The Hellenistic PeriodAs indicated above, the period of the Successors (ca. 323-280) was later regarded as the twilight of classical sculpture, even though the art of painting was still at its zenith (Quintilian 12.10.6: cf. T 3). Hellenistic connoisseurship stopped with the sons of Praxiteles and the school of Lysippos, though some Roman neo-classicists were more radical, accepting nothing after the great masters themselves (T 3). Their imitators, no matter how good, were "inferior" (T 1). Consequently, as the texts dwindle, inscriptions play a much greater part, offering different kinds of evidence from the value-judgments of the critics. Attic sculpture provides a case in point:
Early Hellenistic AthensOver forty Athenian sculptors are known from ca. 330 through the late third century (Stewart 1979, 158-61), but only a handful appear in the literature; fortunately, epigraphy provides much information about commissions, shifts in the art market (particularly after Athens' defeat in the Chremonidean War of 266-261), and other issues. The following selection includes some of the major personalities active to ca. 260; the "renegade" Xenokrates is treated among the pupils of Lysippos.
Kephisodotos (II) and Timarchos, sons of Praxiteles
TimarchosAs indicated above, these two were active around 345-290. Yet their mature work must have fallen during the Lykourgan administration of 336-324, when they also paid heavy naval liturgies (IG 22 nos. 1628, lines 57, 68, 74, 11; 1629, line 674; 1633, line 100; cf. J.K. Davies 1971 no. 8334; Stewart 1979, 106; Lauter 1980). So Pliny's floruit of 296-293 (T 1) must originally have been calculated either by simple association with their Peloponnesian counterparts, the pupils of Lysippos (for Lysippos' own floruit in 328-325 naturally determined theirs, a generation later), or from the death of Menander (no. 12, below) around 293/2. The latter is less likely, since only Pausanias mentions the statue Paus. 1.21.1 but without naming its authors, who remained anonymous till the inscribed base was found in 1862. Kephisodotos was clearly the principal; his known works, including those where Timarchos assisted, are as follows:
- Aphrodite of marble, later in Rome (T 134, cf. 167)
- Artemis of marble, ditto (T 134）
- Asklepios of marble, ditto (T 134）
- Enyo, in the temple of Ares at Athens (with Timarchos)
- Leto of marble, later in Rome (T 134, cf. T 90）
- Zeus Soter (enthroned), flanked by Megalopolis and Artemis Soteria, in Pentelic marble, at Megalopolis. In collaboration with Xenophon of Athens
- Architectural sculpture
- Embellishment of an Altar of Asklepios, probably at Kos (with Timarchos: T 135）
- The Altar of Athena at Thebes (with Timarchos)
- The poetess Anyte of Tegea in bronze, later in Rome (with Euthykrates of Sikyon? T 136）
- Dion and Diokleia, dedicated by their father Aristogeitos at Megara (with Timarchos)
- Lykourgos and his sons in wood, at Athens(?) (with Timarchos)
- Menander, in the Theater of Dionysos at Athens (with Timarchos)
- The poetess Myro of Byzantium in bronze, later in Rome (T 136）
- Philylla, dedicated by her mother Philia to Demeter and Kore, in the Agora
- A priestess of Athena in bronze, on the Akropolis (with Timarchos)
- Statues of philosophers in bronze
- Uncertain subject-matter
- A dedication to Asklepios on the Akropolis
- Dedication of Aischronides in bronze, on the Akropolis
- Dedication of Kekropia to Demeter and Kore, Eleusis
- Another dedication to Demeter and Kore, Eleusis
- Another dedication [to Demeter and Kore], Eleusis
- A statue at Chersonesos (in the Crimea)
- A dedication of a priest to Apollo, Troezen
- A 'symplegma' (erotic group) in marble, at Pergamon (T 134）
The stress on realism with regard to (24) echoes the concerns of e.g. T 3 (see commentary to T 133, above). This apart, Pliny obviously had no critical tradition to draw on, only a bare list of Kephisodotos' works in Rome. Of these, (1) was not the only Praxitelean piece in Pollio's collection (cf. T 167), while (5) is reproduced, with Timotheos' Artemis and Skopas' Apollo, on a relief commemorating Augustus' dedication of the Palatine cult group: cf. T 90. The cult complex for (6) dates these to after ca. 350. Whereas we have no original fragments of these, or even copies in the round, the finds from (7) do seem persuasively post-Praxitelean (Classical Quarterly cf. Stewart 1990, figs. 604-05). An early Hellenistic poet describes a visit to what appears to be this complex (contra , somewhat speciously, I.A. Cunningham in Classical Quarterly N.S. 16 : 115-17):
“The son of Praxiteles, Cephisodotus, inherited also his skill. His group of People Grappling (symplegma ) at Pergamon is much praised, being notable for the way in which the fingers seem really to sink into living flesh rather than marble. At Rome his works are a Leto in the Palatine temple, a Venus in the collection of Asinius Pollio, and the Asclepius and Diana in the shrine of Juno within the Porticus Octaviae.”Pliny N.H. 36.24
No doubt most of the personages addressed by Kynno were figured on the altar. The Olympia Hermes (T 93) is probably also a post-Praxitelean original, as is a splendid female head from Chios (Boston 10.70; Stewart 1990, figs. 606-08). Typically, Pliny confines his survey of Kephisodotean works at Rome to divinities; yet a second-century Christian apologist reveals that portraits of his were also there, and Coarelli 1971-72 has shown that he is almost certainly speaking of a display in Pompey's theater complex, dedicated in 55:
Hail, Lord Paieon, ruler of Trikka, who dwells in sweet Kos and Epidauros too; hail Koronis too, who bore you, and Apollo, and Hygieia whom you touch with your right hand, and those whose honored altars are here too; hail to Panake, Epio, Ieso, and those who sacked house and walls of Leomedon, doctors of savage diseases, Podaleirios and Machaon, and all the gods and goddesses who inhabit your shrine, father Paieon. Come gracefully to accept this cock . . . . KOKKALE
O Kynno dear, what fair statues! What craftsman, pray, made this stone, and who set it up? KYNNO
The sons of Praxiteles: don't you see the letters on the base? And Euthies son of Prexon set it up. KOKKALE
May Paieon be gracious with them and to Euthies for their fair works. [They then turn to admire other dedications before entering the temple with their offering].”Herondas, Mimiambos 4
Unfortunately, nothing of this dazzling array survives, and no copies have so far come to light; indeed, among (9)-(24) only the Menander (12) is presently identified: inscribed bust of Meander (Malibu 72.AB.108), head of Meander (Dumbarton Oaks 46.2; see Stewart 1990, figs. 610, 613). Like their father, the brothers inspired no Hellenistic critic to consider their work in depth; even the epigrammatists apparently ignored them. In this respect, Greek sculpture's long twilight truly begins with them. Select bibliography: (A) General: RE 11: 235-40 (Lippold, 1921); Bieber 1923/4; ThB 20: 166-67 (Bieber, 1927); Lippold 1950, 299-302; EAA 4: 344-45 (Mustilli, 1961); Bieber 1961b, 19-21, 51-54; Richter 1970d, 206-07; M. Robertson 1975, 383, 480, 518-19; Stewart 1979, 3-5, 136-37, 158-59: Stewart 1990, 46, 66-67, 71, 198-99, 238, 277, 295-97. (B) Sources: Overbeck 1868/1959, nos. 1140, 1331-41; Löwy 1885/1976 nos. 108-12, 337, 491, 555; Stuart-Jones 1895/1966, 164-66; Marcadé 1953, 53-59; Gallet de Santerre 1983, 210-11, 272; Hebert 1989, nos. 107, 238, 336, 346, 368, 381, 447, 454, 517; Pollitt 1990, 111-12. (C) Individual works: Imhoof-Blumer 1887/1964, 103-04, 124 (Zeus, Artemis); Richter 1965, 224-36; 1972, 7 (Menander); Coarelli 1971-72: 99-106 (portraits in Rome); Ashmole 1973 (Menander); M. Robertson 1975, 518-9 (the best account of the Menander controversy and its resolution, now purely of academic interest); Pfrommer 1984, 176 (Hermes); Zanker 1988, 240-41 (Leto); Ridgway 1990a, 163-64, 226-27 (Altar at Kos, Menander). (D) Social standing: J.K. Davies 1971 no. 8334; Stewart 1979, 106-08; Lauter 1980; Stewart 1990, 66-67, 71, 192, 295.
“Lysippos cast the bronze of Praxilla (who said nothing useful in her poetry), Menestratos the Learchis, Silanion the hetaira Sappho, Naukydes the Erinna from Lesbos, Boiskos the Myrtis, Kephisodotos the Myro of Byzantion, Gomphos the Praxigoris, and Amphistratos the Kleito. But what should I say about Anyte, Telesilla, and Mystis? The first is by Euthykrates and Kephisodotos, the second by Nikeratos, the third by Aristodotos. Euthykrates made for you the Mnesarchis of Ephesos, Silanion the Korinna, Euthykrates the Argive Thalarchis, [. . . lacuna . . .], Praxiteles and Herodotos the hetaira Phryne, and Euthykrates cast the Panteuchis made pregnant by a seducer. I set all this forth not having learned it from another, but [as a result of my trip to Rome where I saw the statues seized from you Greeks].”Tatian, Contra Graecos 33
Telesinos of Athens
TelesinosTelesinos appears here only because of the long Delian inscription honoring him for his lavish donation of time, labor, and materials to the Asklepieion:
Though this indicates a man of means, he may stand as a representative of that large but almost faceless throng of Hellenistic sculptors who, despite major commissions and handsome rewards, have nevertheless been all but erased from history. For his only recorded works, a sort of microcosm of Kephisodotos's, are:
“Since Telesinos undertook to make for the Delians statues of Asklepios and Queen Stratonike; and since he donated them to the people and made the Asklepios of bronze and the Stratonike [of stone]; and since he made them well, on time, and [ ]; and since he personally restored all the other statues in the sanctuary that required it; and since he has chosen to be a benefactor of the sanctuary and the Delians for no monetary reward; BE IT RESOLVED (1) to praise Telesinos [the Athenian and to crown] him with a laurel crown and to [announce] at the festival of Apollo that [the Delian people] have given Telesinos the Athenian crown for his piety towards the Delian sanctuary and his goodwill towards the Delian people; (2) to appoint him honorary Athenian consul [proxenos ] and benefactor; (3) to give him and his descendants [the right to own land on Delos]; (4) to give him first right of hearing before the Council and people after the sacred business and that pertaining to other consuls and benefactors of the sanctuary and the Delians; (5) and to inscribe this decree on stone in the Council-chamber and the sanctuary, and set it up in the most convenient place.”IG 11.4 no. 514
- Colossal Poseidon and Amphritrite, Tenos; akrolithic
- Asklepios in bronze, Delos
- Queen Stratonike in marble, Delos
- A marble portrait (statuette) on Delos
Polyeuktos of Athens
PolyeuktosPolyeuktos is known for only one work, the Demosthenes that survives in over 40 copies: Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek; see Stewart 1990, figs. 614-16. Though Pausanias 1.8.2 Paus. 1.8.2once again notes the statue and again not its author, others are more forthcoming:
A papyrus (POxy 15.1800 fr. 3) dates the commission to 280/79, while Plutarch, Demosthenes 31 adds that the statue "stood with its hands clasped", securing the identification beyond doubt. Select bibliography: Overbeck 1868/1959, nos. 1365-68; ThB 27: 323 (v[on] L[ücken] 1933); Lippold 1950, 302-03; RE 21: 1629-30 (Lippold, 1952); EAA 3: 76-77 (Arias, 1960); Bieber 1961b, 66-67; Richter 1965, 215-23; 1971, 7; M. Robertson 1975, 511-12; Stewart 1979, 5, 135-36, 159; Pollitt 1986, 61-63; Hebert 1989, nos. 6-18; Pollitt 1990, 112; Ridgway 1990a, 224-26; Stewart 1990, 27, 199, 297, 325. After the defeat of 261 Athens' sculptors left the city en masse. Some went to Rhodes, to join an already extensive array of portraitists with whose work time has dealt particularly savagely: though vast numbers of bronzes were displayed there even in Pliny's day (N.H. 34.36), the 'Adorans' [REF] alone survives, while Pliny himself only noted Chares' colossus (T 142), Philiskos' Muses (T 157), and the baroque-style mythological groups (T 167, T 171). Yet the signed bases record the activities of no fewer than 150 portraitists working on the island down to the sack of 42, including immigrants from all over the Aegean area: Marcadé 1969, 471-83; Goodlett 1991.
“[Demosthenes, in exile and hunted by the Macedonians] asked for writing materials and wrote (so Demetrios of Magnesia says) the couplet that was later inscribed by the Athenians upon his portrait: “If your strength had been equal to your will, Demosthenes,The statue, a work of Polyeuktos, stands near the roped-off enclosure [in the Agora] and the Altar of the Twelve Gods.”
Never would the Greeks have been ruled by a Macedonian Ares.
”Ps-Plutarch, Moralia 847A
The School of LysipposIn T 1, Pliny gives Lysippos' pupils a floruit of 296-293, a date perhaps derived from Eutychides' commission for the Tyche of Antioch (T 140). 'Laippus', repeated in T 139, is evidently a misreading (by Varro) of Daippos (cf. Paus. 6.12.6, 16.5), i.e., ΛΑΙΠΠΟΣ for ΔΑΙΠΠΟΣ.
Pliny's account of Euthykrates' style seems rhetorically-based. In N.H. 34.41, 80, 83 he adds Chares of Lindos, Phanis, and Xenokrates of Athens to the list; like Teisikrates, Xenokrates was not a direct disciple of Lysippos (T 146), and Pausanias and surviving inscriptions extend the school into the later third century. As with the Polykleitan school, a complete catalogue of their works is unnecessary: to those genres recorded in T 139 one should add numerous portraits (T 136: Euthykrates) and victor-statues (known mainly from Pausanias and scattered inscriptions). Daippos' perixyomenos or "All-round Scraper" (N.H. 34.87) evidently attempted to outdo the master himself (T 124). Survivors include the Ephesos athlete (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum I15372) and the Getty Bronze (Malibu 77.AB.30), and Teisikrates' Demetrios (T 139) has been recognized in a fine copy from the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum (Naples, Museo Nazionale 6149; Stewart 1990, figs. 617-22). Of all their bronzes, however, only two attracted more than passing notice: Eutychides' Tyche of Antioch (overlooked by Pliny) and Chares' colossal Helios for Rhodes. Paus. 6.2.6 attributes the Tyche only in passing, but a Byzantine historian fortunately supplies the missing link to the copies (statuette of Tyche: Vatican, Galleria dei Candelabri IV.49; statuette of Tyche: Budapest, Museum of Fine Arts 4742; coin of Volusianus: Paris, Cabinet des Médailles; Stewart 1990, figs. 626-28):
“Lysippus left behind three sons who were his pupils, the celebrated artists Laippus, Boedas, and above all Euthycrates, though he imitated his father's rigor rather than his elegance, preferring to find favor in the austere rather than the graceful style. His masterpieces are a Hercules at Delphi, an Alexander Hunting at Thespiae, a cavalry battle, a Trophonius at the god's own oracular shrine, several chariots-and-four, a horse with baskets [?], and a pack of hounds. His pupil was Tisicrates, another Sicyonian, but closer to the school of Lysippus; indeed, many of Tisicrates' statues can hardly be distinguished from his, like his Aged Theban, his king Demetrius, and his Peucestes, the man who saved Alexander the Great's life and so was worthy of such an honor.”Pliny N.H. 34.66-7
Personifications like the Orontes were a specialty of his: Pliny describes his River Eurotas as "wetter than water" (N.H. 34.78), evidently after an epigram such as this:
“And he [Trajan, emperor 98-117] restored the theater at Antioch, which was unfinished, and set up in it . . . a gilded image of the Tyche of the city, seated above the river Orontes, and crowned by the kings Seleukos and Antiochos.”John Malalas, Chronographia 11 p. 276 Bonn
As for the Colossus, Pliny gives its history, and Philo of Byzantium describes its extraordinary technique:
“The artist moulded Eurotas as if still wet and immersed
In his stream, though fresh from his bath of fire.
Liquid in all his limbs, he weaves to and fro,
Flowingly undulating from head to toe.
Art vied with the river; who was it that coaxed
The bronze to riot along more liquidly than water?
”Anth. Pal. 9.709 (Philip, ca. A.D. 40)
“But the work that surpassed all in admiration was the colossal statue of the Sun at Rhodes, made by Chares of Lindos, the pupil of the above-mentioned Lysippus. This statue was 70 cubits [105 ft.] high, and 66 years after its erection it was overthrown by an earthquake [228 or 226], but even lying on the ground it is a marvel. Few people can get their arms around its thumb, and the fingers are larger than most statues. Vast caves yawn within its fractured limbs, while inside one sees great masses of rock, which he used to stabilize it when he erected it. It is recorded that it took 12 years to complete and cost 300 talents, which they seized from the sale of the siege-engines left by king Demetrius when he gave up his protracted siege of Rhodes in disgust .”Pliny, N.H. 34.41
A mutilated Rhodian relief (Clara Rhodos 5.2: no. 35) is our only evidence for its overall appearance, which resembled the Getty bronze (Malibu 77.AB.30; Stewart 1990, fig. 618), though Rhodian Helios coins perhaps reproduce its head. Another passage concerning Chares, written in Rome around 70 B.C. but probably derived from a second-century Hellenistic rhetorician, has been taken by Preisshofen 1970-1 as a manifesto for eclectic neo-classicism:
“The colossus at Rhodes . . . stood seventy cubits high, and took the form of a Helios; the image of the god was subsequently determined by it alone. The artist expended so much bronze upon it, that it nearly caused a dearth in the mines; for the casting of the image became the industry of the world . . . .Having built a base of white marble, he first fixed upon it the feet of the Colossus up to the ankle-joints, bearing in mind the symmetria of a god intended to stand to a height of 70 cubits; for the sole of the foot was already longer than other statues are high. For this reason it was impossible to hoist up the remainder and place it upon the feet, but the ankles had to be cast upon them, and, as when a house is being built, the whole work had to rise upon itself. And so, while other statues are first modelled, then dismembered for casting in parts, then finally recomposed and erected, in this case when the first part had been cast, the second was modelled upon it, and when this had been cast, the third was built upon it, and the next again was done according to the same technique. For the individual metal sections could not be moved. When a new section had been cast upon those already completed, the spacing of the horizontal tie-bars and the joints of the framework were taken care of, and the stability of the stone blocks placed inside it was ensured. In order to keep the plan of operations on a firm footing throughout, he heaped up a huge mound of earth around the completed limbs, burying the finished work and carrying out the next section of casting on that level. So having thus ascended little by little to the summit of his hopes, and having expended five hundred talents [30,000 lbs.] of bronze and three hundred [18,000 lbs.] of iron upon it, he made a god to equal the god, and produced by his daring a mighty work; for he had given the world a second sun to match the first.”Philo, On the Seven Wonders of the World 4
To this view, the public for such statues — a common feature of late Hellenistic-Roman decor — would recognize the quotations and savor the resulting combinations of styles. Yet as Hallett 1983 points out, text and interpretation do not match: the author ridicules the idea, and Roman connoisseurship was never that discriminating: cf. T 4. Indeed in both T 144 and the later T 99, the point is purely literary and rhetorical, with no indication of a reference to real sculptural practice. Such eclecticism is to be explained on other grounds, such as the associations of the Achillean physique for pseudo-heroic portraiture, or the evident allure of often androgynous beings such as the pseudo-Polykleitan lamp holders (Zanker 1974; Hallett 1983) in a decorative, intimate context. To return to the third century. With the loss of all their major works, the School's main attraction for the historian must lie in the personality of Xenokrates, sometimes dubbed the father of art history. He is probably identical with the Xenokrates son of Ergophilos ("Work-lover") who signed statues at Elateia and Oropos, and whose father (Marcadé 1953, 32-33) worked at Delphi around 300. Pliny cites him in his source-list for book 34, but in the text allows him just one sentence:
“Do not these schoolmasters, teachers of rhetoric to all the world, see that they are making asses of themselves when they seek to borrow the very thing they offer to bestow on others? . . . Chares did not learn from Lysippus how to make statues by Lysippus showing him a head by Myron, arms by Praxiteles, a torso by Polycleitus, but observed the master making all right in front of him; he could study the works of others, if he wished, on his own initiative. But these writers believe that those who want to learn [rhetoric] can best be taught by the methods of others.”Auctor ad Herrenium 4.6.9
“Sources: L. Piso, Antias, Verrius, M. Varro, Cornelius Nepos, Rufus Messala, the poet Marsus, Julius Bassus who wrote in Greek on medicine, Sextus Niger who did the same, Fubius Vestalis. Foreign sources: Democritus, Metrodorus of Scepsis, Menachmus who wrote on metal-embossing, (toreutike), Xenokrates ditto , Antigonus ditto , Duris ditto, Heliodorus who wrote on Athenian votive offerings, Pasiteles who wrote on marvelous works of art, Timaeus who wrote on mineral drugs, Nymphodorus, . . . [thirteen other names of obscure and now-lost writers follow].”Pliny N.H. 1.34
From these meager gleanings and an analysis of Parrhasios' disegno attributed to "Xenokrates and Antigonos" in N.H. 35.67-8 scholars have resurrected a powerful if partisan thinker, whose personality has done much to color our picture of the classical masters. After the analyses of the (presumed) echoes of his book in the commentaries to T 40, 42, 43, 62, and 124, little remains to be said of his work, except that very contemporary lessons may still be learned from it. If the rigorously formalistic Xenokrates, incomparably closer to his material than we, was able to bungle the relative chronology of Polykleitos, Myron, and Pythagoras so badly, then a humbler attitude on our part might well be in order, and in particular latter-day formalists, whether inspired by Krahmer 1923-4, Carpenter 1971, or others, might ask themselves whether their own schemes do not risk equally unpleasing results.
“Xenocrates, a pupil of Tisicrates or, as some say, Euthycrates, surpassed both in the number of his statues. He also wrote books about his art.”Pliny N.H. 34.83
Select bibliography: (A) General: RE 3: 594, 2130-31 (Robert, 1899); 4: 2014 (Robert, 1901); 6: 1507-08, 1532-33 (Robert, 1909); 19: 1776 (Lippold, 1938); 5A: 149-50 (Lippold, 1934); 6A: 306 (Lippold, 1936); 9A: 1530-31 (Rumpf, 1967); ThB 4: 187-88 (Amelung, 1910); 6: 389-90 (Amelung, 1912); 8: 286 (Amelung, 1913); 11: 91-92, 93-94 (Amelung, 1915); 26: 540 (v[on] L[ücken] 1932); 33: 45, 217 (Bieber, 1939); 36: 343 (Bieber, 1947); Lippold 1950, 294-99, 317, 339; EAA 2: 123, 534-55, 991 (Carettoni, Amorelli, Guerrini, 1959); 3: 548-49, 554-55 (Cressedi, 1960); 6: 113-14 (Cressedi, 1965); 7: 664-66, 832-33, 1234 (Moreno, 1966); Bieber 1961b, 39-42, 50-51; M. Robertson 1975, 470-480; Pollitt 1986, 55-58; Stewart 1990, 200-01, 297-300, and index, s.v. 'Eutychides', 'Euthykrates', Xenokrates', etc. (B) Sources: Overbeck 1868/1959, nos. 1516-56; Löwy 1885/1976 nos. 120-122a, 135, 154, 478, 493; Stuart-Jones 1895/1966, 206-12; Münzer 1895, 502-19 (Xenokrates); Jex-Blake 1896, xvi-xxxvi (Xenokrates); Schweitzer 1932/1963 (Xenokrates); Marcadé 1957, 128-30; Pollitt 1972, passim; Gallet de Santerre 1983, 49-52, 70-74, 193-94, 236-38, 261; Hebert 1989, nos. 28-103 (Colossus), 231, 335-39, 341-42, 347, 350, 356, 370, 374, 401, 403, 409, 429, 498, 517; Pollitt 1990, 108-111. (C) Individual works: Picard 1944 (Demetrios); Maryon 1956; Haynes 1957 (Colossus); Dohrn 1960 (Tyche); Mingazzini 1966 (Anzio girl — not by Phanis); Künzl 1968, 42-45 (Tyche); Coarelli 1971-72: 99-106 (portraits in Rome); S. Lattimore 1972b (Ephesos athlete); Moreno 1973-4 (Colossus); Perry 1975 ("Adorans" — Rhodian provenience); Stewart 1978a (Oilpourer, Ephesos athlete); LIMC 1: 840-51 (Balty, 1981, Tyche); Frel 1982 (Getty Bronze); Stewart (Anne) 1984 (Demetrios); R.R.R. Smith 1988, 64-65, 156 no. 4 (Demetrios); Ridgway 1990a, 57, 125-28, 227-30, 233-36 (Getty Bronze, Demetrios, Adorans, Anzio Girl, Tyche); R.R.R. Smith 1991, 22-23, 52-53, 76-77 (Demetrios, Athletes, Tyche).
Egypt and SyriaInadequate though it is, our information on early Hellenistic sculptors from the Aegean area is incomparably greater than that concerning their counterparts from further East. Pliny overlooks this area entirely, so that e.g. T 139 omits the Tyche of Antioch and N.H. 34.42 and 73 ignore Bryaxis' great cult statues for Antioch and Alexandria; he names no sculptors from these cities. Worse, the comprehensive catalogue of artists published in "Prosopographia Ptolemaica 6", Studia Hellenistica 17 (1968): nos. 17060-17126 contains numerous painters and gem-cutters, but only a handful of sculptors, all nonentities except for Bryaxis and Avianius Evander (T 168-70), neither apparently native Alexandrians. As for Syria, a handful of names are extant, mostly belonging to the Menodotos-Charmolas family from Tyre, active in the second and first centuries, and probably producers of the pseudo-archaic Piombino Apollo for the Roman art market: Louvre inv. 61; Dow 1941, with T 106; Stewart 1990, fig. 857. Yet nothing else of theirs survives, leaving just a lonely Bryaxis to bestride the two kingdoms in the early third century.
Bryaxis (II)As noted in the commentary to T 107-08, this Bryaxis is almost certainly to be distinguished from the man who worked on the Mausoleum ca. 360. His authorship of the Apollo at Daphni, made between 300 and 281 is only mentioned by the Byzantine chronicler Kedrenos (Compendium Historiarium 306B ed. Paris); for a detailed description, however, one must turn to two other late writers, mourning its destruction by fire in A.D. 362:
“Did the fire begin at the top, and spread to the rest — his head, his face, his phiale, his kithara, his foot-length tunic? Citizens, I direct my soul to the form of the god, and my mind sets his likeness before my eyes, his face so gentle, his stone neck so soft, his girdle across his chest that holds his tunic in place, so that some of it is drawn taut, other parts allowed to billow out. Did not the whole composition soothe the spirit to rest? For he seemed like one singing a melody, and one could hear him strumming, so they say, at noon-tide. Ah, blessed ears that did so! For his song was in praise of our country. And I see him as if pouring a libation from his golden bowl . . . and as the fire spreads it destroys first the Apollo, almost touching as he does the roof, then the other statues, the Muses fair, the portraits of the Founders, the sparkling stones, the graceful columns.”Libanios 60.8-12 (selections)
To this Ammianus 22.73.1 adds that the image was the size of the Zeus at Olympia. For a coin-picture see Stewart 1990, fig. 629, and for other possible replicas, Linfert 1983, though the colossal marble in Rome claimed by Herrmann 1973 as a replica has now been shown by M. Fuchs 1982 to belong to a first-century Muses group in mixed classical and Pergamene style, from Pompey's theater-complex. To link Bryaxis' Seleukos (N.H. 34.73), the "Founder" of T 147, and the Herculaneum bust (Naples, Museo Nazionale 5590; Stewart 1990, fig. 630) is perhaps equally unwarranted, for Lysippos and one Aristodemos both made portraits of him too (IG 14.206; N.H. 34.86), but no less tempting for all that. As for the Sarapis, Bryaxis' authorship was noted by a respected first- century historian from Tarsos, Athenodoros (FGH 746 F 3):
“The image of Apollo was constructed as follows: the body was made of wood of the vine, and fitted together with such astonishing skill as to seem like a single, indivisible piece; it was draped in a golden tunic that allowed the nude and ungilded parts of the body to shine forth with inexpressible beauty. It stood with a kithara in one hand, in the attitude of one leading the Muses. Its hair and crown of laurel, intertwined, were of gold and shone with a grace that flashed like lightning into one's eyes. Two enormous aquamarine (hyakinthos) stones filled the cavities of its eyes, alluding to Hyakinthos, the boy of Amyklai; and the beauty and size of these stones completed the statue's prodigious embellishment.”Philostorgios, Historia Ecclesiastica p. 87, 19-88, 9 ed. Bidez
This problematic account has been perceptively analyzed by Hornbostel 1973, 36-58. He remarks that since the name Bryaxis is rare and the sculptor was not ranked among the great masters, the attribution is unlikely to be fabricated, for in such cases antiquity invariably selected a virtuoso like Pheidias or Praxiteles (q.v.). Yet the ascription to Sesostris (Dyn. XII: 1971-1840 B.C.), invented by a tradition-hungry priesthood, either entailed postulating an earlier namesake for the sculptor (cf. T 149) or quietly consigning him to oblivion (as, e.g. Plutarch, Moralia 361-2; Tacitus, Histories 4.83-4). Thus the sculptor must either be the 'Athenian' Bryaxis after all, presumably the artist of T 107-08, or his son or grandson. Hornbostel opts for the former, updating the Sarapis and overlooking the chronology of the Apollo (for Seleukos, the "founder" of T 147, acquired Syria only in 301, and founded Antioch shortly after). Consequently, I prefer to ascribe the statue to a second Bryaxis, following e.g. Bieber 1961b, 83-84. As for the description of Bryaxis' method, this clearly conflates the chryselephantine technique with the finishing touches of color. Other sources (e.g. Rufinus, Hist. Eccl. 11.23) speak of a wooden core, and the use of gold and precious stones parallels T 148. For the numerous replicas see Hornbostel 1973, 59-102; cf. Stewart 1990, figs. 632-34: statuette of the Sarapis (Museo Ostiense 1125), head of the Sarapis (Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum GR 15.1850); others give him the Zeus from Otricoli on general stylistic grounds. Select bibliography: see Bryaxis I, with: Egger 1889 (Apollo); Bieber 1961b, 83-84; Coarelli 1971-72: 99-106 (Pasiphae); Fraser 1972, 246-59 (Sarapis); Herrmann 1973 (Apollo); Hornbostel 1973 (Sarapis); M. Fuchs 1982 (Apollo); Linfert 1983 (Apollo); Smith 1989, 23, 65-66 (Seleukos, Sarapis).
“Athenodoros son of Sandon . . . says that Sesostris the Egyptian king, having conquered most of the nations of Greece, brought back with him to Egypt a number of skilled craftsmen. He ordered that a lavish statue of his own ancestor, Osiris, should be made, and the artist Bryaxis did so — not the Athenian, but another of the same name — using a mixture of variegated materials in its construction. He had filings of gold, silver, bronze, iron, lead, and even tin; and not a single Egyptian stone was lacking, including sapphire, hematite, emerald, and topaz also. He ground them all up, mixed them together, and colored them dark blue, so that the statue is almost black, and mingling this with the pigment left over from the funeral rites of Osiris and Apis, he made Sarapis; the god's very name implies this connexion with the funeral rites, and construction from material for burial, since Osirapis is a compound from Osiris and Apis.”Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus 4.43
Sculptors Active at PergamonThe only list of such artists is given by Pliny:
For the possibility that the source was Antigonos himself see Gallet de Santerre 1983, 85-86 with T 145. At this point we move definitively into the "black hole" between the classical and neo-classical masters; for although T 1 dates Phyromachos to 296-293, there seems little doubt that he was really active considerably later (see below). To take each name in turn:
“Several artists have represented the battles of Attalus and Eumenes against the Gauls: Isigonus, Pyromachus, Stratonicus, and Antigonus, who wrote books about his art.”Pliny, N.H. 34.84
Epigonos son of Charios of Pergamon
EpigonosSince Pliny's Isigonos is otherwise unknown, and he mentions Epigonos (known from inscriptions as the leading sculptor of late third-century Pergamon) a little later, the two are usually equated:
These are slim pickings, and only the lucky survival of a putative copy of the Trumpeter (Rome, Museo Capitolino 747; Stewart 1990, figs. 666-70) and the eight signed bases from the citadel allow the reconstruction of a strong personality who stands at the heart of Pergamene sculpture of the later third century; the mother-and-child group has yet to be identified (cf. Wenning 1984, 43 n. 277). On five of the bases only the signature is preserved, a sixth carried a portrait of a certain Leontes, and the remaining two bore victory dedications by the general Epigenes and the army, and by Attalos himself, for the Kaikos and other battles. Both were erected, it seems, shortly after 223, the date of the last victory mentioned.
“Epigonus, who imitated almost all the subjects already mentioned [philosophers, orators, monarchs, athletes, divinities] excelled with his Trumpeter and Weeping Child pitifully caressing its murdered mother.”Pliny, N.H. 34.88
The two extra victories are interpolated from other sources in order to make up the monument's full length. For possible replicas other than the Trumpeter see Wenning 1978, 1-16. Select bibliography: Overbeck 1868/1959, nos. 1994, 2095; Löwy 1885/1976 nos. 154, 157-58; Stuart-Jones 1895/1966, 217-20; RE 6: 69-71 (Robert, 1909); ThB 10: 576-77 (Amelung, 1914); Lippold 1950, 341-42; Schober 1951, 53-68, 156-60; EAA 3: 368-9 (Cressedi, 1960); Bieber 1961b, 108-09; Künzl 1968, 118-27; 1971; Hansen 1971, 301-05; M. Robertson 1975, 533-34; Wenning 1978; Coarelli 1978; Gallet de Santerre 1983, 265-66; Ridgway 1984a, 103-04; H.-J. Schalles 1985, 68-104; Holscher 1985; Pollitt 1986, 84-90; Hebert 1989, nos. 343, 348; Pollitt 1990, 113; Ridgway 1990a, 284-90; Stewart 1990, 59, 62, 205-07, 210, 212, 216, 301-03, 325; R.R.R. Smith 1991, 99-104.
“The Works of EpigonosKing Attalos [dedicated] these thank-offerings to Athena from his struggles in war: (1): From the battle at the source of the Kaikos river against the Tolistoagian Galatians (2): [From a battle against the Tolistoagians and Antiochos Hierax: hypothesis] (3): From the battle at the Aphrodision against the Tolistoagian and Tektosagian Galatians and Antiochos (Hierax) (4): From the battle in Hellespontine Phrygia (5): From the battle at Koloe against Antiochos (Hierax) (6): From the battle at [ ] in Karia against Antiochos (Hierax) (7): [From a battle against E....... and the generals of Seleukos II Kallinikos: hypothesis] (8): From the battle at [ ] against Lysias and the generals of Seleukos”Pergamon 8.1.21-8
Phyromachos (and Nikeratos) of Athens
NikeratosT 115 includes Phyromachos among the four great andriantopoioi of Greek sculpture — the only post-classical master thus honored. Since his date (T 1: 296-293) is fiercely controversial, it is best to begin by listing his works and those of his collaborator, Nikeratos son of Euktemon. Nikeratos was evidently the senior, since his name always comes first when the two sign together:
- Asklepios and Hygieia in bronze, later taken to Rome
- The Spartan king Demaratos and his mother sacrificing, in bronze
- Glaukippe, later in Rome
- Telesilla, later in Rome (T 136）
- Dedication of Sosikrates (several bronzes) in honor of Philetairos of Pergamon, on Delos (T 153）
- A statue (Nike or a portrait?) at Pergamon
- Various portraits, athletes, philosophers in bronze
- Nikeratos and Phyromachos
- Alkibiades in a chariot, in bronze
- A bronze statue on Delos
- A dedication to Athena at Pergamon
- A statue at Kyzikos
Since Philetairos is called makarios , "blessed", the group (portraits or a battle-scene?) commemorates his death in 262, though may postdate it by no long interval: the Celtic victories of his successors (from ca. 237: T 152) are not mentioned, and the letter-forms closely resemble a Delian dedication datable on historical grounds to 277-239 (Marcadé 1957, 83). The phrase "choice works" suggests a well-established reputation. Despite e.g. Bieber 1961b, 107 and M. Robertson 1975, 533, the fallen Celt from the Agora of the Italians (N.B.) does not belong to this monument: Athens, NM 247; cf. Stewart 1990, fig. 838, with Marcadé 1969, 115. As for the joint commissions, (1) combines Pliny, N.H. 34.80 and 88 (cf. Marcadé 1957, 102 verso ; Gallet de Santerre 1983, 260) and presumably relates to Alkibiades' exile in Asia (cf. Nikeratos no. 2), while (2)-(4) are inscribed bases, untitled. Before leaving Nikeratos, however, it is worth remarking that a Mikion son of Nikeratos was working at Delphi before 215 (Paus. 6.12.4, Paus. 15.6; SEG 17.196); though he signs as a Syracusan, he could easily have emigrated West and received citizenship there. Finally, Phyromachos. The Asklepios (1) was plundered in 156 by the Bithynian king Prusias, but returned almost immediately at Rome's insistence:
“O blest Philetairos, our lord who for godlike poets
And skilful modellers shows equal care;
These proclaim your great power, the first with hymns,
The others with display of the skill of their hands.
Since once you brought swift Ares against the Celts, unlucky in war,
And drove them far beyond your land's frontiers,
These choice works of Nikeratos did Sosikrates
Set up for you, in sea-girt Delos,
As a memorial, famous in song; and not even Hephaistos himself,
Beholding their art would censure it.
For coin-pictures see Stewart 1990, fig. 679; Andreae 1990 has recently shown that a superb marble head in Syracuse is a copy. His attempt to connect it with a seated statue in Cherchel, however, is less convincing, for among other discrepancies the coins show that the Asklepios was standing. The only full-length marble copy seems to be a statue in Herakleion: Kranz 1989, pl. 47, 4. Even though the ancient authors ignored it, the Antisthenes (3) has fared rather better, for the signed base, a renewal, was discovered at Ostia in 1969,
“King Prusias of Bithynia, having failed in his design on Attalos, destroyed the sanctuary outside the walls, known as the Nikephorion, and plundered the temple. He also carried off the statues, the images of the gods, and the famous cult-image of Asklepios, supposed to be the work of Phyromachos, a piece of extraordinary workmanship, and plundered all the shrines.”Diodoros 31.35
This discovery led immediately to the association of Antisthenes' (hitherto) unattributed but clearly Hellenistic portrait type, known in a dozen marble replicas (Vatican, Sala delle Muse 288; Stewart 1990, fig. 678), with the great andriantopoios . These two works establish Phyromachos as a leading sculptor of the "baroque" style in Pergamon, perhaps even (given his stellar reputation, T 115), its instigator. This brings us, in turn, to the thorny question of his chronology. Andreae 1980 and Andreae 1990 uses the similarity of the Asklepios and the Antisthenes to the head of the Naples giant from the "Small" dedication (Naples, Museo Nazionale 6014; Stewart 1990, fig. 688) to down-date Phyromachos to the mid second century. Yet since the original monument was probably set up at Athens in 200, then copied in Pergamon somewhat later (perhaps after Eumenes II's suppression of the great Celtic revolt in 166), these figures may well be copies of copies, and the comparanda belong around 200 rather than 160. Indeed, if Phyromachos really were active as late as this, as Andreae argues, one is entitled to ask why Pliny's source placed his floruitin 296-293, when "the art ceased", not in 156-153, when it "revived again" (T 1). This low chronology also conflicts with the evidence of T 153 that Nikeratos was active around or shortly after 250, and with the terminal date of ca. 200 established for the citation in T 150 if Antigonos (see below) were really its source. More compelling is Pliny's note in N.H. 35.135 that Phyromachos's pupil Herakleides of Macedon (a painter: N.H. 35.146) moved to Athens in 168; though we have no idea of his age at the time, this and T 153 locate Phyromachos's activity between the later 3rd century and ca. 170. This in turn explains his supposed floruit in 296-293 (T 1): though he fell in the "black hole" between the two dates, he was too famous to be ignored (T 115), and so Pliny's source naturally put him with his peers in the late classical period, not with his "inferiors" of the mid second century. Pliny's mention of another painter taught by Phyromachos in N.H. 35.146 is powerful evidence that he was a painter himself, like some of the great sculptors of the classic period: an all-round virtuoso indeed. Yet while Nikeratos and Phyromachos remain only vaguely dated, Stratonikos of Kyzikos (a well-known toreutes and maker of philosopher-portraits, N.H. 34.85, 90, etc.) appears on a Delian inscription of 235/4, where a certain kind of metal vessel is called "Stratonikean" (Inscriptions de Delos 313 line 33). Unfortunately, no further work of his is known.
“Plato, poet of the Old Comedy. Lysikles made it.
Antisthenes the philosopher. Phyromachos made it.
Charite, prophetess in Delphi. Phradmon of Argos made it.
”AJA 75 (1971): 434, pl. 95
Antigonos of Karystos
AntigonosFollowing Wilamowitz' brilliant monograph of 1881(Wilamowitz-Moellendorf 1881), many scholars now accept that the Antigonus whom Pliny explicitly acknowledges as a source in T 145 and N.H. 35.67-8 is indeed the Antigonos of Karystos who wrote on painting and sculpture (T 78, cf. commentary to T 19, 35, and 41-2), and who also produced a Lives of the Philosophers. In his study of toreutike he used Xenokrates' book as a framework for material drawn both from his own research and from others', chiefly Douris of Samos (cf. T 124), enriching Xenokrates' rather dry analyses with appropriate biographical and anecdotal material. His work on marble sculpture (T 78, cf. commentary to T 19) was evidently published as a separate book. Learned in both iconography and texts, and attentive to epigraphy, he emerges as the true prototype of the modern art historian; predictably, his impact upon ancient writing about art was enormous, thanks to Varro's liberal use of his books. Wilamowitz reconstructs his life as follows: a pupil of the philosopher Menedemos of Eretria (ca. 339-265), he spent his mature years traveling in the Aegean area, presumably both working as a sculptor and collecting material for his books. The later third century found him based at Pergamon, where he continued to practice his craft and (in his old age) wrote the Lives , the last of whose subjects died in 205. He himself cannot have lived much longer. His own sculpture is lost, and attempts to attribute the so-called Pasquino group (head of "Menelaos" from a copy of the group Vatican, Sala dei Busti 311) to him (Stewart 1990, figs. 745-47) are pure conjecture. If his Celtic groups were in the up-to-date Pergamene manner, as Attalid tastes presumably would have dictated, then his own private sympathies were apparently very different, leaning to the classical (cf. N.H. 35.67-8): a peculiarly Hellenistic dilemma. In this, as in so much else, he seems very much a man of his times. Select bibliography: (A) General: Wilamowitz-Moellendorf 1881 (Antigonos); RE 1: 2421-42 (Robert, 1894); 17: 314-16; 20: 1033 (Lippold 1936, 1941); 4A: 327-28 (Lippold, 1931); ThB 1: 557 (Amelung, 1907); 25: 474-75 (Bieber, 1931); 26: 560 (v[on] L[ücken] 1932); 32: 161-62 (Bieber, 1938); Lippold 1950, 320-21; Schober 1951, 70-72; EAA 1: 416 (Ferri, 1958); 5: 475 (Conticello, 1963); 7: 516 (Moreno, 1966); Bieber 1961b, 107-08; Marcadé 1969, 55, 64, 70, 73-75, 77, 119, 262, 363 (Delos monuments); Coarelli 1971-2: 99-106 (portraits in Rome); Hansen 1971, 299-302, 314, 397-403; M. Robertson 1975, 531-33; Wenning 1978, 42-46; Stewart 1979, 6-25; Andreae 1980; H.-J. Schalles 1985, 39 n. 263, 48 n. 310, 101 n. 620, 108 n. 651; Hölscher 1985; Pollitt 1986, 84-85; Kranz 1989 (Phyromachos); Andreae 1990 (Phyromachos); Ridgway 1990a, 290-96, 301; Stewart 1990, 21, 23, 27-28, 37, 62, 64, 69, 207-09, 238, 244, 251, 255, 269-70, 286, 301-03, 324; R.R.R. Smith 1991, 36, 99-104. (B) Sources: Overbeck 1868/1959, nos. 1998-2005; Jex-Blake 1896, xxxvi-xlv (Antigonos); Münzer 1895, 519-37 (Antigonos); Gallet de Santerre 1983, 265-67; Hebert 1989, nos. 188, 258, 265, 330, 332, 336, 340-41, 343-44, 349, 351, 484, 366, 517; Andreae 1990, 61-72 (Phyromachos); Pollitt 1990, 113-14. After this, the texts fall silent, and though inscriptions tell of many other artists in Pergamon, all are mere names apart from the authors of the plunder rededicated to Athena Polias Nikephoros: these included Boupalos of Chios (T 18), Onatas of Aegina (T 36-38), Myron (T 43-45), Demetrios of Alopeke (T 91), Praxiteles (T 93-106), Silanion (T 119-20), and Xenokrates (T 145-46): Löwy 1885/1976 no. 154; Pergamon 8.1 nos. 46-50, 135-42.
The Second-Century Neo-ClassicistsIncluded here are representatives of three major centers of second-century sculptural production, the Peloponnese, Athens, and Asia Minor. Once again, many more names are known from (usually laconic) remarks in Pliny (cf. T 1) and Pausanias, but these cannot be included here: cf. Overbeck 1868/1959, nos. 2006-2101, 2235ff., with Löwy 1885/1976 nos. 127-312; Marcadé 1957 and Marcadé 1969, 55-82 (Delos); RE Suppl. 5: 827-32 (von Gaertringen, 1931) and Goodlett 1991 (Rhodes); Stewart 1979, 162-66 (Athens); and esp. Lippold 1950, 348-79 (synopsis).
Damophon son of Xenophilos(?) of Messene.
DamophonDamophon was ignored by Pliny's source for T 1, which has stirred some controversy about his date. Coins recently discovered under the base of the Lykosoura group led the excavator to propose (and then retract) a Hadrianic date; yet though certainly repaired in Hadrianic times, both this and his statues for Messene surely go with their respective temples, around 200-150. Supporting this date are several local inscriptions naming his sons, written in a persuasively second-century script: BCH 91 (1967): 540-41. His known works are as follows:
- Mother of the Gods in Parian marble, at Messene
- Artemis Laphria at Messene
- Asklepios and his sons, Apollo, the Muses, Herakles, Thebes, Tyche, and Artemis Laphria of stone, at Messene
- Akrolithic Eileithuia at Aigion
- Asklepios and Hygieia at Aigion
- Artemis, Asklepios, and Hygieia (a relief) at Megalopolis
- Colossal Demeter (stone) and Kore (akrolithic) at Megalopolis
- Miniature Athena and Artemis at Megalopolis
- Miniature Herakles at Megalopolis
- A table with the Horai, Pan, Apollo, and the Birth of Zeus in relief, at Megalopolis
- Akrolithic Hermes and Aphrodite Machanitis at Megalopolis
- Demeter, Despoina, Artemis and Anytos at Lykosoura (T 156）
On these statues see Stewart 1990, figs. 788-92: reconstruction of the sanctuary of Despoina (
“The actual images of the goddesses [at Lykosoura], Despoina ["the Mistress"] and Demeter, together with the throne on which they sit, and the footstool under their feet, are all made from one piece of stone. No parts of the drapery, nor the carvings about the throne, are fastened to another stone by iron or cement, but all are of one block. This stone was not imported, but they say that after a vision in a dream they excavated within the sanctuary and found it. The size of both images corresponds roughly to that of the Mother at Athens; these too are works of Damophon. Demeter carries a torch in her right hand, and has laid her other hand upon Despoina. Despoina has a scepter and the so-called chest on her knees, which she holds with her right hand.Beside the throne stand, first, Artemis alongside Demeter, draped in a fawn-skin and with a quiver on her shoulders, holding in one hand a torch, in the other two snakes; by her side lies a bitch, of a breed suitable for hunting. Near the image of Despoina stands Anytos, represented in the form of a man in armor. Those around the sanctuary say that Despoina was brought up by Anytos, who was one of the so-called Titans. . . . The story of the Kouretes, who are represented under the images, and that of the Korybantes (a different race from the Kouretes), carved in relief on the base, I know, but pass by.”
The Polykles family from Thorikos (Attica)
PolyklesIn the second century the Polykles family occupied a position in Athens second only to that of the Praxiteles clan in the fourth. Capitalizing upon their rising fortunes, occasioned by commissions from Aitolians, Romans, Athenians, and others, they enrolled their teenage children in the ephebia , the educational program for the elite, and volunteered as festival officials and mint magistrates (sources: Stewart 1979, 108; Habicht 1982, 172, 178-80); all these high-profile activities involved considerable expense. Unfortunately, owing to the popular practice of repeating or alternating the same names over several generations, the family tree is extremely problematic, though absolute dates for their activities, which extend throughout the century, are quite plentiful. For the alternatives (neither very satisfactory) see most recently Stewart 1979, 42-44; Habicht 1982, 178-80. The issue is too complicated to address here, but it seems likely that more individuals are involved than either reconstruction allows. Since, in addition, to decide which family member among the various namesakes made which statue is often impossible, a complete list of their works (17 in all, involving at least 7 sculptors) would only be confusing. Instead, a selection of the most important sources must suffice to indicate the range (geographical and thematic) of their output:
“By the Porticus Octaviae an Apollo made by the Rhodian Philiscus stands in his own shrine, together with a Leto, a Diana, the nine Muses, and another, nude Apollo. Timarchides made Apollo who holds a cithara in the same temple, and in the temple of Juno that stands with the Porticus the goddess herself, while Dionysius and Polycles made another, Philiscus the Venus in the same place, and Praxiteles [or Pasiteles] the rest of the statues. The same Polycles and Dionysus, the sons of Timarchides, made the Jupiter in the shrine next door. . .”Pliny, N.H. 36.34-35
“Does Metellus Scipio really not know that his great-grandfather was never censor? Certainly the statue recently placed on high near the temple of Ops is only inscribed COS. But that near the Hercules of Polycles is inscribed COS.CENS.”Cicero, Letters to Atticus 6.1.17
“[In Elateia] there is a temple built to Asklepios, with a bearded image of the god. The names of its makers are Timokles and Timarchides, Athenians by birth . . . . About twenty stades from the city is a sanctuary of Athena surnamed Kranaia . . . This image too was made by the sons of Polycles, and is armed as if for battle; on the shield is a copy of what at Athens is wrought on the shield of the statue the Athenians call the Parthenos.”
As well as cult statues and portraits, they produced victor-statues and worked in other genres too. Attributions include the Cyrene-type Apollo (London 1380) and the Medusa Rondanini (Munich 252; Stewart 1990, figs. 783-85), though the Apollo (cf. T 157) has recently been challenged: LIMC 2.1: 366-67 nos. 5-7 (Simon 1984); but see La Rocca 1984, 639 n. 48. The family's continuing commitment to the neo-classical style, which unfortunately evoked no response from critics bar the condescending citation in T 1, is illustrated by the Ofellius (T 160), carved near the end of the century. The statue has now been reconstructed and is fully published by Queyrel 1991 (cf. R.R.R. Smith 1991, fig. 316); the reconstruction in Stewart 1990, fig. 839, published too early to take account of Queyrel's work, should hold a sword in the left hand and perhaps a spear in the right. Select bibliography: Overbeck 1868/1959, nos. 2206-13; Löwy 1885/1976 nos. 241a-242; RE 5: 1000-01 (Robert, 1905); 21: 1724-26 (Lippold, 1952); 6A: 123-24, 1263 (Lippold, 1936); ThB 9: 316 (Amelung, 1913); 27: 231 (v[on] L[ücken] 1933); 33: 175-76, 180 (Bieber, 1939); Becatti 1936; Becatti 1940, 16-19, 33-39, 56-58; Lippold 1950, 551-52, 598; Marcadé 1957, 41, 108, 131-32; EAA 3: 118 (Catteruccia, 1960); 6: 298-300 (Guerrini, 1965); 7: 856-58, 859-60 (Moreno, 1966); Bieber 1961b, 125, 130, 146, 160, 171-72; Marcadé 1969, 78-79, 117-19; Coarelli 1969; M. Robertson 1975, 551-52, 598; Stewart 1979, 42-46, 67, 70, 102-03, 108, 139; Habicht 1982; Gallet de Santerre 1983, 213-14; LIMC 2.1: 257 no. 586, 366-67 nos. 5-7, 383 no. 61, 409 no. 329 (Palagia, Simon, 1984); Pollitt 1986, 75, 149, 162-63, 169, 173-74, 313 n. 12; Hebert 1989, nos. 341, 352, 365, 404, 410; Pollitt 1990, 122-23; Ridgway 1990a, 329-30; Stewart 1990, 52, 83, 220-21, 225, 230, 237-38, 304-05, 318: Queyrel 1991.
“The Italians [dedicated this statue of] Gaius Ofellius Ferus, son of Marcus
Because of his fair-dealing and benevolence to them,
Dionysios son of Timarchides and Timarchides son of Polykles, Athenians, made it.
”Inscriptions de Délos 1688
Boethos of Kalchedon
BoethosBoethos, the most celebrated silversmith of his day, also produced high-quality bronzes:
Both activities were, after all, branches of toreutike , involving cast, embossed, and engraved metalwork. Statues associated with him are:
“Boethus, though he is better in silver, did a child strangling a goose by hugging it.”Pliny, N.H. 34.84
- "Agon" (Eros Enagonios) and a signed herm in bronze, found in a wreck off Mahdia, near Tunis
- Asklepios as a baby, later in Rome (T 162）
- Boy strangling a goose, in bronze (T 161）
- Nude boy in gilded bronze, in the Heraion at Olympia (T 93）
- A statue dedicated by himself at Lindos, in thanks for a proxeny
- Antiochos IV Epiphanes of Syria, dedicated by an Athenian on Delos
- Epigenes of Melite in bronze, dedicated by the traders and shippers on Delos (with Theodosios)
As for (4), KALCEDONIOS and KARCADONIOS are easily confused, so Pausanias may well have meant the putative author of (1) - (3); W. Fuchs 1963, 31 gives further reasons for thinking that he, not our 'Boethos I' was the great toreutes celebrated in the sources. As for attributions, (3) has been recognized in popular type best represented by a group in Munich, but scholars cannot agree whether to date this ca. 250 or 150. Its compact, pyramidal composition, which looks like a precedent for the Suicidal Celt, suggests the former, its very "rococo" treatment and advanced modeling, the latter. The motif was already known in the early third century (Herondas 4.31, at Kos: not to be identified with Boethos' statue); Kozloff 1980 plausibly interprets the Munich boy as Harpokrates. Picard 1947 gives Boethos the New York Eros (New York 43.11.4; Stewart 1990, fig. 821), which was also copied in antiquity; the wing-feathers, so similar to those of (1), make this attribution more attractive than most. Yet despite his neoclassical leanings and high, even proverbial reputation (add ps.-Vergil, Culex 67) Boethos too has suffered from the general neglect of Hellenistic art by later connoisseurs. Pliny mentions him but three times, Pausanias (T 93) only once, and other critics not at all. Select bibliography: (A) General: RE 3: 604-7 (Robert, 1899); ThB 4: 208-09 (Amelung, 1910); Lippold 1950, 328-29, 352, 367, 371; Rumpf 1952; EAA 2: 118-20 (Laurenzi, 1959); Bieber 1961b, 81-82, 136-37, 145; Marcadé 1969, 78; M. Robertson 1975, 561; Andreae 1976; Pollitt 1986, 128, 140-41, 269; Stewart 1990, 229-30, 305-06. (B) Sources: Overbeck 1868/1959, nos. 1596-1600, 2167, 2184; Löwy 1885/1976 nos. 210, 535; Stuart-Jones 1895/1966, 213-14; Marcadé 1957, 28-31; Gallet de Santerre 1983, 85-86, 267-69; Hebert 1989, nos. 332, 343, 399, 496, 508; Pollitt 1990, 115-16, 234. (C) Individual works: Richter 1943 (Eros); Picard 1947 (Eros); W. Fuchs 1963 (Mahdia); Künzl 1968 (Boy and Goose); Kozloff 1980 (Boy and Goose); Rolley 1983/1986, 54, 194-96 (Mahdia); Ridgway 1990a, 232-33, 327-28 (Boy and Goose, Eros, Agon).
“Nikomedes the doctor dedicated this in grateful thanks to Asklepios.
This image most fair of a god's fair child,
Born of youthful Paian and a mother new-delivered,
Did you, Boethos, make with skill and cunning,
A memorial to the cleverness of your hands;
Both in thanks for recovery from sickness, and as witness of
The deftness of men of old, did Nikomedes set you up.
Greek Sculptors and Rome
PasitelesA Greek from South Italy given Roman citizenship in 89 (T 163), Pasiteles was a contemporary of Pompey the Great (106-48) (N.H. 33.156) and the leading sculptor of his day. Pliny tells us what little we know of him:
“Varro also admires Pasiteles, who wrote a five-volume treatise on Noble Works of Art throughout the World. He was born on the Greek coast of Italy and was given Roman citizenship along with the towns there [89/88]. He made the ivory Jupiter in the temple of Metellus at the entrance to the Campus Martius. It so happened that once he was at the docks, where there were wild beasts from Africa, and was peering into the cage of a lion which he was engraving, when a panther broke out of another cage and caused no slight danger to this most diligent of artists. He is said to have made many works, but their titles are not recorded.”Pliny, N.H. 36.39-40
His reputation, then, was based equally on his writing and on his metalwork, making him a scholar-artist in the tradition of Xenokrates and Antigonos. Pliny lists his writings as a source for all four books of the Natural History that deal with art (cf. T 145), but it is doubtful if he read them himself. Most likely, as T 163-64 suggest, he simply followed Varro. As a result, the contents of Pasiteles' treatise have proved quite elusive, and even its title appears in two versions — "Marvelous Works" (T 145) and "Noble Works" (T 163). As Pollitt 1974, 402-04 recognizes, each colors his purpose in slightly different ways. In particular, the latter sounds more thoroughly neo-classical than the former, for sculpture can be "marvelous" (technically adventurous, huge, or whatever) without necessarily being "classic". One senses a man in total sympathy with the Neo-Attic currents of his time, but the connection cannot quite be proved. The same tantalizing uncertainty exists with regard to his sculptures. Pliny (T 157?, 163) knew of only one by name, and no signed examples have survived — though two generations of his workshop are represented in signed, costively pseudo-classical productions of almost stupefying sentimentality (Stewart 1990, figs. 860-61: athlete signed by Stephanos; Orestes and Elektra signed by Menelaos: Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano (Terme) 8604); his pupil Stephanos reappears in T 167. His own work was surely more lively, as the anecdote in T 163 and another told by Cicero suggest:
“Varro also praised Pasiteles, who called modelling the mother of sculpture in metal and stone, and who, although he was preeminent in these arts, never made anything before he had made a clay model.”Pliny, N.H. 35.156
Yet before one brands him a realist pure and simple, T 164 should give pause. Like Lysistratos (T 133) and other supposed latter-day "realists" such as Corot, Constable, and Rodin, he actually never worked without an intermediary: the aim, as ever, was the illusion of mimesis as representation, not as direct imitation. In this, as in his reverence for the past, his versatility, and his extraordinary attention to finish, he stands in the mainstream of Hellenistic art. Select bibliography: Overbeck 1868/1959, nos. 1210, 2167, 2202, 2207, 2262-65; Jex-Blake 1896, lxxvii-lxxxii; ThB 26: 271 (Bieber, 1932); RE 18: 2087-89 (Lippold, 1949); Lippold 1950, 386; Borda 1953; Bieber 1961b, 181-82; EAA 5: 984-85 (Homann-Wedeking, 1963); Ridgway 1970, 135-37; Pollitt 1974, 78-79, 353-54, 357, 397, 402-04; Zanker 1974, 49-70; M. Robertson 1975, 600-01; Ridgway 1981, 237-38; M. Fuchs 1982, 77-78; Pollitt 1986, 163, 165, 175, 268; Pollitt 1990, 120; Stewart 1990, 21, 25, 64, 69, 230, 299, 306-07.
“And what about your charming and beloved friend, [the actor] Roscius? Did he lie or did the whole of Lanuvium lie on his behalf? For when he was still in the cradle and was being brought up in Solonium, an area in the territory of Lanuvium, his nurse once woke up suddenly in the night and by the light of a lamp noticed the boy, still asleep, with a snake coiled about him. Terrified at the sight, she sounded the alarm, but his father referred the matter to the soothsayers, who replied that the boy would attain unrivaled eminence and glory. Pasiteles engraved the scene in silver, and our friend Archias has described it in verse.”Cicero, de Divinatione 1.36.79
ArkesilaosOur only source here is Pliny, once again quoting Varro, who makes it clear that Arkesilaos (whose home and parentage are also unknown) was a contemporary of Pasiteles:
There are some minor chronological difficulties here: Caesar's Forum was begun in 51 and dedicated in 46, yet L. Lucullus died soon after his brother Marcus (58); perhaps, then, the Lucullus mentioned at the end is the younger, who fell at Philippi in 42. The range of Arkesilaos' output shows that he was quite as versatile as Pasiteles:
“Varro also speaks highly of Arcesilaus, the friend of L. Lucullus, whose clay maquettes used to sell for more among artists themselves, than the finished work of others. He made the Venus Genetrix in Caesar's Forum, which was dedicated in a hurry before it was complete. He was contracted by Lucullus to make a statue of Happiness (Felicitas) for 1 million sesterces, which was prevented by the death of both parties; and that when Octavius the eques ("knight") wanted him to make a krater he produced an archetype in plaster for the price of a talent.”Pliny, N.H. 35.155
- Venus Genetrix, in Caesar's Forum (T 166）
- Felicitas, for her temple at Rome (T 166）
- Nymphs riding Centaurs, in marble, in Pollio's collection (T 167）
- Lioness teased by Cupids, in Varro's collection
- Plaster models for toreutic work (T 166）
The direction of Pollio's tastes (cf. also T 134) are clear: late classical and Hellenistic marbles with often erotic or Dionysiac themes, carved by leading sculptors, often in the Praxitelean neo-Attic tradition. A marble sea-Centaur abducting a Nereid with Cupids sporting around, in the Vatican, is often mentioned along with (3) on the strength of this passage: in style it strongly recalls the Munich slabs from the "Ahenobarbus Ara" (Stewart 1990, figs. 843-44: marriage of Poseidon and Amphitrite: Munich 239; Nereid on hippocamp). At any rate, both (3) and (4) were evidently quintessentially late Hellenistic in their virtuoso technique and (pictorially inspired?) eroticism. Above all, it seems, Arkesilaos was concerned that his work be both up-to-date and absolutely in accord with current Roman fashion, and profited hugely thereby. Select bibliography: Overbeck 1868/1959, nos. 2268-70; RE 2: 1168-69 (Robert, 1896); ThB 2: 109-10 (Amelung, 1908); Lippold 1950, 386; EAA 1: 662 (Amorelli, 1958); Bieber 1961b, 150, 181, 184-85; Pollitt 1966, 75, 88-9; M. Robertson 1975, 601; Ridgway 1981, 198-201; Pollitt 1986, 163, 165, 173, 175; Hebert 1989, nos. 336, 376; Stewart 1990, 67, 167, 307-08.
“Asinius Pollio, an ardent enthusiast, naturally wanted his art collection to be seen. In it are the Centaurs carrying Nymphs by Arcesilaus, the Heliconian Muses of Cleomenes, the Oceanus and Jupiter of Heniochus, the Appian Nymphs by Stephanus, the Hermerotes by Tauriscus (not the well-known engraver but the native of Tralles), the Jupiter Hospitalis by Papylus, Praxiteles' pupil, and the group by Apollonius and Tauriscus that was brought from Rhodes: Zethus and Amphion, along with Dirce, the bull, and the rope, all carved from one block. These two artists started a dispute about their parentage, alleging that though Menecrates appeared to be their father, their real father was Artemidorus. In the same collection there is a praiseworthy Liber Pater [Bacchus] by Eutychides.”Pliny, N.H.36.33-4
C. Avianius Evander
EvanderA freedman of the patrician M. Aemilius Avianius, Evander first appears in 46 as a supplier of decorative marbles to a reluctant Cicero:
The transaction is complicated (and the Maenads may not have been Evander's own work, for Cicero says that he had often seen them), but throws much light on the Roman art market in general, and Cicero's tastes in particular. Like the Cossutii (Rawson 1975; Stewart 1990, fig. 861), Evander was both dealer and sculptor, catering to a buyer's market; Gallus had bought the pieces from him, but at too high a price and without considering Cicero's tastes, in particular the decor of his villa. Cicero's exasperation is "barely dissembled under a flurry of courtesies" (D.R. Shackleton-Bailey, Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares II [Cambridge 1977]: 370-3, with excellent commentary), for not only had he given his own freedman precise instructions to the contrary, to no avail, but doubts that another connoisseur, Damasippos, will abide by his promise to underwrite the deal and take the statues in the event that Cicero rejected them. Evander seems to have escaped unscathed from all this, however, for only a few months later Cicero writes to Memmius as follows:
“[To M. Fadius Gallus] I had just got back from Arpinium, when a letter from you was delivered to me; and by the same hand I also got one from Avianius, containing this very generous offer, that when he came, he would enter my debt to him on whatever day I pleased. . . But everything would have been easy, my dear Gallus, had you bought only what I wanted, and that only up to the price I was willing to pay. But still, I will not only ratify the purchases you list in your letter, but be gratified by them too; for I fully understand that you bought up things that pleased you (and I have always judged you to be a man of the most refined taste in all such matters) and which you thought were worthy of me, acting not merely from zeal but out of affection too.Still, I should like Damasippus to stick to his intention. For in fact, out of all your purchases there is not one which I really want. You, though, in ignorance of my principles, bought these four or five statues at a price beyond what I would pay for all the statuary in creation. You compare your Maenads with Metellus's Muses. Where is the comparison? To begin with, I would never have thought those Muses worth so much money, and all the Muses would have agreed. But they would at least have been appropriate to my library and in keeping with my studies: where on earth do I put the Maenads? They are pretty little figures, of course: I know them well, and have often seen them. Had I fancied them, I would have specifically commissioned you to buy statues that were known to me. For I often buy the sort of sculpture that will embellish a place in my palaestra and give it the appearance of a study center (gymnasium). But a statue of Mars? What do I, the advocate of peace, want with that? I am glad you didn't get one of Saturn too, for I would suspect these two of running me into debt. I would rather a Mercury of some sort, for then I might have had better luck in my business with Avianius. As for the table-support, which you must have intended for yourself, if you like it, keep it; but if you've changed your mind, I will of course keep it. For the money you've spent I must say that I'd much rather have bought a house at Tarracina, so as not always to be a bother to my host there. On the whole I reckon that the fault lies with my freedman, whom I had definitely commissioned to make certain purchases, and also with Junius, whom I think you know, Avianius's friend. I have installed some new sitting-rooms in a little colonnade in my Tusculan villa, and would like to decorate them with pictures; indeed, if anything of that sort gives me any pleasure at all, it is painting.”
Returning some time later to Athens, Evander next attracted the attentions of Mark Antony (perhaps during his state visit in 39). Referring to Horace's remark about a bowl by him, a commentator notes:
“[To Memmius] I am on intimate terms with C. Avianius Evander, who is lodging in your family shrine, and particularly so with his patron M. Aemilius. I therefore beg you, more earnestly than usual, to accommodate him with regard to his residence as far as you can without inconveniencing yourself. For he has so many commissions on hand for so many people that it would really pressure him to move back to his old quarters on July 1. Tact inhibits me from preferring my request at greater length.”Epistulae ad Familiares 13.2
Arriving back in Rome, then, in the winter of 30/29, he was immediately put to work by Augustus, restoring the head of Timotheos' Artemis (T 90) for the cult-group of the new temple of Apollo Palatinus, which was dedicated the very next year, on Oct. 9th, 28. Thereafter, perhaps exhausted by his peregrinations, he disappears from history. Select bibliography: Overbeck 1868/1959, nos. 2227-28; RE 2: 2372-73 (Robert, 1896); 6: 843 (Robert, 1909); ThB 2: 278 (Amelung, 1908); Lippold 1950, 381; EAA 1: 936-37 (Guerrini 1958); Schlörb 1963, 64-68 (Artemis); Pollitt 1966, 78, 89; Stewart 1979, 107, 167; Stewart 1990, 33, 230, 274, 308-09. Numerous other Greek sculptors are attested working for Romans in the first century B.C., most of them either identifiably Attic or affiliated with neo-Attic workshops: cf. Lippold 1950, 386-87; Richter 1951, 41-48; Stewart 1979, 167-69. One or two, like Apollonios son of Nestor, author of the Belvedere torso (Stewart 1990, fig. 856), were craftsmen of the highest order, but most, like his namesake Apollonios son of Archias, who made the Doryphoros herm from the Villa dei Papiri at Herculaneum (Naples, Museo Nazionale 4885; Stewart 1990, fig. 380-81), were merely humdrum. Yet regardless of their talent or lack of it, the sources still fail to bring them to life; our last example, therefore, comes neither from the Attic school nor (most probably) from the first century B.C., but from the early empire:
“Those who write about characters in Horace say that this Evander was an engraver and modeller of statues whom Mark Antony took from Athens to Alexandria, and who, after his transfer to Rome among the prisoners of war, made many marvellous works.”Porphyrius on Horace, Satires 1.3.90
Hagesandros son of Paionios, Polydoros son of Polydoros, and Athanodoros son of Hagesandros, of Rhodes.
AthanodorosThese three men are the first Rhodians since Chares (T 142-3) to emerge in any sense as personalities, though the Apollonios and Tauriskos apparently adopted by Menekrates of Rhodes (T 167, with Jex-Blake 1896, 206-7 on Pliny's misunderstanding) attain a sort of twilight existence through the recovery of a — now much restored — copy of their Dirke group: see Lippold 1950, 383-4, pl. 135,1; Bieber 1961b, 133-4, fig. 529; M. Robertson 1975, 609; Marvin 1983; Lambrinoudakis 1989 (new version on a Roman cuirassed statue). As to Hagesandros and his collaborators, controversy still rages concerning the date of their Laokoon and Sperlonga groups (Stewart 1990, figs. 732-44). The former is described by Pliny as follows:
The arguments (see most recently Simon 1984; Andreae 1988) are far too complicated to address here. Suffice it to say, though, that T 171 and the section following specifically examine the advantages and disadvantages of collaboration; thus, to translate the words de consilii sententia (here, "by common agreement") as "by edict of the [Emperor's] council" and to interpret the similiter ("likewise") that begins the next section as confirming that Titus (or Nero) actually hired the three "in the same way" as earlier emperors had hired other Greeks to embellish the Palatine palaces (so Simon 1984, 646-48; cf. Andreae 1988), is to strain the Latin and ignore the context. Pliny's point remains the simple one that they are all examples of successful collaboration, but for that very reason have slipped from memory, too many names being involved for comfort; he gives no chronological hints whatsoever. Ostensibly more promising is the epigraphical evidence, recently reexamined by Rice 1986. Identifying Athanodoros with the recipient of an important commission on Rhodes in 42, and Hagesandros with one of the dedicants of a Rhodian family monument ca. 50, she revives an old opinion that the Sperlonga sculptures were carved between 40 and 10, the workshop having migrated to Italy in the meantime. Though this is plausible, and can even be reconciled with the presumed patronage of Tiberius (see Stewart 1977b; Andreae 1988; Stewart 1990, 96-99: he was born in 42), it rests on "one crucial assumption ... [that] there is only one Rhodian sculptor by the name of Athanodoros; he is the one Athanodoros listed in Blinkenberg's catalogue of sculptors working in Rhodes" (Rice 1986, 237). Yet since (as she herself admits, p. 236) the Athanodoros family, like other Rhodians, habitually alternated names over the generations, a homonymous grandson of Athanodoros, working between A.D. 21 (when Tiberius virtually retired to Sperlonga) and 26 (when the cave roof partially collapsed, nearly killing him) cannot be ruled out. Preoccupied with arguing her own case for a Neronian date, Simon 1984 overlooks all these issues entirely. As to an initial date, the Sperlonga marbles were surely designed for the grotto: a duplicate arrangement on Rhodes or elsewhere, plundered by some unknown Roman, strains all credulity. This in turn excludes a mid Hellenistic date (Richter 1951; more recently, Conticello 1974), indeed any period before the Augustan, when the cave's circular basin was built. "On the cusp" of Greco-Roman sculpture, the three Rhodians' pivotal position has been neatly characterized by Simon:
“Furthermore, many have little fame, because despite the distinction of their work, the number of artists involved becomes a barrier to recognition, since no single man monopolizes the credit, nor can several of them be recognized on equal terms. Such is the case with the Laocoon in the palace of the emperor Titus, a work to be preferred to any other painting or sculpture. From one stone the eminent craftsmen Hagesander, Polydorus, and Athenodorus of Rhodes made him [Laocoon] and the extraordinary intertwining coils of the snakes, following a plan agreed in advance.”Pliny, N.H. 36.37-8
Together with the continued impact of their work through Michelangelo and the Baroque even into the modern world (where "punk" versions have already appeared) this makes them worthy candidates with which to terminate this survey. Select bibliography: Lessing 1766; Overbeck 1868/1959, nos. 2031-37; Löwy 1885/1976 nos. 203, 446, 479-80, 520, cf. 546; Stuart-Jones 1895/1966, 221-22; RE 2: 2046-7 (Robert, 1896); 7: 2199-2204 (Pfuhl, 1912); ThB 15: 470-72 (Amelung, 1922); Lippold 1950, 384-85); Richter 1951, 67-70; EWA 7: 18, 20, 340-42 (Wegner, Adriani, 1958); 12: 191 (Vlad Borelli, 1958); Magi 1960; EAA 3: 1086-87 (Amorelli, 1960); 4: 467-72 (Magi, Bertelli, 1961); 7: 439-43 (Jacopi, 1966); Bieber 1961b, 134-35; Jacopi 1963; Pollitt, 202; Bieber 1967; Blanckenhagen 1969; Conticello 1974 (review by von Blanckenhagen, AJA 80 : 99-104); Stewart 1977b; Haskell 1981, 243-47; Simon 1984; Conticello 1984; Rice 1986; Andreae 1988; Hebert 1989, nos. 1-5 (Skylla); Pollitt 1990, 114-15; Stewart 1990, 21, 26, 39, 76, 96-99, 212, 215-16, 309-10, 318; Andreae 1991; R.R.R. Smith 1991, 108-11.
“This region, comprising Rhodes, Tralleis, and Aphrodisias must be regarded as the center of marble sculpture in the imperial period, surpassing even Attica in quality. The Vatican Laokoon group stands not at the end of the Hellenistic, but at the beginning of the neo-Hellenistic, a movement in which Rhodes and Caria were to play a special part.”[Simon 1984, 672]