Creating the Past: The Vénus de Milo and the Hellenistic Reception of Classical Greece Author(s): Rachel Kousser Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 109, No. 2 (Apr., 2005), pp. 227-250 Published by: Archaeological Institute of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40024510 Accessed: 19-07-2017 16:29 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40024510?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Archaeology This content downloaded from 24.205.80.26 on Wed, 19 Jul 2017 16:29:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Creating the Past: The Venus de Milo and the Hellenistic Reception of Classical Greece RACHEL KOUSSER Abstract ture echoed the visual format of a fourth-century This article reexamines the well-known Hellenistic B.C. cult statue of Aphrodite; its altered attributes statue of Aphrodite from Melos (the Venus de Milo),and style, however, made the Hellenistic work ap- drawing on recently published archaeological evidence propriate for its new context, the Melos civic gym- and archival sources relating to its excavation to propose nasium.2 In addition, sculptural fragments found a new reconstruction of the sculpture's original appear- ance, context, and audience. Although scholars withhave the statue and newly accessible for study sug- often discussed the statue as a timeless ideal of female gest that the Aphrodite originally held an apple beauty, the Aphrodite was in fact carefully adapted to to its signal her victory in the Judgment of Paris and contemporary setting, the minor Hellenistic polis to of allude to her island home, Melos ("apple" in Melos. With its conservative yet creative visual effect, Greek) (figs. 2, 3).3 In so doing, the sculpture gave the sculpture offers a well-preserved early example of the Hellenistic emulation of classical art, and opens compelling a visual form and local meaning to a myth window onto the rarely examined world of a traditional canonical from the time of Homer onward, and Greek city during a period of dynamic change. The statue, interpreted in the Hellenistic period as an alle- it is argued, was set up within the civic gymnasium gory of for humankind's choice of a way of life.4 As Melos. Furthermore, Aphrodite likely held out an apple Aphrodite held out her prize of victory, she en- in token of her victory in the Judgment of Paris, as newly accessible sculptural fragments found with the statue couraged the viewer to reflect upon the decision demonstrate. The sculpture responds to and transforms faced by Paris: what is best - political power, mili- both classical visual prototypes and earlier narratives tary of success, or love? This article's reexamination the Judgment, familiar to Greek audiences from the of pe- the celebrated statue, drawing on newly avail- riod of Homer onward. And the Aphrodite not only wasable archaeological evidence and archival sources appropriate for display within a gymnasium but indeed exemplifies a critical aspect of that institution's role dur-relating to its excavation, can thus greatly enhance ing the Hellenistic period: the creation of a standard- our understanding of the reception of classical ized and highly selective vision of the past to serve sculptureas a and mythological narrative in Hellenis- model for the present. Thus the statue, analyzed within tic Greece. its original context, greatly enhances our understanding In the following discussion, I set the Aphrodite of the reception of classical sculpture and mythological narrative in Hellenistic Greece.* of Melos within its original context: the world of a minor Hellenistic city and in particular its gymna- sium. While previous scholars have described the INTRODUCTION statue as a timeless ideal of female beauty, they have The monumental statue of Aphrodite paid insufficient from attention to its contemporary ap- Melos, dated ca. 150-50 B.C., represents pearance and one function, of and to its calculated re- the earliest and best-documented sponse examples to earlier of images the and texts. The narrowness Hellenistic emulation and transformation of clas- of previous research, and the advantages to be de- sical art (fig. I).1 The over-life-sized marble sculp- rived from a wider inquiry, justify my investigation * Thanks are due to Evelyn Harrison, Katherine Welch, the R.R.R. Aphrodite of Melos makes close analysis of the archaeo- Smith, Sheila Dillon, and the editors and anonymous readerslogical evidence possible. In addition, the topography of Melos of A/A for their extensive and very helpful comments inon the ear- Hellenistic period has been recently studied (Cherry lier drafts of this paper; any errors are of course my own. and Sparkes 1982). Many archival sources relating to the dis- 1 Musee du Louvre, inv. no. MA 399. Most scholars agree covery on of the Aphrodite have recently been collected by de a date within the period ca. 150-50 B.C., although more Lorrisprecise (1994), although they must still be supplemented with dates are disputed; for a summary of recent views and generalearlier material collected by Vogue (1874) . For a recent popu- bibliography, see UMC2 (1984), s.v. "Aphrodite," 73-4. lar account of the statue's discovery and early history, see Curtis ^On the statue s fourth-century B.C. antecedents, 2003. see Kousser 200 1 , 1 2-6. The new publication by Marianne Hamiaux 3 Musee du Louvre, inv. no. MA 400-401. (1998, 41-50) of all the sculptures and fragments acquired 4 with 1 thank Tonio Holscher for first suggesting this to me. 227 American Journal of Archaeology 109 (2005) 227-50 This content downloaded from 24.205.80.26 on Wed, 19 Jul 2017 16:29:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 228 RACHEL KOUSSER [AJA109 Aphrodite of Melos to offer a full restoration and architectural context for the statue. The second sec- tion uses the insights gained from this reconstruc- tion to analyze the statue as a well-preserved and attractive, but in many ways conventional, example of the Hellenistic reception of classical culture. The final section opens to a broader consideration of the Hellenistic gymnasium - the initially surpris- ing, but in fact highly appropriate, setting for this retrospective sculpture - and its role in preserving the classical past. Much more than an athletic facility, the gymna- sium of the Hellenistic period became the preemi- nent educational and cultural institution of the Greek cities.6 It furthermore served, in an increas- ingly cosmopolitan world, to define the essential components of Greek identity. With its conserva- tive architectural forms and classicizing sculptures, the gymnasium provided a fitting site for athletic, military, and intellectual practices inherited from the Classical period. It thus helped create a cul- ture of reception and retrospection that shaped later responses to the Greek past, from Roman times to the present. In combination, the three sections outlined above bring into focus the importance of the Aphrodite of Melos for an understanding of civic art and culture in Hellenistic Greece. Scholars of Hellenistic sculpture have often stressed the criti- cal role played by new patrons, particularly the ambitious and fabulously wealthy Hellenistic mon- archs, in creating styles and genres radically at odds with those of the classical past.7 The Aphrodite of Melos - a monumental statue of an Olympian deity, executed in a classicizing style and set up in the gymnasium of a minor polis - exemplifies instead a different and often ne- Fig. 1. Aphrodite, Melos, ca. 150-50 B.C. Paris, Musee du glected aspect of Hellenistic art: its self-consciously Louvre. (© Louvre, Dist RMN/P. Lebaude) retrospective quality, visible particularly in the public monuments of long-established Greek cit- of a statue that ies. is When seenexceedingly within this contemporary cultural well known but less well understood.5 and civic setting, the statue opens a window onto The first of three broad sections reexamines writ- the rarely examined world of a traditional Greek ten and visual accounts of the excavation of the city during a period of dynamic change. It demon- 5 The bibliography concerning the Aphrodite of Melos is include Charbonneaux 1959; Linfert 1976, 116-7; Pasquier immense. The two major studies of the statue's context are 1985; Triante 1998. The best modern discussion of the more than 100 years old (Reinach 1890; Furtwangler 1895, Aphrodite as a copy occurs in Niemeier (1985, 142-3), again 367-401 ) . The problem has been more recently though briefly focusing primarily on style. treated by Corso 1995; Maggidis 1998; Ridgway 2000, 167-71; b For an introduction to the Hellenistic gymnasium, see Beard and Henderson 200 1 , 1 20-3. Works drawing particularly Delorme 1960; cf. Moretti 1977. upon the archival sources include de Marcellus 1840; Aicard 7On Hellenistic monarchs and their role as patrons of art, 1874; Vogue 1874; Doussault 1877; Alaux 1939; de Lords 1994. see, e.g., Pollitt 1986, 19-46; see also Smith 1988; 1991, 19- More recent works, which primarily discuss questions of style, 32, 155-80, 205-37. This content downloaded from 24.205.80.26 on Wed, 19 Jul 2017 16:29:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 2005] CREATING THE PAST: THE VENUS DE MILO 229 Fig.