The Art of Praxiteles V

Home , Eubuleus, Phryne, Praxiteles

The book is focused on the last works of the most famous late 198 classical sculptor of Greece, the Athenian Praxiteles: his oeuvre THE ART OF from around 340 to his death in 326 BC is analytically considered. The most important works of this master considered in this essay are the Eubuleus, the Phryne of Delphi, the Leconfield Aphrodite PRAXITELES V and the Sleeping Eros. The last years The last works of Praxiteles are particularly important because they shed light to the crucial moment of the decline of the free city of the Sculptor state and of the rise of the Hellenistic model of monarchy. around With these creations our artist depicted a world of beautiful tales and of mundane beauty which will be extremely influential during 340 to 326 BC the golden period of the Roman classicism as well as during the post – ancient Renaissances.

Antonio Corso attended his curriculum of studies in classics and archaeol- ogy in Padua, Athens, Frankfurt and London. He published 111 scientific es- ANTONIO CORSO says which include several tens of articles in peer reviewed periodicals and 10 books in prestigious series. The most important areas covered by his studies are the ancient art criticism and the knowledge of classical Greek artists. The last years of the Sculptor around 340 to 326 BC In particular he collected in three books the written testimonia on Praxiteles and in other four books he reconstructed the life and oeuvre of this sculptor. He also delivered many lectures and papers in conferences in several aca- demic institutions and was awarded senior fellowships and honours by top research foundations. Actually he is holder of a contract with the Centre of Vitruvian Studies. THE ART OF PRAXITELES V

A. CORSO - ART OF PRAXITELES V ISBN 978-88-913-0655-5 Antonio Corso

«L’ERMA» «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER

Corso Praxiteles 5 STAMPA.indd 1 29/04/2014 12.09.30 STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA

198

Antonio_Corso_5.indd 1 29/04/2014 11.40.09 STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA 198

1 - De Marinis, S. - La tipologia del banchetto nell’arte etrusca arcaica, 1961. 2 - Baroni, F. - Osservazioni sul «Trono di Boston», 1961. 3 - Laurenzi, L. - Umanità di Fidia, 1961. 4 - Giuliano, A. - Il commercio dei sarcofagi attici, 1962. 5 - Nocentini, S. - Sculture greche, etrusche e romane nel Museo Bardini in Firenze, 1965. 6 - Giuliano, A. - La cultura artistica delle province greche in età romana, 1965. 7 - Ferrari, G. - Il commercio dei sarcofagi asiatici, 1966. 8 - Breglia, L. - Le antiche rotte del Mediterraneo documentate da monete e pesi, 1966. 9 - Lattanzi, E. - I ritratti dei «cosmeti» nel Museo Nazionale di Atene, 1968. 10 - Saletti, C. - Ritratti severiani, 1967. 11 - Blank, H. - Wiederverwendung alter Statuen als Ehrendenkmäler bei Griechen und Römern, 2a Ed. riv. ed. ill., 1969. 12 - Canciani, F. - Bronzi orientali ed orientalizzanti a Creta nell’viii e vii sec. a.C., 1970. 13 - Conti, G. - Decorazione architettonica della «Piazza d’oro» a Villa Adriana, 1970. 14 - Sprenger, M. - Die Etruskische Plastik des v Jahrhunderts v. Chr. und ihr Verhältnis zur griechisch- en Kunst, 1972. 15 - Polaschek, K. - Studien zur Ikonographie der Antonia Minor, 1973. 16 - Fabbricotti, E. - Galba, 1976. 17 - Polaschek, K. - Porträttypen einer Claudischen Kaiserin, 1973. 18 - Pensa, M. - Rappresentazioni dell’oltretomba nella ceramica apula, 1977. 19 - Costa, P. M. - The pre-Islamic Antiquities at the Yemen National Museum, 1978. 20 - Perrone, M. - Ancorae Antiquae. Per una cronologia preliminare delle ancore del Mediterra- neo, 1979. 21 - Mansuelli, G. A. (a cura di) - Studi sull’arco onorario romano, 1979. 22 - Fayer, C. - Aspetti di vita quotidiana nella Roma arcaica, 1982. 23 - Olbrich, G. - Archaische Statuetten eines Metapontiner Heiligtums, 1979. 24 - Papadopoulos, J. - Xoana e Sphyrelata. Testimonianze delle fonti scritte, 1980. 25 - Vecchi, M. - Torcello. Ricerche e Contributi, 1979. 26 - Manacorda, D. - Un’officina lapidaria sulla via Appia, 1979. 27 - Mansuelli, G. A. (a cura di) - Studi sulla città antica. Emilia Romagna, 1983. 28 - Rowland, J. J. - Ritrovamenti romani in Sardegna, 1981. 29 - Romeo, P. - Riunificazione del centro di Roma antica, 1979. 30 - Romeo, P. - Salvaguardia delle zone archeologiche e problemi viari nelle città, 1979. 31 - Macnamara, E. - Vita quotidiana degli Etruschi, 1982. 32 - Stucchi, S. - Il gruppo bronzeo tiberiano da Cartoceto, 1988. 33 - Zuffa, M. - Scritti di archeologia, 1982. 34 - Vecchi, M. - Torcello. Nuove ricerche, 1982. 35 - Salza Prina Ricotti, E. - L’arte del convito nella Roma antica, 1983. 36 - Gilotta, F. - Gutti e askoi a rilievo italioti ed etruschi, 1984. 37 - Becatti, G. - Kosmos. Studi sul mondo classico, 1987. 38 - Fabrini, G. M. - Numana: vasi attici da collezione, 1984. 39 - Buonocore, M. - Schiavi e liberti dei Volusii Saturnini. Le iscrizioni del colombario sulla via Appia antica, 1984. 40 - Fuchs, M. - Il Teatro romano di Fiesole. Corpus delle sculture, 1986. 41 - Buranelli, F. - L’urna «Calabresi» di Cerveteri. Monumenti, Musei e Gallerie Pontificie, 1985. 42 - Piccarreta, F. - Manuale di fotografia aerea: uso archeologico, 1987. 43 - Liverani, P. - Municipium Augustum Veiens. Veio in età imperiale attraverso gli scavi Giorgi (1811-13), 1987. 44 - Strazzulla, M. J. - Le terrecotte architettoniche della Venetia romana. Contributo allo studio della produzione fittile nella Cisalpina, 1987. 45 - Franzoni, C. - Habitus atque habitudo militis. Monumenti funerari di militari nella Cisalpina romana, 1987. 46 - Scarpellini, D. - Stele romane con imagines clipeatae in Italia, 1986. 47 - D’Alessandro, L., Persegati, F. - Scultura e calchi in gesso. Storia, tecnica e conservazione, 1987. 48 - Milanese, M. - Gli scavi dell’oppidum preromano di Genova, 1987. 49 - Scatozza Höricht, L. A. - Le terrecotte figurate di Cuma del Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli, 1987. continued to pag. 103

Antonio_Corso_5.indd 2 29/04/2014 11.40.09 Antonio Corso

The Art of Praxiteles V The last years of the Sculptor (around 340 to 326 BC)

«L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER

Antonio_Corso_5.indd 3 29/04/2014 11.40.10 Antonio Corso

THE ART OF PRAXITELES V The last years of the Sculptor (around 340 to 326 BC)

Progetto grafico: «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER

Tutti i diritti risevati. è vietata la riproduzione di testi e illustrazioni senza il permesso scritto dell’Editore.

On Cover Leconfield Head, marble, dated around 330 BC, Petworth House, UK

Corso, Antonio

The art of Praxiteles, V : The last years of the Sculptor (around 340 to 326 BC) / Antonio Corso. - Roma : «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER, 2014. - 108 p. : ill. ; 24 cm. - (Studia archaeologica ; 198)

ISBN 978-88-913-0655-5 (Paper) ISBN 978-88-913-0656-2 (PDF)

CDD 21. 733.3 1. Prassitele 2. Scultura greca - Sec. IV a. C.

Antonio_Corso_5.indd 4 29/04/2014 11.40.10 To Polyxeni Mpougia, Sit tibi terra levis

Antonio_Corso_5.indd 5 29/04/2014 11.40.10 Antonio_Corso_5.indd 6 29/04/2014 11.40.10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I delivered a lecture on issues debated in this book on 21 June, 2013 in the Bibliotheca Classica of Sankt Petersburg. Moreover I gave a paper on 24 June, 2013 in the conference about antiquity held by the Academy of Sciences of Sankt Petersburg. Again I presented a lecture on 4. December, 2013 in the Freie Universitaet of Berlin, Forschungscolloquium zur Alten Geschichte as well as a paper on 7. December, 2013 in the conference Classica Mente held in Fano by the Centro Studi Vitruviani. Another my paper was delivered in absentia on 14. February, 2014 in the conference Drakmatic Art held in Chicago in the Hilton Hotel. A grant by the Samuel Kress foundation was awarded as a support for the preparation of this paper. Finally I delivered a lecture on 10. March, 2014 in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens. I wish to thank Prof. N. N. Kazansky, Prof. A. Verlinsky, Dr. Anna Trofimova and Dr. Svetlana Kleiner for the dialogue I had with them in Sankt Petersburg. Equally I wish to thank Prof. K. Geus, dr. G. F. Chiai and dr. J. Curbera for the discussions I had in Berlin. Finally I wish to thank Profs. P. Clini, M. Luni P. Moreno and B. Zanardi, moreover dr. Luciano Filippo Bracci and dr. D. Zacchilli for the intellectually stimulating environment enjoyed in Fano. The community of Lugano (dr. A. Bignasca, E. Arslan, Mrs. Viviana Kolb, Mrs. V. Chiesa, etc.), where I spent some time in January, 2014, was also intellectually stimulating. Most of this book was written in Athens: I wish to thank dr. E. Angelicoussis, dr. V. Barlou, dr. B. Barr Sharrar, dr. J. Carl- son, dr. S. Dreni, Dr. M. Gkikaki, Mrs. F. Iatridou, Prof. D. Katsonopoulou, Prof. L. Kelperi, Mrs. M. Kluge, Dr. Ch. Kritsas, Prof. M. Lefantzis, dr. Marina Marks, Prof. V. Mitsopoulos Leon, Prof. A. Moustaka, Prof. A. Oehnesorg, Prof. E. Oestby, Prof. K. Peppas Delmouzou, Dr. Ai. Rhomiopoulou, Prof. A. Rhyzakis, Prof. D. Schilardi, Prof. P. Schultz, Prof. K. Seaman, Prof. T. Stefanidou, Prof. A. Stewart, Prof. J. Stroszeck, Prof. A. Surtees, Prof. P. Themelis, Prof. M. Tiverios, Prof. I. Tourat- soglou, Prof. I. Triandi, Prof. C. Vlassopoulou, Prof. E. Walter Karydi and dr. C. Wolf for their competent advises on issues debated in this book. Sometimes I worked in Rome especially in the German Institute of Rome: I wish to thank Profs. G. Calcani, G. A. Cellini, L. Faedo, E. Ghisellini, M. L. Micheli, M. G. Picozzi and S. Settis for their making the Roman community of ancient art historians one of the best in the world. During my frequent stay in my native town of Padua, I enjoyed the dialogue with Prof. L. Braccesi, dr. M. Gamba, dr. G. Gambacurta, Prof. A. M. Pontani, Prof. F. Raviola, Prof. V. Tine’ and dr. G. Zampieri. Prof. A. Anguissola and dr. A. R. Doronzio kindly offered me accomodation in their premises during my stay in Munich. I owe my thanks also to Prof. A. Bammer, Dr. M. Bennett, Prof. P. Gros, Prof. U. Muss, Prof. P. Pedersen and Prof. R. R. R. Smith because they discussed with me issues related to my studies. Finally I wish to beg the pardon of Prof. N. Spivey because I was unable for economic reasons to travel to Cambridge and to deliver a lecture in this important scholarly centre on 17 February, 2014.

ANTONIO CORSO Athens, 15 March 2014

Antonio_Corso_5.indd 7 29/04/2014 11.40.10 Antonio_Corso_5.indd 8 29/04/2014 11.40.10 SUMMARY

TENTH CHAPTER

From around 340 to around 335 BC ...... p. 11

56. The Eubuleus ...... » 12

57. The statue in Pentelic marble of Rhea in the temple of Hera at Plataeae ...... » 19

58. The statue in Pentelic marble of Hera teleia in the temple of Hera at Plataeae ...... » 23

59. The statue of Thrasymachus at Thespiae ...... » 24

60. The marble statue of Trophonius in the sanctuary and temple of this hero at Lebadia ...... » 27

61. The marble Artemis in the sanctuary and temple of this goddess near Anticyra ...... » 29

62. The gilded bronze statue of Aphrodite / Phryne on a column in Pentelic marble in the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi ...... » 34

Notes ...... » 46

ELEVENTH CHAPTER

From around 335 to around 330 BC ...... » 55

63. The bronze statue of Charidemus of Pitane dedicated by Abydus and set up at Delphi ...... » 55

64. Sculptures in the late classical altar of the sanctuary of Artemis at Ephesus ...... » 56

65. The Aphrodite in the Adonium of Alexandria near Mt. Latmus ...... » 63

66. The Leto at Myra ...... » 65

Notes ...... » 66

Antonio_Corso_5.indd 9 29/04/2014 11.40.10 TWELFTH CHAPTER

From around 330 to 326 BC ...... » 69

67. Craters ...... » 69

68. The Sleeping Eros ...... » 70

Notes ...... » 75

THIRTEENTH CHAPTER

Addenda et Expungenda ...... » 79

Addenda ...... » 79

69 = 4 bis. The statue of Castor ...... » 79

Expungenda ...... » 81

Notes ...... » 82

FOURTEENTH CHAPTER

The life and oeuvre of Praxiteles: a summary of the evidence ...... » 83

Notes ...... » 89

Index of the Works of Praxiteles ...... » 91

General Index ...... » 93

Index of Written Sources ...... » 100

Museographic Index ...... » 102

Antonio_Corso_5.indd 10 29/04/2014 11.40.11 Tenth Chapter

From around 340 to around 335 BC

In the early 330s BC, the balance of power in the Greek world shifts toward north: accordingly, the workshop of Praxiteles now works a lot for Boeo- tian and Phocean poleis which regained their own autonomy thanks to the victory of the Macedonian army at Chaeronea in 338 BC (see below the Praxitelean works nos. 57-62).

By the end of this period, Cephisodo- From the point of view of the message tus the Younger – the elder son of Prax- suggested by the late Praxitelean produc- iteles – is recorded at Athens as a mem- tion, it seems that our sculptor pursued ber of the liturgical class,1 i. e. of the 300 the expression of an art of pleasure which or so wealthy Athenians who had to pay advertizes the enjoyment of life. This con- the public dues. This fact reveals both that tent will become clear especially with the at the time the business of this family of Phryne of Delphi (see below the work no. sculptors was very successful and perhaps 62) but may be implied also by the Eu- also that by 334 BC or earlier Praxiteles buleus (see below the work no. 56): it is in had transferred much of his own wealth to keeping both with the spread of a hedon- his elder son.2 istic concept of life which will characterize Still perhaps in the early 330s BC, the Zeitgeist of the New Comedy and with Cephisodotus the Younger works for the the late classical success of philosophical private patronage of statues dedicated in theories – such as those of Eudoxus and Attic sanctuaries.3 of the Cyrenaean school established by This fact suggests that Praxiteles Aristippus – which regarded pleasure the passed the ‘minor’ local commissions of supreme ideal of humans. statues addressed to his workshop to his Accordingly, the late Praxitelean style elder son, in order to help him to become gives emphasis to the values of the vel- well established and on the contrary kept vety epidermis and of the surfaces: the for himself the most prestigious commis- endless transitions and games of light sions and especially those coming from and shade and the lack of a strong sense far away patrons. of body’s structure make the appearances

Tenth Chapter From around 340 to around 335 BC 11

Antonio_Corso_5.indd 11 29/04/2014 11.40.11 of late Praxitelean statues dreamy visions, Epigraphical evidence reveals that pertaining to a world of beautiful tales he was worshipped at Eleusis in the so and to a sublime and remote Arcadia. – called Plutonium, i. e. in the precinct of This disengaged art will meet both the agelastos petra.6 popular success as well as criticism from Sacrifices to Eubuleus are evidenced the partisans of a more austere life style: from around 440 BC7 while a marble this contrast will be underlined in the sec- statue of this god was dedicated in the tion devoted to the Phryne of Delphi. precinct of the agelastos petra in the The ancient art criticism may also 330s.8 Finally the institutional figure of have not been particularly appreciative of the priest who took care of the cult of this this phase of the Praxitelean art: in fact no deity is known from an inscription dated one of the works which will be considered around 115-108 BC and also found in the in this chapter enjoyed the written fame precinct of Mirthless Rock.9 of the Cnidian Aphrodite or of the Eros of Thus it is likely that the original stat- Thespiae. ue of Eubuleus by Praxiteles, whose head Moreover, during the late Hellenistic will be copied with the Montalto / Negro- and Roman imperial times most of these ni herm, was also set up in this precinct. creations were either rarely or not copied. The above mentioned statue of Eubuleus Finally, the circumstance that no one of dedicated in the same area around 330 the last works of the sculptor was brought BC betrays the desire to give emphasis to to Rome is noteworthy. the cult place of Eubuleus exactly in this Thus it is likely that the posterity re- period. We can suggest that Praxiteles’ garded these statues beautiful but not statue was the cult image of the holy very meaningful – lacking of pondus – space devoted to Eubuleus and that the and rather placed the zenith of the crea- renown and social ‘success’ of this statue tivity of Praxiteles in his youth and early created the condition for the private maturity. dedication of another statue of our deity a few years later. This suggestion is in keeping with the 56. The Eubuleus architectural renovation of the Plutonium which occurred a little after 350 BC: at the This work is known thanks to an inscribed time the area of the Mirthless Rock was label on a late Antonine marble pillar endowed with a peribolos and a naiskos in which once supported a herm (fig. 1). The antis was also built.10 Praxiteles’ statue may pillar probably comes from Rome, once have been destined to this temple. The en- stood in the Montalto – Negroni collec- dowment in the same period of the Teles- tion, then in that of Albacini and is now terion with a prostoon11 and the building kept in the Vatican Museums:4 of two new entrances in the Eleusinium of Athens12 also testify to the strong interest Eubouleus / Praxitelous. ‘Eubuleus / work of the Athenian state during the ages of of Praxiteles’. Eubulus and Lycurgus for the architectural renovation of Eleusinian sanctuaries. Eubuleus was an Eleusinian god Probably Praxiteles was charged of whose glory relied in the fact that he was this statue because by the time he was young and worked as a swineherd when the beloved sculptor of both authorities and where Hades kidnapped Kore.5 and devotees of the Eleusinian cult, as

12 Antonio Corso

Antonio_Corso_5.indd 12 29/04/2014 11.40.11 from the head. The disordered hair look suggests that the represented male is conceived far from the civilized world and thus invites the viewer to imagine a bucolic environment around this figure. This observation strengthens the identi- fication of this sitter as Eubuleus, which is based in the first instance on the find spot of the head, because this god was a swineherd. The represented subject cannot be Triptolemus because the latter was a king and this head does not betray any royal dignity. The face reveals the typical Prax- itelean anatomic grammar: oval shape, triangular forehead with curved upper sides, narrow and elongated eyes, long nose, short and sinuous mouth and slightly protruding chin. The surfaces are gleaming. The velvety rendering of the skin, the subtle transitions of the epidermis and the continuous games of light and shade determined by the sinuous locks reveal a phase of the Praxitelean 1. Base of bust, Rome, Vatican Museums, art which is slightly more advanced than Galleria Lapidario, no. 28. that shown by the Hermes of Olympia, of the late 340s, in the direction of the prev- alence of the rendering of the surfaces it is demonstrated by his several statues upon the expression of the structure of made for Eleusinian sanctuaries (see in the figure. Thus this creation should date my catalogue his works nos. 5-6; 12-14; in the early 330s. 26 and 43). The gaze is noteworthy: it looks in The upper part of a statue of a young the same time sinister and sensual and male sitter was found in the Plutonium of is appropriate to a god who was both a Eleusis13 very near the above mentioned swineherd and, being worshiped in the dedications to Eubuleus.14 Plutonium, connected with the mysteries The piece was carved from a block of the Underworld. of Parian marble of the best quality – The head is a masterpiece and ex- Lychnites – and represents a beardless presses the ambiguous fascination of be- teenage looking male (fig. 2). The hair ings living far from the world of the polis: looks very similar to that of the Rest- thus it is one of the late 4th c. creations ing Satyr and is encircled by a band: the which testify to the growing appeal of section of hair included by this taenia the Arcadian dream.15 is carved in low relief and is adherent Needless to say, the superb quality to the skull while the locks outside the of the piece confirms its attribution to band are very sinuous and projecting Praxiteles.

Tenth Chapter From around 340 to around 335 BC 13

Antonio_Corso_5.indd 13 29/04/2014 11.40.12 area. Moreover Praxiteles’ Eubuleus must have become the ‘official’ representation of this god by the late Hellenistic times, when Praxiteles’ reputation was very high, and it is unthinkable that a local priest proposed an image of Eubuleus unrelated to such an authoritative example. In the relief of Lacratides the god looks also young, also wears a thin chiton which also ends below the neck with a V shape. The head of this relief figure does not survive. The tunic is short with a belt at the waist and the sitter with his lowered left arm holds a long and nearly vertical torch. The right arm was also lowered but most of it is missing and thus the position of the corresponding forearm and the attribute possibly held in the right hand cannot be guessed. In Praxiteles’ Eubuleus, the short tunic would have underlined the teenage appeal of the god which would fit Praxiteles’ concept of a pantheon of young deities quite well and moreover was appropriate to a swineherd, a mansion which requires easy of mouvement. On the contrary, the long torch in the left hand of Eubu- leus in the relief is justified by two con- siderations: 2. Eubuleus, Athens, As other Praxitelean works, even the 1. by the episode evoked in the relief, National Archaeological head of Eubuleus is not fully frontal but which probably is the epiphany of Museum, no. 181. turns slightly toward his left side. The god the Eleusinian deities in the night wore a thin chiton which ends below the of the 20. Boedromion in the teleste- neck with a V shape, the shoulders are rion of Eleusis, during the rites of the lowered and so must have been also the Great Mysteries;17 arms. 2. by the position of Eubuleus in the The body below the upper section of viewer’s right corner of the same the chest does not survive. relief, because the torch works as a However, a late Hellenistic relief, dedi- side wing of the whole composition cated by the priest Lacratides, was found of the relief. very near the bust of Eubuleus and also However that long torch in the left represents this god (figs. 3 and 4):16 it is like- hand of the god is not appropriated to ly that in this relief the figure of Eubuleus a free standing statue and thus perhaps was inspired by that of Praxiteles since the it may not hark back to Praxiteles’ Eu- two monuments were set up in the same buleus.

14 Antonio Corso

Antonio_Corso_5.indd 14 29/04/2014 11.40.13 The disordered hair look of Praxiteles’ function as intermediary between the 3 and 4: Relief of head suggests that this god was repre- human world and the kingdom of Hades. Lacratides, Eleusis, sented by our sculptor while he was a During the late Hellenistic times, Museum, no. 5287. swineherd and witnessed the miraculous Praxiteles’ Eubuleus must have become Drawing and hypothetical event. His sinister gaze reveals his com- quite popular in Eleusis, probably mainly reconstruction by plicity with Hades and thus betrays his for cult reasons. As previously stated, the Iliopoulos.

Tenth Chapter From around 340 to around 335 BC 15

Antonio_Corso_5.indd 15 29/04/2014 11.40.13 whole statue of Praxiteles probably was lius, for the Eleusinian sanctuary and imitated with the figure of Eubuleus in cult23 probably is an additional reason the relief dedicated in the Plutonium by of the presence of 5 Antonine copies the priest Lacratides,18 while a marble or variations of the head of Eubuleus in copy of the head was placed near the Athens. All of these 5 copies come from gates of the Telesterion.19 either the Acropolis or the area around This copy and the Roman imperial the sacred rock. 3 out of them are early ones of the head of Praxiteles’ Eubuleus to middle Antonine, Pentelic, probably are not casts but variations made at some once pertinent to Herms and may have distance from the original statue, prob- been carved in the same Athenian work- ably because making casts from a statue shop. In these three copies the head of set up in such a religious place as the Plu- Eubuleus becomes markedly frontal and tonium was prohibited. in the two copies in which the face sur- The presence of Eubuleus at the en- vives the expression of the face and of trance of the Telesterion was appropriate, the eyes is wanted. 2 out of these 3 cop- because this god was a very important ies may have been set up on the upper presence in the mythological event cele- terrace of the Acropolis24 and thus per- brated in the sanctuary. Moreover in late tain to the series of copies of old artistic republican times the sanctuary acquired glories which adorned the Acropolis in an international acclaim20 which in turn Antonine times.25 The third of these cop- led to the setting up of many new stat- ies was found SE of the Acropolis (fig. 5).26 ues21 which constituted a sculptural dis- However the ancient context of this find play around this large hall. In particular is unknown.27 Vitruvius 7. praef. 16-17 guarantees that As the time went on, new Athenian the Telesterion was by the time regarded copies of the head of the Eubuleus were an opus nobile. Thus a copy of an Eleusin- no longer directly inspired by the original ian deity by an old master may have been work of Praxiteles, but probably derived thought to add to its venustas. from previous copies and thus became The Eubuleus may have been over- rather distant from the late classical head. looked by the Hellenistic art criticism as Thus the late Antonine bust of Eubu- well as by Pasiteles in his catalogue of leus in Thasian marble from the agora 28 opera nobilia in 5 books (Varro in Pliny 36. reveals a further emphasis on the frontal 39-40) because there are not copies of this and bi-dimensional concept of the face masterpiece until the Antonine times. in which the games of light and shade of Things may have changed with the the original would be searched in vain. establishment of Hadrian’s Panhellenic This bust may have been set up in the League:22 it is likely that the head of the Eleusinium of Athens which in this period Eubuleus was included among the clas- was endowed with new monuments.29 sical masterpieces to be reproduced be- The base of this bust is decorated with cause they illustrated Greece’s old glory. acanthus leaves: an obvious symbol of Thus there are several Antonine cop- return from death.30 ies of the head of this statue. Even these Finally a Severan marble head loosely copies are not casts but rather free repro- derived from Praxiteles’ original Eubuleus ductions. was found in the southern slopes of the The strong interest of 2nd c. AD em- Acropolis together with a marble torso perors, from Hadrian to Marcus Aure- of Dionysus of the Woburn Abbey type.31

16 Antonio Corso

Antonio_Corso_5.indd 16 29/04/2014 11.40.14 The context of these sculptures appears domestic: perhaps the Eubuleus was meant to express the initiation of the do- minus to the Eleusinian mysteries. More- over, the presence of a copy from another late 4th c. Attic type – the Woburn Abbey type of Dionysus – may suggest that the appeal of Attic late classical styles was deeply felt by the owner of the house. From a formal point of view, the face is rather longe, the hair locks fall down to the shoulders and the left shoulder is uplifted: thus the head is a distant deri- vation from the Eubuleus. Of course this fact is in keeping with the well known decline of the production of faithful copies from classical masterpieces which takes place from the late Antonine period onwards. Outside of Athens, a middle Anto- nine marble bust in the type of the Eu- buleus was found at Patras.32 The work is of high quality and even in this case the lower section of the bust is adorned with the acanthus which may clarify that the god patronizes the happy afterlife guaranteed by the Eleusinian mysteries. The head is in full prospect as the other Anto- nine copies of the type. of the time reveals a noteworthy inter- 5. Copy of the Eubuleus, This bust may be related to the im- 38 portance at Patras of the cults of Deme- est for Eleusis. Moreover, already in the Athens, National ter which were subjected to the Attic and Augustan times, copies of the great relief Archaeological Museum, specifically Eleusinian influence33 and with the Eleusinian triad were made for no. 2650. high ranking Roman devotees of the two may have been set up in a local sanctuary 39 of this goddess.34 The display of opera no- goddesses. This fact suggests that Ro- bilia in this Roman colony during the An- mans initiated to the Eleusinian myster- tonine times is not well known but espe- ies required copies of some of the most cially the copies of the Athena Parthenos sacred sculptures of the sanctuary either by Phidias35 as well as of the Nemesis of as images endowed with deep religious Agoracritus36 testify to the dependance messages or as souvenirs of their own of the visual culture of this town from the grand tour. art of the great masters of Attic educa- The above considered late Antonine tion of the classical period.37 Montalto – Negroni pillar with the label Eubouleus / Praxitelous40 should be in- Finally during the Antonine period nd copies of the head of Praxiteles’ Eubuleus cluded in a series of Roman marble 2 are known also in Rome. The Roman elite c. AD supports of statues or heads at-

Tenth Chapter From around 340 to around 335 BC 17

Antonio_Corso_5.indd 17 29/04/2014 11.40.15 tributed to classical masters: these bases the Eubuleus to the Roman market. 2 of were provided with labels indicating first these copies survive: 1. the head once of all the sitter of the sculpture in the probably Albani, then in the Capitoline nominative and after that the sculptor Museums;46 and 2. the copy once in the in the genitive.41 These labels illustrated Camera dei Sogni of the Palazzo del creations of both the early classical pe- Giardino in Sabbioneta, now in the Mu- riod – of Myron and Polycleitus – as well seum of the Duke’s Palace of Mantua.47 as of the late classical age – of Euphranor, Even these heads are not casts and share Leochares and Praxiteles -. The informa- the concept of the head in full prospect tion contained in these labels suggests and the unexpressive eyes which are that importance is accorded equally to typical of the whole series of Antonine the sitter and to the sculptor. This fact is copies of the Eubuleus. in keeping with the idealization of clas- Finally a variation of our type of head sical masters which is typical of the neo- was found in the territory of Puteoli48 and sophistic period. probably pertained to the sculptural Finally, since at least 2 of these bas- display of a villa.49 The head of Eubuleus es – those of Polycleitus’ Pythocles and may have stressed the devotion of the of Leochares’ Ganymedes – supported landowner to the Eleusinian cult.50 This statues set up in the templum Pacis,42 it possibility is strengthened by the circum- is possible that the whole series of sup- stance that the Eleusinian cult enjoyed ports with these labels was prepared for a great appeal along the Campanian statues included in public collections. coast.51 Moreover, since other 2 of these supports The presence in Puteoli of copies – those of Euphranor’s Heracles and of from well established opera nobilia is Leochares’ Charmides -43 were also found known especially for the Augustan and not far from the templum Pacis, it is not early Imperial period.52 In the Antonine impossible that the whole series of these period, a Puteolan workshop is attributed bases was prepared for statues of this copies of early classical goddesses such complex: these supports may have been as the so-called Aspasia, the ‘Hestia’ Gi- required by the damages of the sanctu- ustiniani and the peplophoroi Ludovisi.53 ary due to the great fire of 192 AD. These creations were first of all religious An Eleusinian god would be an ap- images. Thus our Eubuleus, being the ex- propriate presence in the sanctuary of pression of a deeply felt religious belief, Peace because the abundance of har- would have fit this series quite well. He vest guaranteed by the Eleusinian pan- could not become just an ornamentum! theon would have underlined one cru- The Antonine success of the Eubu- cial aspect of the happiness lavished by leus foreshadows the age of Pausanias, Peace.44 The presence of the Praxitelean when the most renowned statues of dei- formal heritage in this sanctuary is con- ties are admired mainly for their sense of firmed by the display in this context also sacrality. of another work of Praxiteles which per- It is not impossible that, when in 170- haps should be identified with the Aph- 171 AD the Costobocs partially destroyed rodite Pseliumene.45 Eleusis,54 the body of the Eubuleus by Still during the early Antonine pe- Praxiteles was also damaged. Probably riod, a Roman workshop carving Luna in that occasion this creation was trans- marble delivered copies of the head of formed into a bust, perhaps because the

18 Antonio Corso

Antonio_Corso_5.indd 18 29/04/2014 11.40.15 upper part of the statue had not suffered and Plataeae – which suffered both a very much. From this moment onwards, partial destruction of their urban centres the Eubuleus of Eleusis must have been and the exile of their most noteworthy no longer available to copyists. This prob- citizens.57 Thus after Chaeronea, these ability in part explains the end of a copy- cities must have been in demand of new ist production directly derived from this monuments both for their civic and reli- masterpiece in the late Antonine times. gious needs as well as in order to show Of course the general decline of the up their restored dignity and ambitions. practice of making copies during this By the time, Praxiteles must have age must also have contributed to this been quite popular in Boeotia thanks outcome. In fact the above considered to his triad of Eros, Phryne and Aphro- bust from the agora and Severan head dite at Thespiae (see in my catalogue his from the southern slopes of the Acropolis work no. 17) as well as to his sculptures – both carved after the raid of the Costo- in the Heracleum of Thebes (see in my bocs - are rather distant from the original catalogue his work no. 55). Moreover his creation of the Plutonium and certainly relationship with Phryne who probably were not directly inspired by the latter. was a sort of flag of the Thespian identity, With the Eubuleus, Praxiteles deliv- may have led the elites of these Boeo- ered an appealing image of this swine- tian cities to regard our sculptor close herd which must have tuned well with to the Thespians, traditional enemies of the contemporary growing dissatisfac- the Thebans. Thus he may have become tion from the narrow environment of the dear to the Boeotians who, thanks to polis as well as with the increasing appeal the Macedonian help, had just prevailed of the Arcadian dream. upon Thebes. These reasons probably From a formal point of view, the con- explain why new statues of our sculptor tinuous mutation of the surfaces of this were set up in Plataeae, in the territory of head reveals that our sculptor radicalized Thespiae as well as in Lebadia. his depiction of images via never ending games of light and shade. Finally the Eubuleus reveals the en- he statue in entelic marble during close relationship of this work- 57. T P shop with the Eleusinian world as well as of Rhea in the temple of Hera at with the Athenian political elite which in Plataeae. fact decided these monumental enter- prises. After all, the statue of the mythical This statue had been seen by Pausa- swineherd fits well this cultural moment nias 9. 2. 7 in the temple of Hera at Pla- of Athens, characterized by nostalgia to- taeae near the entrance to the building: wards the old, antiquarian glories55 which were in striking contrast with the less bril- ‘There is a temple of Hera (naos liant and pretentious present. Heras) at Plataeae, which is worth seeing (theas axios) both for its size (megethei) With the battle of Chaeronea in 338 and for the beauty of its statues (agal- BC, the Boeotian poleis which previously maton ton kosmon). On entering (esel- were subjected to the Theban hegemony thousi) we see Rhea bringing to Cronus regained their own autonomy.56 In partic- the stone wrapped in swaddling bands, ular there were poleis – such as Thespiae as if it were the child whom she had given

Tenth Chapter From around 340 to around 335 BC 19

Antonio_Corso_5.indd 19 29/04/2014 11.40.15