middle helladic to the late helladic i shaft graves 28 страница

Another well-known example of this theatrical style is the Nike of Samothrace, dramatically placed today near the top of a long staircase in the Musee du Louvre (Figure 14.14). Here its position recreates to some degree its original placement in an open-ended cella above the seats of the theater

at the sanctuary of the Great Gods on the island of Samothrace. The original viewing points of the figure would have been limited by its enclosure walls, but a view of its left side would have been available to many of those below in the theater or walking toward it, or at the same level to those in the nearby stoa dedicated by the Ptolemies. The figure itself is 2.45 meters high and set on the prow of a ship, making the total height over 5.5 meters. The marble pavement of the floor of the enclosure was carved to represent rippling water, and the effect suggests that Nike has landed on the prow of the ship as it sails, with the result that her drapery is whipped around and behind her from the speed of both her flight and the ship moving forward on the sea.

The effect of wind-blown drapery is similar to the Nike by Paionios at Olympia from the late fifth century (see Figure 10.8, page 245). Here, too, the drapery pulls tight against the body in front and billows behind, and the pose is one in which the feet point down to alight, conferring victory at that instant. Indeed, it has been argued that the roots of the Hellenistic baroque can be found in classical works like this, and in some ways the heavier drapery of the Nike of Samothrace and her more firmly planted feet make it seem less dramatic. Whereas the right hand of the Olympia Nike is thought to have held a branch to award victory, the 1950 discovery of the hand of the Samothrace Nike shows that it was not holding anything, but held her palm outward.

Indeed, there has been some doubt as to whether this is a victory monument as was originally thought, since there is no dedication to tie it to a specific patron or battle. Andrew Stewart has suggested that we should look at the monument metaphorically, as a Ship of State, with the goddess bringing the boat safely into harbor and greeting those in the harbor (Stewart 1993). Conversely, with the ship pointed north, it faces the sea as if sailing out and we could look at it metaphorically as an embarkation. Whether or not the monument commemorates a victory affects estimates for its date. The marble of the ship is from the island of Rhodes and an inscription found nearby preserves the last letter of the name of someone from Rhodes, so it has been seen as a Rhodian monument, perhaps for its victory in the battles of Myonnesos and Side in 190-189 bce. The statue itself is made of marble from Paros, so the source of the marble is not sufficient alone to attribute the patronage of the statue. Disassociating it from a Rhodian victory, recent schol­arship has tended to date the sculpture a generation earlier, to the late third century.

Another example of a dynamic personification in sculpture belongs to the beginning of the third century, when the sculptor Eutychides was commissioned to make a Tyche for the new city of Antioch, founded in 300 bce by Seleukos I as the capital of his Levantine empire. The original bronze sculpture must have been made shortly after 300 and no longer exists, but later copies in marble and at a smaller scale in bronze, coins, and glass attest to the main features of the work and its enduring appeal as a personi­fication of both a city and fortune (Figure 14.15). The original figure was set on a rock, at the base of which the river god Orontes sprung forth with open arms. Tyche herself forms a pyramid created by her bent and crossed legs and arms. She wears a wall crown, a symbol of the walls protecting a city and also an attribute of Cybele, a fertility/mother goddess from Anatolia, pointing to the syncretism of Hellenistic religion. Originally Tyche held a palm branch in her right hand, a symbol of victory for

Greeks but also of abundance and prosperity for a Near Eastern audience. Eutychides, a student of Lysippos, created a work that is an elaborate metaphor for the great fortune that the new capital city hoped to achieve, and Antioch did quickly become one of the great cities of the Hellenistic and later Roman worlds. While not set as a narrative, the theatrical presentation of metaphor, of a goddess resting on the heights of a city and protecting it, creates a dynamic and engaging work. Indeed, the elaborate symbolism and metaphor are part of the intellectual men­tality of Hellenistic culture that could appeal meaningfully to its varied audiences.

A theatrical approach to sculpture does not have to be full of angst and can include lighter-hearted representa­tions as well. The dwarves from the Mahdia shipwreck (see Figure 14.13) share the same use of diagonal and unbalanced arrangement of the body, extended limbs, and sharply turned head that we see in the Tyche of Antioch or Odysseus from the Antikythera shipwreck, but the subject matter is now dance and an unusual type of physique.

Given their smaller scale, these works were intended for a more private and intimate type of setting like a garden or villa, as were the many Neoattic marble kraters made at this time and also included in the Mahdia cargo. Such figures might seem comic to our eye at first, and dwarves were often part of burlesque scenes in earlier Attic vase painting, but we should be wary of concluding that a Hellenistic or Roman viewer would also see them in that way, particularly dancing figures that might be part of a religious festival in which their otherness might also signify a sacred quality.

The label rococo could also be applied to a small marble statue group found on the island of Delos (Figure 14.16).

Delos had become a free port in 166 bce, a place where merchants from Rome, Greece, and the Near East gathered and conducted business; over the next eighty years there was energetic building activity that included sculptural, fresco, and mosaic decoration in both public and private buildings. The Poseidoniastes of Berytos, a club of Syrian

merchants, built a complex that included both shrines and residential areas. In a long room of the residential section of their complex, constructed just before 100, was found the under-life-size sculpture known as the “slipper-slapper” group: Aphrodite raises a slipper toward the god Pan as an Eros hovers between them. An inscription tells us that a Syrian, “Dionysos son of Zenon, son of Theodoros, of Berytos on behalf of himself and his children [dedicated this] to his ancestral deities”

The work is less open, extended, and three-dimensional than the other Hellenistic sculpture we have seen; considering the narrow proportions of the room for which it was commissioned, it was meant to be seen primarily from the front. The pose and body of Aphrodite recall the Praxitelean Aphrodite of Knidos (see Figure 12.11, page 300), but her hair and headdress are unusual and the hands have been adapted to the action of responding to the grasp of Pan. The muscular arms of the god certainly attempt to pull the arm and body of Aphrodite toward himself, and his face is turned

upward with desire for her. His smaller size diminishes his menace, as does the smiling Eros who tugs at Pan’s horn in a way that playfully mimics Pan’s own grasp of Aphrodite’s back. Here one senses a comic intent, but understanding the humor of another culture and time is notoriously difficult. Is Pan controlling or being controlled? Is Aphrodite defensive or manipulating? Is this about erotic attraction, or is it meant perhaps to evoke thoughts about fertility and primal forces? Is it serious or is it satire, or perhaps both simultaneously? What role did the patron, a Syrian, play in the development of the theme, and was the cosmopolitan population of Delos, its potential viewing audience, a factor in the composition? To be effective, satire and parody require a normative situation or expectation to create an effective contrast. Recasting a normative model like the Aphrodite of Knidos into the role of a slipper-slapper would seem to have a comic intent, but like much satire, there may be a serious point behind the playfulness that is less apparent to us today.

representations and portrayal

The sculpture that we have seen thus far consists usually of multiple figures acting together in a narrative or tableau. There continued to be a need for single statues during the Hellenistic period, including figures of deities and representations of individuals, but these show more animation than earlier classical and archaic sculpture, even when they are imitating a classical or archaic style.

The nude or nearly nude Aphrodite is a popular subject for Hellenistic statues. The earliest close replicas of the Aphrodite of Knidos begin to appear at the end of the second century, but before then there are a number of other Aphrodite statues that share some of the stylistic features of the Praxiteles sculpture. Perhaps the most famous example is the Aphrodite from the Aegean island of Melos, the “Venus de Milo,” which was excavated in 1820 (Figure 14.17). A base, now lost, records the name of the artist: “...andros son of [M]enides of [Ant]ioch-on-the Maeander made [it]” a sculptor who is otherwise unknown in the literary record. The statue stood in the middle of a niche of a gymnasion with herms on either side, and fragments of an upper arm and hand holding an apple were also recovered. The apple, melos in Greek, makes a pun on the name of the island, and one might regard the statue as an allegorical personification for the island, serving like the Tyche of Antioch. The placement of a classicizing statue of Aphrodite in a gymnasion fits with changes in the role of that institution in Hellenistic culture, as Rachel Kousser has argued (Kousser 2005). As centers of academic education and physical and military training, their curriculum emphasized literature of earlier periods by Homer and classical playwrights, and statues of Hermes and Aphrodite as well as benefactors were common elements of the gymnasion’s artistic program. Based on style and context, the Melian statue is dated sometime after 150 все, in the last half of the second century.

The statue itself was made from two large pieces of marble doweled together, one for the lower section of drapery and the other for the nude torso. The upper body has the same soft treatment of skin, rounded abdomen and limbs, and richly textured hair that we see in the Aphrodite of Knidos. While not a copy of the Knidian Aphrodite, the similarities suggest the importance of the Praxitelean style for representing an idealized female beauty. The statue, however, has some Hellenistic elements that show it to be classicizing, rather than classical. The S-curve of the figure is more pronounced than the Praxitelean canon and the curve of her right hip more elongated. The legs are set in a more dynamic position with the left knee projecting, and there is more torsion in the figure. The drapery is certainly more baroque in its character, with heavy folds and deep channels that give the appearance of falling under its weight. In contrast to the Knidian Aphrodite, this statue seems poised in a moment of unveiling, with only the goddess’s right hand holding back the cascade of drapery to the ground.

This retrospective, neoclassical stylistic quality is seen in other works, particularly in sculpture with a religious or social function, and is an aspect of the academic or scholarly mentality of the Hellenistic age. For example, a monumental group of figures was dedicated as cult statues at the sanctuary of Despoina at Lykosoura that show classicizing elements mixed with Hellenistic baroque

14.18 Reconstruction of cult statues by Damophon of Messene from the sanctuary of Despoina at Lykosoura, c. 200-190 все.

Reconstruction after G.

Dickens and K. Kourouniotis, “Damophon of Messene: II,” Annual of the British School at Athens 13 (1906/1907), pl. 12. Reproduced with permis­sion of the British School at Athens.

14.19 Artemis and Demeter from cult statues at Lykosoura, c. 200-190 все, by Damophon of Messene. 29Й in (0.75 m).

Athens, National Archaeological Museum 1734-1736. Photo: National Archaeological Museum, Athens (Klaus-Valtin von Eickstedt) © Hellenic Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs, Culture and Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund.

features (Figure 14.18). Demeter sits on the left on an elaborate throne, holding a torch and placing her hand over the shoulder of her daughter Despoina (meaning “mistress,” a term used for Persephone, who was also called Kore by the Greeks). A much smaller Artemis and the Titan Anytos flank the pair. The sculptural group was seen by Pausanias (8.37.1-6), who tells us it was made by Damophon of Messene, who did several other cult statues in southern Greece in the late third and early second century все (Themelis 1994). A recently pub­lished inscription records that Damophon forgave the Lykosourans a debt of 3,546 tetradrachms (4-drachma coins, or 14,184 drachmas) due to him for the contract of the sculpture, suggesting that he, like Timotheos at Epidauros, was very well paid for his work and recog­nized as a public benefactor for his munificence.

Looking at the surviving heads of Artemis and Demeter (Figure 14.19), one can see that there is a smooth roundness of the features and heavily lidded eyes that recall the fifth-century Severe Style of Olympia or mid-fifth century classical works like the Doryphoros or Parthenon metopes. The hair­style of both women, however, is more contempo­rary, including the melon coiffure of Artemis and the rich, wispy hair of Demeter. The effect is lively but serene, as would befit cult statues.

An archaizing style is also found in Hellenistic art, such as a tripod base from the Athenian Agora dated to c. 100 все (Figure 14.20). Three processing figures,

Dionysos and two maenads, appear on the three sides.

The maenad shown here holds a phiale in her hand and virtually floats on tiptoes. The folds of the drapery, especially the hems, are set as a series of nested smooth curves and swallowtails that fall in nearly perfect symmetry. The effect easily recalls archaic treatment of kore drapery (see Figure 8.14, page 196). The decorative effect of the pattern is enhanced by the outward curvature of the garments’ edge, which is a Hellenistic stylization and clearly signals this work as retrospective rather than original. The archaizing style would appear to have had a religious as well as decorative value that made it appropriate for dedications like tripods or processional reliefs. Many of the most revered cult images were old and simple in form, archaios, making the imitation of the archaic style appropriate for dedications or votive offerings.

A classicizing style was also appropriate for representations of people. Statues that represented individuals, at least symbolically, go back to the seventh and sixth centuries все, as can be seen in the Kore of Nikandre (see Figure 6.3, page 134) and the Kore of Phrasikleia (see Figure 8.13, page 195). These statues did not resemble the true look of their subjects, of course, but signified their idealized form and status. The use of honorific statues for individuals expanded significantly in the Hellenistic period, as we have already seen in the last chapter with the third-century statue of the priestess Aristonoё from the sanctuary at Rhamnous (see Figure 13.8, page 329). This statue is classicizing in its pose and features, with fewer of the baroque elements that we see at Lykosoura. One change from classical figures, however, is the heavier, thicker drapery of her undergarment, as seen at her feet, and the thinness of her mantle, through which we can see traces of the heavier undergarment, a drapery- through-drapery stylistic effect that belongs to the Hellenistic period.

A bronze statue recovered from the Mediterranean Sea and now known as the Getty athlete is representa­tive of a victor statue, a nude athlete wearing a wreath dedicated at sanctuaries like Olympia and Delphi (Figure 14.21). Originally associated with the Lysippan workshop, analysis of the statue’s core now suggests that it dates to the third or possibly early second century все. The statue evokes the same ideal type of male figure as the Doryphoros, but the modeling of the abdomen is softer and there is a more pronounced S-curve to the figure that is late classical in origin. That a statue like this was first regarded as late classical when discovered attests to how close to their models classicizing sculptors could work to invoke the ideal­ized ethos of the archetypes.

A different type of athletic statue is seen in the bronze statue of a boxer, housed today in the Terme Museum in Rome (Figure 14.22). This statue was found in construction fill at the base of the Quirinal Hill in Rome, but its original context or how it got to Rome is not known. His hands wrapped for boxing, the figure sits at rest and looks up toward an unseen figure. The bulging muscles and twisted pose recall elements of the baroque style, but his pose is one of weariness and his face is not tortured with emotion, but instead marked with the cuts, broken nose, and cauliflower ears of the boxing arena, enhanced by using copper on the bronze surface to show blood from his wounds. Boxing was a crown sport at the Olympic and other games, but rather than an idealized and unblemished victor, we have here someone bear-

ing the realistic signs of a sport marked by blood and death; possibly he is a professional athlete or slave rather than an elite athlete. The sharp turn of his head is a dramatic touch, and whether he was part of a statue group or not, he clearly indicates another person in the tableau and makes the viewer a third party in the scene. Whether he is looking at an unseen opponent, trainer, or owner, his pos­ture puts the boxer into a subservient position, both to them and to the viewer, someone who seems not to control his destiny like the Getty athlete. The purpose of such realistic works is unclear, as is whether the figure is meant to evoke sympathy or some other emotion in the mind of the viewer.

The Terme boxer was found not far from another work now in the same museum, the so-called Hellenistic ruler or Terme ruler (Figure 14.23). This figure has a well-muscled body like the boxer, and the placement of the right hand on the back of the hip recalls statues of the weary Herakles of Lysippos. The figure is not standing fully upright, but leans forward slightly, as if weary. He holds onto a spear set into the ground, and this type of standing, spear-planted pose was developed under Alexander the Great as an expression of his role as a conquering ruler, claiming rule over “spear- won” lands. The head seems small in proportion to the body, and its turning motion implies some unseen element. The eyes and face have an intense focus to them that seems vigilant rather than triumphant.

Like the boxer, the face of the ruler has a distinctiveness in his features suggesting that this is an individual’s portrait rather than a mythological hero or triumphant athlete. How closely one should associate a realistic appearance with the actual person’s appearance is an issue of some debate. Literary

sources describe how Alexander worked with the leading artists of his day to create official portraits, and there is a consistency in representations of Alexander that suggests there might be some element of his actual appearance surviving in later images such as the Alexander Sarcophagus (see Figure 14.1) and the Alexander Mosaic (see Figure 14.2). In particular, the leonine mane of hair and the anastole, or tuft of hair that stands up at the front, are said to have been prominent features of Alexander’s portraits, as was an uplifted gaze. Whether or not these closely resemble Alexander’s actual appearance, they created a distinctive typology that is both individualized and quickly recognizable for a viewer and was emulated by later Hellenistic kings and conquerors. For the Terme ruler, the realistic head seems strange when combined with the figure’s nudity, but it would serve to emphasize the divine aspect of the Hellenistic ruler. There is no diadem on his head, mak­ing his identity as a king uncertain, and in the end the figure is enigmatic.

Ruler portraits serve a political purpose above all, and we should consider that some of the realistic and individualized detail of their portraits was meant to convey the vitality and authority of the ruler, rather than his or her unique appearance. The portraits of the Ptolemaic kings and queens in Egypt, for example, had to appeal to a variety of audiences and the royal images could be altered to address one segment of the popula­tion. A head of Cleopatra VII (69-30 все), the last ruler of Egypt before it was conquered by the Romans under Augustus, has an idealized set of features that make her appear like a goddess such as Aphrodite (Figure 14.24). Her face is narrower than Aphrodite’s, with no hint of a smile and a more focused gaze, but the soft, fine facial features, smooth skin, and richly textured hair share Aphrodite’s idealized beauty. This head was made to sit on a separately carved body, probably a draped figure. This head and similarly styled profiles on coins were meant for a Greek audience, but we have other coins and other portraits of Cleopatra that show her with a hooked nose and less beautiful proportions. These may have been developed for a Roman audience, and certainly Roman writers did not describe her as beautiful, although they recognized her sharp intelligence, wit, and charm.

Ptolemaic rulers also had to address an indigenous Egyptian audience, and for their portraits in Egyptian temples and other public places workshops used an Egyptianizing style that invokes the forms and symbols of 2,500 years of Pharaoh portraits (Figure 14.25, page 370). A small limestone statue of a third-century queen, Arsinoё II (d. 270 все), was made for her posthumous cult during the second half of the second century. The inscription, written in hieroglyphs, names her as a goddess; both king and queen in the Egyptian tradition were divine and often brother and sister, a tradition that the Ptolemies continued as Arsinoё II was married to her brother Ptolemy II. The tight sheath dress and straight stance with the left foot slightly advanced imitate traditional Egyptian sculpture (see Figure 6.5, page 136; Figure 6.6, page 137), but the hairstyle is a hybridized mixture of Egyptian and Greek elements and the cornucopia in her left arm is a Greek symbol of abundance and fertility. The statue was made for the queen’s cult, which was meant to invoke the aid of the once-mortal goddess for the continued prosperity of the land and dynasty. Arsinoё had both Hellenistic and Egyptianizing statues made of her during her

lifetime and posthumously by her husband, who had instituted her cult. Coins that he issued, such as a gold octadrachm (eight drachmas) dating to 261-245, show a Hellenizing portrait on one side and, on the reverse, a double cornucopia, a symbol invented for her posthumous cult (Figure 14.26, page 370).

The coin circulated among the elite and addressed a different viewer than the cult statue, in a sense speaking a different lan­guage to make the same point about Агатёв divine status.

Not only did ruler portraits become prominent in the Hellenistic period, but portraits generally became common, particularly in the case of officials, priests and priestesses, and wealthy patrons who sponsored building projects. We have already seen the third-century portrait statue of the priestess Aristonoё, dedicated by her son in the sanctuary of Themis/

Nemesis at Rhamnous (see Figure 13.8, page 329). Like Cleopatra, her face is generalized and idealized, but her body is shown in an active position, with the right arm once extended, probably holding a phiale to perform an offering.

Hellenistic portraits of women, like the grave stele of Phila (see Figure 13.9, page 330), show more signs of action, authority, and agency than their classical predecessors, but the conventions of body pose are limited in range.

Portraits could be made of marble or bronze, but few of the later have survived apart from their marble bases inscribed with their names. A bronze head from Delos was part of a full-size figure and was found in the excavation of the Old Palaistra (Figure 14.27, page 371). What is remarkable is the truly animated expression and detailing of the hair and features, which make the representation seem genuinely individual. The deep groove in the forehead, the turn of the head, the crow’s feet by the eyes, and the open, slightly downturned mouth together work to create a vivid portrayal and have earned it the nickname of the “worried man" Who or what the man was, and whether the portrait was truly individualized or conforming to a type, remain unclear, although given the cost of a bronze statue, it was likely someone belonging to the elite of Delos. The head is usually dated to around or just after 100 все, in the middle of Delos’s greatest period of prosperity before it was sacked in 88 and again in 69.

painting

So far we have been looking mostly at sculpture that would have been found in public places. Some statues, like the figures from the Antikythera and Mahdia shipwrecks, were probably destined for individual patrons, Romans and elite Greeks who during the Hellenistic period built villas that could accommodate large-scale work as part of a decorative program. The large villas and houses were also decorated with extensive frescoes and mosaics. Several houses with large surviving mosaic floors have been excavated at Pella, the Macedonian capital where Alexander the Great was born in 356 все, and these show that the medium developed the ability to show representational scenes beyond the pebble mosaics seen at Olynthos and other fourth-century sites (see Figure 12.22, page 311). Even the largest houses at Olynthos, however, were relatively modest compared to the size of some Hellenistic villas, like the Villa of the Helen Abduction at Pella, which, at 2,350 m², was more than four times the area of the typical house at Olynthos.

The Pella villa dates to the late fourth century все and had three dining rooms and two large pebble mosaic floors, one showing a stag hunt signed by its artist, Gnosis (Figure 14.28, page 372).

Around the border of the room is a winding vine pattern on which the klinai would have stood. In the center of the room and oriented toward the doorway is a panel whose figures are heroic in scale. Two nude youths with billowing capes and a dog attack a stag, a scene that was found on Tomb II at Vergina and is one of the favored hunt themes among the Macedonian elite. The ability to show a range of colors is limited in a pebble mosaic, since it can only use the natural color of small stones, but by careful sorting Gnosis has been able to show shading/chiaroscuro in the figures, giving them a three­dimensional mass missing in earlier mosaics. Further, the figures move on a ground plane that recedes into the background, giving them an actual stage on which to hunt. The hunter on the right stands behind a projecting rock, while his dog is in front, effectively sur­rounding the stag. There is one opening in the trap for the animal, and it looks toward the front plane where the viewer stands at the entrance to the room, making the viewer a party to the hunt. The shared expe­rience of the hunt becomes the shared experience of the symposiasts, who themselves had likely participated in elite hunts like this.