. Capturing Troy: The Narrative Func- Reinach, S. 1890. "La Venus de Milo." GBA 66:376-94.
tions of Landscape in Archaic and Early Classical Greek Reinach, T. 1891. "Bulletin Archeologique." REG4.1S9-
Art. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 93.
Holscher, T. 1987. Romische Bildsprache als semantisches

Rhodes, R. 1995. Architecture and Meaning on the Athenian
System, AbhHeid Jahrg. 1987, Vol. 2. Heidelberg: Carl Acropolis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Winter Universitatsverlag. Ridgway, B. 2000. Hellenistic Sculpture II: The Styles of ca.
200-100 B.C. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
von Zabern.
Jacquemin, A. 1981. Notes sur quelques offrandes du In Retaining the Original, edited
Gymnase de Delos." BCH 105: 155-69. Washington: National Gallery of
Romano, D. 1993. "Post 146 B.C. Land Use in Corinth,
Kleiner, D. 1981 Second-Century Mythological Portrai-
ture: Mars and Venus." Latomus 40:512-44. and the Planning of the Roman Colony of 44 B.C." In
Knell, H. 1993. "Die Aphrodite von Capua und ihre The Corinthia in the Roman Period, edited by T. Gre-
Repliken." Aw«P22: 117-33. gory, 9-30. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kousser, R. 2001. "Sensual Power: A Warrior Aphrodite
Rostovtzeff, M. 1941. The Social and Economic History of
in Greek and Roman Sculpture." Ph.D. diss., New Yorkthe Hellenistic World. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
University, Institute of Fine Arts. Rubensohn, O. 1935. "Parische Kunstler." 7^/50:49-69.
Saloman, G. 1895. Die Restauration der Venus von Milo.
Kuttner, A. 1995. "Republican Rome Looks at Pergamon."
HSCP97:157-78. Stockholm: Albert Bonnier.
Smith, R. 1988. Hellenistic Royal Portraits. Oxford:
Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae. 1984. s.v.
"Aphrodite" [A. Delivorrias, G. Berger-Doer, and A. Clarendon Press.
Kossatz-Deissmann] , 2-151 . Zurich and Munich: Artemis.
Linfert, A. 1976. Kunstzentren Hellenistischer Zeit: StudienThames and Hudson.
an Weiblichen Gewandfiguren. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.Soles, M. 1976. "Aphrodite at Corinth: A Study of the
Maggidis, C. 1998. "The Aphrodite and the Poseidon ofSculptural Types." Ph.D. diss., Yale University.
Melos: A Synthesis." ActaArch 69:175-97. Sparkes, B. 1982. "Classical and Roman Melos." In An
Marvin, M. 1996. Review of The Aphrodite of Knidos and Island Polity: The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos,
Her Successors: A Historical Review of the Female Nude inedited by C. Renfrew and M. Wagstaff, 45-52. Cam-
Greek Art, by Christine Havelock. BMCR96.5.6 (1996), bridge: Cambridge University Press.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1996/96.05.06.html. Stewart, A. 1990. Greek Sculpture: An Exploration. New
Michalowski, C. 1930. "Les hermes du Gymnase de Haven: Yale University Press.
Delos." £0/54:131-46. Stinton, T. G. W. 1990. "Euripides and the Judgement of
Mollard-Besques, S. 1954-1986. Catalogue raisonne Paris." des
In Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy, edited by T.
G. W. de
Figurines et Reliefs en terre-cuite. 4 vols. Paris: Editions Stinton, 17-73. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
la Reunion des Musees Nationaux. Triante, I. 1998. "Ellenistika agalmata tes Melou." In Re-
Moretti, L. 1977. "La scuola, il ginnasio, l'efebia." gional
In Schools in Hellenistic Sculpture, edited by O. Palagia
andW. Coulson, 168-75. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Storia e civiltd dei Greci, edited by R. Bianchi Bandinelli,
469-90. Rome: Bompiani. Vogue, M. 1874. "Deux lettres sur la decouverte de la
250 RACHEL KOUSSER, CREATING THE PAST: THE VENUS DE MILO
Venus de Milo." CRAI 1874: 152-64. Marcussaule." Jdl 46:61-1 74.

von Hesberg, H. 1995. "Das Griechische Gymnasion im Wrede, H. 1985. Die Antike Herme. Mainz am Rhein:
2. Jh. v. Chr." In Stadtbild und Biirgerbild im Hellenismus, Philipp von Zabern.
edited by M. Worrle and P. Zanker, 13-27. Munich: Wroth, W. 1976. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Crete and the
C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Aegean Islands. Rome: Arnaldo Forni.
von Prittwitz und Gaffron, H-H. 1988. Der Wandel der Yegul, F. 1992. Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity.
Aphrodite: Archdologische Studien zu weiblichen halb- Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
bekleideten Statuetten des spdten Hellenismus. Bonn: Dr. Press.
Rudolf Habelt GMBH. Zanker, P. 1974. Klassizistische Statuen: Studien zur
Walbank, F.W. 1981. The Hellenistic World. Cambridge:
Verdnderung des Kunstgeschmacks in der romischen
Harvard University Press. Kaiserzeit. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
Walcot, P. 1977. "The Judgement of Paris." GaR 24:31-9.
Wegner, M. 1931. "Die Kunstgeschichtliche Stellung arte
der societa, 545-616. Turin: Giulio E

Creating The Past: The Vénus de Milo and The Hellenistic Reception

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Creating The Past: The Vénus de Milo and The Hellenistic Reception

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Creating the Past: The Vénus de Milo and the Hellenistic Reception of Classical Greece

Author(s): Rachel Kousser

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

Abstract ture echoed the visual format of a fourth-century

and style, however, made the Hellenistic work ap-

Aphrodite of Melos to offer a full restoration and

tion uses the insights gained from this reconstruc-

Hellenistic sculpture have often stressed the criti-

Fig. 2. Hand holding an apple, found together with the Aphr

strates both the conservative tendencies of a Hel-

Fig. 3. Left upper arm found together w

not published untilUsing these1874); and

naval captain, Dauriac, who refers to the excavations. The let-

13 The date is given in a letter written three days later by 17

Fig. 4. The Aphrodite of Melos and two herms shortly aft

it lay on a Greek farmer's arable

It has since been lost.21 No prosopographical infor-

18 The conversation, however, took place in 1847, and24/GXII.3.1241:-av5poq Mrrvi6ou/['

THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE APHRODITE

The Aphrodite of Melos, perhaps becaus

26 Only one arm is mentioned in the Louvre 30Pasquierl985,

the Aphrodite's style, carving technique, and re-

evaluation of the sculpture's reconstruction must

In an influential article of 1890, "La Venus de

found with the Aph

Fig. 7. Beardless herm found together wit

of 1893. Furtwangler argued vehem

though by no means a certain on

Fig. 10. Hand found Fig.

the Aphrodite Romans

scholarship on late Hellenistic sculpture, which

tion of the Melian Aphrodite appearance and con-

62E.g., Havelock 1995,97.

The Melian statue's relationship to its classical

Corinthian statue has not been preserved, the later

aspect of the original with confidence. In each work

military victory. Its

Forum, and a martial Victoria adapt the flanked

Hellenistic periods, help to explain why the myth

ment, "No longer do we enter into the strife of

law courts or council

ecopa udAiora onouSa£pi3aac;; (Helen 48). Paris' choice not

The archaeological evidence for the

88Reinach 1891, 192. 92Rubensohn 1935,58.

hair, headbands, and portraitlike features.

Fig. 16. Plan of ancient city of Melos,

lematic becauseadequately thereflected

105Pirenne-Delforge 1994, 11.

knowledged, she also served as served,

106 Marriage: Pirenne-Delforge 1994, 421-6; political to

115 On the use of Homer in education, see Delorme 1960,

Fig. 17. Restored perspective of Hellenistic gymnasium, Miletus.

Fig. 18. Plan of gymnasium, Miletus. (After Yegiil 1992, f

and the tragedians

Holscher, T. 1987. Romische Bildsprache als semantisches

Venus de Milo." CRAI 1874: 152-64. Marcussaule." Jdl 46:61-1 74.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi