in the Mirror: Roman Matrons in the Guise of a Goddess, the Reception for the Aphrodite of Cnidus

Sadie Pickup, London

The afterlife or reception of ancient sculpture offers a plethora of opportunities to discuss the continuance of images through ages and cultures. Aby Warburg’s work on the “survival of antiquity” and the ever expanding literature surrounding this topic indicates its potential fruitfulness.1 Few sculptures from antiquity resonate with Warburg’s idea: Nachleben der Antike (the afterlife of the antique), more than the Aphrodite of Cnidus (Knidia) (fig. 1). A work by from the fourth century BC, often considered the first life-size female nude in western art.2 The goddess draws her right hand across her groin, holding drapery in her left over a vessel.3 Sculptural copies and repli- cas in various media enable reconstruction, the work destroyed by fire in the fifth century AD when in Constantinople. Coins are an additional resource for identification and can be labelled.4 Three features are largely consistent: Aphrodite’s nudity, her gesture covering her groin with her right hand, and her pose, with weight resting on one leg, often her right. In most, she is also accompanied by a vessel, varying in nature.5

1 Warburg 1999. The basis for much subsequent scholarship is: Haskell – Penny 1981; Prettejohn 2012: is more recent and encompasses modern and contemporary examples. 2 Two of the ‘best’ copies are the Colonna and Belvedere or Standing Venuses: , Vatican Museums 812 and 4260; LIMC II, 391. 3 Only a handful of texts detail the Knidia’s gesture: Lucian, Amores 13 and Cedr. 1.564. 4 LIMC II, 52, nos. 407–8; Pasquier – Martinez 2007, 53, cat. nos. 5–6; Seaman 2004, 570– 1, cat. nos. 9–10. 33, 573, cat. nos. 59–62. 5 Stewart 2010, 12–17.

www.visualpast.de 138 Visual Past 2015

Fig. 1: Aphrodite of Cnidus, Belvedere type, Rome, Vatican Museums 4260, after Havelock 1995, fig. 2. Photo: author. Pickup, Venus in the Mirror 139

The lack of an original does not detract from the Knidia’s position and it is still one of the foremost sculptures from antiquity. This re- flects the eminence of its maker, its beauty and versatility as a subject. Significant in Warburg’s work on the reuse of antiquity was Sandro Botticelli’s Birth of Venus based on a replica of Praxiteles’s Knidia.6 Yet, this figure is somewhat removed from its source, visually and historically. An auburn haired goddess emerges from a shell, in bla- tant contrast to the now colourless ancient figures in marble.7 The appearance of Botticelli’s Venus also stems, not from Greek proto- types, but Roman copies of Praxiteles’s work.8 The most famous are the Capitoline and Medici Venuses, who also cover their breasts in the Venus pudica stance, although the obscuring of their genitalia links clearly with the Knidia (fig. 2).9 The Medici Venus is also accompanied by a dolphin and cupid. She seems more anxious, exemplified by the sharp turn of her head. Bereft of towel, she also lacks justification for her undress. These later works present a different image of the goddess from the original; nevertheless, the dissimilarities and equally the similarities between Greek works and their Roman equivalents are all too infrequently distinguished. The second can be seen as ‘the poor relation’, rather than a conscious attempt to draw aspects from the initial works, to fit a potentially different purpose.10

6 Florence, Uffizi Gallery 8360. Warburg 1999, 89–156. 7 Praxiteles certainly coloured his works and the Knidia may have been tinted: Plin. HN 35.133. 8 Havelock 1995, 69–101: discusses eight works inspired by the Knidia: the Capitoline, Medici, Crouching, Sandalbinder, both types of Anadyomene (rising from the sea), Melos and Callipygian; LIMC II, 50–77, nos. 391–687. 9 Capitoline Venus: Rome, 409; LIMC II, 52, no. 409. Medici Venus: Florence, Uffizi Gallery 224; LIMC II, 53, no. 419. 10 On this topic: Ridgway 1984; Marvin 1989 and 2008; Kousser 2008.

140 Visual Past 2015

Fig. 2: Capitoline Venus, Rome, Capitoline Museum 409, after Havelock 1995, fig. 18. Photo: author. The use, and variety of interpretations ascribed to the Knidia develops significantly between the Greek and Roman periods. The later Pickup, Venus in the Mirror 141 replicas of the figure are those most often appropriated post- antiquity, still little scholarship looks at the reception of the Knidia, as opposed to the figure of Venus generally.11 More ink has been spilt in an attempt to identify the nuances of Praxiteles’s work through the surviving versions, and draw meaning from her appearance.12 Her pose seen as one of shame or modesty, a reading ignoring the omni- potent nature of Aphrodite, because of her position as goddess of love and sexuality.13 Instead she highlights the basis of her influence. This chapter looks at examples of Roman women who use the gesture of the Knidia. It argues for a positive and powerful reading for this figure, and thus its derivatives. Discussion of these Roman matrons, particularly in a funerary context, has only briefly stressed the popularity of the sculpture as a model. Henning Wrede’s catalo- gue and analysis of them focuses on portrait types and social con- text;14 whereas Eve D’Ambra takes a more biological approach, focu- sing on the maternal and fertile aspect of those they represent.15 Although the latter mentions the prevalence for the Capitoline type, she makes only brief comment on the reason behind its choice, relating it to imperial propaganda and Roman founding myths.16 Numbers suggest the use of the Knidia was a conscious decision, governed by a certain aspect seen as suitable for these women in their tombs. Roman Venus is a commanding force, mother of Aeneas and as such Rome. By dispelling the myth that Praxiteles’s image shows the goddess off guard and as such shielding her undress in a prudish manner, and instead thinking of her drawing attention to the area of

11 Clark 1956, 64–161: devotes two chapters to the goddess, but only brief mention to the Knidia. Havelock 1995: discusses the subsequent representation of Aphrodite and Venus, rather than the continued reception of the Knidia. Salomon 1996: on the reuse of her gesture. Barolsky 1999, 93–117: overviews the deity in post-Renaissance art, beginning with the Capitoline Venus. Barrow 2005, 344–368: focuses on the female nude. 12 The Colonna Venus was long seen as the closer approximation: Pfrommer 1985, 173–180; Seaman 2004, 537–8. 13 Osborne 1996, 81–85; Spivey 2013, 206: does not find this reading persuasive. 14 Wrede 1981, 306–321; Hallett 2005, 331–2, B327–41. 15 D’Ambra 1996. 16 D’Ambra 1996, 222, note 10.

142 Visual Past 2015 her control, a better explanation arises for the Roman use of the Knidia.17 Praxiteles’s sculpture was ‘the first of its kind’, causing something of a revelation. Pliny the Elder, in the first century AD, claims it was intended for the Coans, but deterred by her nakedness, they selected a draped version of Aphrodite and she was purchased by the Cnidians.18 Ambivalence to her nudity did not last. The Bithynian king Nicomedes (generally identified as Nicomedes I who died in 247 BC), was apparently so enamoured with the work, he was willing to write off Cnidian debts to secure it.19 The number of copies of it also indicates its popularity.20 Yet, an almost Christianised perception can prevail, reading it as one of humiliation. Myth enables a much more plausible interpretation. In certain genealogy Aphrodite is born from Ouranus’s severed testicles, arriving on the island of fully formed where she bathes and adorns herself.21 Her drapery and jar are necessary for cleansing after her birth. In the Fifth Homeric Hymn (Aphr.), the goddess prepares for her rendezvous with Anchises (father of Aeneas), through beautification.22 The resulting effect is almost all encompassing, from her father Zeus to the animals she passes over on the way to her encounter.23 Aphrodite is a persuasive goddess, though her nudity can mean this characteristic is forgotten. Early Hellenistic Aphrodite is not the hapless goddess of the Iliad, wounded by the mortal Diomedes, who runs to her mother.24 Her support of Jason and his crew in the Argonautica is crucial to their

17 Although regularly repeated epigrams alleging its model as his courtesan lover Phryne, continue to fuel such suggestions: Ath.13.591a. Anth. Pal. 16.159. 18 Plin. HN 36.20. 19 Plin. HN 36.21; Isager 1991, 37–8. The king may have settled instead for a crouching version of Venus by Doedalsas: Plin. HN 36.36. Brinkerhoff 1978, 38–9: on problems surrounding this attribution. 20 Smith 1991, 80–1. 21 Hes. Theog. 173–206. 22 In Cypria Fr. 4: Aphrodite prepares for the Judgement of by bathing and anointing, dressing in an elaborate garment dyed by the Graces. 23 Aphr. 50–52; Faulkner 2008, 7. Excluded from this list are the three virgin goddesses: Artemis, Athena and Hestia. 24 Hom. Il. 5.310–430. Pickup, Venus in the Mirror 143 success and above all, she is a potent force.25 A humorous expla- nation for the Knidia does not gain credence. Aphrodite draws attention to her area of control in a similar fashion to the Roman matrons based on her. A label of passivity for the female nude is nothing new. In the 1970s, John Berger’s Ways of Seeing (although basing his discussion on post-Renaissance art), questioned the long held notion that: “men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at.”26 The Roman Lucian tells the story of a youth, who overcome by the Knidia’s beauty, hides in her temple overnight.27 The same writer recounts the tale of three male friends visiting the statue, one announcing his envy for Ares as the lover of Aphrodite.28 In their dialogue, the Knidia’s physique and female charms are much admired, even by the homosexual member of the party. But why is something attractive, devoid of religious significance, or might? This purely visual response is parodied in Kenneth Clark’s study of the nude where he says: “To be naked is to be deprived of clothes and the word implies some of the embarrassment most of us feel in that condition. The word nude, on the other hand, carries, in educated usage, no uncomfortable overtone.”29 Much quoted, this approach shapes art historical perception of nudity. Clark later states that the Knidia is exposed and defenceless, opposed to the Capitoline Venus, who is enclosed; both are nevertheless naked.30 He assumes nudity equates to erotic sentiment; the Knidia therefore becomes titillating and sexualised, even if her eroticism is characteristic of her influence as a goddess. As Sherry Lindquist highlights in her volume on nudity in medieval art, Clark’s categories pose a number of interpretative problems for feminist art historians and also those studying art from this period.31 His statements are not without issues for those working with images of ancient women too. Although the latter group have

25 Zanker 2004, 148–152. 26 Berger 2008, 47; Squire 2011, 76–77. 27 Lucian, Amores 15 and 16. 28 Lucian, Amores 13. 29 Clark 1956, 1. 30 Clark 1956, 79. 31 Lindquist 2012, 1–4.

144 Visual Past 2015 greater association with sex and allure, this does not deprive them of additional meaning. More plausibly, Aphrodite’s appearance demon- strates her association with sexuality and fertility, at what was a significant sanctuary at Cnidus.32 The sculpture is clearly amatory, nevertheless still a cult image and not without sacred association – an imposing symbol, not simply a debased figure of amusement. Without this understanding, the Knidia’s initial reception in a Roman context may seem bizarre, adopted as an identity for dutiful Roman matrons in their tombs. Not mere wish-fulfilment on the part of the middle-aged to rejuvenate themselves; instead, it reflects the importance of this guise, now relating to sexuality and maternalism. Its use seems a wilful choice, either by the deceased, or their relatives, with other figures of Venus less represented than the Knidia. Initially the figure is utilised by empresses, most often in free- standing sculpture, life-size or bigger.33 The assimilation of women to goddesses is attested since Queen Arsinoe I of Egypt, who identifies with Aphrodite in the second century BC.34 In Rome, Livia (wife of the emperor ) is the first empress to be deified in 41 AD, although she is previously represented as Venus Genetrix (mother).35 A cameo, a private presentation piece, shows her in this manner, possibly alongside her son Tiberius, yet with garment slipping from her shoulder.36 ’s sister Drusilla is also compared to Venus Genetrix, as is a wife of , although details do not extend to the nature of their imagery.37 Evidence is greater during the Flavian and Trajanic periods of the first and second centuries, when funerary portraits in the manner of Venus seem most popular.38 Why should this image hold appeal? Did these women really see themselves as Venus? Surely they would not wish to be portrayed as

32 At Cnidus Aphrodite was worshipped as: Doritis (bountiful), Acraea (of the height) and Euploia (of the fair voyage). Anth. Plan. 16.160; Paus. 1.1.3. 33 Wrede 1981, 306–321; Hallett 2005, 199; LIMC II, 205, nos. 123–4. 34 Fraser 1972, 240; Matheson 1996, 182, note 4. 35 Bartman 1999. 36 Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 99.109. The male identity is uncertain, the MFA describe it as a portrait of Augustus. Bartman 1999, 83, fig.68–9: sees it as Drusus. 37 Dio. Cas. 59.11.2–3 and 63.26.3. 38 D’Ambra 1989, 397, note 27. Pickup, Venus in the Mirror 145

Aphrodite caught out bathing? Their potentially erotic nature also seems unsuitable for the commemoration of respectable women at their death. But only if we equate a purely sexual meaning to this figure-type under the spectacle of traditional interpretations ascribed to the Knidia, rather than considering it as symbolic of a woman’s domain of fertility and motherhood. On one level these Roman matrons should be read as a means of glorification by association with divinity, displaying desirability through nudity, not dissimilarly to male members of the imperial family.39 They exhibit the different interaction between gods and mortals during the first century BC, when the two can be shown almost interchangeably, emanating from the link established since the Julian dynasty with Venus, claiming descent from her son Aeneas. An image of is one of the most overt examples of an empress as the goddess, in an apparent portrait from the second half of the second century AD. Although her identity has been questioned, her ‘portrait’ was found alongside one of her husband . An idealised depiction shows his wife with a distinctive hairdo reminiscent of the Capitoline Venus.40 Long curls fall onto her shoulders and her hair is bound on the top of her head in an elaborate top-knot.41 The overall appearance of the sculpture is difficult to ascertain, although her hairstyle, rarely seen accompanying clothed sculptures of Venus, or in portraiture, means she is likely to have been shown as the Knidia, highlighting aspects of Lucilla’s beauty, appropriate perhaps for a marriage portrayal.42 Found in Asia Minor, these images may well have been publically displayed, referencing the godlike status of the emperor and his wife. Other depictions variously identified as Lucilla or Faustina the Younger are known from Taurus and Aphrodisias, suggesting the value of such a presentation in this region.43

39 Hallett 2005, 223–70. 40 Toledo, Museum of Art 76.21 (Lucilla); 76.20 (Lucius Verus). 41 Kleiner – Matheson 1996, cat. nos. 28–9, note 5. 42 Matheson 1996, 185, note 27. 43 Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 3373 (Taurus); 2815 (Aphrodisias), Johansen 1995, 208–9. Kleiner – Matheson 1996, 74, note 7 and 193, note 27.

146 Visual Past 2015

Faustina the Younger may also be represented as Venus in one of the best known Roman matron Knidia compositions, in the Vatican collections since 1509. Another example also still relatively well intact may be Marcia Furnilla, second wife of the first century AD emperor , now in Copenhagen (fig. 3).44 The latter is similar to the Capitoline Venus, but is instead accompanied by Cupid. No doubt his presence is an additional hint to goddess-mortal assimilation. Marcia Furnilla (if this work is indeed her) is completely undressed, using her right hand to shield her breasts, her left her groin. She was found at Frattócchie near Albano, possibly the site of a Flavian villa.45 Flavian women are particularly hard to distinguish individually and there is no consensus over this sculpture’s identity, although an image of such care suggests at least someone of standing.46 She has a solemn countenance, with slightly parted narrow lips and downcast gaze. This contrasts with her decorative coiffure presenting a series of stylised curls bound on her head. Her neck is bent forward, adding to her grave nature. Although she is not old, she is equally not youthful, with shadows under her eyes, naso-labial lines and smile creases around her mouth. Her body replicates the same level of maturity. Slightly plump, it hints at developed woman, rather than nubile young female. Weight is placed firmly on her left leg, with her right relaxed, causing a downward tilt of her right hip and upwards shift of her left. This draws attention to the flesh around her midriff, with her upper body streamlined, with pert breasts. Her stance is slightly awkward, primarily because of her disproportionately long thighs, projecting forward, giving the impression she is off balance. A support is now well worn, but does not foretell the inclusion of a vessel. The scant remnants of Cupid reiterate the maternal role of this woman, whoever she may be.

44 Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 711. Hallett 2005, 199, pl. 121 and B327: including further bibliography. 45 Johansen 1995, 50–3, cat. no. 14. 46 D’Ambra 2013. Pickup, Venus in the Mirror 147

Fig. 3: Marcia Furnilla (?) as Venus, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 711, after Johansen 1995, 53. Photo: author.

No more certain identity is ascribed to the example previously mentioned from Rome (fig. 4).47 Faustina the Younger is the name often quoted; a daughter of , the fashion and execution of her hairstyle are consistent with that period.48 Her attractive coiffure frames her small delicate face, with strong eye-

47 Rome, Vatican Museums 936. Spinola 1999, 1; Hallett 2005, 201, pl. 122. 48 Haskell – Penny 1981, 323–325, no. 87: Sallustia Barbia Orbiana is suggested, on the basis of the proximity of her residence to its findspot, claimed as S. Croce in Gerusalemme. She was a consort of Alexander Severus in the early third century AD.

148 Visual Past 2015 brows forming an arc below her forehead, over broad rimmed eye- lids, also as Julia Domna, a key member of the subsequent Severan dynasty.49 The sculpture is reminiscent of Praxiteles’s original, although her use of drapery to conceal is more akin to later replicas, such as the Troad Venus.50 Her right arm pulls clothing to her groin, therefore covering her right leg. Her left arm is adorned with a swath of cloth, meaning much of her lower body is unexposed. An off- balance and uncomfortable looking Cupid reaches up on her left side. It seems she reciprocates by taking his offering, possibly an apple, or a mirror. Cupid is well developed and the delineation of musculature seen on his torso. Venus is also firm and youthful; a fecund deity and a fortunate one, surely a positive reflection on her husband and family. Venus Felici (lucky) is inscribed on her base, venerated from the first century BC, in the hope of militaristic success. Sulla uses this cognomen from 81 BC, attributing his accomplishments in battle to the goddess. Much as Aphrodite could be a powerful force in relation to love, so could her Roman counterpart in matters of war, the two aspects hardly poles apart. Venus Victrix (victory) can be shown with sword, shield and even baldric, as a dominant image, much as the Knidia.51 Many of these Roman martial Venuses are half-draped in the manner of the Rome matron, who at times has been identified as Victrix, appropriate in the context of the imperial family, referencing military success on the part of her relatives, but also reiterating the strength ascribed to the image of the Knidia.

49 Wrede 1981, 313–4, no. 306. 50 Rome, Palazzo Massimo, 75674. LIMC II, 54, no. 422. 51 Flemberg 1991; Budin 2010, 105–111. Pickup, Venus in the Mirror 149

Fig. 4: Venus Felici, Rome, Vatican Museums 936, after Hallett 2005, pl. 122. Photo: author.

Ultimately, not only Roman imperial woman were presented as the Knidia. Statius records the wife of freedman Abascantus, Pricilla, in

150 Visual Past 2015 the guise of Venus on her death in the first century AD.52 These so- called libertinae, (freedwomen), undoubtedly draw inspiration from earlier precedents. Identifying yourself with Venus may lie within the bounds of probability for empresses, but the mix of aging Roman matron and semi-idealised venereal body, is jarring. These wives were revered for their chastity, not a symbol inherently associated with the Knidia. How should we then reconcile such modes of unrealistic beauty?53 Clearly the same boundaries did not apply to statues. Austere expressions of moral restraint could be transposed with nubile, fertile bodies. Reference is made to the jurisdiction and significance of these women within their family through their form. Bathing and nudity was an important part of ritual activity associated with the cult of Venus Verticordia (changer of hearts, to chastity). Many of the connotations given to nudity in a Hellenistic context are not applied in a Roman one and the exclusively funerary context for these pieces, argues for a serious and meaningful response. The tomb of Claudia Semne from the reign of is a lavish construction, aimed to glorify its freedman patron and his wife.54 She is depicted five times, including as Venus and also in a supine position half-draped, bringing her right hand to her groin.55 Her partial nudity draws attention to her sexual appeal, imitating the alluring aspect of the Knidia. Although not at the prime of her beauty, she is not without erotic sentiment, a positive asset necessary to perform her function as a wife. A similarly dated funerary relief to Ulpia Epigone also replicates this figure type, described as: “a free adaptation of the Capitoline Venus type within the context of the kline relief”.56 Her action accentuates her fertility and she also wears a bracelet on her arm as the Knidia, embellishing her appeal. The dog and basket at her side and feet represent chastity and virtue, likely emphasised because of her servile ancestry.57 The prominence of

52 Silvae 5.231–33; D’Ambra 2000. 53 Boardman 2004, 51: suggests these images should not be taken seriously; Stewart 2003, 51–53: on their popularity. 54 The tomb is recorded in 1792–3. Wrede 1971; Bignamini – Claridge 1988. 55 Rome, Vatican Museums 10528. Bignamini – Claridge 1988, 232, table 1. 56 Rome, Vatican Museums 9856. D’Ambra 1989, 396–7. 57 D’Ambra 1989, 398–400. Pickup, Venus in the Mirror 151 these homages within circles of freedmen and freedwomen, appearing to emulate practices of the imperial family, infers an element of the ‘nouveau riche’. Unable to attain many of the levels afforded citizens, their children, appropriately produced by a dutiful mother, suitably commemorated as Venus on her death, it was hoped, would produce the first free born generation. These images of the Knidia are certainly different in conception to those identified as empresses. Yet they share in common the choice by their family members to represent them as Venus. They differ from Lucilla, who is modelled as Venus, rather than on Venus, but equally, the Vatican Venus Felici uses aspects of the goddess to reflect positively on her husband, much as these freedwomen held up as dutiful wives (and probably model mothers). All wear a positive costume of the goddess through the Knidia, with no connotations of amusement, or equally using her gesture through necessity. Their primary function was as mothers, although this was not necessarily at the expense of their position as sexualised women. It seems that the Knidia could be manipulated to various means. She may allude directly to the goddess, be used in conjunction with another aspect of Venus, such as Felici, or even Victrix, and equally indicate fertility or chastity. These ‘empresses’ and freedwomen are not Venus; instead they take positive aspects of her, through representation in the manner of Knidia. The reference to fertility in the latter group, a fundamental aspect of their lives to ensure the continuation of their families, and so important to them they took it to their graves.

Dr Sadie Pickup reads Classical Studies and took her MA in Ancient Art from the University of Reading. She completed her DPhil at Oxford in Classical Archaeology in 2011; her thesis focuses on the reception of the Knidian Aphrodite. She is currently lecturer at Christie's Education, London, having previously taught at the Universities of Reading and Oxford and worked at the Ashmolean Museum and Ure Museum of Greek Archaeology. She is lead author for the latter's Corpus of Cypriote Antiquities, to be published in 2015 and also co-edited Brill's Companion of Aphrodite with Amy C. Smith in 2010.

152 Visual Past 2015

Bibliography Barolsky 1999: P. Barolsky, Looking at Venus: A Brief History of Erotic Art, Arion 7.2, 1999, 93–117. Barrow 2005: R. Barrow, From Praxiteles to De Chirico: Art and Reception, IntJClTrad 11.3, 2005, 344–368. Bartman 1999: E. Bartman, Portraits of Livia: Imagining the Imperial Woman in Augustan Rome (Cambridge 1999). Berger 2008: J. Berger, Ways of Seeing (London 2008). Bignamini – Claridge 1988: I. Bignamini – A. Claridge. The Tomb of Claudia Semne and Excavations in Eighteenth-Century Rome, BSR 66, 1988 215–244. Boardman 2004: J. Boardman, Nudity in Art, in: D. C. Kurtz (ed.), Reception of Classical Art. An Introduction (Oxford 2004) 47–54. Brinkerhoff 1978: D. M. Brinkerhoff, Hellenistic Statues of Aphrodite: Studies in the History of their Stylistic Development (New York 1978). Budin 2010: S. L. Budin, Aphrodite Enoplion, in: A. C. Smith – S. Pickup (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Aphrodite (Leiden 2010) 78–112. Clark 1956: K. Clark, The Nude (London 1956). D’Ambra 1989: E. D’Ambra, The Cult of Virtues and the Funerary Relief of Ulpia Epigone, Latomus 48.2, 1989, 392–400. D’Ambra 1996: E. D’Ambra, The Calculus of Venus, in: N. B. Kampen (ed.), Sexuality in Ancient Art: Near East, Egypt, Greece, and Italy (Cambridge 1996) 219–232. D’Ambra 2000: E. D’Ambra, Nudity and Adornment in Female Portrait Sculpture of the Second Century AD, in: D. E. E. Kleiner – S. B. Matheson (eds.), I Claudia II, Women in Roman Art and Society (Austin 2000) 101–114. D’Ambra 2013: E. D’Ambra, Mode and Model in the Flavian Female Portrait, AJA 117, 2013, 515–525. Faulkner 2008: A. Faulkner, The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, Introduction, Text and Commentary (Oxford 2008). Flemberg 1991: J. Flemberg, Venus Armata. Studien zur bewaffneten Aphrodite in der griechisch-römischen Kunst (Stockholm 1991). Fraser 1972: P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria I (Oxford 1972). Hallett 2005: C. H. Hallett, The Roman Nude, Heroic Portrait Statuary 200 BC–AD 300 (Oxford 2005). Haskell – Penny 1981: F. Haskell – N. Penny, Taste and the Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculpture 1500–1900 (New Haven 1981). Havelock 1995: C. M. Havelock, The and her Successors (Ann Arbor 1995). Pickup, Venus in the Mirror 153

Isager 1991: J. Isager, Pliny on Art and Society: The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on the History of Art (London 1991). Johansen 1995: F. Johansen, Roman Portraits. Catalogue. Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek II (Copenhagen 1995). Kleiner – Matheson 1996: D. E. E. Kleiner – S. B. Matheson, I Claudia. Women in Ancient Rome (New Haven 1996). Kousser 2008: R. M. Kousser, Hellenistic and Roman Ideal Sculpture: The Allure of the Classical (Cambridge 2008). Lindquist 2012: S. C. M. Lindquist (ed.), The Meanings of Nudity in Medieval Art (Farnham 2012). Marvin 1989: M. Marvin, Copying in Roman Sculpture: The Replica Series, in: National Gallery of Art Washington (ed.), Retaining the Original. Multiple Originals, Copies, and Reproductions, Studies in the History of Art 20 (Washington 1989) 29–46. Marvin 2008: M. Marvin, The Language of the Muses: The Dialogue between Roman and Greek Sculpture (Los Angeles 2008). Matheson 1996: S. B. Matheson, The Divine Claudia: Women as Goddesses in Roman Art in: Kleiner – Matheson 1996, 182–193. Osborne 1996: R. Osborne, Looking on Greek Style. Does the Sculpted Girl speak to Women too?, in: I. Morris (ed.), Classical Greece, Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeology (Cambridge: 1996) 81–96. Pasquier – Martinez 2007: A. Pasquier – J.-L. Martinez, Praxitèle (Paris 2007). Pfrommer 1985: M. Pfrommer, Zur Venus Colonna. Eine späthellenistische Redaktion der Knidischen Aphrodite, IstMitt 35, 1985, 173–180. Prettejohn 2012: E. Prettejohn, The Modernity of Ancient Sculpture: Greek Sculpture and Modern Art from Winckelmann to Picasso (London 2012). Ridgway 1984: B. S. Ridgway, Roman Copies of Greek sculpture: The Problem of the Originals (Ann Arbor 1984). Salomon 1996: N. Salomon, The Venus Pudica: Uncovering Art History’s ‘Hidden Agendas’ and Pernicious Pedigrees, in: G. Pollock (ed.), Generations and Geographies in the Visual Arts: Feminist Readings (London 1996) 69–87. Seaman 2004: K. Seaman, Retrieving the Original Aphrodite of Knidos, RAL 9.15, 2004, 531–594. Smith 1991: R. R. R. Smith, Hellenistic Sculpture (London 1991). Spinola 1999: G. Spinola, Il Museo Pio-Clementino 2 (Vatican City 1999). Spivey 2013: N. Spivey, Greek Sculpture (Cambridge 2013). Squire 2011: M. Squire, The Art of the Body: Antiquity and its Legacy (London 2011).

154 Visual Past 2015

Stewart 2010: A. Stewart, A Tale of Seven Nudes: The Capitoline and Medici Aphrodites, Four Nymphs at Elean Herakleia, and an Aphrodite at Megalopolis, Antichthon 44, 2010, 12–32. Stewart 2003: P. Stewart, Statues in Roman Society, Representation and Response (Oxford 2003). Warburg 1999: A. Warburg, The Renewal of Pagan Antiquity: Contributions to the Cultural History of the European Renaissance. Translation by D. Britt (Los Angeles 1999). Wrede 1971: H. Wrede, Das Mausoleum der Claudia Semne und die bürgerliche Plastik der Kaiserzeit, RM 78, 1971, 125–166. Wrede 1981: H. Wrede, Consecratio in formam deorum (Mainz 1981). Zanker 2004: G. Zanker, Modes of Viewing in Hellenistic Poetry and Art (Madison 2004).