ΤΗΕ ROMANIZATION oF

Proceedings of αη Internntional Conference held αt Lincoln, Nebraska (April 1θ96)

Edited by Michael C. Hoff and Susan I. Rotroff

Oxbolp Monograph 94 ,997 Ar chit e c t ur e and S culptur e

CLASSICAL ENCOUNTERS: ATTIC SCULPTURE AFTER

Olga Palagia

When Sulla sacked Athens md Piraeus ßη 86 B.C., he not οηΙγ caused tremendous loss of life but also dealt α blow to the economy with the total destruction of the city's vital port.l As α resuΙt, Athens lost its status aS α trade and artistic centeτ md became heavily dependent οη Roman patronage. The city that had frowηed οη Apellikon's plivate collection of Athenim md other aηtiquities ßη 88 B.C.' went so far as to allow the export of its own antiquities ßη the 70s.3 Even earlier, during the last days before the fall of Piraeus, the magnificent cache of bτοηΖε and marble sculptures found ßη Piraeus betrays despeτate measuIes: the export of new md old ατt works to finmce the defense of the city.{ Sculptural and alchitecturaΙ pτoduction diminished considerably md was at first maintained chiefly through foreign patronage and manpower. Α dearth of native talent is evident ßη the inclusion of two Romm alchitects ßη α team of thlee that repaired Pericles' Odeion ßη the middle γεατs of the fiΙst century.s Α Roman sculptor, Quintus PomPeius, was active ßη Eleusis Some time ßη the first century.6 It is quite pos§ible that α numbeτ of Athenim scuΙptors perished ßη the sack, and this cleated α break ßη tradition. The lack of native τesources is also evident ßη the tendency to rededicate earlieτ honorific poltraits by simply reinscribing the honorand's name οη the base. This was lampant ßη the middle years of the first century, when several Hellenistic portlait statues at Oropos, for example, wele rededicated to Sulla and his wife, to Appius Claudius Pulcher, Cn. Calpurnius Piso, Βτυtυs, and Agrippa,7 The little that surviyes ßη Athens and Attica fτοm the middle years of the first ceηtury may be Said to reflect α failure of neτve,s Α bτeakdown of tradition compelled the Athenians to Ιοοκ at themselves as if from the outside and to τeßηνeηt their fοτms of expression. Ιt is οηΙγ then, after Sulla's sack, that we begiη to detect α process of Romaηization ßη the alt of Athens. We shall see that this 8enerated α fοτm of eclecticism which, combiηed with α Pheidian revival, marks α turning point ßη the development of Gτaeco-Romaη art. υηtßΙ Sulla's arrival, Athenian sculptuτe had flourished along αη independent couτse. ItS mainstay was the exΡort trade of both aΙtifacts and aItiStS. Athenian sculptoτs and architects were iηvited to by the victoIious generals of the Republic to build temples and carve cult statues for them, αΙΙ ßη marble, α new luxury mateτial for the Romans. Iη the second half of the second century, Rome was 82 Οιòι Ρ,ιιòòι,η

gταdυαΙΙγ tτansformed into α center of .9 Although the influence was not entirely Athenian, the Athenian contlibution *"r."r".ih"l"r. prominent. Two fmilies of sculptors of the Attic School were active both ßη Rome ind οη Delos, m island under Athenian contιol and busy with Roman traders. More extensively documeηted is the family of Timaτchides, Timokles, Dionysios, md Polykles, wheri at least two and perhaps three generations were involvedlo the less well-known the Youngerll and ξar]ans_Sko,ra9 his son Aristandrosl' can also be assigned to t}re Attic school. The works associated wjth the {amily of Timarchides, for Jxample the head of Herakles ßη the Conselvatori Museum ατττßbυτed το Polykle;,; τhe C. Ofellius.Ferus ;;.ß;;; by_Dimysios.md,Timarchides οη Delos,l{ md the type of the Cyrene ΑροΙΙο possibly after the ΑΡοΙΙο Kitharoidos of Timaτchides ßη Rome,ls belong to α classicizing tradition drawing οη fouIth-century styles. Skopas is said by ΡΙßηß the Elder to have produced maτble cmdelabra, as þeli as cult s'tafues of Mars md Venus for ýe temple of Mars built by Helmodolos of Salamis for the consul Blutus Callaecus shortly after 132 B.C.6 ΡΙßηγ's compalison of Skopas's Veηus to that of Praxiteles (ΝαÝ. 36.26) indicates ιhat Skopas wis inspired by iourth-century models. The Athenian brand of classicism can ýe hbeled α survival rather than α reviva| since thε late classical style of the four.φ cenjuτy never τεαΙΙγ died out but α"υ"ΙορÝß naturally into α Hellenistic iηterpretatioη of thi classical. ' Whereas free-standing _. statuary was conceived ßη α fourth-century mmner, the Pheidian traditioη was ηaintained ßη relief copies. Pausanias (10.34,8) infolms υ§ that the-ωns of Polykles copied the shield of Pheidias's Palthenos ßη their Atheηa Kranaia at Elateia, though the Athena herself was presumably αη original creation.l7 This tendency is also evident ßη other artistic ienters, PirgmoIi for example. Α good case ßη point is the second-century vaιiant of the AtheηiParthenos from Pergamon now ßη Berliη.ls The stafue itself is α pure Hellenistic cleation, while its base is α reduced copy of the Pheidim original. The production of relief copies of high late md classical pτototypes developeJ into α νετγ active industry. Ιt is fiτst documented by the kraters ßη Pentelic maible Ιrom the þhdia shipwreci,l9 dated το the 70s οη the b"asis of the amphoras,ω but its inception is usually placed ßη the late second_century.2l Skopas II's candelabra'' indicateihat the indusiry was established before Sulla's siege of Athens. Alongside the classicizing . trend which dominated Hellenistic Athens, αη archai- ιυη continuously since.the late fifth centuιy. The archaistic style of Hellenistic_Athens:Ir,q "Τ:ßΚ l1d is mainly represented by reliefs.r3 The pτoduction of herms, üη the other hand, which seems to have sloweÜ down ßη Athens during the , was revived by Roman interest ßη the first century, even bþre Sulla's sack, as shown by the pair of herηs accompanying the Piraeis cache of bronzes.ra This reviv_al is well documented by 's orderJof heτms of Athena md Herakles for hls_vilΙas lrom Αιtßò workshops (Cic, Alt. 1.4.3; 10.3), the Ιast _O1e_o! sculptules set υΡ ßη Attica before the sack of Sulla is the colossal τelief dedicated by the PIieSt Lakiatides ßη the Sanctuary of Demeter md KoIe at Eleusis ca. 100 B.C. (Fig. 1).δ It iS designedh α classicizing style, heavily dependent οη fourth-century models, even thougλ its large scale is οþ οß pioportiün cλpared with fourth-century reliefs. The depiction of tie dedicant ßη thÝ gþs' size is equally Cιessιceι ErucouτVτεns: Αττιò Sòυιττυηε ΑFτεη Sυι_ι.ι

FIc. 1, Relief dedicated by the PΙiest Lakratides, EIeusis Museum 5079, Photo by craig ΜαυΖγ.

uηclassical. Irorrically, the orrly monumeltal scuΙptures ßη Athens and Attica filmly dated to the period between Sulla's sack and the advent of Augustus aτe again it Eleusis: the cistophoroi from tlre inner entτance of the Lessel Propylaia 1Fig, 2)J6 This building was entirely due to Roman PatIonage: Kevin clinton's paper ßη this voluηe discusses the historical cilcumstance§ ßη detail ηd offeιs α iuggestion as to the occasion.27 ΑΙΙ we need say here is that it was vowed to Demeþr and Kore, for reasons unknown, by Appius Claudius Pulcheτ when he was consul ßη Rome ßη 54 B,C, We learn from Cicero's letteιs that the building was begun before February of the.,year 50 and abandoned by August of the sme year (Att.6,1.2C 6.2).ºllò dedicatory iηScliption States that it waS completed after Pulcher's deatlr ßη 48 ßγ his nephews, probably with money provided for ßη his wßΙl. It is generally agreed that most of the building dates from the 40s B,C. The pair of colossal calyatids carly the mystic cista οη their heads (Figs, 3, 4). They are virtually carved ßη the round except fοτ α sliveI at theiτ backs which was attachei to the Pilaster§. Their estimated total height iS ca.3,80 m,rs Tlre cista lrolds tlre sacred objects and is plofusely decorated witlr symbols of the Mysteries: plemoclroe, ears of com, poppies, and myltle leaves. The cistophoroi gently iηcline their heads inwards. The uPPeI Part of the fßgυτε at the left of the dooIway iS now iιr Cambridge (Fig, 3),r' while that at the light reηains at Eleusis (Fig. 4),3Ο Οιòι Ραιαòιι

?/4,,ι - L

J

Fιc, 2. Restored inner entlance of the Lesser ProPylaia at Eleusis, After Η. Ηüτmαηη, Die iluιcreil Ρτρ!Ιßßεlι υοι1 Eleτsis (BeιIin/Leipzil 1932) ΡΙ.22.

The caryatid ßη Cambridge is heavily weatheτed from long exposure to the elements. It had the additional mi§foltune of being lost at sea during tIanspolt to England, though it was eventually lecovered from the shipwreck. Its piesent itate of preservation can be easily accounted foτ by the descτiption οΙ the Caηbridge scholar E.D, Clarke, who first saw the statue ßη 1801 befoτe eventually removing it: '',,.the fragment of α colossal statue, mentioned by many authors as that of the goddess herself, appeared ßη colossal ma]'esty among the mouldering vestiges of her ance splendid sanctualy. We found it,,, οη the side of the road, immediately before entering the village, and ßη the midst οf α heap of dung, bulied as high as the neck, α little beyond the faltheI extremity of the pavement αΙ the temple. The inhabitants of the smαΙΙ village which is now situated among the ruiηs of Eleusis still regarded this statue with α very high degree of SuΡeτStitious veneIation. They attΤibuted to its plesence the feltiΙity of their land; and it was for this leason that they heaped around it the manure intended for their fields.., They predicted the wreck of the ship which should convey it; and it was α curious ciτcum§tance that their auguIy was compΙeteΙy fulfilled, ßη the loss of the Plincessa merchantman, οfΙ Beachey Head, having the Statue αη boaΙd." Ιη order ta obtain Pelmission to remove it, Clarke had to bribe the Cιιssιòαι Ειιòουι.ιτεκs: Ατπò Sòυιτ,τυκε ιττει Sυιιe 85

local Turkish govemor with α field glass, But the villagers were not easily cheated of their treasuIe: "The people had assembled, md stood around the statue; but ηο one among them ventured to begin the work. They believed that the arm of αηγ person would fall off who should dare to touch the marble, or to disturb its position. υροη festival-days they had been accustomed to place before it α burning lamp. Presently, however, the Priest of Eleusis... put οη his cmonised vestments aS for α ceremony οΙ high mass, descending into the hollow where the Statue remained uPright, afteΤ τubbish around it had been taken away, gave the first blow with the pickaxe for the lemoval of the soil, that the people might be convinced ηο calamity would befall the labourers."3Ι The statue was identified with Demeter by George \ryheler who visited the sanctuary ßη 1676 and with Kore by Richard Chandler who passed through ßη 1765.3' Both remarked that the face of the Statue was disfiguled. The Cambridge caryatid (Fig. 3) wears α fine linen chiton with long, ample sleeves buttoned over the arms. Α thicker overgarment covers the left shoulder and is belted high under the bτeasts. Ιt is additionally fastened with α pair of cross-bands, decorated with α gorgoneion at the centel. The bands serve the practical purpose of holding the galments ßη place while the caryatid'S hands ατε busy balancing the cista oveI her head. The upper edge of the overgarment is bunched over the left closs-bmd. Α back mmtΙe, pinned οη the shoulders with brooches, is also evident at the τεατ, falling free of the belt. The caryatid has long, waved hair, Parted ßη the middle and cau8ht with α ribbon at the nape of her ηeck. The outlines of earrings cm just be made out οη the weathered suτface under her ears. The caτyatids' complete garment can be reconstructed thmks to Six coPies from the first,/Second century A.D., found ßη α ρτßναtε νßΙΙα at Monte Porzio near Frascati (Figs. 5, 6). Four are now ßη the νßΙΙα Albmi ßη Rome;33 two more ended υρ ßη the νßΙΙα Torlonia but one was subsequently lost.3a These caryatids were heavily restored by Cavaceppi and none retains the original head or basket. The overgarment of the νßΙΙα Albani copies is clearly α diplax, α diagonal himation with overfold very similaι to the peplos except that it is fastened οη one shoulder. yy'hereas the Cambridge caryatid suffered at sea, the Eleusis one (Fig. 4) suf{ered α fate worse than death. Ιη his guidebook to EleuSiS published ßη 1906, Dimitris Philios informs us that he had the caryatid restored and set υρ at considelable trouble and expense,3s Ιη fact, heτ nose, chin, right ear with earring, the right half of her coiffure, the best ρατt ofher neck, md the entie right paIt of her chest were creatively, albeit misleadingly, completed ßη plaster. ΑΙΙ that remains of the gorgoneion is the left ear and α few curls above it. The rest of its face is modem, The heavily weathered state of the golgoneion οη the Cambridge calyatid (Fig. 3) does not allow much room Ιοτ comparison. The Eleusis caryatid (Fig. 4) turns her head genily to her right. Her hands held the legs of the cista, now lost. She wears rosette earrings, which can be barely distinguished οη the Cambridge figure. We should restore the EΙeusis caryatid as wearing the diplax fastened over the ri8ht shoulder, as is evident from the original bmch of folds caught under the left cross stlap. The restorel erroneously made the right side of her dress the mirlor of the left. His scheme was followed by Hürmam ßη his restoration of the imer courtyard of the Lesser Propylaia (Fig. 2). He failed to 86 οιòι Ρ,ηι,ηòι,η

FrG. 3. caryatid froÞ the Lesser ΡιοΡγΙαßα at Fιc. 4, Caryatid fΙom the Lesser Propylaia. Eleusis, Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum Eleusi§ Museum 5104, Photo DAI Athens GR.Ι.1865. Photo Museum. Eleusis 570. notice that the caΙyatids are mirror ima8es, the one at the leΙt af the entImce, now ßη Camblidge, wearing heτ diplax fastened οη the left shoulder, while the other, now ßη Eleusis, has her diplax fastened οη the right shoulder. The diagonal mantle fastened οη the right shoulder of the Eleusis caΙyatid (Fi8.4) is reflected ßη one of the caryatids fτom Monte Porzio (Fig. 5).36 This is not α copy but α variant, howevel, lifting her Skilt as if she were dancing. Since the StumΡ of the left υρρετ arm of the Eleusis caryatid is extended, we may safely coniectule that both hei aIms wele τaised, holding the cista. It is intelesting to note that the gorgoneion οη the νßΙΙα Albani copy of the Eleusis caτyatid is different: whereas she spoτts α classicizing winged golgoneion with waved hair (Fig.5), the wingΙess gorgoneion with two superimposed τows of cuτls οη the Cambτidge-tyPe coΡies is archaistic (Fig, 6).3? Cιasslceι Επòουπτεηs: Αττιò Sòυιρτυηε eττιπ, òυιια

FιG. 5. caΙyatid from Monte Porzio. FIG. 6. caryatid from Vlonte Porzio. Rome, νßΙΙα Albani 24. After ΒοΙ 54 Rome, νßΙΙα ρl. Albani 97. After ΒοΙ Ρl. 184.

οι, Oioh*, usually worn over α chiton, was α gαιmεητ aPproPrιate tor lellglous festivals "_]Ι"_*:^r::1,ιιιΙ9 and weddings. Ιt was introduced ßη the earlyilassical peτiod and τemained popular throughout the-classical period.3g þαò much favored Dγ Ατhεηα,.αιsο occasionally adopted by Kore, Most eximples are ungirded. Girded caτyatids :):º|]:"^º1".lº'.γτ's are lesi the ae;ele Style Corinth/ Nιocenr8o αηd, ßη αη aPPΙopriate"ο-*ο., "o-par; 8oaCιe§s'' Eleusinian context, the dmcer leading the Β8 οιòι Ριιαòιe

lower Eleusinian procession οη the clay plaque of Νßηηßοη of the early fourtir centu ry ßη the National Museum ßη Athens.a0 Closest to our caryatids, how- evel/ comes the post-Pheidian Athena Hope-Faτnese of the decade 430/420 (Fi8, 7): òomPare ihe lripartile division of thò Iower body, ιhe amp]e sleeve falling olf the raised foreaτm, and the Γheidian head,aIThe original of this Athena probably stood οη ihe Acrop- olis, as she has been convincingly ßdελ- tified with Γyrrhos's Athena¹ygieia eIected just inside the Propylaia.a' The diagonal mantle was reiηtΙo- duced ßη archaistic alt ßη the late fοιιτth century, its eaτliest occurrence bein8 at Eleusis,a'lt is worn. girded, over αη archaislic Chilon bv α Pdir οß basin,bearers deιΙßòαteιΙ bv ihe Athenian denιos (Fig.8).4' Lik'e the caΙyatids of the Lesser Propylaia, the supporting figures aτe mirror images of one anothel, as is evident from ihe pendent [olds οΙ the diplax at ιheir sjdes. lheir dress PointS tο Sanctuafy officials, though of α diffelent ιαηΚ lhan ΓuΙcher's calydιids since they lack the back mαηιΙÝs and cross,bands with medallions, Ιη the Hellenistic and Fιò, 7, Athena Γarnese, Naples, λ4useo Roman periods the cross-bands deòor- Nazionale 6024. Photo DAl ilome 6q.677 ated with α medallion are usually associated with Victories, as οη α late Hellenistic Nike from Crete now ßη Venice{s and ßη α pair of Roman Victories ßη Berlin,a6 Α tetradrachms οf Ptolemy Ι and Antigonos Goηatas ";;;J'si';, αΙ"ο .υ.rγ υ. ur"hulriJ'ii" ßß α'ι,""α Promachos wilh cross-bands aιld gorgoneiolr,a? As lhere seems Ιο be'no'reason ιο associate Pulcheτ's caryatids with either Victory or etn*", η.*r*, t"h"i. medallions are better explained as accessories ".os"-bu.d" of ιßιυαΙ gu.U. it uy υ." ut."ody present".d ßη the Anatolian galb of the statue οΙ Ατtεmßs Kindyω ?-- .ache.as Ιf we ΙοοΚ back ßη time, we fiηd tlrem ßη jr""".ii"""pΙ,-.i, the fourth-cený| 'Ιr"ji.^""" little girls who carried baskets αt weddinpò ηηα ,etigious ε.ελ"λ,"" funclion sometimes incticated was ßι their fþerary monuments. The evideηce"r]ºι,*ε οη fourth-centurv kanephoroi ßη peplos, back manile, ß"α ..ο""-þαΙ iΧ'«ΙΙßß colΙecΙed by Lindr Roccos,"" -il;;;;ffi We have seen that the golgoneia of Pulcher's calyatids may have been different, Cιassιceι Εχòουτντειs: ATTIC SCULPTURE ιττεη Sυιιe 89

judging by the Monte Porzio copies. If the caryatids ατε Subtly differentiated, it may well be because they ΙeΡresent α pair of sanctuary officials who served Demeter md Kole respectively. The fact that they carly cistae may point to the two hierophantids of Demeter and Kore: priestesses are mentioned ßη the Rheitoi inscription of 421 B.C. as carry- ing the sacred objects at the head of the pτocession of the Mysteries.ω lronically, it wa§ one of the hierophantids who had begged the tylant Aristion for α twelfth of α bushel of grain during Sulla's siege of Athens, οηΙγ to be presented with so much pepper (Plut. SιΙ/. 13). The style of Pulcher's caryatids, so faτ as canbe assessed by the remains of their busts and the copies from Monte Porzio, fοτms α watershed ßη the development of Athenian sculpture. Ιt introduces α new blend of styles which do not easily mix and represents αη almost programmatic display of erudi- tion, Theupperpart ofthe figures draws οη Pheidian and post-Pheidim art of the430s, with thehead vaguely inspired by the korai, while the Fιò. 8. BaÝin-beωeτ.'Eleusis lr{useum 5140 ample sleeves τecall the Hope/Farnese Photo by Mark Fullelton. Athena (Fig. 7). This direct allusioη to Pheidian art is α novelty. Hellenistic sculpture may have been inspiled by it, but it always offered adaptatiorrs ßη α contemporary idiom. The caryatids'rosette eaτrings, οη the other hand, can be termed aIchaistic. Rosette or disc ealrings are prominent ßη almost αΙΙ archaic korai. They can also be found ßη the archaistic Herculaneum Athena οη the Athenian Acropolis,s' Her date depends entirely οη stylistic assessment; Mark Fullerton has conviηcingly argued that the mixture of aτchaistic (Promachos body) and classical (Pheidiaη head) Poinis to α date after Sulla.s2 The high gilding and elongated propoτtions of Pulcher's caryatids belong to the late Hellenistic period, Ιη addition, the rigid frontality and the feet placed close together are archaistic. Tlre caryatids offel α new combination of high classical dress, late classical accessories, and late Hellenistic proportions with αη alchaiδtic Stance. Theeffect is overwhelming, rendered even more so by the colossal scale of the figures. Roman patronage, perhaps even Romm workmanship intloduced α ηεw formal οιòι Ριι,ηòια

--ΙΙσh,, ,ß| ß, ¹,, , ß}, tιß\ ß.l Ι ß _,\τι ,lß ', t: .ft*, ,t Ý;--_ .--- ":i_jlJ '駧]

ß,I Ιι

Fιò. 9, Head of α caIyatid from the Ciιy FIG, Ι0, Fra8ments of α caryatid from Eleusinion. Athens, National Museum 1682 the City Eleusinion. Athens, National Ρhοtο N4Useυm- Museum 5798. Photo λ4υseυm,

language, chaτacterized by ponderous diction and αη almost total lack of playfulness, The light touch of Greek art has given way to the earnestne§s of the new acolytes. And was this the death of Greek sculpture? The balance was eventually redressed, The ΕΙειιòßò cistophoIoi were fßηαΙΙγ transformed into tlre cheerΙul so-called Tτalles caτyatids (Figs. 9, 10), lifting the edge of their diplax ßη α dancing gesture. The hip is thrust οιτt, introducing α wIriff of imbalance which impalts α sense of life to the columnlike figure, The "Tralles" type is ηο cistophoτos but wears α high polos instead. ItS date and origir is constantly disputed. Ιt seems to me to postdate Pulcheτ's caΙyatidS because it corrects their ShoΙtcomin8s by adjusting their Stance and PΙoΡortions. It is therefoτe α Roman creation οf α mole matule phase than its pioneering predecessors at Eleusis.53 The fragments of α pair of "Tralles" caτyatids ßη Pentelic marble, found ßη the Atheηian Agora (Figs. 9, 10) weτe claimed by ΕΙßαηα Raftopoulou for the originals, which she dated to the tuτn of thò §econd to the filst century B.C,sa Their harsh, cursory workmanship, the combination of running drill CιlssIce.ι Ετ,τòουι,ßτεηs: Αττιò Sòυιττυηε ιττειι òυιι.η 91

channels ßη the drapeτy and shallow carying ßη the haiI, along with the leduced size, indicate that the Athenian examples camot be the originals; tlrey are nrore likel1, mechanical copies ßη α Style which iS 8enerally acklowled8ed to bεΙοιlg to the second century A.D,55 The Athenian origin of the "Tralles" type is by ηο means established, since the over life-size copy fτοm Tralles ßη the Istanbul Museum seems to be earlieτ, probably dating from the first century A.D,56 The Tralles copy seems ßη fact to be the ealliest known, since α thiτd copy flom Cherchel is now placed ßη the second century A,D.57 The Agora copies are teιrtatively associated by Margalet Miles with α Roman ριοργΙοη ßη the City Eleusinion, wlrich she dates to the second century A.D.53 Their Iitual dIess and dancing gesture τecall ηοt Pulcher's caryatids but Νßηηßοη οη the clay plaque from Eleusis.s9 Since they wele not originally created for the City Eleusinion, their iconograplry need ηot carly my Eleusinian connotatioηS, They τemain, at pIesent, simply dancing maidens ßη τitual dress. Pulcher's caryatids set α fashion tlrat was sοοη carried to Rome by Athenim sculptors. Vitluvius (1,1.5) was quick to inveηt α histolical perspective for this revived architectural ornament. Diogenes of Athens was commissioned by Agrippa to make caryatids for the porch ofhis Pantheon ßη Rome, dedicated ßη 25 B,C,ω These may well have been inspiτed by theiτ immediate pτedecessors, Pulcher's cistophoroi. Or were they captives, like VitIuvius's women of Caryai? Augustus went even fulthel αηd had lows of caryatids, copied at α redιιced scale fτοm the Erechtheion korai, decorate the attics of the coloηnades of his Forum ßη Rome, dedicated ßη 2 B.C.6'Augustu§'s caryatids went back to the classical source, ßη accordance with the classical revival inspired by the emperor. The days of expelimentation of the late Republic were over.

Αòκποι-νιεοòει,,ιειrιτs

Μγ thanks to Susan Rotroff and Michael Hoff for inviting me to participate ßη α most inteΙesting and enioyable conference. Ι αη also glateful to Nikos KaltSas fol access to the caryatids fIom the Agola Eleusinion ßη the StoIelooms of the Athens National Museum, to Alekos Mantis fol showing me the fragments of the Herculaneum Athena ßη the Acropolis stoIeIooms, and to Eleni Vassilika for providing every facility for the study of the caryatid ßη the Fitzwilliam Museum. Kevin Clinton helped with the Eleusinian piiestesses and provided the photo Fig. 1, Ι am equally indebted to Mark Fullerton fοτ the photo Fig.8, to Evelyn Halrison for advice οη the date of the Herculaneum Athena, and to Mal8aret Miles for advance infolmation οη hel foτthcoming .4gorn ΧΧΧΙ: ΤΙιε City Eleusinioι.

Αssηενιατιοι.]ò

ΒοΙ P,C. ΒοΙ ed., Forschιιιgen Ζιτ νßΙΙι Albalιi ΙΙ (Berlin 1990). Das INfuck G. LΙellenkemper Salies, Η,,Η. νοη Plittwitz und Gaffron, G. Bauch- henss eds., Dns WInck: dετ ιιιtßΚò òòΙιßΙfsfιιιιd υοι Mahclia (Cologne 1994). ldoleno Ρ. ]\4oreno, SòιιΙtιυ,α ellellistica (Rome 1994), SchmidFcolinet Α. Schmidt,Colinet, ΑlιtßΚò stiιtzIigilreil (Frankfurt 1977). Οιò-η Ρeιαòι,η

Νοτεs 1. Plut,Sιl1.12-L4;APP.Mith.28-41.onAthensandSulla,seeR.M.Kallet-Maa,Hegefrony to Empie (Berkeley 1995) 198-220; C. Habicht, Atheη: die Geschichtò d.òτ Stadi ßι heΙΙenisiische| Zeit (Munich 1995) 303-13. Οη Sullan damage ßη the Agora, see J.M. Camp, The Atheniιn Agofa (London 1986) 181; Η.Α. Thompson, "The Impact ofRoman Aτchitects and Architectuτe οη Athens," ßη S. Macready and F.H. Thompso^eds., Rofran Ατòhßtòòtυτò ifr ιhe Greek World (London 1987) 4, Athen. 5.214e [Apellikon of Teos]: τÜ τ' Ýκ τοý Μητρþον τþν ταλαιþν αýτüγραφα ψηφισμÜτων ýφαιροýμενοò ÝκτÜτο καΙ Ýκ τþν Üλλων τüλεων εß τι παλαιδν εΙη χαΙ Üτüθετον. Ýφ'οßò φωραθεΙò Ýν ταßò ¶θÞναιò Ýκινδýνενσεν Üν εΙ μÞ Εφνγεν. Fourth-century reliefs and inscliptioη§ from Athens and Piraeus were included ßη the carτo of the Mahdia §hiP, which §αηΚ ßη the §econd quarteΙ of the fi$t century B.c. See G. Bauchhenss, "Die klassischen Reliefs," ßη Das \Nrack,375-80; G. Petzl, "Die griech- ischen Inschriften," ß^ Das Wfack,381-97. Οη the date of the shipwreck, see S.Ι. Rotrofi "The Pottery," ß^ Das Wrack, 13Τ52. Thi§ ߧ now ar8ued ßη Ο. Palagia, "Reflection§ οη the Piraeus Bronzes," ßη Ο, Palagia ed., Gfeek oýfefiιζs. Essays οη Gfeek Ari ßη Honour οΙ |ohn Βοπdmα, (oxford 1997) 177-95ι ThP fullest accounι of the entiΙe cache remains Ε. Vandeφool, "News Letter irom Gτeece," ΑΙΑ 64 (796Ο) 265-67, Pls.65-71. Recent view§ οη the broΜes: c.c. Mattusch, cla§§ι'cal ΒfοηΖò§: Τhò Αft and Cτaf of Gfeek αfld Roman statιary (Ilhaca 1996) 129-40. Marble Artemig Kindyas: I. Juckeτ, " Kndyas," ß^ GestaΙt ιfld Geschichιe: Fesι§chτφ Κ, SchφId (AιtK-BH 4,1967) 133-45. Maτble hετπ ßΙΙυ§ιταtεd ßη Ch. Panagos, Ο Πειραιεýò' (Athens 1995) 138-39. Gaius and lvlarcus Stalliu§, comi§§ioned by Ariobarzanes ΙΙ, king of Cappadocia, 63/2- 5211 B.C. (Vih. 5.9.1; IG ΙΙ', 3426). The Odeion was bumed by Aristion during Sulla's §iege to deprive the enemy of it§ timbel (ΑΡρ. ΜrtΙτ.38). Α Roman architec' cos§utius, was employed by Antiochos Ιν ßη the 170s for the completion of the temPΙe οf ΟΙγmΡßαη Zeus ßη Athens (Vitr, 7.praef.15 and 1Ζ IG ΙΙ',4099). This, howeveτ, ταthετ ieflects the Patlon's association with Rome at the time. 6, Statue base of Αßοη: IG ΙΙ', 4705. Κ. Clinton, "The Eleusinian lýysteries: Roman Initiate§ and Benefactors, Second Centuτy B.C. ßο A.D.267"' ANRW Ι1.18.2 (ΒειΙßη 1989) 1509-13, Ρl. Ι|2; LIMC Ι (1981) s,v. Αßοη, Þο. 5 (Μ, le GIay). Ιts exact date ߧ unceltain but it ߧ generally agreed to postdate Sulla. 7. Β. ΡεtταΚοs,'Ο'ßýρωτüò καΙ τδ ßερδν τοý ¶μφιαρÜον (Athens 1968) 154-70. 8. For the historical circumstance§ of Athens after Sulla, see Μ,c,Hoff,The Rοmαη Agora at ,4Ý}ers (diss, Boston υηßν. 1988) 5-26; Habicht (supra η. 1) 314-34; and Hoff, this volume, 9, See F, Coarelli, "Architettura ε arti figuτative ßη Roma: 150-50 a.C.," in Ρ. Zanker ed., Hellenismιε ßη ΜßttòΙßtαΙßεη (Güttingen 1,976' 27-5ν Ρ. Zanker, "Ζυß Funktion und Bedeutung griechischer Skulptur ßη der Rümeizeit " ßπ Le classicisme h Rome (EntrHafdt 25,1978) 283-314; J.J. Pouitt, Alt ßη the HeIΙeni§tic /ge (Cambridge 1986) 150-63; C, Reusser, Der FidesÝempel auJ dem Kayitol ßη Rom ιηd seiιe ΑυssÝαÝÝrÞg (Rome 1993) 91-112, Τ. Hülscher, "Hellenistische Kunst und !ümische Aristokratie," ßη Da§ Wrτ.,Ι,875-88; Ε. La Rocca, "Greek Arιists ßη Republican Rome: Α Shoτt History of Sculpture," ßη G, Pu8liese CarrateΙli εÜ., The \Nesteτn (ΜοηΖα 1996) 6Ο7-26. See also infra η. 10. Α. Stewart, ΑÝýßΚα (London 1,979) 42-46,65-98; Η.-υ. Cain and Ο. DrÜger, "Die so8enannten neuattischen werkstatten," ßπ Das WτοòΚ, 809-29; Moreno 52G-59. Οη the family of Timaτchides, see F. Coarelli, "Polykles," SÝλ4Μ 15 (1969) 75-89;ßdefr, Ròσßχßt ars (Rome 1996) 67*77,258-79; J. MarcadÝ, Receιil des sß8flιtυιòò de sαΙριευfs òfecs ΙΙ Cιessιòeι Επòουυτεηs: Αττιò Sòυιρτυηε αττει Sυιιe 93

(Palis 1957) 131-32; H.G. MaItirL RdπκcheTempelkultbitder (Rome 1987) 57-9Ο, C. Habicht, "Eine Liste νοη Hieropoioi aus dem Jahle des Archons Andτeas,'' ΑΜ 97 (1θ82) 778-8ο; F. Queyrel, "C. Ofellius Ferus," BCH 115 (1991) 448-64; Μοτεηο 52G-30. 11. SkopasIIwasamarbleδcuΙPtor,mainΙyactiveinRomeinthethirdquarteτofthesecond cenfury B.C. He is documented by the label Sωpιs mßιοτ οπ α §tatue ba§e of Hercules Olivarius found ßη the Forum Boarium ßη Rσme: CIΙ νΙ, 33936; Ε. Loewy, ''Scopa Minore e ßΙ simulacro di ΕτòοΙε ΟΙßναιßο," Rλ.{ 12 (1897) 56-70; LIMC Ιν (1988) ß,ν. Heiakleg ηο, 1065 (Ο. Palagia); F. Coarelli, ΙΙ Fοlο Borrω (Rome 1988) 9G97; L. Richardsoπ,Jι,, ANeu ΤοΡοgιαρhßòαΙ DictΙoιιry οJ Aηcient Rοπε (Baltimore/London 1992) 187, s.v. HeΙcules ΟΙßναιßυs. Skopas II's works seem to be listed by ΡΙßηγ (ΝrÝ.36.25-26). The existence of SkoPas It wa§ Pointed out by λ4ingazzini and Coarelli: Ρ. λ,ΙßηταΖΖßηß, ''ScoPas Minore,'' Ατßß JiζurutiUe 2 (1946) 137-48; idem, "su quattro scultori di noÞe scoΡa§,'' RiUIsiArch 18 (1971,) 69^θΟ; F. Coarelli, "La Porta TrionfaΙe e Ια νßα dei Trionfi,'' D|ιlAτch 2 (196S) 55- 103; ideη, "L'ara di Domizio Enobarbo e Ια cultura arti§tica ßη Roma nel ΙΙ secolo a.C.,'' DioΙAlch 2 (7968),302-68; idem, "classe dirigente romana e arti figurative,'' DiplArch 4- 5 (197ν71) 241-65; idem, Reuiχit ars (supra η. 10) 76-84; idem, Ι[ ampo ΜοιΖßο (Rοπε 1997) 379446; Martin (suPra η. 10) 57_158. 12. FoI his si8natures οη Delos, see VlalcadÝ (supra η. 10) 70-Ι1, 23, ρΙ. 27. 13. cic. .4tÝ, 6.1,17. Rome, conservatoτi, Museo Νυονο 2381. F. coar;ni, ''Le tyrannoctone du Capitole et Ια mort de TibeΙiu§ Glacchus,'' λΙΕFR 4 81 (1969) 137-6ο, fi8;. 5, 6; ideÞ, RευßτßÝ ατε (supra η. 10) 268, figs, 108-110; Helbiga ΙΙ, 1710; LΙMC Ιν (1988)ß.ν. ΗεταΚΙεò, nos, 1284 and 1307 (Ο. Palagia); Μοτεηο 52S-26, tigs, 648, 649. 14. Delos Museum Α 4340. Signed statue base: ΜαιòαdÝ (supra η. 10) 41-42, 132, ρl. 31:1, Statue: Queyrel (supra η. 10) 389-448; idem ßη J. lviarcadÜed., Sòυtρtυτòò dÝΙßεηιßò (Ραιßò 1996) ηο, 85. 15. ΡΙßηγ, Ν4ý. 36.35. ΙΙλ4C Π (1984) s,v. ΑροΙΙοη, nos. 222 αιd 586 (Ο. Palagia); G. BecatÞ, "Attikλ - Sag8io sulla scultuιa attica delΙ'ellenisÞo,'' RiUηstArch 7 (1940' 33-38, Maltin (§uPra η. 10) 64-86; Cain and Dre8er (5υρτα η. 10) 814, fi8. 4; MoΙeno 522-23, flg,642. 16. ΡΙßηγ Ναr. 36.25-26. Richardson (εupra η. 11) 245, s.v. Mars, Aedes ßη circo Flaminio. 17. λ4οτεηο 552. Pausanias's τemark that she was shown <5ò Ýò μÜχην may indicate αη aIchai§tic Promacho§ tyΡe. 19. ΒσΙßη, Pergamonmuseum Ρ 24, Die Aηtikensaπmlung ΒετΙßη (λ4αßηΖ 1992) ηο, 75. 19. D. Gτassigηeτ, "Die ΜατmοτΚταιετε,'' ßπ Das Wrack,259-β3. 20. SuPIa η.3. 2l. Cain and Dre8er (sυΡτα η. 10). 22. PlinyNaÝ.36.25:duosquelompterιs(whereΙrπPÝe/r§i§anemendationoftheincongruou§ camPteιιs). 23. Ε.Β. Ηαττßòοτη Agoτι Χ: Aτchιic and Afchoistic SòιΙρÝιτε (Princeton 1965) nos. 128, 129 (Agoτa S 370 and S 1726+245 + Acropolis Ιι{useum 4962), pls.29,30; Μ.-Α. Zagdoun, La scuΙpture archιisante dιηε l'ιrt hellÝπiεtique et dons Ι'ατt τοmλßη du hαυt-òπρßτε 1r-arls τüεò1 ηο. 14 (Agoτa S 1726+245 + Acropolis lv,iuseum 4962), ρl. 23; ηο. 41 (Agoιa S 370), ρl. 5S; ηο, 59 (Athens, Natioηal Museum 1966), ρl. 35; ηο. 170 (Delos λ4useum λ 9, fτοm Αtλεηò), Ρl. 20. Archaistic §tatue: Artemis λ4unychia, PiΙaeu§ λ4υsευm 1927, L. Paleokτassa, ΤΞ ιερü τηò ΑρτÝμιδοò Μονννχßαò (Athem 1991) 52, 101-102, Γ 13, pls. 10, 11, 24. Harrisoη (supra η.23) 127. Piraeus helms: supia η.4. 25. Eleu§i§ λ4useum 5079. ΙG ΙΙ', 4701. Κ. cΙΙπtοπ, The Sacred Officiaιs οΙ the Ειeυsßιßαη Mysteies (Phiιadelphia 1974) 97; ßd,òπ, , _ Μγτh and CυΙτ (Sτockholm 1992) 51_53, 56, figs. 5_7. 26. Η^. Η_üιmαηη,_ Die inneτeι Propyliieι υοη Eleusis (Beilin/LeiΡzig 1932) 64-7Ý, p|s. 22,28, 50-52; G.E. λ4γΙοηαs, Eleusis αηd ihe Eleusiniιn Mvstefies (PrincÝton 1961) 159j0, fig. 56; 94 οιòe Ρηι.ιòιe

Α. Giuliano, Ια òιΙfιτα oτtIstico delle proτince delln Grecia ßη εtα fοmαηα (Rome 1965) 27-28. The Hadrianic date pτoposed for the caryatids ßη Helbiga ΙΙ, 3217 is not §upported by the architectural remains: theIe is ηο evidence of αηγ exten§ive rebuilding of the Lesser Propylaia (Vr',B, Dinsmoor, The Architectufe οf Ancieni GreecÜ [London 1950] 286-87; D. Giraud, Η κνρßα εßσοδοò τον ιεροý τηò Ελενσßνοò lAthen§ 1991Ι 107-14). 27. See also Clinton (supra η,6) 1504-1506, ρl. Ι:1. 28, Ηüτmαm (supra η, 26) 73. 29. Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum GR.I.1865, L. Budde and R. Nicholls, CαtαΙοgυò of the Greek ond Roman ScuΙpιuτe ßι tlrc FßΙΖωßΙΙßαm Museum (Cambridge 1964) 46-49, ηο. 81, pls.

30. Eleusis Museum 5104. Κ. Preka-Alexandri, Ελενσßνα (Athens 1991) 19. 31. ExcerPted from E.D. Clarke, Traσεls ßη VoÞous Countτies: Gτeece, Egvpt αιd the ΗοΙγ Loιd. νΙ (London 1818) 600-602, 615-23. 32, G. Wheler, Α ΙοιιτιΡγ into Gfeece (Loηdon 1682) 428 with ßΙl.; R. Chandler, TraUels ßι Asia Minof ond, Ι (London 1817) 215-16. Rome, νßΙΙα Albani 16: Ηüτmαηη (supτa π. 26) fig, 52; ΒοΙ ηο. 179, pls. 50-53; Schmidi Colinet W 38α; Helbiga ΙΙ,3217, νßΙΙα Albani 24 (Fig.5 ): Ηüτmαηη fig.55; ΒοΙ ηο. 180, pls. 54-57; Schmidt-Colinet W 69α; Helbiga ΙΙ,3217. νßΙΙα Albani 91: Hürmann fig.51; ΒοΙ ηο. 224, pls, 180,183; Schmidt-Colinet Vr' 38b, Helbig. IΙ, 3282. νßΙΙα Albani 97 (Fig. 6)ι Ηüτmαηη fig. 54; ΒοΙ ηο, 225, p|s. 184-187; Schmidt-Cotinet Vr' 38c; Helbig{ ΙΙ, 3282. See also Ρ. Zanker, KIossizistische sLatueι (ΜαßπΖ 1974) 85 η. 112; Ε. Schmidt, Geschichte dετ Κοτγαtßdειι (Wiirzburg 1982) 100-102; R. Neudecker, Die Skulptιτen-ausstattun8 rümischen νßΙI.ß ßη ΙßηΙßεÞ (ΜαßπΖ Ι988) º71-72, 34. Schmidt-ColinetW38dandW69b.SeealsoC.Gasparri,,ΛlaterialipòτòòruireaIIoliudIodeΙ Museo Torloniι di scuΙtura afltica (Rome 1980) ηο. 485, ρl. VI:c. 35. D. Philios, ¸λενσßò (Athens 1906) 122-23, 36. νßΙΙα Albani 24. ΒοΙ ηο, 180, pls.54-57. 37. νßΙΙα Albani 16,91, and 97. Supra η,33. 38. Οη the classical diplax, see Ο. Palagia, "Α Classical variaÞt of the Corinth/lýoceni8o Goddess: Demeter/Kore or Athena?" BsA 84 (1θ89' 324,25. 39. Corinth Mu§eum S 68 and Rome, Terme 154583, The type was identified with Athena by Palagia (supra η. 38) 32}-31, Ρl. 46:c+. 40. Athens, NationaΙ Museum 11036, from Eleusis. Mylonas (supla η,26) fig. 88; Cliηton 1992 (suPra η.25' 67,74,136, ηο. 1, frontisΡiece, fig. 73. 41. LosAngelesCountyMuseumofArt51,18.12andNaple§,L{useoNazionale6024.Pa|agia (supra η. 38) 330, ρl. 47:e (Naples). 42. lG Ρ,506. Associated by Plutarch (Pel, 13) with the buildin8 of the Propylaia (437-432 B.C.). Athena Hope/Farnese identified with Athena Hygieia: F. Studniczka, .4Α 1899, 134-35. See also Α. Preyss, "Athena HoPe und Pallas Albani-Faπese,'' ]d,I 27 (1912) ss- 128; idem, "Athena Hope und Winckelmanns Pa|Ias," ]dΙ 28 (1913) 244-45. 43. Harlison (supra η,23) 54-57 οη the archaistic diagonal mantle. She remaτk§ that it was ηot used ßη the fifth οτ the early fourth century (54). 44. Eleusis Museum 5140 and ηο number. M.D, Fullerton, "The Archaistic Pelirrhanteria of Attica," Hespefia 55 (1986) 20& 209, ρl. 41; Preka-Alexandri (supra η. 30) fig. 24. 45. Venice, Archaeological Museum 264-Α. G, TraversaIi, scuΙtιfe dεΙ ν"-Ιν" secolo o.C. del Μιεòο Archòologico di venezia (Venice 1973) ηο. 64; Moreno 545, fiτ. 665. 46. Berlin Antikeηsammlung. C, Blθmel. StaaiΙiche Museen Ζυ ΒòτΙßη: Rümßsòhò Kopien ζfiechischer SΚυΙρtυτεη des fßßιJtειι |αhτ. υ. Chτ. (Berlin 1931) 42-43, Κ 181, ρl. 74, 47. Zagdoιn (suPra η.23) cat.258-259, ρ1.3, figs, 14, 16. Cιassιclι Ευòουπτιιs: Ατττò Sòυιρτυιε .η.ττεη Sυιιe 95

48. SupΙa η. 4. 49. L.J. Roccos, "The Kanephoros and her Festival Mantle ßη Greek Art," ΑΙΑ 99 (1995) 641- 66. 50. IG Ι3, 79. Clinton 1974 (supra η. 25) 69. 51. Fragments ßη the 7181,8750,3189,7782,2899. λ,Ι, Bruskari, "Η ΑθηνÜ τοιßτýτον Herculaneum στην Ακρüτολη," ßη Η. Kyrieleis ed., Aτchoische υιd klassische gτiechιsche PlostikII (ΜαßΜ 1986) 77-83, ΡΙs. 107, 108. Head ßη the Αgοτα,S 1064, Harrison |supra η. 23) 73-75, ιο-124, ρΙ,26; Zagdoun (supra η. 23) cat. 30, ρl. 6, figs. 28, 29, Copy fτολ Heτculaneum ßη NapΙes, Museo Nazionale 6007. Zagdoun (supra η, 23) cat, 286, ρl, 7. fig. 30. 52. Ι\4.D. Fullerton, "The Date of the Herculaneum Pallas Type," ΑΑ 1989,57,67 dates her ca. 50 B.C. and as§ociate§ her with APPius claudius Pulcher. 53. That they are α Roman cleation is αΙΦ the view of C, Landινehτ, Die rδmischen SΚιιΙρtwεfl υοη Coesarca Mauτetaniae Ι: IdωIplιstik (Βετ|ßι |993) 72-74, 54, Ατhεηs National Museum 1682 and 1683 (heads) with fταgmεπτ§ of α body (5798), Under ΙiΙe-Size. E.G. RaftoΡouloψ "Neue Zeugnisse archai§tischer Plastik im Athener National- museum," Αλ4 1ω (1985) 355-{5, pls. 72-7 6, 7 8:7^2, 79, 80:1.-2, 55. Athens coΡies thou8ht to be Hadrianic: Η.Ρ. Laubscher, "Skuιpturen aus Τταιιe§," ΙòÝΙΙßfÝ 16 (Ι966' i28-2g, pis.24:1-3,25ι2-3, followed by Landwehτ (iupra η. 53) and R, üΖgαη, Die gτiechischen ιιßd rümischen Skulpiuren aus TruIIeis (Asia Ιι4ßηοτ Sfudien 15, Βοηη 1995) 125:33. Αη Antonine date should not be ruled out, however, οη account of their affinity to the statuary from the Nymphaeum of Heτodes Atticus at olymPia (Published by R, Βοl', Dos statuenPfogrum des Hercdes,Atticu|-Nymphiium| [olrorsch 15, Berlin 1984Ι), 56. Istanbul Museuλ ß189. Height 1.83 m. withüut the pΙinth. Augu§tan. üΖgαη (supra η, 55) 128. 57. Cherchel Museum S 89. Headless, Height 1.55 m, without the Plinth. Antonine, Landwehr (supra η. 53). This example was long associated w_ith Juba ΙΙ of Mauretania and dated to the late first century B.C.; this dating persists ßη ozgan (suPra η. 55) 126-27, 58, Ιη her foτthcoming Study of the city Eleusinion. 59, Supτa η.40. 60. Pliny,NaÝ,34.13and36.38;cass.Dio53.27.2.Richardson(§uPran,11)283,s,v,Pantheon, 61. Proýably begun ßη 24 B.C. Ρ. ΖαηΚετ, Fοfυm Augustιm (Tθbingen 196q 7-α, figs, 5 and ZS; ε. S'chmidt, "Die Kopien der Elechtheionkore^," AntP 13 (1973) 7-19, pls, 1-5; Richardson (suPra η. υ) ß6Ο-62, §,ν. Forum Augusti; Ιι{. Hofteτ eÜ., Kaiseι Augustus uιd die Ueiorcne Rφublik (ΜαßηΖ 1988) cat. 77-78, figs,78; 85; Ρ, Zaπker, The Poωel of Images ßη ιhe Aγe of Au1ultus, tιans. Α. Shαρßτο (Αηη Arbor 1988) 256-57, fig. 202; L, υηgατο and Μ. λ,4ilella'eds., Ι luoghi del òοιεεηsο imperiιIe, ΙΙ Folo di Auζusto, ΙΙ Fοτο di Ττοßοηο (exh, cat., Rome 1995) 32-41.