Early Greek Portraiture: Monuments and Histories 1107162238, 9781107162235

Table of contents :
Introduction : Why portraits? --
Portraits among Heroes and Gods. From votive statues to honorific portraits --
Arete, heroism, and divine choice in early Greek portraiture --
Portraits in Greek sanctuaries --
Documenting Archaic and Classical Greek History. Retrospective portraits as historical documents --
Early Greek portraits under Roman rule : removal, renewal, reuse, and reinscription --
Conclusion : The limits of representation.

Citation preview

i

EARLY GREEK PORTRAITURE MONUMENTS AND HISTORIES

In this book, Catherine M. Keesling lends new insight into the origins of civic honorific portraits that emerged at the end of the fifth century bc in ancient Greece. Surveying the subjects, motives, and display contexts of Archaic and Classical portrait sculpture, she demonstrates that the phenomenon of portrait representation in Greek culture is complex and without a single, unifying history. Bringing a multi-​disciplinary approach to the topic,  Keesling grounds her study in contemporary texts such as Herodotus’ Histories and situates portrait representation within the context of contemporary debates about the nature of arete (excellence), the value of historical commemoration, and the relationship between the human individual and the gods and heroes. She argues that often the goal of Classical portraiture was to link the individual to divine or heroic models. Offering an overview of the role of portraits in Archaic and Classical Greece, her study includes local histories of the development of Greek portraiture in sanctuaries such as Olympia, Delphi, and the Athenian Acropolis. Catherine M.  Keesling is Associate Professor of Classics at Georgetown University. She is the author of The Votive Statues of the Athenian Acropolis (Cambridge University Press 2003), as well as journal articles and book chapters on Greek sculpture of the Archaic and Classical periods and its reception, Greek epigraphy, and commemorative monuments.

ii

iii

EARLY GREEK PORTRAITURE MONUMENTS AND HISTORIES CATHERINE M. KEESLING Georgetown University

iv

University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne,VIC 3207, Australia 4843/​24, 2nd Floor, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi –​110002, India 79 Anson Road, #06-​04/​06, Singapore 079906 Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107162235 DOI: 10.1017/​9781316676998 © Catherine M. Keesling 2017 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2017 Printed in the United States of America by Sheridan Books, Inc. A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library. ISBN 978-​1-​107-​16223-​5 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-​party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

v

Professoribus optimis

vi

vii

CONTENTS

Figures page ix Tables

xi

Acknowledgments

xii

Note on Text/​Translation

xiv

Abbreviations

xv

INTRODUCTION: WHY PORTRAITS ?

Equivocal Texts, Equivocal Images Chapter Outline

1

3 13

I  PORTRAITS AMONG HEROES AND GODS

17

1 FROM VOTIVE STATUES TO HONORIFIC PORTRAITS

19

The Origins of Honorific Portraiture Greek Portraits and Documentary Culture: Documenting the Individual Greek Terminology for Portraits: The Portrait Statue as Eikon Anachronisms in Late Literary Sources Conclusion 2 ARETE, HEROISM, AND DIVINE CHOICE IN EARLY GREEK PORTRAITURE

Portraits of the Greeks in Herodotus’ Histories and Other Classical Sources Classical Portraits of Poets Classical Portraits of Priests and Priestesses Conclusion 3 PORTRAITS IN GREEK SANCTUARIES

Olympia Delphi Sanctuary of Hera (Heraion), Samos

20 33 41 44 51 53

56 69 74 79 81

83 99 113 vii

viii

viii

Contents

The Athenian Acropolis Sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros Sanctuary of Athena Lindia, Acropolis of Lindos, Rhodes Conclusion

119 140 144 147

II  DOCUMENTING ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL GREEK HISTORY

151

4 RETROSPECTIVE PORTRAITS AS HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS 153

Retrospective Portraits of Poets: Anacreon of   Teos on the Athenian Acropolis Kallias, Son of Hipponikos, and the Fifth-​Century Peace with Persia Solon in the Agoras of Salamis and Athens Remembering Infamy: Kylon of Athens and Epimenides of Knossos The Priestess Chrysis in the Argive Heraion Retrospective Portraits of Persian War Subjects Conclusion 5 EARLY GREEK PORTRAITS UNDER ROMAN RULE: REMOVAL, RENEWAL, REUSE, AND REINSCRIPTION

155 157 158 163 165 167 181 182

Evidence for the Removal of Portraits The Reinscription of Greek Portrait Statues Portrait Reinscription in Rhetoric: Favorinus and Dio Chrysostom’s Oration 31 Samian Heraion Olympia Delphi Asklepieion at Epidauros Amphiareion at Oropos Athenian Acropolis Conclusion

184 185 188 191 193 199 200 202 203 214

CONCLUSION: THE LIMITS OF REPRESENTATION

217

Appendix 1: Portrait Statues at Olympia, ca. 600–​300 bc

221

Appendix 2: Portrait Statues at Delphi, ca. 600–​300 bc

227

Notes

230

Selected Bibliography

279

Index

296

ix

FIGURES

1. Kore dedicated by Nikandre, Delos page 4 2. Roman marble herm portrait of Themistokles, Ostia 7 3. Temple of Zeus at Olympia, metope, detail of Herakles 8 4. Statue of   Themistokles on an Antonine coin of Magnesia on the Maeander 10 5. Euthymos of Lokroi inscription, Olympia 12 6. Base for portrait of Konon, Kaunos 21 7. Kritios’ and Nesiotes’ Tyrannicides group, plaster casts 25 8. Red-​figure kylix attributed to the Codrus Painter showing Theseus scenes 27 9. South frieze of the temple of Athena Nike, Athenian Acropolis, detail 38 10.  Pythodoros relief, Eleusis 38 11. Heroes of Phyle inscription, Athenian Agora 40 12. Kleobis and Biton, Delphi 42 13. Document relief showing Carian Zeus, Ada, and Idrieus, Tegea 64 14. Gorgias inscription, Olympia 68 15. Archelaos relief, British Museum: statue of a poet 70 16. Archelaos relief, British Museum: Homer 71 17. Xenokrateia relief, Athens 72 18. Roman marble copy of a portrait of Pindar, Capitoline Museum, Rome 73 19. Roman marble head identified as Lysimache, British Museum 77 20. Marble head of a hoplitodromos, Olympia 85 21. Marble head of a hoplitodromos, Olympia 85 22. Berlin Foundry Cup, bronze statue of a warrior 92 23. Plan of Olympia in the second century ad 93 24. Philippeion at Olympia, reconstruction 94 25. Temple of Zeus at Olympia, central figures of the east pediment 95 26. Plan of Delphi 97 27. Base for portrait of Lysander, Aigospotamoi group, Delphi 106 28. Aigospotamoi group, Delphi, reconstruction of second row 107 29. Daochos group, Delphi, reconstruction 109 30. Sisyphos II, Daochos group, Delphi 111 31. Geneleos group, Samian Heraion, reconstruction 113 32. Philippe, Geneleos group, inscribed name label 114 33. Seated statue dedicated by Chares from Didyma, British Museum 115 34. Egyptian block statue dedicated by Pedon, son of Amphines 116

ix

x

x

LI ST OF Figures

35. Rampin rider, Athenian Acropolis 36. Archaic marble head of a rider, Eleusis 37. Scribe statue and Ionic column base dedicated by Alkimachos, Athenian Acropolis 38. Base for dedication of Hegelochos, signed by Kritios and Nesiotes, Athenian Acropolis 39. Portrait of Ekphantos dedicated by Hegelochos, reconstruction 40. Euthymides votive plaque, Athenian Acropolis 41. Riace warrior B, Reggio Calabria 42. Roman marble copy of Kresilas’ Perikles on the Athenian Acropolis, British Museum 43. Honorific portrait of Chabrias in the Athenian Agora, reconstruction 44. Bronze head of a warrior, Athenian Acropolis 45. Pastoret head, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 46. Dedication by Konon and Timotheos, Athenian Acropolis, reconstruction 47. Quadriga dedication by Pronapes, Athenian Acropolis, reconstruction 48. Roman marble copy of portrait of Anacreon of Teos, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 49. Roman marble copy of portrait of Aeschines, Herculaneum 50. Athens in the second century ad 51. Plan of the Argive Heraion 52. Reconstruction of the agora of Troizen 53. Base for portrait of Maiandrios, Samian Heraion, front 54. Base for portrait of Maiandrios, Samian Heraion, top 55. Base for portrait of Tellon, Olympia 56. Base for portrait of Pythokles of Elis signed by Polykleitos, Olympia, original phase 57. Base for portrait of Pythokles, second phase 58. Base for portrait of Pythokles, Forum Pacis, Rome 59. Facsimile of signature of Eunous, Asklepieion at Epidauros 60. Base for reinscribed portrait with signature of Simalos, Oropos 61. Facsimile of Demetrios of Phaleron/​Antignotos statue base, Attica 62. Facsimile of Raskouporis/​Antignotos statue base, Athenian Acropolis 63. Facsimile of Gn. Acceronius Proculus/​Praxiteles statue base, Athenian Acropolis 64. Gn. Acceronius Proculus/​Praxiteles statue base, drawing 65. G. Aelius Gallus/​Praxiteles statue base, drawing

121 122 123 125 126 127 128 129 131 132 133 134 138 156 160 161 166 175 178 178 194 196 197 198 201 204 208 209 212 212 214

xi

TABLES

1. Greek Portraits in Herodotus’ Histories 2. Literary Sources for Statue Removals from Greek Sanctuaries, ca. 88 bc to ad 68

page 57 185

xi

xii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This book began with an unexpected invitation. I would like to thank Peter Schultz and Ralf von den Hoff for inviting me to take part in the Early Hellenistic Portraiture conference at the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in Athens in November 2002. Since then, further invitations to speak or to contribute to scholarship in other ways have encouraged me to continue working on this book. Many people over the years have shared their time, hospitality, companionship, and expertise with me, and I  hope I  have not forgotten to thank any of them here: Aileen Ajootian, Nancy Bookidis, Kevin Daly, Joe Day, Garrett Fagan, Rachel Kousser, Ralf Krumeich, Stephen Lambert, Stephanie Larson, Carol Lawton, Ben Millis, Ioannis Mylonopoulos, Graham Oliver, Olga Palagia, Andrej and Ivana Petrovic, Lee Ann Riccardi, Molly Richardson, Brunilde Ridgway, Adele Scafuro, Kristen Seaman, Amarjot Singh, Andrew Stewart, Ronald Stroud, Steven Tracy, Jere Wickens, and Tim Winters. Eran Lupu began as an expert to be consulted and became a devoted husband. An NEH summer stipend in 2004 helped to get this project going. Georgetown University has supported my work over the years with generous summer research grant support and a research leave in 2011, for which I am very grateful. In addition to colleagues in Classics, History, and Art History at Georgetown, I would also like to thank the eight students who took my undergraduate seminar on Greek sculpture in spring 2013 for putting up with me and for doing such excellent work of their own. I would also like to single out the two Georgetown students who worked with me as research assistants: Jonathan McLaughlin and Bailey Baumann. Without Bailey Baumann’s help scanning illustrations and checking bibliography it would have taken even longer to finish the manuscript, so I would like to offer her special thanks. I would like to express my deep gratitude to the Greek Ministry of Culture and Sport, specifically the staffs of the Acropolis, the Acropolis Museum, and the Epigraphical Museum; the American School of Classical Studies and the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in Athens for their assistance in studying sites, statues, and inscriptions; and the staff of three outstanding libraries who have helped me in various ways over the years: Artemis Kirk in Georgetown University’s Lauinger Memorial Library; Temple Wright in the library of the Center for Hellenic Studies in Washington; and the staff of the Blegen Library xii

xiii

Acknowledgments

of the American School in Athens. Beatrice Rehl and Asya Graf at Cambridge University Press saw this project through to completion. Several individuals and institutions in addition to those named above provided help with photographs, drawings, and permissions: Didier Laroche, Christian Marek, Michael Scott, Candace H.  Smith, David Boggs, Daria Lanzuolo of the DAI Rome; Reinhard Senff, Hermann Kienast, Joachim Heiden, and Anne Fohgrub of the DAI Athens; Craig Mauzy and Sylvie Dumont of the Athenian Agora Excavations; Natalia Vogeikoff-​ Brogan of the ASCSA Archives; and Dave Hagen of the Gelardin Media Center at Georgetown.

xiii

xiv

NOTE ON TEXT/​T RANSLATION

In transliterating names of people and places from Greek, I  have generally stayed as close as possible to the original (e.g. Perikles), except in the case of some names more familiar in their Latinized spellings (e.g. Lycurgus, Corinth). The spellings of names that occur in inscriptions have been corrected to their standard Greek spelling when necessary (Kleombrotos and Polydamas). For the names and works of Greek and Latin authors and editions of fragmentary Greek and Latin literary works, I have used the standard abbreviations set out at the beginning of the Oxford Classical Dictionary, 4th edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012). For the names of journals and series, I reproduce the standard abbreviations used by the American Journal of Archaeology whenever possible. Though in most cases I have included the Greek texts of inscriptions I discuss, the original texts of passages in Greek and Latin literature have been omitted purely in the interests of space. All English translations from Greek and Latin are my own unless otherwise noted. For English translations in the Loeb Classical Library series (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), I have cited the name of the translator. Though I have largely omitted references to entries in the DNO and the Künstlerlexikon in my endnotes, readers interested in the Greek sculptors named in this book should consult these reference works. My source for the dates of athletes’ victories in the crown games is L.  Moretti, Olympionikai:  I  vincitori negli antichi agoni olimpici (MemLinc ser. 8.2) (Rome, 1957).

xiv

xv

ABBREVIATIONS

AB Acr. APF BM Bringmann and Steuben CEG CEG 2 Choix Delphes

DAA

DAI Dindorf DNO

Ebert FdD III 1

C. Austin and G. Bastianini, eds. Posidippi Pellaei quae supersunt omnia, Milan: LED, 2002 Athenian Acropolis J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969 British Museum K. Bringmann and H. von Steuben, eds., Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtümer, 2 vols., Berlin: Akademie 1995 P.  A. Hansen, Carmina Epigraphica Graeca, Saeculorum VIII–​ V a. Chr. n., Berlin/​New York: de Gruyter, 1983 P.  A. Hansen, Carmina Epigraphica Graeca, Saeculi IV a. Chr. n. (CEG2), Berlin/​New York: de Gruyter, 1989 A. Jacquemin, D. Mulliez, and G. Rougement, eds., Choix d’inscriptions de Delphes, traduites et commentées (École Française d’Athènes, Études épigraphiques 5), Athens/​ Paris: École Française d’Athènes/​de Boccard, 2012 A. E. Raubitschek, Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis, Cambridge, MA: Archaeological Institute of America, 1949 Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Aelius Aristides, ed. W. Dindorf, 3 vols., Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1964 S. Kansteiner et al., eds., Der neue Overbeck: Die antiken Schriftquellen zu den bildenden Künsten der Griechen, 5 vols., Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014 J. Ebert, Griechische Epigramme auf Sieger an gymnischen und hippischen Agonen (AbhLeip 63.2). Leipzig: Akademie, 1972 É. Bourguet, Fouilles de Delphes, vol. III, fasc. 1: Inscriptions de l’entrée du sanctuaire au trésor des Athéniens, Paris: de Boccard, 1929

xv

xvi

xvi

LI ST OF A bbreviations

FdD III 3

G. Daux and A. Salac, Fouilles de Delphes, vol. III, fasc. 3: Inscriptions depuis le Trésor des Athéniens jusqu’aux bases de Gélon, Paris: de Boccard, 1943 FdD III 4 A. Plassart, Fouilles de Delphes, vol. III, fasc. 4: Inscriptions de la terrasse du temple et de la région nord du sanctuaire, Paris: de Boccard, 1970 FGrH F. Jacoby, Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 3 vols., Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung/​Leiden: Brill, 1923–​54 I.Eleusis K. Clinton, Eleusis, the Inscriptions on Stone: Documents of the Sanctuary of the Two Goddesses and Public Documents of the Deme, 2 vols. (βιβλιοθήκη τῆς ἐν Ἀθηναῖς Ἀρχαιολογικὴς Ἐταιρεῖας 236 and 259) Athens: Athens Archaeological Society, 2005–​8 I.Kaunos C. Marek, Die Inschriften von Kaunos (Vestigia 55), Munich: C. H. Beck, 2006 I.Oropos B. C. Petrakos, Οἱ Ἐπιγραφὲς τοῦ Ὠρωποῦ (βιβλιοθήκη τῆς ἐν Ἀθηναῖς Ἀρχαιολογικὴς Ἐταιρεῖας 170), Athens: Athens Archaeological Society, 1997 I.Thespiai P. Roesch et al., Les inscriptions de Thespies, Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Mediterranée Jean Pouilloux, 2007 [electronic publication] ID A. Plassart, Inscriptions de Délos, Paris: Honore Champion, 1950 IG Inscriptiones Graecae, various volumes and editors IGB E. Loewy, Inschriften griechischer Bildhauer, Leipzig: Teubner, 1885 IGUR L. Moretti, Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae, 4 fascicules, Rome: Istituto Italiano per la Storia Antica, 1968–​90 Inv. inventory number ISE L. Moretti, Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche, 2 vols., Florence: La nuova Italia, 1967–​75 IvO W. Dittenberger and K. Purgold, Die Inschriften von Olympia (Olympia V), Berlin: A. Asher, 1896 IvPergamon M. Fraenkel, Die Inschriften von Pergamon, 2 vols., Berlin: W. Spemann, 1890–​5 IvPr F. Hiller von Gaertringen, Inschriften von Priene, Berlin: G. Reimer, 1906 Kaibel G. Kaibel, Epigrammata graecae ex lapidibus conlecta, Berlin: G. Reimer, 1878. Künstlerlexikon R.Vollkommer, ed., Künstlerlexikon der Antike, 2 vols., Munich/​Leipzig: K. G. Saur, 2001–​4

xvi

newgenprepdf

LI ST OF Abbreviations

LIMC Lindos II

LSAG2 Marcadé ML

NM OGIS RE RO

SEG Syll.3 Wendel

Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae, Zurich: Artemis, 1981–​97 C. Blinkenberg, ed. Lindos, Fouilles de l’Acropole, 1902–​1914, II. Inscriptions, vol. 1, Berlin/​Copenhagen: de Gruyter/​G. E. C. Gad, 1941 L. H. Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, rev. edn, supp. by A. W. Johnston, Oxford: Clarendon 1990 J. Marcadé, Recueil des signatures de sculpteurs grecs, 2 vols., Paris: De Boccard, 1953–​7 R. Meiggs and D. M. Lewis, eds., A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, to the End of the Fifth Century B.C., rev. edn, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988 Athens National Museum W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae, 2 vols., Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1986 Paulys Real-​Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart/​Munich: Metzler/​Druckenmüller, 1894–​1997 P. J. Rhodes and R. Osborne, eds., Greek Historical Inscriptions, 404–​323 B.C., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007 Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum W. Dittenberger, ed. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 3rd edn, 4 vols., Leipzig: S. Hertzl, 1915–​24 Scholia in Theocritum vetera, ed. C. Wendel, Stuttgart: Teubner, 1967

xvii

xvi

1

INTRODUCTION: WHY PORTRAITS ?

This book examines the role of portraits in early Greek culture, defined as the sixth, fifth, and fourth centuries bc –​more or less what we term the Archaic (ca. 600–​480 bc) and Classical (ca. 480–​323 bc) periods in Greek history.1 If we apply the broadest functional definition of portraiture –​in which any representation of an historical personage, living or dead, qualifies as a portrait, regardless of its style or appearance –​then the origins of the Western tradition of portraiture in ancient Greece clearly go back to the Archaic period.The use of the human individual as the focal point for commemoration leaves behind a potent cultural legacy. Some of the most familiar Greek portraits  –​their appearance known to us from Roman marble copies –​date to the Classical period:  the Athenian Tyrannicides, Harmodios and Aristogeiton, made by Kritios and Nesiotes [Figure 7]; Themistokles, the Athenian general and architect of the Greek victory over the Persians at Salamis in 480 bc [Figure 2]; and the sculptor Kresilas’ Perikles from the Athenian Acropolis [Figure  42]. Historical hindsight shows where Classical portraiture was headed. Over the course of the Hellenistic period (ca. 323–​30 bc), Greek statue practice evolved into a thoroughgoing portrait practice, and in most public settings in the Greek world –​including sanctuaries of the gods –​portraits came to outnumber divine images. Greek cities awarded portrait statues as high-​level honors to their benefactors; these honorific portraits, and the portraits of Alexander the Great and his royal successors, have been well served by recent scholarship.2 So has the artistic afterlife of Greek portraits of generals, poets, and philosophers in the 1

2

2

I NTRODU CT I O N :   W HY P O RT R A I T S ?

Roman world, where images of these subjects were reproduced in ­marble and collected.3 What remains less clear is how the Greeks arrived at this point. The origins and early history of Greek portraiture have proven to be more resistant to reconstruction and interpretation than its later development.4 Modern definitions of “portrait” and “portraiture” that narrow the inquiry to include only examples that were in some sense likenesses of their subjects have always lacked explanatory force in the Archaic and Classical periods, when portraits prove difficult to distinguish in the material record from images representing gods and heroes.5 In addition to reaffirming the fundamentally religious character of most Archaic and Classical Greek portraits, this study of the early history of portraiture in the Greek world offers two different answers to the question, why portraits?6 The origins of honorific portraiture have been attributed either to a decline in religious feeling (in older scholarship), or to the Greek city-​states’ growing recognition of the importance of individual leaders over the course of the Peloponnesian War (431–​404 bc), and the need to develop new forms of civic honor to keep their ambitions in check. I view the key transitional moment at the end of the fifth century, and the development of Greek portraiture leading up to and following it, in a different light. I explain the emergence of honorific portrait statues as a genre distinct from images of the gods as one facet of a larger phenomenon: the rise of the “epigraphical habit” and a broader documentary culture in Greece.7 In the last decades of the fifth century, new value began to be assigned to monuments as tekmeria (proofs) supporting historical narratives. Portraits were viewed as historical documents in a way that a statue of Artemis with an inscription naming the person who dedicated it, for example, was not. Documenting, commemorating, and remembering the individual through a portrait intersects with the production of literary documents and documents inscribed on stone in a variety of interesting ways to be explored in this book. The idea that the Greeks viewed portraits as permanent documents of the mortal body is not new; indeed, this idea is explicitly expressed in inscriptions on the bases of portrait statues from the sixth century bc onward. My aim is to explain why documenting the human body with portraits, specifically honorific portraits, became more significant in Greek culture at the moment it did. The second answer gets at the equivocal nature of the Greek portraits of the Archaic and Classical periods. Gisela Richter’s fundamental catalogue (1965) groups Greek portraits according to subject categories: generals, poets, philosophers, and so on.8 This approach makes sense when we look at Roman marble copies of Greek sculpture, but it a poor fit for the Greek portraits of the Archaic and Classical periods.The emphasis in Richter’s work on the origins and development of likeness and physiognomic realism in portraiture also obscures an essential point; so does Nikolaus Himmelmann’s more recent suggestion that

3

Equi vocal T e x ts, E q ui voca l   I m a ges

it was precisely the documentary function of Greek portraiture that encouraged the development of realism.9 In the Archaic and Classical periods, Greek portraits intentionally blurred the boundaries between human subjects, gods, and heroes. Portraits of contemporary Greek men and women, as well as retrospective portraits of individuals long deceased, documented their subjects’ arete, their essential excellence, or their choice by the gods. They frequently asserted their subjects’ heroic character and their worthiness to be compared with the gods and heroes standing around them in their sanctuary settings. Even in the fourth century, after the introduction of honorific portraits, portraits of human subjects often continued to resemble images of the gods and heroes in their scale, poses, attributes, contexts, and settings. At the same time that early Greek portraits claimed to function as documents of mortal bodies, in practice depicting the individual’s body as it appeared in reality was often rejected in favor of mapping the individual onto divine or heroic models.

Equivocal Texts, Equivocal Images The movement toward representing individuals through portraits in Archaic and Classical Greek culture was far from inevitable. In Archaic Greece, votive offerings dedicated in sanctuaries did important commemorative work, memorializing named individuals through inscriptions. In sanctuaries, images of gods and heroes were deployed to commemorate human achievements; mythological narratives in temple sculpture conveyed topical political messages. The Greeks commemorated and gave thanks for their victories in the Persian Wars of 490 and 480–​479 bc with a series of colossal votive images of the gods dedicated in their major sanctuaries: the Salamis Apollo at Delphi (Hdt. 8.121 and Paus. 10.14.5), Zeus at Olympia (5.23.1), Poseidon at the Isthmus (Hdt. 9.81), and Pheidias’ colossal bronze Athena on the Athenian Acropolis (Paus. 1.28.2).10 Why did the Greeks diverge from these practices and adopt portraiture? Monumental votive dedications in sanctuaries offered through their inscriptions a forum for public self-​assertion without portraits:  the individual was there from the beginning. As a genre, votive statues were about the identity of the dedicator: they served as a vehicle for individual display by the dedicator no matter whom the statue represented. The “X dedicated” formula in votive inscriptions can be explained as an artifact of the predominantly oral and performative literary culture of the Archaic period.11 One of the earliest examples of both a votive statue and the votive formula in inscriptions is the Archaic marble statue of the kore type dedicated by a woman named Nikandre to Artemis on the island of Delos in the second half of the seventh century bc [Figure 1]. The statue closely emulates the contemporary Egyptian canon for male figures in its schematic form and in the proportions of the body parts to one another; it could be the earliest example of an Archaic female kore.12

3

4

4

I NTRODU CT I O N :   W HY P O RT R A I T S ?

1.  Kore statue dedicated by Nikandre on Delos (NM 1), ca. 650–​600 bc. Alison Frantz Photographic Collection, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, neg. AT 365

A metrical dedicatory text was inscribed on the left thigh of the statue partially in a boustrophedon pattern, reading alternately from right-​to-​left and from left-​ to-​r ight. This inscription, whose spelling is indicative of its early date, reads as follows: Νικάνδρη μ’ ἀνέθε̄ κεν ℎ(ε)κηβόλο̄ ι ἰοχεαίρηι | ϙο̄́ ρη Δεινο-​

δίκη̆ ο̄ το̑ Ναℎσίο̄ ἔℎσοχος ἀλ(λ)ή̆ο̄ν | Δεινομένεος δὲ κασιγνε̄́ τη Φℎράℎσο̄ δ’ ἄλοχος ν̣[ῦν?].

5

Equi vocal T e x ts, E q ui voca l   I m a ges

Nikandre dedicated me to the far-​darting shooter of arrows [Artemis], she the daughter of Deinodikes the Naxian, eminent among women, the sister of Deinomenes, and [now?] wife of Phraxos. CEG 403; cf. ID 2

The tone of the inscription is downright boastful: why exactly did Nikandre consider herself   “eminent” among women? The inscription identifies Nikandre and the recipient deity Artemis, but the occasion for the offering and, more significantly, the identity of the statue being offered, are elided completely.13 Whom Nikandre’s kore statue was intended to represent has been the subject of intense speculation in modern scholarship. As statue types, the Archaic female kore and male kouros were both inherently multivalent, capable of embodying gods, heroes, or mortals. Though the temptation has been to interpret the statue as a portrait of Nikandre herself, the holes in both hands for the insertion of two round metal objects of different sizes –​a bow in the left hand and an arrow in the right? –​suggest that Nikandre commemorated herself with an image of Artemis rather than a portrait.14 The possibilities for inserting the individual into the votive transaction in practice went beyond naming oneself as dedicator of a divine image: one could also employ the votive formula to commemorate others, and to “represent” oneself –​both without using portraits. The Greeks considered it possible to represent the individual through the medium of a divine image.Though this may seem surprising, some dedications of statues claiming to be equal in size (isometron or isometreton) to the dedicator in fact represented the recipient deity. An example is a fourth-​century dedication by a woman named Krino, also offered to Artemis on Delos: παῖς [τ]όδ’ Ἀλεκτορίδεω Κρινὼ Παρίη μ’ ἀνέθηκεν πατρὸς ὑποσχεσίην, τελέσασ’ εὐχήν, ἀπέδωκεν αὑτ̣ῆς ἰσόμετρον Δηλίηι Ἀρτέμιδι [ID 53]. Krino the Parian woman, daughter of Alektorides, dedicated me; having brought to fulfillment a vow of her father, she gave this [pleasing gift = agalma], equal in size (isometron) to herself, to Delian Artemis.

It has often been assumed that the lost statue dedicated by Krino was a portrait of herself. Antoine Hermary has demonstrated, however, that Krino dedicated an archaizing marble Artemis much like another fourth-​century one dedicated by another woman (Areïs, daughter of Teisenor) to Delian Artemis on nearby Paros (IG XII 5 211), without the isometron formula.15 Krino claimed that her votive statue was equal in size to herself, but it was an image of Artemis. Krino’s dedication notwithstanding, the idea of the statue as a body-​replica of the human individual was clearly already present in the Archaic period. In Archaic Greek funerary monuments, kouroi and korai (along with statues of other types and relief stelai) functioned as physical reminders or signs of the

5

6

6

I NTRODU CT I O N :   W HY P O RT R A I T S ?

deceased, together with inscribed texts naming them. As has often been noted, the Archaic monuments, in contrast to Classical and Hellenistic grave stelai, seem to enact Homeric values: the individuals singled out for commemoration and sculptural representation were predominantly male and more often than not were prematurely deceased, sometimes in battle. The tomb monument served as compensation, the geras thanonton owed to the dead in lieu of long life.16 From at least the beginning of the sixth century bc, there were also votive occasions thought to justify dedicating a body-​replica of oneself, or of someone else, in a sanctuary. We simply do not know who first made such a dedication. But the idea of the portrait as body-​replica, as a pleasing gift for the gods, and even as compensation for the death of the mortal body, endured through the Classical period, as portraiture became an increasingly popular form of sculptural representation. In both Archaic and Classical Greek portraiture, replicating the body of the individual portrait subject was seldom synonymous with creating a realistic, individualized portrait likeness. To exemplify the lack of clear-​cut boundaries between images of gods, heroes, and human subjects, and to highlight the problems created by analyses based upon concepts of likeness or realism, I cite one of the most familiar Classical portraits. The marble portrait herm of Themistokles, found in Roman Ostia in 1939 [Figure  2], bulks large in studies of early Greek portraiture. This particular example seems to hold out the possibility that Greek portraits began to offer true likenesses of their subjects as early as the second quarter of the fifth century bc.17 The Ostia Themistokles has also been used to associate the origins of physiognomic likeness in Greek portraiture with the fifth-​century Athenian democracy.18 There is no doubt that the marble herm itself is not contemporary with Themistokles:  it is a production of the Roman imperial period, presumed to imitate the appearance of a now-​lost, Greek, bronze, full-​body portrait statue. The problems inherent in using such Roman copies as evidence for Greek sculpture have been acutely observed in recent scholarship, and I will not rehearse them here.19 Kopienkritik, the process of identifying the truest copy of a lost bronze original among marble versions discovered across a wide variety of Roman contexts, is only possible when there are multiple examples clearly derived from the same prototype. In the case of the Ostia Themistokles, identified by its name label, we lack the controlling effect of multiple copies: this particular Greek subject seems to have been less popular than the poets Homer, Sophocles, and Menander, Socrates, and the orators Demosthenes and Aeschines [Figure  49].20 The Ostia Themistokles in its Roman setting may have formed part of a collection representing Greek historical figures, generals and statesmen; the abbreviated bust format –​which purposely elides differences in pose, clothing, size, and gender –​fostered the appearance of a unified portrait gallery.21

7

Equi vocal T e x ts, E q ui voca l   I m a ges

2. Roman marble herm copying an early Classical portrait of Themistokles, from Ostia (Archaeological Museum, Ostia, inv. 85). Photo: H. Koppermann, neg. DAI Rome 66.2287

From the moment of its discovery, commentators have noticed stylistic features in the Ostia Themistokles that speak to a date for the lost original in the early Classical period, somewhere between the battle of Salamis in 480 bc and the aftermath of   Themistokles’ death in exile in Asia Minor in 459 bc. The heavy eyelids recall the metopes [Figure 3] and pedimental sculptures of the temple of Zeus at Olympia, completed soon before 457 bc; the surface treatment of the cropped hair and beard shows a close resemblance to the head of the Athenian Tyrannicide Aristogeiton made by Kritios and Nesiotes in 477 bc, itself known through Roman marble copies [Figure 7]. Yet at the same time that it appears early Classical in style, the face of this Themistokles seems strikingly realistic, individualized, and unlike Classical physical ideals of beauty: the cubic head with its lantern jaw, the massive neck, the swollen cauliflower ears, the worry line on the forehead, and the crow’s feet forming at the outer corners of the eyes. Analogous deviations from the ideal also occur in the Olympia temple sculptures, in the figure of the aged seer of the east pediment and the centaurs of the west. On a second look, characteristics that at first appear to depict an individual physiognomy begin to look more like the

7

8

8

I NTRODU CT I O N :   W HY P O RT R A I T S ?

3.  Temple of Zeus at Olympia: detail of the head of Herakles on a metope showing the combat between Herakles and Geryon, ninth in the sequence of Herakles’ twelve labors, ca. 470–​457 bc. Alison Frantz Photographic Collection, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, neg. PE 217

marks of a stereotypical physical type developed by the sculptors of the early Classical period: either the “heavy” athletic victor (a wrestler, boxer, or pancratiast), or Herakles himself, the hero whose twelve labors were depicted on the Olympia metopes [Figure 3].22 These two different visual models, both of which have been offered as explanations for the appearance of the Ostia herm, are not mutually exclusive –​in fact, they are mutually reinforcing. Herakles was depicted on the temple of Zeus at Olympia because he was viewed as a heroic model for the athletes who competed there; and being like Herakles justified dedicating portraits of athletic victors at Olympia.23 Once we accept the premise of a lost, early Classical bronze portrait of Themistokles somewhere in the Greek world, the next step is to look for evidence for where such a portrait may have stood and who commissioned it. In the case of Themistokles, we have no inscribed statue bases to use as evidence; we can contrast Perikles later in the fifth century, with four Roman herm portraits [Figure  42] derived from the same prototype, a statue base on the Acropolis, and a description by Pausanias in the second century ad. Literary sources of the Roman imperial period mention various portraits of Themistokles that could date to Themistokles’ lifetime or soon after. As earlier scholars have already noted, however, none seems a good match with the Ostia bust. The larger point I draw from these possible contexts for a fifth-​ century portrait of   Themistokles is somewhat different. In this book, I will be

9

Equi vocal T e x ts, E q ui voca l   I m a ges

concerned to show how both the scant visual and more abundant textual and contextual evidence for Archaic and Classical portraiture lead us toward the same conclusion: in its early history, Greek portraiture was fundamentally not about likeness or individuality. The portrait most often associated with the Ostia Themistokles herm is the one mentioned by Plutarch in his life of Themistokles (22.2–​3) inside the small temple of Artemis Aristoboule in Athens, a temple first dedicated by Themistokles himself after Salamis. Plutarch’s description introduces two key details: He [Themistokles] also offended the majority by building the sanctuary of Artemis whom he addressed as Aristoboule (“of best counsel”), as if it were he who had advised both the city and the Greeks the best; and he established the sanctuary near his own house in [the deme] Melite, where now the public servants cast out the bodies of those put to death, and they also carry out the clothes and the ropes of those who have hanged themselves. A small portrait [eikonion] of Themistokles was located inside the temple of [Artemis] Aristoboule even in our own time: he appears to be an individual not only of spirit, but also heroic [heroikos] in his appearance. Plut. Them. 22.1–​2

By calling Artemis Aristoboule, Themistokles alluded indirectly to his own arete at the battle of Salamis as the chosen recipient of Artemis’ best counsel. As we will see, the assertion of the divine choice of the individual was one of the primary motives behind Archaic and Classical portraiture, whether or not the portrait Plutarch describes really was dedicated by Themistokles himself. Second, to say that Themistokles’ portrait looked “heroic” was more than just an empty cliché for the Greeks. To be a hero was to receive hero cult, in most cases at the tomb after death.24 Unlike divinization, heroization brought with it some negative connotations since in practice it was often used as a way of dealing with individuals perceived to have the power to harm the living unless appeased with sacrifices.25 All the same, living rulers sought to emphasize their own heroic nature, demonstrable through descent from heroes or accomplishments worthy of a hero; athletes either made the case for themselves, or their relatives and home cities did so after their deaths. For one class of individuals in Archaic and Classical Greek society, cult heroization after death seems to have been automatic: colonial city founders (oikists).26 A strong case can also be made that the Greek dead of the Persian Wars were also heroized immediately and en masse.  Though some scholars see the heroization of poets as a Hellenistic phenomenon, others are willing to take heroization back to the late Archaic period in the case of  Archilochos, for example.27 Debates about the significance and frequency of Greek hero cult before the Hellenistic period are relevant, but should not be allowed to circumscribe discussion about the

9

10

10

I NTRODU CT I O N :   W HY P O RT R A I T S ?

dynamics of being like a hero or a god in Archaic and Classical Greece. As Lynette Mitchell argues, in early Greek culture asserting that one should be considered like a hero while still alive was in many ways more important than actual heroization after death.28 Portraits could be used to bolster claims to extraordinary status and heroic arete. For a portrait, such as the one of Themistokles described by Plutarch, to look heroic could mean resembling a particular hero (such as Herakles or Theseus), or simply being depicted in the way that heroes were, as a nude warrior armed with weapons. A combination of ancient literary sources and a series of very late (Antonine) coin representations gives us another Greek portrait of Themistokles: Themistokles reimagined soon after his death as the heroized founder of Magnesia on the Maeander, the city awarded to him by the Persian king. This Themistokles really was a cultic hero, and the image dimly glimpsed through worn coins [Figure 4] portrayed him in a way that evoked athletic portraits, images of heroes, and images of the gods all at once: nude, long-​haired, holding a sheathed sword in his left hand and a libation bowl in his right, pouring a libation beside a flaming altar with a sacrificial bull lying at his feet.29 It is simply illogical to insist upon physiognomic likeness, or even individuality, in the Magnesia portrait: its function was to represent the deceased Themistokles not merely as heroic, but as a cultic hero. In the final analysis, though the Ostia Themistokles remains a cipher –​a Roman version of a lost early Classical portrait without any identifiable context in the Greek world –​its blurring of the visual and conceptual boundaries between man and hero tells us something valuable about the character of early Greek portraiture. To drive home this point, let us consider briefly another early Classical portrait, this one representing an Olympic victor.The lost portrait of Euthymos of Lokroi (Locri) in southern Italy (IvO 144 = Ebert 16 = CEG 399), a three-​time

4.  Posthumous statue of Themistokles as founding hero of Magnesia on the Maeander, identified by a name label. Reverse of a coin of Magnesia from the reign of Antoninus Pius (ad 138–​61). Drawing reproduced from Gardner 1906, p. 109, ­figure 1. Public domain

11

Equi vocal T e x ts, E q ui voca l   I m a ges

Olympic victor in boxing who won his last victory in 472 bc, has also been viewed as a landmark in the development of likeness in Greek portraiture.The epigram inscribed on its base gives us the earliest epigraphical attestation of εἰκών, a Greek word with strong connotations of likeness and resemblance, as the term for a portrait: Εὔθυμος Λοκρὸς Ἀστυκλέος τρὶς Ὀλύμπι’ ἐνίκων. εἰκόνα δ’ ἔστησεν τήνδε βροτοῖς ἐσορᾶν. Εὔθυμος Λοκρὸς ἀπὸ Ζεφυρίο ἀ ν έ θ η κ ε. Πυθαγόρας Σάμιος ἐποίησεν. “Euthymos the Locrian, son of Astykles, I won three times at Olympia.” He set up this portrait [eikon] for mortals to wonder at. Euthymos the Zephyrian Locrian dedicated it. Pythagoras the Samian made it.30

The sculptor whose signature appears on the Euthymos base, Pythagoras of Samos, was almost certainly the same person as Pythagoras of Rhegion, who signed several other early Classical victor portraits at Olympia.31 John Barron and others have seen the use of the term eikon here as evidence that Pythagoras’ portrait of Euthymos was in some sense a new type of true likeness, and as support for the claim of the Roman imperial author Pliny the Elder (to be discussed in Chapter 1) that three-​time victors in the Olympic games were entitled to “iconic” portrait likenesses.32 Dieter Metzler and Jeremy Tanner went further, citing Euthymos’ portrait as evidence for the fifth-​century origin of self-​consciously realistic likenesses in Greek portraiture.33 As for the lost statue itself, it was evidently made of bronze and stood on a bronze plinth attached to the shallow, rectangular cutting on the top of the base using the so-​called Samian technique.34 The inscription is more revealing. As a drawing of it shows [Figure 5], two significant changes to the inscribed text were made not very long after Euthymos’ portrait was set up, to judge by the lettering.The first two inscribed lines are an elegiac couplet, and the first verse takes the form of a first-​person statement by Euthymos himself. The end of the second verse was erased and its wording changed, with no trace remaining on the stone of the original text.The third line was originally a nominative name label, with no verb; to this the verb of dedication ἀνέθηκε was added to produce a standard votive formula, apparently by the same hand that changed the second line of the epigram above.35 This is far from the only example in which the text inscribed on a public monument in a major sanctuary was altered to reflect changing circumstances, and various explanations have been offered.36 The one I find most convincing is that either the Locrians or Euthymos himself attempted to clarify the inscription at Olympia in connection with Euthymos’ heroization in his home city of Lokroi, which may have occurred during Euthymos’ own lifetime. After all, the claim in the

11

12

12

I NTRODU CT I O N :   W HY P O RT R A I T S ?

5.  Inscription on the base for a lost bronze portrait of Euthymos of Lokroi, Olympia, signed by the sculptor Pythagoras of Samos, ca. 470 bc (IvO 144). Reproduced from J. Ebert, Griechische Epigramme auf Sieger an gymnischen und hippischen Agonen (AbhLeip 63.2), Leipzig: Akademie, 1972, 70, courtesy of Walter De Gruyter

altered text of the epigram that Euthymos’ portrait is something “for mortals to wonder at” implies that Euthymos was considered something more than a mortal.37 If this interpretation is correct, the Euthymos inscription presents us with a paradox central to understanding early Greek portraiture: a portrait called a likeness (eikon) of Euthymos could also be viewed as evidence validating Euthymos’ claim to be considered a hero. Since several other fifth-​ century portraits of heavy athletes at Olympia were significantly over lifesize, it is likely that Euthymos’ was as well. What this example suggests is that in Classical Greek portraiture, even explicit claims of likeness to the portrait subject were tendentious boasts: the point of making such a claim for Euthymos was to encourage the belief that he really was larger than life just as his portrait depicted him, not to reproduce his real appearance. This is not to say that realism –​even extreme realism –​was unheard of in Classical portraiture. Demetrios of the deme Alopeke, an Athenian sculptor of the first half of the fourth century bc, was credited by literary sources of the Roman imperial period with portraits whose realism verged on ugliness.38 Demetrios’ portrait of the Athenian priestess Lysimache (of which the Roman marble head illustrated in Figure  19 is a possible copy), as well as an early fourth-​century portrait of the sophist Gorgias by an unknown sculptor, likely depicted the physiognomy of old age. Such deviations from the Classical ideals of youth and beauty, called for by their subjects’ extreme longevity, should not be mistaken for expressions of individuality. A  real breakthrough, a tipping of the scales toward greater realism, seems to have occurred early in the Hellenistic period. A  newly published collection of epigrams by the third-​ century poet Poseidippos of Pella (ca. 310–​245 bc) includes the following epigram on a portrait statue of the poet Philitas of Kos made by Hecataeus, a student of Lysippos of Sikyon: This bronze, just like Philitas in every way, Hecataeus     Molded accurately down to the toenails. Following a human standard in scale and feature,     He blended it with none of the form of heroes, But modelled the old perfectionist with all his skill,     Holding fast to the straight canon of truth.

13

Chapter Outl ine

He seems about to speak, so characterful is he –​     The old man’s alive, though he’s made of bronze: “Here, thanks to Ptolemy, god and king as well,     for the Muses’ sake I stand, a man of Cos.” AB 63, trans. Stewart 2005, 19639

The Philitas epigram appears in a section entitled Andriantopoiïka (“poems on statue-​making”), which contrasts the new realism of Lysippos (active ca. 372–​ 316 bc) and his students with the work of sculptors of the Archaic and Classical periods. Nonetheless, it is clear that Lysippos’ own portrait statues, not least his images of Alexander the Great, continued to use “the form of heroes” as a visual and conceptual model at the same time that they embraced the realistic depiction of the human body. In an article published in 1927, Ernst Pfuhl argued that Greek portraits first began to depict individual physiognomy during the period between ca. 350 and ca. 300 bc: according to Pfuhl, this is when Greek portraits first became true portrait likenesses.40 Recently Sheila Dillon has used the representations of men on Attic gravestones and in Roman marble copies to posit instead “a proliferation of portrait styles and modes in the second half of the fourth century” for Greek male portraits, possibly to be associated with Lysippos.41 Apart from the reclining banqueter in the Archaic Geneleos group in the Samian Heraion [Figure 31], the late Archaic scribe statues dedicated on the Athenian Acropolis [Figure 37], and portraits of athletic victors shown competing in their events (such as Myron’s Discobolos), Archaic and fifth-​century portraits were not distinct in their types, poses, and costumes from contemporary images of gods and heroes. The second half of the fourth century, however, saw a reification of portrait types in Greek sculpture: the man wearing a himation, the seated poet or philosopher, the general wearing a cuirass, and the so-​called large and small Herculanean women.42 In what John Ma has termed the “himation man” portrait type, seen in copies of Athenian portraits of the 330s bc [Figure 49], the himation –​whether wrapped tightly around the shoulders or slipping off  –​became the default iconography for male honorific portraits throughout the Greek world in the Hellenistic period.43 As a standard portrait type, the himation man placed the individual within the framework of a recognizable social identity –​that of the politically active citizen. Greek portraits had a performative aspect: but before the spread of statue types specific to portraits, more often than not Greek portraits performed analogies between their human subjects and heroic or divine identities.44

Chapter Outline Though the invention of the Classical style in Greek sculpture in ca. 480 bc has attracted more attention, the introduction of honorific portraiture at the end of the fifth century is a crucial historical development. Chapter 1 (“From

13

14

14

I NTRODU CT I O N :   W HY P O RT R A I T S ?

Votive Statues to Honorific Portraits”) seeks to explain the origins of honorific portraits in terms of earlier antecedents, such as the portraits of athletic victors, and to place honorific portraiture within the context of a broader documentary culture in the Greek world between ca. 430 and ca. 380 bc. Chapter 2 (“Arete, Heroism, and Divine Choice in Early Greek Portraiture”) offers a new approach to the bewildering mass of Archaic and Classical portraits known from Roman marble copies, literary sources, inscribed statue bases, and surviving sculpture. As an alternative to subject categories based upon Roman copies of Greek portraits, I approach the portraits of the Archaic and Classical periods in terms of how the Greeks of these periods understood arete, an approach grounded in both Classical literary texts (Herodotus, Thucydides, and Plato) and inscriptions. Traditional conceptions of arete and analogies with heroes underlie the portraits of athletic victors, warriors, generals (strategoi), and kings common throughout the Classical period. Over the course of this period, a broader conception of what constituted arete and who had a legitimate claim to it generated portraits of poets, priests and priestesses, individuals saved by the gods, and sophists. During the period surveyed by this book, sanctuaries were the primary location for Greek portraits. Apart from athletic victor portraits at Olympia, Archaic and Classical Greek portraits have generally not been studied within the context of the sanctuaries where they were dedicated. Chapter 3 (“Portraits in Greek Sanctuaries”) offers a series of local histories of portraiture at Olympia, Delphi, the Samian Heraion, the Athenian Acropolis, the sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros, and the sanctuary of Athena Lindia at Lindos on Rhodes. Portraits seem to have “arrived” in different sanctuaries at different times, and to have been introduced by different agents. More surprisingly, portraits of human subjects were used to make the case for divine agency: the typical subjects of portraits most common in some of these sanctuaries in the fifth and fourth centuries bc seem to have been inspired by the character, biography, or salvific actions of the gods to whom they were dedicated. Retrospective portraits representing individuals long deceased (the subject of Chapter  4) bring us back to the documentary functions of portraits in Classical Greece. Though portraits of Archaic athletes were being dedicated already in the fifth century at Olympia, the late Classical period proves to be formative for retrospective portraiture elsewhere, in Athens especially. The same impulse that led to the creation of inscribed documents such as the so-​ called Themistokles decree from Troizen in the Peloponnese also encouraged the manufacture of portrait statues representing individuals who had played significant roles in the events of the Archaic and Classical past. Retrospective portraits of Archaic poets and of figures associated with the Persian Wars, such as Themistokles, had a symbiotic relationship with Archaic and Classical

15

Chapter Outl ine

literature: they either reinforced or subtly challenged the testimony of canonical texts such as Herodotus’ Histories. The late Hellenistic (ca. 150–​30 bc) and early Roman imperial (ca. 30 bc –​ad 68) periods saw drastic interventions affecting early Greek portraits, attested by both literary sources and inscriptions. These afterlives are surveyed in Chapter 5 (“Early Greek Portraits under Roman Rule: Removal, Renewal, Reuse, and Reinscription”), with a focus upon the practice of portrait reinscription, in which the names of new individuals were inscribed on the bases of older portrait statues still standing in their original Greek contexts. Though portrait reinscription in Roman Greece was condemned by ancient authors, it deserves to be viewed more positively as a way of making visual analogies between the Greeks of earlier periods and contemporary Roman rulers and Greek benefactors. Early Greek portraits continued to perform important documentary functions even when the identities of their subjects were no longer important.

15

16

17

I

PORTRAITS AMONG HEROES AND GODS

18

19

1

FROM VOTIVE STATUES TO HONORIFIC PORTRAITS

I rather believe that the first portrait statues [hominum statuas] officially erected at Athens were those of the Tyrannicides, Harmodius and Aristogeiton. This happened in the same year as that in which the kings were also driven out at Rome [510/​509 bc]. The practice of erecting statues from a most civilized sense of rivalry was afterwards taken up by the whole of the world, and the custom proceeded to arise of having statues adorning the public places of all municipal towns and of perpetuating the memory of human beings and of inscribing lists of honors on the bases to be read for all time, so that such records should not be read on their tombs only. Soon after, a forum was even established in private houses and in our own atria: the respect felt by clients inaugurated this method of doing honour to their patrons. Pliny HN 34.16–​17, trans. Jex-​Blake 1896, modified

This chapter examines the introduction of honorific portraiture in the Greek world at the end of the fifth century bc and attempts to explain it within the historical context of the period between ca. 430 and ca. 380 bc. How, where, and why did a portrait statue become the highest honor a Greek city could award to an individual? Greek portraiture per se seems to have had several different points of origin in the Archaic period. In addition to funerary portraits of the special dead, there were portraits of victorious athletes, set up as votives in sanctuaries, and these may have originated in the western Greek colonies before they appeared at Olympia. The earliest honorific portraits were set up by the people of Ephesos and Samos, and the Ionian Greeks seem already to have had their own distinctive tradition of portraiture in the Archaic period. In the passage quoted, Pliny the Elder singles out a third precedent: the portraits of the Tyrannicides Harmodios and Aristogeiton in the Athenian Agora. 19

20

20

From Votive S tatues to Honorific P ortraits

The period between these Archaic precedents and the end of the fifth century has proven to be both critical and problematic for understanding Greek portraiture. Fifth-​century portraits are difficult to find, both because bronze statues have been lost and because the votive formula makes it difficult to identify bases for portraits and to distinguish portraits from images of gods and heroes.To fill this fifth-​century gap, we need to rely extensively upon late literary sources, especially Pliny and Pausanias, who habitually interpreted Archaic and fifth-​century portraits in terms of later honorific portraiture.1 Pliny’s and Pausanias’ testimony tends to be used in modern scholarship to argue that salient characteristics of later Greek portraiture, such as realistic portrait likeness, must go back to the fifth century, in effect treating the development of Greek portraiture as a self-​fulfilling prophecy.

The Origins of Honorific Portraiture The Elder Pliny’s encyclopedic Naturalis Historia, written in the mid-​first century ad, appears to offer a continuous history of the development of portraiture stretching from late Archaic Greece to imperial Rome. Its importance as a source on Greek portraiture was recognized as early as the Renaissance in Italy, when the practices of Republican Rome as Pliny describes them were extensively emulated and replicated.2 It is Pliny who first cites the statues of the Athenian Tyrannicides Harmodios and Aristogeiton as milestones in the history of portraiture, in the course of his lengthy historical sketch on the development of bronze working, from the manufacture of furniture and cult utensils to divine images (effigies deorum) to portraits (hominum statuas) in book 34 (34.14–​36). Pliny’s perspective was profoundly teleological:  the endpoint in view is the Hellenistic and Roman practice of honorific portraiture. It makes some sense, then, to begin with this evolutionary endpoint in order to address three possible ways to get there from early Greek portraiture, two of them anticipated by Pliny: the portraits of Harmodios and Aristogeiton in the Athenian Agora, the portraits of Olympic victors, and the portraits of the eastern Greeks. On what basis should honorific portraits (Pliny’s statuas) be considered something different from earlier Greek portraiture? Though the term “honorific portrait” (Ehrenstatue in German) tends to be applied broadly to all Greek portrait statues of the Hellenistic period, whether they were private dedications in sanctuaries or state monuments, technically speaking the new practice that emerges at the very end of the fifth century is the award of a portrait statue as an honor by means of an official enactment, whether by a Greek city as a whole or by a smaller collective. The earliest surviving inscribed decrees awarding a portrait statue are associated with the Athenian strategos (general) Konon and the Cypriot king Euagoras of Salamis, whose naval victory on

21

The Origins of Honorific P ortraiture

6.  Statue base for the bronze honorific portrait of Konon from Kaunos (I.Kaunos 81), 394 bc.The dowel holes for the feet show that the figure stood in an attacking pose with right foot forward. Reproduced by permission of Christian Marek

behalf of the Athenians at Knidos in 394 bc challenged Spartan supremacy in the Aegean and Asia Minor in the aftermath of the Peloponnesian War.3 Konon was honored with portraits both by the Athenians and by several cities in coastal Asia Minor. The base for an honorific portrait of Konon at Kaunos in Asia Minor survives (I.Kaunos 81 = SEG LVI 1193): the inscription is a simple name label, and the lost bronze portrait stood in an active, attacking pose with right foot forward [Figure 6]. Fragments of the inscribed Athenian decree in honor of Euagoras of Salamis also survive (RO 11): it was most likely set up next to his portrait in the Agora to make clear exactly why the statue was there, and to serve as an example for future individuals to emulate, a function made explicit in the so-​called hortatory clauses of later honorific decrees in Athens and elsewhere.4 The beginning of a contemporary decree of Erythrai in Asia Minor in honor of Konon (RO 8) is preserved, and it is worth quoting here as an example of formulae that would be repeated for centuries: Resolved by the council and the people.Write up Conon as a benefactor [euergetes] and proxenos [ambassador] of the Erythraeans; and he shall have a front seat at Erythrae and immunity [ateleia] for all commodities, both for import and for export, both in war and in peace; and he shall be an

21

22

22

From Votive S tatues to Honorific P ortraits

Erythraean if he wishes. This shall be both for him and for his descendants. Make a bronze, gilded likeness [eikon] of him, and set it up wherever Conon resolves. –​and –​ Trans. RO

The very fact that I can produce a short synthesis here of honorific portraits speaks to the homogeneity of honorific statue practice as it developed in the fourth century and the Hellenistic period in the Greek world.5 Portrait statues were only the summit of a system of public honors awarded to individuals across an astonishing number of different Greek polities, ranging from the practical (enktesis: the right to purchase property as a non-​citizen, and ateleia: exemption from taxation) to the symbolic: public proclamations, golden crowns, bronze portrait statues set up in public places and inscribed with the honorand’s name. In order for the honor of a portrait to be effective, the identity of the honorand needed to be displayed clearly for all to see. Within this new context of public honors, the old genre of the votive formula was inadequate, even when honorific portraits were dedicated to the gods. In response, a variety of different inscribed formulae naming the subject the portrait statue represented came into currency: these encompass simple name labels in the nominative case and more complex formulae specifying who took the initiative to award the portrait and why, often using the normal verb of dedication: “X dedicated Y.”6 What John Ma terms “the politics of the accusative” –​that is, the naming of the portrait’s subject in the accusative case, in relation to the nominative city or public body awarding the statue –​proves fundamental to understanding honorific portraits.7 The portrait statue concretizes the honor awarded, and stands as a lasting, public token of the transaction. The point of these statues was to make civic honor visible in the public arena, even in the later Hellenistic period when the honorands increasingly were forced to pay for their own statues. The statue transaction represented one-​half of a reciprocal relationship between cities and powerful outsiders, and between cities and their own citizens, who needed to be motivated to provide exemplary service. At the same time, the honorific portrait statue put honorands in their place, linking their names to standardized categories of meritorious service or virtues spelled out in the inscriptions (arete, sophrosyne = good judgment, and the like). Many of these statues also offered a standardized iconographic image of the good citizen and benefactor as himation man –​as seen in a Roman marble copy of a portrait of the fourth-​century Athenian orator Aeschines illustrated here [Figure 49].8 In Athens, the practice of awarding statues remained improvisatory in the first half of the fourth century, and the honorands who received them were, like Konon, victorious Athenian strategoi. After ca. 340 bc in Athens, however, statue honors seem to have broadened significantly to encompass non-​Athenian benefactors and saviors of the city, as well as many more Athenians beyond victorious generals.9 By the middle Hellenistic period in most Greek cities,

23

The Origins of Honorific P ortraiture

routine honors including the award of honorific portrait statues were institutionalized as a normal facet of public business, and the honorands included the Hellenistic kings, their families, and their friends and associates. By the late Hellenistic period, that is, from ca. 150 bc onward, Pliny’s characterization of the spread of Greek portraiture is accurate: honorific portrait statues really were everywhere, in the Greek world at least. Honorific portraits in civic spaces and sanctuaries alike responded to a changed civic milieu: the absolute necessity of euergetism (public benefaction) as a means of financial survival meant that most Greek cities were run by a small, corporate aristocracy consisting of a small number of families. In sanctuaries, the thorough interpenetration of civic offices with priesthoods and lesser sacred offices led to the multiplication of the latter for men, women, and children alike to provide suitable occasions for benefaction and public display.10 The awarding of painted portraits comes into play relatively late as a lesser honor than a portrait statue and speaks to the enlargement, or even inflation, of the number of honorific portraits being granted.11 In this period Romans began to be incorporated into Greek honorific statue practice, first the generals, consuls, and provincial governors of the late Republic, and eventually Augustus and the imperial family.12

The Tyrannicides Harmodios and Aristogeiton in the Athenian Agora In Athens after Konon, we see practices of diverse origin and significance coming together to form a standardized civic package of highest honors (megistai timai) that included the award of a bronze portrait statue (eikon).Which aspects of portraiture, or which particular precedents, did the Athenians and the other Greeks have in mind when they co-​opted portraiture into honorific practice? Pliny cites the erection of portrait statues representing the tyrant-​slayers Harmodios and Aristogeiton in the Athenian Agora, made by the late Archaic sculptor Antenor, in association with the final removal of the Peisistratid tyrants from power in 510 bc and the political reforms of Kleisthenes in 508/​ 7.13 In an incident described by both Herodotus (5.55–​7) and Thucydides (5.53.3–​59.2), two Athenians named Harmodios and Aristogeiton assassinated Hipparchos, the brother of the Athenian tyrant Hippias, son of Peisistratos, during the Panathenaia of 514 bc. The most striking recent formulation of the Tyrannicides’ revolutionary character is that of Tonio Hölscher, who has characterized this portrait pair as the first truly political monument in Greece, with no religious function and no overt connection with the traditional votive and funerary contexts for Archaic Greek sculpture. For Hölscher, these portraits commemorated not an achievement, nor the individuals represented, but rather the new political attitude embodied by Kleisthenes’ reforms: Hölscher suggests that their monument was placed in the part of the Agora known as the orchestra –​the area used for meetings of the democratic citizen assembly

23

24

24

From Votive S tatues to Honorific P ortraits

(ekklesia) before these meetings moved to the nearby Pnyx hill –​in order to serve as a model for the citizens of Athens as they went about the business of their new, democratic system of government.14 Though their assassination of Hipparchos in 514 bc had no immediate effect, after Hippias’ tyranny was brought down in 510 bc Harmodios and Aristogeiton were commemorated in retrospect as the first to act against it. Their monument effectively elided a complex series of historical events into a single moment, and marked the Agora as the location where the Athenian democratic revolution had begun.15 Practically everything we think we know about the statues of Harmodios and Aristogeiton derives not from their contemporary context, but rather from their reception in later periods.16 After the Persians took Antenor’s statues away during their invasion of Athens in 480 bc, they were replaced in 477/​6 with new ones made by Kritios and Nesiotes: the date comes from the Hellenistic chronographic inscription known as the Marmor Parium, dated to 263/​2 bc, and we know what these statues looked like from Roman marble copies [Figure 7]. The original Tyrannicides made by Antenor were eventually returned to Athens, either by Alexander (Arrian Anab. 3.16.7–​8 and 7.19.2) or by one of his successors, and they were duly set up alongside their replacements in the Agora.17 Their precise location has never been identified with certainty by archaeologists, but Thucydides (1.20.2 and 6.57.3) places the assassination itself near the Leokorion, where the daughters of Leos were worshipped as heroines.18 In contrast both to Hölscher, who sees the Tyrannicides as a new type of political monument, and to Philippe Gauthier, who suggested that the new honorific portrait statues of the late fifth and early fourth century bc were based upon the precedent of Harmodios and Aristogeiton, I would emphasize that their portraits were not honorific.19 Rather, they represented Harmodios and Aristogeiton as cultic heroes. The case for the immediate heroization of the Tyrannicides has grown stronger thanks to recent discoveries: an inscribed casualty list from the battle of Marathon, and fragments of a narrative elegy on the dead of Plataia attributed to Simonides.20 Though found in a much later archaeological context, an inscribed casualty list for the tribe Erechtheis has been identified as part of a collective tomb monument from the Soros at Marathon set up as early as the 480s bc.21 The Athenian custom of collective burial for the war dead at public expense, accompanied by both inscribed monuments and funeral orations, can now be taken back at least to Marathon in 490, if not all the way to Kleisthenes’ reforms in 508/​7 bc.22 At the same time, the longstanding possibility that the Persian War dead of Marathon, Salamis, and Plataia were worshipped as heroes immediately has gained new impetus from the publication of the new elegy attributed to the late Archaic poet Simonides. The poem is rife with comparisons between the Greek war dead and the heroes of the Trojan War; the most likely occasion for its composition

25

The Origins of Honorific P ortraiture

7.  Modern plaster casts made from Roman marble copies of Kritios’ and Nesiotes’ Tyrannicides group found on the Capitoline in Rome; Aristogeiton stands on the left and Harmodios on the right, original 477/​6 bc (Museo dei Gessi, University of Rome). Photo: Schwanke, neg. DAI Rome 84.3301

and performance, according to most scholars, is the public religious festival instituted in honor of the dead at their burial site on the battlefield of Plataia (described by Thuc. 3.58.4), similar to the festival instituted by the Athenians in honor of the Marathon dead buried under the Soros on the plain of Marathon. In antiquity, the two elegiac couplets inscribed on the badly damaged base for Kritios and Nesiotes’ Tyrannicides found in the Agora were partially

25

26

26

From Votive S tatues to Honorific P ortraits

preserved in the literary tradition and attributed to Simonides.23 The extant portion reads as follows: [ε͂᾿ μέγ’ Ἀθεναίοισι φόος γένε‘ενίκ’ Ἀριστο/​γείτον ℎίππαρχον κτεῖνε καὶ] ℎαρμόδιο[ς]. [–​⏕ –​⏕ –​⏕ –​⏕ –​⏑⏑ –​⏓ /​ –​⏕ –​ ⏕ –​ πα]τρίδα γε͂ν ἐθέτεν. Truly, a great light was born for the Athenians when Aristogeiton and Harmodios killed Hipparchos … they made their fatherland … IG I3 502 = CEG 430

In their evocation of at least one Homeric metaphor (the “light of deliverance”), the epigrams resemble both Simonides’ Plataia elegy and the epigram inscribed on the newly published Marathon casualty stele.24 The fragmentary Tyrannicides base and its epigrams also strongly resemble the preserved portions of the so-​called Monument of the Persian War epigrams, now identified by Angelos Matthaiou as a centotaph for the Marathon dead.25 Since the available evidence takes collective Athenian honors for the war dead back in time only as far as Marathon in 490, it is impossible to prove that Antenor’s original monument in the Agora was inspired by these honors. But by the time we get to Kritios and Nesiotes’ replacement statue group of 477/​6 bc, the analogy between the treatment of the Athenian war dead under the democracy and the commemoration of Harmodios and Aristogeiton was nearly complete. Both were commemorated with public monuments not only over their tombs but also in the Agora; both were praised by elegies with a notably Homeric cast. Fourth-​century sources report that Harmodios and Aristogeiton received enagismata (heroic sacrifices) performed by the Athenian polemarch (war-​archon), a form of sacrifice also offered to the war dead ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 58.1), as well as libations (Dem. 19.280) at a monument in the demosion sema, Athens’ public cemetery, seen there by Pausanias (1.29.15); it may have been either their actual tomb or a centotaph.26 Heroic honors are likely to have been instituted for Harmodios and Aristogeiton in connection with the replacement monument made by Kritios and Nesiotes, soon after they began to be offered to the Persian War dead.27 The poses of Kritios and Nesiotes’ Tyrannicide portraits, known through Roman marble copies, likened them to images both of heroes and of gods. The obvious precedent is late Archaic striding, attacking images of the gods in bronze. In Athens, Athena appeared in the guise of the “Promachos,” armed with helmet and shield and attacking with her spear, in a whole series of bronze statues and statuettes dedicated on the Acropolis between ca. 500 and ca. 460 bc; on Panathenaic prize amphoras, the image of the striding, attacking Athena goes back to the very beginning of the series in the mid-​ sixth century bc. A more precise visual parallel is images of Apollo attacking

27

The Origins of Honorific P ortraiture

8.  Scenes of Theseus in combat against various enemies on a red-​figure kylix attributed to the Codrus painter (BM inv. 1850,0302.3), ca. 440–​430 bc. The poses of Theseus at the top left and bottom right imitate those of Kritios’ and Nesiotes’ Harmodios and Aristogeiton. ©The Trustees of the British Museum

with a sword held overhead in Attic red-​figure Gigantomachy scenes dated before ca. 480 bc.28 The Athenian hero par excellence Theseus adopts the poses of both Harmodios (so-​called “Harmodios blow”) and Aristogeiton in Attic vase painting and sculpture, with some examples dating before ca. 477 bc but most after: evidence for cross-​fertilization between images of the hero Theseus [Figure 8] and the new heroic image of the tyrant-​slayers.29 Harmodios and Aristogeiton may have been represented with statues in the Agora precisely because they were cultic heroes. Like the eponymous heroes of the ten Kleisthenic tribes, chosen by the oracle of Apollo at Delphi in 508/​7 bc, they were heroic paradigms to be emulated by Athenian citizens.30 Retrospectively, their statues in the Agora were treated as if they were heroes, or even gods. Thematically related honorific portraits of tyrant-​slayers were set up around them, just as honorific portraits elsewhere in the Agora were clustered near thematically related divine images. Konon, Euagoras, and the stelai inscribed with their honorific decrees were placed near the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios (bringer of freedom) and the statue of Zeus Soter (savior), both monuments to the role played by Zeus in the victory over the Persians in 480 bc: this location stressed that Konon and Euagoras were honored as saviors of Athens and bringers of freedom.31 The Hellenistic honorific portraits of the two later pairs of fighters against tyranny placed beside the Tyrannicides –​ Antigonos Monophthalmos and his son Demetrios Poliorcetes (end of the

27

28

28

From Votive S tatues to Honorific P ortraits

fourth century), and Julius Caesar’s assassins Brutus and Cassius (44 bc) –​ did not mimic the dramatic action poses of Kritios and Nesiotes’ statues, nor were they inscribed with praise epigrams.32 The placement of Antigonos’ and Demetrios’ portraits inside a chariot, possibly driven by Nike herself, brought the analogy between military and athletic victory –​rather than the link with the Tyrannicides –​to the forefront.33 In retrospect, it was meant to be clearly visible that the Tyrannicides, in comparison with later fighters against tyranny honored by Athens, were something more than mortal honorands. Perhaps the strongest argument against seeing the Tyrannicides monument as an evolutionary precedent for the development of honorific portraits in Athens is the fact that they did not transform the Agora into an honorific space. The official public monuments set up in Athens to commemorate the victory over the Boiotians and Chalkidians in 507/​6 bc, the Persian Wars of 490–​479, the capture of Eion in Thrace in 465, and the Peloponnesian War neither consisted of portraits nor included them. In the Agora itself, scarcely any commemorative monuments at all, either statues or inscriptions, date between the Tyrannicides and the restoration of the Athenian democracy after the tyranny of the 30 in 403 bc.34 The fourth-​century Athenian orators, notably Demosthenes (20.70 and 112; 23.196–​8), were acutely conscious of a fifth-​ century gap between Kritios and Nesiotes’ Tyrannicides of 477/​6 and the next occasion when the Athenian state took the initiative to honor individuals with portraits: Konon and Euagoras in 393 bc.35 These and the portraits of three other victorious Athenian strategoi –​Iphikrates (389 bc), Chabrias (377/​6 or 376/​5), and Konon’s son Timotheos (ca. 375/​4 or 360) –​are so consistently mentioned together by Demosthenes and other Athenian politicians in their speeches that they seem to have been the only honorific portraits placed in the Agora before ca. 340 bc.36 The Acropolis remained a preferred location for inscribed honorific decrees, and a few honorific portraits as well, in the fourth century.37 Identifying the Tyrannicides as cultic heroes from the beginning weakens the case for the Athenian democracy as the primary driving force behind the development of honorific portraiture in the Greek world.38

Portraits of Athletic Victors and the Western Greeks Kritios and Nesiotes’ Tyrannicides, with their nudity and active poses, were visually as much like contemporary portraits of athletic victors as they were like images of warlike gods or heroes. As early as ca. 430 bc, the Athenians made the analogy between the Tyrannicides and athletes explicit in the so-​ called Prytaneion decree (IG I3 131), which specified that Harmodios and Aristogeiton’s descendants were to receive the honor of sitesis (free meals) in the Prytaneion along with victors in the four major panhellenic contests (Olympian, Pythian, Isthmian, and Nemean games).39 Pliny himself seemed

29

The Origins of Honorific P ortraiture

to accept that victory in the Greek crown games, in particular the Olympics, served as an occasion for Greek portraiture even before the Tyrannicides, and thus victor portraits provide a second evolutionary scenario for honorific portraiture. In the fifth century, most victor portraits at Olympia, Delphi, and elsewhere were inscribed with normal votive formulae recording a dedication by the athlete himself. Far from being a “genre bâtard,” as Anne Jacquemin has called them, victor portraits look like the most coherent class of early Greek portraits.40 The votive character of early portraits of victorious athletes was not merely an imposture: what requires explanation is why victory in the games, unlike many other occasions, was thought to call for dedicating an image of the victor himself rather than some other type of offering from a relatively early date. In early Greek culture, victors in the Olympics and the other crown games were a class of individuals who could claim to have been singled out for special favor by the gods themselves: athletic victory conferred a type of religious charisma and “talismanic power” with few parallels.41 The theme of victory as god-​g iven recurs often in Pindar’s epinician odes of the first half of the fifth century, as do extended comparisons between victorious athletes and heroes, both local and panhellenic. Dedicating a replica of the body of the athletic victor was thus fundamentally votive in nature. The bodies of athletes were appropriate offerings in a way that those of other dedicators were not: the athlete’s body was the instrument of victory, and victory demonstrated the body’s arete and its character as a pleasing votive gift for the gods. Before the end of the fifth century, some victors whose power was perceived to be especially great were worshipped as heroes or even as gods, but at the same time there is no strict, one-​to-​one correlation between athletic portraits and heroization:  the two were both manifestations of the extraordinary character of victory in the crown games within early Greek culture.42 The victorious athlete asserted his own special status by dedicating his portrait in a sanctuary: for this particular class of individuals, self-​representation was the norm in the beginning. Fifth-​century epinician poetry, epigram, and athletic victor portraits clearly draw upon the same reservoir of ideas about victors. Sculptural metaphors are already entrenched and pervasive in Pindar’s odes; the beginning lines of Nemean 5 compare the epinician poet to the artists who craft sculptural portraits of the victor –​predictably, the poet wins, but the reference to statues here stands out as extraordinary within the context of fifth-​century portrait sculpture. In epinician, both the living victor himself and his portrait statue alike are described as kosmos (decoration or adornment) for his home city.43 Somewhat paradoxically, the practice of Olympic victors dedicating portraits of themselves in sanctuaries may have begun outside Olympia in the

29

30

30

From Votive S tatues to Honorific P ortraits

home cities of the victors, in particular the western Greek victors of the sixth century bc. A good case can be made that an inscribed bronze plaque found in 1965 at Francavilla Marittima, near the site of ancient Sybaris in southern Italy, belongs to the earliest known Greek athletic victor portrait. The dedicatory epigram inscribed on this plaque (CEG 394 = SEG XXIX 249 no. 1017), originally attached to the stone base for a statue, identifies the dedicator as an otherwise unknown Olympic victor named Kleom(b)rotos, son of Dexilaos, most likely a citizen of Sybaris, the Elean colony destroyed by neighboring Kroton in 510 bc.The inscription has been dated anywhere from ca. 600 to the late sixth century; it may be safest to date it (along with P. A. Hansen in CEG) to ca. 600–​550 bc, a date early enough to account for its archaisms of spelling. The inscribed text reads as follows: ΔΟ · Κλεόμ(β)ροτος ὁ Δεξιλάϝο̄ · ἀνέθε̄κ’ Ὀλυνπίαι · νικάσας ϝίσο(μ) μᾶκός τε · πάχος τε τἀθάναι · ἀϝέθλο̄ν εὐξάμενος · δεκάταν.

DO Kleombrotos, the son of Dexilaos, after his victory at Olympia, dedicated to Athena [this statue], equal in size and thickness [to himself], having vowed a tithe from the prizes.44

The key to identifying Kleombrotos’ lost statue as a representation of Kleombrotos himself is the phrase ϝίσο(μ) μᾶκός τε πάχος τε in the fourth line. The different Greek terms used to refer to statues are relevant here and will be discussed more systematically later in this chapter. As both Laurent Dubois and Joachim Ebert construe it, ϝίσο(μ) here is either ἴσον με (masculine accusative case, “[dedicated] me, something equal in size and thickness”) or ἴσως με (adverbially, “[dedicated] me, equally in size and thickness”); either way, the missing referent describing what the statue that Kleombrotos dedicated was must be the masculine ἀνδριάς (male figure) and not, as we might expect, the neuter ἄγαλμα typically employed in the Archaic period to denote a gift pleasing to the deity.45 This distinction proves crucial, because otherwise we might think that a dedication designated a dekate (tithe) to Athena was an image of the goddess Athena herself rendered “equal in size and thickness” to the dedicator Kleombrotos, just like the Artemis “equal in size to herself ” dedicated by Krino on Delos. More simply put, instead of giving Athena a representation of herself roughly equal to his own size, Kleombrotos’ epigram alludes to a male ­figure  –​whose size was evidently large and impressive  –​ intended to represent Kleombrotos himself.46 Kleombrotos’ votive statue was intended to serve as a permanent reminder, a votive document of his appearance. A claim to the statue’s mimesis is explicit:

31

The Origins of Honorific P ortraiture

the inscription says that Kleombrotos dedicated a statue equal in size to himself. Yet to conclude from this that the statue Kleombrotos dedicated was a true likeness, or particularly lifelike, misses the mark on two different counts. First of all, at this early date the statue itself was almost certainly a kouros, a conventional, static Archaic male figure. Second, some fifth-​and fourth-​century victor portraits at Olympia were considerably larger than lifesize. At the same time that Kleombrotos’ inscription claims that the statue equals his own size, the statue itself, like these Classical examples, may have been a figure impossibly large, beyond human size. Thus Kleombrotos’ claim –​like that of Nikandre’s votive inscription calling herself preeminent among women –​is a self-​assertive boast, and his portrait statue was intended to support his boast to be something greater than an ordinary mortal. It is worth comparing this very early example of an athletic victor dedicating a portrait of himself with a contemporary dedication by another Olympic victor. An early or mid-​sixth-​century bc victor named Bybon inscribed the following text upon a large stone found in the Olympia excavations: Βύβο̅ ν τέ̅τέρει χερὶ ὑπερκέφαλά μ’ὑπερβάλετο ὁ Φόλα. Bybon, son of Pholas, threw me over his head with one hand. IvO 717 = Syll.3 1071

Bybon’s stone serves as a permanent document, a reminder of the feat of strength described by the inscription Bybon carved on its surface. Yet    the stone itself weighs in at 288 pounds, quite impossible even for a modern weightlifting champion to throw over his head with one hand. Here too, the point of leaving behind an inscribed object is to lay claim to posterity for a human body beyond normal human capabilities: something more like the body of a hero or a god.47 Though votive in origin, were athletic portraits nonetheless the precedent for awarding portrait statues as an honor in the Greek world? As an alternative to the Tyrannicides, they have much to recommend them. The awarding of honorific gold crowns for military victories, first attested in Athens in literary sources dealing with the Peloponnesian War period, and ubiquitous as a military and political honor in the fourth century, clearly migrated to the political realm from the panhellenic athletic contests at Olympia, Delphi, Isthmia, and Nemea.48 Enough survives to show that the earliest and most influential portraits of athletic victors have a strong western Greek connection; the patronage of the Deinomenid tyrants of Sicily undoubtedly contributed to the bulge in the dedication of athletic portraits at both Olympia and Delphi after 480 bc. R. R. R. Smith is surely correct to attribute the early-​Classical explosion in victor portraits at Olympia, to be examined more closely in Chapter 3, to a spectacular historical confluence of high-​powered chariot victors from the western Greek colonies, Argive and Aeginetan bronze sculptors interested in

31

32

32

From Votive S tatues to Honorific P ortraits

fully exploiting the potential of the new technique of hollow casting, and Pindar’s epinician poetry.49 Athletic victor portraits challenge theories of early Greek portraiture that stress the primacy the Athenian democracy as the driving force behind honorific portraits.50

Eastern Greek Portraiture A third, and also non-​Athenian, tradition in early Greek portraiture was omitted entirely by Pliny in his evolutionary sketch: that of the cities of Ionia in the Archaic period, Miletos, Ephesos, and Samos especially.51 Some of the earliest certain examples of portraits come from the sanctuary of Apollo at Didyma, controlled by Miletos [Figure 33], and the Samian Heraion, where the Geneleos group of ca. 560–​550 bc, representing a family of worshippers [Figure  31], was found. If Pausanias (6.3.14–​16) is to be believed, in the final years of the Peloponnesian War, the Samians and Ephesians dedicated a series of portraits of Alcibiades and the Spartan nauarch (admiral) Lysander in their own sanctuaries (the Heraion and the Artemision); in addition, the Samians dedicated a portrait of Lysander at Olympia inscribed with an epigram explicitly identifying it as an official public offering. Both the Samians and the Ephesians again dedicated official portraits of Konon in their respective sanctuaries in 394/​3, as did the citizens of Erythrai (RO 8)  and Kaunos on the Asia Minor coast (I.Kaunos 81).52 The Samian portrait of Lysander at Olympia clearly anticipates the earliest Athenian honorific portraits, and all the others likely represent official honors as well. The problem here is the lack of evidence for portrait statues in the Ionian sanctuaries between the mid-​fifth century bc and the final years of the Peloponnesian War. Proponents of the eastern Greek lineage for early Greek portraiture attempt to fill the fifth-​century gap with portrait images on gemstones or coins.53 The fifth-​century Ionian “gap” applies not only to portrait statues, but to inscribed dedications in general, and it can easily be accounted for by historical events:  Miletos and Didyma were sacked after the Ionian revolt of 494 bc, and Samos was brutally besieged by the Athenians in 440/​39 bc following a period of political unrest. Even on Delos in the Cyclades, a rich body of Archaic material gives way to scanty remains in the Classical period, when the Athenians controlled the island. Taken in isolation, none of the three lineages for honorific portraits examined here –​Harmodios and Aristogeiton, athletic victor portraits, and eastern Greek portraiture –​quite explains how we get from the votive portraits of the Archaic period to honorific portraits. At the very least, all three lineages call into question any notion of a neatly traceable evolution in Greek thinking about portraits with Archaic origins and a continuous history in the fifth century bc. They also frustrate any attempt to produce a geographically unified narrative. And even if we succeed in figuring out who made portraits first,

33

Gree k Portraits and D ocu m entary C u lture

or accept athletic victor portraits as the most important precedent, we have still not explained why portrait statues became a key component of honorific practice at the end of the fifth century.

Greek Portraits and Documentary Culture: Documenting the Individual Despite renewed scholarly interest in Greek portraiture, the choice of portraits as the highest form of honor still calls for explanation: what is it about portraits that made them better than honorific gold crowns? Why did portraits as honors emerge when they did, at the end of the fifth century? In the sixth and fifth centuries, the commemoration of human achievement was habitually linked to the dedication of divine images rather than portraits. Why did this change? Such a wholesale shift in commemorative practice did not take place in an historical vacuum. The development of civic honorific portraiture has traditionally been viewed within the context of the Greek city-​state’s increasing reliance upon, and glorification of, the individual over the course of the Classical period, a process that began during the Peloponnesian War of 431–​404 bc and reached its logical conclusion in the era of Philip II and Alexander –​a development that requires both further explanation and considerable qualification.54 By the end of the Peloponnesian War, both the Athenians and the Spartans had become increasingly dependent upon the successes of extraordinary individuals in their conduct of the war: Alcibiades, with his flamboyant “personal style,” and Lysander, the Spartan admiral who could not become king, are the chief examples.55 The cities affected by the war began to recognize such individuals with extraordinary offices, honors, and privileges in return for their contributions. But individuals whose personal influence threatened to break through the normal conventions of Greek politics and society had already arisen earlier in the fifth century: Miltiades after Marathon in 490, Themistokles and the Spartan regent Pausanias after Salamis in 480 (Thuc. 1.125–​38), and Kimon in the mid-​fifth century. Though Themistokles had been voted the final prize for individual excellence (aristeia) at the Isthmus (Hdt. 8.123–​5) after Salamis, as well as being honored in an extraordinary fashion by the Spartans, neither he nor Kimon were awarded crowns, nor were their names inscribed in stone, nor were they rewarded with honorific portrait statues.56 The convergence of the end of the Peloponnesian War brought together a series of commemorative forms that were both relatively new (honorific decrees inscribed on stone) and relatively old (crowns and portrait statues) to single out individuals. For the rise of the individual broadly considered, however, the period ca. 350–​320 bc was arguably more important than ca. 430–​380. In Athens, the awarding of honors to individuals seems to

33

34

34

From Votive S tatues to Honorific P ortraits

have expanded significantly, and to have encompassed a wider selection of honorands:  the package of highest honors including a portrait statue can only truly be said to be institutionalized and routine from this period forward. Beyond Athens, the practice of honorific portraiture spread far more broadly in the period ca. 350–​320 than it ever had before. The movement from the dedication of votive statues in Greek sanctuaries to the dedication of portraits, when it has been noticed at all, has also been associated with a crisis or decline in the practice of traditional religion in the Greek polis.57 Some have seen a decline in the religious functions of portraits and a movement from sacred to secular in Greek portraiture already underway in the fifth century.58 An Athenocentric view of the origins of honorific portraiture has been bolstered by linkage with a supposed “crisis” in Athenian religion during the Peloponnesian War; but even if conflict between religious traditionalists and proponents of new ideas can be detected near the end of the fifth century in Athens, it certainly does not amount to an “irreversible decline in religious faith in Athens thereafter.”59 Paul Veyne situated the shift from dedicating statues of the gods to dedicating portraits within the much broader paradigm of the Hellenistic decline of the Greek polis, a view since challenged by a whole generation of scholarship on the Hellenistic period, but still tenacious in the study of Greek sanctuaries and religion.60 In some sanctuaries in the Hellenistic period, the naming of the recipient deity in votive inscriptions seems to peter out, and more dedications addressed “to the gods” (theois) appear; the epithets of the gods included in votive inscriptions lose their distinctively local cultic character or become more generalized, and new epithets derived from personal names appear in the Hellenistic period.61 Votive inscriptions referring to dreams, epiphanies, oracles, and other factors of personal significance, but irrelevant to the character of any particular sanctuary, became more common.62 By the Roman imperial period in mainland Greece, the Aegean, and Ionia, the most common types of inscribed votive dedications in sanctuaries were no longer monumental divine or heroic images, but instead less expensive votive reliefs, altars, and divine statuettes.63 Though these developments have sometimes been seen as signs of worshippers’ diminishing awareness of the cults in the sanctuaries where they made their dedications, it is also possible to see here the development of a sort of eastern Mediterranean religious koine; after all, another critical development of the Hellenistic period was the spread of the cult of Isis and other foreign cults with no local roots.64 Unlike votive portraits, honorific portraits were inseparable from written documents: the statue itself was displayed on a base inscribed with the name of the subject, and the justification for the honor of a portrait was laid out in a public enactment or decree, which itself was often published on stone. Such honorific decrees, whose numbers increase exponentially after the fifth century, are clearly symptomatic of the larger development called the epigraphic

35

Gree k Portraits and D ocu m entary C u lture

habit, epigraphic culture or, more broadly, documentary culture. At the end of the fifth century, portraits dedicated in sanctuaries began to be inscribed with the names of their subjects. Epigraphically at least, portraits were marked as something different from images or gods or heroes. Up until this point, even the portraits of athletic victors at Olympia and Delphi were inscribed either with standard votive formulas, or with quotations of the herald’s victory proclamation (the aggelia): “Kallias, son of Didymias, the Athenian, (victor in) boxing” (IvO 146). At the end of the fifth century, inscribed name labels for portraits suddenly appear in the monument to Lysander’s victory at Aigospotamoi in 405 bc. The essential point of the comparison between the explosion in written documents and the explosion in portrait statues is that fourth-​century and Hellenistic attitudes toward both documents and portraits markedly differed from those current throughout most of the fifth century. The development of Greek documentary culture is not something that can be pinned down to a fixed starting date, but at the same time it is clear that profound changes occurred during the period between the beginning of the Peloponnesian War in 431 bc and ca. 380 bc.65 In the realm of Greek literature, the overarching movement from an oral culture to a culture of the written word, or from Archaic song culture to literary culture, has been intensively studied and debated in scholarship.66 Genre formation, especially the advent of the genre of biography, and the development of generic self-​consciousness, provide analogues for the emergence of portraiture as a distinct genre of artistic representation. As Arnaldo Momigliano noted in his studies of the Greek genre of literary biography, there were biographical elements in fifth-​century Greek literature, but no self-​conscious, theoretized genre of biography until Xenophon in the fourth century.67 In the fourth century and the Hellenistic period, biographical traditions for Homer, Hesiod, and the Greek poets of the Archaic period and the fifth century were invented using their own poetry as a source.68 Of singular relevance for the transformation of early Greek portraiture into a vehicle for honoring individuals are the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, not only as sources to be mined for information, but as important evidence of the new documentary sensibility in Greek historiography. Both authors established their written texts as means for ensuring the memory of the individuals, events, and deeds (erga) that deserved to be remembered.69 Herodotus self-​consciously documents and thereby fixes in writing oral stories, frequently citing physical monuments as both reminders (mnemata) and proofs (tekmeria) of historical events. In a direct challenge to the authority of epic poetry in Greek culture, both authors offered their own texts as new vehicles for memory: they singled out individuals for naming and inclusion in their written texts, withholding the names of those that did not deserve to be

35

36

36

From Votive S tatues to Honorific P ortraits

remembered. As a coda to his account of each of the battles of the Persian Wars, Herodotus names the individuals on both the Greek and Persian sides who distinguished themselves in the action, from Kallimachos and Kynegeiros at Marathon (Hdt. 6.114), to Dienekes and Leonidas at Thermopylai (Hdt. 7.224–​ 8), to several Persians and Greeks at Salamis (Hdt. 8.87–​93), to Kallikrates at Plataia (Hdt. 9.72). The invention of Greek chronography in the period between ca. 430 and ca. 380 bc also deserves to be associated with both the rise of the individual in Greek politics and the advent of honorific portraits. Hellanikos near the end of the fifth century produced a list of the priestesses of Argive Hera as the basis for a panhellenic system of chronology.70 In ca. 400 or soon after, Hippias of Elis compiled the first comprehensive catalogue of Olympic victors (Plut. Numa 1.4=FGrH 6 F2), both as a work of local history and as an attempt to promote an alternative, panhellenic method of time reckoning.71 Though name lists inscribed on stone were common in various parts of the Greek world already in the fifth century, the use of name catalogues as official records enhanced the authority of such documents. Olympic victors, civic officials, and priests began to be used as eponyms, names under which years in the calendar were officially recorded.72 Not surprisingly, manifestations of the new documentary sensibility abound in Athens. Indeed, it might be fair to identify an “innovationist turn” in late fifth-​century Athens that encompassed both new ideas (if not a religious crisis) and a new emphasis upon historical documentation.73 Though an association between Athenian practices of preserving documents on stone and the Athenian democracy seems inevitable, several important developments in this sphere date not to Kleisthenes’ reforms of 508/​7 bc, but to the very end of the fifth century. In Athens the period between ca. 430 and ca. 380 saw not only the earliest inscribed honorific decrees and the introduction of honorific portraits, but also the standardization of the stele format for inscribed documents, the canonization of formulae for inscribed decrees, and an explosion in the number of state documents inscribed on stone.74 Inscribed temple inventories seem to have been introduced in Athens in the late 430s, around the time the Parthenon and its sculptures were finished; in 405/​4 bc, the inventories of the various temple buildings on the Acropolis were merged and consolidated into a single annual list inscribed on stone under the direction of the tamiai, the treasurers of Athena.75 From the Acropolis, the practice of inscribing temple inventories spread to the Athenian Asklepieion, founded in 420 bc, to Delos, and to other sanctuaries.76 The Athenians regularized their own chronology by inscribing a list of the annual archons on stone in ca. 425 bc (ML 6).77 The period around the end of the Peloponnesian War and the oligarchic revolutions that accompanied it (in 411/​10 and 404/​3 bc) also witnessed the revision of the Athenian law code. This revision involved amalgamating Draco’s laws

37

Gree k Portraits and D ocu m entary C u lture

on homicide with the laws of Solon and the Athenian state sacrificial calendar between ca. 410–​404 and 403–​399, and then inscribing the collected laws in one location inside the Stoa Basileios at the northwest corner of the Athenian Agora.78 The creation of an Athenian state archive in the Metroön building complex (formerly the Old Bouleuterion) in the Agora can be dated between 409 and 405 bc.79 The form of the Athenian citizen name comprising three elements  –​the name itself, father’s name (patronymic in the genitive), and the demotic –​became standard in Athenian state documents neither in 508/​ 7, nor in 451/​0 when Perikles’ citizenship law was passed, but after 403/​2; the newly standardized tria nomina spread immediately to private inscriptions such as gravestones and dedications in sanctuaries.80 Finally, soon after the restoration of the Athenian democracy following the tyranny of the 30 in 404–​403 bc, the Athenians adopted the Ionic alphabet for official state documents in 403/​2, replacing the Attic epichoric alphabet with a system in common usage in the Greek world.81 In Athens after ca. 430 bc, new forms of linkage between sculptural representation and historical documentation appeared. Though depictions of historical scenes in Greek wall painting come earlier –​witness the Samian artist Mandrokles’ votive painting in the Samian Heraion representing the bridge that had carried Xerxes and the Persians over the Hellespont in 481 (Hdt. 4.87–​8), and the early Classical scene of the battle of Marathon in the Stoa Poikile in the Athenian Agora (Paus. 1.15.3) –​representations of recent historical events begin to appear in Athenian sculpture after ca. 430.82 The south frieze of the Athena Nike temple on the Acropolis [Figure 9], completed between ca. 425 and 423/​ 2 bc, appears to depict the battle of Marathon; the public casualty lists set up in the demosion sema began to be embellished with battle scenes in relief just before the start of the Peloponnesian War.83 In the private realm, individuals began to dedicate their own historical reliefs during the same period, fixing images of their own deeds and experiences in stone on sanctuary dedications rather than leaving their memory to oral testimony: two examples are a votive relief dedicated at Eleusis by the Athenian cavalry commander [Pythodoro]s, son of Epizelos (IG I3 999, ca. 430–​420 bc: Figure 10), and the relief base for a statue of a horse dedicated by the Athenian cavalryman Simon in the City Eleusinion below the Acropolis at the end of the fifth century, said by Simon’s contemporary Xenophon (Eq. 1.1) to represent his deeds (erga).84 It is even possible to view the Attic grave reliefs of the Classical period, which began to be set up in ca. 430 bc, as characteristic products of the new interest in documentation, combining as they did inscribed texts naming individuals with sculptural representations.85 The confluence of factors that produced the new grave reliefs of the late fifth and fourth centuries has always been difficult to explain historically.86 The case that sculptural funerary monuments for Athenian citizens were forbidden by law between the funerary

37

38

38

From Votive S tatues to Honorific P ortraits

9.  Detail of the south frieze of temple of Athena Nike on the Athenian Acropolis (BM inv. 1816,0610.159), 420s bc:  battle between Greeks and Persians, identified as a depiction of the battle of Marathon. ©The Trustees of the British Museum

10. Votive relief dedicated by the Athenian cavalry commander Pythodoros, Eleusis (Eleusis Museum inv. 5101), ca. 430–​420 bc. Pythodoros appears on horseback in the top register. Photo: Eva-​Maria Czakó, DAI Athens neg. Eleusis 534

39

Gree k Portraits and D ocu m entary C u lture

kouroi and korai of the late Archaic period and ca. 430 is based upon the rarity of known examples dating between ca. 500 and ca. 430 bc, together with a reference in Cicero (Leg. 2.63) to a post-​Solonian Athenian sumptuary law regulating funerary customs. Ian Morris takes this absence as one symptom of a larger movement toward restraint in material culture in fifth-​century Greece.87 Similarly, Richard Neer sees formal allusions to freestanding statues in the iconography of Athenian grave reliefs of ca. 430–​400 bc as a sign that these reliefs were viewed as a substitute for the freestanding funerary kouroi and korai of the Archaic period that were no longer considered acceptable in Athens.88 Yet Classical Athenian votive reliefs, which like the grave reliefs featured portrait images along with inscribed names, also seem to have begun to be produced in ca. 430 bc, evidence of a more pervasive interest in sculptural relief as a documentary form in this period.89 One final development during the same period, potentially of fundamental importance, has been largely overlooked. In Greek sculpture generally before the end of the fifth century, when sculptors signed their works with their own names, the signatures were inscribed in letters equal in height or larger than those of the votive texts the signatures accompanied [e.g. Figure 38]. In Archaic sculpture in particular, from the moment sculptors’ signatures made their first appearance, the texts of many signatures were treated as integral and barely distinguishable from the dedication.90 Near the end of the fifth century, however, a new format appears in which the sculptor’s name and the verb ποιέω appear below the dedication on the front of the base and in significantly smaller letters. Three early examples of this small-​signature format are closely datable. The first is the signature of Paionios of Mende on the triangular pillar base for the Nike dedicated in ca. 421 bc at Olympia by the Messenians and Naupaktians for victories over the Spartans (ML 74). The other two examples come from the Athenian Acropolis: Strongylion’s signature on the base for a colossal Trojan horse in bronze (IG I3 895 = DAA 176), alluded to in Aristophanes’ Birds of 414 bc; and Kresilas of Kydonia’s signature on the base for a portrait of the Athenian general Dieitrephes dedicated by his son Hermolykos (IG I3 883 = DAA 132). Pausanias (1.23.3–​4) saw this statue and thought that it represented Dieitrephes being killed by his own men, an event which must have occurred soon after 411 bc, when Dieitrephes served as strategos in Thrace (Thuc. 8.64).91 An Athenian origin for the small-​signature format seems to be confirmed by its subsequent use on some of the statue bases signed by Demetrios of Alopeke and the elder Kephisodotos in the first half of the fourth century. Several statue bases in Athens signed by the famous Praxiteles, Kephisodotos’ son or nephew, adopted this format, as did those of Praxiteles’ sons Kephisodotos and Timarchos in the early Hellenistic period.92 By the end of the fourth century, the placement of the sculptor’s signature on the front of the statue base, in very

39

40

40

From Votive S tatues to Honorific P ortraits

small letters, below the main text and separated from it by a blank space [e.g. Figure 61], seems to have become universal; it is difficult to find any early or middle-​Hellenistic sculptors’ signatures that deviate from this pattern. Jeremy Tanner has associated the appearance of “vanishingly small” signatures in Greek sculpture with the marginal social position of Greek sculptors and other artists in Classical Greece.93 I would instead suggest that the small-​signature format arose near the end of the fifth century in relation to the larger documentary revolution described here. Inscribed headings in larger letters and differential letter heights marking out different parts of inscribed texts became standard in the later fifth century in Athenian decrees such as the “heroes of Phyle” inscription [SEG XXVIII 45: Figure 11], inventory lists, and casualty lists. The small-​signature format similarly seeks to rationalize the layout of the inscribed text and to differentiate contents of different kinds from one another visually in order to produce a more readable document. Documenting an individual (oneself or someone else) by dedicating a portrait in a sanctuary was already being practiced in the Archaic period and the fifth century bc. Such body-​replicas became more common between ca. 430 and 380 when written documents  –​both literary and epigraphical  –​were

11. The so-​called Heroes of Phyle inscription, reconstructed from fragments found in the Athenian Agora (SEG XXVIII 45), 403/​2 bc. Note the use of differentiated letter heights, columns, and indenting to mark clearly the different contents of the inscribed document. American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Agora Excavations

41

Gree k Term ino l o gy for P ortraits

assigned new value in Greek culture generally. In this interpretation, the document was the driving force behind honorific portraiture, not the rise of the individual. Within this context, the use of the term eikon to refer to portraits has been misunderstood. As we have already seen, the earliest use of eikon in reference to a portrait occurs in the early Classical period on the base for a statue of Euthymos of Lokroi at Olympia.94 Jean-​Pierre Vernant equated the increase in the use of the term eikon in the early fourth century with the reification of the image as a category of thought and production, and the origins of a theoretical discourse about mimesis, in Greek culture.95 The advent of honorific portraits brought with it the adoption of eikon as a specialized term for a portrait statue. Though eikon has connotations of a representation that mimics reality, the promotion of this term for portrait statues does not mean that Greek portraits became more mimetic; rather, it can be connected with a new, distinct generic identity for portraiture from the fourth century bc onward.

Greek Terminology for Portraits: The Portrait Statue as  eikon If we aim to trace the origins of honorific portraits, or to understand the movement from votive statues to portraits in Greek sanctuaries, then terminology is fundamental: when and why did Greek portrait statues begin to be called something different from other statues? In Pausanias, the distinction was for all intents and purposes absolute: an eikon (εἰκῶν) was a portrait statue, and a statue representing a god, a hero, a divinized Roman emperor, or a divine personification was called an agalma (ἄγαλμα).96 Pausanias sometimes used a third term, andrias (ἀνδριάς), when he spoke of human figures in sculpture. Herodotus, writing near the end of the fifth century, was still inconsistent in his terminology for statues. In some cases, Herodotus already uses eikon as a term for portraits as distinct from divine images: for example, the Egyptian pharaoh Amasis dedicated a gold agalma of Athena and an eikon of himself (in this instance a painting) at Cyrene (2.181–​2), and two wooden eikones of himself (εἰκόνες ἑαυτοῦ) in the Samian Heraion. Herodotus’ application of the term eikon to portraits follows directly from its literal meaning “representation,” valid not only for the painted eikon dedicated at Cyrene by Amasis, but also for a sculptural representation of an animal, Croesus of Lydia’s golden lion at Delphi (1.50.3). The portrait of Alexander I of Macedon at Delphi (8.121) is described simply as the golden Alexander; Herodotus refers to the statues of Kleobis and Biton (1.31.5) at Delphi [Figure 12], on the other hand, as eikones. Herodotus uses the more problematic term eidolon three times:  once to refer to the so-​called statue of Croesus’ bread-​baker at Delphi (1.51, also called an eikon); a second time to describe the image of Spartan kings killed

41

42

42

From Votive S tatues to Honorific P ortraits

12. Archaic marble kouroi identified as portraits of Kleobis and Biton (ca. 580 bc), Delphi (Delphi Mus. 4672 and 980). Alison Frantz Photographic Collection, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, neg. ST 45

in battle carried to the tomb on a bier (6.58); and a third time to refer to something that was not a statue at all, namely the ghost of the Corinthian tyrant Periander’s wife Melissa (5.92). In the Archaic period, the inscription on the base of the colossal Naxian Apollo on Delos designates the statue as an andrias, and two other inscriptions on the bases for Archaic kouroi (identities unknown) also describe them as andriantes.97 Herodotus’ usage demonstrates that by the end of the fifth century andrias was no longer restricted to Archaic kouroi, and that it could be used to describe male figures representing both divine and human subjects.98 Herodotus, in the same passage that he mentions the golden Alexander of Macedon at Delphi, calls the colossal Apollo

43

Gree k Term ino l o gy for P ortraits

dedicated by the Greeks from the Persian spoils of the battle of Salamis an andrias (8.121.2). He uses both agalma and andrias to describe another golden Apollo statue (6.118.3), but elsewhere distinguishes an agalma representing Apollo from the andrias representing Aristeas of Proconnesos that stood next to it in the agora of Metapontum (4.16).99 Thus for Herodotus, an andrias might, depending upon the context of the description, represent either a god or a human subject. We need to look beyond Herodotus to inscriptions to determine how and why eikon became the standard Greek term for a portrait statue. There was no specialized Greek term for a portrait until honorific decrees awarding bronze portrait statues began to be promulgated: the earliest epigraphical example of eikon for a portrait after Euthymos of Lokroi occurs in the decree of Erythrai on the coast of Asia Minor in honor of Konon in 394 bc (RO 8, line 14, quoted in the first section of this chapter).100 Honorific decrees from every Greek city are consistent in their use of eikon for any officially awarded portrait statue in bronze throughout the fourth century and the Hellenistic period. Eikon thus became a standard term for a portrait only with the advent of honorific portraiture. Peter Allan Hansen in the second volume of CEG, devoted to inscribed epigrams of the fourth century bc, collects twenty-​eight examples with eikon, nearly all of which were inscribed on the bases of portrait statues dedicated in Greek sanctuaries. The term eikon fits easily into the common meters of epigrams, and indeed most of the examples of the term in statue base inscriptions occur in metrical texts. In Athens, where metrical epigrams were commonly inscribed on both votive and funerary monuments in the late Archaic period and the fifth century, the term eikon was never used; from the beginning of the fourth century onwards, however, it was used extensively for private portraits dedicated on the Acropolis.101 Though sometimes synonymous for Herodotus, by the Hellenistic period eikon had come to mean a portrait and andrias, any bronze figure, usually male, whether portrait or divine image. Between ca. 300 and ca. 50 bc in honorific decrees of various Greek cities awarding bronze eikones, discussions of the technical details of the same statues use the term andrias.102 At some point in the Hellenistic period, a distinction began to be made between the makers of agalmata, agalmatopoioi, and andriantopoioi, bronze-​workers specializing in portraits.103 In Xenophon’s Memorabilia (3.10.6), Kleiton the andriantopoios seems to specialize in portraits of athletes. The association between bronze and portraits may in fact be traceable back to the immediate aftermath of the Persian Wars, when Aiginetan and Argive bronze sculptors began to make athletic victor portraits, and Kritios and Nesiotes made their bronze statues of Harmodios and Aristogeiton; in fourth-​century and later decrees awarding honorific portraits in Athens, the formula commonly used is “to set X up in bronze.”104

43

44

44

From Votive S tatues to Honorific P ortraits

Anachronisms in Late Literary Sources Pliny’s Naturalis Historia and Pausanias’ Periegesis of Greece are indispensible sources for Greek portraiture of the Archaic and Classical periods, and they are not the only authors of the Roman imperial period whose testimony is essential:  we also need Plutarch, Lucian, Strabo, Livy, and Dio Chrysostom. At the same time that we quote and use these sources, however, we need to acknowledge that they either misunderstood or misrepresented the identities, motivations, functions, and appearance of early Greek portraits in fundamental ways. The following is an attempt to bring to the fore particular types of anachronisms that the late literary sources import into their discussions of Archaic and Classical Greek portraits.

Subject Categories, Restrictions, and Gradations of Honor Pliny’s overriding perspective is both evolutionary and teleological:  he uses the precedent of Greek portraiture to explain how Roman portraits of his own day had developed into what they were. Determining who was the first Roman to achieve or receive any given distinction is an important structuring principle throughout book 34 of the Naturalis Historia, and Pliny’s statement that the portraits of Harmodios and Aristogeiton were the first Greek portraits to be erected at public expense conforms to just this pattern. Some passages show more clearly than others how Pliny’s teleological approach to Greek portraiture was shaped by Roman practices. Pliny shows the greatest interest in types of portraits familiar to a Roman audience of the first century ad, and is concerned to establish for them an ancient and distinguished Greek pedigree: cuirass statues, equestrian figures, chariot groups, portraits of “great men” displayed in public places, portrait statues on columns, ruler portraits, and realistic likenesses.105 When viewed in this light, his treatment of Greek equestrian figures and chariot groups is particularly revealing: Equestrian statues, which are so common at Rome, were undoubtedly first borrowed from Greece. The Greeks, however, only dedicated equestrian statues of those who had been victors on horseback at the sacred games; later on we find statues of the victors in the two-​and four-​horse chariot races. From this arose our custom of setting up chariots in honour of those who had triumphed. Until recent times this was unknown, and chariots drawn by six horses or by elephants were only introduced by the god Augustus. Pliny HN 34.19, trans. Jex-​Blake 1896

Contrary to Pliny’s claim, Greek equestrian portraits were never exclusively, or even primarily, for victors in the games. This is true even in the Archaic

45

Anachronis m s in Late Literary S ources

period, and even if we assume that all the extant marble equestrian figures from every site (Athens, Delos, and elsewhere) were portraits rather than divine or heroic images. One clearly non-​athletic example from the Archaic period is a marble horseman from Amphipolis (SEG XXVII 249), probably from a cemetery rather than a sanctuary, commemorating a Thracian soldier killed in battle.106 In the Hellenistic period, Greek equestrian portraits became a common type of honorific monument used to represent rulers (the tyrant Demetrios of Phaleron in Athens), friends of kings, strategoi, civic benefactors, and miscellaneous subjects of private portrait dedications in sanctuaries.107 In the late Hellenistic period, they began to be grouped in rows in front of stoas and alongside paths at Olympia, in the Athenian Agora, and on Delos, and to be deployed as honorific portraits of Romans. Pliny throughout his history of portraiture emphasizes gradations of honor and restrictive rules governing portraiture, concerns that betray the influence of Roman imperial practices.108 Augustus strictly controlled the public display of portrait statues; portraits in two-​, four-​, and six-​horse chariots represented official degrees of honor divorced from both victory in the games and military triumph.109 The impact of these attitudes is apparent in Pliny’s comments on Olympic victor portraits, first of all in his claim that all victors were honored with portraits, and secondly that portraits of three-​time victors were distinguished from the rest by being “iconic” portrait likenesses: It was not customary to make effigies of human beings unless they deserved lasting commemoration for some distinguished reason, in the first case victory in the sacred contests and particularly those at Olympia, where it was the custom to dedicate statues of all who had won a competition; these portraits (statuas), in the case of those who had been victorious there three times, were modeled as exact personal likenesses of the winners –​what are called iconic (iconicas) portrait statues. Pliny HN 34.16, trans. Jex-​Blake 1896, modified

This passage was long considered a crux for understanding the development of likeness in Greek portraiture. Since no sixth-​or fifth-​century Olympic victor portraits survive, however, discussion of how “iconic” they really were has had to rely upon Roman marble copies and the poses of athletes as reconstructed from statue bases. Werner Gross made the ingenious argument that what Pliny is referring to here are not facial likenesses but rather action poses, like the pose of Myron’s Discobolos.110 Yet Pliny’s meaning here is surely that all Olympic victors received portraits, but that only three-​time victors received what would have been perceived in Pliny’s own time as a better type of portrait, namely a recognizable facial likeness. The important point is that Pliny assumes that Olympic victors received different degrees of portrait honors based upon the number of their victories, a distinction that represents not

45

46

46

From Votive S tatues to Honorific P ortraits

a genuine rule enforced at Olympia, but rather a retrospective attempt by Pliny or his sources to explain why the hundreds of victor portraits on view at Olympia did not all look alike: the style of some was realistic, but others were more idealized. Another supposed restriction imposed upon athletic victor portraits at Olympia, this one in the work of the Greek author Lucian writing in the second century ad, smacks of anachronism. A character in Lucian’s pro imagines (11) says that the Hellanodikai, the supervising magistrates of the Olympic games, prohibited victors from setting up portraits of themselves larger than lifesize; they supposedly enforced their decree by taking down any portrait (eikon) found to be larger than the man it represented. Lifesize in Greek and Roman sculpture can be defined broadly as ca. 1.80 meters tall for a standing figure; a statue’s height can be determined by multiplying the length of its footprints on a statue base by 6, 6.5, or 7. By that definition, several victor portraits of the fifth and fourth centuries bc at Olympia were significantly over lifesize, notably the portrait of the fifth-​century Athenian victor Kallias, son of Didymias, signed by the Athenian sculptor Mikon (IvO 146 = IG I3 1473); Eukles of Rhodes signed by Naukydes of Argos (IvO 159); and Polydamas of Skotoussa, whose marble portrait, made by Lysippos in the mid-​fourth century bc, may have been three meters tall.111 As we have already seen from the dedications of Krino and Kleombrotos, in the Archaic and Classical periods the concept of a statue the same size as its dedicator existed. Y   et in the early period, instead of references to lifesize as a category of portrait representation, we find references to a notional four-​cubit tall (ca. 1.80–​2.30 m) norm for freestanding statues, whether portraits or divine images. One such reference comes at the end of Poseidippos’ epigram on Chares of Lindos’ Rhodian colossus: If Myron managed to reach the limit of four cubits     –​he, that venerable fellow –​Chares was the first with art to make a bronze figure [to match the magnitude] of the earth. AB 68

Some of the Classical victor portraits at Olympia greatly exceeded the four-​ cubit limit, further evidence both for the special status of victorious athletes and for the fact that their portraits were not expected to conform to any standard measure of lifesize.112 Should we explain away the “lifesize rule” as an imposition by the Hellanodikai in the Roman imperial period?113 Given that this supposed rule appears only in Lucian’s very broad satire on Greek sculpture, it should probably be taken as a joke that would have struck a chord with an audience familiar with enlarged images of the Roman emperors as gods.114 Any rules or mechanisms the Elean authorities might have used to control the dedication of victor portraits in the fifth-​century bc –​or the dedication of statues of Zeus, for that matter –​prove impossible to recover.115

47

Anachronis m s in Late Literary S ources

The emphasis of Pliny and other late authors upon restricting and regulating the honor of public portraiture resonated with a Roman imperial audience, but there is no reason to think that it accurately reflected attitudes toward Greek portraiture in earlier periods.116 Nonetheless, claims of restriction and regulation of portrait display often creep into modern discussions of early Greek portraiture, especially those concerned with Athens in the fifth century bc. The gap between what Pliny identifies as the first official portrait statues, those of the Tyrannicides Harmodios and Aristogeiton in the Agora, and the honorific portraits of Konon and Euagoras has been construed as evidence for a prohibition against official portraits on Athenian soil; it has even been assumed that portraits of living as opposed to deceased subjects, even private ones, were either prohibited or officially discouraged in fifth-​century Athens.117 In actuality, the Athenians seem only to have prohibited placing other portraits beside the Tyrannicides, and this regulation emerged only in the fourth century once honorific portraits were being awarded. Extant Greek sacred laws deal with four broad categories of issues related to the dedication of statues and other types of offerings in sanctuaries:  their protection from damage or removal; practical restrictions on their placement within sacred precincts and sacred buildings; procedures for the reuse of old dedications; and routine dedications required of office holders and the like.The principal concern that appears over and over again is clutter and overcrowding.118 Greek sacred laws of the Archaic, Classical, and early Hellenistic periods simply do not enunciate general principles or prohibitions concerning who could or could not dedicate portrait statues, and under what circumstances.119

Were Olympic Victor Portraits Really Votive Offerings? If we accept the notion that the body of the athletic victor was chosen by the gods, then it seems all the more striking that the portraits of Olympic victors were claimed by observers of the Roman imperial period –​Pliny and Pausanias specifically –​to be something other than normal votive offerings. Two programmatic statements by Pausanias midway through his extensive account of Olympia and its statues may reflect an essential misunderstanding of the origins and significance of Olympic victor portraits. At 5.25.1, Pausanias makes a distinction between the anathemata (votive dedications) at Olympia, which included a large number of statues representing Zeus, and the numerous portraits (eikones) of victors in the games. He segregates the athletic victor portraits from his account of the anathemata with the justification that victor statues were set up not to honor the divine but for the benefit or enjoyment (charis) of the victor himself (εἰκόνας δὲ οὐ τιμῇ τῇ πρὸς τὸ θεῖον, τῇ δὲ ἐς αὐτοὺς χάριτι ἀνατεθείσας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους). This statement echoes another a few chapters earlier (5.21.1): there Pausanias distinguished between

47

48

48

From Votive S tatues to Honorific P ortraits

the combination of statues representing victors and anathemata in the Altis at Olympia and what he had seen on the Athenian Acropolis, where all the statues in the sanctuary including portraits were anathemata: From this point my account will proceed to a description of the portraits (andriantes) and votive offerings (anathemata); but it has not pleased me to mix up the accounts of them. For whereas on the Athenian Acropolis portraits are votive offerings like everything else, in the Altis some things only are dedicated in honor of the gods, and portraits are merely part of the prizes awarded to the victors. Paus. 5.21.1, trans. W. H. S. Jones and H. A. Ormerod, modified

In making this distinction between anathemata and portraits, had Pausanias forgotten that there were also athletic victor portraits on the Acropolis? I would suggest that the distinction Pausanias had in mind was that athletic victory was one of the very few recognized occasions for dedicating a portrait of oneself in a sanctuary: self-​representation had become an anomaly in the era of the Greek honorific portrait. Understanding Pausanias’ distinction as one between the accepted practice of self-​representation by athletic victors and the norm of setting up portraits of others in sanctuaries also helps to clarify another of Pausanias’ general claims about statues at Olympia. In reference to the Roman general L. Mummius’ dedication of a bronze Zeus in the Altis after his sack of Corinth in 146 bc, Pausanias (5.24.4) calls Mummius the first Roman to dedicate an anathema in a Greek sanctuary. Surely the point here is that Mummius made a traditional votive dedication in a sanctuary rather than representing himself with a portrait; in keeping with Greek honorific practice, the Romans of the late Republic were commemorated with portraits dedicated by others in Greek sanctuaries, but avoided self-​representation.120

Statue Nicknames, Duplicates, and Other Oddities in Pliny Nicknames for Greek statues, derived from their poses (e.g. Discobolos), their attributes (Doryphoros, “spear-​bearer”), or their supposed functions (kanephoros, “basket-​bearer”), abound in Pliny’s Naturalis Historia: in themselves, they neither reflect the statues’ original identities nor signify that they were originally intended to serve as generic, anonymous figures.121 For example, a passage in Pliny (HN 34.54) alluding to a kleidouchos (key-​bearer) made by Pheidias has been cited as evidence that there were fifth-​century bc portraits of priestesses in Greek sanctuaries, despite the occurrence of this work in the middle a list of Pheidias’ statues of Athena.122 Both the earliest reliefs associated with honorific decrees for priestesses from Athens, and the gravestones for priestesses found in Athens and elsewhere from the late fifth century onward, typically depict

49

Anachronis m s in Late Literary S ources

them holding large and visually distinctive temple keys in their hands: hence the supposition that a “key-​bearer” should be a portrait of a priestess.123 The simplest explanation for Pheidias’ kleidouchos may be that it duplicates the key-​ bearer by the fourth-​century sculptor Euphranor, supposedly Pheidias’ student, that Pliny mentions elsewhere (HN 34.78), not that Pheidias made a portrait statue of a priestess in the fifth century.124 Such duplications –​attributions to a second or third sculptor of works already attributed to a famous Greek sculptor elsewhere in the text –​are common in Pliny’s books 34 (bronze sculpture) and 36 (marble sculpture), and they raise the suspicion that one or the other of the works mentioned is a mistake. It is impossible to tell in most cases whether the source of such duplications in the text was Pliny himself, one of Pliny’s sources, or the subsequent manuscript tradition. Oddities abound in Pliny’s treatment of Greek portraiture; indeed, some early Greek portraits attested only in Pliny need to be thrown out completely, such as the elder Polykleitos’ supposed statue of a man named Artemon called the periphoretos (the man carried in a litter) (HN 34.56).125 In one of his stranger stories, later repeated by Plutarch in his life of Numa (8.10), Pliny (HN 34.26) claims that, in the fourth century bc, after being enjoined by the Delphic oracle to erect images of the wisest and the bravest of the Greeks in their Comitium, the Romans chose portrait statues of Pythagoras and Alcibiades respectively.126 Whatever these statues really were, Pliny’s interpretation of them as both exemplary and thematically grouped can perhaps be explained in light of displays such as the gallery of portraits of summi viri in the Forum of Augustus, where the selection, arrangement, and inscriptions of the portrait subjects included served an important exemplary function.127

Damnatio Memoriae An important Roman concept which Pliny and other late sources impose upon early Greek portraiture is damnatio memoriae: the Latin term is a misnomer, but still the one most often used to describe actions designed to obliterate the public memory of disgraced individuals.128 In the Roman world, what Harriet Flower more accurately terms “memory sanction” began to be practiced intensively in the late Republic and involved the erasure of the names of individuals and their families from inscriptions and the removal of their portraits from public display.129 In the imperial period, the marble and bronze portraits of emperors who fell from power and their relatives were reworked into portraits of other subjects, usually their immediate successors. This particular form of evidence for damnatio memoriae, fully documented and amply illustrated in recent studies, comes primarily from the western half of the Roman empire and is (not surprisingly) best attested in Italy, with very few examples found in mainland Greece, Asia Minor, or the Greek islands.130

49

50

50

From Votive S tatues to Honorific P ortraits

In the Greek world, it is clear that the rise and fall of the Hellenistic Macedonian dynasties and their puppet rulers in the Greek cities occasioned statue removals and erasures of inscriptions analogous to Roman memory sanction. There may be only a single case before the third century, that of the pro-​Macedonian tyrant Demetrios of Phaleron, who ruled Athens from 317 to 307 bc. Reports of portrait statues in Athens and Attica and their removal are accurate, but the numbers involved have been wildly exaggerated for rhetorical effect in the late literary sources. Pliny (HN 34.27) treats the removal of Demetrios’ portraits as a moralizing exemplum of hubris receiving its just punishment, a precedent followed in the Roman Republic, according to Pliny, by Marius; the number of portraits involved and the eventual outcome directly echo the stories of the downfall of Marius in the late Republic, and of Sejanus during the reign of Tiberius:131 The use of the columns was to raise the statues above ordinary men, and this is also the purpose of the arches which have been recently introduced. The Greeks, however, were the first who conferred statues as a mark of honour, and I imagine that no man has had so many statues dedicated to him as Demetrios of Phaleron at Athens, inasmuch as three hundred and sixty were set up at a time when the year only contained that number of days. All these statues were afterwards broken up. At Rome too the tribes put up statues in every street in honour of Gaius Marius Gratidianus, as I have said, and overthrew them again when Sulla entered the city. Pliny HN 34.27, trans. Jex-​Blake 1896

Other late sources also give outrageously high numbers for the portraits of Demetrios of Phaleron, destroyed after his removal from power. Strabo (9.1.20) gives the number of portraits as 300, as does Plutarch (Mor. 820e); Favorinus ([Dio Chrys.] Or. 37.41) sets the number of portraits at 1,500, all destroyed in a single day; according to Diogenes Laertius (5.75–​7), out of 360 portrait statues, only one standing on the Acropolis was spared destruction. The number 360 recurs in Pliny’s (HN 36.5 and 36.113) description of the temporary theater erected by the Roman aedile M. Aemilius Scaurus, which supposedly featured 360 columns and 3,000 bronze statues; Pliny singles out Scaurus and his theater as examples of hubris and luxuria justly punished by the gods.132 Though all of these numbers suggest anachronism, we do have a single statue base from the Attic countryside that attests to the prompt removal of one of Demetrios’ portraits, though not the erasure of his name [Figure 61].133 The survival of only a single inscribed decree from the period of Demetrios of Phaleron’s rule in Athens, compared with sixteen from the regime of the Macedonian regent Antipater in Athens from 323 to 318 bc, suggests that both portrait statues and inscribed texts were removed by the Athenians after 307 bc.134

51

CONCLUSI ON

What purport to be earlier, Archaic and Classical cases of damnatio memoriae in the Greek world are highly suspect. It will be helpful here to distinguish between two different discourses at work: the Hellenistic and Roman discourse about memory sanction, and the Classical Greek discourse about inappropriate display.The latter concerns itself with the taking down, erasing, moving, or camouflaging of arrogant, inappropriate, or politically embarrassing inscriptions and statues, not all of them related to portraits. The locus classicus is Thucydides’ (6.54.6) mention of two late Archaic altars dedicated in Athens by Hipparchos’ son, the younger Peisistratos: a later renovation of the Altar of the Twelve Gods in the Athenian Agora rendered Peisistratos’ dedicatory inscription invisible, while in Thucydides’ own time the inscription on the altar of Pythian Apollo could still be made out despite “murky letters.”135 A similar type of action is alluded to by Vitruvius (2.8.15), who describes how a victory monument set up by Mausollus’ widow Artemisia after her capture of Rhodes was later camouflaged by the Rhodians with a makeshift construction and turned into an abaton.136 The fourth-​century Athenian politician Lycurgus (Leoc. 117)  reported in one of his speeches that a bronze portrait (eikon) of the Peisistratid relative Hipparchos, son of Charmos, had been removed from the Acropolis and melted down to produce a bronze stele inscribed with the names of traitorous exiles and other offenders:  Hipparchos’ ostracism in 488/​7 bc (Arist. Ath. Pol. 22.4) provides a likely occasion for this action, but we know nothing else about the statue.137 The Athenian politician Demades, who helped to negotiate with Alexander after Chaironeia in 338 bc, was voted an official honorific portrait in the Agora in ca. 335 (Din. 1.101). Though it is clear that the honor was revoked either upon Alexander’s death in 323 or Demades’ own death in 319, the story that Demades’ bronze portrait was melted down and made into chamber pots appears only in Plutarch (Mor. 820e), where Demades may be confused with Demetrios of Phaleron.138 Also suspect are claims by the late authors Favorinus ([Dio. Chrys.] Or. 37.20–​2) and Plutarch (Tim. 23.4–​5) that large numbers of portraits representing the fifth-​century Deinomenid tyrants Hieron and Gelon in Syracuse were melted down when their family was driven from power.139

Conclusion The first honorific portraits have rightly been recognized as a milestone in Greek history. They can be associated with the use of the Greek term eikon to delimit portraits as a category of representation distinct from images of gods and heroes. I have sought to link these developments with a broader documentary revolution at the end of the fifth century bc, in which greater value began to be assigned to documenting historical events in literary texts,

51

52

52

From Votive S tatues to Honorific P ortraits

inscriptions, and images. One advantage of viewing the origins of honorific portraiture within the larger context of documentary practices is that it helps to explain both the clear changes in epigraphic practices in the period between ca. 430 and ca. 380 bc and the development of honorific portraiture at this time. The early history of Greek portraiture has been obscured not only by poor preservation, but also by our reliance upon late literary sources as evidence. Removing early Greek portraits, especially those of the fifth century, from the later conceptual framework of Hellenistic honorific portraits is just the first step toward putting portraits back into Archaic and Classical Greek history.140

53

2

ARETE, HEROISM, AND DIVINE CHOICE IN EARLY GREEK PORTRAITURE

After this prayer, as they were sacrificing and feasting, having fallen asleep in the temple itself, the young men never woke up again, but were held in that end.The Argives having made portraits [eikones] of them sent them to Delphi, since they had proven themselves the best [aristoi] of men Hdt. 1.31.5, on Kleobis and Biton Timo, wife of Zoïlos and daughter of Pankratides, priestess of Dionysos for the city, set this up, an image [eikon] of her appearance, and a demonstration of her excellence [arete] and good fortune, an immortal remembrance for her children and descendants. CEG 2 858

It is not enough to assert that the late literary sources on early Greek portraits are prone to anachronism; we also need to determine whether Classical Greek sources, both literary and epigraphical, present a substantially different picture. The frequent allusions to athletic victor portraits in epinician poetry of the late Archaic and early Classical periods, and the importance of these statues as a metaphor for the poems themselves, have already been mentioned. Considerable attention has also been paid to fleeting mentions of figures that could be interpreted as portraits in Greek tragedy.1 In Aeschylus’ Agamemnon, Menelaus remarks upon how kolossoi representing his lost wife Helen compared unfavorably with the real thing; in Aeschylus’ surviving satyr play (the Theoroi or Isthmiastai), the satyrs on stage show awareness of the possibility of realistic likeness –​but not portrait likeness –​by remarking upon how lifelike their own 53

54

54

ARETE, HE R O I S M , A N D D I VI N E CHO I C E

images dedicated in sanctuaries look.2 As evidence for actual fifth-​century practices of portraiture in sanctuaries and other settings, however, Greek drama has proven to be of very limited value. Herodotus’ Histories are the more obvious place to look for contemporary evidence for portrait statues representing Greek subjects in the Archaic and Classical periods.Though Herodotus does not seem to mention any event that took place after 430 bc, the date of the Histories’ publication could in fact be as late as 414 bc, the year in which Aristophanes’s Birds, with its unmistakable allusions to Herodotus’ work, was produced.3 Herodotus’ treatment of portraits should provide both a control against which to evaluate late literary sources and a primary source for the motives and subjects current in pre-​honorific, sixth-​and fifth-​century Greek portraiture. In this chapter, I will use the Greek portraits mentioned by Herodotus as the starting point for excurses on the dynamics of arete, heroism, and divine choice in early Greek portraiture. Some of the portraits to be discussed are familiar; nearly all have proved difficult to explain. What we see happening in Archaic and Classical Greece, and the fifth century especially, is not the orderly rollout of a series of portrait types ready to be copied in marble; we also do not see any particular moment when it occurred to the Greeks that the individual mattered. Rather, portraiture –​votive, funerary, and honorific –​seems to have been involved in a broader, ongoing Greek conversation about arete (excellence) and being the best (aristos). Arete was the quintessential quality of the Homeric warrior-​hero: the Homeric ideal was “always to be the best [aristeuein] and to excel among the others” (Il. 6.208). In the world of the Classical polis, however, the specific manifestations of arete and the groups of individuals considered capable of exhibiting it were more broadly defined.4 Role-​portraits –​which characterized their subjects within their various social roles as strategos, athlete, poet, and so on –​developed as illustrations of different forms of arete precisely because Classical arete was commonly understood to be role-​specific. On this point, Margalit Finkelberg cites a well-​known passage in Plato’s Meno, when Socrates asks his young acquaintance Meno to define arete (Pl. Meno 71e–​72a): First of all, if it is manly arete you are after, it is easy to see that the arete of a man consists in managing the city’s affairs capably, and so that he will help his friends and injure his foes while taking care to come to no harm himself. Or if you want a woman’s arete, that is easily described. She must be a good housewife, careful with her stores and obedient to her husband. Then there is another arete for a child, male or female, and another for an old man, free or slave as you like, and a great many more kinds of arete, so that no one need be at a loss to say what it is. For every act and every time of life, with reference to each separate function, there is an arete for each one of us. Trans. W. K. C. Guthrie.5

55

ARETE, HERO I S M , A N D D I VI N E CHO I CE

Even in the fifth century, arete was not limited to any standard catalogue of roles, and these roles were never mutually exclusive to begin with. Military arete on the battlefield is the category most closely associated with Homeric heroes; victory in athletic contests was frequently viewed as an extension of the same concept, while at the same time being understood as evidence of divine choice. Together, these two forms of arete inspired large numbers of Classical portraits; the heroic arete of the Athenian tyrant-​slayers Harmodios and Aristogeiton may have been understood as being simultaneously like that of warriors and athletes. As the Tyrannicides’ example shows, being heroic could on occasion cross over into actual hero cult. Ancestry and noble birth, particularly descent from heroes, conferred their own arete –​one typically claimed by kings, and one of the few that women could claim alongside men. Physical beauty was similarly valued as a manifestation of innate arete.The debate between Socrates and the sophist Protagoras of Abdera in Plato’s Protagoras, a dialogue with a dramatic date in the late 430s bc, revolves around the question of whether arete was only innate, or in some way teachable.6 As we will see in this chapter, a series of overlapping motives for early Greek portraiture intersect in some way with the competing concepts of arete. The most obvious, and perhaps the most potent, was dying young at the height of one’s life and good fortune (Kleobis and Biton, King Agesipolis of Sparta), also the driving force behind Archaic funerary portraiture. But in Classical sanctuary portraits, we also encounter the inverse of this arete, namely extreme longevity (the Athenian priestess Lysimache and the sophist Gorgias of Leontinoi). The portraits of Gorgias at Delphi and Olympia seem to have been set up also to make the case that he was the best teacher of arete, and therefore worthy of portrait representation himself, just like warriors, athletes, and kings. Poets, including Homer, Hesiod, and Pindar, seem also to have been viewed, and represented by portraits in the Classical period, as teachers of arete. Another motive for early Greek portraiture that emerges clearly in Herodotus and other Classical sources is divine choice, which could be asserted either for oneself or for others. Several seemingly heterogeneous narratives about portraits of other subjects in Herodotus’ Histories revolve around the relationship between the human individual and the divine: being chosen by the gods (kings, Kleobis and Biton), being like a god (Aristeas of Proconnesos at Metapontum), and being saved from death by the gods (Arion of Methymna). As we will see, some portraits attested by other Classical sources were displayed in settings where we would expect to find images only of gods and heroes: the Carian king and queen Idrieus and Ada in the Tegea relief, Alexander I  of Macedon at Delphi, Homer and Hesiod in Mikythos’ dedication at Olympia. Other portraits were commanded by the gods themselves through Apollo’s oracle at Delphi: Aristeas of Proconnesos, the two images of the Spartan regent Pausanias at Sparta, and the Lycian king Arbinas at Xanthos in Lycia.

55

56

56

ARETE, HE R O I S M , A N D D I VI N E CHO I C E

Portraits of the Greeks in Herodotus’ HISTORIES and Other Classical Sources Greek portraits in Herodotus have never been systematically collected and examined, arguably because there are so few of them to be found. The ubiquity of commemorative monuments and sanctuary dedications in Herodotus, and the relative absence of Greek portraits among them, can be measured in various ways. John Gould, in his study of reciprocity in Herodotus, counted fifty-​two occurrences of the verb of dedication anatithemi in Herodotus’ text, on top of a remarkable 559 instances of the verb didomi (to give) and compound verbs based upon it.7 According to Gould’s estimate, Herodotus also refers to images of divinities in religious contexts more than sixty times.8 A. A. Donohue, in her study of the use of the term xoanon for statues in Greek and Latin literature, counted sixty-​six instances of agalma in Herodotus, the term he used most often to refer to divine images.9 Any attempt to identify and number all of the “monuments” or “dedications” in Herodotus is bound to produce different numbers depending upon how the parameters of the object in question are defined. Still, it seems noteworthy that only a handful of Greek portraits are mentioned amid the frequent descriptions of sanctuary dedications and monuments set up by Greeks and non-​Greeks alike. By my own count, Herodotus mentions only eight possible examples of Greek portraits (one of them a painting) in the course of his Histories. The scarcity of portraits in Herodotus accurately reflects their relative scarcity in his time. The “Herodotus test” is far from infallible, however: Herodotus failed to mention the portraits of the Tyrannicides Harmodios and Aristogeiton in the Athenian Agora, despite the fact that he tells their story. One should note that even Thucydides, in whose narrative the story of Harmodios and Aristogeiton (6.55–​9) plays such an important role, and who so clearly desired to set the record about them straight, did not mention their statues either.10 Neither Herodotus nor Thucydides mentions any athletic victor portrait per se, though both recount stories of Greek athletes. None of the Greek portraits Herodotus does mention is honorific: all are connected in some way with arete, heroism, or divine choice –​or all three, in the case of Kleobis and Biton. Herodotus’ treatment of portraiture among non-​ Greeks shows quite clearly that he was aware of the practice of setting up portraits as public commemorative monuments in other cultures. In book 2, Herodotus describes at some length and with fascinated interest the portraits of pharaohs and their wives to be seen in Egypt, among them the colossal stone statues of Sesostris and his family in front of the temple of Ptah (“Hephaistos”) at Memphis (2.110.1–​3).11 He also famously claimed that

57

Portraits in Herodotus and O ther C l assical S ources

Table 1.  Greek Portraits in Herodotus’ Histories 1.24 1.31.5 1.51 2.181-​2 2.181-​2 4.14–​15 6.58.3 8.121

Arion on a dolphin (Cape Tainaron) Kleobis and Biton (Delphi) Croesus’ baker woman (Delphi) Amasis of Egypt, painting (Cyrene) Amasis of Egypt, two wooden statues (Samian Heraion) Aristeas of Proconnesos (agora of Metapontum) Eidolon of Spartan king killed in battle Alexander I of Macedon, golden (Delphi)

both he and Hecataeus of Miletos before him had been shown a collection of wooden portraits representing high priests of Amun (“Zeus”) at Thebes, proof of the great antiquity of Egyptian history (Hdt. 2.142–​3). Despite his apparent realization that some Egyptian statues were generic figures rather than portraits (e.g. the kolossoi holding up the roof of the Apis court in the temple of Ptah at Memphis, 2.153), Herodotus was willing to believe that two rock-​cut Hittite reliefs in western Anatolia represented the Egyptian pharaoh Sesostris (Hdt. 2.106). And despite his own observation that the Persians (unlike the Greeks) did not normally set up divine images (agalmata), temples, or altars (Hdt. 1.131.1), Herodotus seems to have believed that they did make portraits: among these are the inscribed relief of himself on horseback made by Darius to commemorate winning the Persian kingship with the help of his groom Oibares (Hdt. 3.88), and a beaten gold statue of Darius’ wife Artystone (Hdt. 7.69).12 As may be seen from Table  1, three of the eight possible Greek portraits mentioned by Herodotus in fact illustrate the practices of foreign kings rather than those of the Greeks themselves.Two of these are wooden images (eikones) of himself sent by the Egyptian pharaoh Amasis to Hera on Samos (Hdt. 2.182), part of a series of gifts he and his Greek wife Ladike dispatched to various Greek sanctuaries, including a gilded statue of Athena and a painted portrait of himself in Cyrene, as well as two stone divine images (agalmata) and a linen breastplate dedicated to Athena at Lindos on Rhodes.13 It is difficult to determine what to make of the small golden figure (eidolon) at Delphi identified by the Delphians in Herodotus’ time as a representation (eikon) of Croesus’ bread-​ baker (Hdt. 1.51). The appellation seems to be a nickname, and by the time of Plutarch (De Pyth. or. 401E–​F), the statue had acquired a story (a “Monument-​ Novelle”) that turned it into an honorific portrait: Croesus’s baker woman was honored with a portrait after saving his life. In reality, Croesus’s bread-​baker may have been a figure of Artemis, or even a female support figure detached from one of the numerous precious metal vessels Croesus had dedicated in the sanctuary, perhaps by the temple fire of 548 bc that damaged the solid-​gold lion he had dedicated there (Hdt. 1.50).14

57

58

58

ARETE, HE R O I S M , A N D D I VI N E CHO I C E

Kleobis and Biton at Delphi The story behind the best-​known portraits in Herodotus, those of Kleobis and Biton of Argos at Delphi (1.31.5), is familiar to anyone who has read the first book of the Histories.When cornered by Croesus, Solon reveals that the second most fortunate men (after Tellos the Athenian, to be discussed in this chapter’s conclusion) are Kleobis and Biton, athletic prizewinners (aethlophoroi) and sons of the priestess of Argive Hera. When their mother needed to go to the sanctuary for a festival, but the oxen had not yet returned from the fields to pull her cart, Kleobis and Biton did so themselves.Their mother prayed to Hera to give her sons the best thing that men may receive: what they got was a premature end (telos) to their lives, divinely ordained by Hera herself. Herodotus finishes the tale by recording that the Argives dedicated images (eikones) of Kleobis and Biton at Delphi. Since their discovery at Delphi in the late nineteenth century, two nearly identical early sixth-​century kouros statues have been identified as the portraits of Kleobis and Biton mentioned by Herodotus [Figure 12].15 If correctly identified, these might be the earliest known Greek portraits. But problems raised by the identification get at one of the main points of this book: early Greek portraits –​certainly Archaic ones –​were seldom visually distinguishable from images of heroes or gods. Herodotus does not describe what the eikones of Kleobis and Biton at Delphi looked like, and we have no way of knowing from his account how old the statues he had in mind were.16 In Kleobis and Biton’s home city of Argos, Pausanias (2.19.5) later claimed to have seen a portrait of Biton carrying a bull on his shoulders, iconography that does not match the Delphic kouroi. Since the statues found at Delphi are Archaic kouroi with both arms at their sides and lacking identifying attributes, the identification rests upon a combination of probability (no other paired votive male figures predating Herodotus have been found at Delphi), and the heavily worn inscriptions carved on the tops of the statues’ plinths. The only part of these inscriptions that can be read securely is the signature of an Argive sculptor named –​medes: Plinth A [the statue on the viewer’s right]: [–​ –​ –​]τον ⋮ τ[c. 5?]τ[·]ρα?

Plinth B [the statue on the viewer’s left]: [Πολυ?]με̅ δε̅ ς εποιϝε hαργειος. ε α̣γ̣α̣γ̣οντοιδυι̣οι⋮.

B: –​[Poly?]medes the Argive made it –​ LSAG2 168, no. 4 with pl. 26, no. 4a and b = SEG XXXV 479

L. H. Jeffery in LSAG2 found a way to restore the names of Kleobis and Biton in the nominative in the text inscribed on Plinth A, but this and all other suggested restorations remain highly doubtful; no verb of dedication or motive

59

Portraits in Herodotus and O ther C l assical S ources

(i.e. vow or tithe) has been preserved. Gabriel Faure suggested reidentifying the statues as the Dioskouroi (Castor and Polydeukes) based upon his new reading of a dedication to the divine twins (τοῖν ϝανακοῖν, “to the Wanakes”) on Plinth B following the signature, but Vinzenz Brinkmann’s examination of the dedicatory inscriptions under ultraviolet light supports the original reading of a largely indecipherable string of letters.17 Herodotus in the late fifth century was willing to believe that Kleobis and Biton, the subjects of his story, had been represented by sculptural body-​replicas in a sanctuary, having proved their excellence (ὡς ἀριστῶν γενομένων) and having been rewarded for it by the goddess.18 Kleobis and Biton were chosen by a god, in this case Argive Hera, and that seems to be why replicas of their bodies were dedicated to the gods. It is curious, however, given that in Herodotus’ telling the Argives dedicated the portraits at Delphi, that the Delphic oracle is entirely absent from the story, especially because some fifth-​and fourth-​century portraits were dedicated as the result of oracular commands. If the twin kouroi really were meant to represent Argive brothers who had won victories at Delphi or Olympia (or Nemea? Paus. 2.19.5 tells another story about Biton’s victory there), over time the story of their divine choice may have accreted to them, and it seemed to explain their very early portrait statues. Herodotus’ explanation of the portrait statues as a reward for arete (excellence) in a quasi-​athletic feat seems easier to reconcile with the identity of Kleobis and Biton as athletic prizewinners than with the supernatural occurrence to which Herodotus attributes their death.19 But surely part of the point of representing Kleobis and Biton with larger-​than-​life portrait statues in a sanctuary was that their extraordinary arete made them like the Dioskouroi: anyone who saw paired Archaic kouroi standing in a sanctuary would naturally mistake them for the divine twins unless informed otherwise. The equivocal and multivalent character of the statues themselves permitted them to be read simultaneously as compensation for premature death, commemoration of athletic victory, proof of divine agency, and images of either real heroes or individuals who had exhibited heroic arete.

Aristeas of Proconnesos in the Agora of Metapontum The paradigm of divine choice in the Kleobis and Biton story finds a parallel in the story of the mysterious figure Aristeas of Proconnesos (4.13–​15).20 According to Herodotus, Aristeas became possessed by Apollo (phoibolamptos), traveled to the land of the Hyperboreans, died, was later seen alive walking down the road to Kyzikos in Asia Minor, disappeared, reappeared in the form of a raven, and finally disappeared for good. The people of Metapontum (Greek Metapontion) in southern Italy reportedly saw an

59

60

60

ARETE, HE R O I S M , A N D D I VI N E CHO I C E

apparition of Aristeas 240  years later, and Aristeas told them to set up an altar of Apollo, and next to it a male figure (andrias) bearing the name of Aristeas on it. When the Metapontines consulted the Delphic oracle, they were told to follow Aristeas’ instructions. Herodotus rounds out the tale by reporting that there stood in his own time in the agora of Metapontum the statue with the name of Aristeas beside a divine image (agalma) of Apollo inside a laurel grove.21 Herodotus makes it clear that the andrias in the agora of Metapontum was in fact a portrait, a representation of Aristeas himself. Though it stood in an agora, it is also clear that Aristeas’ portrait was placed in a sacred laurel grove beside an image of Apollo and an altar to demonstrate that Apollo himself had chosen Aristeas. In this case, a death or disappearance thought to be the work of a god appears once again as a motive behind early Greek portraiture. A fifth-​century statue group at Olympia is analogous both to Aristeas’ portrait at Metapontum and to Herodotus’ explanation of the portraits of Kleobis and Biton at Delphi. According to Pausanias (5.25.2–​4), a chorus of thirty-​five boys from Messene (earlier called Zankle) in Sicily were drowned along with their trainer and their flute-​player on their voyage to a religious festival across the straits at Rhegion on the southern coast of Italy. At some point after ca. 480 bc, the Messenians of Sicily dedicated a massive bronze statue group representing all thirty-​seven victims of this unforeseeable tragedy. The statues were made by Kallon of Elis (Pliny HN 34.49; Paus. 5.27.8), who worked in the second half of the fifth century, and Pausanias reports that elegiac verses inscribed on the base for the group (which he does not quote) were composed and added after the fact by a sophist named Hippias –​ probably Hippias of Elis, who compiled a list of Olympic victors at the end of the fifth century.22 Though the chorus from Sicilian Messene was not on its way to Olympia, by dedicating sculptural replicas of their bodies the Messenians seem to assert that, by virtue of their premature death, they had been chosen by the gods. The chorus, like victorious athletes at Olympia, were also worthy of praise poetry. In this particular case, the highly visible dedication at Olympia also serves to compensate the deceased for their premature death. The dedication of portraits in sanctuaries as compensation for the prematurely deceased continued to be an important motive for Greek portraiture in the fourth century. On the Athenian Acropolis in the first half of the fourth century, an individual named Polystratos dedicated a portrait statue of his deceased brother, Polyllos, with an inscribed epigram that translates “Polystratos dedicated his own brother, the immortal remembrance (mnemosynen) of a mortal body” (IG II2 3838  =  CEG 2 780). Also in the fourth century, Aristotle in his will (known from Diogenes Laertius 5.11–​16) made provision for the dedication in sanctuaries of a series of portrait statues representing living members of his family; but he also included

61

Portraits in Herodotus and O ther C l assical S ources

one of his brother, Arimnestos, as a memorial (mnemeion) specifically because Arimnestos had died childless.

Arion of Methymna at Cape Tainaron The small bronze dedication of Arion of Methymna in a sanctuary of Poseidon at Cape Tainaron, mentioned by Herodotus in book 1 as a proof (tekmerion) supporting the story of how Arion escaped death at the hands of pirates (1.23–​4), is described simply as a person (anthropos) riding a dolphin. Herodotus seems to accept the man on a dolphin at Tainaron as a dedication (anathema) made by Arion himself; later sources (such as Favorinus [Dio Chrys.] Or. 37.4 and Ael. NA 12.45) may have reached this conclusion from reading an elegiac couplet inscribed on the monument, perhaps after Herodotus’ time.23 The motive behind the dedication is the exact inverse of the one linking the portraits of Kleobis and Biton and Aristeas: rather than being chosen by the gods by premature or miraculous death, Arion was saved from death by the gods, in this case in the guise of a dolphin. Whether or not we accept that the statue referred to by Herodotus really did represent Arion, it is interesting to note that Herodotus in the fifth century bc considered being saved by the gods a plausible occasion to dedicate a representation of oneself. Dedicating a body-​replica documenting the individual was an option for commemorating divine choice resulting in death; likewise, the gods as saviors might also wish to receive replicas of individuals they had saved from death. There is further evidence that being saved by the gods was a motive for dedicating portrait statues in sanctuaries beginning in the fifth century and continuing into the Roman imperial period.24 In the fourth century bc, an Athenian named Lysimachos dedicated a portrait of himself to Athena on the Acropolis to commemorate being “saved from great dangers” (IG II2 4323). Being saved from death by the gods could in itself be taken as proof of individual arete: in another Athenian dedication of the same period, found near Phyle fort in Attica, a man named Myron dedicated a portrait of himself “as a paradigm of arete for all to see” because he too had been saved by the gods (sotheis) (IG II2 4908 = CEG 2 771). Alexander the Great may have been aware of this tradition in Greek portraiture, if indeed he included a portrait of himself in his dedication to Olympian Zeus at Dion commemorating the twenty-​five cavalry Companions who died in the battle of the Graneikos in 334 bc: they died prematurely, but he himself was preserved, having been saved by Zeus, his own putative ancestor.25 The votive practice of dedicating a lifesize body-​ replica –​whether in permanent materials or in wax –​to commemorate being saved has a long afterlife both in popular Christian religion and in the annals of Renaissance and early modern kingship.26

61

62

62

ARETE, HE R O I S M , A N D D I VI N E CHO I C E

Alexander I of Macedonia at Delphi and the Arete of Kings A final category of portraits we encounter in Herodotus, and perhaps the most important, is representations of Greek kings. Herodotus mentions a gilded portrait statue of the fifth-​century Macedonian king Alexander I  at Delphi (8.121.2) almost in passing, as he describes the colossal bronze Apollo dedicated from the spoils of Salamis that stood nearby.27 A reference to this same portrait in a speech from the Demosthenic corpus (Dem. 12.21) calls it an aparche (first-​ fruits) from the ransom of Persian prisoners dedicated by Alexander himself. Another golden portrait of Alexander at Olympia is mentioned only by one late source (Solinus 9.13), but it gains some plausibility from Herodotus’ claim (5.22) that Alexander won the stadion race at the Olympic games, perhaps soon after the Persian Wars in 476 bc.28 But was Alexander I represented at Delphi because he was a king, or because he was a victorious athlete? At Delphi, the placement of Alexander’s portrait near the Salamis Apollo, on the terrace in front of the east end of the temple of Apollo [Figure 26], seems significant. At Delphi, a whole series of individual Greek cities dedicated their own statues of Apollo on the temple terrace in close proximity to the Salamis Apollo and to the Serpent Column inscribed with the names of the Greeks who took part at Plataia (ML 27): the islanders of Peparethos in the Sporades (CEG 325), the Epidaurians (Paus. 10.15.1), and even the Samians (FdD III 4 455), who only came around to the Greek side at Mykale in 479 (Hdt. 9.89).29 The currency of these Persian War thanksgiving offerings at Delphi was the image of the god Apollo himself, which should not surprise us: the same practice is evident at Olympia, where Pausanias found enough statues of Zeus to fill most of his fifth book.Within this context, the gilded portrait of Alexander might appear inappropriate or hubristic since it was a self-​representation rather than an image of the recipient deity.30 But here the fact that Alexander I of Macedon was a king seems decisive: he could dedicate his own image in place of the god’s image precisely because he was a king whose family line, the Argeads, claimed descent from Herakles, and through Herakles from Zeus himself.31 The god-​g iven nature of kingship was grounded in key passages of Homer’s Iliad and Hesiod’s Theogony: Agamemnon received his royal scepter from Pelops, who in turn had received it from Zeus himself (Il. 2.100–​8; cf. also Il. 2.205–​6 and 9.98–​9); basileis (kings) come from Zeus (Theog. 96). Lynette Mitchell has recently argued that the ideology of kingship was a significant factor in Archaic and Classical Greece, even before the appearance of Alexander the Great.32 Kings and other rulers, even tyrants, of these periods habitually used claims of heroic ancestry and other forms of arete, such as victories in the panhellenic crown games, to justify their rule. The heroic ideology of sole rule worked by suggestion and by analogy: actual hero cult was in no way implied or sought either to put forward the analogy between kings and heroes or to accept such

63

Portraits in Herodotus and O ther C l assical S ources

an analogy. In the Archaic and Classical periods, a single ideology of heroic character and choice by the gods links rulers, athletes, and city founders. Early portraits of these classes of individuals seem to cut both ways: the claim to arete and a heroic nature justified dedicating portraits, while at the same time setting up a portrait laid a claim to such status. In addition to Alexander I’s portrait at Delphi, some other portraits of kings and queens before Alexander the Great seem not to be a simple corollary to honorific practices.Two royal portraits of the first quarter of the fourth century bc associated with Delphi are directly relevant here.The Lycian dynast Arbinas dedicated a portrait (eikon) of himself in the Letoön at Xanthos atop a pillar base inscribed with lengthy praise epigrams in Greek on two sides and texts in the Lycian language on the other two (CEG 2 888 = RO 13). Though Arbinas was not Greek, one of the Greek epigrams (composed and signed by the poet Symmachos of Pellana) makes it clear that the Delphic oracle had commanded Arbinas to dedicate a replica of himself to Leto as a monument or memorial (mnema) of his own arete.33 At Delphi, the exiled Spartan king Pausanias II dedicated a bronze portrait of his son Agesipolis, who had succeeded him while still underage in 394 bc (FdD III 1 509). Agesipolis was killed on campaign against the Chalcidian League in 380; his body was preserved in honey and returned to Sparta for burial (Xen. Hell. 5.3.18–​19; Diod. Sic. 15.23.2). The dedicatory epigram on the base for the statue at Delphi appears from its late letter forms to have been copied in the second century bc, but the signature of the early-​fourth century sculptor Kleon of Sikyon just below it is original, and there is no reason to doubt that Pausanias set up the portrait of Agesipolis soon after his death.34 The simple epigram stresses Agesipolis’ arete as the justification for the monument: [μν]αμεῖόν ε πατὴρ Ἁγησιπόλει φίλωι υἱῶι | Πα[υσ]ανίας ἀνέθηκε· Ἑλλὰς δ’ ἀρετὰν ὁμοφωνεῖ. His father Pausanias dedicated me, a memorial for his dear son, Agesipolis; Hellas proclaims with one voice his arete.

Even the mid-​fourth century portraits of  Mausollos and the other Hekatomnid rulers of Caria set up by Greek cities in a variety of  sanctuaries can be interpreted not only as honors granted to powerful benefactors, but also as body-​replicas of kings (and queens) meant to be pleasing to the gods as gifts.35 What is telling is the fact that the female members of the dynasty were so often represented alongside the men and on an equal footing with them: the Hekatomnids practiced brother–​sister marriage, which meant that Artemisia and later Ada were just as much of royal blood as their husbands and just as worthy of being represented by portraits.The demos of Erythrai in Asia Minor simultaneously set up a bronze eikon of Mausollus in their agora, and a marble portrait of Artemisia inside the temple of Athena (Syll.3 168 = RO 56, 357–​355 bc): this combination seems to

63

64

64

ARETE, HE R O I S M , A N D D I VI N E CHO I C E

13.  Document relief from Tegea showing Carian Zeus flanked by the Hekatomnid rulers Ada (left) and Idrieus (right), 351–​344 bc (British Museum inv. 1914, 0714.1). ©The Trustees of the British Museum

articulate the honorific character of Mausollus’ portrait and the religious character of Artemisia’s.36 A relief from the sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea shows Idrieus and Ada, siblings of Mausollus and Artemisia who ruled as husband and wife after Artemisia’s death, flanking Carian Zeus [Figure 13]. All three figures are labeled. If Geoffrey Waywell’s interpretation of the Tegea relief is correct, it originally served as a document or record relief at the top of an inscribed document thanking Idrieus, Ada, and the Carians for their contribution to the construction fund for a new temple.37 Normally, Classical record reliefs depicted the gods most closely associated with the cities named in the accompanying document: for example, an Athenian decree of 403/​2 bc honoring Samos was illustrated by Athena and Samian Hera shaking hands (RO 2). Here, Idrieus and Ada appear together with Carian Zeus –​albeit on a smaller scale and raising their right hands in prayer –​in a context where we would expect to see the god alone. The Hekatomnid rulers were not worshipped as gods (though Mausollus was worshipped as a hero after his death), but some of their portraits assert that they were particularly worthy to have their images in the company of images of the gods.

Portraits of the Spartan Kings Both lines of Spartan kings, the Agiads and the Eurypontids, claimed descent from the sons of Herakles and through them from Zeus. Herodotus’ extended description (6.58.1–​3) of the Spartan practice of making an eidolon of a Spartan

65

Portraits in Herodotus and O ther C l assical S ources

king killed in battle and carrying it on a bier to the grave deserves further attention for what it tells us about other representations of the Spartan kings:38 The kings are granted these rights from the Spartan commonwealth while they live; when they die, their rights are as follows: horsemen proclaim their death in all parts of Laconia, and in the city women go about beating on cauldrons. When this happens, two free persons from each house, a man and a woman, are required to wear mourning, or incur heavy penalties if they fail to do so. The Lakedaimonians have the same custom at the deaths of their kings as the foreigners in Asia; most foreigners use the same custom at their kings’ deaths. When a king of the Lakedaimonians dies, a fixed number of their subject neighbors must come to the funeral from all Lakedaimon, besides the Spartans. When these and the helots and the Spartans themselves have assembled in one place to the number of many thousands, together with the women, they zealously beat their foreheads and make long and loud lamentation, calling that king that is most recently dead the best of all their kings. Whenever a king dies in war, they make an image of him and carry it out on a well-​spread bier. For ten days after the burial there are no assemblies or elections, and they mourn during these days. (Trans. A. D. Godley)

Whether or not the practice predated the death of Leonidas at Thermopylai in 480 bc, the eidolon may be understood as an intact body-​substitute for a king whose real body has been damaged, or lost entirely, due to a violent death.39 The body of the Spartan king mattered in a way that the bodies of other mortals did not: the lack of physical defects as a requirement for the Spartan kings emerges most clearly in the dispute over the succession of Agesilaos in 400 bc.40 Herodotus’ description of the funeral ceremony comes as the culmination of his account of the extensive religious role played by the Spartan kings.41 It is debated whether Spartan kings received actual hero cult after their deaths, or whether the funeral rites accorded to them were simply modeled in some way upon heroic cults and sacrifices; in this case, at least, automatic hero cult seems plausible.42 The eidolon of the Spartan king mentioned by Herodotus has often been connected with Thucydides’ (1.134–​5) remarkable account of the death of the Spartan regent Pausanias I, son of the king Kleomenes and nephew of Leonidas, and its aftermath. When he was about to be arrested by the ephors on suspicion of misconduct abroad, Pausanias entered the sanctuary of Athena Chalkioikos on the Spartan Acropolis, taking refuge inside a small outbuilding (oikema). Pausanias was subsequently allowed to starve while walled into the building, though care was taken to make sure that he did not actually die within the sanctuary. At some point after his death and burial (in ca. 467 bc), the Spartans were told by the Delphic oracle both to move Pausanias’ body back to the place where he had died, and to dedicate to Athena two bronze male figures (andriantas) of Pausanias, two bodies in return for one (δύο

65

66

66

ARETE, HE R O I S M , A N D D I VI N E CHO I C E

σώματα ἀνθ’ ἑνός) as Thucydides calls them. Pausanias (3.17.7) saw these two statues of the fifth-​century Spartan regent Pausanias still standing alongside the altar in the sanctuary in his own time. Though Thucydides does not report what the Delphic oracle received by the Spartans said, Plutarch (Mor. 560f) refers to the Spartans’ attempt to exorcize the ghost of Pausanias from the sanctuary, and the late historian Aristodemos (FGrH 104 F1, 8.5) refers to a plague.43 With the exception of the portraits, this story conforms to a typical narrative pattern: Apollo at Delphi diagnoses a religious offense and prescribes a remedy for it. But why did atoning for Pausanias’ wrongful death involve dedicating two body-​replicas rather than one? Nicholas Richer has made the suggestion that the two, presumably identical portraits of Pausanias were designed to liken him to the Dioskouroi, the heroes par excellence of Sparta and, on some level, the models for –​and the protectors of –​Sparta’s dual kingship.44 In Classical Greece statues prescribed as a penalty or a penance were normally images of the gods. By far the best-​known examples in Greek sculpture are the so-​called Zanes, bronze images of Zeus dedicated at Olympia by competitors who had cheated in the games (Paus. 5.21.2–​18). T   he first of the Zanes dates to 388 bc, and they stood in a row flanking the entrance to the stadium at Olympia.The two statues of Pausanias in the sanctuary of Athena at Sparta introduce the portrait of a human subject into a context normally reserved for the gods. Penitential statues and other multiplied images nearly always represented the gods themselves, not human subjects: the people of the Lipara islands off the coast of Sicily dedicated twenty statues of Apollo at Delphi in return for the twenty Etruscan ships they had captured in battle (Paus. 10.11.3 and 10.16.7).45 The portraits of Pausanias at Sparta mentioned by Thucydides were anomalous for being portraits.

The Athenian Archons at Delphi, Gorgias at Delphi and Olympia, and Phyrne at Delphi At this point, it is worth reconsidering a literary crux normally taken as evidence not only for the usage of eikon for fifth-​century portraits, but also for the existence of a series of Classical penalty portraits comparable with the two statues of Pausanias in the sanctuary of Athena Chalkioikos in Sparta. Several Classical authors, beginning with Plato (Phdr. 235d–​236d) and the Aristotelian Ath. Pol. (7.1 and 55.5), mention an oath supposedly taken by the nine archons in Athens to dedicate a golden statue to Apollo at Delphi equal in size to themselves (isometreton) if they transgressed the laws. Both pseudo-​Aristotle in the later fourth century and Plutarch (Sol. 25.2) use the neutral term andrias (ἀνδριάντα χρυσοῦν) to refer to these statues, but Plato, in a dialogue dating to the first half of the fourth century, explicitly mentions an eikon. Consequently, nearly all modern commentators have taken the golden oath statues of the Athenian archons, whether or

67

Portraits in Herodotus and O ther C l assical S ources

not any of them were ever actually dedicated at Delphi, to be portraits of the archons themselves.46 Yet, as Fernande Hölscher has recently argued, the passage in the Phaedrus needs to be read more carefully within the context of the dialogue.47 After Phaedrus has read out the text of a speech on the nature of love by Lysias, son of Kephalos, to Socrates, Socrates claims to have heard elsewhere a more convincing discourse on the same subject whose substance he will attempt to recall, to which Phaedrus replies: You promised to say something else better than the words in the book and not less long, owing nothing to them; and I  myself, like the nine archons, promise to dedicate a golden lifesize portrait [isometreton eikon] at Delphi, not only one of myself but one of you too.

After Socrates protests his inability to argue on the terms set forward, Phaedrus again responds: I concur with what you say, for you seem to me to have spoken moderately. For my part, I will do the following. I will allow you to take it for granted that the lover is more sick than the non-​lover, and concerning the rest, if you say other things more abundant and worth more than these here, then may you stand alongside the sphyrelatos dedication of the Kypselids at Olympia.

Since at the end of the passage quoted above Phaedrus makes a joking reference to an actual dedication standing in the sanctuary at Olympia, a colossal bronze Zeus in the sphyrelaton technique dedicated by Kypselos, the Archaic tyrant of Corinth, it makes some sense to see another real statue behind Phaedrus’ reference to dedicating lifesize golden portraits at Delphi. Kathryn Morgan has argued that this passage should be read as an allusion to a contemporary portrait of the late fifth-​century sophist and orator Gorgias of Leontinoi at Delphi, mentioned by Pausanias (10.18.7) and other late sources (including Cic. De or. 3.129; Pliny HN 33.83; and Ath. 11.505d-​e). Though no inscribed base survives, we have multiple references claiming that Gorgias set up his own gilded bronze portrait atop a column in the sanctuary at Delphi. Gorgias’ portrait statue was widely criticized in later periods for overstepping the bounds of acceptable display. Seemingly in response to contemporary criticism, Gorgias’ grandnephew Eumolpos dedicated another portrait of him at Olympia, inscribed with an epigram (IvO 293 = CEG 2 830, ca. 400–​350 bc) that explicitly mentions and justifies the Delphi portrait as “a paradigm not of wealth, but of pious character” [Figure 14]: Gorgias, son of Charmantides, of Leontinoi. Deikrates took the sister of Gorgias as a bride and from her was born to him Hippokrates. Hippokrates’ son Eumolpos is the one who dedicated

67

68

68

ARETE, HE R O I S M , A N D D I VI N E CHO I C E

14.  Inscription on the base for the portrait of Gorgias at Olympia (IvO 293), ca. 400–​350 bc. Note the use of a name label inscribed as a heading above the two epigrams. Reproduced from IvO. Public domain

this portrait for two reasons, on account of tutelage [paideia] and affection [philia]. No one of mortals has as yet discovered a finer art [techne] of training the soul for contests of arete than Gorgias, of whom there is also a portrait set up in the vale of Apollo, a paradigm not of wealth but of pious character. CEG 2 830, trans. Tzifopoulos 201348

When viewed in light of Gorgias’ golden portrait statue at Delphi, Phaedrus’ promise to dedicate Socrates in gold at Delphi can be read not only as a reference to the Athenian archons’ oath, but also as a joke at Gorgias’ expense. It does not mean that the golden, lifesize statues the archons swore to dedicate at Delphi if they broke their oath were portraits, any more than the Kypselid sphyrelaton at Olympia was. The archons’ oath itself most likely referred to a golden andrias, just as it was paraphrased by pseudo-​Aristotle. The penitential andrias in the oath should be understood as an image of Apollo himself. We have already seen from Krino’s dedication on Delos that an image equal in size to its dedicator could be a divine image rather than a portrait. Gorgias may have felt his self-​representation at Delphi could be justified as an assertion that his talent for speaking was god-​given, like the arete of victorious athletes and kings. The portrait of the mid-​fourth century courtesan Phryne of Thespiai in the same sanctuary met with similar criticism. She may have sought to dedicate a replica of her own body to show that her

69

Classica l Portraits of  P oets

outstanding physical beauty was god-​g iven, a fitting kosmos (decoration) for Apollo’s sanctuary –​an extension of the traditional notion that the physical beauty of the aristocratic male was in itself a form of arete.49 To sum up: Herodotus was profoundly interested in the role of the divine in human affairs, an interest that helps to explain both his frequent mention of divine images, and his emphasis upon divine agency as a factor leading to the creation of human ones. The eight Herodotean examples of Greek portraits turn out to be difficult to categorize, but the main motives for early Greek portraiture that emerge are being saved by the gods, being chosen by the gods, and claims to extraordinary arete. Supernatural forces play a prominent role in the stories of Kleobis and Biton, Aristeas of Proconnesos, and Arion of Methymna, as they do in Thucydides’ account of the Spartan regent Pausanias. The role of the eidolon of a Spartan king killed in battle as a body-​substitute is similar to the function of Aristeas’ and Pausanias’ portraits. Kings were already a significant subject class in Greek portraiture well in advance of Philip II and Alexander, and their portraits speak to both divine choice and divine or heroic ancestry. Herodotus shows no interest at all in the style or lifelikeness of portrait statues beyond remarking upon the colossal size of some Egyptian kolossoi.

Classical Portraits of Poets Though neither Herodotus nor other Classical sources mention portraits of poets, they are another distinct group of individuals whose portraits began to appear in the fifth century. Before the early Hellenistic period, when playwrights and other poets began to receive honorific portraits –​and before the creation of the standard portrait type of the seated poet in the same period –​ some Greek poets were clearly thought to have transgressed the boundaries between human, hero, and god. All the same, it remains doubtful that any Greek poet received actual hero cult before the Hellenistic period. The case of the Archaic lyric poet Archilochos of Paros, who lived in the second half of the seventh century bc and wrote elegiac and iambic poetry, illustrates this point. On Paros, a late Archaic Ionic column monument that seems to have marked his tomb was inscribed with a new elegiac couplet ca. 350–​300 bc (CEG 2 674) on the initiative of an individual named Dokimos, son of Neokreon. By the mid-​ third century bc, Archilochus was being worshipped as a hero: a private citizen named Mnesiepes, with the sanction of the Delphic oracle, established a cult precinct for him, with an inscription featuring a biographical sketch; further biographical details, extracted and elaborated from Archilochus’ own poems, appear in the so-​called Sosthenes inscription from Paros dated to the early first century bc.50 Though Diskin Clay argued that the cult of Archilochos on Paros goes back to the late Archaic period, this is speculative and uncertain.51 A Hellenistic milestone for the heroization and divinization of Greek poets is

69

70

70

ARETE, HE R O I S M , A N D D I VI N E CHO I C E

15.  Hellenistic relief signed by Archelaos of Priene found in Italy (BM inv. 1819, 0812.1), detail showing the honorific portrait of a poet, standing in front of a tripod monument (third or second century bc). ©The Trustees of the British Museum

the so-​called Archelaos relief now in the British Museum, variously dated from the end of the third century through the end of the second century bc. The relief depicts a standing, honorific statue of a poet holding a scroll [Figure 15], presumably a representation of the poet who commissioned the relief. His honorific image is implicitly contrasted with the main subject of the relief, Homer, who is shown larger-​than-​life, enthroned like a god [Figure 16], and surrounded by Apollo, the Muses, and a series of personifications who offer him crowns.52

Homer and Hesiod at Olympia: Poets as Teachers and Saviors Even without heroic or divine cult, poets could be likened to heroes or gods through their portraits. What appears to be an early Classical portrait type of Homer in Roman copies gains some credibility from Pausanias’ (5.24.6 and 5.26.2–​5) description of the collection of statues dedicated on multiple bases in the second quarter of the fifth century at Olympia by Mikythos of Rhegion, among them not only images of gods, heroes, and personifications, but also representations of Homer and Hesiod: The offerings of Mikythos I  found were numerous and not together. Next after Iphitos of Elis, and Echecheiria crowning Iphitos, come the following offerings of Mikythos:  Amphitrite, Poseidon and Hestia; the artist was Glaukos the Argive. Along the left side of the great temple

71

Classica l Portraits of  P oets

16.  Archelaos relief, detail showing Homer enthroned as a god.The personifications of Chronos (time) and Oikoumene (the inhabited world) standing to the left of Homer may be crypto-​ portraits of a Ptolemaic king and queen. ©The Trustees of the British Museum

Mikythos dedicated other offerings:  the Maid, daughter of Demeter, Aphrodite, Ganymede and Artemis, the poets Homer and Hesiod, then again deities, Asklepios and Hygieia. Among the offerings of Mikythos is Struggle [Eris] carrying jumping-​weights … By the statue of Struggle are Dionysus, Orpheus the Thracian, and an image of Zeus which I mentioned just now [beardless Zeus, mentioned at 5.24.6].They are the works of Dionysios of Argos. They say that Mikythos set up other offerings also in addition to these, and that they formed part of the treasures taken away by Nero … For Herodotus in his history [7.170] says that this Mikythos, when Anaxilas was tyrant of Rhegion, became his slave and treasurer of his property; afterwards, on the death of Anaxilas, he went away to Tegea. The inscriptions on the offerings give Choiros as the father of Mikythos, and as his fatherland the Greek cities of Rhegion and Messene on the Strait. The inscriptions say that he lived at Tegea, and he dedicated the offerings at Olympia in fulfillment of a vow made for the recovery of a son, who fell ill of a wasting disease. Paus. 5.26.2–​3, trans. W. H. S. Jones and H. A. Ormerod, modified.53

Parts of the inscribed bases for the dedications described by Pausanias survive, and they confirm that Mikythos dedicated approximately twenty bronze

71

72

72

ARETE, HE R O I S M , A N D D I VI N E CHO I C E

17. Votive relief dedicated by Xenokrateia from Athens (early fourth century bc), showing Xenokrateia and her son surrounded by gods and heroes (Athens NM 2756). Photo: Walter Hege, DAI Athens, neg. Hege 1135

statues to commemorate the recovery (soteria) of his son from an illness.54 Rather than dedicate a portrait of the son who had been saved by the gods, Mikythos chose to represent the many saviors to whom he attributed his son’s recovery –​among them Homer and Hesiod. The closest parallels for Mikythos’ dedications are several Classical votive reliefs dedicated by parents giving thanks to gods and heroes for the protection and tutelage of their children. In the early fourth century in Athens, a woman named Xenokrateia dedicated a relief representing the river god Kephisos and an assembly of other gods (IG II2 4548: Figure 17).The inscription on the pillar supporting the relief reads as follows: Ξενοκράτεια Κηφισο͂ ἱερ-​ ὸν ἱδρύσατο καὶ ἀνέθηκεν ξυνβώμοις τε θεοῖς διδασκαλ-​ ίας τόδε δῶρον, Ξενιάδο θυγάτ-​ ηρ καὶ μήτηρ ἐκ Χολλειδῶν, θύεν τῶι βουλομένωι ἐπὶ τελεστῶν ἀγαθῶν. Xenokrateia set up a sanctuary of Kephisos and dedicated this as a gift to the gods who share the altar in return for tutelage (didaskalia), she the daughter and mother of Xeniades of the deme Cholleidai. Let the one who wishes to do so sacrifice for the accomplishment of benefits.

The Xenokrateia relief depicts Xenokrateia and her little son approaching a motley assortment of gods and heroes, probably including Kephisos and

73

Classica l Portraits of  P oets

18.  Roman marble copy of an early Classical portrait identified as Pindar, Capitoline Museum Rome (inv. 585). Photo: H. Koppermann, neg. DAI Rome 63.1807

Acheloös, another river god associated with the rearing of offspring.55 The precise motive behind Xenokrateia’s dedication depends upon how we construe the reference to didaskalia (tutelage or instruction) in the inscription: it may be taken to refer to the recipients of this votive gift as educators or instructors of Xenokrateia herself, or (more likely in my view) to the dedication as a gift in return for the education of Xenokrateia’s son Xeniades.56 Other votive reliefs showing a parent presenting a boy to the gods probably resulted from similar motives.57 Mikythos included Homer and Hesiod in his dedications at Olympia because they, like the savior gods and personifications around them, contributed to his son’s miraculous recovery; they were also singled out for having educated Mikythos’ son.

Pindar It is less clear what to make of another early Classical portrait of a poet, this one known only from Roman marble copies and without any identifiable Greek context. The discovery in Aphrodisias of a Roman marble portrait bust inscribed with Pindar’s name has provided a conclusive identification for a portrait type known from many copies that had previously been identified with the fifth-​century Spartan regent Pausanias discussed earlier. The style of the Roman copies of this portrait [Figure 18] suggests a date for the original as early as ca. 450 bc, either during Pindar’s lifetime or soon after his death,

73

74

74

ARETE, HE R O I S M , A N D D I VI N E CHO I C E

but we have no other evidence from literature or inscriptions for a portrait of Pindar in a Greek context that could date this early.58 Himmelmann and other commentators have remarked upon the strong facial resemblance between the Pindar portrait and centaurs in the West pediment of the temple of Zeus at Olympia. If we accept that the Olympia centaurs were the visual model for Pindar’s portrait image, it seems that the determining factor was more than simply a lack of other models in the early Classical period for the depiction of advanced age: as in the case of Themistokles’ portrait, the resemblance could be programmatic. Himmelmann himself suggested that Pindar’s portrait was intended to liken him to Chiron, the wise centaur and tutor of Achilles in Greek mythology.59 Without a Greek context for the original, a programmatic argument is difficult to evaluate. But another early Greek portrait, this one a rare Classical bronze original, also bears a strong resemblance to centaurs. The disembodied bronze head of an old man from the Porticello shipwreck excavated off the coast of Calabria, the so-​called “Philosopher” of ca. 430–​ 420 bc, has been compared to some of the centaurs on the Parthenon South metopes.60 Other known portraits of Pindar were clearly retrospective images of the Hellenistic period.The Pindar seen by Pausanias in the Athenian Agora (1.8.4), described by another source ([Aeschines] Epist. 4.2–​3) as seated and holding a lyre with an open bookroll spread out on its lap, belongs to a type not attested before the Hellenistic period; another seated Pindar in the portrait gallery of poets and dramatists in the Sarapieion at Memphis in Egypt has been dated (along with the rest of the group) to the second half of the third century bc.61 Reference to the awarding of civic honors to Pindar by the Athenians in the fourth-​century orator Isokrates (15.166) is a classic case of the type of anachronism fostered by the honorific portraits of later periods.62 Isokrates claims that Pindar was made a proxenos (ambassador) of Athens, while pseudo-​Aeschines cites the seated portrait statue of Pindar in the Athenian Agora as evidence that Pindar was granted honors by the Athenian state.The idea that Pindar received civic honors can be explained as an inference based upon the typical package of highest honors (megistai timai) –​including proxenies for foreigners, sitesis in the prytaneion, and crowns –​institutionalized by the Athenians in the fourth century. Since the grant of highest civic honors by the Athenian demos typically included a bronze portrait statue, sources of the fourth century and later seem to have assumed from the portrait in the Agora that Pindar had been granted the other, lesser honors as well.

Classical Portraits of Priests and Priestesses Priests and priestesses have always appeared to constitute a category of Greek portraits that should have early origins because of their overtly religious

75

Classica l Portraits of P riests and P riestesses

character: after all, if we accept divine choice as a motive for portraiture, then it would seem that the gods wanted to receive body-​replicas of their own human servants, both male and female.63 The employment of the lot to choose some priests and priestesses in Athens may have been intended literally to leave their choice to the gods.64 This way of thinking about priestly service and its meaning in Greek religion has sometimes served as a justification for the wholesale interpretation of the Archaic marble korai dedicated on the Athenian Acropolis as either generic votaries or full-​fledged priestess portraits; the kore dedicated on Delos by Nikandre has also been conjectured to be a portrait commemorating service as a priestess of Artemis instead of Artemis herself.65 In truth, the case for portraits of either female priestesses or male priests in the Greek world before the fourth century bc is weak. At Klaros in Asia Minor in the second quarter of the sixth century, a priest named Timonax commemorated his service as priest of Apollo by dedicating a kouros (SEG XLVIII 1408), and his service as priest of Artemis by dedicating a kore (SEG XLVIII 1407): whether we explain these figures as generic images, or images meant to represent Apollo and Artemis themselves (the interpretation I prefer), they are clearly not self-​portraits.66 At Lindos on Rhodes before ca. 315 bc, dedications commemorating holders of the male priesthood of Athena Lindia were not portraits, but statues of Athena herself. Three supposed fifth-​century priestess portraits, known only from late sources, turn out to be highly problematic.67 One of these, a key-​bearer supposedly made by Pheidias, has already been mentioned in Chapter 1; another, a portrait of the priestess Chrysis in the Argive Heraion, will be discussed in Chapter 4. What we do see is the sudden emergence of portraits of priests and priestesses in a particular place (Athens) at a certain moment in Greek history, the first half of the fourth century.The earliest of these may have been the portrait of Lysimache on the Athenian Acropolis. The number of attested portraits and other monuments for priestesses and priests from Athens and Attica in the first half of the fourth century is striking: the Athenians themselves seem to have recognized the priestesses of the Peloponnesian War and its immediate aftermath as the “greatest generation.” Lysimache, priestess of Athena Polias on the Acropolis, was represented by a bronze statue made by the Athenian sculptor Demetrios of Alopeke, for which the base survives (IG II2 3453 and CEG 2 757).68 The inscribed epigram (there is also a nominative name label) mentions not only Lysimache’s service as priestess for sixty-​four years, but also her life of eighty-​eight years. Lysimache’s advanced age is the subject of the epigram because it confirms her exceptional nature: as the example of Elizabeth II of Great Britain demonstrates, such longevity is a sign of singular arete even in the present day. [Λυσιμάχη? γραῖ? ἥδ]ε̣ Δρακο[ντί]δ̣ο ἦν [τὸ γέ]ν̣ος μέν, [ὀγδώκοντ’ ὀκτ]ὼ̣ δ̣’ ἐξεπέρασ̣εν ἔτη·

75

76

76

ARETE, HE R O I S M , A N D D I VI N E CHO I C E

[3–​4?]ιν̣ ἑξή]κ̣ο̣ντα δ’ ἔτη καὶ τέσσαρα Ἀθάναι [λατρεύσ’ ἠδε γένη] τέσσαρ’ ἐπεῖδε τέκνων. [8–​9?…….]έος Φλυέως μήτηρ. [Δημήτριος ἐ]πόησεν. [This old woman? Lysimache] was daughter of Drakontides with respect to her descent, and she lived eighty-​eight years; having served Athena sixty-​four years she saw four generations of children. [Lysimache], mother of -​es Phlyeus. [Demetrios] made it.69

Who dedicated this posthumous portrait has long been the subject of uncertainty: the combination of a praise epigram with a name label leaves this unstated.70 I have argued elsewhere that, in Athens at this time, the lack of a named commemorator strongly implies an official honorific portrait awarded by the demos. If I  am correct, then the priestess Lysimache, whose portrait should date between ca. 390 and 360 bc, was one of the first subjects we know of to be so honored in Athens. A damaged Athenian document relief from this same period shows a woman being crowned by Athena and a group of other gods, and this relief may have belonged to an honorific decree for Lysimache herself, or for a contemporary priestess of another cult.71 Near Lysimache’s portrait (which has dropped out of a corrupt passage in the text), Pausanias (1.27.4) mentions another portrait of an old woman, whom he identified as Lysimache’s diakonos (helper). The inscribed base for this portrait (IG II2 3464: ca. 370–​330 bc) shows that her name was Syeris. Syeris too was honored with a praise epigram; I have argued that the first three lines of the inscription, a nominative name label in larger letters, are a later Hellenistic addition designed to enhance the monument’s visibility on the Acropolis.72 Σ –​ –​ –​ /​ Λυσ[ιμάχ]ης/​ διά[κο]νος ἡ ἐν τ[ῶι ἱε]ρῶι./​ εἰκών με [ἥδε] σαφὴς δηλοῖ/​ τύπου· ἔ[ργα] δὲ καὶ νοῦς/​ [νῦν ζ]ώ̣ει παρὰ πᾶσι σαφῆ·/​ [σε]μνὴ δέ με μοῖρα/​ [ἤ]γαγεν εἰς ναὸν περικαλλέ[α]/​ Παλλάδος ἁγνῆς,/​ [οὗ] πόνον οὐκ ἀκλεᾶ τόνδε/​ ἐλάτρευσα θεᾶι. Νικόμαχος ἐπόησεν. Sye[ris] […]gou S[ –​–​–​ ], diakonos of Lysimache, the one in the sanctuary. This image [eikon] of my form shows me clearly; my deeds and spirit now live on, clear to all. A reverend fate led me into the most beautiful temple of holy Pallas, where I performed this labor not without glory for the goddess. Nikomachos made it.

Lysimache’s epigram tells us her age; Pausanias calls Syeris an old woman. A Roman marble head of an old woman in the British Museum [Figure 19] with a Classical hairstyle, wearing a strophion (headband) like the ones sometimes

77

Classica l Portraits of P riests and P riestesses

19. Roman marble head (BM inv. 1887,0725.31) identified as a possible copy of Demetrios’ portrait of Lysimache on the Athenian Acropolis, ca. 390–​360 bc. ©The Trustees of the British Museum

worn by priests, priestesses, and kings, was long ago identified as a possible copy of Lysimache’s portrait on the Acropolis.73 Though the identification with this particular head has been doubted, Lysimache’s extraordinary age was the quality that made her worth honoring with a portrait in the first place. Postulating that both Lysimache and Syeris were depicted in the fourth century bc as old and heavily wrinkled in no way detracts from Dillon’s observation that in Hellenistic Greek portraiture, women were invariably depicted in a youthful and idealized fashion.74 There could be some validity to the perception in later art-​historical writing that Demetrios of Alopeke’s portraits were realistic compared to the work of other Classical sculptors.75 The portrait of Gorgias at Olympia similarly demonstrates that, in the first half of the fourth century, longevity could be both a motive for portraiture and a justification for realism. Though his portrait’s epigram left his age unstated (he reportedly lived to be 102), the dowel holes on the top of the base show that Gorgias was depicted leaning on a walking staff (bakterion) held in his left hand. Though this schema is a common one for mature men in both Attic red-​figure vase painting and late Classical Athenian funerary reliefs, it was normally avoided in freestanding portraits.76 Here the intent was clearly to represent Gorgias’ extreme old age. If the portraits of Lysimache and her diakonos Syeris on the Acropolis really were among the earliest honorific portraits in Athens, they were more politically loaded than they appear at first glance to be. Both the priestess

77

78

78

ARETE, HE R O I S M , A N D D I VI N E CHO I C E

of Athena Polias and the priest of Poseidon Erechtheus on the Acropolis were chosen from members of the Eteoboutadai, an exclusive genos-​based descent group.77 In the second half of the fifth century –​possibly as late as the 420s, when the temple of Athena Nike was built and when Lysimache was already priestess of Athena Polias –​the Athenians had decided to create a new priesthood of Athena Nike on the Acropolis, and to choose her priestess “democratically” by lot from all Athenian women.78 Setting up portraits of Lysimache and her assistant reinforced the primacy of the original priesthood of Athena on the Acropolis; Lysimache was also the first priestess to serve Athena in the newly built Erechtheion, completed in 404 bc. Lysimache’s portrait was followed by one representing another priestess of Athena Polias, this one dedicated by the priestess’ relatives and signed by Praxiteles’ sons Kephisodotos and Timarchos (IG II2 3455, ca. 340–​290), after which the series of Acropolis priestess portraits stops and does not appear to resume until the second century bc. Elsewhere in Athens and Attica in the first half of the fourth century, more portraits of priestesses and priests were dedicated in the sanctuaries they served, either by members of their families or by the priests/​priestesses themselves. In a sanctuary of Apollo Pythios in the Attic deme Myrrhinous, a priest named Xenophon, son of Philoxenos, seems to have introduced portraiture to the sanctuary on his own initiative: he dedicated both a traditional votive statue (SEG LIII 210) and a portrait (eikon) of himself (SEG LVII 197), both of them inscribed with the formula μνῆμα ἑαυτοῦ (a memorial of himself).79 In the City Eleusinion, the small sanctuary just below the Acropolis where the annual procession to Eleusis for the Greater Mysteries began, the shift from votive statues dedicated by priestesses in the fifth century to portraits in the first half of the fourth century stands out in particularly strong relief. The Eleusinion has been only partially excavated; though the sanctuary appears to have been in use from the mid-​seventh century bc onward, the excavated temple of Triptolemos was not finished until after the Persian sack of Athens in 480.80 It is typical of small Greek sanctuaries in that it attracted only a limited number of monumental dedications. The earliest known inscribed dedication from the sanctuary was made by Lysistrate, the first priestess of Demeter and Kore whose name we know, in the mid-​fifth century bc (IG I3 953 = CEG 317): [ἀ]ρρήτο τελετῆς πρόπολος σῆς, πότνια Δηοῖ, καὶ θυγατρὸς προθύρο κόσμον ἄγαλμα τόδε ἔστησεν Στεφάνου Λυσιστράτη, οὐδὲ παρόντων φείδεται, ἀλλὰ θεοῖς ἄφθονος ἐς δύναμιν. Servant of your unspoken rite, Lady Deo, Lysistrate, daughter of Stephanos, set up this agalma, ornament of the doorway of your daughter, she not sparing of her wealth, but toward the unmatched power of the gods.

79

Conclusion

The inscribed base supported a lost rectangular pillar of the right size and shape for a herm. The meaning of στεφανω (as the letters appear on the stone) in the third line of the epigram has been disputed: since in the Attic epichoric alphabet of the fifth century the final vowel could be construed in various ways, this could signify the dual of στέφανος (a dedication of two crowns attached to the pillar?) or even a female name in the accusative singular (a dedication of the portrait of a woman named Stephano by Lysistrate?). Fifth-​ century Athenian parallels, and the sense of the dedicatory epigram, strongly suggest, however, that this is the name of Lysistrate’s father in the genitive case. I see no reason think that Lysistrate dedicated something other than a herm to commemorate her service.81 This private dedication comes soon after the three herms commemorating the Athenian victory at Eion on the Strymon in 465 bc, which stood at the opposite end of the Agora, and one wonders if Lysistrate’s dedication intentionally imitated the form of an important public monument. By the mid-​fourth century, portraits of priestesses and others had replaced other types of votive monuments in the City Eleusinion. The third known priestess of Demeter and Kore, Chairippe, daughter of Philophron of Kephisia, had her portrait in the sanctuary made by Praxiteles and dedicated by her brothers Aristodemos and Philophron (SEG LI 215).82 Another priestess, who served in the fourth century either before or after Chairippe, also seems to have had her portrait set up (SEG XVI 160), as did Archippe, daughter of Kleogenes of Aixone (SEG XVIII 85), dedicated by her mother and also signed by Praxiteles.83 By the second century bc in the City Eleusinion, priestesses were dedicating painted portraits of themselves inside the temple of Demeter and Kore as a matter of course.84 The broader Greek recognition of priesthood as perhaps the supreme female form of arete over the course of the fourth century is also evident in the sanctuaries of Priene, newly founded on its present site in the second half of the fourth century.85 In the sanctuary of Athena Polias, the priestess Niko had her portrait dedicated by her father Menedemos Eumenous in the late fourth century (IvPr 160); in the sanctuary of Demeter we have the base for a bronze portrait of what may be the first priestess to serve in the new temple (Timonassa, IvPr 172 and addenda), and both an inscribed base and an extant marble portrait for another priestess named Nikeso (IvPr 173, first half of the third century).86

Conclusion Herodotus’ two parables of the most fortunate men, Tellos the Athenian and Kleobis and Biton, both contribute to the fifth-​century Greek conversation about arete. But whereas the portraits of Kleobis and Biton at Delphi exemplify the Archaic notion of a monument as compensation for early death and

79

80

80

ARETE, HE R O I S M , A N D D I VI N E CHO I C E

the absence of offspring, Tellos (as Herodotus describes him) points forward, toward the honorific values, honorific portraits, and broader vision of posterity emergent in the late Classical Greek polis: Tellos had beautiful (kaloi kai agathoi) children at a time when the city was prospering, and he lived to see children born to these, all of them surviving. The most glorious end overtook this man when he was doing well in his livelihood (according to our standards, at least): for when there was a battle between the Athenians and their neighbors in Eleusis, having been called up and having routed the enemies he died most nobly, and the Athenians gave him a public burial where he fell and honored him greatly. Hdt. 1.30

Tellos’ death in battle and burial at public expense evoke the fifth-​century Athenian institution of collective burial of the war dead in the demosion sema.87 At the same time, Tellos’ longevity, measured in terms of living to see his grandchildren survive, parallels that of Lysimache, represented in the first half of the fourth century with an honorific portrait on the Acropolis. Fourth-​ century Athenian private grave reliefs similarly stressed through their familial imagery the continuity of the citizen household (oikos) through multiple generations.88 By the late Hellenistic period, honorific portraits themselves were considered evidence of arete, as we have seen in the depiction of an unknown poet’s portrait statue on the Archelaos relief. As Paul Zanker has noticed, the status of elites in the late Hellenistic city was so bound up with the custom of honorific portraiture that even relief gravestones began to portray the deceased not as a once living and breathing body, but instead as a portrait statue on a base –​more often than not a himation man.89 The late Hellenistic period also saw the introduction of what Ma calls “portfolio monuments”: private portrait dedications by family members with inscribed notices drawing attention to the portrait subject’s official honors, granted by the city or by external honoring bodies.90 The histories of Greek portraits of different subjects in the Classical period, when reexamined with a critical eye, take on distinctly different shapes: we are in fact dealing not with a single, unified evolution, but with a multiplicity of different histories of Greek portraiture. Traditonal notions of the arete of warriors, victorious athletes, and kings evolved to encompass the arete (and the portraits) of poets, priestesses, and other subjects. As we will see in Chapter 3, where portrait statues stood was as much a part of the message they conveyed as whom they represented.

81

3

PORTRAITS IN GREEK SANCTUARIES

The statue on the high pedestal is the work of Lysippos, and it represents the tallest of all men except those called heroes and any other mortal race that may have existed before the heroes. But this man, Polydamas the son of Nikias, is the tallest of our own era. … Others have won glorious victories in the pankration, but Polydamas, besides his prizes for the pankration, has to his credit the following exploits of a different kind.The mountainous part of Thrace, on this side of the river Nestos, which runs through the land of Abdera, breeds among other wild beasts lions, which once attacked the army of Xerxes, and mauled the camels carrying his supplies. These lions roam right into the land around Mount Olympos, one side of which is turned towards Macedonia, and the other towards Thessaly and the river Peneios. Here on Mount Olympos Polydamas slew a lion, a huge and powerful beast, without the help of any weapon.To this exploit he was impelled by an ambition to rival the labors of Herakles, because Herakles also, legend says, overthrew the lion at Nemea. In addition to this, Polydamas is remembered for another wonderful performance. He went among a herd of cattle and seized the biggest and fiercest bull by one of its hind feet, holding fast the hoof in spite of the bull’s leaps and struggles, until at last it put forth all its strength and escaped, leaving the hoof in the grasp of Polydamas. It is also said of him that he stopped a charioteer who was driving his chariot onwards at a great speed. Seizing with one hand the back of the chariot he kept a tight hold on both horses and driver. Darius [II], the bastard son of Artaxerxes, who with the support of the Persian common people put down Sogdius, the legitimate 81

82

82

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

son of Artaxerxes, and ascended the throne in his stead, learning when he was king of the exploits of Polydamas, sent messengers with the promise of gifts and persuaded him to come before his presence at Susa. There he challenged three of the Persians called Immortals to fight him –​one against three  –​and killed them. Of his exploits enumerated, some are represented on the pedestal of the statue at Olympia, and others are set forth in the inscription. Paus. 6.5.1 and 4–​7 on Lysippos’ portrait of the Olympic victor Polydamas of Skotoussa in Thessaly: trans. W. H. S. Jones, modified

In the search for better ways of understanding portraiture in Archaic and Classical Greece, sanctuaries are the logical places to turn. Some sanctuaries show a continuous history of statue dedications stretching from the Archaic through Hellenistic periods and illustrate the full sequence from Archaic marble statue types, to Classical figures of gods and heroes, to portraits; in some cases, it is possible to pinpoint exactly when portraits arrived in the sanctuary and who introduced them. In the fourth century, honorific portraits were still more likely to be placed in sanctuaries than in agoras or theaters. Some sanctuaries have naturally figured prominently in the study of early Greek portraiture –​namely Pausanias’ big three, Olympia, Delphi, and the Athenian Acropolis –​while others have been left out of synthetic discussions of Greek sculpture entirely: the Asklepieion at Epidauros, and the sanctuary of Athena at Lindos on Rhodes. Whereas Pliny implies that the history of Greek portraiture offered a geographically unified and orderly evolution toward honorific portraits, Pausanias in the second century ad was a voice for difference.After having devoted all of book 6 of his Periegesis to the portraits of victorious athletes at Olympia, he dismissed the athletic and musical victor portraits at Delphi as insignificant at the outset and refused to include them in his account of the sanctuary (Paus. 10.9.2). In the case of Olympia and Delphi, Pausanias merely amplified differences that clearly had some basis in reality. In a work that mentions somewhere in the neighborhood of 425 different sanctuaries, Pausanias chose to treat the Athenian Acropolis as third in importance behind Olympia and Delphi, and he had surprisingly little to say about other sites such as the sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros, the Amphiareion at Oropos, and the Asklepieion at Messene.1 He seldom mentioned buildings or monuments, including portraits, dating after the Roman annexation of central Greece and the Peloponnese as the province of Achaea in 146 bc.2 At Olympia, as the inscribed statue bases show, his account drastically over-​represents the earliest victor portraits at the expense of Hellenistic ones.3 But despite Pausanias’ extreme selectivity, his work suggests a viable alternative both to the study of early Greek portraiture according to subject categories and to a unified narrative of its development: a series of local, site-​based

83

Olym pia

histories. This chapter presents six such histories focused on Olympia, Delphi, the Heraion on Samos, the Athenian Acropolis, the sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros, and the sanctuary of Athena Lindia at Lindos on Rhodes.4 The goal of the chapter is to show that, within the contexts of sanctuaries, the practice of portraiture was influenced by the perceived character of the cult deity him-​or herself, and by the sites’ specific histories, both of which determined the types of monuments the sanctuary attracted. Some of the historical actors who introduced portraiture were local elites, as we might expect, and one identifiable subset of these is the priests and priestesses of the cult. Others were external, such as victorious athletes and the western Greek tyrants and their associates at Olympia and Delphi; still others were sculptors moving back and forth between the major Classical poleis and sanctuaries.

Olympia Portraits of Olympic Victors Though Olympia may not be the sanctuary with the earliest Greek portraits, it arguably inspired the earliest Greek portrait culture.5 We have already looked at the evidence for the portrait of the Olympic victor Kleombrotos found near Sybaris, which may be the earliest example of an athletic victor portrait. It still proves difficult to date the earliest portrait statue of an Olympic victor to be set up in the Altis itself, or even to determine which was the earliest in date of the victor portraits that Pausanias mentions in his account of Olympia, numbering somewhere between 170 and 203. One issue is the transition from other types of dedications commemorating victories in the games  –​divine images, tripods, inscribed jumping weights (halteres) –​to portraits.6 A second important question to be reexamined here, beyond which was the earliest, is whether or not the portraits of athletic victors at Olympia in fact became less religious in character in the fourth century bc, and why. We can proceed no further without acknowledging a major problem affecting the dating of early athletic victor portraits at Olympia. More than fifty years ago, Pierre Amandry, in a study of the portraits that Pausanias attributed to Polykleitos, arrived at a crucial insight: mismatches between the standard dates for some sculptors, including Polykleitos, and the recorded dates of the victories of the athletes themselves point to the extensive practice of dedicating portraits of victors at Olympia either posthumously or retrospectively, a generation or more after the date of their latest recorded victory [Appendix 1A].7 In other words, the date of a victor’s latest recorded victory at Olympia, which we often know from the ancient chronographic lists of victors compiled by Hippias of Elis and others, is simply not the same as the date of the portrait of that victor. It seems obvious that the portraits of the very earliest

83

84

84

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

victors mentioned by Pausanias in his account of Olympia, those whose latest recorded victories date before 600 bc, were retrospective ones.8 According to Pausanias (6.3.8 and 7.17.6–​7), the people of Achaia in the Peloponnese, seeking an explanation for the drought of Achaian victors in the games, consulted the Delphic oracle at some point in the Archaic period and were instructed to set up a portrait of Oibotas of Dyme in Achaia, a victor in the stadion race in 756 bc. They did so, and the result was the victory of the boy runner Sostratos of Pellana in 460 bc. Pausanias (6.15.8) duly notes that the portrait of Eutelidas of Sparta, victor in 628 bc, was old, with the letters of its inscription faded by time, but that is no proof that the statue dated to 628 rather than 500, or even 480 bc. Pausanias himself refused to believe that the portrait of Chionis of Sparta (6.18.7), who won his last Olympic victory in 656 bc, could possibly be contemporary because it was made by the mid-​fifth century bc sculptor Myron of Eleutherai. R. R. R. Smith suggests that the Spartans set up Chionis’ portrait in response to the nearby contemporary portrait of Astylos of Kroton, whose last victory dates to 480 bc, because Chionis and Astylos were both triastai, victors in three different events in the same Olympics, and the Spartans wanted to establish clearly that one of their countrymen had accomplished this feat long before Astylos did.9 Finally, when Pausanias states with confidence (6.18.7) that the wooden statues of Praxidamas of Aegina (544 bc) and Rhexibios of Opous in Locris (536 bc) were the first victor portraits at Olympia, it seems clear that he has been misled both by the use of wood for their statues and by their placement near the so-​called pillar of Oinomaos, identified in Pausanias’ time as the sole remains of the house of Oinomaos, the king of Pisa defeated and deposed by the hero Pelops.10 Two late Archaic (ca. 500–​ 490 bc) marble heads found at Olympia [Figures  20 and 21], both bearded and one with a metal helmet originally attached, could belong to portraits of victors in the hoplitodromos event, the race in armor introduced to the Olympic games in 520 bc (Paus. 6.10.4 and 6.17.5); this is how they have been interpreted in previous scholarship.11 If so, this early experiment in using marble rather than bronze for victor portraits was seldom repeated.12 If these helmeted heads really do belong to victors, they raise the possibility that the hoplitodromos race, the athletic event most overtly connected with warfare, was the first to be commemorated with portraits at Olympia. Both heads might, however, belong to statues of heroes. The problem posed by retrospective victor portraits becomes far more vexing when we consider the dates of the portraits of late Archaic and fifth-​century victors. According to Pausanias, the Aeginetan bronze sculptor Ageladas (his name is given elsewhere as Hageladas or, in Attic/​Ionian dialect, Hagelaides) made portraits of three late Archaic victors at Olympia: Anochos of Tarentum (Paus. 6.14.11, latest known victory in 520 bc), Kleosthenes of Epidamnos (Paus. 6.10.6, 516 bc), and Timasitheos of Delphi (Paus. 6.8.6, 512 bc). Kleosthenes’

85

Olym pia

20.  Marble head of an early victor in the hoplitodromos race –​or a hero –​from Olympia (early fifth century bc). Photo Gösta Hellner, DAI Athens, neg. 1979/​1

21.  Marble head of another late Archaic hoplitodromos portrait or hero from Olympia; a metal helmet was once attached. Photo Walter Hege, DAI Athens, neg. Hege 478

85

86

86

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

dedication is particularly important because Pausanias claims he was the first equestrian victor to set up a full-​fledged quadriga monument –​in Kleosthenes’ case consisting of a chariot, a portrait of himself, a portrait of his charioteer, and four horses with their names inscribed on the base –​of the type well represented at Olympia and Delphi after 480 bc. Ageladas appears prominently in the introductory epigram of the Andriantopoiïka section in the papyrus poetry book by Poseidippos of Pella: Imitate these works, and the antique laws of colossi,     statue-​makers –​ yes! –​ outrun them! For if the ancient hands of Dryopas, or Hageladas,     a pre-​Polyclitan, wholly primitive practitioner of the art, or the hard creations of the Daedalidae had entered the field,     there’d be no reason at all to invoke Lysippus’ new grace as a touchstone. But if need should arise,     and a contest among moderns occur, he’d overtake them all. AB 62, trans. Stewart 2005, 185

Poseidippos contrasts the Archaic stiffness of Ageladas’ works with those of the elder Polykleitos of Argos, whose Doryphoros inaugurates the high Classical style in Greek sculpture; Pliny (HN 34.55), probably using the writings of third-​century bc writers on sculpture as a source, even claimed that both Polykleitos and Myron of Eleutherai were Ageladas’ students.13 All the same, as Amandry argued in a review of the evidence for Ageladas’ career, the portraits of the three victors at Olympia are in fact the only evidence that would date Ageladas’ work before 480 bc.14 On balance, it seems that Ageladas was a sculptor of the early Classical period and that Kleosthenes’ quadriga group dates soon after 480. Similarly, if we follow the victory dates for the four athletes whose portraits Pausanias attributes to the sculptor Glaukias of Aegina, we would think that the first should date as early as 520 bc. These four athletes and the dates of their latest known Olympic victories are as follows: Glaukos of Karystos (Paus. 6.10.1, 520 bc); Philon of Corcyra (Paus. 6.9.9, 496 bc); Gelon, son of Deinomenes, tyrant of Gela and Syracuse (Paus. 6.9.4, 488 bc); and Theogenes of Thasos (Paus. 6.11.12, 476 bc).The only epigraphical evidence for the sculptor Glaukias’ date are three inscribed blocks (IvO 143) belonging to the base of the quadriga group commemorating Gelon’s victory of 488 bc, probably dedicated very soon after that date.15 Recent work on other pioneering Aeginetan bronze sculptors who signed works at Olympia, among them Onatas, suggests that their works should be downdated from the late sixth century bc to the years right around 480 bc, just as Andrew Stewart’s recent reconsideration of the dates of the pedimental sculptures of the temple of Aphaia on Aegina, which show affinities with bronze work, would place all of them after ca. 480.16 If Glaukias in fact made his portrait of Glaukos, the victor of 520 bc, in ca. 480,

87

Olym pia

then a more consistent picture of Glaukias as a sculptor of the early Classical period emerges.17 I would suggest that the lack of epigraphical evidence for athletic victor portraits at Olympia before ca. 480 bc is not just a fluke: the portraits of earlier victors mentioned by Pausanias, several of them attributed to Ageladas of Argos and to a group of Aeginetan bronze sculptors including Glaukias, were set up as much as a generation after the victories they commemorated.18 The big bulge in the dedication of victor portraits in the Altis came in the period just after the Persian Wars. Not coincidentally, the period of ca. 480–​450 bc overlaps with Pindar’s career composing victory odes. Moving even more of the known Olympic victor portraits down from the late sixth century into this time frame only strengthens what we already view as the extraordinary interdependence of epinician poetry and bronze portraits of athletic victors. The possibility of retrospective athletic portraits is worth pursuing further. Pausanias attributed two portraits of fifth-​century victors at Olympia to Polykleitos of Argos, and we have the inscribed bases for both of them: the victors in question are Kyniskos of Mantinea (Paus. 6.4.11 and IvO 149, latest victory in 460 bc) and Pythokles of Elis (Paus. 6.7.10 and IvO 162/​163, 452 bc:  Figures  56 and 57). The base for Pythokles’ portrait in every important respect closely resembles a series of statue bases at Olympia and elsewhere for statues made not by the mid-​fifth century Polykleitos, but by the students working in his tradition, among them Naukydes of Argos and Daidalos of Sikyon, whose work belongs to the very end of the fifth century and the first half of the fourth.19 The Polykleitos who signed Pythokles’ portrait is thus more likely to be Polykleitos II, a descendant of Polykleitos I, associated with five fourth-​century victors ranging in date from 388 (Antipatros) down to 360 bc (Agenor). If this identification of Polykleitos II is correct, then Pythokles’ portrait at Olympia was retrospective. We know of only a single sculptor named Naukydes, and he worked during the first half of the fourth century bc: the gap of forty-​four years between the latest victories of two of the three athletes he represented at Olympia means that the portrait of the oldest of these athletes, Cheimon of Argos (Paus. 6.9.3, 448 bc) was retrospective. Naukydes’ other two victor portraits at Olympia were contemporary: Eukles of Rhodes (Paus. 6.6.2, 404 bc) and Baucis of Troezen (Paus. 6.8.4, 400 bc).20 Two statue groups at Olympia representing victorious athletes from more than one generation of the same family stand in an uncertain chronological position. The smaller group consisted of portraits of Alkainetos of Elean Lepreon (Paus. 6.7.8, 444 bc) and his two sons, Hellanikos (IvO 155, 424 bc) and Theantos (420 bc); it is not clear whether they were dedicated one by one or all at the same time after Theantos’ victory. The larger and more spectacular group represented six victors from three generations of the family of Diagoras of Rhodes (Paus. 6.7.1–​2 and IvO 151, 464 bc), himself the subject of

87

88

88

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

Pindar’s Olympian 7: the others are Damagetos (IvO 152, 448 bc); Akousilaos (448 bc); Dorieus (IvO 153, 424 bc), who was tyrant of Rhodes late in the Peloponnesian War; Eukles (IvO 159, 404 bc); and Peisirrhodos (404 bc). Here the later renewal of three of the four extant inscriptions, probably in the first century bc, makes it impossible to be certain whether the statues were set up one at a time as the victories occurred, or whether they were all dedicated as an ensemble at the very end of the fifth century by Eukles or Peisirrhodos, the youngest members of the family.21 I favor the latter option. A gap opens up in the second half of the fifth century as we push some of the portraits made by the Argive and Sikyonian sculptors of the Polykleitan circle (Polykleitos II, Naukydes, and Daidalos) down into the first half of the fourth century bc. All in all, the picture for the fourth century seems more stable, without thirty-​or forty-​year gaps between victors and the sculptors of their portraits. In order to determine the significance of this timeline for understanding the character of Olympic victor portraits, we need to look at the formulae of statue base inscriptions. This involves considering a different subset of the victor portraits at Olympia because only a small percentage of the inscriptions for fifth-​and fourth-​century victors have been preserved; the inscriptions can be supplemented by epigrams that Pausanias and other literary sources quote verbatim from statue bases now lost. Not surprisingly, the formulae of the inscriptions for the early victors have been an important source for evaluating whether or not victor portraits were considered anomalous already in the fifth century bc, as well as for assessing what effect honorific portraits had upon them. In the fifth century at Olympia, the standard votive formula with anetheke was the most common option for victor portraits. The virtual disappearance of anetheke in the fourth century is central to the contention that victor portraits at Olympia went from being true votive offerings in the fifth century to honorific monuments honoring the victor in the fourth. Bernhard Schweitzer offered the clearest statement of this view, in which the formulae of the inscriptions for victor portraits serve as an index of their waning religious character and the increasing interest in victors as individuals.22 Like many of the honorific portraits of the fourth century, fourth-​century portraits of athletic victors at Olympia were inscribed with nominative name labels, with or without an added praise epigram. A typical fourth-​century example that shows how name label and epigram together increasingly functioned as captions for the portrait is the inscription for Xenokles of Mainalos in Arcadia, a victor in boys’ wrestling. The epigram features vivid first-​person speech: Ξενοκλῆς ⋮ Εὐθύφρονος Μαινάλιος. Μ̣αινάλιος Ξενοκλῆς νίκασα

89

89

Olym pia

Εὐθύφρονος υἱὸς ἀπτὴς μονο-​ παλᾶν τέσαρα σώμαθ’ ἑλών IvO 164 = Ebert 32 = CEG 2 825 Xenokles, son of Euthyphron, of Mainalos. I, Xenokles, son of Euthyphron of Mainalos, won without falling, having mastered four opponents in wrestling.

A careful review of the epigraphical evidence, laid out in Appendix 1B and C, shows that the reality is more complicated than a simple progression from votive to honorific. The prevalence of inscribed epigrams for athletic victors from the fifth century onward has already been noted; some scholars see in these epigrams a sort of précis of the typical themes of contemporary epinician odes written in honor of victors.23 A distinctive epigraphic formula found only on the bases for victor portraits makes its appearance early in the fifth century alongside the “X anetheke” votive formula: an echo or paraphrase of the herald’s victory proclamation (the aggelia), consisting of the victor’s name in the nominative case (N), patronymic in the genitive case (P), ethnic/​home city (E), and his athletic event in the accusative case. The earliest victor at Olympia with this aggelia formula inscribed on the base of his statue seems to be Kallias, son of Didymias, of Athens, victor in 472 bc (IvO 146); as Joseph Day notes, the key elements of the aggelia also recur again and again in victors’ epigrams from the fifth century onward.24 The earliest nominative name label appears on the base for the portrait of Hellanikos of Lepreon (IvO 155), a victor in 424 bc, whose monument may not have been inscribed until the late fifth or early fourth century. In addition to name labels, another significant new practice introduced late in the fifth century was to inscribe a comprehensive list of victories at Olympia and elsewhere: such a victory list appears on the base for Dorieus of Rhodes (IvO 153). The picture at Delphi down through ca. 300 bc is essentially the same as the picture at Olympia, though at Delphi we may in fact have only a single preserved inscription dating before the late fifth century, the one belonging to the quadriga group dedicated by Gelon of Syracuse after his victory of 488 bc (FdD III 4 452 = CEG 397). The movement away from the votive formula with anetheke for athletic victor portraits seems to have begun already in the mid-​fifth century. Already in the early Classical period, victor portraits at Olympia were just as likely to be retrospective monuments set up by the victor’s family or home city as they were votive offerings by the victor himself. The closest link to honorifics is the introduction of nominative name labels at Olympia and Delphi, which appear at about the same time on the Aigospotamoi row group at Delphi soon after 405 bc. The name labels that began to appear on both athletic and honorific portraits were both expressions of the new documentary sensibility of this period: the inscriptions for victor portraits became more documentary in

90

90

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

character.25 A new interest in documenting Olympic victories is also evident in the publication of the first list of Olympic victors by the sophist Hippias of Elis in ca. 400 bc or soon after.26 The mentality that inspired Hippias’ list helps to explain why we see an increase in victor portraits at Olympia after ca. 400 bc, and why these portraits were inscribed with identifying name labels and lists of the athlete’s victories. The clearest illustrations of this point are Chionis of Sparta, victor at Olympia in the mid-​seventh century bc, and the fifth-​century victor Theogenes (also called Theagenes) of Thasos. As we have already seen, Chionis’ portrait (Paus. 6.18.7) was retrospective, made by Myron of Eleutherai in the mid-​fifth century. Next to this portrait stood an inscribed stele listing Chionis’ victories, which had a duplicate in Sparta (Paus. 3.14.3). These separate lists of victories, one displayed beside Chionis’ portrait statue at Olympia and the other in a prominent location in his home city, could be additions inspired directly by the publication of Hippias’ Olympic victor list. Theogenes of Thasos, a periodonikes (victor in all four crown contests) whose last Olympic victory dates to 476 bc, was represented by contemporary portraits at both Olympia (Paus. 6.11.12 and IvO 153) and Delphi. Though his portrait at Olympia was made by the early Classical sculptor Glaukias of Aegina, the list of victories inscribed on its base may be a post-​400 bc addition. In the first half of the fourth century, both an epigram and a full list of Theogenes’ victories in all the crown games were added retrospectively to the base for his portrait at Delphi (Ebert 37 = CEG 2 844); his portrait in the agora of Thasos, also inscribed with a list of victories, seems also to date soon after c. 400 bc.  The addition of inscribed lists of Theogenes’ victories to his pre-​existing portraits at Olympia and Delphi was a response to the publication of the first Olympic victor list. The first list of Pythian victors, published by Aristotle and Kallisthenes in the 330s bc, came later, but at Delphi too name labels and lists of victories, either embedded in epigrams or on their own, became ubiquitous after ca. 400 bc. In the fourth century, athletic victor portraits and their inscriptions at Olympia increasingly functioned as documentary reminders of athletes and proofs of their victories, whether the athletes or their families commissioned them, or whether their home cities took the initiative:  the victorious athlete’s arete was shared by his home city. But this documentary function coexisted with the old notion that victors were chosen by the gods, or –​in some cases –​worthy of being worshipped as heroes or gods themselves. Tales of Theogenes’ superhuman exploits abound in post-​fifth century literary sources, and he was eventually the recipient of both heroic and divine cult.27 Lysippos made a retrospective portrait of the fifth-​century victor Poulydamas (Polydamas) of Skotoussa in Thessaly, a wrestler whose latest known victory took place in 408 bc. The now-​lost marble statue of

91

Olym pia

Polydamas at Olympia stood as tall as three meters; Pausanias (in the passage quoted in this chapter’s epigraph) took the portrait’s heroizing over-​lifesize scale literally as evidence for Polydamas’ real appearance. Its surviving relief base illustrates scenes of Polydamas’ amazing, and overtly heroic, deeds: like Herakles, he wrestled a lion to the ground; in the presence of the Persian king and his court, he killed the king’s bodyguards with his bare hands. Polydamas’ portrait is likely to have been commissioned by the Thessalians fifty years or more after his death in connection with making him the eponymous hero of a Thessalian tribe.28 The fact that Lysippos made Polydamas’ victor portrait invites us to consider whether the same sculptor’s image of Herakles resting from his labors (the so-​called Hercules Farnese type) served as a visual model for it. Herakles as putative founder of the games appeared prominently in the metopes of the temple of Zeus [Figure 3], and the relief base showing Polydamas wrestling a lion makes the connection between athlete and hero explicit.

Portraits of Non-​Athletic Subjects Western Greek patrons dedicated large statue groups at Olympia soon after the Persian Wars of 480–​479 bc.29 Mikythos’ dedications and the drowned chorus boys of Sicilian Messene have been discussed already in Chapter 2. Both Mikythos and another dedicator, Phormis of Mainalos in Arcadia, were directly connected to the tyrant families of Sicily: Mikythos worked for Anaxilas of Rhegion, who was the father-​in-​law of Hieron; Phormis, as we learn from Pausanias, was Gelon’s and later Hieron’s condottiere: Opposite the offerings I have enumerated are others in a row; they face towards the south, and are very near to that part of the precinct that is sacred to Pelops. Among them are those dedicated by the Mainalian Phormis. He crossed to Sicily from Mainalos to serve Gelon, the son of Deinomenes. Distinguishing himself in the campaigns of Gelon and afterwards of his brother Hieron, he reached such a pitch of prosperity that he dedicated not only these offerings at Olympia, but also others dedicated to Apollo at Delphi. The offerings at Olympia are two horses and two charioteers, a charioteer standing by the side of each of the horses. The first horse and man are by Dionysius of Argos, the second are the work of Simon of Aegina. On the side of the first of the horses is an inscription, the first part of which is not metrical. It runs thus: Phormis dedicated, an Arcadian of Mainalos, now of Syracuse … Paus. 5.27.1–​2 Among these offerings is Phormis himself opposed to an enemy, and next are figures of him fighting a second and again a third. On them it is written that the soldier fighting is Phormis of Mainalos, and that

91

92

92

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

he who dedicated the offerings was Lykortas of Syracuse. Clearly this Lykortas dedicated them out of friendship for Phormis. These offerings of Lykortas are also called by the Greeks offerings of Phormis. Paus. 5.27.7, trans. Jones and Ormerod, modified

The combination of statues in this dedication of ca. 470 bc –​they may or may not all have stood on the same base –​seems extraordinary. Despite Pausanias’ description of the two figures flanking the horses as charioteers, one wonders if in fact they were grooms, and the horses cavalry mounts rather than athletic chariot horses.Though it has been suggested that Pausanias misunderstood the three pairs of fighters he saw as portraits of Phormis fighting three different enemies in hand-​to-​hand combat, his description of what the inscription said is specific enough that I see no reason to doubt its accuracy.30 We know of such pairs of heroic fighters in Greek sculpture that date as early as the fifth century in Athens: Erechtheus fighting Eumolpos, seen by Pausanias on the Athenian Acropolis (1.27.5); two possible bases for fighting pairs, also on the Acropolis; and the colossal, heroic warrior figure represented inside a bronze sculptors’ workshop on the Attic red-​figure Foundry Cup [Figure 22].31 As these parallels suggest, the imagery of Lykortas’ dedication likened Phormis of Mainalos to a hero. At Olympia itself, two spectacular statue groups also dating to the period immediately after the Persian Wars represented Homeric heroes about

22.  Red-​figure Berlin Foundry Cup, detail showing a colossal bronze figure of a warrior in the final stages of manufacture (early fifth century bc). Photo: Ingrid Geske,  Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin–​Preussischer Kulturbesitz, inv. F2294

93

Olym pia

23.  Plan of Olympia in the second century ad, highlighting monuments mentioned in the text. Plan by Alfred Mallwitz, DAI, with highlighting added.

to engage in combat [Figure 23]. On a dedication by the people of Apollonia, a Greek colony on the coast of Illyria, Zeus sat enthroned between Achilles’ mother Thetis and Memnon’s mother Eos as Achilles, Memnon, and three other paired, over-​lifesize Greek and Trojan warriors waited to engage in combat (Paus. 5.22.2–​3 and CEG 390, ca. 450–​440 bc, made by Lykios, the son of Myron of Eleutherai). On the Achaians’ dedication, signed by Onatas of Aegina, in a scene drawn directly from the Iliad (7.67–​200), nine Homeric heroes stood on a curving base facing Nestor, who held a helmet full of lots to decide who would fight Hector in hand-​to-​hand combat (Paus. 5.25.8–​ 10).32 The same group of Argive and Aeginetan sculptors of the early Classical period made both athletic portraits and large row groups in the sanctuary, further emphasizing the interpenetration of athletic and military victory, both accomplished in accordance with the divine will of Zeus.

The Philippeion The most important non-​athletic portraits of the Classical period at Olympia were those that stood inside the Philippeion.The Philippeion group at Olympia

93

94

94

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

24. Statue group inside the Philippeion at Olympia (soon after 338 bc), reconstruction by P. Schultz. Philip II stands at the center, with Alexander and Olympias on his proper right, and Amyntas and Eurydike on his proper left. Drawing by David Boggs, reproduced by permission

consisted of five portraits standing on a curved base within a tholos building, prominently located within the Altis, whose sole function was to display these statues. In the absence of the statues themselves or any inscriptions, Pausanias’ description (5.20.9–​10) is the principal source for their identities and appearance: The Metroön is within the Altis, and so is a round building called the Philippeion. On the roof of the Philippeion is a bronze poppy that binds the beams together. This building is on the left of the exit over against the Prytaneion. It is made of burnt brick and is surrounded by columns. It was built by [for?] Philip after the fall of Greece at Chaironeia [338 bc]. Here are set statues of Philip and Alexander, and with them is Amyntas, Philip’s father. These works too are by Leochares, and are of ivory and gold, as are the statues of Olympias and Eurydike. Trans. Jones and Ormerod, modified.

The portraits of Olympias, mother of Alexander, and Eurydike, Philip’s mother, were moved from the Philippeion to the Heraion in the first century bc or the first century ad. (Paus. 5.17.4). Peter Schultz’ careful reevaluation of the evidence for the lost portrait group in the Philippeion has put its study on a new footing [Figure 24].33 His two principal conclusions concern the statues’ materials and their arrangement on

95

Olym pia

25. Central figures of the east pediment, temple of Zeus at Olympia. In the reconstruction illustrated here, Zeus is flanked by Pelops and Sterope on his proper right, and Oinomaos and Hippodameia on his proper left. An arrangement placing Pelops and Hippodameia together on Zeus’ proper right, with Oinomaos and Sterope on his left, may be correct. Alison Frantz Photographic Collection, American School of Classical Studies, neg. PE 248

the base. Contrary to Pausanias’ observation that they were chryselephantine, the plinth cuttings on the uninscribed, semi-​circular statue base for the group show that their lower parts, at least, were made of marble; the hair and clothing might still have been gilded. Philip was placed at the center, and he was slightly larger than the others: Alexander and Olympias stood together on Philip’s proper right, while Philip’s parents Amyntas and Eurydike were on Philip’s proper left. The composition of this portrait group closely paralleled the group of marble figures at the center of the east pediment of the fifth-​century temple of Zeus [Figure 25]: there Zeus stood in the center, larger than the two smaller pairs flanking him, consisting of the local king Oinomaos, his wife Sterope, Oinomaos’ daughter Hippodameia, and the young hero Pelops, who was about to win Hippodameia’s hand in a chariot race. The five portraits inside the Philippeion, which faced east like the Temple of Zeus [Figure 23], thus deliberately evoked both Zeus and the story of Pelops, one of the founding myths of the sanctuary, and the portrait of Philip in the center by implication likened him to Zeus. In addition to claiming heroic descent from Herakles and through him from Zeus, Philip and the other kings of the Argead dynasty of Macedon served as priests of Zeus in Zeus’ sanctuary at Dion located at the foot of Mount Olympus. The elaborate round building inside which the portraits at Olympia stood resembled both a temple and a heroön, and it stood not far from Pelops’ own heroön in the Altis.The statues of Philip and his family may, in their arrangement, clothing, and attributes, have closely imitated the figures in the Zeus temple’s east pediment.34

95

96

96

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

The portraits of Philip and his family in the Philippeion at Olympia may have been conceived as a direct response to two elaborate and expensive dedications made by the Argives and the Arcadians, respectively, at Delphi. The link between them was the genealogical identity of Philip. The Argive dedication was a semi-​circular row group depicting Herakles and nine of his Argive ancestors (Paus. 10.10.5):  included along with Herakles were his mother, Alkmene; his grandfather, Alektryon; and two husband-​and-​wife pairs, Akrisios and Danaë, and Lynkeus and Hypermnestra. Similarly, the Arcadians (and not the Tegeans alone, as Pausanias 10.9.5–​6 claims) dedicated their own ancestral heroes alongside Apollo and Nike, among them Arkas (after whom Arcadia was named), his sons, and Kallisto [Figure 26]. Both of these statue groups are noteworthy for their inclusion of female ancestral heroes alongside male ones, just as the Philippeion group included not only Amyntas, Philip, and Alexander, but also Eurydike and Olympias. More importantly, both groups at Delphi were dedicated in the years after 369 bc to commemorate the lengthy campaign, led by Epameinondas of Thebes, in which Thebans, Argives, and Arcadians joined forces to invade Lakedaimonia and to liberate the Messenian helots from subjugation to the Spartans (Xen. Hell. 6.5.3–​7.1.26). Though these assertions of the heroic descent of the peoples of Argos and Arcadia were aimed specifically against the Spartans, they were also relevant to Philip and the Argead kings of Macedon, who (like the Spartan kings) also claimed descent from Herakles and the same Argive heroes (the so-​called Temenids) represented in the Argive dedication at Delphi.35 Within the more immediate context of the sanctuary at Olympia, the portraits of Philip and his family in the Philippeion also presented formal similarities to the fifth-​century Apollonian and Achaian groups already described, which also stood on curving bases; the dedicatory epigram inscribed on the Achaian group had stressed the heroic descent of the present-​ day Achaians from Pelops (Paus. 5.25.10).36 It still remains unclear who dedicated the Philippeion and the portraits of Philip and his family at Olympia. Schultz takes Pausanias’ reference to Philip in the dative case to mean that the building was built “by Philip,” but the same dative could equally well be construed as “for Philip,” that is, in honor of Philip and his family line.37 The dedication of portraits with heroic –​and even divine –​ connotations by Philip himself would be entirely consistent with Philip’s display in the theater at Dion in 336 bc, just before his assassination, of a procession of statues of the twelve Olympian gods followed by a statue of himself, as described by Diodoros Siculus (16.92.5 and 16.95.1). All the same, we know of no other dedications in sanctuaries made by Philip II and he, like Alexander after him, may have avoided representing himself with portraits; the possible exception to this generalization, mentioned in Chapter  2, is Alexander’s dedication of a group representing the Companion cavalrymen killed at the Graneikos, which may have included a portrait of Alexander himself. If not by Philip or Alexander,

97

Olym pia

26.  Plan of Delphi highlighting monuments mentioned in the text. 105 = Arcadian heroes group 109 = Aigopotamoi group 110 = Pheidias Marathon row group (location mentioned by Pausanias) 113 = Argive heroes group 225 = base south of Athenian Treasury, possible location for Pheidias Marathon group 409 = Upper Tarentine row group 410b = Salamis Apollo 511 = Daochos group 540 = Krateros monument Reproduced from J.-​F. Bommelaer and D.  Laroche, Guide de Delphes, le site (École française d’Athènes, Sites et monuments 7), Paris: École française d’Athènes/​de Boccard, 1991, plate 5, by permission

97

98

98

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

both the building and the portrait statues within could have been dedicated by the Eleans, in which case the comparison with both the Arcadian hero group at Delphi and the east pediment of the Temple of Zeus becomes more topical. In the 360s bc, the Arcadians had taken over the sanctuary at Olympia from the Eleans, most likely with the help of the people of the nearby town Pisa; Oinomaos, the king about to be defeated by Pelops in the east pediment, was a legendary king of Pisa. In this reading, Philip and his heroic family line were the Elean “answer” to contested Arcadian and Pisatan claims to Olympia itself. It is surely not accidental how many kings and queens had their portraits dedicated at Olympia: after athletes, they seem to be the most numerous subject category in the early Hellenistic period.38 At Olympia, kings and other rulers had their portraits dedicated by others, cities and individuals alike, another reason to suspect that the Philippeion was not the work of Philip himself.These ruler portraits were mixed in with and grouped around those of victorious athletes in the vicinity of the temple of Zeus, and they seem to have commemorated military victories, reinforcing the comparison between rulers and athletes.39 The later Antigonid Macedonian kings, who claimed to be related to the Argeads Philip and Alexander and thereby to share their claims to heroic ancestry (Polybius 5.10.10 and Plut. Aem. 12.9), were well represented at Olympia.40 The Eleans themselves dedicated bronze equestrian portraits of Philip II and Alexander (Paus. 6.11.1), to which an individual named Tydeus of Elis added Antigonos Monophthalmos on foot and Seleukos I  Nikator on horseback, probably between the death of Alexander and 311 bc, when these two kings went to war against one another. In 306 bc, the people of Byzantion dedicated portraits of Antigonos and his son Demetrios Poliorketes (IvO 45 and 304–​5 = Syll.3 349–​51; cf. Paus. 6.15.7, who mistook Antigonos Monophthalmos for the later Antigonos Gonatas). Y   et another Elean dedication (Paus. 6.16.3), which may date to 311–​ 309 bc, showed a personification of Elis crowning Demetrios Poliorketes and his general (and nephew) Ptolemaios; after Sellasia in 222 bc, Antigonos Doson and his ward Philip V being crowned by Hellas were added.41 In the third century bc, beyond the chronological bounds of this study, the portraits of the last Antigonid rulers were matched by a whole series of other portraits representing their chief rivals, the Ptolemies: these included the impressive statues of Ptolemy II and his queen Arsinoe II standing atop columns in front of the Echo Stoa, dedicated by Ptolemy’s admiral Kallikrates of Samos (IvO 306–​7).42

Conclusion The Persian Wars were commemorated in the sanctuary at Olympia not only by a colossal statue of Zeus, but most likely also by the temple of Zeus itself. Pausanias (5.10.2) claimed at the outset of his account of Olympia that the

99

Delphi

temple of Zeus was dedicated by the Eleans from the spoils of the neighboring city Pisa, but this explanation scarcely does justice to the building’s scale and expense. The Greek victory in the Persian Wars may also have been a decisive factor behind the dedication of athletic victor portraits at Olympia.The image of the agon (contest) and the victor’s arete applied equally well to military victory and athletic victory, and both were suffused with heroic overtones. At Olympia, the agon so dominated the symbolic discourse in the Classical period that even the portraits of Lysander of Sparta and Gorgias were likened to victorious athletes. The epigram for the Samians’ honorific portrait of Lysander stresses his arete while leaving unstated what exactly he had accomplished: In the admirable sanctuary of Zeus that dominates all I  stand, public offering of the Samians. Immortal is the renown that your exploits have acquired in the eyes of your homeland and of Aristokritos, Lysander, you have the glory which comes with arete. Paus. 6.3.14

As we have seen, the epigram for the portrait of Gorgias of Leontinoi (CEG 2 830, quoted in Chapter  2) makes explicit use of the imagery of agon and the victor’s arete within the context of rhetoric.43 At Olympia, even sculptors competed with one another. Paionios of Mende’s signature on the Messenians’ and Naupaktians’ Nike statue of ca. 421 bc mentions his own victory in the competition to win a contract to produce the Zeus temple’s akroteria (ML 74). Sculptors seemed to have signed their works more frequently at Olympia than elsewhere, and there are several examples of signatures in the form of epigrams, an added flourish rare in other sanctuaries. At Olympia, the line between human individuals and heroes or gods was blurred in various ways. Polydamas of Skotoussa was explicitly likened to Herakles. The claims to heroic ancestry of Philip II and other kings were emphasized by spatial juxtapositions with images of heroes, both Homeric and local. As in the scene depicted in the east pediment of the temple of Zeus, both victory and kingship were god-​g iven by Zeus.

Delphi Looking at the big picture at Olympia and Delphi inevitably involves comparing the two sanctuaries. In the fifth century at both Olympia and Delphi, western Greek dedicators played a significant role:  the Deinomenid tyrants made prominent dedications in both sanctuaries, and at Delphi large statue groups were set up by the people of Taras and Lipara.44 At Olympia, the temple of Zeus very likely commemorated the Persian Wars, and the space directly in front of the main temple at both Olympia and Delphi was given over to Persian War monuments; at Delphi, the gigantic Salamis Apollo and the Plataia

99

100

100

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

tripod served as foci that attracted smaller Persian War monuments dedicated by cities and individuals [Figure 26]. But significant differences outweigh these commonalities. At Olympia, Pausanias devoted a special excursus to votive statues of Zeus, but at Delphi, where statues of Apollo seemed to wane in popularity from the fourth century bc onward, his guides inspired him to mention statues of animals and the oral traditions attached to them.45 Inscribed epigrams were uncommon in every period at Delphi, even for portraits of victors in the Pythian games.46 The emphasis Pausanias placed upon the athletic victor portraits at Olympia was not entirely misleading. There were indeed far fewer of these at Delphi: Jacquemin counts a total of only twenty-​three bases for athletic portraits at Delphi from every period.47 All in all, Pausanias mentioned about three times as many statues at Olympia as he did at Delphi. Down to ca. 300 bc, at most forty dedications at Delphi consisted of or included portraits.48 When we combine all literary and epigraphical sources, we discover that only about 20 percent of the monumental dedications of the fifth century at Delphi consisted of or included portrait statues, compared with about 40 percent in the fourth century, and 75 percent in the third century bc.49 To turn to the question of early portraiture at Delphi, the portraits of Pythian victors seem to begin immediately after 480 bc, but very few are attested until ca. 400.The Deinomenid tyrants of Sicily seem to have inaugurated the practice of dedicating athletic victor portraits at Delphi; another western Greek athletic portrait, that of Phaÿllos of Kroton, who also commanded a ship at Salamis, was one of the first (Paus. 10.9.2–​3). The base for a quadriga dedication recording the name of the Deinomenid Polyzalos as the victor (FdD III 4 452 = CEG 397) clearly went through two different phases of use. As Gianfranco Adornato has recently shown, what probably happened is that Polyzalos, chariot victor in 478 or 474 bc, appropriated a monument commissioned either by his brother Gelon (between 491 and 485; his quadriga group at Olympia commemorates a victory of 488) or his brother Hieron (regent at Gela in 485–​478 and tyrant of Syracuse in 478–​466; also the subject of Pindar’s Olympian 1 and Pythian 1–​3, as well as Bacchylides 3–​5). Polyzalos erased the original dedication and inserted his own name as victor before the fall of the dynasty in 466 bc. If the early Classical, over-​lifesize Delphi charioteer belongs to this base, as has long been assumed, then it can only have been added to the original, lifesize bronze quadriga by Polyzalos.50 The tyrant Hieron, like the king Alexander I of Macedon, may also have dedicated his own portrait to Apollo to commemorate a military victory around the time of the Persian Wars.51

Row Groups Including Portraits Beyond the Deinomenids of Sicily and Alexander I, the characteristic subjects for portraits at Delphi in the fifth century were victorious military leaders and

101

Delphi

soldiers, and the characteristic form of presentation for these portraits was to place them in larger groups of statues alongside gods and local heroes credited with bringing victory. These Delphic row groups [Appendix 2A], whether or not they included portraits, were dedicated in thanksgiving for victories in battle or successful defense against invasion.52 Here we arrive at the questions that have dominated the study of early Greek portraiture at Delphi: who dedicated the first statue groups, and why did they include portraits? Do any of these “mixed” groups combining portraits with divine and heroic images date before 480 bc? And what was the original significance of this distinctively Delphic form of portraiture? Adolf Borbein, in his foundational study of fourth-​century Greek sculpture, saw the large row group dedicated at Delphi by Lysander of Sparta after his victory over the Athenians at Aigospotamoi in 405 bc as a major turning point in the history of Greek portraiture, the point at which it went from being essentially religious in character to essentially political.53 We need to reconsider in what respect, if any, the Aigospotamoi group depicting Lysander and his fellow officers in the company of gods and heroes marks a significant departure from votive piety in the direction of the glorification of the individual and his achievement. The dating and interpretation of the large statue groups described by Pausanias in his account of Delphi are greatly hampered by uneven preservation, and in addition by some dedicators’ habit of renewing or copying the inscriptions on their offerings, either after the destruction of the temple of Apollo in 373 bc or after the end of the Third Sacred War in 346.54 I do not believe that statue groups that included portraits were introduced to the sanctuary by the Phocians themselves, in whose territory Delphi was located. The so-​called First Phocian group (described by Paus. 10.1.10 and 10.13.6), which commemorated a victory over the Thessalians in the early fifth century and which included gods, local Phocian heroes, victorious generals, and a seer, is more likely to be a post-​346 bc monument dating after Lysander’s Aigospotamoi dedication than an earlier precedent for it.55 The people of the Lipara islands off the coast of Sicily dedicated at least two ostentatious statue groups for their fifth-​century victories over the Etruscans, but it appears unlikely that any of their dedications included portraits:  the only possible Liparian portraits are a group of statues that Pausanias 10.11.3 calls simply andriantes.56 A row group dedicated by other western Greeks, the people of the Spartan colony Taras in southern Italy, is a better candidate for the first to include portraits. Like the Liparians, the Tarentines dedicated multiple monuments in the sanctuary to commemorate their victories over non-​Greek peoples. The so-​called Lower Tarentine group, known only from Pausanias’ description of it (Paus. 10.10.6), comprised statues of the captive women and horses taken by the Tarentines from the Messapians in a battle normally dated just before or

101

102

102

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

just after 480 bc; the statues were made by the early Classical Argive sculptor Ageladas, discussed earlier.57 The equally large Upper Tarentine group, which Pausanias describes just after the Plataia tripod monument in front of the temple of Apollo [Figure 26], represented a dramatic battlefield tableau in bronze that included portraits: The Tarentines sent yet another tithe [dekate] to Delphi from spoils taken from the Peucetii, a non-​Greek people. The offerings are the work of Onatas the Aeginetan, and Ageladas [the manuscript reading is Kalynthou] the Argive, and consist of statues of footmen and horsemen –​Opis, king of the Iapygians, come to be an ally to the Peucetii. Opis is represented as killed in the fighting, and on his prostrate body stand the hero Taras and Phalanthus of Lakedaimon, near whom is a dolphin. For they say that before Phalanthus reached Italy, he suffered shipwreck in the Crisaean Sea [Gulf of Corinth], and was brought ashore by a dolphin. Trans. W. H. S. Jones

The battle this dedication commemorates has been dated to 467 bc, by which time Taras was governed by a democracy.58 The depiction of warriors fighting a battle warrants comparison with the representations of Phormis of Mainalos fighting his enemies at Olympia; as at Olympia, we see the western Greeks at Delphi patronizing Aeginetan and Argive bronze sculptors.59 The meaning of the Upper Tarentine group seems clear enough. Taras, the eponymous hero of the city, and the heroized founder of the Spartan colony, Phalanthos, are credited with saving Taras, as is Apollo himself: the dolphin alludes to an earlier incident just off the coast of Delphi when Apollo’s divine intervention had saved Phalanthos on his way to southern Italy. The Upper Tarentine statue group, I would suggest, depicts in sculpture a similar sort of narrative to the story of Delphi’s salvation from the Persians through the direct intervention of Apollo and local Delphic heroes during Xerxes’ invasion of Greece in 480 bc, as told by Herodotus (8.36–​9): The Delphians learning of these things [the approach of the Persian army] were cast into great fear, and in their fear they consulted the oracle about the sacred objects, whether they should bury them under the earth or take them to another place. The god said they were not to be disturbed, remarking that he was able to protect his own property. … When the invading barbarians were at hand and within sight of the sanctuary, at this point the priest, whose name was Akeratos, saw weapons lying on the ground in front of the temple, brought out from the megaron [ = the inner part of the temple], the sacred weapons which it was permitted to no man to touch. … Now this in itself was a wonder, that the weapons of their own accord should appear lying outside the temple; but what happened next is surely one of the most amazing apparitions ever. For when the invaders arrived at the sanctuary of Athena Pronaia, thunderbolts fell

103

Delphi

upon them out of the sky, and twin peaks torn from Parnassos came down with a crash and swept many away, and at the same time a great battle-​cry came from the sanctuary of Pronaia. With all these things happening together, a great fear seized the barbarians. … And some of the barbarians who got away say, as I have learned, that they saw yet more wonders: two gigantic hoplites of greater than human height pursuing them and killing them. The Delphians say that these were local heroes, Phylakos and Autonoös, whose sacred temene are located in the vicinity of the sanctuary …

In the case of the Tarentine dedication, not only were gods and heroes represented as saviors, but also the (unnamed) Tarentine cavalrymen and hoplites who fought the battle against the Peucetii and their allies. If the Tarentine dedication was in fact the earliest row group at Delphi to include portraits, then all such statue groups date after Apollo’s salvation of Delphi from the Persians in 480 bc. All may take their cue directly from this Persian War narrative. The most discussed row group at Delphi appears to assert that Miltiades, the victorious Athenian strategos at Marathon in 490 bc who died in disgrace soon after the battle, should be considered a savior of Athens on a par with gods and heroes. The Athenian Marathon statue group, as described by Pausanias (10.10.1–​2), is so chimerical that it has invited almost endless speculation. There are no archaeological or epigraphical remains whatsoever, unless we believe that the statues Pausanias saw beside the sacred way not far from the entrance to the sanctuary had originally stood on the triangular platform running along the southern flank of the Athenian Treasury: a solution I favor, while acknowledging that it brings with it its own complications.60 On the base below the wooden horse is an inscription saying that the statues were dedicated from a tithe of the spoils taken in the engagement at Marathon. They represent Athena, Apollo, and Miltiades, one of the generals. Of those called heroes there are Erechtheus, Cecrops, Pandion, Leos, Antiochus, son of Herakles by Meda, daughter of Phylas, as well as Aegeus and Acamas, one of the sons of Theseus.These heroes gave names, in obedience to a Delphic oracle, to tribes at Athens. Codrus, however, the son of Melanthus, Theseus, and Philaios [emendation by P.  Vidal-​ Naquet], these are not givers of names to tribes. The statues enumerated were made by Pheidias, and really are a tithe of the spoils of the battle. But the statues of Antigonus, of his son Demetrius, and of Ptolemy the Egyptian, were sent to Delphi by the Athenians afterwards. Trans. W. H. S. Jones, modified

One of the only points about this dedication that is not disputed is that it included a single portrait: that of Miltiades, one of the ten strategoi at Marathon and the father of Kimon, the most influential strategos and politician in Athens until his ostracism in 462/​1 bc. The recognition of Miltiades –​and Miltiades

103

104

104

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

alone –​as a savior of Athens worthy of standing in the company of gods and heroes shows the imprint of Kimon so clearly that some scholars postulate that the group was a private dedication by Kimon rather than a collective Athenian monument.61 Though Pausanias calls it a tithe (dekate) from the spoils of Marathon, the group by Pheidias cannot have been set up until the 460s at the earliest, when Kimon’s post-​480 victories over the Persians had already brought new Persian spoils into Athens’ coffers. Even the choice of Athenian heroes to include was designed to recall the contributions of Miltiades’ son Kimon and his victories: Theseus was not one of the eponymous tribal heroes of Athens chosen by the Delphic oracle when the Athenian democracy was founded in 508/​7, but Kimon in 476/​5 had brought Theseus’ bones back to Athens from the island of Skyros; Kimon seems also to have claimed descent from Theseus. Pierre Vidal-​Naquet’s ingenious emendation of Pausanias’ text adds the hero Philaios, a son of Ajax whom Kimon also claimed as an ancestor.62 The three missing eponymous heroes (Ajax, Oineus, and Hippothoön) may simply have been removed and replaced on a base whose size was limited when Antigonos Monophthalmos, Demetrios Poliorketes, and Ptolemy III were made eponymous heroes of newly created Athenian tribes in the Hellenistic period.63 Apollo himself had chosen the eponymous heroes of Athens in 508/​7 bc from a longer list presented to him by the Athenians; the Athenian Marathon row group credits Apollo, the eponymous heroes, Athena, Theseus, Miltiades’ ancestor Philaios, and Miltiades himself with saving Athens at Marathon. As in the slightly earlier Upper Tarentine dedication –​and the defense of Delphi itself from the Persians in 480 bc –​Apollo himself set in motion the chain of events that ultimately brought about Greek military victory over barbarians. Since it seems likely that the Marathon dead were already being worshipped collectively as heroes in Athens by the 460s bc, the Delphi Marathon group makes the case that Miltiades too should be considered a savior hero like Theseus, the eponymous heroes, and the Marathon dead, even though he did not die in the battle.

Lysander and the Aigospotamoi Statue Group Generals and soldiers, either as anonymous groups or individual actors, stood alongside gods and heroes in Delphic statue groups not as the objects of divine choice, but as contributors to divinely inspired victory. Soon after the final Spartan victory over the Athenians in the Peloponnesian War at Aigospotamoi in 405 bc, the victorious Spartan admiral Lysander commissioned a row group at Delphi that far exceeded all previous examples in size, expense, and the sheer number of portraits included (Paus. 10.9.7–​11): Opposite these [the statues dedicated by the Arcadians] are offerings of the Lakedaimonians from spoils of the Athenians:  the Dioscuri, Zeus,

105

Delphi

Apollo, Artemis, and beside these Poseidon, Lysander, son of Aristocritus, represented as being crowned by Poseidon, Agias, seer to Lysander on the occasion of his victory, and Hermon, who steered his flagship. This statue of Hermon was not unnaturally made by Theocosmus of Megara, who had been enrolled as a citizen of that city. The Dioscuri were made by Antiphanes of Argos; the seer by Pison, from Calaureia in the territory of Troezen; the Artemis, Poseidon and also Lysander by Dameas; the Apollo and Zeus by Athenodorus. The last two artists were Arcadians from Cleitor. Behind the offerings enumerated are statues of those who, whether Spartans or Spartan allies, assisted Lysander at Aegospotami. They are these:  Aracus of Lakedaimon, Erianthes a Boeotian [lacuna] above Mimas, whence came Astycrates, Cephisocles, Hermophantus and Hicesius of Chios; Timarchus and Diagoras of Rhodes; Theodamus of Cnidus; Cimmerius of Ephesus and Aeantides of Miletus. … Next to these come the Achaean Axionicus from Pellene, Theares of Hermion, Pyrrhias the Phocian, Comon of Megara,Agasimenes of Sicyon,Telycrates the Leucadian, Pythodotus of Corinth and Euantidas the Ambraciot; last come the Lakedaimonians Epicydidas and Eteonicus. Paus. 10.9.6–​10, trans. W. H. S. Jones, modified

Pausanias describes clearly a hierarchical grouping of the figures into two rows, and the surviving blocks from the group’s base (reconstructed as about 18 meters long) confirm that the figures in the first row were significantly larger than lifesize.64 In addition to the gods and the Dioskouroi, Castor and Polydeukes, the front rank included Lysander being crowned by Poseidon, the pilot of Lysander’s ship, Lysander’s seer Agias, and a herald not mentioned by Pausanias; in the second row stood twenty-​nine or thirty smaller, lifesize figures of the nauarchs of Sparta’s allied cities, most of them singled out individually by Pausanias [Figures 27 and 28]. Whether or not an inscription on the monument named Lysander as dedicator or the Spartans collectively –​no such inscription has been preserved –​the assertion of Lysander’s individual agency in both the dedication and the victory that inspired it is obvious, but may not have seemed appropriate to record in writing.65 Inscribed name labels identifying the individual portraits were employed here for the first time at Delphi, revealing the new documentary sensibility at work. Though the presentation of Lysander, his pilot, his seer, and his herald alongside gods and heroes has clear precedents in the earlier Delphic row groups, the crowning of Lysander by Poseidon may not.66 For some commentators, the imagery of the Aigospotamoi dedication at Delphi both alludes to and seeks to justify the heroic and divine honors Lysander received from Greek cities after Aigospotamoi in 405 bc. As Paul Cartledge remarked, this was a monument “through which Lysander ascribed to himself the equivalent of heroic honours, surpassed only by his actual deification at the hands of his friends and clients on Samos”; “it was in the Delphi monument and the Samos deification that Lysander’s claim to extraordinary and superhuman status resided.”67

105

106

106

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

27.  Base for the portrait of Lysander in the front row of the Aigospotamoi statue group, Delphi (405 bc), showing dowel holes for the statue’s feet and Ion of Samos’ epigram inscribed on the front of the base. DAI Athens, neg. Delphi 24

To be clear, the motif of being crowned by a god was not in itself a signifier of deification. Likewise, representing oneself or others in the company of gods and heroes was not synonymous with deification, just as the assertion of heroic character through portraits in Classical Greece was not the same thing as hero cult. The Aigospotamoi group asserts that Lysander was like the Dioskouroi, the heroic sons of Zeus standing beside him. Such an assertion on Lysander’s part in fact makes sense within the preexisting norms of Greek votive portraiture. Lysander’s honorific crown, like the crown of a victorious athlete, is conveyed to him by the god Poseidon, and not by the Spartans, Samians, or Ephesians.The Aigospotamoi monument at Delphi makes the case that Lysander was chosen by the gods to bring victory, but it also gives due space to the gods and heroes held responsible and thanked as saviors, among them Apollo. The inclusion of Lysander’s pilot, seer, and herald in the front row also demonstrates the role played by the gods in the victory: seers and the heralds in particular were military specialists whose actions were guided by the divine will. Lysander’s simultaneous dedication inside the temple of Apollo at Delphi of two golden stars acknowledged the divine guidance of his ship at Aigospotamoi by an apparition of the Dioskouroi themselves, in the form of shining stars (Plut. Lys. 18.1 and De Pyth. or. 397F).

107

Delphi

28. Reconstruction of the portraits in the second row of the Aigospotamoi statue group at Delphi by Dorothea Arnold. Reproduced from D. Arnold, Die Polykletnachfolge, Untersuchungen zur Kunst von Argos und Sikyon zwischen Polyklet und Lysipp (JdI-​EH 25), Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969, ­figure 40a, courtesy of Walter De Gruyter

A set of new epigrams added to the Aigospotamoi monument in the third quarter of the fourth century bc, after the Spartans’ defeat by the Thebans at Leuktra in 371 bc and Philip II of Macedon’s victory at Chaeronea in 338, subtly redirects the monument’s message away from the divine choice of Lysander as savior and toward civic honorific imagery.Very unusually, the new epigrams were signed by their author, the poet Ion of Samos –​a city closely associated with Lysander because the Samians had been the first to deify him and to set up portraits of him. The new epigrams seem to have been inscribed only beneath the figures of Castor, Polydeukes, and Lysander, and only two of the three can be reconstructed (CEG 2 819 ii and iii = ML 95 = FdD III 1 51, 2 and 1): [παῖ Διός, ὦ] Πολύδευ[κ]ες, Ἴων [?καὶ τοῖσ]δ’ ἐλεγείοι[ς] [?λαινέαν κ]ρηπῖδ’ ἐστεφάνωσ[ε?τεά]ν. [ἀρχος ἐπ]εὶ πρῶτος, πρότερο[ς δ’ἔτ]ι τοῦδε ναυάρ[χου] [?ἔστας ἁγε]μόνων Ἑλλάδος εὐρ[υχ]όρου. εἰκόνα ἑὰν ἀνέθηκεν [ἐπ’] ἔργωι τῶιδε ὅτε νικῶν ναυσὶ θοαὶς πέρσεν Κε[κ]ροπιδᾶν δύναμιν Λύσανδρος, Λακεδαίμονα ἀπόρθητον στεφανώσα[ς], Ἑλλάδος ἀκρόπολ[ιν, κ]αλλίχορομ πατρίδα. ἐξάμο ἀμφιρύτ[ου] τεῦσε ἐλεγεῖον ⋮ Ἴων. [Child of Zeus], Polydeuces, [with these] elegiacs Ion crowned [your stone] base, because you were the principal [commander], taking precedence even over this admiral, among the leaders of Greece with its wide dancing places. Lysander set up this image of himself on this monument when with his swift ships he victoriously routed the power of the descendants of Kekrops and crowned the invincible Lakedaimon, the citadel of Greece, the homeland with the beautiful dancing-​places. Ion of sea-​girt Samos composed these elegiacs. Trans. Fantuzzi and Hunter 2004, 290–​1.

The poet Ion “crowns” the statue of Polydeukes with a new epigram, and Lysander “crowned” Lakedaimon with his victory. Jacquemin suggests that the Spartans renewed the Aigospotamoi monument with these epigrams specifically in response

107

108

108

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

to the nearby row group depicting the ancestral heroes of Argos.68 Thus in the mid-​ fourth century, the Aigospotamoi statue group began to be viewed as a statement about Sparta’s collective identity and intimate connection to the Dioskouroi in response to Argos’ nearby celebration of its own, collective heroic ancestry.

The Daochos Group The Daochos group at Delphi [Figure 29] is the best preserved Greek family portrait group we have, with all or part of six marble statues extant as well as a complete set of inscriptions; it is also in some respects the most idiosyncratic example.69 Eight adult men from six generations of a single Thessalian family were depicted together in a synoptic display of familial arete and historical continuity. The dedicator Daochos was tetrarch of Thessaly and an ally of Philip II in the aftermath of Philip’s de facto takeover of Thessaly in the 340s bc (Dem. De cor. 18.295); his dedication at Delphi is normally dated soon after Daochos’ service as Delphic hieromnemon in 339/​8 bc. R. R. R. Smith’s description sums up the monument’s distinctive qualities: Daochos’ dedication was a combination of a family commemorative group and a victory monument and its function was to commend Daochos and his son to the Greek public by the virtues of his forebears (progonon aretai) –​athletic, martial, and dynastic –​which were expressed in the statues and the accompanying inscribed verses.70

The statues were displayed on a long, rectangular orthostate base inside a building on the terrace overlooking the entrance to the temple of Apollo [Figure  26]. As we learn from the epigrams inscribed beneath most of the portraits in the group, the family hailed from Pharsalos (in Phthiotis), and an earlier generation had included three brothers  –​Agias, Telemachos, and Agelaos –​who together won a series of athletic victories in the Pythian games at Delphi and the other crown games. The inscriptions (CEG 2 795) translate as follows, reading from right to left with the statues numbered sequentially according to their positions in the sequence: (1) [no inscription: seated statue of Apollo?] (2) Aknonios son of Aparos, tetrarch of the Thessalians. (3) First from the land of Thessaly, Pharsalian Agias, son of Aknonios, you conquered in the Olympic pankration; five times at Nemea, thrice at Pytho, five times at the Isthmus; and no one ever set up trophies of your hands. (4) I was his brother, and I attained the same number of crowns on the same days, conquering in wrestling. I killed the strongest man of the Tyrrhenians, who was helpless. My name was Telemachos. (5) These two had equal shares of prize-​winning might, and I, Agelaos, was brother to them. I won the stadium for boys at Pytho, along with them; alone of mortals we hold these crowns.

109

Delphi

29.  Daochos group at Delphi (soon after 339/​8 bc), reconstruction drawing. Drawing by C. H. Smith, ©Andrew Stewart

(6) Daochus son of Agias am I, of the land of Pharsalos. I ruled all Thessaly, not by force but by law, twenty-​seven years; and Thessaly was rich with long and fruitful peace and wealth. (7) Pallas did not deceive you in your sleep, Sisyphos son of Daochus, in what she told you clearly and the promise she gave; for since first you put on armor about your body, never did you flee from foes nor receive any wound. (8) Increasing the renown of ancestors of his house, Daochus set up these gifts to the lord Phoebus, for the honor of his race and fatherland, with eulogy which gives fame.Tetrarch of the Thessalians. Recorder [Hieromnemon] of the Amphiktyons. (9) Sisyphos son of Daochus Trans. Johnson 1927, 117–​18

Though it lacks a sculptor’s signature, the Daochos group at Delphi has often been attributed to Lysippos because the epigram inscribed under the portrait of the athlete Agias was also inscribed virtually verbatim on another statue base, this one bearing Lysippos’ signature, found at Pharsalos in the nineteenth century and now lost (CEG 2 794).71 Indeed, it is possible that the portraits of all three athletes in the group –​the brothers Agias,Telemachos, and Agelaos –​were reproduced from an earlier monument at Pharsalos together with their epigrams: these three “Lysippan” athletic epigrams would then have served as the starting point for the others composed for the Delphic monument, which implicitly liken the aretai of military victory and office holding to the arete of athletic victory. The first-​person speech of these three epigrams is typical of the epigrams for victor portraits starting in the fifth century.72 The use of marble rather than bronze for the statues is not evidence against an attribution to Lysippos: Lysippos’ portrait of Polydamas of Skotoussa at Olympia discussed earlier was also made of marble. Other aspects of the monument’s reconstruction and its date present more serious problems. Anne Jacquemin and Didier Laroche have argued that the building in which Daochos’ portrait group stood was demolished very soon after it was built, at a time when the statue group was still unfinished; specifically, they question the hypothetical reconstruction of a seated statue of Apollo at the far right

109

110

110

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

end of the base (position 1), with no inscription beneath it.They believe that the cutting where the Apollo has been restored was left unfinished and without a statue. In their reconstruction, Jacquemin and Laroche also posit an entrance to the building from the west, which makes it difficult to explain why the portrait statues and their epigrams have been arranged so that they read “backwards” from east to west (that is, from right to left on the base).73 The right-​to-​left reading order of the statues can be explained as an archaism, in imitation of the Argive statue group of 369 bc representing gods and Argive heroes on the Sacred Way south of the Apollo temple. Wilfred Geominy, in a detailed reexamination of the architectural evidence, concludes that the building can be reconstructed with an entrance and windows on the south, which would have helped to illuminate the interior; he also rejects Jacquemin and Laroche’s idea that the building must have been out of use already when the so-​called ΠΑΝ base for the Acanthus Column, a monument normally dated to ca. 330–​320 bc, was erected.74 At the same time, Geominy’s redating of the Daochos group to ca. 288–​278 bc is less defensible, since it requires us to assume that the dedicator was not the Daochus associated with Philip II, but a hypothetical grandson with the same name. Geominy’s case relies upon comparing the statues to other marble originals of the early Hellenistic period, many of them from Athens; yet these comparanda themselves lack fixed historical dates, and the chronology for most could easily move up or down within the sixty years between ca. 340 and ca. 280 bc.75 As Olga Palagia has noted, the far left-​hand figure of the dedicator Daochos’ son Sisyphos II [Figure 30] is made of Parian marble, while the other statues are Pentelic; she also points out that this statue’s plinth only fits into the plinth cutting on the top of the base with difficulty. On these grounds, Palagia dissociates the statue normally identified as the dedicator’s son from the group.76 When we consider each figure on the Daochos base, we notice that the five central ­figures –​the three athletes, the dedicator’s grandfather Daochos, and the dedicator’s father Sisyphos I –​each stand over the joints between two blocks, and that the epigrams inscribed beneath them also extend across two adjacent blocks. The statues of Daochos himself and of his great-​great grandfather Aknonios, on the other hand, are each confined to a single block. This feature, together with the possible use of identical poses and costumes for the latter two statues, makes them look like bookends bracketing the five central figures. Accordingly, I would suggest that the group as it was originally conceived ended with the dedicator Daochos on the left and with his earliest ancestor Aknonios on the right. If this is the case, then Daochos’ son Sisyphos II, his portrait labeled but without an epigram, was added after the fact to the far left end of the base: the use of a different marble for Sisyphos’ portrait and its awkward placement, both noted by Palagia, could be explained if his figure was a later addition. The shallow plinth cavity at the far right end of the base can then be explained as belonging to a balancing figure that never received an inscription: a seated Apollo is possible. Sisyphos II

111

Delphi

30.  Portrait of Sisyphos II, son of Daochos, the figure at the far left in the Daochos group, Delphi (Delphi Mus. 1335 and 1551). Photo: Gösta Hellner, DAI Athens, neg. Delphi 387

was depicted as an athlete, nude and leaning on a herm that evokes a gymnasium setting; the reason for his addition to the group may be his premature death. The Daochos group, like the contemporary portraits in the Philippeion at Olympia, was dynastic in the sense that it illustrates the succession of generations in a ruling family.The political message is elusive, but worth ferreting out. Daochos’ display of his ancestors claimed a significant role in Thessalian history for the Daochids of Pharsalos, whereas in reality it was the Aleuadai of Larissa who had created the Thessalian institution of the tetrarchy and who had dominated Thessaly for most of the fifth century bc. There were good reasons to deflect attention away from the Aleuadai, especially within the Delphic context: according to Herodotus (7.6), they were the very first Greeks to medize, sending messengers to Xerxes to promise their assistance even before Xerxes had decided to undertake his expedition against Greece. Yet another rival Thessalian dynast, Jason of Pherai, had united all of Thessaly under his own rule before his assassination in 370 bc. The Daochos group thus promotes the memory of a Thessalian ruling family with close ties to Philip, but without the negative associations attached to the Thessalians in recent history.77

111

112

112

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

Early Honorific Portraits Many of the individual portraits of the fourth century bc at Delphi have been interpreted as purely honorific: the Greek states chose to recognize the political powers of the day by representing them at Delphi. At the same time, though, I perceive a strongly royal, quasi-​heroic, and compensatory cast to Delphic portraiture in this period (Appendix 1C); many of these portraits were posthumous, and many included epigrams which set them apart from the majority of Delphic dedications. As noted already in Chapter 2, the former Spartan king Pausanias II dedicated a portrait of his son Agesipolis at Delphi after the latter’s premature death abroad. Another Spartan king who died abroad, Archedamos III (who reigned from 360–​338 bc), also had his portrait dedicated at Delphi (and Olympia as well: Paus. 6.4.9 and 6.15.7). Aristotle dedicated a portrait of his father-​in-​law, the tyrant Hermias of Atarneus in Asia Minor, after the latter’s violent death; similarly, the people of Amphissa in Phocis dedicated a portrait of Philip II, but only after his assassination in 336 bc. The Krateros monument (CEG 2 878), which depicted a lion hunt in which Alexander’s life had been saved by his cavalry commander Krateros, seems simultaneously to commemorate Alexander’s preservation on this occasion, and to memorialize Alexander and Krateros, who both died prematurely.78 The portrait of Archon of Pella (CEG 2 877 = RO 92), Alexander’s satrap of Babylon, seems to accomplish three things at once: Archon was represented as a Pythian chariot victor standing in a biga (two-​horse chariot), but Archon’s portrait was displayed with an inscribed epigram and curriculum vitae of honors that seem to have been inspired by his premature and violent death at Babylon in 321 bc.79 Another unusual feature of the Archon monument is that Archon’s deceased parents stood alongside him. It is open to question whether the equestrian portraits of the two Phocian strategoi Onymarchos and Philomelos, who led the Phocians against the other Amphictyonic cities in the Third Sacred War, were honorific, or rather posthumous and compensatory: both generals died in the first few years of the war that began in 356 bc. I would suggest that even the portrait of the great Theban commander Pelopidas at Delphi (CEG 2 791), dedicated by the Thessalians and signed by Lysippos, was really posthumous (he died in 364 bc at the battle of Kynoskephalai): the Roman historian Cornelius Nepos (Pelopidas 5.5) refers explicitly to the crowns and statues the Thessalian cities awarded to Pelopidas after his death.80

Conclusion The dedication of both large groups of bronze statues and athletic victor portraits at Delphi may have been initiated by the western Greeks immediately after the Persian Wars. Delphic row groups had an important function in the fifth century bc: they bolstered narratives of heroes and gods –​Apollo especially –​as

113

Sanctuary of Hera ( Heraion) ,   S a m os

saviors of Greeks from barbarian attack.The prevailing narrative of Apollo’s salvific action drew in both heroes and human individuals, living and deceased. By the time of Pausanias, even statues of animals in the sanctuary were sometimes explained as “portraits” of animals that had saved their people: for example, the bronze donkey dedicated by the Ambracians to memorialize an animal whose braying in the night had warned them of a Molossian invasion (Paus. 10.18.4).81 If, as I argue, a good number of the fourth-​century portraits at Delphi were motivated by the premature deaths of their subjects, then it is worth considering whether this motive for portraiture  –​giving Apollo body-​replicas of the prematurely deceased  –​goes back to the very beginning:  the supposed portraits of Kleobis and Biton. Even if the two matching Archaic kouroi found at Delphi were intended to represent the Dioskouroi, they may have been understood by later observers as early precedents for a type of offering that continued to be made at Delphi in the era of honorific portraits.

Sanctuary of Hera (Heraion), Samos The irrefutable evidence for the dedication of Archaic portrait statues in the Samian Heraion warrants its inclusion among the site histories assembled in this chapter.82 The Archaic Geneleos group of ca. 560–​550 bc [Figure 31], originally consisting of three marble korai, a kouros, a seated female figure, and a reclining male figure arrayed in a row on a single base, is justly recognized as the earliest example of a Greek family portrait group, representing a father, mother, three daughters, and a son.83 Only the last few letters of the dedicator’s name survive:  -​arches or -​ilarches; two of the korai, representing his daughters Philippe [Figure 32] and Ornithe, and the seated figure of their mother, Phileia, are inscribed with name

31.  Archaic marble portrait group in the Samian Heraion signed by Geneleos (ca. 560–​550 bc), reconstruction by Hermann Kienast. Reproduced from Kienast 1992a, Beilage 2 (corrected), by permission

113

114

114

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

32.  Inscribed name label on the kore representing Philippe, Geneleos group, Samian Heraion. Photo: Eleutherios Feiler, DAI Athens, neg. Samos 6662

labels that supplement the votive inscription (IG XII 6 1 559).The use of identifying names here is without parallel among Archaic votive kouroi and korai found elsewhere, and none of the other Archaic marble statues found in the Heraion was inscribed with anything other than an “X dedicated” votive formula. The Geneleos group stood along the right side of the Sacred Way stretching northward from the ancient city of Samos to its terminus, the Hera temple and its altar.The statues and their inscriptions read from right to left, in keeping with the order in which visitors walking down the Sacred Way toward the temple would have seen each of the figures. The interpretation of the Geneleos group as the representation of a married couple and their children hinges upon the identification of the first figure viewers would have encountered. This figure, dressed in an unbelted chiton, is shown reclining like a symposiast and holding what looks to be a horn-​shaped rhyton or drinking cup. Since the reclining figure is inscribed with the votive dedication that applies to the entire group, it has usually been identified as the male dedicator himself, despite its soft and fleshy body that might otherwise be female.84 This interpretation is supported by several other Archaic reclining male banqueter figures, among them another large-​scale marble example from the Samian Heraion, two from Didyma, and two fragments from Miletos, as well as smaller scale figurines from Myous in Asia Minor.85 The seated figure of Phileia was inscribed with the signature of the sculptor Geneleos conventionally used to identify the group. The only other extant Archaic Greek statues likely to have served as similar family groups are the so-​called Branchidai from nearby Didyma on the Asia

115

Sanctuary of Hera ( Heraion) ,   S a m os

33.  Seated statue dedicated by Chares from Didyma, British Museum, ca. 570–​560 bc (BM inv. 1859,1226.5). ©The Trustees of the British Museum

Minor mainland. The term Branchidai is a misnomer, based upon Strabo’s claim that a priestly clan by that name administered the sanctuary of Apollo at Didyma before the Persian sack of Didyma and the nearby polis Miletos in 494 bc.86 The inscription on one of these statues implies that it was a portrait of its dedicator: it reads “I am Chares, son of Kleisis, archos [ruler or district commander] of Teichioussa; the agalma is of [ = belongs to] Apollo” [Figure 33]. An inscribed sacred law of the second century bc recording details of the rituals performed in the sanctuary (the Molpoi decree) indicates that Chares’ statue was originally part of a group, and that the annual procession from Miletos to Didyma in later periods stopped along the way to pay homage to these statues, suggesting that Chares and the others were by this time considered to be the founding heroes of an aristocratic genos.87 Further support for the idea that at least some of the seated Branchidai statues were dedicated as family groups comes from the discovery in the 1980s of the so-​called temenos on the Sacred Way, an enclosure with a semi-​circular base for a group of male and female seated statues that included at least two smaller figures that could represent children.88 The temenos, with its assemblage of over-​lifesize seated

115

116

116

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

34. Egyptian block statue dedicated by Pedon, son of Amphines (Hierapolis Archaeology Museum, Denizli, Turkey), dating to the reign of Psammetichos I (664–​610 bc). Photo by Bantosh (en.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​Psamtik_​I#/​media/​File:Statue_​of_​Psamtik.jpg), reproduced under the Creative Commons Attribution-​ Share Alike 3.0 Unported license (http://​creativecommons.org/​licenses/​by-​sa/​3.0)

figures, Egyptian sphinxes, and cult dining rooms, resembles nothing in mainland Greece in the Archaic period; the context supports the interpretation as a locus for actual hero cult for ancestors.89 Samos is located off the coast of Asia Minor just across from Miletos and Didyma, and the occurrence in both places of unusual Archaic marble portrait statues attests to a distinctive local tradition in the Archaic period. The inspiration behind this early local tradition of portraiture –​especially the use of seated figures as portraits –​may have come to Ionia directly from Egypt.90 In the 1980s, a small Egyptian block statue with a Greek dedicatory inscription [Figure 34] was found in a cave near Priene, just south of Miletos. This inscription (SEG XXXVII 994) identifies the statue as a dedication by Pedon, son of Amphinnes (Amphines), who brought the statue from Egypt, where he had served as a mercenary under Psammetichos, probably the Pharaoh Psammetichos I (664–​ 610 bc). The inscription also notes that Pedon was rewarded for his service with a gold band and control over a town in Egypt on account of his excellence (aretes heneka), a strikingly early occurrence of an honorific formula ubiquitous on statue bases of the Hellenistic period.91 Though Pedon’s statue is a stray find and we do not know where he dedicated it, it seems that Pedon appropriated an Egyptian statue for use as a votive portrait of himself. Pedon

117

Sanctuary of Hera ( Heraion) ,   S a m os

was a mercenary, but traders from Samos and the mainland of Asia Minor opposite took part in the east Greek colony of Naucratis in the Nile delta in the seventh and sixth centuries, providing an easy avenue for knowledge of the forms and practices of Late Period Egyptian temple and funerary portraiture to reach this particular part of the Greek world. On Samos itself, we find evidence for outstanding military service as a motive for portraiture in the late sixth and the first half of the fifth centuries. An over-​lifesize marble statue of a hoplite wearing a cuirass from the Heraion, dated to ca. 530–​520 by Jürgen Franssen, could be either a hero or a portrait. This is an unusual example of an Archaic freestanding warrior statue with both helmet and armor.92 Two fifth-​century portrait dedications in the Heraion, attested only by inscribed statue bases, both have a strong Egyptian connection and refer to arete in battle. The formulae of their inscriptions leave some ambiguity because they are experimental, straying from the votive formula to mark out something new. The first (IG XII 6 1 279 = ML 34 = CEG 421) is a base inscribed with a fragmentary epigram commemorating a Samian naval victory, with a reference to Memphis in Egypt in the second line (the “Memphis epigram”).The dedication has been associated with an engagement during Athens’ invasion of Egypt in the 460s bc mentioned by Thucydides (1.104.2). The reason for thinking that the base supported a portrait is the occurrence in the last preserved line (line 5)  of the name Hegesagoras in the accusative case: by analogy with the epigram on the base of Kritios and Nesiotes’ Tyrannicides in the Athenian Agora, the naming of this individual in an epigram singles him out for praise, and refers obliquely to the dedication of a statue meant to represent him.93 The Hegesagoras epigram’s language mimics that of both private grave monuments and the many epigrams from Athens and elsewhere celebrating the Greek victory over the Persians. Perhaps the most extraordinary historical artifact of the fifth century found in the Heraion is a statue base (IG XII 6 1 468)  recording in prose the award of an aristeion to a Samian mercenary named Leokritos by the Libyan king Inaros, son of Psammetichos, whom the Athenians and their allies sought to help in his attempt to free the Egyptians from Persian rule during the Egyptian campaign of the 460s bc –​the same campaign commemorated by the Memphis epigram: Ἰναρως Ψαμμητιχ[ó ὁ τῆς Αἰγύπτ]ο βασιλεὺς Λεωκρίτωι Ἰφι․[ –​–​–​–​ τοῖς να]ύτηισιν τῶν συμμάχων ἐπ̣[ –​–​–​–​–​–​ ἀ]ριστήϊον. Inaros, son of Psammetichos, the king of Egypt, to [or for] Leokritos, son of Iphi-​… with the sailors of the allies … aristeion.

The naming of Leokritos in the dative case (to/​for Leokritos) in the inscription does not conform to the later convention of naming portrait subjects in

117

118

118

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

the accusative (X dedicated Y); at the same time, the inscribed text singling out Leokritos for an honor awarded by a foreign king seems to justify the dedication of a portrait.94 The occasion for this dedication mirrors that of Pedon’s Egyptian statue on the mainland opposite Samos more than 150 years earlier.95 Samos’ revolt against Athens in 440 and Perikles’ suppression of it marked the beginning of a long phase of Athenian domination and occupation that was to last until 321 bc, interrupted only by Lysander and the Spartans at the end of the Peloponnesian War. A passage in Pausanias has been cited to claim an important role for the Samians in the wave of honorific portraits commemorating the Athenian and Spartan leaders of the final decade of the Peloponnesian War. According to Pausanias (6.3.14–​16), the Samians set up a bronze portrait of the Athenian Alcibiades alongside the cult statue in the Hera temple after he had revived Athenian fortunes (410 bc). After the Spartans routed the Athenians at Aigospotamoi in 405, the Samians dedicated a portrait of Lysander at Olympia, and also awarded him divine honors. Pausanias also claims that bronze portraits of Konon, dedicated after his naval victory on behalf of the Athenians off Knidos in 394, and his son Timotheos were still to be found in his own time in the Samian Heraion.These, and portraits of Lysander and his subordinates in the Artemision at Ephesos, have been taken as evidence that the Ionian Greeks took the lead in establishing the normative practice of honorific portraiture at the end of the fifth century.96 Yet the Samian contribution to this development has left no definitive epigraphical evidence behind in the sanctuary. This late Classical gap is not surprising given the political turmoil on Samos that followed the Spartan victory in the Peloponnesian War. The pro-​Athenian party exiled by Lysander in 403 returned after the battle of Knidos in 394; there followed a takeover by Mausollos of Caria with Persian backing soon before 365, the exile of the Samians and their replacement with Athenian cleruchs (colonists) from 365 to 324, and the official restoration of the Samian exiles by Alexander in 324 (they returned in 321).97 The portrait of Alcibiades presumably did not survive the return of the pro-​Spartan Samians in 403.98 When the dedication of portraits in the sanctuary resumed after 321 bc, we see a predominance of official honorifics rather than private portraits, and subject categories that reflect Samos’ character as a naval power. Portraits in the Heraion were almost invariably inscribed not only with the names of the dedicator and the portrait subject, but also the formula “to Hera” in the dative case (Ἥρηι) all the way through the third century ad; this usage can be contrasted with the tendency on the Athenian Acropolis to omit any mention of Athena as the recipient deity for portraits in non-​metrical inscriptions.99 The Archaic familial portraits in the Samian Heraion and at Didyma may have been set up by aristocratic genos groups; at Didyma, the intent seems to have been to assert the heroic character of genos founders. Both the dedication of a family group in the Samian Heraion and the use of seated figures

119

The Athenian A cropo l is

as portraits seem to be evolutionary dead ends. On the other hand, winning an aristeion in battle as an occasion for representing oneself or someone else, attested in the Heraion in the first half of the fifth century, recalls Herodotus’ singling out of the best fighters at the end of his battle narratives. This practice offers a possible precedent for the earliest honorific portraits, the statues of Alcibiades and Lysander dedicated by the Samians. Even in the post-​321 bc era when the Samians returned to their island and honorific portraits resumed, they chose to view their own fifth-​century history through the traditional lens of military arete: as we will see in Chapter 4, a Samian military hero of the Persian Wars named Maiandrios was represented with a retrospective portrait at this time.

The Athenian Acropolis Pausanias mentions eighteen portrait statues on the Athenian Acropolis (1.22.4–​ 28.3), and most of these represented Archaic or Classical subjects:  Perikles (1.25.1 and 1.28.2), his father Xanthippos (1.25.1); the strategoi Tolmides (1.27.6), Phormion (1.23.12), and Dieitrephes (23.2–​4), as well as Konon and his son Timotheos (1.24.3); the athletes Epicharinos (1.23.11) and Hermolykos (1.23.12); the priestess Lysimache and her diakonos Syeris (1.27.5); the poet Anacreon of Teos (1.25.1); and the Olympic victor and would-​be tyrant Kylon (1.28.1).100 We have little idea where most of the portraits on the Acropolis stood. Pausanias places Lysimache and Syeris somewhere near the eastern entrance to the Erechtheion; other early portraits seem to have been grouped around Pheidias’ colossal Athena Promachos; still others lined the southern side of the path leading from the Propylaia to the altar and the entrance to the Parthenon. Pausanias’ dismissal of the post-​Classical portraits on the Acropolis was pointed: he called these simply “less distinguished” (Paus. 1.23.4). In addition to Pausanias’ selectivity, two other factors make it difficult to present a list of early portraits on the Acropolis with any confidence: the uncertainty that surrounds the meaning and identities of the hundreds of Archaic marble votive statues found buried in post-​Persian destruction deposits, and the practice of portrait reinscription after Sulla’s sack of Athens in 86 bc, which (as I will discuss in Chapter 5) targeted fifth-​and fourth-​century portraits especially.

Archaic Marble Sculpture: Korai and Male Figures The notion that some or all of the Archaic korai dedicated on the Acropolis were intended as portraits of individual Athenian girls or women can, I believe, be disposed of easily.101 Most interpretations of the korai stop short of identifying them as portraits: more common is the suggestion that they were generalized embodiments of the sorts of female qualities (youth, beauty, status as an

119

120

120

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

unmarried parthenos) valued both by their elite male dedicators and by Athena, the recipient deity. Some scholars go one step further toward portraiture by interpreting the korai as Archaic forerunners of a type of female portrait we know became common on the Acropolis in the middle and late Hellenistic periods:  temporary cult servants such as kanephoroi and the arrhephoroi.102 Yet none of the Acropolis korai was inscribed with a name label, like the ones that identify Philippe and Ornithe in the Geneleos group in the Samian Heraion; and none of the inscribed bases for korai features anything like a prayer for the welfare of women in the family or a dedication on their behalf.103 For me the most conclusive argument against taking the korai, most of them late Archaic in date, as proto-​portraits is the time gap between these and the appearance of portraits of women in Athens. As discussed in Chapter 2, the emergence of female portraiture in the fourth century on the Acropolis and in the City Eleusinion looks more like an innovation than a revival of past practice. Explicitly identified portraits of kanephoroi at the Panathenaia and other festivals first appear in Athens only in the third century bc, and the first known portrait for an arrhephoros on the Acropolis has been dated to 220/​ 19: these come after the portraits of priestesses.104 If it had been customary already in the late Archaic period to dedicate statues representing these lesser female cult servants on the Acropolis, it is difficult to explain why the practice died out between ca. 480 and ca. 300 bc. Though I would identify most of the Acropolis korai as representations of Athena –​some with identifying attributes of the goddess, but most without –​the more prevalent explanation of the korai as generic, anonymous worshipper figures also removes them from consideration as Archaic Athenian portraits. Given that we have inscribed bases for as many as 250 statues and statuettes dedicated on the Acropolis before ca. 480 bc, it would be surprising if there were no portraits at all. The most promising candidates are the atypical, non-​ kouros male figures in marble: the Moschophoros (Calf-​Bearer), the Rampin rider and other horsemen, and three under-​lifesize marble scribes. The Moschophoros might represent a worshipper carrying a sacrificial bull-​calf on his shoulders.105 At the same time, given the importance of the cult of Poseidon (or Poseidon-​ Erechtheus) on the Acropolis, I  wonder whether this over-​lifesize figure in fact represents Poseidon, shown holding the type of offering he would like to receive, much like the gods shown pouring libations to themselves in scenes on Athenian vases.106 The Rampin rider [Figure 35] was long believed to be one of a pair together with another fragmentary marble horse and rider; this pair of horsemen were conjectured to be either the Dioskouroi or portraits of the Archaic Athenian tyrant Peisistratos’ two sons Hippias and Hipparchos.107 Alternatively, the Rampin rider on its own has been identified as a portrait of an unknown victor in an equestrian event from the leaf crown he wears on his head. But does this identification mean that other marble riders dedicated on

121

The Athenian A cropo l is

35. Archaic marble rider from the Athenian Acropolis, ca. 560–​550 bc: a cast of the Rampin head in the Louvre is joined to the body Acr. 590. Photo: Hans Rupprecht Goette, DAI Athens, neg. 2001/​114

the Athenian Acropolis in the Archaic period also represented victors, even if they lack the leaf crown? Are the other horsemen portraits or are they heroes? If the Rampin rider is a portrait, does the smaller but stylistically very similar Archaic head of a rider found at Eleusis [Figure 36] also belong to a portrait, even though he wears a headband and not a leaf crown?108 There are no ready answers to these questions. The only Archaic male portrait on the Acropolis that inspires confidence is the marble scribe statue (Acr. 629) dedicated by Alkimachos (DAA 6 = IG I3 618 = CEG 195: Figure 37).109 Here a series of fortuitously preserved inscriptions of various genres leads to an historical interpretation. Alkimachos’ dedicatory epigram refers in a more pointed way than usual to his father: Alkimachos dedicated me, this agalma, to the daughter of Zeus as a vow; he boasts to be the son of a noble (esthlos) father, Chairion. Chairion himself had dedicated an altar on the Acropolis (DAA 330 = IG I3 590) in the mid-​sixth century bc to commemorate his service as tamias or treasurer of Athena, an office open only to the pentecosiomedimnoi, the highest property class in Solon’s system. Finally, a gravestone for Chairion has been found

121

122

122

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

36.  Archaic marble head of a rider from Eleusis, ca. 560–​550 bc (NM 61). Photo: Walter Hege, DAI Athens, neg. 1435

at Eretria on Euboia with the inscription “Chairion the Athenian, of the Eupatrids” (IG I3 1516). The term Alkimachos used to refer to his father, esthlos, was one typical of aristocratic self-​identification; in the Athenian context, the designation Eupatrid referred to the elites of pre-​democratic Athens, more specifically those who opposed the tyranny of Peisistratos and his sons. Alkimachos appears to have dedicated a portrait of his father, Chairion, as tamias holding a writing tablet on his lap, perhaps after Chairion’s death in exile. For what it is worth, the scribe statue has been dated stylistically to ca. 510–​480 bc, after the removal of the Peisistratid tyrants. The historical scenario, then, is that Alkimachos returned from exile after 510 and dedicated a portrait of his father Chairion as tamias, treasurer of Athena on the Acropolis: a body-​replica for Athena of one of her elite male servants, and compensation for a death abroad in exile. Two smaller, fragmentary scribe statues of similar date (Acr. 144 and Acr. 146)  might also represent tamiai, following Alkimachos’ precedent. Unlike the over-​lifesize Moschophoros, all three marble scribes were small: Alkimachos’ scribe looks downright puny atop its Ionic column base, similar in type to the ones used for some of the larger Acropolis korai. If this interpretation is correct, then Alkimachos’ votive portrait of his father might date after Antenor’s Tyrannicides in the Agora rather than before them. Unlike the Samian Heraion, the Athenian Acropolis may not have had any Archaic tradition of aristocratic self-​representation through portraits at all. In Athens, the nascent Athenian democracy co-​opted overtly aristocratic commemorative forms (funerary tumuli, for example) and symbols (the crowns of

123

The Athenian A cropo l is

37.  Scribe statue (Acr. 629) and inscribed Ionic column base (DAA 6) dedicated by Alkimachos on the Athenian Acropolis, ca. 510–​480 bc. Two joining fragments of the statue’s head have also been identified (Acr. 306 and the Fauvel head, Louvre 2718). Reproduced from Raubitschek 1939–​40, ­figure  4, reprinted with permission of the A.  E. Raubitschek family

123

124

124

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

athletic victors) and democratized them. As James Whitley has noted, “there were simply no other symbolic forms available to the new democracy other than those that evoked aristocratic, and heroic, prowess. Aristocratic forms had to be ‘collectivized,’ appropriated by the community as a whole for public, i.e. state, purposes.”110 Yet votive portraits may have migrated in the opposite direction in Athens: from official and democratic to private and aristocratic in orientation.

Warriors and Strategoi, Fathers and Sons Kritios and Nesiotes’ Tyrannicides of 477/​6 bc, as a visual and conceptual model for male portraiture, had an immediate and dramatic effect upon private portraiture on the Acropolis. This effect may be seen most clearly in a lost bronze portrait made and signed by Kritios and Nesiotes themselves (DAA 121 = IG I3 850 = CEG 272: Figures 38 and 39): [Πα]ρθένοι Ἐκφάντο με πατὲρ ἀνέθε-​ κε καὶ ℎυιὸς /​ ἐνθάδ’ Ἀθεναίει μνε̑ μα πόνον Ἄρεος /​ Ἑγέλοχος μεγάλε τε φι-​ λοχσενίες ἀρετε̑ ς τε /​ πάσες μοῖραν ἔχον τένδε πόλιν νέμεται. Κριτίος ∶ καὶ Νεσιότες ∶ ἐποιεσάτεν.

Hegelochos, father and son of Ekphantos, dedicated me here to the Parthenos [Athena], a memorial of the toils of Ares; he [Hegelochos], having a share of both great hospitality and all arete, inhabits this city. Kritios and Nesiotes made it.111

Within this inscribed votive epigram, the dedicator, Hegelochos, lays special stress upon both his family line (naming both father and homonymous son, just like the Athenian woman Xenokrateia discussed in Chapter 2) and his family’s claim to belong to Athens. There is evidence for a fifth-​century Athenian proxenos on Thasos named Ekphantos; these admittedly slender indications, together with the mixture of Athenian and Ionian spelling conventions and dialectical forms in the inscribed text, may be telling us that Hegelochos was a resident alien rather than an Athenian citizen.112 We know that the statue Hegelochos dedicated was a portrait, rather than a god or hero, in an even more roundabout way: as the inscription added below Kritios’ and Nesiotes’ signature shows, the statue was reidentified in the first half of the first century ad as a portrait of the Roman consul Lucius Cassius Longinus (Leukios Kasios in Greek). Both the naming of Hegelochos’ father and the reference to a memorial (mnema) of participation in combat suggest that Hegelochos dedicated to Athena a body-​replica of his father Ekphantos as a casualty of the Persian Wars.

125

The Athenian A cropo l is

38.  Base for the dedication of Hegelochos, signed by Kritios and Nesiotes (ca. 480–​470 bc), showing the original inscription and a new inscription added below in the Augustan period (Acr. 13206). Reproduced from A.  Rumpf, “Zu den Tyrannenmördern,” in E.  Homann-​Wedeking and B. Segall, eds., Festschrift Eugen von Mercklin, Waldsassen, Bavaria: Stiftland, 1964, 142, fi ­ gure 5d. Public domain

The most noteworthy thing about the portrait Hegelochos commissioned from Kritios and Nesiotes is its pose:  Ekphantos stood with one foot forward and feet far apart in the striding, attacking pose of a warrior actively engaged in the “toils (ponoi) of Ares” mentioned by the epigram. A contemporary Acropolis portrait, this one without a sculptor’s signature (but also reinscribed in honor of a Roman, the consul L. Aemilius Paullus), may have represented the father of the two brothers who dedicated it in a similar pose (DAA 112 = IG I3 833): [Θρά]συλλος ⋮ καὶ Γνάθιος ⋮ Μνέσονος ⋮ ℎυιε̑ /​[ἐγ Λ]ευκονοίο ⋮ ἀνεθέτεν ⋮ τἀθεναίαι (Thrasyllos and Gnathios, sons of Mneson of the deme Leukonoion, dedicated it to Athena). Though we know nothing of Mneson himself, or of his sons Thrasyllos and Gnathios, fourth-​century descendants of the family served as tamiai on the Acropolis and performed civic liturgies, evidence of their wealth.113 Perhaps the closest parallel for these two early Classical warrior portraits on the Acropolis are the contemporary statues of Phormis of Mainalos at Olympia, shown vanquishing his enemies in battle. The obvious Athenian visual analogy, however, is Kritios’ and Nesiotes’ Tyrannicides: the pose is identical, though the weapons may have been spears rather than swords, and the Acropolis statues may have worn helmets, as depicted in Krumeich’s reconstruction of the Hegelochos/​Ekphantos portrait. The comparison inevitably raises the question once again of what the statues of Harmodios and Aristogeiton were

125

126

126

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

39. Portrait statue on the Acropolis, dedicated by Hegelochos and signed by Kritios and Nesiotes, identified as Hegelochos’ father Ekphantos; reconstruction by Ralf Krumeich. Drawing: Julia B. Ochmann, reproduced by permission

thought to be in 477/​6 bc, before they were “resemanticized” in the fourth century as honorific portraits.114 The iconography of nudity with weapons was inherently ambiguous. A  late Archaic (ca. 510–​500 bc) votive plaque found on the Acropolis [Figure 40], attributed to the red-​figure painter Euthymides, represents an attacking warrior, with a chlamys (cloak) tied around his waist but otherwise nude, and armed with helmet, shield, and spear. Whether this

127

The Athenian A cropo l is

40. Acropolis votive plaque attributed to the red-​figure painter Euthymides (ca. 515–​500 bc), showing a warrior, identity unknown (Acr. 1037). Photo: Emile Seraf, DAI Athens, neg. Emile 608

warrior was meant to represent a human portrait subject or a hero  –​such as Erechtheus or the hero shown being fabricated in the workshop on the Berlin Foundry Cup  –​remains open to question.115 As Christopher Hallett has noted, the “nude with weapons” schema in Classical Greek art, though often characterized as either “heroic” nudity or “ideal” nudity, can be more accurately termed “agonal,” purposely blurring the lines between athletes, heroes, and warriors: “The use of this special partial nudity for heroes does not show that there is something heroic about nudity, but rather that there is something ‘agonal’ (to use Hölscher’s preferred term) about heroism.”116 The “nude with weapons” schema was used in the fifth century to represent heroes standing at ease. The best-​preserved examples are the Riace warriors A and B

127

128

128

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

41.  Riace warrior B, mid-​fifth century bc (Reggio Calabria Mus.). Photo: Erich Lessing/​Art Resource, New York

[Figure  41]:  both figures are over-​lifesize, and both originally wore helmets and carried a shield on the left arm and a spear held upright in the right hand. The differences between the two statues may point to the work of two different sculptors producing figures at the same time for a single mid-​fifth-​century row of heroes, something like Onatas of Aegina’s Achaian heroes at Olympia.117 The so-​called strategos portraits of the fifth and fourth centuries, perhaps the most discussed subject category in Classical portraiture, also assumed this guise.118 Kresilas’ statue of Perikles on the Acropolis (mentioned by Pausanias 1.25.1 and 1.28.2) has been reconstructed from a series of Roman marble busts [Figure 42] and a very fragmentary base found on the Acropolis (DAA 131b = IG I3 884).119 The Corinthian helmet is unmistakably present, but no trace of a military chlamys or any other clothing shows up in the marble copies. A spear and shield are likely too: Perikles had been elected strategos fifteen times. The scanty remains of the inscription point to a dedication by one of Perikles’ sons:

129

The Athenian A cropo l is

42. Roman marble portrait bust identified as a copy of Kresilas’ Perikles on the Athenian Acropolis, ca. 429 bc (BM inv. 1805,0703.91). ©The Trustees of the British Museum

since his two legitimate sons, Xanthippos and Paralos, died of the Athenian plague of 430–​429 bc at about the same time that Perikles did, Perikles’ illegitimate son Perikles (executed after the Arginusai trial in 406 bc) may be a better candidate. Another lost private portrait from the Peloponnesian War period on the Acropolis signed by the same sculptor, Kresilas of Kydonia (IG I3 883 = DAA 132), also represented an Athenian strategos in action. I have argued elsewhere that Hermolykos dedicated an under-​lifesize portrait of his father, the strategos Dieitrephes, after the latter’s death at the hands of mutinous Thracian archers in ca. 410 bc. This vivid and unusual freestanding portrait, as Pausanias describes it, showed Dieitrephes struck by multiple arrows and dying of his wounds.120 Two main points emerge from this discussion of the few sixth-​and fifth-​ century private, votive portraits on the Acropolis for which we have archaeological evidence or literary descriptions. The first is that sons were dedicating posthumous portraits of their fathers, a votive practice without a precise equivalent in the other sanctuaries surveyed in the chapter. The compensatory element evident in these fifth-​century portraits continued to be important on the Acropolis in the fourth century. In addition to Polystratos’ portrait of his deceased brother, Polyllos (IG II2 3838 = CEG 2 780), mentioned in Chapter 2, we have the dedication by Diopeithes Strombichou Euonymeus, a

129

130

130

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

trierarch (trireme commander) in the Athenian navy, of a posthumous portrait representing his uncle, Strombichides Diotimou Euonymeus, a strategos and trierarch of the final years of the Peloponnesian War, who had been executed by the 30 Tyrants during the oligarchic revolution of 403 bc (IG II2 4881 = CEG 2 746).121 The badly broken base for Strombichides’ portrait shows one foot far forward, an indication that he too stood with feet apart in an active pose. The second point concerns the relationship between these Classical strategoi, other warriors on the Acropolis, and the earliest honorific portraits. The statue base for one of the portraits awarded to Konon in 394/​3 bc, recently discovered at Kaunos [Figure 6], shows clearly that Konon was depicted with his right foot far forward, attacking with a sword or spear. There is no physical evidence for Konon’s portrait in the Athenian Agora; the only one of the Athenian honorific portraits of the first half of the fourth century for which a base survives is that of Chabrias, who was honored in 377/​6 or 376/​5 bc. How to reconstruct Chabrias’ portrait has been debated extensively on the pages of Hesperia and American Journal of Archaeology; the issue hinges upon a passage in the Roman historian Cornelius Nepos’ life of Chabrias (Chabrias 1): His most brilliant achievement was his invention in the battle that he fought at Thebes, when he had come to support the Boeotians. For in that affair, when the supreme general Agesilaus [the Spartan king] was confident of victory and had already put to flight the swarms of mercenaries, Chabrias ordered the rest of the phalanx not to move from their position, but instructed them to receive the enemy’s charge with their shields leaning against their knees and spears thrown forward [proiecta]. When Agesilaus saw this novel sight he did not dare to advance and recalled his men, who were already charging, by sound of trumpet. This deed was so cried up throughout Greece that Chabrias desired that the statue that the Athenians set up to him officially in the Agora should be made in that attitude. Trans. Anderson 1963

John Buckler argued that Chabrias was shown standing at rest, holding his spear upright and not thrust forward, as seems to be implied by Diodoros Siculus’ (15.32–​3) earlier description of the same battle; he also reconstructed Chabrias with armor in addition to his weapons [Figure 43].122 Yet it is difficult to explain the dimensions of the Chabrias base –​it is about twice as deep as it is wide –​unless, like the Tyrannicides, Hegelochos’ dedication made by Kritios and Nesiotes, and Konon at Kaunos, Chabrias’ portrait stood in an attacking pose with feet apart.123 Athenian warriors in relief sculpture of the 430s bc onward –​on the south frieze of the Athena Nike temple [Figure 9], the reliefs from the demosion sema, the private Pythodoros relief [Figure 10], and the gravestone of Dexileos, to name but a few e­ xamples –​were frequently depicted wearing armor, a short

131

The Athenian A cropo l is

43.  Honorific portrait of Chabrias in the Athenian Agora (377–​375 bc), reconstruction by John Buckler.The statue may in fact have been nude and standing with feet apart in an attacking pose. Reproduced from Buckler 1972, plate 116, courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens

chiton, or at the very least a chlamys. Nevertheless, I  would argue that, for freestanding sculpture, “nude with helmet and weapons” remained the norm until Alexander, for both honorifics and private portraits.124 Even naval service seems to have been commemorated in Athens, when it was commemorated at all, through portraits in the “nude with weapons” schema. The freestanding image of the Greek warrior remained remarkably consistent across Classical sculpture. A detached, lifesize bronze head dating probably soon after 480 bc and found in 1886 on the Acropolis [Acr. 6446: Figure 44], with a separately attached helmet (now lost), may have belonged to a portrait in the attacking

131

132

132

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

44.  Bronze head of a warrior found on the Athenian Acropolis (Acr. 6446), possibly made by an Aiginetan sculptor, ca. 480 bc. A bronze helmet was once attached. DAI Athens, neg. NM 3374

pose like Kritios and Nesiotes’ statue dedicated by Hegelochos (the neck inclines sharply forward).125 Compare Kresilas’ Perikles, the so-​called Pastoret head in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek [Figure 45], and other Roman marble strategos heads in a Classical style: all wear the Corinthian helmet pushed back on the head and show no evidence of body armor. These heads inevitably inspire attempts at identification: for the Pastoret head, the possibilities discussed range from Perikles’ father Xanthippos to the Spartan Lysander to Konon.126 The Corinthian helmet has already been identified as a non-​realistic, backward-​ looking iconographic element in Athenian strategos portraits.127 But so is the very image of a helmeted fighter with weapons but without armor: such a figure is not a real citizen hoplite, any more than the Riace bronzes are.128 This Classical iconography does not illustrate the middling, hoplite values of democratic Athens, but rather the heroic values of Herodotus’ post-​battle aristeia. In the era of Philip and Alexander, the portrait type of the cuirassed general

133

The Athenian A cropo l is

45.  Pastoret head, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (inv. 2001): Roman marble copy of the portrait of an unknown strategos of the second half of the fifth or the early fourth century bc (Konon?). The front part of a Corinthian helmet pushed up over the head has broken off. Photo: Ole Haupt. Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen

without a helmet emerged, at roughly the same time as other Greek statue types specific to portraits.129 The award of Konon’s honorific portrait in the Agora in 393 bc was followed on the Acropolis in the first half of the fourth century by a spate of private portraits. Pausanias saw portraits of three of the victorious strategoi awarded official honorifics in the Agora on his tour of the Acropolis: Konon, his son Timotheos, the latter honored either immediately after the naval battle off the coast of Alyzeia in Akarnania in 375/​4 bc, or as late as 360, and Iphikrates (389 bc). (The paired portraits of the mid-​fifth century strategos Tolmides and Theainetos, either his seer or his son, will be discussed in Chapter 4 because they may be retrospective.) About the portrait of Iphikrates that Pausanias (1.24.7) saw at the entrance to the Parthenon we know nothing. Enough survives of the base for the paired portraits of Konon and Timotheos, however, to show that Konon made a large votive dedication to which Timotheos added a portrait of himself some time before his death in exile in 355/​4 bc. We now know, thanks to the discovery of more blocks, that the base was a complete half-​circle, and that it stood along the northern flank of the Parthenon.130 Gorham Philips Stevens’ original reconstruction, published in 1946 [Figure 46],

133

134

134

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

46.  Dedication on the Acropolis by Konon (A), ca. 393 bc, augmented by Konon’s son Timotheos (B) in ca. 375/​4 or 360 bc, hypothetical reconstruction by Gorham P. Stevens. Newly discovered blocks show that the base was a full semi-​circle. Reproduced from Stevens 1946, ­figure 9, courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens

imagines a monument about half as big as it really was, but even so Stevens seems to have been puzzled by what to put on the base. If Konon’s original dedication had consisted only of his own portrait, why was the base so big? Stevens imagined that Konon surrounded his portrait with naval trophies in reference to his victory in 394 bc. Comparisons with fifth-​century dedications at Olympia and Delphi provide better solutions. Konon might have been depicted fighting an enemy, like Phormis of Mainalos at Olympia; he might even have placed himself in

135

The Athenian A cropo l is

the company of gods and heroes, in imitation of Miltiades’ appearance in the Pheidias group or Lysander in the Aigospotamoi group at Delphi. But we cannot really be sure that Konon’s dedication included his own portrait at all. Konon died in 389 bc, four years after he was awarded his unprecedented honorific statue in the Agora. His will (its contents described by Lysias 19.39–​ 40) refers to a huge sum of money to be spent on anathemata (dedications) to Athena and Apollo.131 It would have been normal for these anathemata to be divine or heroic images, and for Konon to be inscribed as the dedicator posthumously, without explicit reference to his death or to his will.132 By the time Timotheos received his own honorific portrait in the Agora, the Acropolis monument underwent a renovation radical enough to require resetting (and possibly replacing) the top course of the base: it was not just a matter of placing Timotheos alongside his father. It is thus possible that Timotheos added both himself and his father to a pre-​existing group without portraits. Either the other statues were gone by the time of Pausanias, or Pausanias simply chose not to mention them.

Familial Arete and Family Memory Other familial portrait pairs and groups on the Acropolis demonstrate its significance as a showcase for familial arete and family memory in the late Classical period. The earliest certain example of a familial portrait group on the Acropolis was either the dedication of Konon, augmented by Timotheos, or the mid-​fourth-​century bc group on a similar semi-​circular base, this one located just east of the Propylaia. Individual portraits were identified with name labels, and only two of these survive, one with a signature of Demetrios of Alopeke, the sculptor who made the portrait of the priestess Lysimache in ca. 390–​ 360 bc. Here, we seem to have portraits of a father and his son:  Kephisodotos Kyna[rbou] Aithalides and  –​on Kephisodotou Aithalides. The family is known from contemporary Athenian epigraphical documents (mining leases); this Kephisodotos was probably a descendant of the Kynarbos who dedicated two bronze Athena statuettes on the Acropolis on behalf of his daughters, Aristomache and Archestrate, in the first half of the fifth century.133 Over the course of the fourth century, portraits replaced other sorts of monumental offerings, but some of the same Athenian families continued to dedicate on the Acropolis. Two other Acropolis statue groups of the late Classical period, though they present significant differences from the Kephisodotos group and from one another, also stressed familial continuity in the male line across generations using the medium of portraiture. Lycurgus of the deme Boutadai, the Athenian politician of the third quarter of the fourth century, and his three sons (Habron, Lykophron, and Lycurgus) were represented by wooden

135

136

136

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

statues made by Praxiteles’ sons Kephisodotos and Timarchos and dedicated inside the Erechtheion (ps.-​Plut. X orat. 843e–​f).134 Lycurgus’ family belonged to the branch of the genos Eteoboutadai that produced the priests of Poseidon-​Erechtheus who served the cult in that temple. Pausanias (1.26.5) also saw a painted pinax (plaque) in the Erechtheion that appeared to depict the priestly succession through several generations, culminating (according to pseudo-​Plutarch) in the vignette of Habron handing over the trident that served as the insignia of the priesthood to his brother and successor, Lykophron.135 Freestanding portraits inside temples were still unusual in the Classical period; the use of wood for the Lycurgan family group linked the portraits of Lycurgus and his sons explicitly with the famous wooden cult statue of Athena Polias, also inside the Erechtheion. While the point of the painting, probably also commissioned by Lycurgus’ family, was to claim an unbroken ancestral succession from their genos’ heroic ancestors Boötes and Erechtheus, the statues through their unusual choice of material asserted a likeness with Athena’s most sacred image. Neither the wooden portraits nor the painted pinax find any parallels among the female priestesses of Athena on the Acropolis in the Classical period: Lysimache’s arete was her great age and longevity in office, but the Lycurgan portraits promote a distincively male, genealogical form of arete that could be inherited by sons from their fathers and forefathers. The Kephisodotos group on the Acropolis, along with familial portraits at Epidauros to be discussed later in this chapter, seems to signal the re-​ emergence of Greek familial portrait groups after an absence through most of the fifth century.Yet it is difficult to discuss the significance of Kephisodotos’ group  –​large and prominently sited, but skipped by Pausanias  –​without knowing what type of family it represented. Did it include women or children?136 Or was it limited to male members of the family? Oblique evidence for the dedication of portraits of women other than Lysimache and Syeris in the mid-​fourth century bc comes from pseudo-​Plutarch’s (X orat. 839d) passing reference to statues of the mother and the aunt of the orator Isokrates on the Acropolis:  in Plutarch’s own time, one of these portraits had been removed and the other reinscribed with the name of a different subject. We have better evidence on the Acropolis for familial portrait groups including women in the second half of the fourth century, in the form of the so-​called Pandaites and Pasikles group (IG II2 3829), signed by the sculptors Leochares and Sthennis of Olynthos.137 The guiding insight for interpreting the Pandaites and Pasikles group is that something went wrong in the production of the monument. A  blank space was left between two of the figures for another statue that was never added; the two dedicators, Pandaites and Pasikles, seem to have belonged to different generations of the

137

The Athenian A cropo l is

same family.138 The two sculptors were also not quite contemporaries of one another: Leochares’ working life is normally dated to ca. 370–​320 bc, with the portraits of Philip II and his family in the Philippeion at Olympia placed soon after 338; Sthennis of Olynthos, as Habicht has shown, worked from ca. 340 to 280 bc. My own hypothesis for the Pandaites and Pasikles group is that it was first commissioned from Leochares after the Philippeion, but not finished immediately; there was a time gap before Sthennis came in, and even then one statue was never completed. All of the inscriptions –​the name labels for the five figures, the sculptors’ signatures, and the joint dedication by Pandaites Pasikleous Potamios and Pasikles Myronos Potamios  –​seem to have been carved at the very end. In this reconstruction, Pandaites was Pasikles’ son, but his name came first in the dedicatory formula because he dedicated the monument first commissioned by his father. If we accept this premise, then the subjects of the portraits were the nuclear family of Pasikles, and the portraits were designed to be “read” from right to left, presumably because the monument stood along the right side of the path leading from the Propylaia to the east end of the Parthenon: this seems to have been the preferred location on the Acropolis for familial portrait groups. Pasikles is the keystone of the family group, surrounded by his wife, children, and daughter-​in-​law, grouped as two distinct family units: 1. Aristomache, daughter of Pasikles Potamios, and wife of Echekles [ = married daughter of Pasikles] 2. Timostrate, daughter of Pandaites Prospaltios, and wife of Pasikles [ = wife of Pasikles]. 3. Pasikles Myronos Potamios [ = dedicator Pasikles]. 4. Myronos Pasikleous Potamios [ = son of Pasikles]. 5. [no inscription: blank space left for portrait of the dedicator Pandaites] 6. Lysippe, daughter of Alkibiades Cholleidos, wife of Pandaites [  =  wife of Pandaites].

The other choice, and the more common interpretation of the group, is to make Pandaites into Pasikles’ uncle and to see here a very complex, synoptic representation of select members of three generations of the family. This result might seem more consistent with the “dynastic,” three-​generation family of Philip II also made by Leochares, but it conflicts with fourth-​century practices attested at Epidauros, and with the overwhelming tendency to represent nuclear family groups in early and middle-​Hellenistic dedications elsewhere (Oropos, Delos, and Lindos). In late Classical Athens, representing the nuclear family was also the goal of contemporary funerary reliefs, which documented the citizen family and stressed its continuity across generations.139

137

138

138

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

Athletes In Classical Athens, the Acropolis was the place to commemorate athletic victories, particularly in the four crown games.140 This does not mean that there were no portraits of victorious athletes in the Agora: taking too literally Lycurgus’ (Leoc. 51) rhetorical contrast between other cities, with their agoras full of athletes, and the Athenian Agora, with its images of victorious strategoi, is an overinterpretation.141 It is difficult to determine when these athletic portraits began because they were dedications by the athletes themselves with the votive formula and no explicit reference to victories.142 The earliest might be the portrait of Epicharinos Oph[ol]o[nidou] signed by Kritios and Nesiotes (DAA 120 = IG I3 847) –​another sign that the sculptors of the Tyrannicides played an important role in promoting portraiture on the Acropolis after 480 bc.143 Epicharinos, as Pausanias (1.23.11) describes him, was a victor in the hoplitodromos race, a contest introduced at Olympia only in 520 bc. This particular athletic portrait was also the image of a warrior –​a nude warrior with helmet and shield.144 Two commemorations of athletic victory on the Acropolis in the second half of the fifth century belie the generalization that the Athenians of the fifth century subscribed to a democratic ethic of restraint in public display. The quadriga group dedicated in ca. 450–​440 bc by the cavalry commander Pronapes Pronapidou [DAA 174  =  IG I3 880:  Figure  47] was the

47. Pronapes’ quadriga dedication on the Athenian Acropolis (ca. 450–​440 bc), reconstruction by Manolis Korres from the six surviving blocks of the base. Reconstruction: M. Korres, reproduced from Korres 2000, ­figure 23, by permission

139

The Athenian A cropo l is

equal of anything set up by the Deinomenids of Sicily at Olympia or Delphi in the previous generation:  a lifesize four-​horse chariot and charioteer in bronze, plus a portrait of Pronapes himself, and either a groom or Pronapes’ own son.145 The inscription named the sites of Pronapes’ victories. Soon after Pronapes’ dedication, the Prytaneion decree of the 430s bc, discussed in Chapter  1, firmly established the honor of sitesis in the Prytaneion for Olympic victors; it has been seen as a successful attempt by the democracy to manage elite athletes, an example of what Josiah Ober has termed the “ideological hegemony of the masses” in fifth-​century Athens.146 But there were no real constraints imposed upon representing oneself as an athletic victor on the Acropolis, and the practice continued. Kallias Didymiou had dedicated an over-​lifesize bronze portrait of himself at Olympia to commemorate his victory in the pankration in 472 bc. Probably after his death, in ca. 430 bc (he may have been ostracized and died in exile from Athens), his portrait appeared on the Acropolis (DAA 164 = IG I3 893), inscribed with a name label and a full list of victories –​Olympic, Pythian, Isthmian, Nemean, and Panathenaic. Was this an attempt by Kallias’ sons to rehabilitate their father’s memory in Athens? One of the few inscriptions from a fourth-​century athletic portrait on the Acropolis explicitly alludes to victory as evidence of familial arete.147 Near the end of the fifth century, Alcibiades commemorated his chariot victories in the crown games with paintings (seen by Pausanias inside the Propylaia, 1.22.6–​7) that took up the traditional, Pindaric idea of divinely inspired victory, but blended it with the image of deities as kourotrophoi: Alcibiades was shown lying in the lap of the nymph Nemea, daughter of the river god Asopos (Ath. 12.534d and Plut. Alc. 16.5).148 Even though Raubitschek’s 1939 catalogue of fifth-​century athletic victor dedications on the Acropolis needs to be whittled down, his parting observation still stands: athletic portraits were the precursors of fourth-​century honorifics in Athens.This is not to say that there weren’t any fifth-​century portraits of other subjects living or deceased on the Acropolis or elsewhere in Athens –​ clearly there were. But Athens’ introduction of honorific portraits, the earliest being those of Konon and Euagoras in the Agora, may be seen as a calculated, collective, democratic response to the self-​assertive portraits of Pronapes, Kallias, and Alcibiades on the Acropolis. Lycurgus’ comment about the lack of athletes in the Athenian Agora gets at this point too: honorific portraits in Athens were a democratic counterblast in the Agora to the sorts of portraits elite individuals and their families had been setting up with some regularity on the Acropolis ever since the Persian Wars. Some represented warriors, and others athletes; some sons remembered their fathers with portraits, and others used the medium of portraiture to rehabilitate their fathers’ memory; to compensate them for premature, violent death or exile; or to demonstrate familial continuity.

139

140

140

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

Conclusion The tradition of the display of ancestral male arete on the Classical Acropolis makes the “feminization” of the sanctuary in the Hellenistic period all the more perplexing and difficult to explain. Why did the Athenians so wholeheartedly adopt the custom of representing priestesses of Athena, kanephoroi, and arrhephoroi? Lysimache and her diakonos Syeris stood alone on the Acropolis until a relative of another priestess of Athena Polias (IG II2 3455: her name has been lost) commissioned a portrait of her from Kephisodotos and Timarchos, the sons of Praxiteles, in ca. 340–​290 bc.149 At about the same time, Praxiteles himself made and signed a portrait of a priestess of Demeter and Kore, Chairippe, for the City Eleusinion below the Acropolis, as well as two other private, familial portraits of women, one probably also for the Eleusinion.150 Did the workshop of Praxiteles and his sons encourage private patrons to commission and dedicate similar works on the Acropolis?

Sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros The portraits dedicated in the sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros have remained almost entirely absent from discussions of Greek portraiture. It is easy to see why. Architecturally, sculpturally, and epigraphically, there are things of tremendous interest at this site other than statue bases: for example, the iamata, records of Asklepios’ and his father Apollo’s cures compiled and inscribed on large stelai (Paus. 2.27.3 and IG IV2 1 121–​4; RO 102). Like other sanctuaries of Asklepios, including the Athenian Asklepieion below the Acropolis founded in 420 bc, Epidauros attracted an abundance of offerings more modest than statues: votive reliefs and inscribed perirrhanteria were typical. Compared to what we have for other sites examined in this chapter, the epigraphical corpora for Epidauros are summary and at times confusing, and syntheses of the site’s history and development over time, rather than studies of the cult of Asklepios, have been lacking.151 Pausanias’ (2.26.1–​28.2) account of the sanctuary is remarkably uninformative: the general scarcity of literary testimonia for the sanctuary means that the evidence we have to work with is more direct than at Olympia and Delphi, but the lack of post-​ Classical commentary also limits what we know about the portraits there and the people who dedicated them. Despite these obstacles and the paucity of early material, the Asklepieion is worth including here because its fourth-​ century portraits were unusual. Among them are one of the earliest attested honorific portraits (IG IV2 1 615); a relief portrait, representing an Argive Olympic victor named Drymos Theodorou (IG IV2 1 618 = CEG 2 815, ca. 350–​300 bc); and a seated portrait of a woman, part of a husband-​and-​wife portrait pair dedicated by their two sons (IG IV2 1 243, early Hellenistic).152

141

Asklepios at E pidauros

Several of the earliest known portraits in the sanctuary represented living children, singly or in pairs and larger groups, dedicated by their parents. This distinctive portraiture tradition seems to endure in the sanctuary even in the middle Hellenistic period when the polis of Epidauros began using it as an agora for the display of honorific portraits of kings, the friends of kings, and benefactors. Most of the inscribed statue bases from the Asklepieion have been dated only approximately, based upon the lettering of their inscriptions and comparison with the fourth-​century inscribed building accounts for the temple of Asklepios and the Tholos. One portrait of an adolescent male from the first half of the fourth century (to be discussed in Chapter 5) can be identified as such because it was later reidentified as a portrait of Lucius Caesar, Augustus’ grandson and adopted heir: this portrait was made by Hektoridas, one of the sculptors who made the statues for the east pediment of the Asklepios temple in the first quarter of the fourth century bc. Good candidates for the earliest portraits, dated to the end of the fifth century or the beginning of the fourth, were the bronze statues of himself and of his children dedicated by a father (IG IV2 1 237 = CEG 2 818). Above the dedication inscribed on the curving base, nominative name labels in larger letters identified the portraits. The preserved part of the base has room for only two bronze statues, but more once stood to the left of these: Επ̣ι̣δα̣[….ca. 7.․․]ς ἀντ’ ἀγαθῶν ἔργων̣, Ἀ[σ]κλαπιέ, τόσδ’ ἀνέθηκε αὑτο̑ καὶ παίδων δῶρα τάδ’ Ἀντίφιλος. Epida[…….]s [missing name] In return for good works, Asklepios, Antiphilos dedicated these [andriantas], of himself and of his children, these gifts.153

The father Antiphilos included a portrait of himself along with those of an unknown number of his children; three other dedications at Epidauros, ranging in date from the early fourth century through the middle Hellenistic period, took essentially the same form.154 Another twelve portrait dedications, ranging in date from the fourth century through the Roman imperial period, consisted of portraits of two or more offspring, dedicated by one or both of their parents; when they are preserved, the foot holes on the tops of the inscribed bases show that these offspring were typically children.155 The focus on representing children remains consistent also in the fifteen private dedications of individual familial portraits dating from the end of the fifth century through the second century bc: ten of these involved parents dedicating a son or a daughter.156 The clientele dedicating these portraits in the Asklepieion was almost exclusively local: citizens of the city of Epidauros, with one instance each of Argives and Tegeans.

141

142

142

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

The interpretation of the familial portrait dedications at Epidauros, the majority of which consisted of bronze statues, has been needlessly complicated by one of the marble representations of children found early on in excavations there.157 An under-​lifesize marble statue group dated to the late fourth century bc, discovered in the sanctuary in the 1880s (NM 304/​309/​ 310), shows three very young children, two boys flanking a girl, embracing. To the left of these children stands an adult male figure, much smaller in scale than the children at the center. To the right is a female figure whose age is open to question: she is clearly not a young child like the three larger figures, but she (like the girl at the center) wears a round medallion or amulet of the type seen in Greek marble statues of children found in Attica and elsewhere.158 Ioannes Svoronos, in an article published in 1917, identified both the larger-​scale children at the center of the group and the girl on the right as the children of Asklepios; this interpretation led him to identify the many freestanding marble statues of children found at Epidauros, and others found in Athens and Attica, as votive representations of Asklepios’ sons and daughters rather than portraits, despite the fact that votive reliefs depicting Asklepios with his offspring always show them as adults.159 In the enigmatic marble group from Epidauros, Olympia Bobou is surely correct to identify the two smaller figures as a male worshipper and his teenage daughter, the dedicators of the offering. Whether or not the three children at the center are the children of Asklepios receiving the offering, or mortal offspring, living or deceased, remains unresolved.160 The important point for our purposes is that freestanding statues of children at Epidauros, whether made of marble or bronze, should be interpreted as portraits rather than images of the children of Asklepios. The closest comparanda for the extensive dedication of portraits of children are not the major sanctuaries of the Greek world, but rather local cults of female kourotrophic deities: Artemis Eileithyia at various sites in Boiotia, Artemis Brauronia and Eileithyia in Attica.161 Why dedicate portraits of children to Asklepios and Apollo? In addition to the dedication of Antiphilos already quoted, others also refer to the fulfillment of a vow or the successful outcome of a prayer.162 Though we think of Asklepios’ métier as healing the sick, parents’ dedications of multiple children on the same base also speak to Asklepios (with the help of his father, Apollo, and of his own children) as a kourotrophos whose protection was sought to ensure that children would survive to reach adulthood. Several of the individual narratives collected and published together in the iamata texts also deal with the conception or successful birthing of children, the preservation of children from harm, and the return of lost children. The Ur-​narrative that explains Asklepios’ and Apollo’s role as kourotrophoi is the story of Asklepios’ own birth at Epidauros. In Pindar’s fifth-​century version, Koronis, already

143

Asklepios at E pidauros

pregnant with Asklepios by Apollo, slept with a mortal man and was punished for her unfaithfulness by being incinerated by Artemis. Apollo rescued his son Asklepios from the flames: But when her relatives had placed the girl [Koronis] Within the pyre’s wooden wall and the fierce blaze Of Hephaistos ran around it, then Apollo said: “No longer Shall I endure in my soul to destroy my own offspring By a most pitiful death along with his mother’s heavy suffering.” Thus he spoke, and with his first stride came and snatched the child From the corpse, while the burning flame parted for him. He took him [Asklepios] and gave him to the Magnesian Centaur [Chiron] For instruction in healing the diseases that plague men. Pindar Pyth. 3.38–​46, trans. W.H. Race163

The fact that Asklepios himself fathered several children made him even more relevant as a kourotrophos for mortal children. The dedication of freestanding portraits of children and grown offspring to Asklepios and Apollo in order to commend living children to the gods’ protection, as well as to thank the gods for preserving them, is consistent with the picture presented by Classical votive reliefs from Athens and elsewhere that include representations of children: they and other healers (Amphiaraos) were frequently invoked as kourotrophoi and family protectors.164 One more note on early Greek portraiture at Epidauros. Just as we have seen in the City Eleusinion in Athens, at Epidauros a fourth-​century priest played an important role in promoting portraiture in the sanctuary. An Epidaurian named Aristarchos Ergilou appears in the building inscriptions as a priest and a financial guarantor for the temple of Asklepios (IG IV2 1 105, line 16).165 The construction of this temple, previously thought to have begun in 370 bc, may in fact date earlier, to ca. 400–​390: the date we choose to follow will determine whether we place Aristarchos’ dedications near the beginning or near the middle of the fourth century.166 Aristarchos dedicated an extraordinary series of statues in the sanctuary. One of these (IG IV2 1 254) has been reconstructed by Georges Roux as a rectangular exedra with an Ionic entablature over an over-​ lifesize bronze statue of Asklepios.167 In addition to a small votive dedication to Hestia (IG IV2 1 289) and a fragment of a long statue base with a votive dedication to Asklepios (IG IV2 1 254a), Aristarchos dedicated a single figure to commemorate his priesthood of Apollo and Asklepios, this one possibly a portrait of himself as priest: Ἀρίσταρχος Ἐργίλου ἱαρεὺς λαχὼν Ἀσκλαπιῶι καὶ Ἀπόλλωνι ἀνέθηκε.

143

144

144

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

Aristarchos Ergilou, having been chosen priest by lot, dedicated to Asklepios and Apollo. IG IV2 1 235

The largest family portrait group dedicated in the sanctuary before the middle Hellenistic period, and the only one to represent something other than children and their parents, was a group consisting of Aristarchos Ergilou at the center, flanked by four male and two female relatives (IG IV2 1 333). Since the inscriptions are only name labels, as in the case of the Pandaites and Pasikles group on the Acropolis the network of relationships between the individuals represented can be read in different ways. In Werner Peek’s reading, which I accept, Aristarchos appeared together with his two sons, two daughters, his grandson, and his great-​g randson in a dedication made after Aristarchos’ death by his descendants.168 The priest Aristarchos mirrored the god Asklepios as his chosen priest; his family also mirrored Asklepios’ family. Classical portraits of children at Epidauros seem to have performed a specialized religious function: putting the living family under the protection of the kourotrophoi Apollo and his son Asklepios. Early Greek portraiture at Epidauros was less about the categories of arete than it was about ensuring the continuity of the family. The dedications of the fourth-​century priest Aristarchos show that in the fourth century priests and priestesses adopted the medium of portraiture to emphasize their special relationship with the gods.

Sanctuary of Athena Lindia, Acropolis of Lindos, Rhodes The sanctuary of Athena Lindia on the Acropolis of Lindos is the odd man out in this chapter’s catalogue of sites: it lacks an early history of statue dedications in the Archaic period, and Pausanias did not include it in his itinerary. All the same, its inclusion here is justified for several reasons. The extant statue bases (published in a thorough and exemplary fashion in 1941 by Christian Blinkenberg) attest to a continuous series of hundreds of statues dedicated from the fourth century bc onward. Unlike what we see in the other sanctuaries, at Lindos a single motive generated nearly all of these portraits: commemoration of priesthood. An inscribed list of the priests of Athena Lindia allows some priests and their portraits to be dated to their precise year of service, and others within a range of twenty years or so. The Rhodians’ perception of their own cultural particularity centered on cult to an extraordinary degree, the priestly portraiture of the sanctuary of Athena at Lindos being but one symptom. From the late fifth century onward, the preeminent cult on the island was that of the sun god Helios (Halios), all but unknown elsewhere in the Greek world. At Lindos, Athena received only

145

Sanctuary of Athena Lindia , A cropo l is of   Lindos

sacrifices without fire (ἄπυρα ἱερά), and she was served by a male priest rather than a priestess.169 Like the Asklepieion at Epidauros, Lindos lacks sixth-​and fifth-​century votive statues, but for different reasons. A possible historical explanation for the loss of Archaic and fifth-​century material is a temple fire that occurred during the priesthood of Eukles, now dated to 392/​1 bc (compare Blinkenberg’s date of 342). The Athena temple may not have been rebuilt until the early third century bc, after the failed siege of Rhodes by Demetrios Poliorketes in 305–​304, an event commemorated by the construction of the famous Rhodian Colossus, a gigantic representation of the god Helios made by Lysippos’ student Chares of Lindos.170 What emerged near the end of the fourth century at Lindos was a remarkably homogeneous and insular portrait culture. We know of a handful of athletes, and only a single portrait of a Hellenistic ruler (Lindos II 161:  Ptolemy V Epiphanes, ca. 190–​180 bc), and none of Romans before Augustus. After the three poleis of Ialysos, Kamiros, and Lindos combined in a synoikism to found the new city of Rhodes in 408/​7 bc, followed by the removal of a pro-​Spartan oligarchic government in 395, the annual eponymous priesthood of Athena Lindia took on added importance as a marker of identity and status for the former citizens of Lindos. At some point in the fourth century –​either straightaway in 395 or after the island’s emancipation from Hekatomnid Carian domination and the establishment of democracy in 323 bc –​a complex new division of the Lindian citizen body was implemented, in which citizens were distributed across twelve demes grouped together into three tribes of four demes each. P. M. Fraser first explained the tribal cycle used to determine eligibility for the priesthood of Athena Lindia in any given year:  each of the three tribes provided a priest in a regular yearly rotation, meaning that individuals from the same tribe could serve as priest only every fourth year.171 It is also likely that the same individual was prohibited from serving more than once in his lifetime. The inscriptions on statue bases in the sanctuary of Athena Lindia regularly refer also to the priesthoods of Zeus Polieus and Artemis Kekoia, annual priesthoods that may have constituted a formal cursus honorum leading up to the priesthood of Athena Lindia, and ultimately the pan-​Rhodian priesthood of Helios in Rhodes town. As a direct consequence of the prevailing priestly motive, nearly all of the individual portrait subjects at Lindos were male, with portraits of women occurring only in familial pairs and larger family groups. When did portrait statues first appear on the Acropolis of Lindos? The lack of a transition from a standard votive formula with the verb anatithemi to a portrait formula complicates this question and at the same time reinforces the necessity of reading the inscriptions within the context of the sanctuary. From the beginning, dedicatory inscriptions from Lindos more often than not omitted the verb of dedication entirely, consisting simply of the name of the

145

146

146

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

dedicator plus the name of the recipient deity in the dative case (e.g. Lindos II 18, 20, 21, and 27). The dowel holes on the tops of the fourth-​century bases suggest that there were no pre-​323 bc portraits in the sanctuary at all. Some of these fourth-​century bases show clear signs that they supported statues of Athena: either small dowel holes for the attachment of a spear or spear and shield (Lindos II 31 and 42) or dowel holes for feet far apart in a striding, attacking “Promachos” pose (Lindos II 33 and 45). The first mention of priesthood on a Lindian statue base occurs on a dedication by a priest of Athena Lindia whose service can be dated to ca. 320 bc: the inscription reads simply “Peisiphon son of Peisistratos, having served as priest [hierateusas], [dedicated] to Athena Lindia” (Lindos II 53). A few years later, we can pinpoint the arrival of portraiture in the sanctuary at Lindos with certainty. A single individual –​Polykles Polykrateos, who served as priest of Athena Lindia in 313 bc –​dedicated both a series of three divine statues and the first family portrait group in the sanctuary. Polykles commemorated his tenure of three different priesthoods (those of Zeus Polieus, Athena Lindia, and Apollo Pythios) with dedications of three bronze statues (Lindos II 57A–​C). The divine identities of these statues are clear: both the Zeus and the Athena were colossal in size; the Athena held both a spear and a shield. Polykles’ family group (Lindos II 56)  was large and complex, the ensemble signed by two different Rhodian sculptors, Mnasatimos and Kallimedon. It included a portrait of Polykles himself with a reference to his priesthood, together with portraits of five relatives, male and female, with name labels:  included were Polykles’ father, two sisters who appear to have been married to Polykles in succession, and two other individuals (one male, the other female) who may have been Polykles’ parents. The monument underwent renovation as much as thirty years after its original dedication with the purpose of adding one of the female figures to the preexisting group; two children standing on the far right were left unidentified. Within the context of statue dedications at Lindos, Polykles’ family portrait group comes like a bolt out of the blue, with no identifiable precedent. The advent of portraiture on the Acropolis of Lindos can be seen to follow closely upon the new democratic constitution of Lindos implemented after Alexander’s death in 323 bc. Lindian portraiture represents the independent initiative of what Vincent Gabrielsen has termed the naval aristocracy of Hellenistic Rhodes:  specifically a reaction against democracy, framed in overtly religious terms through the constant reference to priestly office as an occasion, and executed by local Rhodian sculptors.172 The independence of Lindian portraiture extends to the inscribed formulae used for portraits. The basic votive formula “X, having served as priest [hierateusas], to Athena Lindia [Zeus Polieus, Artemis Kekoia],” continued to be prevalent until the mid-​second century bc. This formula places the focus

147

Conclusion

squarely upon the priest himself as both agent and portrait subject.The lack of an external commemorator, whether a family member or the Lindian demos, seems to show that it was considered appropriate for men who had served as priest of Athena Lindia to represent themselves with portraits in her sanctuary. Before the late Hellenistic period, the only exceptions to the nominative formula described were private, familial portraits with the name of the portrait subject in the accusative (“X dedicated Y”) and dedications made “on behalf of ” family members using the preposition hyper.173 It is only after 200 bc that it became customary for the Lindian demos to dedicate portraits of priests and to inscribe them with typical honorific formulas naming the portrait subject in the accusative.174 Given the abundance of evidence, one naturally wonders what these portraits of the priests of Athena Lindia looked like.175 Late fifth-​and fourth-​ century Athenian gravestones for priests show them as sacrificers, wearing a long, unbelted chiton that touched the ground; the central male figure of the Parthenon frieze, variously identified as the archon basileus or the priest of Poseidon-​Erechtheus, is similarly portrayed. It is clear, however, that the Lindian priest portraits never wore such a chiton, and thus we should expect that they instead wore the conventional Greek male citizen garment: the himation. Literature and inscriptions of various periods and various places within the Greek world provide hints that priests sometimes wore or held insignia specific to the gods they served: recall the painting in the Erechtheion on the Acropolis that showed Lycurgus’ son Habron handing the trident of office to his brother (Plut. Mor. 843e–​f). Four early Hellenistic bases for priestly portraits from Lindos show holes alongside the right foot that might have received the end of an attribute held in the right hand. Since the priests in question served not only Athena Lindia but also Zeus Polieus, Blinkenberg suggested that Lindian priests were depicted holding a scepter. But since some of the Athena statues dedicated in the sanctuary clearly held a spear, one wonders whether the priests of Athena Lindia instead received a spear as the insignia of office and were depicted in their portraits holding it. The practice of self-​representation and familial representation by the priests of Lindos can be read as the reaction of a closed aristocracy against democracy in the generation after Alexander’s death. Through the medium of portraiture, the Lindian priests emphasized their close relationship with the gods; a few may have held divine attributes as a badge of priesthood.

Conclusion Beyond the obvious observation that Olympia was the preferred location for athletic victor portraits, some previously unsuspected differences –​and commonalities –​between the sanctuaries examined here emerge. At both Olympia

147

148

148

Portraits in Gree k S anctuaries

and Delphi, collaborations between western Greek patrons –​the Deinomenid tyrants of Sicily, their associates, and western Greek athletic victors  –​and early Classical bronze sculptors from Aegina (Onatas, Ageladas) and Argos (Glaukias) generated a veritable explosion in portraiture in the generation after the Persian Wars. Aeginetan and Argive sculptors played an outsize role in the institutionalization of athletic victor portraits at Olympia in the early Classical period. Also in the early Classical period immediately after the Persian Wars, Kritios and Nesiotes’ Tyrannicides group in the Athenian Agora seems to have inspired private patrons to hire the same sculptors to make votive portraits for dedication on the Acropolis. In both sanctuaries these collaborations produced new ideas (large row groups including gods, heroes, and portraits), and greatly intensified trends that had already begun (athletic victor portraits at Olympia). At Olympia, retrospective portraits of the athletes of the past were deployed alongside contemporary ones to assert the arete of poleis alongside monuments to military victory in a period of intense inter-​polis rivalry and peer–​polity interaction. At the same time, the claims to heroic ancestry of Philip II and other kings were emphasized by spatial juxtapositions with images of heroes, both Homeric and local, as well as gods. At Delphi, the dedication of large row groups of bronze statues combining gods and heroes with portraits may also have been pioneered by western Greeks (the people of Taras); here, the heroic character of portrait subjects was less important than their claims to be saviors like Apollo himself. For both the western Greeks and others who had not taken part directly in defeating the Persians, such as Alexander I of Macedon, commemorative portraits offered an alternative form of symbolic capital and a counterweight to the Persian War monuments that rapidly filled the spaces in front of the main temples. At both Olympia and Delphi over the course of the fifth century, the portraits of athletic victors transitioned from votive self-​ representations to documents of victories, a development connected with both the advent of honorific portraits and the publication of the first Olympic victor list. At Delphi, even after the introduction of honorific portraits, there was a strong tendency to represent subjects who had died prematurely and violently, a motive for portraiture with no clear parallel at Olympia. The gravitational pull exerted by cult deities remained strong throughout the Classical period. Apollo at Delphi was a savior of cities whose agency was recognized through dedications of savior heroes and portraits of human saviors. Traditional notions of male arete held sway in the fifth century on the Athenian Acropolis and in the Samian Heraion, both sanctuaries of poliad deities. On the Acropolis, one wonders how many of the portraits of strategoi and other warriors were displayed close enough to Pheidias’ colossal bronze Athena Promachos statue to encourage comparison. At Epidauros from the fourth century onward, private portraiture centered on representing the nuclear family, and it encompassed men, women, and children, a practice that

149

Conclusion

seems to have developed independently of the Archaic familial portraiture of the Samian Heraion and Didyma, and which seems also to have been inspired directly by the particular character of the two gods worshipped in the sanctuary, Apollo and his son Asklepios, as kourotrophoi. By way of contrast, the absence of familial portraits from Olympia and Delphi before the Philippeion and the Daochos group makes the latter stand out even more emphatically as statements about familial arete and dynastic continuity. Greek familial portrait groups in general, by visualizing familial arete within and across generations, potentially carried with them very different political charges depending upon their setting: compare the dynastic claims of Daochos with the citizen families of the Classical Acropolis and the priestly families of Lindos. As we have seen in Chapter 2, priestly portraiture in the Greek world may not have begun until the first half of the fourth century bc, even though it resonated with fifth-​ century notions of divine choice and divine favor as motives for the dedication of portraits. One clear pattern that emerges at Epidauros and Lindos was the dedication by priests of prominent divine images and portraits of themselves and their families at the same time.

149

150

151

II

DOCUMENTING ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL GREEK HISTORY

152

153

4

RETROSPECTIVE PORTRAITS AS HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS

By way of censure and reproach of the impetuous style of Timarchos, he [Aeschines] alleged that a statue of Solon, with his himation drawn round him and his hand enfolded, had been set up to exemplify the self-​restraint of the popular orators of that generation. People who live at Salamis, however, inform us that this statue [andrias] was erected less than fifty years ago. Now from the age of Solon to the present day about two hundred and forty years have elapsed, so that the sculptor who designed that disposition of drapery had not lived in Solon’s time –​nor even his grandfather. He illustrated his remarks by representing to the jury the attitude of the statue; but his mimicry did not include what, politically, would have been much more profitable than an attitude  –​a view of Solon’s spirit and purpose, so widely different from his own. When Salamis had revolted, and the Athenian people had forbidden under penalty of death any proposal for its recovery, Solon, accepting the risk of death, composed and recited an elegiac poem, and so retrieved that country for Athens and removed a standing dishonor. Demosthenes 19.251–​5, trans. C. A. and J. H.Vince, modified

Not all Greek portraits of the Archaic and Classical periods represented living subjects or subjects deceased within living memory. As we have already seen, portraits of long-​dead Olympic victors began to be dedicated already in the fifth century. These were variously used by victors’ home cities to claim the symbolic capital afforded by their arete; to solidify the case for their worship as heroes or gods; or by relatives to emphasize their genealogical connections 153

154

154

Retrospecti ve P ortraits as Historica l D ocu ments

with earlier victors (the Daochos group). But the practice of retrospective portraiture was more widespread, especially in the fourth century bc. Perhaps the best known Greek retrospective portraits are the bronze statues of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides set up in the precinct of the Theater of Dionysos in Athens on the initiative of the Athenian politician and orator Lycurgus of Boutadai at some point between Athens’ defeat by Philip II at the battle of Chaironea in 338 bc and Lycurgus’ own death in 324.1 The three fifth-​century playwrights in the Theater of Dionysos are worth singling out because they are instructive in several respects. There is a strong documentary link between their portraits and Lycurgus’ simultaneous proposal calling for official texts of these authors’ plays to be transcribed and preserved as the basis for future performances (ps.-​Plut. X orat. 841–​2):  portraits of Greek authors and the formation of literary canons go hand-​in-​hand.2 Plutarch mentions an official enactment of the Athenian demos as the mechanism authorizing the three portraits, a valuable attestation since the circumstances surrounding the creation of nearly all other retrospective Greek portraits, in Athens and elsewhere, remain murky. Lycurgus’ portraits of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides also provide a welcome chronological fixed point on the cusp of the Hellenistic period for the broader cultural practices that fostered retrospective portraits. As has long been remarked, the surviving speeches, legislative enactments, and other initiatives associated with Lycurgus and his circle in Athens exemplify a thoroughgoing attitude of retrospection, consciously looking backward toward Athens’ illustrious fifth-​century history.3 The Athenian portrait of Lycurgus himself illustrates the distinction between posthumous honors and retrospective portraits. Lycurgus was posthumously awarded highest honors, including a portrait statue, by the Athenians in 307/​ 6, fifteen years or so after his death, as attested by both the inscribed decree (IG II2 457) and a base for his portrait (IG II2 3776).4 The late fourth-​century portrait of Lycurgus can best be explained as a delayed honor. In contrast, the portrait of Socrates in the Pompeion in the Kerameikos supposedly made by Lysippos (Diog. Laert. 2.5.43) both reaches back into the period before routine portrait honors and represents a subject that would never have received an official portrait in Athens in the first place: both facts make Socrates’ portrait in the Pompeion retrospective.5 For the Greeks, retrospective portraits performed a variety of overlapping documentary functions to be explored in this chapter. Portraits of authors were desirable wherever those authors’ works were read: we are accustomed to studying Roman marble copies of such portraits, but from the fifth century bc onward literary portraits served the important function in Greek culture of shoring up literary biographies and attributions. Their contexts and locations placed literary figures and laid claims to associations with them. A major goal of this chapter is to pursue more closely the possible relationships between

155

Retrospecti ve P ortraits of  P oets

retrospective portraits and what we might term retrospective historical documents. Christian Habicht, in a ground-​breaking article published in 1961, called attention to a series of documents related to fifth-​century Greek history from the Persian Wars through the Pentacontaetia that make their first appearance in Athenian forensic speeches and inscriptions of ca. 360–​330 bc. Retrospective historical documents, like retrospective portraits, were being fabricated in the fourth century to fill gaps in the historical documentation of the sixth and fifth centuries, including the Persian Wars. Like retrospective documents inscribed on stone, some retrospective portrait statues of the late Classical and early Hellenistic periods seem to be in dialogue with canonical fifth-​century historical texts, and even to challenge their testimony.

Retrospective Portraits of Poets: Anacreon of Teos on the Athenian Acropolis We have already encountered fifth-​century portraits of poets that treated them as if they were savior gods: those of Homer and Hesiod in one of Mikythos’ dedications at Olympia. In fifth-​and fourth-​century Greece, retrospective portraits of poets were also used to perpetuate the fame of their works and to claim ownership of their memory. The Roman marble portrait of the late Archaic poet Anacreon of Teos in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in Copenhagen [Figure 48] is a rare example in which a Greek subject’s whole body, rather than just the head, has been reproduced. The type is otherwise represented by several fragmentary Roman marble herms and disembodied heads of lesser quality.6 On the basis of one herm with the inscribed name label Anakreon Lyrikos (The Lyric Poet Anacreon), the lost Greek original behind the Roman type has been connected with a passage in Pausanias describing a portrait of Anacreon “in his cups” on the Athenian Acropolis (1.25.1): There are on the Acropolis of the Athenians [portraits] of both Perikles the son of Xanthippos and of Xanthippos himself, who fought against the Persians at Mykale. But the statue of Perikles is located elsewhere, while near the one of Xanthippos stood Anacreon of Teos, the first after Sappho of Lesbos who wrote poems mostly erotic in nature; his pose is like that of a man singing while drunk.

The portrait of Anacreon on the Athenian Acropolis, if it has been accurately reconstructed from the Ny Carlsberg statue, has been dated to ca. 450–​ 440 bc by Zanker; Anacreon died in ca. 480 bc. According to the post-​Classical biographical tradition, Anacreon and other refugees fled Teos in Asia Minor in the wake of the Persians and went to Abdera in Thrace (Strabo 14.1.30). Anacreon’s presence at the court of the tyrant Polycrates on Samos before Polycrates’ death in 522 bc is attested already in the fifth century by Herodotus

155

156

156

Retrospecti ve P ortraits as Historica l D ocu ments

48.  Roman marble copy of a mid-​fifth century bc portrait of Anacreon of Teos, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (inv. 491). Photo: Ole Haupt. Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen

(3.121). Peisistratos’ son Hipparchos brought Anacreon to Athens during the tyranny of his brother Hippias (Plato [Hipparch.] 228b–​c and Plato Chrm. 157e).7 Zanker and Shapiro have noticed that the Ny Carlsberg portrait transforms Anacreon from an Ionian poet performing in elaborate eastern dress, seen on late Archaic Athenian vases, into a high Classical Athenian with an idealized appearance and minimal garments.8 Shapiro has argued that the lost portrait on the Acropolis, like the Ny Carlsberg statue, represented Anacreon as the poet par excellence of the Athenian symposium: in this view, the infibulation (kynodesmos) of Anacreon’s exposed penis, perhaps the oddest detail of the statue, called to mind Anacreon’s restraint in both drinking and erotic attachments.9 But kynodesmos was also practiced by Greek athletes, and Anacreon’s nudity would have linked him visually with both athletes and warriors represented by other fifth-​century portraits on the Acropolis.

157

Ka llias and the P eace with   P ersia

What was the political significance of representing Anacreon in this guise on the Acropolis in ca. 450–​440 bc? Despite the absence of an inscribed base, diametrically opposed interpretations have been offered:  either the portrait was dedicated on the Acropolis by members of the conservative opposition to Perikles, or by Perikles’ supporters or Perikles himself.10 A more promising approach might be to see a retrospective portrait of Anacreon on the Acropolis, set up around the time of the transfer of the treasury of the Delian League from Delos to the Acropolis in 454 bc, as a gesture commemorating the connection between Ionia and Athens in the late Archaic period while obscuring the role of Peisistratos’ sons in bringing Anacreon to Athens.11 Anacreon’s connection with Athens was further reinforced in the fourth century and the Hellenistic period by attributing to him a group of late Archaic and early Classical epigrams inscribed on herms in Athens and Attica (Anth. Pal. VI 134–​45), again without reference to the Peisistratids.12 The Acropolis portrait remembered the period of the Peisistratid tyranny without commemorating Peisistratos or his sons. Though the timing of Anacreon’s portrait may be explained by the important role of the performance of Anacreon and other Archaic Greek lyric poets in Periklean musical culture, seeing Anacreon on the Acropolis reminded viewers less of Perikles than it reminded them of the Peisistratid tyranny.13

Kallias, Son of Hipponikos, and the Fifth-​C entury Peace with Persia Retrospective portraits of other subjects in Athens show clear signs of having been inspired by written documents; the portraits in turn served as tekmeria reinforcing these documents’ authority and authenticity. The connection between a retrospective portrait statue and a retrospective document appears most clearly in the case of Kallias, son of Hipponikos of the deme Alopeke, brother-​in-​law of Kimon, a member of the priestly genos Kerykes who served as dadouchos (torch-​ bearer) of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis. Fourth-​century sources credit him with negotiating the peace with Persia in 449 bc, after the Athenian defeat of the Persian navy off the coast of Salamis in Cyprus.14 Pausanias (1.8.2) saw his portrait among a cluster of statues in the Athenian Agora, somewhere between the eponymous heroes monument and the temple of Ares. In the Agora in the fourth century, statues of gods and heroes functioned as nuclei that attracted portraits: After the statues of the eponymoi are images of the gods, Amphiaraos and Peace [Eirene] carrying the infant Wealth [Ploutos]. Here Lycurgus, son of Lykophron, stands in bronze, and Kallias, who, as most of the Athenians say, made peace with Artaxerxes the son of Xerxes on behalf of the Greeks. Here too is Demosthenes, whom the Athenians forced to withdraw to Kalaureia, the island before Troizen, but having received him back later they forced him out again after the disaster at Lamia.

157

158

158

Retrospecti ve P ortraits as Historica l D ocu ments

As we have already seen, the honorific portrait of Lycurgus was erected in 307/​6; Demosthenes’ portrait dates to 281/​0 bc.15 Since the Athenians gained control over Oropos and its sanctuary of Amphiaraos only in 335, the god/​hero Amphiaraos’ image in the Agora should logically date to the Lycurgan period.16 The clearest thematic link in the grouping, and the key to the date of the Kallias portrait, was the connection between the personified Peace and Wealth group and Kallias. The Athenians founded the cult of Peace by setting up an altar for her in the Agora in 375/​4 bc, twelve years after the King’s Peace (also called the Peace of Antalkidas) had put a temporary end to conflict between the Greeks in 387/​6 (Xen. Hell. 5.1.31), and the same year that Timotheos won a victory over the Spartans at Alyzeia.17 Several Roman marble versions of the matronly Peace holding the infant Wealth in her arms match a representation of the statuary group on a Panathenaic amphora of 360/​59 bc. On the basis of two different passages in Pliny (HN 34.51 and 87), the bronze original of Peace and Wealth seen by Pausanias has been attributed to the elder Kephisodotos and dated soon after the altar, perhaps in 372 or 371 bc. Another reason for supposing that Kallias’ portrait was a retrospective one, beyond the fact that the altar and personification of Peace with which it was associated date to the 370s, is that Kallias’ mid-​fifth-​century peace treaty with Persia seems to be a retrospective document. Thucydides makes no mention of any such peace agreement between Greeks and Persians ending the Persian Wars, and Herodotus (7.151) only refers obliquely to Kallias’ presence at the court of Artaxerxes in Susa.18 The peace of Kallias with the Persians dated to 449 bc, after Kimon’s ostracism in 462/​1 and his death in ca. 450, makes its first appearance in Attic historiography only in the aftermath of the King’s Peace of 387/​6 (Diod. Sic. 12.4, probably using the fourth-​century Ephoros as a source; Aristodemus FGrH 104 F13; and the Suda, s.v. Καλλίας).Theopompos of Chios (FGrH 115 F153–​4), in a preserved fragment of his lost universal history written in the age of Philip II and Alexander, noted that the version of the peace treaty he saw on a stele in Athens could not date from the mid-​fifth century because it was inscribed in the Ionian alphabet, adopted in Athens for official state documents in 403/​2 bc.19 Regardless of what Kallias himself did or did not do, and when, the evidence suggests that the Peace of Kallias as a document inscribed on a stele dates to the fourth century. The inscribed stele and the portrait statue were probably displayed together, and both should date after the foundation of the cult of Peace and the statue of Peace and Wealth in the 370s bc.20

Solon in the Agoras of Salamis and Athens Not every gap was thought to be worth filling with either retrospective documents or retrospective portraits:  the memory of some earlier individuals

159

Solon in the A goras of S a l a m is and   Athens

lived on in oral tradition without fourth-​century interventions. Kimon, for example, continued to be remembered in association with the plane trees in the Athenian Agora and the Academy (Plut. Cim. 13.8), the south wall of the Acropolis (Nep. Cimon 2.5 and Plut. Cim. 13.5), and the Stoa Poikile in the Agora, the construction of which was popularly attributed to his brother-​in-​ law Peisianax. The epigrams inscribed on three herms set up by the Athenians in the Agora to commemorate Kimon’s victory at Eion on the Strymon river left room in the fourth century (Aeschines 3.183–​6) for speculation that Kimon had asked to be mentioned by name in the monument’s inscription, but that his request had been denied.21 In the case of the portrait of Solon in the agora of Salamis, a figure from the past was represented in the guise of a contemporary honorific portrait. Aeschines (1.25) described the pose of Solon’s statue, standing with its arm wrapped within its himation, as evidence for Solon’s demeanor when he addressed the citizens of Athens. Demosthenes (19.251) countered in a slightly later speech (delivered in 343 bc), quoted in the epigraph to this chapter, that this particular portrait of Solon was new and therefore useless as evidence for what Solon really looked like. Demosthenes’ unmasking of a retrospective portrait of Solon provides a valuable attestation for retrospective portraits of subjects other than poets in Athens.22 Solon’s portrait, as Aeschines described it, was strikingly similar to the “himation man” portrait of Aeschines himself, known through Roman marble copies [Figure 49].23 In order to determine why there was a retrospective portrait of Solon in the agora of Salamis in the first place, we need to look more closely at the context in which Demosthenes mentions the statue.24 In the course of his prosecution of Aeschines for his conduct on an Athenian embassy to Philip of Macedon, Demosthenes (19.251–​ 5) contrasted Aeschines’ supposed appeasement of Philip with Solon’s willingness to persuade the demos to go to war over the loss of the island of Salamis to nearby Megara. The long Solonian elegy on Salamis that Demosthenes refers to survives only in three short fragments (Solon frag. 2, Noussia-​Fantuzzi 2010). It is paraenetic, urging the Athenians onward to reclaim the island of Salamis from Megara: I myself came as a herald from longed-​for Salamis, Having put forth a song in well-​ordered verses in the place of a speech. Let us go to Salamis to fight for the longed-​for island Putting aside grievous shame.25

Solon’s elegy served as the basis for a biographical tradition that Solon himself had led the Athenians in a military campaign against Megara over the ownership of Salamis, a conflict otherwise associated with the tyrant Peisistratos later in the sixth century.26 The portrait in the agora of Salamis reinforced the attribution of the Salamis elegy to Solon. Indeed, a portrait of this particular subject

159

160

160

Retrospecti ve P ortraits as Historica l D ocu ments

49.  Roman marble copy of a portrait of  Aeschines,  found in theVilla of the Papyri,  Herculaneum (Naples Archaeological Mus., inv. 6018). Aeschines’ portrait was likely honorific, but its date is unknown. Photo: Schwanke, neg. DAI Rome 85.486

in this particular place would have made little sense without the elegy: it was like setting up a portrait of Tony Bennett in San Francisco. A second portrait statue of Solon, this one standing in the Agora of Athens, is mentioned elsewhere in the Demosthenic corpus ([Dem.] 26.23), in a speech against Aristogeiton (a relative of the Tyrannicide of the same name) dating probably to the later 330s bc. The speaker invokes this portrait specifically in connection with Solon’s laws and interprets it as honorific: It is preposterous that your [the Athenian demos’] ancestors faced death to save the laws from destruction, but that you do not even punish those who have offended against the laws; that you set up in the Agora a bronze

161

Solon in the A goras of S a l a m is and   Athens

statue of Solon, who framed the laws, but show yourselves regardless of those very laws for the sake of which he has received such exceptional honor. Trans. J. H.Vince, modified

Pausanias (1.16.1) locates this statue of Solon in front of the Stoa Poikile on the north side of the Agora [Figure 50]. Since the Stoa Poikile was not built until the second quarter of the fifth century, the portrait of Solon in the Athenian Agora must also be retrospective and must date sometime between the mid-​ fifth century and the 330s bc. Demosthenes mentions Solon’s portrait in the same breath as Solon’s laws: the so-​called lawcode of Nikomachos, the codification of the Athenian

50.  Plan of Athens in the second century ad showing the northwest corner of the Acropolis, the City Eleusinion, and the Areopagus; Themistokles’ sanctuary of Artemis Aristoboule in the deme Melite appears on the left. American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Agora Excavations

161

162

162

Retrospecti ve P ortraits as Historica l D ocu ments

sacred calendar together with some of the laws attributed to Solon, was inscribed on stelai displayed in the Stoa Basileios in the Agora between 410 and 399 bc. But if the restoration of the Athenian democracy and the codification of its laws was the occasion for setting up Solon’s portrait, then why did it stand in front of the Stoa Poikile rather than the Stoa Basileios, where the laws themselves were displayed? Since the siting of portrait statues, both contemporary and retrospective, within the Agora was otherwise deliberate, it is hard to accept that the placement of Solon’s was without significance. In this context, it is worth considering Plutarch’s (Sol. 8.1–​3) account of how Solon came to compose and recite his elegy on Salamis: Once when the Athenians were tired out with a war which they were waging against the Megarians for the island of Salamis, they made a law that no one in future, on pain of death, should move, in writing or orally, that the city take up its contention for Salamis. Solon could not endure the disgrace of this, and when he saw that many of the young men wanted steps taken to bring on the war, but did not dare to take those steps themselves on account of the law, he pretended to be out of his head, and a report was given out to the city by his family that he showed signs of madness. He then secretly composed some elegiac verses, and after rehearsing them so that he could say them by rote, he sallied out into the marketplace of a sudden, with a cap upon his head. After a large crowd had collected there, he got upon the herald’s stone and recited the poem which begins, I myself came as a herald from lovely Salamis, Putting forth a song in well-​ordered verses in the place of a speech. This poem is entitled “Salamis” and contains a hundred very graceful verses. When Solon had sung it, his friends began to praise him, and Peisistratos in particular urged and incited the citizens to obey his words. They therefore repealed the law and renewed the war, putting Solon in command of it. Trans. B. Perrin, modified

The story current in Plutarch’s time is clearly a biographical fiction.27 The location of the so-​called herald’s stone (κήρυκος λίθος) in the Agora remains unknown, and the area in front of the Stoa Poikile where Solon’s portrait must have stood has not yet been excavated.28 All the same, it is worth suggesting that the retrospective portrait of Solon in the Athenian Agora was set up before the 330s bc with a view toward Solon’s Salamis elegy rather than Solon’s laws. The location and appearance of the portrait may have inspired the biographical tradition that Solon had recited his elegy to the Athenians assembled in the Athenian Agora, a version of the story fully developed by Plutarch’s time.29 Solon may have been represented in both the agora of Salamis and the Agora of Athens, not as lawgiver, but as a poet and the author of the Salamis elegy.

163

Rem em berin g  I nfam y

Remembering Infamy: Kylon of Athens and Epimenides of Knossos Like the portrait of Anacreon, other portraits of Archaic and fifth-​century subjects on the Athenian Acropolis, notably that of Perikles’ father Xanthippos, the Peloponnesian War strategos Phormion, and the paired portraits of the strategos Tolmides and Theainetos, could be retrospective.30 One portrait of an Archaic subject there goes against the principle of singling out individuals for their arete: Kylon, the Athenian victor in the Olympic games and son-​in-​law of the Megarian tyrant Theagenes, whose attempt to become tyrant of Athens in the late seventh century bc failed and resulted in the curse that continued to plague the Alkmeonid genos through the fifth century. Pausanias himself was bewildered to discover a portrait statue of Kylon on the Acropolis: I have no clear answer for why they dedicated a bronze statue of Kylon despite his having plotted tyranny, but I infer that it was for the following reasons: because he was exceedingly good looking and not obscure with respect to fame, having won an Olympic victory in the diaulos [double foot race] and having married the daughter of Theagenes, who was tyrant of Megara. Paus. 1.28.1

Kylon’s attempt to become tyrant of Athens is normally placed ca. 630 bc, after his Olympic victory in 640/​39.31 Herodotus (5.71) and Thucydides (1.126) tell different versions of the story, but both situate the main action in the sanctuary of Athena Polias on the Acropolis [Figure 50]; neither mentions the portrait statue. According to Herodotus, when Kylon and his supporters failed to seize the Acropolis, Kylon sought sanctuary at the agalma, presumably the wooden cult statue of Athena Polias inside the Erechtheion.The prytaneis of the naukraroi (presidents of the naval boards) convinced Kylon and his supporters to leave the agalma promising them inviolability, but reneged on their promise and killed them. Thucydides’ account is both more detailed and more precise. In Thucydides’ version, the siege was supervised by the nine archons, and both Kylon and his brother escaped; Kylon’s remaining supporters sought asylum as suppliants at the altar of Athena, not the statue. These suppliants were deceived and killed, some of them at the altars of the Semnai Theai, the “reverend goddesses” or Erinyes, probably the same as the Eumenides worshipped between the Acropolis and the Areopagus from at least the fifth century onward. Both the men who killed the suppliants and their families were accursed as a result of the killing; as becomes clear elsewhere in Herodotus’ and Thucydides’ histories, the curse fell specifically upon the Alkmeonid genos and its leader Megakles.32 The portrait of Kylon has most often been explained as expiating the pollution incurred by the murder of suppliants, much like the two portraits of

163

164

164

Retrospecti ve P ortraits as Historica l D ocu ments

the fifth-​century Spartan regent Pausanias set up in the sanctuary of Athena Chalkioikos in Sparta.33 Yet, in order for such an expiatory portrait on the Acropolis to make sense, Kylon himself would need to have been killed as a suppliant on the Acropolis, and Thucydides claims that Kylon escaped.34 A more serious problem is the date of the statue. Since a bronze portrait is unlikely to have survived the Persian sack of the Acropolis in 480 bc, the statue seen by Pausanias must either be a post-​480 replacement, or a monument of the Classical period or later. The same chronological objection applies if Kylon’s portrait was in fact an athletic victor portrait rather than an expiatory one. The figure that some literary sources mention in connection with the purification of Athens after the Kylonian conspiracy is Epimenides of Knossos in Crete, a religious expert and exegete. His place in the historical narrative of early Athens was the subject of disagreement: Herodotus and Thucydides do not mention him at all; both the Ath. Pol. and Plutarch (Sol. 12.7–​9; cf. Conv. sept. sap. 157f–​158a) date his purification of Athens a generation after Kylon, in the time of Solon in the 590s bc.35 Plato (Laws 1.642d4–​e4), chronologically the earliest source to connect Epimenides with Athens, places his purification of the city nearly 100 years later, around the time of the conflict between the Alcmeonid Kleisthenes and Isagoras at the end of the Peisistratid tyranny in 510, when the Spartan king Kleomenes staged an intervention on the pretext of expelling the accursed from Athens (Hdt. 5.66–​76). In either case, Epimenides’ purification of Athens from the Kylonian blood pollution, the likely occasion for setting up an expiatory portrait, took place before 480 bc. There is no obvious post-​480 occasion, religious or otherwise, for dedicating a portrait of Kylon on the Acropolis. As it turns out, there was also a portrait of Epimenides of Knossos in Athens in Pausanias’ time, specifically in the City Eleusinion, the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore located north of the Acropolis and northeast of the Areopagus [Figure 50]: In front of this temple, where the statue of Triptolemos is too, is a bronze bull as if being led to sacrifice, and there is a seated figure of Epimenides of Knossos, who they say went to the countryside, entered a cave and slept. And the sleep did not leave him before the fortieth year had passed, and later he wrote poetry and purified Athens and other cities. Paus. 1.14.4

In addition to ridding Athens and other cities of pollution, by the Roman period Epimenides had become a quasi-​legendary, shaman-​like figure capable of supernatural feats, much like Aristeas of Proconnesos; like Aristeas, Epimenides too was credited with epic poetry that seems to date to the fourth century bc.36 The fact that Epimenides’ portrait depicted him seated, and the statue’s location in front of the temple of Triptolemos, a building built in the

165

Priestess Chrysis in the A r gi ve Heraion

mid-​fifth century bc (ca. 480–​450), taken together point to a retrospective portrait of the fourth century or later.37 The portrait of Epimenides in the City Eleusinion represented him as a seated poet in the early Hellenistic mode, while at the same time reminding viewers of his association with Athens in the Archaic period. But what of Kylon’s portrait on the Acropolis? I would explain it as a retrospective portrait of the fourth century or later. The locations of the portraits of Kylon and Epimenides helped to articulate the topography of the Kylonian episode. Pausanias mentions the portrait of Kylon just as he finishes his loop stretching from the eastern entrance of the Erechtheion, along the northern side of the building, ending up at Pheidias’ colossal bronze Athena Promachos located west of the Erechtheion. Though not particularly close to either the cult statue or the altar of Athena Polias that figure in the story of Kylon’s supplication on the Acropolis, the portrait may have looked toward the Areopagus and the area just to the east of it where the altars of the Semnai Theai (Eumenides) were located from at least the 470s bc onward.The portrait of Epimenides in front of the temple of Triptolemos in the City Eleusinion in turn looked southward toward the Areopagus, the altars of the Semnai Theai, and the northern half of the Acropolis where the Kylon statue stood. Though Diane Harris-​Cline has argued that the historical accounts of the Kylonian conspiracy, dating to the second half of the fifth century and later, misunderstand the topography of late seventh-​century Athens, what matters for the later commemoration of these events is not where they really took place, but where sources of the fifth century and later thought they had taken place.38 The imagined topography took root in the fifth century and was then reinforced by the portraits of Kylon and Epimenides, to the extent that Diogenes Laertius in the third century ad, in his biographical sketch of Epimenides (Diog. Laert. 1.109–​11), claimed that the sanctuary of the Semnai Theai had been founded on the Areopagus by Epimenides himself in the course of his purification of Athens. The portraits of Kylon on the Acropolis and Epimenides down below in the City Eleusinion provided what appeared to be fixed points of reference amid a civic landscape that had undergone radical changes since the late seventh century bc.

The Priestess Chrysis in the Argive Heraion Before the entrance to the late fifth-​century/​early fourth-​century bc temple of Hera in the Argive Heraion, Pausanias (2.17.3) saw a group of portraits of priestesses of Hera near a group of heroes including Orestes, whose statue seems to have been reinscribed as a portrait of Augustus.39 Pausanias noted similar rows of priestess portraits in other Greek sanctuaries, sometimes also near the entrance to the temple, and excavations have turned up late

165

166

166

Retrospecti ve P ortraits as Historica l D ocu ments

Hellenistic examples from the sanctuary of Artemis Polo on Thasos and elsewhere.40 At the very end of his account of the Heraion (2.17.7), Pausanias mentions another priestess portrait, this one representing Chrysis, the priestess who had burned down the Archaic Hera temple in 423 bc, as we know from Thucydides (4.133).Thucydides (2.2.1) says elsewhere that Chrysis served for fifty-​six and one-​half years before the temple burned down, and that she was forced to flee Argos after the fire. Pausanias was evidently impressed that, “although so great a disaster had befallen them, the Argives did not take down the statue of Chrysis; it is still in position in front of the burnt temple.” Though the portrait of Chrysis seen by Pausanias in the Argive Heraion has normally been taken at face value as a pre-​423 dedication, an alternative scenario is more compelling:  that the Argives began to dedicate honorific portraits of priestesses at some point after the rebuilding of the temple in the early fourth century, and eventually added a retrospective portrait of Chrysis near the temple she had so tragically destroyed. The portrait of Chrysis stood in front of the ruins of the burnt temple, while the later priestess portraits Pausanias saw were associated with the second Hera temple still in use in his own time [Figure 51].41 After the legendary Io, Chrysis was the most famous priestess of Argive Hera, thanks to Thucydides; the addition of her portrait would have reminded visitors of a well-​known story from the fifth-​century

51.  Plan of the Argive Heraion by C. Pfaff. The temple of the early fourth century is B on the plan; A marks the location of the original temple, burnt down by Chrysis in 423 bc. Reproduced from Pfaff 2003, plate 1, courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens

167

Portraits of P ersian War S u b jects

history of the sanctuary. The work of the late fifth-​century Greek chronographer Hellanicus on the priestesses of Argive Hera, which used the list of priestesses as a panhellenic chronographic framework, also made Chrysis relevant.42 Far from being a contemporary priestess portrait from the fifth century, then, the statue of Chrysis seen by Pausanias in the Argive Heraion can best be explained as a retrospective portrait of the fourth century or later.43

Retrospective Portraits of Persian War Subjects Just as Herodotus mentions few Greek portraits, so too there seem to have been few portraits among the monuments set up by the Greeks in the immediate aftermath of the Persian Wars of 490 and 480–​479 bc.44 Miltiades had been included along with Athena, Apollo, and the eponymous heroes of Athens in the large statue group by Pheidias at Delphi, but the prototypical Persian War dedications at Delphi and elsewhere were colossal divine images in bronze. From the fourth century through the Roman imperial period, the Persian Wars served as a focal point for intensive cultural retrospection.45 It is to these later periods that I would attribute nearly every portrait statue commemorating the events and individuals of the Persian Wars.

Skyllias and Hydna at Delphi Some portraits of Persian War-​related subjects known only from literary sources carry with them a strong suspicion of having been conceived as responses to Herodotus’ Histories, the canonical historical narrative of the Persian Wars. Pausanias (10.19.1) describes a pair of statues in front of the temple of Apollo at Delphi representing a man he calls Skyllis and his young daughter Hydna, divers originally from Scione in northern Greece who fouled the anchors of the Persian ships off the coast of Thessaly, while the Persian fleet was on its way to Salamis: Beside the portrait of Gorgias is the dedication of the Amphictyons, representing Skyllis of Scione, who, tradition says, dived into the very deepest parts of every sea. He also taught his daughter Hydna to dive. When the fleet of Xerxes was attacked by a violent storm off Mount Pelion, father and daughter completed its destruction by dragging away under the sea the anchors and any other tackle the triremes had. In return for this deed the Amphictyons dedicated portraits of Skyllis and his daughter. The statue of Hydna completed the number of the statues that Nero carried off from Delphi. Only those of the female sex who are still pure virgins dive into the sea.

Herodotus (8.8) had mentioned a Greek deserter from the Persian side whom he called Skyllias, but not his daughter Hydna, or the portraits at Delphi; by the end of the fifth century Skyllias of Scione was evidently already the focus

167

168

168

Retrospecti ve P ortraits as Historica l D ocu ments

for tales of the sorts of amazing deeds that attracted Herodotus’ attention and that warranted singling him out in the text: At this time in which they made a muster of the ships, there was in the [Persian] force Skyllias of Skione, the best diver of the men then living, who in the shipwreck that happened at Pelion saved much of the property on behalf of the Persians, but also got a lot himself. This Skyllias had it in mind even before to go over to the Greeks, but he did not have the means until that time. In what way he arrived among the Greeks I am not able to say exactly, and I am amazed if the things said are true: for it is said that having dived into the sea from Aphetai he didn’t come up for air until he arrived at Artemision, having traversed about eighty stades through the water. Even now many other implausible things are said about this man, but some true ones too; concerning this matter, my opinion is that he arrived by boat at Artemision. When he arrived, straightaway he detailed to the strategoi the shipwreck as it had happened, and told them about those of the ships sent around Euboia.

But even if the reasons for Herodotus’ interest seem clear, the justification for dedicating a portrait of Skyllias at Delphi is less so. If indeed Skyllias’ and Hydna’s portraits were set up soon after 480, they would be the earliest dedication in the sanctuary by the Amphictyony, predating by two hundred years the series of Hellenistic and Roman portraits the Amphictyons are known to have dedicated at Delphi:  their only other offerings in the Classical period were statues of Apollo.46 As a familial portrait pair, Skyllias and Hydna would also have been exceptional in the fifth century. For these reasons alone, it would make more sense to suppose that the Delphic Amphictyony chose to commemorate Skyllias and Hydna’s exploits at Cape Artemision with portrait statues in the second half of the fourth century, when they also took the initiative to set up honorific portraits of contemporary subjects. From Pausanias’ description, the portraits of Skyllias and his daughter stood in the midst of the Persian War monuments grouped just east of the temple of Apollo, near the colossal Salamis Apollo [Figure 26]. It is worth speculating about when and why the Delphic Amphictyony might have been interested in adding portraits commemorating an episode in Herodotus’ Histories to this array. I propose that the fact that Skyllias’ exploit had taken place off the coast of Thessaly was decisive. After putting an end to the Third Sacred War in 346 bc, Philip II effectively took control of Thessaly by reviving the traditional political institution of the tetrarchy and styling himself archon of all Thessaly. Philip could thus count on using Thessaly’s block of four votes on the Amphictyonic Council as justification to intervene in the Amphictyony’s internal disputes, as exemplified by the Fourth Sacred War of 340 bc. Soon after this, Philip’s Thessalian ally Daochos of Pharsalos dedicated his familial portrait group just

169

Portraits of P ersian War S u b jects

north of the temple terrace. Like the Daochos group, the portraits of Skyllias and Hydna can also be interpreted as a piece of pro-​Thessalian historical revisionism. Herodotus’ story of Skyllias seemed to show that the Thessalians and the other central Greek powers who controlled the Amphictyony at the very outset of the Hellenistic period, despite the general medizing and absenteeism which Herodotus attributed to them, really had done something to help defeat the Persians between Thermopylai and Salamis. Legitimizing the new political order brought in by Philip thus involved promoting a relatively insignificant story in Herodotus’ Histories and using it to deflect attention away from the general tenor of the narrative. By inserting Skyllias and Hydna into the commemorative space in front of the temple at Delphi, the Amphictyons claimed a larger place for themselves among the Greeks responsible for the Persian War victories.

Arimnestos of Plataia The portrait statue of Arimnestos, the general who had commanded the Plataian contingent at both Marathon in 490 and Plataia in 479 bc, which Pausanias (9.4.1–​2) saw standing next to Pheidias’ cult statue inside the temple of Athena Areia at Plataia, could potentially date within thirty years of the battle, but I would argue that circumstantial evidence favors a fourth-​century date. Pheidias’ authorship dates the cult statue of Athena (and the temple within which it stood) to the 460s or the 450s at the earliest.47 The portrait’s placement alongside an important divine image finds possible parallels as early as the second half of the fifth century, when Themistokles’ sons supposedly placed a painted portrait of him within the cella of the Parthenon, and when Pausanias claims that a portrait statue of Alcibiades was placed beside the cult statue of Hera inside the temple in the Samian Heraion (Paus. 6.3.15, 410 bc).48 The vast majority of the evidence for this type of display, however, dates to the mid-​fourth century and later.49 Simonides’ long elegy on the battle of Plataia compares the Greeks who died there to the heroes of the Trojan War, and they may have received immediate hero cult. The earliest description of the ceremonies performed at the tombs of the dead of Plataia appears in the account of Thucydides (3.58.4), writing after the destruction of Plataia by the Spartans in 427 bc. Thucydides, however, does not mention the panhellenic Eleutheria festival (the “Freedom Games”) held at Plataia.50 Roland Étienne and Marcel Pierart have argued that the games and the panhellenic koinon (council) that managed them were created only after the destruction of Thebes and the restoration of Plataia once again by Alexander in 335 bc. In the third century, the Eleutheria assumed added importance for the Greek city-​states as they became associated with the struggle against Macedonian rule.51

169

170

170

Retrospecti ve P ortraits as Historica l D ocu ments

Significantly, Arimnestos himself does not appear at all in Herodotus’ account of Marathon (6.94–​117); Herodotus mentioned him only in passing in his account of the battle at Plataia (9.72), where Arimnestos appears not as leader of the Plataian contingent, but as a seemingly random participant to whom Kallikrates, singled out by Herodotus as the most handsome of the Greeks present at the battle, uttered his last words before he died: These were the most noteworthy men at Plataia, for Kallikrates died outside the battle, he being the most beautiful of the Greeks to take part in the expedition, not only of the Lakedaimonians themselves but of the other Greeks as well. He is the one who, while Pausanias was performing the sphagia [pre-​battle animal sacrifice], was wounded in the side by an arrow while sitting in his place. And while they were fighting, he was carried away and suffered badly; he said to the Plataian Arimnestos that dying on behalf of Hellas was not a sorrow for him, but rather that he did not use his arm, and that no deed worthy of himself had been accomplished despite his eagerness.

In sharp contrast, Plutarch (Arist. 11.2–​7), making use of fourth-​century or Hellenistic sources, tells the story that Arimnestos was visited in a dream by Zeus himself, who pointed him toward a proper site for the battle ultimately accepted by Aristeides, the Athenian commander: To Pausanias and all the Hellenes under him Teisamenos the Elean made prophecy, and foretold victory for them if they acted on the defensive and did not advance to the attack. But Aristeides sent to Delphi and received from the god the response that the Athenians would be superior to their enemies if they … sustained the peril of battle on their own soil, in the plain of Eleusinian Demeter and Kore. When this oracle was reported to Aristeides, it perplexed him greatly. … At this time the strategos of the Plataians, Arimnestos, had a dream in which he thought he was accosted by Zeus Soter and asked what the Hellenes had decided to do, and replied: “Tomorrow, my Lord, we are going to lead our army back to Eleusis, and fight out our issue with the barbarians there, in accordance with the Pythian oracle”. Then the god said they were entirely in error, for the Pythian oracle’s places were there in the neighborhood of Plataia, and if they sought them they would surely find them. All this was made so vivid to Arimnestos that as soon as he awoke he summoned the oldest and most experienced of his fellow-​citizens. By conference and investigation with these he discovered that near Hysiai, at the foot of Mount Kithairon, there was a very ancient temple bearing the names of Eleusinian Demeter and Kore. Straightaway he took Aristeides and led him to the spot … And besides, that the oracle might leave no rift in the hope of victory, the Plataians voted, on the motion of Arimnestos, to remove the boundaries of Plataia on the side toward Attica, and to give this territory to the Athenians, so they might contend in defence of Hellas on their own soil, in accordance with the oracle.

171

Portraits of P ersian War S u b jects

Though Plutarch cites no specific source for this story, it clearly echoes Herodotus’ (7.140–​4) account of Themistokles’ role in the events leading up to the battle of Salamis: like Themistokles, Arimnestos resolves the problem posed by an ambiguous Delphic oracle given to the Athenians, and the solution involves the reinterpretation of a topographical reference.52 The Herodotean story about Themistokles could be the model for a later historical tradition about Arimnestos. Both the portrait statue and the dream story greatly amplify the role played by Arimnestos and the Plataians, and one wonders whether Arimnestos’ portrait was set up in the later fourth century, when the Eleutheria (even if they had been founded already in the fifth century) became far more significant. The contrast between the meager role played by Arimnestos in Herodotus and Plutarch’s later treatment of him reinforces the supposition that Arimnestos’ portrait was retrospective: the portrait statue helps to fill a gap in Herodotus’ account of the battle of Plataia, and its placement at the foot of Pheidias’ colossal cult statue of Athena Areia seems to assert the primacy of the Plataians themselves in the events of 479 bc.

Portraits of Miltiades and Themistokles in Athens A portrait of Miltiades was included in Pheidias’ large statue group at Delphi (Paus. 10.10.1), but we know of no contemporary, fifth-​century portrait statues of Miltiades in Athens. He had been included as a recognizable participant, along with the polemarch Kallimachos and Aeschylus’ brother Kynegeiros, in the Marathon painting in the Stoa Poikile. In his speech of ca. 330 bc against Ktesiphon (Ctes. 186), Aeschines claimed that the Athenians had refused to allow Miltiades to inscribe his name on the painting. As Krumeich notes, the point here is surely that Miltiades and other fifth-​century generals were not singled out individually in the dedicatory inscriptions on public monuments such as the Stoa Poikile and its paintings.53 Two other portraits of Miltiades in Athens known from literary sources paired him with Themistokles, a fact that in and of itself strongly suggests that the portraits were retrospective. A mid-​second century ad scholion to Aristeides 3.154 (Dindorf pp. 535–​6), contemporary with Pausanias, describes portraits of Miltiades and Themistokles in a group with two captured Persian prisoners somewhere in the Theater of Dionysos.54 Though victory monuments combining images of the victors with the vanquished go back at least as far as the Persianomachy dedicated by the Attalid kings of Pergamon on the Acropolis, dated by Andrew Stewart to ca. 200–​197 bc, sculptures of fallen barbarians were typical of the Roman imperial period.55 The portraits of the Persian general Mardonios, Queen Artemisia of Halicarnassus, and other Persian War figures seen by Pausanias in the Persian Stoa in the agora of Sparta (Paus. 3.11.3;

171

172

172

Retrospecti ve P ortraits as Historica l D ocu ments

Vitruvius 1.1.6) could date to a remodeling of the building in the Augustan period.56 An earlier, but still retrospective, pairing of portraits of Miltiades and Themistokles was to be found in the Athenian Prytaneion, located somewhere north of the Acropolis. This is one of very few instances in which Pausanias explicitly calls attention to the reinscription of earlier portraits with the names of new subjects: “They [the Athenians] reinscribed the portraits of Miltiades and Themistokles for a Thracian and a Roman, respectively” (Paus. 1.18.3). Though Pausanias mentions the fact of reinscription, he withholds the names of the new subjects for whom the portraits of Miltiades and Themistokles were reinscribed as a show of disapproval. In a brilliant hypothesis that still stands, Louis Robert suggested the Thracian king Rhoimetalkes III (eponymous archon of Athens in ad 36/​7 or 37/​8) and Gaius Julius Nicanor, an Augustan-​period benefactor of the Athenians from Hierapolis in Syria hailed as the “new Themistokles” in inscriptions found in Athens.57 For our purposes in this chapter, the more important question is the portraits’ original date of manufacture.The portraits in the Prytaneion other than those of Miltiades and Themistokles all seem to date to the fourth or early third century; it is unlikely that the portraits of Miltiades and Themistokles in the Prytaneion date earlier than this. Zanker and others have connected the Prytaneion portrait of Miltiades and a Roman marble herm portrait in Ravenna, which depicts Miltiades not as a helmeted strategos, but wearing the himation of the good citizen.58 The portraits of Miltiades and Themistokles may either have been manufactured at the same time as a pair or brought together in the Prytaneion at a late date.59

Themistokles’ Portrait in the Sanctuary of Artemis Aristoboule in Athens I have already discussed the portrait herm of Themistokles from Ostia [Figure 2]. The Ostia Themistokles exemplifies the tyranny of the Roman marble copy: once we have it, we must look for a fifth-​century original to explain its existence. The date of ca. 480–​470 bc that most scholars assign to the lost bronze original behind the Ostia herm further narrows the field of inquiry. The portrait most often associated with the Ostia herm is one described by Plutarch in his life of Themistokles inside the temple of Artemis Aristoboule in Athens. One serious objection to identifying the Ostia herm as a copy of a portrait that Themistokles himself dedicated in Athens is that it lacks a helmet: Plutarch’s description of the portrait in the temple of Artemis Aristoboule as “heroic” in appearance may imply a representation of Themistokles as a helmeted warrior, depicted “nude with weapons,” either standing at rest or in an action pose.60 This small sanctuary was discovered and excavated in the early 1960s [Figure 50], and no trace of either a portrait statue of Themistokles or the inscription for such a portrait was found.61 As the archaeological remains

173

Portraits of P ersian War S u b jects

make clear, though cult activity began on the site soon after 480 bc, the temple itself was destroyed and lay in ruins until it was rebuilt in ca. 330 on the private initiative of Neoptolemos of Melite, a political associate of Lycurgus.62 The destruction and subsequent rebuilding of the Artemis Aristoboule temple make it unlikely that the eikonion of Themistokles that stood inside the building in Plutarch’s time was a contemporary, fifth-​century portrait. In truth, though the eikonion of Themistokles has usually been assumed to be a small statue, the diminutive is uncommon and could signify a painted portrait, something like the painting of Themistokles dedicated in the Parthenon by his sons after his death in ca. 459 (Paus. 1.1.2).63 A retrospective portrait of the Lycurgan period, whether statue or painting, would be perfectly at home in the sanctuary as a dedication by Neoptolemos or the demesmen of Melite, a reminder of the sanctuary’s founder. As a later dedication in the sanctuary by an Athenian archon of 290/​89 bc (IG II2 4658 = SEG XLIX 190; cf. CEG 2 784) shows, in the early Hellenistic period the cult and temple of Artemis Aristoboule founded by Themistokles were strongly associated with the fifth-​ century glory days of the Athenian democracy as the Athenians struggled to shake off Macedonian rule.64 But apart from the portrait of Themistokles in the sanctuary of Artemis Aristoboule, there are other possible contemporary portraits of Themistokles in Athens.65 The evidence that Themistokles himself founded at least one other sanctuary before his exile from Athens is indirect, but suggestive. Konon, who after his naval victory in 394 bc seems to have imitated Themistokles’ example, founded a sanctuary of Aphrodite Euploia in the Piraeus (Paus. 1.1.3).66 A fragmentary Athenian inscription of the Augustan period (IG II2 1035, line 45), listing up to eighty sanctuaries restored by the Athenians, includes one for a goddess (Artemis or Athena?) in the Piraeus founded by Themistokles before the battle of Salamis.67 Themistokles may have dedicated a portrait of himself in return for having been saved by the gods, either in an established sanctuary or one he had founded himself. The portrait statue of Themistokles that stood in the agora of Magnesia on the Maeander in Asia Minor, where he was installed as governor by the Persian king Artaxerxes in 464 and where he remained until his death in 459 bc, is represented on a series of Magnesian coins of the Antonine period, one of them illustrated in the Introduction [Figure 4].Thucydides (1.138) refers to a memorial (μνημεῖον) for Themistokles at Magnesia, but not specifically to a portrait; other sources (Diod. Sic. 11.58 and Plut. Them. 32.3) call this Themistokles’ grave, though it was widely believed after the fifth century that Themistokles’ sons had secretly transferred his remains to the Piraeus for burial (Plut. Them. 32.4; Ael. NA 6.15  =  569b). Only the Roman historian Cornelius Nepos (Them. 10.3) mentions a statue. But already in the fifth century, Aristophanes (Eq. line 83: 424 bc) had referred to the death of Themistokles by drinking

173

174

174

Retrospecti ve P ortraits as Historica l D ocu ments

bull’s blood, a story repeated by the sources of the Roman imperial period. This story may in fact have been inspired by the unusual iconography of the Magnesia portrait, which showed Themistokles sacrificing a bull:  if so, then the statue must date to the fifth century and be identical with the memorial mentioned by Thucydides.68 The Magnesia portrait represented Themistokles as oikist and cultic hero, and its appearance (with long hair) seems to disqualify it as the original behind the Ostia herm.

The Themistokles Decree and the Athenian Women and Children at Troizen A group of supposed Persian War portraits in Troizen in the eastern Argolid has attracted far less attention than the Ostia portrait herm of Themistokles, but they are worth discussing in relation to the Themistokles decree (ML 23), a retrospective document that constitutes one of the most important epigraphical discoveries of the twentieth century. Found near the agora of ancient Troizen and published by Michael Jameson in 1960, the Themistokles decree purports to be a decree passed by the Athenian Boule and Ekklesia, proposed by Themistokles himself, concerning the Athenian preparations to fight the Persians by sea in 480 bc.69 It has always been clear, however, that the inscribed stele itself dates to the early Hellenistic period.Though Jameson initially favored a connection with the Lamian War of 323–​322 bc, the current scholarly consensus places the stele as late as the mid-​third century bc.70 Habicht grouped the decree together with other Athenian retrospective documents that make their first appearance in Athenian oratory of the 340s bc.71 The most important element of the Themistokles decree for our purposes is the decision to evacuate women and children from Athens to Troizen (lines 6–​8), a provision that seems to explain why the Troizenians of the early Hellenistic period displayed the decree in the first place:                    Ἀθηναίου-​ [ς δ’ ἅπ]α̣[ντας καὶ τοὺς ξένο]υς τοὺς οἰκοῦντας Ἀθήνησι [τὰ τέκ]ν[α καὶ τὰς γυναῖκ]α̣ς̣ ε[ὶς] Τροιζῆνα καταθέσθαι … The Athenians themselves and the foreigners who live in Athens are to send their children and women to safety in Troizen … Trans. Jameson 1963, 38672

The Themistokles decree was reportedly discovered near the church of Hagia Sotira, built just north of the remains of the ancient agora of Troizen, which has only been partially excavated.73 Gabriel Welter, writing before the decree’s publication, used Pausanias’ account (2.31.1–​8) to reconstruct the northern end of the agora of Troizen, the part closest to the later church of Hagia Sotira where the stele was found [Figure 52]. Here Pausanias mentions

175

Portraits of P ersian War S u b jects

52.  Reconstruction of the agora of Troizen as described by Pausanias. The possible location for the statues of women and children mentioned by Pausanias is the stoa marked 7. Reproduced from Welter 1941, 16, by permission of Gebr. Mann

sanctuaries of both Artemis Soteira and Apollo Thearios; other inscribed decrees found in Troizen (e.g. IG IV 755, third century bc) specify that they were to be set up in the latter.74 Inside a stoa that Welter reconstructed as marking out the boundary of the agora, between the temple of Artemis Soteira and the temple of Apollo Thearios, Pausanias reported seeing the following: There stand in a stoa in the agora women; both they and the children are made of stone. These are the women and children whom the Athenians gave to the Troizenians for safekeeping, when they chose to leave behind the city and not to await the Persian invader with infantry. They are said to have dedicated portraits not of all the women –​for indeed there are not many –​but only of those women who were of high rank. (Paus. 2.31.7)

Neither the statues described by Pausanias nor inscribed bases for them were found in the German excavations of the site in the early twentieth century.Though some scholars have taken these statues at face value as contemporary portraits of Athenian women and children dating soon after 480 bc, others have wondered whether they might be retrospective portraits contemporary with, and displayed in connection with, the Themistokles decree.75 Two factors strongly suggest that this group of portraits dates later than the fifth century. The use of marble for portrait statues, though attested in the fourth century, became more common in the Hellenistic period, when we find rows of marble portraits standing both inside buildings and outdoors in Greek sanctuaries and agoras.76 Second, with a few notable exceptions, including boy victors

175

176

176

Retrospecti ve P ortraits as Historica l D ocu ments

in the Olympic games and the chorus boys of Sicilian Messene at Olympia, portraits of children are not attested until the end of the fifth century. After the Geneleos group of the mid-​sixth century, statues representing children on their own or with their parents reappear in the fourth century in the Asklepieion at Epidauros. The row of marble portraits of women and children Pausanias describes simply finds no parallel in the fifth century bc. I see two distinct possibilities for interpreting the portraits of women and children at Troizen. The first is that these were retrospective portraits, set up in the early Hellenistic period as adjuncts, and reinforcers, of the Themistokles decree displayed somewhere nearby. In this scenario, it remains an open question whether the Athenians themselves or the people of Troizen took the initiative and footed the bill for such an elaborate display.77 As we have seen, a possible parallel for this sort of mutually reinforcing combination of a retrospective inscribed document with a retrospective portrait statue is the portrait of Kallias displayed in the Athenian Agora with an inscribed copy of the peace of Kallias, both dating after the establishment of the cult of Peace in Athens. The second possibility is that, whatever they were and whomever they in fact represented, Pausanias’ local guides at Troizen explained the statues of women and children inside the stoa in the agora at Troizen as monuments commemorating Troizen’s role in the Persian Wars. Pausanias’ lengthy account of  Troizen (Paus. 2.30.5–​32.10) was colored to an extraordinary extent by the oral testimony of local informants. The Troizenians of his own day, whom Pausanias characterizes as exulting in their own local history (σεμνύνοντες εἴπερ καὶ ἄλλοι τινὲς τὰ ἐγχώρια), attributed the foundation of not only their city, but also their cults, to legendary heroes. For example, according to Pausanias (2.31.1), they claimed that Theseus, the grandson of Pittheus the founder of Troizen, founded the cult of Artemis Soteira and gave her the epithet “Savior” after his slaying of the Minotaur and his subsequent return from Knossos. In addition to Pittheus and Theseus, Hippolytos, Herakles, Orestes, and Diomedes also figure prominently in the local traditions of Troizen as recounted to Pausanias by his informants: they even identified a statue which Pausanias recognized as an Asklepios made by the fourth-​century sculptor Timotheos, whose work is attested at nearby Epidauros, as a representation of Hippolytos (Paus. 2.32.4). The local historical perspective documented by Pausanias at Troizen strongly resembles the phenomenon of “national time” observed in modern Greece and elsewhere by present-​day anthropologists: historical reconstructions driven by a sense of national identity begin with the distant past and end with recent events, completely eliding the centuries in between.78 In light of the Troizenians’ tendentious interpretations of their own history, it seems possible that a group of Hellenistic marble portrait statues of women and children were retrojected by the Troizenians themselves back to

177

Portraits of P ersian War S u b jects

the Persian Wars. The connection may have been encouraged by the statues’ location or proximity to the stele inscribed with the Themistokles decree; Pausanias himself may have believed that the statues were older than they really were. Welter suggested that the women and children in the agora of Troizen were in fact dedications to Artemis Soteira misidentified either by Pausanias or by his informants.79 Artemis Soteira, like Artemis Eileithyia and Artemis Brauronia elsewhere, may have been worshipped at Troizen as a savior of women in childbirth and their children. If this is the case, the portraits may belong to the later Hellenistic period, with no intrinsic connection to the Themistokles decree.

Maiandrios in the Samian Heraion: Remembering Samians and Forgetting Athenians The portrait of Maiandrios in the Samian Heraion is the most certain example of a retrospective Persian War portrait; the evidence is epigraphical, and neither the portrait nor its subject are mentioned by any literary source. A fragmentary statue base found in the Heraion (IG XII 6 1 278: Figures 53 and 54) is inscribed with four partially preserved elegiac couplets, arranged in two pairs, naming and celebrating a Samian named Maiandrios, credited with capturing or sinking Persian ships at the battle of the Eurymedon: II:  [προὔμαχε τῶν Σαμίων] Μαιάνδριος, εὖτ’ ἐπὶ καλῶι| ἐστήσαντο μάχην Εὐρυμέδο[ντ-​] [παῖς? –​. οὗτος ἀριστ]εύσας γὰρ ἐκείνηι| ναυμαχίηι πάντων κλέος ἔθετ’ ἀθάν̣[ατον.] I: [δώδεκα νῆας ἕλεν Μαιάν]δ̣ριος, ὧν ἀπ’ ἑκάστης| ἀσπὶς πρύμναν ἔχει χείρ τ’ ὑποδεξ[αμένη.] [τὰς δὲ βαθὺς τηλεκλε]ιτὰς ὑπεδέξατο πόντος| κρυφθείσας Μήδων συμμαχ̣[ίδας ψαμάθωι]. II. [  –​] Maiandrios, when [the Samians] offered battle at the fine Eurymedon [ –​ ] [  –​] having distinguished himself in that naval battle, established undying honor. I. Maiandrios [took –​ships], of which from each one his shield keeps the stern, and his hand displays… [ –​] the sea received the allies of the Medes [ –​ ].

In about 466 bc, the Athenian Kimon had led an Athenian naval contingent down the coast of Asia Minor; when they got to the mouth of the Eurymedon river in Pamphylia, the Athenians and their allies –​none of the historical sources mentions any Samians among them –​fought on both land

177

178

178

Retrospecti ve P ortraits as Historica l D ocu ments

53.  Base for the portrait of Maiandrios, Samian Heraion: front, showing the two inscribed epigrams of ca. 300 bc. Photo: author. Reproduced by permission of the DAI Athens

54.  Base for the portrait of Maiandrios:  view of the top showing the original fifth-​century inscribed name list. Photo: author. Reproduced by permission of the DAI Athens

and sea against an unprepared Persian force (Thuc. 1.100.1; Diod. Sic. 11.61–​2; Plut. Cim. 12–​13).80 Afterwards, Kimon pursued and routed the Phoenician ships coming to reinforce the Persians, and the Athenians commemorated their victories at the Eurymedon by dedicating a golden Palladion standing atop a bronze palm tree at Delphi (Paus. 10.15.4–​5; Plut. Nic. 13.3; Plut. De Pyth. or. 8.397–​8).81

179

Portraits of P ersian War S u b jects

When taken together, several features of the Samian monument make it clear that the portrait of Maiandrios is retrospective. First of all, the lettering of the epigrams places them in ca. 300 bc or slightly later, contemporary with the honorific decrees and portraits that followed the restoration of Samian self-​rule in 321. Second, the remains of an earlier inscription show that the extant base block is reused, and that this block was originally inscribed in the first half of the fifth century bc with a list (IG XII 6 1 277) of the names and patronymics of a group of Samian men. The block upon which these names were inscribed in the fifth century was flipped on its side, with the result that the original name list appears –​with no attempt at erasure –​on the top surface of the block. If an original fifth-​century portrait statue of Maiandrios were simply restored or reset on its base in the early Hellenistic period, as both Gauer and Dunst suggested, we would not expect a fifth-​century inscription to be treated in this fashion.82 The reuse of material evidence from the period of the Persian Wars in a retrospective Persian War monument authenticates the Samian contribution in a way that an entirely new monument would not have done. I am therefore inclined to believe that the earlier inscription was intentionally preserved and respected by its reuse. A complicating factor is the impossibility of reconstructing the base as a whole from the small fragment that survives. There are no dowels for the feet of Maiandrios’ portrait, and it could be that this fragment served as part of a complex base composed of multiple blocks. To explain the reuse of an earlier monument to support Maiandrios’ portrait, I  find the following sequence of events most convincing. The fifth-​century name list may in fact be a catalogue of Samians who distinguished themselves at either Mykale in 479 or the Eurymedon in ca. 466 bc, the only two engagements of the Persian Wars in which the Samians took part on the Greek side. Since a Samian naval contingent had fought on the Persian side at Salamis in 480, a public monument commemorating Samian participation on the Greek side at Mykale two years later would have helped to obliterate the memory of the Samians’ earlier medizing. Or, if the catalogue lists individuals connected with the battle of the Eurymedon, then it may even have included the name of Maiandrios, in which case the block’s later reuse in a retrospective monument to the Eurymedon becomes even more significant. The block inscribed with this list of names may have been damaged at some point between the 460s and ca. 300 bc. In ca. 300 or soon after, the restored Samian government decided to commemorate the Samian contribution against the Persians at the Eurymedon with a portrait of Maiandrios, an individual remembered as a hero of the battle for his capture or destruction of Persian ships.83 Klaus Hallof suggests that when the monument to Maiandrios was initially set up, only one pair of elegiac couplets –​the pair lower down on the inscribed front face of the block –​was included.These verses seem to tell the viewer that Maiandrios’

179

180

180

Retrospecti ve P ortraits as Historica l D ocu ments

portrait held a shield which had on it prumnai, the curving sterns of a trireme also called aphlasta, equal to the number of ships captured or destroyed in the naval battle, and that Maiandrios held another of these in his hand. The lost statue’s iconography thus parallels that of one of the collective Persian War monuments set up by the Greeks soon after 479 bc, namely the colossal bronze Salamis Apollo at Delphi: according to Herodotus 8.121, this Apollo held the akrothinion or prow of a trireme in its hand. Soon after Maiandrios’ portrait was set up, a second pair of elegiac couplets praising Maiandrios was inscribed by the same hand just above the first pair. Already in the fifth century, the Samians had attempted to reshape the memory of their ambiguous role in the Persian Wars through public monuments. Herodotus (6.14) mentions a column in the agora of Samos town inscribed with the names of the captains of eleven Samian triremes who fought against the Persian fleet at the battle of Lade during the Ionian revolt of 494 bc. This monument must date after the Samians had collectively switched to the Greek side at Mykale in 479.84 An incident narrated elsewhere by Herodotus opens up the possibility of yet another Samian public monument listing the names of the few Samians who had opposed the Persians from the beginning. According to Herodotus (9.89), three Samian aristocrats made a private embassy to the Spartan king Leotychidas on Delos urging him to liberate Ionia, which Herodotus claims was the impetus behind the Mykale campaign of 479 bc. Herodotus’ knowledge of both the names and patronymics of these Samians suggests that he saw them inscribed on a monument on Samos, possibly also in the agora.85 Finally, on the temple terrace at Delphi, where the Greeks collectively had dedicated the colossal bronze Apollo to commemorate the victory at Salamis [Figure 26], the Samians dedicated their own lifesize bronze Apollo (FdD III 4 455) inscribed simply Σάμιοι/​τὠπόλλονι (The Samians [dedicated] to Apollo).86 The form and location of the monument encouraged an association with the entire campaign against the Persians, which the Samians were late to join. The retrospective portrait of the fifth-​century naval commander Maiandrios, shown armed with a shield and holding the aphlaston of a captured ship, would have resonated with both contemporary portrait practices and with its setting in the Samian Heraion.87 The fifth-​century portrait of the Samian Hegesagoras, discussed in Chapter 3, commemorated the same series of events and might still have been standing in the sanctuary. By suddenly remembering Maiandrios, the Samians were in effect forgetting Kimon and the Athenians, while converting the late and ambiguous Samian role in the Greek victory over the Persians into a major contribution. We can find no clearer illustration of the portrait culture of the late fourth century than the redeployment of a fifth-​century monument 150 years later as the base for a retrospective portrait

181

Conclusion

that focalizes memory of the naval battle of the Eurymedon in the person of an individual.

Conclusion Retrospective portrait monuments constituted an important part of the production of Greek portraits in the fifth and fourth centuries bc. The Greeks’ versions of their own Archaic and Classical history were shaped by such portraits, as surely as the statues of Harmodios and Aristogeiton in the Athenian Agora shaped Athenian memory of the beginnings of the democracy. Some individuals were remembered with portraits to help forget others. Some of the portraits examined in this chapter speak to a desire to leave markers where important historical events had taken place. Some served as reminders of literary figures and their works, laying claims to the memory of authors such as Anacreon of Teos by their locations. Retrospective portraits of Miltiades, Themistokles, and other subjects aimed to fill perceived gaps in the historical memory of the Persian Wars of 490–​479 bc. They either reinforced the authority of written documents, both historiographic narratives and documents inscribed on stone, or challenged them by promoting the memory of individuals passed over in canonical fifth-​ century texts such as Herodotus’ Histories. Placing a retrospective portrait in a particular location often furthered local interests. Though this chapter has focused on the phenomena of cultural retrospection and memory in fourth-​ century Greece, the story does not end there. Throughout the Hellenistic and Roman imperial periods, the production of portraits representing the Greeks of the Archaic and Classical periods continued; so did the reuse and reinterpretation of portraits from the Greek past.

181

182

5

EARLY GREEK PORTRAITS UNDER ROMAN RULE: REMOVAL, RENEWAL, REUSE, AND REINSCRIPTION

If, for instance, it is considered an outrage to place any man of the present day beside any of the ancients, how much more of an outrage is it to deprive, as you are doing, an ancient of his honour for the purpose of bestowing it upon another? And if the inscribing of one person’s name over that of another and a much inferior person brings so great condemnation, completely to erase and remove the name of the better man, if it so happens –​in what sort of light do you think this act appears? Dio Chrysostom 31.124, on the reinscription of portrait statues at Rhodes (trans. J. W. Cohoon)

Why does a book about early Greek portraiture conclude with a chapter on Roman Greece? The histories of Archaic and Classical Greek portraits continued on after the Classical period. Even when they survived unaltered in their original settings, their testimony was contingent upon the attitudes and desires of much later observers. The imposition of a shared identity upon the Greeks by Rome engendered an enhanced consciousness of Greekness, as well as a veritable obsession with local history and local identity.1 Greek sanctuaries especially were places where surviving material evidence of the Greek past could be found and used to bolster historical narratives that provided the Greeks under Roman rule with a usable past, a distinctive local history that made the case for their continuing importance. Despite the extensive interest in Roman Greece in recent scholarship, the material evidence for the renewal of sanctuary dedications, statue removal, and portrait reinscription examined in this chapter has largely been passed

182

183

Ear ly Greek P ortraits under R o m an  R u l e

over in discussions of Greece under Roman rule. Surviving statue bases from portraits of the sixth, fifth, and fourth centuries bc constitute valuable historical documents in themselves:  some bear so many signs of reuse in later periods that they resemble palimpsests.2 If such traces remain visible to us, often they were also visible to ancient viewers, both Greek and Roman, raising important questions about the motives behind reuse in addition to its modalities. The copying of Greek portrait statues on behalf of Roman patrons, both those that represented famous subjects and those that remain anonymous to us, represents only one of the many possible afterlives of early Greek portraits; paradoxically, it is still the one we know the most about. What happened to the originals? Pausanias saw Greek portrait statues of the Classical period, and even a handful of Archaic ones, still standing at Olympia, at Delphi, and on the Athenian Acropolis.3 Other early portraits in mainland Greece, the islands, and coastal Asia Minor experienced different forms of afterlife to be examined more closely in this chapter: the removal of bronze originals and the reuse of their bases for other purposes; the renewal of statue base inscriptions and the addition of new inscriptions to the same monument; and the reidentification of surviving Greek portrait statues with the names of new portrait subjects. Though there are examples of statue removal and monument renewal dating as early as the fifth century bc and as late as the third century ad, I will concentrate here on the period from ca. 86 bc through the end of the Julio-​Claudian dynasty in ad 68. The period in question comes after the Roman conquest of the Peloponnese and central Greece by L. Mummius in 146 bc and the formation of the Roman province of Achaea, and begins with the victory of Sulla over the revolt of Mithridates VI of Pontus and Sulla’s subsequent depredations in Athens and the Peloponnese in 86 bc.4 As has long been noted, these events ushered in a period of weak economies, neglect, and isolation for the sanctuaries of mainland Greece. Though the Augustan period in Greece has increasingly been seen as one of cultural and economic revival, this and the reigns of Augustus’ Julio-​Claudian successors, in addition to statue removals by Gaius (Caligula) and Nero, also saw the extensive appropriation of older statues and buildings in sanctuaries for new purposes.5 Apart from claims of extensive statue removals by Nero and Dio Chrysostom’s Oration 31, which concerns the reinscription of portraits by the Rhodians, the phenomena described in this chapter seem to have left little echo in the literature of the Second Sophistic. Given his interest in recapturing an idealized Greek past, it is understandable that Pausanias seldom chose to mention the empty bases left behind by statue removals and the reinscription of earlier Greek portraits. The evidence of statue bases helps to fill this gap.

183

184

184

Ear ly Gree k P ortraits under R o man   Ru l e

Evidence for the Removal of Portraits Some early Greek portrait statues were removed from their original locations in cities and sanctuaries beginning at a relatively early date. A series of statue bases of ca. 200 bc from Pergamon (IvPergamon 48–​50 and 135–​40), inscribed with the names of Classical sculptors (Onatas of Aegina, Myron of Eleutherai, and Praxiteles), attest to the removal of bronze statues from their original settings and their subsequent public display as prized works of art.6 As the Romans conquered the eastern Mediterranean, statue removals on a much larger scale ensued: in some cases, Greek statues were carried off as war booty, and in others as works of art or objects of commercial value.7 When we look at the literary testimonia for Greek statues taken to Rome and Italy in the late Republic and the early imperial period, the vast majority of them concern divine images, with very few explicit mentions of portrait statues.8 Notable exceptions are the portraits of Alcibiades and Pythagoras in the Comitium in Rome (Pliny HN 34.26), allegedly brought to Rome during the Samnite War of 343–​290 bc; the portrait of the girl diver Hydna removed from Delphi by Nero (Paus. 10.19.1); and the so-​called “turma Alexandri” from Dion, Alexander’s dedication of bronze portraits of the twenty-​five cavalry companions killed at the Graneikos river in 334 bc, brought to Rome by Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus soon after 146 bc and installed in the complex later rededicated as the Porticus Octaviae (Cic. Verr. 4.4.126; Pliny HN 34.64).9 Here we see a disconnect between the literary sources, which mention very few of the portraits in Rome’s public collections of Greek sculpture, and the bases for collected Greek originals discovered in Rome and its environs. Excavations at Ostia have produced three late Hellenistic statue bases that supported Greek bronze statues of the Classical period brought to Italy from somewhere in the Greek world, probably as war booty. At least two of these statues, their subjects identified by name labels in Greek, were portraits: the comic poet Plato made by a Classical sculptor named Lysikles, and the philosopher Antisthenes made by Phyromachos.10 In Rome itself, bases for looted Greek portraits of the Classical and early Hellenistic periods have been found, both individually and in series. These can be recognized by the presence of signatures naming sculptors such as Leochares, Lysippos, and Sthennis of Olynthos. As we can see from these portraits’ name labels, the subjects ranged from fourth-​century Athenian strategoi (Konon’s son Timotheos, IGB 482) and priests (Charmides, made by Leochares, IGUR IV 1572), to politicians and philosophers (the orator Hyperides, IGB 483; Dio of Ephesos by Sthennis, IGB 481), to Alexander’s successors (Seleukos I  by Lysippos, IGB 487), to unknown men and women (Lysis the Milesian woman by Demokritos, IGB 484).11 Eugenio LaRocca associates another five statue bases (SEG LI 1442–​4)

185

The Reinscription of Gree k P ortrait S tatues

Table 2.  Literary Sources for Statue Removals from Greek Sanctuaries, ca. 88 bc to ad 68 Site

Description

Sources

Athenian  Acropolis Delos

Sulla (86 bc)  Nero Mithridates (88 bc)  G.Verres (80 bc)  pirates (69 bc) Sulla (87 bc)  Nero (500 bronze statues)

App. Mith. 39–​40; cf. Plut. Sull. 14.7  Dio Chrys. Or. 31.148 App. Mith. 28; Strabo 10.5.4; Paus. 3.23.3–​4  Cic. Verr. 2.4.71, 2.5.185  Phlegon of Tralles (FGrH 257 F12) Diod. Sic. 38.7; Plut. Sull. 12.4–​6;  Paus. 9.7.5; cf. Strabo 9.3.4, 8 (C 419–​20)  Paus. 10.7.1 Diod. Sic. 38.7; Plut. Sull. 12.3; Paus. 9.7.5–​6  Plut. Pomp. 24.5 (cf. Livy 45.28.3: Sulla or pirates) Diod. Sic. 38.7; Plut. Sull. 12.3; Paus. 9.7.5  Paus. 5.25.8–​9 and 5.26.3–​4 App. Mith. 63  Cic. Verr. 2.1.50, 61; 2.4.71; 2.5.127, 184  Plut. Pomp. 24.5

Delphi Epidauros

Sulla (86 bc?)  pirates (pre-​67 bc)

Olympia

Sulla (87 bc)  Nero pirates (84 bc)  G.Verres (80 bc)  pirates (pre-​67 bc)

Samos

inscribed in Greek with the names of their subjects and their sculptors (Polykleitos, Leochares, Praxiteles, Kephisodotos, and Parthenokles) with renovations following a fire that destroyed the Temple of Peace in Rome in ad 192: the statues themselves had most likely been taken from Greece by Nero and moved from Nero’s Domus Aurea to the Forum Pacis by Vespasian.12 In his speech about the reinscription of earlier portrait statues on Rhodes, Dio Chrysostom (Or. 31.148) claims that Nero emptied Delphi, Olympia, the Athenian Acropolis, and Pergamon of their statues but spared Rhodes. Claims of extensive statue removals from Greek sites by Nero do not stand up to scrutiny, however. Despite Pausanias’ (10.7.1) claim that Nero took 500 bronze statues from Delphi, among them the portrait of Hydna, there are only one or two reused statue bases at Delphi that might have come from statues taken by Nero, and indeed remarkably few statue bases from any period reused for unrelated monuments. Though as we will see both Olympia and the Athenian Acropolis present some evidence for the reuse of empty statue bases, most of this activity seems to have occurred at the end of the Republic and during the Augustan period, before Nero’s time.

The Reinscription of Greek Portrait Statues The most problematic form of material reuse practiced in Greek sanctuaries in the first centuries bc and ad was portrait reinscription or metagraphy (from the Greek μεταγραφή), also called metonomasia (name-​changing) in modern scholarship. This practice involved inscribing the names of new

185

186

186

Ear ly Gree k P ortraits under R o man   Ru l e

portrait subjects on the bases of earlier Greek portrait statues still standing in their original contexts. Apart from a series of pointed references to portrait reinscription in Greek and Latin literature, and a very small number of inscribed documents that possibly refer to the practice, the chief evidence for portrait reinscription comes from the reinscribed statue bases themselves. The practice of portrait reinscription was last studied systematically in the 1960s by Horst Blanck in a book also dealing with the archaeological and epigraphic evidence for damnatio memoriae; Blanck used the Inscriptiones Graecae as his source to locate and catalogue possible examples of portrait reinscription from throughout the Greek world.13 The reinscription of portraits in mainland Greece, the Aegean islands, and coastal Asia Minor seems to have been practiced during a very limited time period. Dio Chrysostom, in his speech (Or. 31)  against the reinscription of portraits on Rhodes, remarks that the Rhodians were the only Greeks still doing this in his own time, the Flavian era (ad 69–​96). The earliest examples, including one from the Amphiareion at Oropos, date immediately after Sulla’s defeat of Mithridates in 86 bc. The reinscription of earlier Greek portraits with Sulla’s name naturally points toward the economic difficulties that followed Sulla’s campaign on the Greek mainland as a cause for this particular form of “recycling” portrait statues. As the new honorific inscriptions added to the bases for earlier portraits show, portrait reinscription was authorized by the local political authorities who controlled Greek cities and sanctuaries, and it was granted as an honor indistinguishable from the award of a newly made portrait statue. Portrait reinscription was practiced selectively; it took different forms in different places, and it was not practiced everywhere: Epidauros, Oropos, and Athens, but not Olympia, Delphi, and the Samian Heraion. Éric Perrin-​ Saminadayar has recently stressed the daunting logistics of keeping up with the portrait honors routinely voted in late Hellenistic Greek cities as a motivating factor behind portrait reinscription.14 The prohibitive expense of making a new lifesize bronze portrait statue was compounded by the shortage of sculptors, overcrowding and lack of space in sanctuaries and agoras, and the lack of time between official grants of portrait honors and the visits of Roman magistrates to whom the honors had been granted. Portraits were chosen for reinscription by the architects attached to sanctuaries or by local magistrates; these procedures were conducted with the tacit approval of the community, even if they remain largely obscure to us. The new honorific texts inscribed on the bases of pre-​existing portrait statues almost invariably record the granting of honors by the demos of the city as a whole, or by the boule (council) or equivalent, though honorific decrees themselves seem never to mention that honorands will receive an old portrait rather than a new one. The few possible examples of legislative enactments or prohibitions against reinscription appear both idiosyncratic and peripheral.15 On the practical level,

187

The Reinscription of Gree k P ortrait S tatues

portrait reinscription could only be practiced in places where there was a ready supply of earlier Greek portrait statues on hand to reinscribe. In the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis, for example, new portraits of Romans of the late Republic and the Augustan period greatly outnumber earlier portraits of Greek subjects, and there is no evidence of reinscription at all; in contrast, in the Amphiareion at Oropos, as many as one-​third of the portrait statues still standing in the sanctuary in the first century bc were reinscribed. But available supply in itself does not explain this or any other form of material reuse: “It did not suffice to have antiquity, one had also to want antiquity.”16 Even with these considerations in mind, the obvious problems posed by the Greek practice of portrait reinscription cannot be ignored. How could the Greeks of the late Hellenistic and early imperial periods condone recycling portraits of their ancestors in this way? How could a portrait of a Greek be turned into a portrait of a Roman merely by changing the name inscribed on its base? And how could such a shortcut have been perceived as a genuine honor, both by the cities reinscribing older portrait statues and the honorands for whom these portraits were reinscribed? Perhaps we should think of portrait reinscription as a way of making an analogy between the original Greek portrait subject and the new honorand. This type of analogical thinking is evident in Roman Greece even before the publication of Plutarch’s Parallel Lives of the Greeks and Romans, that monumental exercise in Greek-​Roman analogy. Late in the Augustan period in Athens, a Syrian benefactor and resident of Athens named Gaius Julius Nicanor was officially awarded the titles of “New Themistokles” and “New Homer.” He was honored with a series of at least four new portrait statues, two of them on the Acropolis, with these epithets inscribed on their bases; Louis Robert also suggested that the portrait of Themistokles in the Athenian Prytaneion mentioned by Pausanias (1.18.3) was reinscribed with Nicanor’s name.17 The Roman emperors and members of their families were sometimes likened to gods or heroes, even in instances when they did not receive divine cult: a case in point is Gaius Caesar, Augustus’ grandson and adopted heir, honored by the Athenians with a portrait whose inscription referred to him as the “new Ares.”18 The desire to enact such analogies between the Greeks of earlier periods and the Greek and Roman elites of the present helps to explain why the Athenians often retained the names of the original portrait subjects when they reinscribed their portraits. The easiest form of Greek portrait reinscription to recognize involved leaving the complete original inscription in place and adding a new inscribed text to it. A  good example is the base for the early Classical dedication of Hegelochos from the Athenian Acropolis, discussed in Chapter 3 (IG I3 850 + IG II2 4168:  Figure  38). Both the original votive epigram and the joint signature of the sculptors Kritios and Nesiotes were left undisturbed when, in the Augustan period, a new inscription naming a Roman portrait subject

187

188

188

Ear ly Gree k P ortraits under R o man   Ru l e

was added directly beneath them: The Boule and the Demos (dedicated) Lucius Cassius on account of his arete. In some of the places in the Greek world where examples of portrait reinscription have been found, it was more typical to erase the inscription naming the portrait’s subject and to inscribe the name of the new subject over the erasure. These erasures in practice can appear either deep and obvious to the viewer, or shallow and more difficult to detect. In other cases, the original portrait inscription was completely erased to make room for a new one, but the signature of the sculptor was retained. Portrait reinscription in the Greek world has attracted less attention than damnatio memoriae, surely because not a single reinscribed Greek portrait statue survives for us to look at.  Yet, far from being marginal, reinscription was central to the experience of viewing early Greek portraits in some mainland Greek sanctuaries in the Roman period. The realities of Roman power over the Greeks make it no coincidence that the first centuries bc and ad saw both the removal of Greek statues for shipment abroad, and the reinscription of Greek portraits left in place in honor of prominent Romans. But did portrait reinscription really amount to the literal dematerialization of the Greek past?

Portrait Reinscription in Rhetoric: Favorinus and Dio Chrysostom’s oration  31 Pausanias, when faced with unmistakable manifestations of Roman power and presence in Greece, tended not to mention them, in keeping with the focus of his Periegesis on “all things Greek.” Consequently, Pausanias mentions scarcely any examples of Roman-​period portrait reinscription. Some of the few examples Pausanias does single out for mention seem to be the ones that baffled him, such as the statue of Orestes at the Argive Heraion inscribed as a portrait of Augustus (Paus. 2.17.3).19 While Pausanias largely ignored portrait reinscription, two other authors of the Second Sophistic made much capital out of it as evidence for the Greeks’ selling out of their own past. A speech preserved under the name of the first-​century ad orator Dio Chrysostom, Oration 37, was almost certainly written during the reign of Hadrian by the sophist Favorinus of Arles. Though it has often been considered together with Dio’s Oration 31, it deals only tangentially with portrait reinscription. Instead, the ostensible subject of this speech is the Corinthians’ removal (kathairesis) of Favorinus’ own honorific portrait from public display (37.8). T   hough Favorinus impugns portrait reinscription generally, he mentions only a single example, in the same breath as an example of disfiguring damage to an early Greek portrait statue left standing in a sanctuary: However, the statues of other men still stand and are known, though they wear the label of others, and what is going on is like an antispast

189

Portrait Reinscription in R hetoric

[a metrical foot] in poetry, and, as one might say, the authors give counter information  –​Greek character, but Roman fortune. I  have seen even Alcibiades, the handsome son of Kleinias –​I know not where, but I saw him in a fine spot in Greece –​wearing the label of Chalcopogon [Ahenobarbus], and also another portrait of him with both arms lopped off, a portrait said to have been the work of Polykles … [Dio Chrys.] Or. 37.40, trans. H. Lamar Crosby, modified

Since Polykles can be identified with a known sculptor active in ca. 370 bc, it is conceivable that his portrait of Alcibiades was either dedicated during Alcibiades’ own lifetime or soon after his death. More important for our purposes is the portrait of Alcibiades reinscribed in honor of a Roman called Ahenobarbus. In spite of its reinscription, the original subject of this portrait continued to be recognized. An attempt to find and identify the statue base for the reinscribed portrait Favorinus alludes to here highlights the practical difficulties we face in making the leap from rhetoric to realia. The Roman practice of homonymy across generations of the same family makes it impossible to be sure which individual with the cognomen Ahenobarbus had a portrait reinscribed in his honor: the possibilities range from two consuls of the late Republic, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (54 bc, killed at Pharsalus in 48) and his son Gnaeus (32 bc), to two early imperial homonyms (consuls in 16 bc and ad 32), to the emperor Nero, who was the son of the Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus who served as consul in ad 32. Statue bases for the portraits of one or the other of the pre-​Neronian candidates have been found in Miletos, Ephesos, Chios, Samos, and on the Athenian Acropolis.20 None of these offers a clear match with the situation Favorinus describes. The reinscription of older statues in the city of Rhodes is the subject of a long speech written and delivered in the second half of the first century ad by the orator Dio Chrysostom (Or. 31).21 Though in the course of his speech he alludes to the inflation of civic honors in Athens, he accuses the Rhodians of being the only Greeks still reinscribing earlier portraits in his own time (31.123), and claims that reinscription was a longstanding practice on Rhodes (31.143). What Dio says about reinscription on Rhodes has not been confirmed by archaeological evidence: though according to Dio’s contemporary, the elder Pliny, there were upwards of 3,000 bronze statues in Rhodes town (34.7.36), neither the extant statue bases from Rhodes town nor the hundreds of inscribed bases found on the Acropolis of Lindos support the extensive reinscription of honorific portraits that Dio denounces so vehemently.22 In several respects, Dio’s Oration 31 on metagraphy is a text begging to be read against the grain.Though it seems natural to put stock in the only literary source that deals with portrait reinscription at any length, some of the key assumptions underpinning Dio’s case against portrait reinscription prove to be a mismatch not only with the evidence from Rhodes, but also with realia from Epidauros, Oropos, and Athens.

189

190

190

Ear ly Gree k P ortraits under R o man   Ru l e

The case against portrait reinscription as Dio presents it is a moral one: to reinscribe the portraits of earlier (Greek) subjects with new (Roman) names deprives individuals of the honor due to them; the practice literally erases Greek history. According to Dio, two practices of the Rhodians are particularly worthy of censure. At 31.43, he accuses the Rhodians of reinscribing honorific portraits rather than private ones: though the only subjects of these earlier portraits that Dio mentions explicitly are Macedonians and Spartans, he clearly implies that any Greek benefactor ever honored by the city of Rhodes with an official portrait statue at any time was in danger of having his portrait reinscribed.23 The new subjects of the portraits reinscribed by the Rhodians are the ἡγεμόνες –​“leaders,” by which Dio seems to mean Roman provincial governors and other prominent Romans, but not the emperor and his family, whom the Rhodians honored with new portraits (31.105–​7). Second, Dio assumes throughout his speech that the Rhodians always erased the names of the original subjects from the portraits they reinscribed, and this point is stated explicitly at 31.124. Though modern commentators have often assumed that the heads or the faces of reinscribed bronze portraits were changed to go along with the new identities inscribed on their bases, Dio nowhere mentions such a practice.24 Given his concern for the obliteration of the memory of original Greek portrait subjects, he surely would have mentioned head replacement if it had been practiced in the Greek East. In fact, one of Dio’s most devastating criticisms of portrait reinscription on Rhodes is that it did not involve changing the appearance of the statues. Unlike the transformation of the portraits of disgraced Roman emperors into images of their successors through the recarving or replacement of the heads, there is no reason to assume that portrait reinscription in the Greek world involved making changes to the statue itself.25 Over the course of Dio’s Rhodian oration, hints of other aspects of portrait reinscription and popular attitudes toward it emerge. Some observations ring true: some of the reinscribed statues stood in sanctuaries (31.87–​8); portrait statues were chosen for reinscription by the city’s chief magistrate (the strategos) (31.134–​5); Rhodian honorific decrees awarding the honor of a portrait statue never mentioned that the statue might be an old one reinscribed with the honorand’s name (31.38).The rhetorical climax of the speech comes when Dio compares Rhodian portraits to actors, suddenly called upon to impersonate drastically different people when the names of new subjects are inscribed upon their bases (31.155–​6). He proceeds to cite examples of grotesque mismatches between portraits and their new (and fraudulent) subjects: a very old man turned into a young one, a general on horseback turned into a man who never travels without his sedan chair, an athlete turned into a weakling. Though Dio attributes the Rhodians’ condoning of portrait reinscription to greed and laziness –​recycling extant portraits saves the city money because it allows it to award extravagant portrait honors without having to pay for new

191

Sam ian H eraion

statues, and reinscribing extant statues saves time and effort (31.9, 100, 112–​13) –​ we glimpse some genuine mitigating factors when Dio quotes hypothetical Rhodians justifying their actions. Elsewhere the names of original portrait honorands on statue bases are left in place when portraits are reinscribed (31.150), but at Rhodes before erasing the names, the city makes a list of them (apographe) in order to preserve their memory (31.48).26 Though Dio accuses the Rhodians of following a “slippery slope” toward reinscribing intact, recent portraits representing well-​known subjects, the Rhodians defend themselves by pointing out that the practice began with portrait statues that were broken or otherwise damaged (31.141), with portraits that had no inscriptions at all (ἀνεπιγράφοι), with portraits of subjects that were old and unrecognizable (ἀσήμοι), and with portraits of subjects who had no surviving relatives or who were otherwise not known (not γνώριμοι) (31.73–​4). The hypothetical Rhodians’ claim that they began by inscribing their oldest portraits implies that these were the ones they valued least, a notion that contradicts both the tenor of Dio’s own speech and the testimony of other Roman-​period authors (Pausanias especially). In the case of early Greek private portraits, dedicated in sanctuaries by family members, it is unlikely that descendants of the subjects would have raised objections to reinscription:  few familial identities in the Greek world would have survived for as long as 200 or 300 years. The following site histories show the interplay of various forms of afterlife and reuse, highlighting the removal of early Greek portraits, their renewal, and their reinscription. By concentrating on only a small number of sites I do not imply that they were the only places in the Greek world where statue base reuse, the renewal of earlier inscriptions, or the reinscription of surviving portraits happened; indeed, there are noteworthy examples of each of these practices elsewhere in the late Hellenistic and early Roman imperial periods.27 Practices involving early Greek portraits took place within the larger contexts of local Greek responses to Roman rule and local Greek attempts to shape the narrative of their past history, and the archaeological, epigraphical, and literary evidence needs to be considered within this broader matrix.

Samian Heraion Two main points emerge when we consider what happened in the Samian Heraion in the period between the Mithridatic revolt of 88–​86 bc and the death of Nero: the reuse of earlier material in the service of honoring important Romans, and the self-​conscious restoration of monuments dating to the Archaic period. On Samos, older statue bases reused to support new portraits sometimes had their original inscriptions erased, but just as often the original inscriptions were preserved and remained legible when the bases were

191

192

192

Ear ly Gree k P ortraits under R o man   Ru l e

turned sideways or flipped upside down for reuse.Though the reused bases are negligible in number compared with the number of portraits on new bases dedicated in the Heraion between ca. 60 bc and ad 50, they attest to the availability of empty statue bases for reuse at a time that coincides with removals mentioned by the literary sources.28 Post-​321 bc restoration efforts in the Samian Heraion focused on Archaic and early Classical monuments dating before the first Athenian takeover of Samos under Perikles. The present base for the Archaic Geneleos group appears to have undergone a renovation dated by Hermann Kienast to the Hellenistic period.29 In addition, a kouros and a tripod also surviving from the Archaic period were placed together on a new platform next to the Geneleos group, either at the same time or later; two korai dedicated by Cheramyes were also placed next to one another on a new base, though we do not know where they stood.30 A striking new portrait group of the first century bc in the Heraion may in fact have been designed to evoke the Geneleos group.The Samians dedicated a familial portrait group of six or seven statues representing Marcus Tullius Cicero and his relatives (IG XII 6 1 355) on a semi-​circular exedra base near the altar of Hera.31 Since the majority of the exedra’s top blocks have been lost and the inscriptions were partially erased, the exact composition of the group remains conjectural. What is certain is that it included, in addition to Cicero himself, at least one female figure, as well as an individual named Quintus Tullius Cicero, who could be either the brother of Marcus who served as proconsul of Asia in 61–​58 bc or his son (Marcus’ nephew). In Friedrich Dörner and Gottfried Gruben’s reconstruction, Marcus Cicero, his wife Terentia, and son Marcus on the right-​hand half of the exedra were balanced symmetrically by Marcus’ brother Quintus, his wife Pomponia, and their son Quintus on the left-​hand half.32 What matters for our purposes here is the dedication of a large familial group when it would have been appropriate for the Samians to honor either Cicero or his brother Quintus alone.33 The Geneleos group, and the other Archaic dedications re-​erected alongside it near the western terminus of the Sacred Way, would have been visible from the Cicero exedra across the open space in front of the Hera temple until the construction of the Roman peripteros and Roman naïskos in the Augustan period or later.Viewers were encouraged to see the Cicero family as analogous to the Archaic Samian family represented by the Geneleos group. During the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, the Samians developed another sculptural display farther along the Sacred Way toward the east that deftly combined new portraits with reused material. This grouping included new familial portrait groups, one of them representing Augustus’ grandsons Gaius and Lucius, and the other representing five male and female members of the Scribonii, a prominent Samian family with Roman citizenship (IG XII 6 1 296–​9).34 Just to the east of Gaius and Lucius, at the beginning of the row of

193

Olym pia

statues lining both sides of the Sacred Way, were placed portraits of the two consuls of ad 23, C. Stertinius Maximus and C. Asinius Pollio, which stood on reused statue bases (IG XII 6 1 367).35 Thus the complete array of monuments seen by visitors entering the Heraion from the direction of Samos town presented a combination of reused material, new portraits of Romans, a Samian family with Roman citizenship, and the Archaic Geneleos group, a dramatic visual juxtaposition of the Heraion’s earliest history with the new Augustan order.36

Olympia The sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia benefits from a comprehensive overview of different forms of afterlife and material reuse. Here the period from the second century bc through the third century ad was characterized both by practices attested in other sanctuaries and by the occurrence of other forms of reuse and renewal lacking close parallels elsewhere in the Greek world. Throughout the last two centuries bc and the Roman imperial period, Olympia remained under the firm control of the polis of Elis. The Elean authorities took vigorous action to preserve the monumental record of the earliest victors in the Olympic games. Pausanias’ long account of the sanctuary at Olympia, which has always proved critical for understanding the site, was shaped by a narrative of the sanctuary’s history promoted by the Elean authorities, specifically the exegetai, local sacred officials concerned with expounding that history to visitors.37 This was a narrative that drew significant support from reused material that Pausanias would have seen when he visited the sanctuary. In contrast to what we find in other sanctuaries, such as the Amphiareion at Oropos and the Athenian Acropolis, the reinscription of earlier portraits seems to have been avoided entirely at Olympia.38 Instead, we find ample evidence at Olympia for the renewal of older monuments with new inscriptions to increase their visibility in a period when few new monuments were being erected. As has been well documented, the dedication of portraits of athletic victors at Olympia peaked in the fourth and third centuries bc and dropped off sharply thereafter. What has seldom been noted, though, is that the bases for the portraits of several Classical victors had their inscriptions renewed in the first century bc or the first century ad. The base for the portrait of Tellon, son of Daïmon (IvO 147/​148 and Paus. 6.10.5), a boy boxer from Oresthasion in Arcadia victorious in 472 bc, serves as an example [Figure 55]. The original inscription runs along the outer edge of the statue’s right foot. The new inscription in front of the statue’s feet repeats the same text in lettering that clearly belongs to a much later period, probably the first century bc. Surviving statue bases show that the program of renewing the portraits of early Olympic victors was astonishingly thoroughgoing. From statue bases

193

194

194

Ear ly Gree k P ortraits under R o man   Ru l e

55.  Base for the portrait of a victor named Tellon, Olympia (IvO 147/​148).The original inscription and the dowel holes for the feet of the statue are marked in gray. The base was renewed by copying the original text in the Roman period. Reproduced from IvO, public domain

and Pausanias’ account of Olympia combined, we know of a total of eighty Archaic and fifth-​century victors whose portraits were displayed in the sanctuary. Of the fifteen athletes for whom we have base inscriptions, seven had their inscriptions renewed; so did the early fourth-​century victor Damoxenidas of Mainalos (IvO 158 and Paus. 6.6.3).39 The other early Olympic victors whose statues were renewed with inscriptions, in addition to Tellon, are the following:  Charmides of Elis (IvO 156 and Paus. 6.7.1), Hellanikos of Lepreon in Triphylia (IvO 155 and Paus. 6.7.8), and four Rhodian victors: Eukles (IvO 159, signed by Naukydes of Argos; Paus. 6.6.2), Diagoras (IvO 151 and Paus. 6.7.1), Damagetos (IvO 152 and Paus. 6.7.1), and Dorieus (IvO 153 and Paus. 6.7.1). The portraits of the Rhodian victors formed part of a large family group commemorating three generations of victors from the same family. The renewal of the portraits in this group can readily be explained by the Rhodian victors’ importance in fifth-​century literature and history:  Diagoras was the honorand of Pindar’s seventh Olympian ode, and his son Dorieus was a pro-​Spartan tyrant of Rhodes during the final years of the Peloponnesian War (Thuc. 8.35). I would suggest that this program of epigraphical renewal at Olympia sheds new light on Pausanias’ account of the victor statues at Olympia, which is so

195

Olym pia

heavily biased toward portraits of the earliest victors: their monuments may have been rendered relatively more visible amid the throng of later victors by their renewed inscriptions. Pausanias mentions every one of the early victor portraits whose inscriptions were renewed, but skips the monuments of other early victors that were not (IvO 145, 154, and 157).40 This renewal program at Olympia proves difficult to date precisely, but falls somewhere between Sulla and Nero.41 In the case of another fifth-​century Olympic victor, the Elean authorities did more than renew an inscription:  they replaced an original bronze portrait that had been removed, likely by the emperor Nero, with a new one. Pythokles of Elis won a victory in the Olympic pentathlon in 452 bc, and Pausanias (6.7.10) mentions his portrait in passing; as the inscribed base (IvO 162–​3: Figures 56 and 57) shows, the statue was signed by Polykleitos. This is almost certainly Polykleitos the Younger, active in the Peloponnese in the last quarter of the fifth century bc and the first quarter of the fourth, rather than his mid-​fifth-​century namesake.42 Both Pythokles’ name and ethnic and the sculptor’s signature were inscribed elsewhere on the top of the base in a later period. The foot dowels for the original portrait of Pythokles show the right foot forward and the left foot pulled sharply back in a Polykleitan contrapposto pose, whereas the new inscription seems to coordinate with a second set of foot dowels for a statue in a different pose.43 Some clarity for this situation is provided by another base for a portrait of Pythokles of Elis made by Polykleitos found in Rome (IGUR IV 1580: Figure 58), recently reexamined by LaRocca. What seems to have happened is that the original portrait of Pythokles was removed from Olympia by Nero for his Domus Aurea in ad 67; after the fall of Nero, it was one of several Greek bronze originals moved by Vespasian to the Forum Pacis, where they remained on display through late antiquity.44 Pythokles’ portrait serves as a welcome reminder that viewers in Rome had opportunities to see Classical portraits of Greek athletes captioned with the athletes’ names: removing Greek portraits to Rome did not always involve the eclipse of their subjects’ memory. Another such example is Myron’s portrait of the runner and Olympic victor Ladas, also on display somewhere in Rome (Pliny HN 34.57); Pausanias mentions him multiple times (2.19.7, 3.21.1, and 8.12.5), as do several Latin authors and epigrams in the Planudean Anthology (Anth. Plan. anon. 53 and 54).45 These portraits, and Pausanias’ meticulous accounting of the victor portraits at Olympia, serve as valuable counterpoints to the Roman interest in Classical Greek athletes as generic figures. Several of the Greek athletic portraits Pliny mentioned are completely anonymous, identified only by nicknames:  Diadumenos (athlete binding his head with a fillet), Discobolos (discus thrower), Apoxyomenos (athlete scraping himself with a strigil), and so on.46 The identities of the athletes themselves are elided even in stories concerning the removal of Greek bronze originals and their transfer to

195

196

196

Ear ly Gree k P ortraits under R o man   Ru l e

56. Base for the portrait of Pythokles of Elis, signed by Polykleitos (IvO 162). The original inscriptions and the dowel holes for the feet of the original statue are marked in gray. Reproduced from IvO, public domain

Rome: for example, Lysippos’ Apoxyomenos, placed by Agrippa in front of the public baths named after himself, and then removed by Tiberius, who admired the statue so much he put it in his own bedroom (Pliny HN 34.62). The elder Polykleitos’ Doryphoros (Spear-​bearer) is the statue type most discussed in this context, though it was arguably meant to represent a Greek hero and not an athlete at all. To quote R. R. R. Smith:

197

Olym pia

57. Base for the portrait of Pythokles of Elis, second phase (IvO 163)  marked in gray. The replacement statue faced what was originally the right side of the base. Reproduced from IvO, public domain

The specific subject and occasion, which were primary in the fifth-​ century bronze, are elided in favour of the big-​name artist mediated through a now-​generic representation of athletic activity. As the Mona Lisa for us represents Leonardo da Vinci, so the Doryphoros represented for Rome (and now for us) Polykleitos. Here we have to keep a list of names and victories in mind beside the context-​less copies –​two parallel bodies of evidence whose precise intersections escape us entirely.47

A small subset of Greek bronze original athletes, among them Myron’s Discobolos and Polykleitos’ Diadumenos, inspired extensive series of Roman marble works in a Classical Greek style; others continued to be associated with the names of their subjects.48 The replacement of the lost portrait of Pythokles of Elis on the same base at Olympia is interesting in several respects:  for one thing the replacement, though evidently not identical in pose to the original, retained Polykleitos’ signature. I would suggest that the Elean authorities of the first century ad at

197

198

198

Ear ly Gree k P ortraits under R o man   Ru l e

58. Base for the portrait of Pythokles made by Polykleitos from the Forum Pacis, Rome (ad 192). Reproduced from BullComm 1891, pl. X.1. Public domain

Olympia went above and beyond to replace a lost victor portrait specifically because the victor was not only old, but also hailed from Elis. It is clear that other fifth-​century statues taken by Nero from Olympia were not replaced. For example, when Pausanias (5.24.6 and 5.26.2–​5) described the mid-​fifth-​ century dedications by Mikythos of Rhegion, he noted that the groups were incomplete because Nero had removed some of the statues. Four marble base blocks from one of these statue groups survive:  two of these (IvO 316 and 357) were unceremoniously flipped upside down and reused to support new, unrelated statues in the late first or the second century ad.49 The evidence of statue bases suggests that, as far as the Eleans of later periods were concerned, not all of the Classical legacy of Olympia was equally worthy of renewal and restoration. In retrospect, the important role played by the western Greeks at Olympia in the sixth and fifth centuries seemed more mutable than athletics, and the history of the Eleans themselves. It is worth revisiting one more element of Pausanias’ account of Olympia in light of monument reuse and its implications. Despite Pausanias’ claim (5.10.2) that the temple of Zeus and its chryselephantine cult statue were dedicated by the Eleans from the spoils of Pisa, it is far more likely that the temple was built from the spoils of the Persian Wars. The unprecedented structure of Pausanias’ entire account of Olympia  –​with its separate itineraries devoted

199

Delphi

to Zeus statues, athletic victor portraits, and altars –​shows the imprint of the Elean exegetai. Given that recent studies of Elis and its history have cast considerable doubt upon the very existence of any Pisatan polity before the 360s bc, when the Pisatans really did contend with the Eleans for control over Olympia, Pausanias’ account of the origins of the Zeus temple seems to provide yet more evidence for the concern of the Elean elites of later periods to project a narrative centered on themselves and their interests backward into the earlier history of the sanctuary.50

Delphi Recent work on the monumental dedications at Olympia and Delphi has brought to the fore a fundamental insight that helps to explain the differences between the two sanctuaries: while Olympia for most of its history was governed under the centralized administration of a single polis, Elis, at Delphi dedicators continued to control their own monuments even after their dedication.51 The Delphic Amphictyony’s own managerial oversight was not at all evident in the monumental landscape of the sanctuary until fairly late, when the Amphictyons began to make their own dedications. From the Archaic period onward, there are abundant signs that the dedicators of statuary monuments and treasury buildings could modify, renovate, or renew them as they wished.52 A  prominent example already discussed in Chapter  3 is the new epigram by the elegiac poet Ion of Samos inscribed below the portrait of the Spartan admiral Lysander in the Aigospotamoi statue group at Delphi, added as much as a century after its original dedication. Many Archaic and Classical dedications at Delphi also began to be used as virtual notice boards where later documents relating to the original dedicator were inscribed. The fact that some dedicating cities seem to have lost control over their monuments in the Hellenistic period, leaving them open to others to colonize with new and unrelated inscriptions, only serves to reinforce the point that later interventions at Delphi were the norm rather than the exception. Scott’s observation that dedicators and honorands at Delphi retained a high degree of control over their offerings, while at Olympia the Elean overlords exercised greater authority over dedications in the sanctuary, holds true when we compare the afterlives of early portrait statues at the two sites. The reinscription of older portrait statues with the names of new subjects appears to be entirely absent at Delphi and, given the volume and complexity of the monuments there, there are remarkably few examples of the recycling of earlier bases and architectural blocks. One of only a handful of exceptions to this generalization is an uninscribed corner block from the base of Daochos of Thessaly’s family group, reused for a votive dedication by Q. Minucius Rufus in 107 bc. This reuse appears to give the terminus ante quem for the dismantling

199

200

200

Ear ly Gree k P ortraits under R o man   Ru l e

of the Daochos monument and the building that sheltered it, but it is doubtful that later observers would either have recognized the block as reused material or understood its origin.

Asklepieion at Epidauros Livy’s (45.28.3) vivid description of Aemilius Paullus’ visit to the sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros in 167 bc, after his victory over the Macedonian king Perseus at Pydna in 168, contrasts the state of the sanctuary in the mid-​second century bc with that of his own time, the Augustan period: Thence Paullus went to Sicyon and Argos, both famous cities; from there he visited Epidaurus, by no means as wealthy a town, but noted for the famous temple of Aesculapius which, at a distance of five miles from the city, is now rich in traces of gifts of which it has been robbed, but then was rich in the gifts themselves which the sick had consecrated to the god as payment for health-​g iving remedies. Trans. Alfred C. Schlesinger53

The number of earlier statue bases reused at Epidauros was truly staggering:  the excavations of the Asklepieion have turned up more than twenty examples in which the inscribed bases for statues dating before Sulla’s sack of 86 bc were reused for new statues and other offerings beginning in ca. 50 bc.54 Most of the statues removed from their bases in the Asklepieion at Epidauros in the first century bc were bronze portraits, with an indiscriminate mix of honorific portraits and private (familial) dedications. It is tempting to use the catalogue of portraits removed from the Asklepieion at Epidauros as a starting point for speculating further about the sorts of fifth-​and fourth-​century Greek portraits that might have found their way to Rome. From this period, one Epidaurian portrait (IG IV2 1 616) stands out: it represented Gorgos of Iasos, the hoplophylax (guardian of arms) for Alexander the Great. Gorgos is one of the earliest examples of the royal friends (philoi) –​courtiers, generals, and miscellaneous functionaries who served in the kingdoms of Alexander and his successors –​to be honored with a portrait by a Greek city.55 The epigram inscribed on the base of Gorgos’ portrait in the Asklepieion gives no indication of what service he did for Epidauros to deserve an honorific portrait, but it must have occurred either before Alexander’s death in 323 bc or very soon thereafter.56 Royal friends and associates were clearly an important subject class in early Hellenistic portraiture, but there are no surviving Greek originals, and Roman marble copies provide few clues as to what they might have looked like. The reinscription of portrait statues still standing on their original bases was also practiced at Epidauros. The few cases that can be identified each involved

201

Asklepieion at E pidauros

erasing the name of the original portrait subject, but retaining the sculptor’s signature. Curiously enough, only one of these portraits was reinscribed in honor of a Roman. A  marble male portrait of the first half of the fourth century bc signed by the sculptor Hektoridas was reinscribed as a portrait of Augustus’ grandson and adopted heir Lucius Caesar (IG IV 12 695 and 598), who died in ad 2 at the age of 19.57 From the inscribed building accounts at Epidauros, we know that Hektoridas made the sculptures of the east pediment of the temple of Asklepios, either in 400–​390 or 370 bc.58 This fourth-​century portrait by Hektoridas was one of the earliest ones dedicated in the sanctuary; by reinscribing it for Lucius Caesar, the Epidaurians singled out a member of Augustus’ family for a unique honor. Hektoridas himself could readily be associated with the monumental building program that produced the temple of Asklepios; the original subject of the portrait, an adolescent boy like Lucius, may have been the object of a parental prayer. The other Epidaurian portraits that underwent reinscription were not “early”: they belong to the middle Hellenistic period. What is worth mentioning here is that these show sculptors’ signatures being preserved, and sometimes retouched, at the time of reinscription. Two noteworthy examples at Epidauros involved a single sculptor, Eunous son of Eunomos, of the end of the third century bc, whose signatures survive only at Epidauros.59 On an exedra (IG IV2 1 652 and 653), the portrait of a male child signed by Eunous was reinscribed as a portrait of Gnaeus Cornelius Pulchros, an Epidaurian who served in the first century ad as gymnasiarch and agoranomos of Epidauros at the age of 4.  As we can see from the drawing of Eunous’ signature that appeared in the entry for IG IV 1432 published in 1902 [Figure 59], the letters of Eunous’ signature were recarved and altered in the first century ad when

59.  Base for a reinscribed portrait at Epidauros: the original signature of Eunous (third century bc) has been altered with added serifs. Note the earlier forms of the letters nu, pi, and sigma retained in the signature. Reproduced from IG IV 1432. Public domain

201

202

202

Ear ly Gree k P ortraits under R o man   Ru l e

the new inscription honoring Gn. Cornelius Pulchros was inscribed above the signature: serifs, the flourishes at the ends of letter strokes typical of Hellenistic and imperial Greek inscriptions, were added.60 There is no reason to doubt that the original portraits by Eunous at Epidauros chosen for reinscription were private rather than official. It is difficult to escape the general conclusion that at Epidauros the local authorities chose to reinscribe surviving Hellenistic portraits by Eunous as a signal honor reserved for their own citizens, rather than a cost-​cutting measure or an act of desperation.

Amphiareion at Oropos The sanctuary of Amphiaraos at Oropos in Boiotia, despite a checkered history in which it bounced back and forth repeatedly between Boiotians and Athenians, has produced some of the best evidence for Greek portrait statues still standing in their original locations. It is also the place where we have the clearest and most easily interpreted evidence for portrait reinscription in the first centuries bc and ad. Nearly half of the portraits (twelve out of twenty-​six) arranged in a row on the terrace northeast of the temple of Amphiaraos were reinscribed with the names of new subjects, most of them Roman, beginning with Sulla soon after 86 bc and ending with M. Agrippa in ca. 12 bc. As far as we can tell, in contrast to what we find on the Athenian Acropolis, where many new portraits were being commissioned, reinscribed Greek portraits were the only portraits of Romans on display in this sanctuary. The portrait statues dedicated in the Amphiareion at Oropos, and their later reinscription, have been studied intensively by Christoph Löhr and John Ma, superseding Blanck’s treatment; in addition, all of the relevant statue bases and inscriptions of every period have received a thorough publication in Petrakos’ epigraphical corpus for Oropos (I.Oropos).61 The Amphiareion was a relatively young sanctuary, probably established only in the fifth century bc. In 412/​11, Thebes took Oropos away from Athens (Thuc. 8.60.1); in 335, after his destruction of Thebes, Alexander returned the Amphiareion to the Athenians (Paus. 1.34.1). From the end of the Lamian War in 322/​1 until 295/​4, Oropos seems to have been independent. From 295/​4 until 171 bc, the sanctuary was controlled by the Boiotian federation, and after 171 it seems to have reverted to local control. Though the period of Athenian ownership between 335 and 322/​1 was brief, it coincided with the Lycurgan period of cultural and religious renewal in Athens, and a flurry of Athenian dedications and inscribed documents were set up there. Though we might have expected the post-​86 bc reinscription of portraits would target the Athenian ones, it clearly did not: all of the reinscribed portraits seem to date between 295/​4 and 171 bc, and they included both official honorifics and private dedications.

203

Athenian Acropo l is

Though the reinscribed portraits in the Amphiareion all date to the Hellenistic period, they are worth mentioning here for a few reasons. The first portraits to be reinscribed –​for Sulla (I.Oropos 442) and his wife Metella Caecilia (I.Oropos 443) in 86 bc –​were also the ones located closest to the temple entrance. Three other Roman honorands, if correctly identified, were associates of Sulla’s and had their names inscribed on portraits in the cluster of equestrian portraits closest to the portraits of Sulla and his wife.62 In 44 bc, a cluster of three portraits standing next to one another were reinscribed in honor of Julius Caesar’s assassin Brutus (I.Oropos 451), Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (I.Oropos 447), and Piso’s wife Paulla Popilia (I.Oropos 448). All but two of the new honorands of the late Republic and Augustan period in the Amphiareion were Romans, but the most physically distinctive monument in the row, the only portrait standing on a semi-​circular base, was reinscribed in honor of a Greek (the priest Timarchos Theodorou: I.Oropos 440), and at the same time the epigram about the original Greek portrait subject (Diomedes of Troizen: I. Oropos 389)  was retained and not erased. In two other cases, the names of original Greek portrait subjects were preserved by being inscribed on the back of the statue base at the time of reinscription: these were the subjects of private portraits, whose names were in real danger of being forgotten.63 It was the norm in the Amphiareion to preserve the sculptor’s signature on the base even when the names of original portrait subjects were erased. In the example illustrated here [Figure 60], the signature of the third-​century sculptor Simalos (I.Oropos 387) was left in place below the new inscription in honor of Quintus Fufius Calenus (I.Oropos 450). Simalos’ signature, like the other retained sculptors’ signatures at Oropos, was inscribed in relatively large letters, and they are easily distinguishable amid the newly inscribed texts of the Roman period and other texts (decrees) added to the statue bases over the course of the Hellenistic period.

Athenian Acropolis Near the end of a long letter to his friend and frequent correspondent T. Pomponius Atticus, written in February of 50 bc, Cicero remarked: There is one other thing I  should like you to think over. I  hear that Appius is making a gateway at Eleusis. Would it be out of the way if I did the same for the Academy? “I think it would,” you’ll say.Very well, just write and tell me so. I am really very fond of Athens, the actual city. I want to have some memorial there, and I hate false inscriptions on other people’s statues. Cicero Att. VI.1.26; trans. D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero’s Letters to Atticus III, 51–​50 B.C., 94–​132 (Books V–​VII.9), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968

203

204

204

Ear ly Gree k P ortraits under R o man   Ru l e

60.  Oropos, base for the portrait of an unknown subject signed by Simalos (third century bc). Simalos’ signature at the bottom (I.Oropos 387) was retained when a new inscription in honor of Q. Fufius Calenus (I.Oropos 450) was carved in an erasure at the top. A decree of the Oropians (I.Oropos 29) was also inscribed in much smaller letters between the signature and the Calenus inscription. Photo: Hans Rupprecht Goette, DAI Athens, neg. 1991/​86

The Appius referred to here is Appius Claudius Pulcher, the consul of 54 bc, who did indeed construct a monumental propylon in the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis; soon afterward, Appius was honored with a reinscribed portrait in the Amphiareion at Oropos (I.Oropos 449). Cicero, in considering how he himself would like to be remembered in Greece, expresses his strong disapproval for the Athenian practice of reinscribing older portrait statues with the names of new, Roman subjects; in his Verrine orations, he had already inveighed against the improper Roman removal of art works and monuments from Greek cities and sanctuaries.64 As we have already seen, Dio Chrysostom, writing about 100 years after Cicero, singled out the Athenians for their practice of portrait reinscription. In Athens and Attica, the reinscription of earlier Greek portraits was limited to the Acropolis with few exceptions.65 Nearly all of the new portrait subjects honored with reinscribed portraits on the Acropolis were Romans, most of them consuls or proconsuls. Judging from the extant statue bases showing evidence of reinscription, the practice began later than it did at Oropos, right around ca. 50 bc, the date of Cicero’s letter

205

Athenian Acropo l is

to Atticus. Though it would be tempting to associate the Athenian practice of portrait reinscription with the period immediately after Sulla’s sack of the lower city of Athens and the Piraeus in 86 bc and the ensuing loss of trade revenues from Delos, most of the extant examples seem to date to the Augustan and Julio-​Claudian periods when the city’s fortunes were improving.66 The most striking and prominent examples of portrait reinscription in Athens are three Attalid pillar monuments  –​two on the Acropolis and one in the Agora  –​converted into monuments to the imperial family. All three pillars can easily be identified as original dedications of the second-​century bc Attalid rulers of Pergamon by their characteristic Pergamene pseudo-​isodomic masonry; all three seem to have supported over-​lifesize equestrian portrait groups in bronze. The Agrippa monument, located just outside the Propylaia, has been identified as the base for a bronze quadriga group commemorating the Panathenaic victory of Eumenes II and Attalos II in 178 bc.67 Manolis Korres’ examination of the cuttings on the top of the base confirms that the monument went through two different phases of reuse and reinscription: while it is likely that the first phase involved inscribing Marcus Antonius’ name on the pillar, in the second phase in ca. 16–​12 bc all traces of earlier inscriptions were erased, and a new dedication to Marcus Agrippa (IG II2 4122) was carved over the erasure.68 Despite their erasure and reinscription, all three pillars retained an unbreakable visual association with the Hellenistic kings of Pergamon and their benefactions to Athens. Since the Attalids were the greatest benefactors the Athenians had ever known, it would be absurd to think that the reinscription of their portrait monuments meant that the Athenians were willing to forget them; rather, the Athenians sought to convey, first to Antony and then to Agrippa and the Julio-​Claudians, that they were worthy of comparison with the Attalids, and that they were expected to live up to the Attalids’ example. We need to consider the more mundane reinscribed portraits of the Acropolis in the same light. As recent studies have shown, the Athenians of the Augustan and Tiberian periods commissioned many new portraits of Roman subjects, with a large concentration on the Acropolis: reinscribing older portraits on the Acropolis was not the only choice available.69 Blanck identified fifteen examples of portrait reinscription on the Acropolis, but the total number has been raised more recently by Krumeich to twenty; none of the portraits, all presumably made of bronze, survives. It is easy to see why these numbers differ: what appears at first to be a single thing –​the reinscription of standing portrait statues with the names of new portrait subjects –​reveals itself upon closer examination to be a bewildering collection of different modalities of reuse. The easiest to recognize is the “palimpsest,” in which the original inscriptions of earlier periods were left intact and not erased when the name of a new portrait subject was added to the base. The best examples are the two early Classical warrior portraits from the Acropolis

205

206

206

Ear ly Gree k P ortraits under R o man   Ru l e

discussed in Chapter 3, one of them signed by Kritios and Nesiotes [Figures 38 and 39]. The new honorands, Lucius Cassius and L.  Aemilius Paullus, were both Roman consuls. In the case of Lucius Cassius, it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine which of the two early imperial consuls by that name (one in ad 11 and the other in ad 30) was being honored. Here, the analogy between the original Greek portrait subjects and the new, Roman ones was made visible not only by leaving the original inscriptions intact, but also by the choice of Classical warrior figures to reinscribe. On the base signed by Kritios and Nesiotes, as Julia Shear has pointed out, honoring Lucius Cassius for his arete (in Roman terms, his virtus) picks up the reference to the Greek portrait subject’s arete in the original epigram; it is probably not a mere coincidence that four Classical or early Hellenistic portraits of warriors in striding, attacking poses (the third and fourth will be discussed below) were chosen for inscription with new honors mentioning arete instead of some other, less martial, Greek virtue. But the reinscribed portraits on the Acropolis were not limited to male warriors. In the fourth century bc, an otherwise unknown Athenian named Lysimachos Lysitheidou Agrylethen had dedicated a portrait of himself to Athena on the Acropolis in order to thank the gods for saving him from “great dangers” (IG II2 4189/​4323).70 The new portrait inscription added to the base of this statue toward the end of the Julio-​Claudian period reads: The demos [dedicated] Marcus Licinius Crassus Frugi, on account of both piety [eusebeia] toward the emperor [Sebastos], and goodwill [eunoia] and beneficence [euergesia] toward the demos. M.  Licinius Crassus Frugi, like Lucius Cassius and L. Aemilius Paullus, was a Roman consul (in ad 61, during the reign of Nero), but he was honored first and foremost for his piety toward the imperial cult, not for his martial prowess. The Athenians’ choice to mention eusebeia in the inscription makes a clear link between Crassus and the pious Athenian Lysimachos of the Classical past whose portrait was being reinscribed in Crassus’ honor. Was Lysimachos shown looking upward toward the heavens and praying? Portraits in a prayerful attitude may have had a broad currency in Classical sculpture. Pausanias mentions several portraits of athletes at Olympia who appeared to be praying, but these have proven impossible to identify with any degree of confidence among the relatively small stock of bronze statuettes and Roman marble copies representing Greek athletes.71 Himmelmann has suggested that, in addition to athletes and individuals saved by the gods, even strategoi were depicted in this guise in the Classical period, as evidenced by the slightly parted lips and upward gaze of the Pastoret head [Figure 45] and one, but not all, of the copies associated with Kresilas’ Perikles on the Acropolis [Figure 42].72 At the opposite end of the reuse spectrum from cases such as these, in which nothing was erased, the Athenian Acropolis has also produced examples of

207

Athenian Acropo l is

portrait reinscription in which original texts were obliterated completely: the most prominent of these is the Attalid pillar monument in front of the Propylaia, already discussed.73 In practice, complete erasure with reinscription has proven difficult to distinguish from simple base reuse.74 Most examples of portrait reinscription found on the Acropolis fall somewhere between complete preservation and complete erasure, and this is where things become both more complicated and more interesting. An important new insight in recent scholarship is that, at the time of reinscription, the names of some original portrait subjects were preserved by writing them on the top, side, or back of the statue’s base: such a practice on the Acropolis finds close parallels in the Amphiareion at Oropos, and it is a welcome reminder that portrait reinscription did not necessarily involve forgetting.75 Still, caution is called for, and every case needs to be approached individually: there is at least one example of a name added to a statue base in this way that simply cannot be the name of a portrait’s subject, and must be explained differently.76 While the names of original, Greek portrait subjects seem to have been preserved in a few cases, there is more evidence for the preservation of sculptors’ signatures when portraits on the Acropolis were reinscribed. Examples at Epidauros and Oropos discussed earlier anticipate this mode of reinscription practiced on the Acropolis: erasing the original portrait subject, but keeping the sculptor’s signature. We have already seen that the signature of Kritios and Nesiotes was preserved when one of their portraits on the Acropolis was reinscribed. My approach to identifying and interpreting a sizeable group of reinscribed portraits of the fourth century on the Acropolis centers on other examples of preserved sculptors’ signatures. We begin with some general observations about sculptors’ signatures and signing in Athens. Signatures were less common in Athens from the end of the third century bc onward than they had been in earlier periods; when we do find signatures of the late Hellenistic and early Roman imperial periods, the dynamics of signing have changed considerably. For one thing, inscribing a signature in small letters on a statue base was no longer the only option: marble statues were being produced in the major sculptural centers of the Aegean (Athens, Delos, Rhodes, and eventually Aphrodisias) and shipped out with the names of their sculptors carved integrally on their plinths and figural supports.77 When statues were being made for local use and signed on their bases, the small-​signature format was no longer common; all inscriptions, not only signatures, appear less carefully plotted and executed than they had been in earlier periods. In the Archaic, Classical, and early Hellenistic periods in Athens, the norm for sculptors’ signatures had been to sign with the name only. After ca. 200 bc, signing with the tria nomina of the Athenian citizen (name, patronymic, and demotic) became the norm:  a good example is the second-​century bc sculptor Demetrios Philonos Pteleasios.78 The number of sculptors working in Athens was limited: Athenian sculptural production was

207

208

208

Ear ly Gree k P ortraits under R o man   Ru l e

dominated by a few extended families, and sculptors belonging to these families tended to sign their work jointly in pairs with patronymic and demotic, a practice that helped to make these familial connections clear. Eucheir and Euboulides Kropidai, Kaikosthenes and Dies Apollonidou Thriasioi, and the Polykles family of Thorikos are the prime examples.79 These late Hellenistic Athenian families and their workshops present no obvious prosopographical connections with the Greek sculptors of earlier periods, and when we do find homonyms among earlier Greek sculptors, there is no reason to assume they were related to one another: there is no apparent connection between Polykles I (who made the portrait of Alcibiades that Favorinus said was reinscribed as a portrait of Ahenobarbus) and the late Hellenistic Polykles family. The clearest case for an earlier sculptor whose portraits on the Acropolis were reinscribed in later periods is Antignotos.80 Though his name is unknown to modern students of Greek art history, a remarkably coherent picture of his career as a portraitist in the late fourth century emerges from literary and epigraphical evidence. Pliny (HN 34.86) gave no date for Antignotos, but attributed to him statues of wrestlers (luctatores), a perixyomenos (self-​scraper), and “the Tyrannicides mentioned above” (tyrannicidas supra dictos).81 Lysippos’ famous Apoxyomenos (Pliny HN 34.62) was by no means the only Greek portrait of a nude athlete scraping himself with a strigil or merely holding one, as evidenced by the bronze statue of an athlete with strigil in hand from Ephesos now in Vienna.82 There may even be some basis in fact for attributing a tyrannicide other than Harmodios and Aristogeiton to Antignotos: several early Hellenistic honorific portraits representing tyrant-​slayers outside Athens are known epigraphically.83 The best evidence for an early Hellenistic sculptor named Antignotos, however, associates him with the portrait of a tyrant, not a tyrant-​slayer. In the 1960s in the Attic countryside, the base for a lost bronze equestrian portrait of Dem[etrios] Phanostratou, dedicated by the demesmen of Sphettos (SEG XXV 206: Figure 61), came to light; along with the dedication, there is a signature of Antignotos.84 This base was flipped upside down

61.  Statue base for a portrait of Demetrios, son of Phanostratos (Demetrios of Phaleron, ca. 317–​307 bc), found in Attica; signed by the sculptor Antignotos. Reproduced from Kalogéropoulou 1969, ­figure 3. Public domain

209

Athenian Acropo l is

62. Statue base for an early Hellenistic portrait (subject unknown) reinscribed in honor of Raskouporis, son of Kotys, and signed by Antignotos (IG II2 3442 = IGB 314). The signature shows signs of being recarved. Reproduced from IGB. Public domain

and reused for another statue not long after its dedication. The natural inference is that the subject of this portrait was Demetrios, son of Phanostratos, of the deme Phaleron, the philosopher-​tyrant who ruled Athens from 317/​16 bc until his expulsion by Antigonos Monophthalmos and Demetrios Poliorcetes in 307. As we have seen in Chapter  1, late sources report implausibly large numbers of portraits of Demetrios of Phaleron in Athens, the great majority removed after his downfall in 307 bc. The only other evidence from the Greek world for a sculptor named Antignotos comes from three Pentelic marble statue bases from Athens with his signature, two from the Acropolis and another from the Athenian Asklepieion on the south slope of the Acropolis (IG II2 4138). At first glance, we would assume, from both the lettering and the names of the portrait subjects –​a Roman named Marcus in the Asklepieion; Raskouporis (IG II2 3442 = IGB 314) and his son Kotys (IG II2 3443+4129, now lost), client kings of Thracian Bosporus, on the two Acropolis bases  –​that both portraits and sculptor (Antignotos) date to the late Hellenistic or early imperial period. Closer examination of the surviving base on the Acropolis [Figure 62], however, has shown that the name of Raskouporis was carved in an erasure, and that a name possibly belonging to the original Athenian subject of the portrait statue, Satyros Semonidou Prospaltios, was inscribed on the back of the base.85 The new inscription of the Roman period translates as follows: [The demos] (dedicated) King Raskouporis, son of Kotys, on account of his arete toward itself. The small signature of Antignotos, no longer visible on the stone but reproduced in the 1880s by Loewy in IGB, shows the serifs and letter forms typical of Roman-​period epigraphy in Athens, just like the Raskouporis inscription above it. But how can this be, if the signature is older and original? I believe the simplest explanation is that, as we have already seen at Epidauros, at the time of reinscription the surviving sculptor’s signature was “touched up,” recarved in place with updated letter forms and serifs; the same goes for the signature of Antignotos from the Athenian Asklepieion. The name Antignotos was rare; we have evidence already for an early Hellenistic sculptor Antignotos working in Athens; the signatures are small, like those of Antignotos’ Athenian

209

210

210

Ear ly Gree k P ortraits under R o man   Ru l e

contemporaries, Praxiteles and his sons; the signature formula gives the sculptor’s name only, without patronymic or ethnic; and finally, the base is made of Pentelic marble. Though Pentelic was obviously still being quarried in the late Hellenistic and Roman imperial periods –​witness its exportation to Rome in the first century bc, and its use at Olympia to build the Nymphaeum of Herodes Atticus in the mid-​second century ad –​gray Hymettian marble had already begun to be used extensively in Athenian architecture, as well as for statue bases, from the early Hellenistic period onward.86 Once we accept that two of Antignotos’ surviving early Hellenistic portraits of Athenians on the Acropolis were reinscribed in honor of kings of the Thracian Bosporus, we must attempt to understand why. There were multiple kings named Raskouporis and Kotys in the late Republic and the Julio-​Claudian period. I would identify the two named here as the Augustan/​ Tiberian father and son: this Kotys, son of Raskouporis, was made archon of Athens at some point between ad 14 and 19.87 These kings were clients of Rome, but they also had a particular significance to the Athenians that made the reinscription of existing, older portraits on the Acropolis a meaningful honor: according to Ovid (Pont. 2.9, lines 1–​2 and 19–​20), they claimed descent from both the autochthonous Athenian king Erichthonios and Eumolpos, the legendary Thracian king who invaded Attica. Here we should also recall that Pausanias (1.27.5) saw a pair of fighting warriors on the Acropolis whom he identified as Erechtheus and Eumolpos. The portrait reinscribed in honor of Raskouporis, as Krumeich has shown, was a lifesize bronze figure advancing with his right foot forward:  another warrior portrait on the Acropolis, this one early Hellenistic in date and made by Antignotos. By reinscribing older portraits on the Acropolis for Raskouporis and Kotys rather than making new ones, the Athenians were sending the message that these Thracian kings, important Roman allies of the present, were worthy of comparison with both the Athenians of Classical history and Athens’ founding heroes.88 In order to understand the practice of portrait reinscription on the Athenian Acropolis, we need to consider carefully two Pentelic marble statue bases with signatures of a sculptor named Praxiteles, without patronymic or ethnic. But here the question of the meaning of reinscription is not easily separable from another question: how many sculptors named Praxiteles were there in Greco-​ Roman antiquity? There is no doubt who the most famous Praxiteles was and where he came from: he was an Athenian of the mid-​fourth century bc from the deme Sybridai. The epigraphical evidence attests to a family of sculptors active over three generations, beginning with the elder Kephisodotos, either the father or the uncle of Praxiteles, and ending with Praxiteles’ sons Kephisodotos and Timarchos, and possibly another son (or grandson?) named Praxiteles.89 Their signatures appear primarily on bases for bronze portrait statues, and the distribution of these portraits seems to show a strong familial attachment to

211

Athenian Acropo l is

the cult of Demeter and Kore: the elder Kephisodotos signed several bases at Eleusis, and both Praxiteles and his sons made portraits for the City Eleusinion and another Demeter sanctuary in the lower city.90 In addition to working as sculptors, Praxiteles and his family were wealthy enough to perform liturgies in the second half of the fourth century. The types of inscribed documents typically cited as evidence for citizenship, wealth, and familial continuity in Athens –​records of proxenies, priesthoods, gravestones, and the like –​trickle on intermittently through the Augustan period, but the only evidence that members of the Praxiteles family continued to work as sculptors after ca. 250 bc comes from a series of statue bases in Athens that I explain instead as evidence for later reuse and reinscription targeting the material remains of the late Classical Praxiteles.91 The reality of Praxiteles and his sons from Sybridai, Athenian portrait sculptors par excellence, has very little to do with Praxiteles’ Nachleben in the late Hellenistic and Roman imperial periods.92 The massive, three-​volume compilation of literary testimonia for Praxiteles by Antonio Corso, the vast majority of them dating after ca. 200 bc, begs the question: how and why did Praxiteles become so famous?93 The Knidia, Praxiteles’ nude cult image of Aphrodite at Knidos in Asia Minor, seems to be at the heart of the matter, but it brings us no closer to understanding how the Praxiteles phenomenon of the Roman period began, or what (if any) connection it might have to the evidence of signatures. For our purposes here, the key question is: would any viewer looking at the base for a reinscribed portrait statue on the Acropolis have thought that “Praxiteles epoiese” referred to someone other than the mid-​fourth-​century sculptor Praxiteles of Sybridai? The epigraphical evidence for one or more late Hellenistic and early imperial sculptors named Praxiteles –​variously dubbed Praxiteles V, Praxiteles VI, and Praxiteles VII in earlier scholarship  –​comes from four inscribed statue bases in Athens, two out of four belonging to portraits on the Acropolis that were clearly reinscribed with the names of new portrait subjects in the first century ad.94 The first Acropolis statue base must be seen to be believed [IG II2 4181: Figures 63 and 64]. The front of the base shows a very deep erasure: the original inscription has been literally gouged out of the surface of the stone to make room for a new inscription honoring Gnaeus Acceronius Proculus, proconsul of the Roman province of Achaea in the mid-​first century ad, under Claudius or Nero: The demos (dedicated) Gnaeus Acceronius Proculus, proconsul, on account of his goodwill [eunoia] and caretaking [kedemonia] toward itself.95 The signature of Praxiteles, by comparison, is miniscule and partially obscured by the new honorific inscription above it. In Loewy’s facsimile drawing published in IGB, a key detail of the signature can be made out: the letter pi has a characteristically Classical form, different than the pi used in the inscription above, but the letter strokes have been thickened and serifs added.

211

212

212

Ear ly Gree k P ortraits under R o man   Ru l e

63.  Gn. Acceronius Proculus/​Praxiteles statue base inscriptions (IG II2 4181 = IGB 318). The text in honor of Proculus is inscribed in an erasure. The name Kleidikos Kineou Lamptre(us), inscribed on the left side of the base, is not shown. Reproduced from IGB. Public domain

64. Gn. Acceronius Proculus/​Praxiteles statue base (IG II2 4181):  photograph showing the dowel holes for the statue’s feet on the top of the base. Photo: Jan M. Müller, reproduced by permission

The odd placement of the signature is more telling:  it was in place on the stone before the mid-​first century ad, when its letters were recarved with decorative serifs, and when the bronze portrait statue the base supported, made and signed by Praxiteles, was reidentified as a Roman provincial governor. The name of an Athenian, Kleidikos Kineou Lamptre(us), has been neatly inscribed along the top edge of the base’s left side. This could be the name of the portrait’s original subject. The names Kleidikos and Kineas both recur in a known liturgical family of the deme Lamptrai first attested in the early fourth

213

Athenian Acropo l is

century bc; this particular individual could easily fit into this family’s stemma in the middle or the second half of the fourth century, contemporary with the late Classical sculptor Praxiteles.96 From the dowel holes on the top of the base, we can see that the figure stood touching or leaning on an object to its proper left [Figure 64]. Krumeich sees a parallel for this pose in an extant late Hellenistic marble portrait from Delos that shows a nude warrior leaning on a cuirass; he dates Kleidikos Kineou Lamptreus to ca. 100 bc and attributes the signature to a hypothetical late Hellenistic sculptor named Praxiteles. I prefer a solution in which “Praxiteles epoiesen” really does refer to the famous Praxiteles of the fourth century. But if the portrait was made by the real Praxiteles, then what did it look like, and how did it make sense when reidentified as a Roman provincial governor? Here we are navigating in the dark because not a single one of Praxiteles’ original portraits survives. But both the Aphrodite of Knidos and several other “Praxitelean” works, including the Hermes and Dionysos at Olympia, either touch or lean on supports to their proper left; so does the “Lysippan” portrait of Sisyphos II in the Daochos group of the 330s bc at Delphi [Figure 30], which may be the earliest extant example of this pose in a freestanding Greek portrait.97 Sisyphos II is a nude, athletic youth leaning on a herm; Praxiteles’ portrait on the Acropolis, reinscribed for Gnaeus Acceronius Proculus, was probably an early example of a himation man leaning on a pillar or column.98 I also assign a second reinscribed, Pentelic marble statue base on the Athenian Acropolis [IG II2 3882/​4117: Figure 65] to the fourth-​century Praxiteles, but an unusual inscription on the top of the base between the statue’s feet presents new challenges.99 The new, Roman honorand, whose name appears in an erasure, is Gaius Aelius Gallus, probably Augustus’ military prefect of Egypt by that name, who launched a campaign in the Arabian peninsula. The small signature of Praxiteles below seems to have been thoroughly –​and badly –​ cut with serifs. Features that stand out are, first of all, the pose of the lifesize statue, lunging with left foot forward and feet approximately 0.60 meters apart; the pose recalls not so much the warriors of the fifth century as it does the figures in the mid-​fourth century Amazonomachy frieze of the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus. An inscription in late lettering that looks very different from the lettering of the Gallus inscription was placed awkwardly between the statue’s feet: Dionysios, son of Simos, of Kydonia [in Crete], a proxenos, dedicated Lampon. Unlike the names we have seen on other reinscribed statue bases on the Acropolis, this seems to be the transcription or précis of the original dedication:  a proxenos, presumably one working for Athens in Kydonia on Crete, dedicates the portrait of a man named Lampon, who may or may not be Athenian. One cogent argument for connecting this enigmatic inscription with an original portrait made by Praxiteles in the mid-​fourth century is that the institution of proxeny was on its way out in Athens and elsewhere in the

213

214

214

Ear ly Gree k P ortraits under R o man   Ru l e

65.  G. Aelius Gallus/​Praxiteles statue base (IG II2 3882/​4117), drawing of the inscriptions and the dowel holes for the statue. Drawing: Antonia Brauchle, reproduced by permission

Greek world by the late Hellenistic period: a reference to a proxenos would not make sense in a text generated after ca. 100 bc.100 The signatures of Antignotos and Praxiteles on the Acropolis appear on statue bases that show clear signs of reinscription, and the signatures themselves do not look like those of late Hellenistic and early imperial Athenian sculptors. There are several more palimpsest bases for portrait statues on the Acropolis that show evidence of reinscription; but whether or not they also show the retention and retouching of the signatures of earlier sculptors is open to debate. The appearance of the name Kephisodotos certainly points in this direction; so does the name Herodoros, which occurs in the family of Sthennis of Olynthos.101 In portrait reinscription on the Acropolis and elsewhere, the names of sculptors are there because they made the portrait statues; when the lettering of their signatures looks late in date, recarving is a possible explanation.

Conclusion From the point of view of a scholar reconstructing Greek portraits of the sixth, fifth, and fourth centuries bc, both statue removals and the types of

215

Conclusion

appropriation and reuse examined here at first glance seem like attempts to obscure the past, and inconvenient obstacles to our own attempts to reconstruct what early Greek portraits “really” were. The reinscribed portraits on the Acropolis especially offer a salutary warning about how little we know of fifth-​and fourth-​century Greek portraiture. Most of the portraits chosen for reinscription seem to have been private rather than official; if some of the Athenian names we see inscribed on the tops, sides, and backs of some bases for reinscribed portraits belong to their original subjects, then the majority of these portraits did not represent either the great politicians and strategoi of the Classical period or the Hellenistic kings.These portraits mattered for their subjects, but not because the Athenians of the first centuries bc and ad remembered who they were. These individuals from the Athenian past were catalysts for cultural memory, tekmeria less of the individual than of Athenian history in general, recognized as illustrations of the roles of the Classical citizen: armed warrior, man in a prayerful attitude, himation man. Some of these portraits stood on bases that preserved the signatures of famous sculptors: Kritios and Nesiotes, Praxiteles. The choice of portraits on the Acropolis for reinscription, if not always programmatic, was certainly historically conscious. Portrait reinscription was not something the Athenians, or the people of Epidauros and Oropos, were trying to disguise, and the economic interpretation is a narrow view. If reinscribed portraits were a form of analogy, the new subject had to be worthy of comparison with the old one: leaving old inscriptions in place encouraged such comparison. In her book Graecia Capta, published in 1993, Susan Alcock wrote: Reuse of monuments should not be thought of as simple “economizing,” either on the part of the conquering power or of the subordinate communities. Rededication of monuments harnesses the power of the past to the purposes of the present … Monuments are durable objects, over time gathering new layers of meaning which subsume and subvert, without ever erasing, their original message. In the cases cited here, the new message conveyed is Rome’s inevitable domination of past symbolic discourses. The impetus for this kind of re-​employment came from both above and below: from the victorious side to announce its presence, from the conquered to assimilate it.102

The evidence presented in this chapter for the reinscription of earlier portraits in some Greek sanctuaries similarly challenges us to reconsider material reuse in Roman Greece. A  reinscribed portrait from an earlier period, like a newly manufactured honorific portrait, was awarded as an honor. When Romans were the recipients, the “politics of the accusative” still applied: they were honored by the Greeks, but at the same time put in their place. New inscriptions on surviving monuments from earlier periods were impositions, making new claims on viewers’ attention, not attempts to

215

216

216

Ear ly Gree k P ortraits under R o man   Ru l e

obliterate the past. As the sites examined here show, the Greeks of the late Hellenistic and early Roman imperial periods were not all interested in remembering the same things. In Athens, retrospection focused on the fifth and fourth centuries; at Olympia and Epidauros, material reuse and reclamation were driven by local elites intent on picking out evidence of their own ancestral arete amid the diverse material record of the Classical and early Hellenistic periods. In the Samian Heraion, local authorities whenever possible looked back to the Archaic period for a usable past. It was up to the Greeks under Roman rule to preserve the material evidence for their pasts, or to choose to forget it.

217

CONCLUSION: THE LIMITS OF REPRESENTATION

Alexander the Great claimed descent not only from Herakles through his father Philip, but also from Achilles through his mother Olympias. If later literary sources are to be believed, Alexander consciously emulated these heroes as paradigms on his campaign to conquer the Persian empire. He performed the Herculean feat of besieging Tyre in Phoenicia by constructing a causeway linking it to the mainland after being denied permission to sacrifice there to Melqart, the Phoenician hero viewed as Herakles’ equivalent (Arr. Anab. 2.15.6–​24.6). He told his men to scale the rock of Aornos, a seemingly impregnable mountain fortress in the Himalayas, because Herakles himself was alleged to have failed to take it (Arr. Anab. 4.28.1–​30.4). He performed elaborate ceremonies at Troy, crowning the tomb of Achilles (Arr. Anab. 1.11.6–​ 12.2), and he imitated Achilles’ extravagant mourning for Patroklos when his companion Hephaisteion died (Arr. Anab. 7.14.1–​15.10).1 On the subject of Alexander’s heroic character, the famous epigram by the early third-​century poet Asclepiades on Lysippos’ portrait statue of Alexander is a masterpiece of equivocation. Was Alexander really a hero –​or did he merely look like one? The boldness of Alexander and his whole form were imitated     By Lysippos. What power this bronze has! The brazen man, as he looks, resembles someone about to say,     “I subject the land to myself; Zeus, you keep Olympus!” Anth. Pal. 16.120, trans. Sens 20052

217

218

218

Conclusion:   T he Li m its of R epresentation

Alexander’s divine cult by his own fiat in 324 bc was something new in Greek culture, a step beyond both the cult worship of some Olympic victors and the divine cult offered to Lysander; but equivocation about exceptional individuals was clearly not new. The thoroughgoing Gottmenschentum of Alexander and his successors has overshadowed earlier patterns of thought and representation. Mapping the individual onto heroic and divine models was already being practiced in the world of the Classical city-​state. Lysippos made not only a heroic Alexander holding a spear, but also a retrospective portrait of the fifth-​century athlete Polydamas of Skotoussa with base reliefs that depicted him wrestling a lion like Herakles. Leochares made both a Zeus and the portrait of Philip II in the Philippeion at Olympia:  who is to say whether or not Philip held a thunderbolt like the Zeus in the east pediment of the nearby Zeus temple, before the painter Apelles put one in the hand of Alexander (Plut. Mor. 360D)? The post-​Persian War public art and literature of the fifth century offered images and narratives about gods and heroes as models for human action and for the awarding of honors.The Parthenon sculptures show the gods setting in motion a chain of events (the birth of Athena, the battle of gods and giants, the contest of Athena and Poseidon) that led inexorably to the Athenian achievement of military victory over the Persians. When Pheidias’ Athena inside the Parthenon emerges victorious from battle, she is rewarded with a crown. In Athens, the historical figures Harmodios and Aristogeiton were transmuted into cultic heroes, and as such they were promoted along with Theseus as heroic exemplars for Athenian citizens to imitate. Athenian male portraits in the fifth-​century democracy were inspired by elevating heroic values, not by the image of the middling democratic hoplite: why else are there no hoplites on the Parthenon frieze? At Olympia after 480, images of heroes, kings, and victorious athletes increasingly shared the same space because they partook of the same ideas about divine choice by Zeus, heroism, and heroic genealogy. At Delphi, the narrative of the unsuccessful Persian attack on the sanctuary and the colossal Salamis Apollo holding a captured ship’s prow both promoted the image of Apollo as savior of the Greeks. The imagery of the Aigospotamoi statue group of 405 bc presented Lysander as a savior like Apollo and the Dioskouroi standing beside him, but also as chosen by the gods for victory and crowned by Poseidon. Even the more pedestrian Classical portraits in sanctuaries such as Delphi, the Athenian Acropolis, the Samian Heraion, and the Asklepieion at Epidauros can be seen as extending the reach of familiar images and master narratives of the arete of gods and heroes. Classical portraiture, for all of its naturalism in representing the human body, held up a distorting mirror: no positive value was assigned to portrait statues that reproduced the appearance of their subjects, and images of gods and heroes were the common frame of reference.

219

Conclusion :   T he Li m its of R epresentation

Herodotus’ Histories are central to understanding both the Archaic and fifth-​ century past he describes and the changes occurring in the period of the Peloponnesian War when he wrote. Herodotus’ prose historiography challenges the primacy of epic poetry, but at the same time it is clear that epic ideas, centered on the arete of warriors and the mechanisms of divine choice, continued to be important even as the uses of portraiture were expanding. The honorific idea that emerged at the end of the fifth century, a crucial development in the history of the Classical polis, did not immediately supplant the traditional value system. The earliest honorific portraits singled out victorious generals above all for civic honors. Compensation for the prematurely deceased, and using portraits as a substitute for living descendants and continuity of the oikos, continued to be important motives for portraiture even in the era of the civic honorific portrait. Herodotus viewed monuments, both statues and inscribed texts, as potential tekmeria of the names and heroic deeds of the individuals of the past: the same portraits that expressed divine or heroic emulation and analogy also functioned as documents bolstering historical narratives. The statues of Harmodios and Aristogeiton in the Athenian Agora led some Athenians to believe that they had been responsible for the end of the Peisistratid tyranny. Kleobis and Biton were represented with portrait statues because they were like the Dioskouroi, but at the same time it is possible that the Greeks of Herodotus’ time superimposed the story of Kleobis and Biton’s heroic arete and divine choice upon preexisting statues of the Dioskouroi at Delphi whose significance had been lost to memory. In addition to presenting Lysander as a divinely chosen savior, the Aigospotamoi statue group at Delphi was also a documentary catalogue of the generals who participated in the victory over the Athenians at the end of the Peloponnesian War, complete with inscribed name labels. Athletic victor portraits, which had originated in the Archaic period as an expression of the ideas that victory was evidence of divine choice and that a replica of the victor’s body was a fitting votive gift, over the course of the later fifth and the fourth century became a vehicle for documenting Olympic victories in which the victor’s family and polis had a strong interest. The widespread adoption of the term eikon for portraits after Herodotus, and the use of name labels to identify their subjects, come out of a new recognition of portraits as a documentary genre of representation distinct from images of gods and heroes. Over the course of the fourth century, the documentary value of portraits was increasingly realized, not only through civic honorific portraits and portraits of athletic victors, but also through retrospective images of Archaic and fifth-​century individuals. In addition to having been a catalyst for the development of Greek portraiture, the Persian Wars also lived on as a focus for cultural retrospection. Portraits played an important role in the construction of post-​Herodotean historical narratives:  even if they had not been named

219

220

220

Conclusion:   T he Li m its of R epresentation

in the inscription on the Plataia victory tripod at Delphi or singled out by Herodotus, cities could claim some of the symbolic capital of the Persian Wars through portraits. Even more striking than the retrospective portraits of Miltiades and Themistokles are the representations of obscure individuals from the fifth-​century past used as historical correctives or as vehicles to promote local history. In the late Classical period, other retrospective portraits began to be inspired directly by written texts: images of Archaic and fifth-​century poets reinforced literary attributions and associated figures from the past with particular locations. Some of the Classical portraits that survived into the period of Roman rule in Greece were either removed to Rome or transformed by local civic authorities into portraits of different subjects through the addition of new inscriptions to their bases. Portraits of subjects both famous and obscure were embraced as a means for honoring Roman rulers and contemporary Greek worthies by analogy with the Greeks of earlier periods. Like the retrospective portraits of the Classical and Hellenistic periods, reinscribed portraits singled out individuals from the past for their utility in the present. The use of the individual as the focus for commemoration comes full circle: even when the individual was forgotten, portrait images continued to be valued as documents of the Classical past.

221

APPENDIX 1

PORTRAIT STATUES AT OLYMPIA, CA. 600–​3 00  bc A.  Portraits of Archaic and Fifth-​Century Victors and their Sculptors at Olympia Victor 

Date of Latest Victory

Portrait 

Portrait Sculptor

Sources

Oibotas (Dyme)

756 bc

ca. 460 bc

Unknown

656 bc

mid-​5th c. bc

520 bc

First half 5th c. bc

Myron  (Eleutherai) Glaukias (Aegina)

Anochos (Tarentum) Damaretos (Heraia) Kleosthenes (Epidamnos) Timasitheos (Delphi) Philon (Corcyra) Hieronymos (Andros) Gelon (Syracuse) Agiadis (Elis)

520 bc

First half 5th c. bc

Paus. 6.3.8; cf. 7.17.1, 7.17.7; Ebert 22 Paus. 6.13.2; cf. 3.14.3, 6.18.7 Paus. 6.10.1 (dedicated by Glaukos’ son) Paus. 6.14.11

Chionis (Sparta) Glaukos  (Karystos)

Epikradios (Mantinea) Mnaseas (Cyrene) Dromeus (Stymphalos) Astylos (Kroton) Theogenes (Thasos) Theognetos (Aegina)

484 bc

(Home City)

Date

516 bc 516 bc 512 bc 496 bc

First half 5th c. bc First half 5th c. bc First half 5th c. bc

492 bc 488 bc

First half 5th c. bc

488 bc

484 bc 480 bc 480 bc 476 bc 476 bc

First half 5th c. bc

Ageladas (Argos) Eutelidas (Argos) Ageladas (Argos) Ageladas (Argos) Glaukias (Aegina) Stomios Glaukias (Aegina) Serambos (Aegina) Ptolichos (Aegina) Pythagoras (Rhegion) Pythagoras (Rhegion) Pythagoras (Rhegion) Glaukias (Aegina) Ptolichos (Aegina)

Paus. 6.10.4 Paus. 6.10.6 Paus. 6.8.6 Paus. 6.9.9 Paus. 6.14.13 IvO 143; Syll.3 33; cf. Paus. 6.9.4 Paus. 6.10.9 Paus. 6.10.9 Paus. 6.13.7 Paus. 6.7.10 Paus. 6.13.1 Paus. 6.11.12 Paus. 6.9.1

221

222

222

Appendi x   1

Table (continued) Victor  (Home City)

Date of Latest Victory

Portrait  Date

Portrait Sculptor

Sources

Pythagoras (Samos/​ Rhegion) Mikon (Athens) Onatas (Aegina) and Kalamis (Athens)

IvO 144; Paus. 6.6.4

Pythagoras (Rhegion) Kallikles (Megara)

Paus. 6.6.1

Euthymos (Lokroi)

472 bc

Kallias (Athens)

472 bc

Hieron (Syracuse)

468 bc

Protolaos (Mantinea) Diagoras (Rhodes)

464 bc

Kratisthenes (Cyrene) Kyniskos (Mantinea) Timanthes (Kleonai) Leontiskos (Messene, Sicily) Pythokles (Elis)

464 bc

452 bc

Polykleitos II (Argos)

Lykinos (?)

448 bc

Cheimon (Argos)

448 bc

Myron (Eleutherai) Naukydes (Argos)

Gnathon (Dipaia, Arcadia) Philippos (Pellana) Aristeus (Argos) Xenombrotos (Kos) Amertas (Elis)

440 bc

Kallikles (Megara)

Paus. 6.7.9

436 bc

Myron (Eleutherai) Pantias (Chios) Philotimos (Aegina) Phradmon (Argos)

Paus. 6.8.5

Androsthenes (Mainalos)

416 bc

Nikodamos (Mainalos)

Paus. 6.6.1

mid-​5th c. bc (dedicated by son Deinomenes after Hieron’s death)

464 bc

Pythagoras (Rhegion) Polykleitos I (Argos) Myron (Eleutherai) Pythagoras (Rhegion)

460 bc 456 bc 452 bc

End 5th or first quarter 4th c. bc

420 bc 420 bc 420 bc

End 5th or first quarter 4th c. bc First quarter 4th c. bc

IvO 146; Paus. 6.6.1 Paus. 6.12.1

IvO 151 (renewed); Paus. 6.7.1 Paus. 6.18.1 IvO 149; Paus. 6.4.11 Paus. 6.8.4 Paus. 6.4.3 IvO 162/​163 (renewed); Paus. 6.7.10 Paus. 6.2.1 Paus. 6.9.3

Paus. 6.9.3 IvO 170; Paus. 6.14.12 Paus. 6.8.1

223

223

Appendix 1

Table (continued) Victor  (Home City)

Date of Latest Victory

Portrait  Date

Portrait Sculptor

Sources

Pantias (Chios) Lysippos (Sikyon)

Paus. 6.3.11

IvO 159 (renewed); Paus. 6.6.2 Paus. 6.14.12

Nikostratos (Heraia) Polydamas  (Skotoussa)

416 bc

Eukles (Rhodes)

404 bc

Naukydes (Argos)

Xenodikos (Kos) Baucis (Troezen) Euthymenes (Mainalos) Timon (Elis)

400 bc

Aigyptos (Elis)

400 bc

Antiochos (Lepreon)

400 bc

Pantias (Chios) Naukydes (Argos) Alypos (Sikyon) Daidalos (Sikyon) Daidalos (Sikyon) Nikodamos (Mainalos)

408 bc

Middle or third quarter 4th c. bc

400 bc 400 bc 400 bc

First quarter 4th c. bc

Paus. 6.5.1; Taeuber 1997

Paus. 6.8.4 Paus. 6.8.5 Paus. 6.2.8 Paus. 6.2.8 Paus. 6.3.9

B.  Formulae for Victor Portrait Inscriptions at Olympia, Down to ca. 400 bc Date of Latest Victory (Date of Portrait)

Victor 

Sources

Formula

516 bc

Kleosthenes (Epidamnos)

Paus. 6.10.6–​7  (Ebert 4)

516 bc

Milo (Croton)

IvO 264 (Ebert 61)

508 bc  Not a portrait?

Pantares (Gela)

IvO 142; Ebert 5

496 bc

Philon

488 bc

Gelon (Syracuse)

Paus. 6.9.9  (Ebert 11) IvO 143

476 bc

Theognetos (Aegina) Euthymos (Lokroi)

Epigram incl. N + P + E + event + anetheke Fragment, identification not certain: N + P + anetheke Bronze base for statuette  Fragment: N + P + E + anetheke Epigram incl. N + P + E + event N+P+E +anetheke Epigram incl. N + event Epigram with eikon +   N+P+E+ anetheke

472 bc  Renewed

(Home City)

Ebert 12 IvO 144; Ebert 16

224

224

Appendi x   1

Table (continued) Date of Latest Victory (Date of Portrait)

Victor 

Sources

Formula

472 bc 472 bc  Renewed

Kallias (Athens) Tellon

IvO 146 IvO 147/​148; Ebert 14

468 bc

Hieron (Syracuse)

Paus. 8.42.9  (Ebert 17)

464 bc

Ergoteles (Himera)

SEG XXIX 414; Ebert 20

464 bc  (late 5th/​early 4th c. bc?)  Renewed 464 bc

Diagoras (Rhodes)

IvO 151

N + P + E + event Epigram incl. N + P + E + event + anetheke Dedicated by Hieron’s son, Deinomenes  Epigram incl. N + E + event + anetheke Bronze plaque  Epigram incl. N + P + E+ event + victories + anetheke Fragment: N + P +E

Pherias (Aegina)

SEG XXIII 255; Ebert 19

756 bc  (portrait ca. 460 bc) 452 bc  (late 5th/​early 4th c. bc?) 448 bc  (late 5th/​early 4th c. bc?)  Renewed 444 bc

Oibotas (Dyme)

Paus. 7.17.6-​7 (Ebert 22)

Bronze plaque  Fragment: N + P + E + event Epigram incl. N + P + E + event

Pythokles (Elis)

IvO 162/​163

Fragment: N + E

Damagetos (Rhodes)

IvO 152

Fragment: N + P +E

Charmides (Elis)

IvO 156; Ebert 24

424 bc  (late 5th/​early 4th c. bc?) 424 bc  late 5th/​early 4th c. bc?)  Renewed 424 bc

Dorieus (Rhodes)

IvO 153

Fragmentary epigram incl. N + P + event Fragment: list of victories

Hellanikos (Lepreon)

IvO 155

Name label: N + E

Da[masi]ppos

IvO 154; Ebert 27

420 bc

Xenombrotos (Kos)

IvO 170; Ebert 49

Fragmentary epigram incl. N +E Fragmentary epigram incl. N + E + event

(Home City)

225

225

Appendix 1

Table (continued) Date of Latest Victory (Date of Portrait)

Victor 

Sources

Formula

404 bc  Renewed 400 bc

Eukles (Rhodes)

IvO 159

-​krates

IvO 157; Ebert 29

Name label: N + P+E Fragmentary epigram incl. N + P + event + anetheke

(Home City)

N = name, P = patronymic, E = ethnic

C.  Formulae for Victor Portrait Inscriptions at Olympia, ca. 396–3​00 bc Date of Latest Victory

Victor 

Sources

Formula

392 bc

Kyniska (Sparta)

IvO 160; Ebert 33

384 bc

Narykidas  (Phigaleia)

IvO 161; Ebert 36

384 bc  Renewed 384 bc

Damoxenidas (Mainalos) Dikon (Syracuse)

IvO 158

Epigram incl. N + P + E + event + eikon Epigram incl. N + P + E + event + victories Name label: N + E

376 bc

IvO 167

372 bc

Kritodamos (Kleitor) Xenokles

372 bc

Troilos (Elis)

IvO 166; Ebert 38

368 bc

Aristion (Epidauros) Athenaios (Ephesos) Ly[s]‌ikl[es] (Crete?)

IvO 165

Deinosthenes (Sparta)

IvO 171

352 bc Second quarter 4th c. bc? 316 bc

(Home City)

Ebert 35

IvO 164; Ebert 32

IvO 168 Ebert 48

Epigram incl. N + P + E + event + victories Name label: N + P+E Name label: N + P + E and epigram incl. N + P + E + event Bronze plaque  Epigram incl. N + P + E + event Name label: N + P+E Name label: N + P+E Fragmentary epigram incl.: N + E + event + victories Stele; not for a portrait statue?  N + P + E + event + anetheke

226

226

Appendi x   1

Table (continued) Date of Latest Victory

Victor 

Sources

Formula

312 bc

Aristophon

IvO 169

Sophios (Messene)

IvO 172; Ebert 51

Small fragment incl. N Fragmentary name label and epigram incl. N + E + event

304 bc

(Home City)

227

APPENDIX 2

PORTRAIT STATUES AT DELPHI, CA. 600–​3 00  bc A.  Portraits in Row Groups Down to ca. 300 bc Jacquemin no.

Subject Name(s)

Date

Sources

Description

455

Upper Tarentine row group

ca. 470–​460 bc

Paus. 10.13.10; Syll.3 40B

078

Athenian Marathon row group (Pheidias group)

460s or 450s bc

Paus. 10.10.1–​2; Ioakimidou 1997, 66–​77, no. 11

393

Horsemen of Pherai (Thessaly)

after 457 bc

Paus. 10.15.4

322

Lysander and nauarchs at Aigospotamoi  (405 bc)

soon after 404 bc

401

First Phocian group (victory over Thessalians)

late 4th/​early 3rd c. bc? (victory in ca. 490)

Paus. 10.9.7–​ 11; Plut. De Pyth. or. 2; Plut. Lys. 18; FdD III 1 50–​3, 55–​8, 61–​7; Ioakimidou 1997, 107–​ 15, no. 21; Choix Delphes 25 Paus. 10.1.10 and 10.13.6 

Heroes Taras and Phalanthos, cavalrymen, foot soldiers.  Made by Onatas of Aegina and [Ageladas] of Argos Gods, eponymous heroes of Kleisthenic tribes, portrait of Miltiades. Made by Pheidias Leaders of the cavalry of Pherai (defeat of Athenians) Gods, heroes, Lysander, seer, herald, pilot, allied nauarchs

(Syll.3 202B and FdD III 3 123?)

Gods, local heroes, strategoi, and seer. Made by Aristomedon of Argos

227

228

228

Appendi x   2

B.  Non-​Athletic Portraits Down to ca. 300 bc Jacquemin no.

Subject Name(s)

Date

Sources

Description

071

Kleobis and Biton

early 6th c. bc

347

Alexander I (Macedon)

ca. 479 bc

Syll.3 5 (plinth inscriptions); Hdt. 1.31 Hdt. 8.121

452

Hieron (Syracuse) Lysander

second quarter 5th c. bc end 5th c./​beg. 4th c. bc

Plut. De Pyth. or. 397e Plut. Mor. 397F and Lys. 1.1

Two kouroi: Dioskouroi or portraits? Self-​representation by Macedonian king Self-​representation?

334

Gorgias (Leontinoi)

beg. 4th c. bc

329

Spartan king Agesipolis, son of Pausanias II Pelopidas (Thebes)

ca. 380 bc (renewed 2nd c. bc)

Paus. 10.18.7; Pliny HN 33.83; Ath. 11.505 d–​e; [Dio Chrys.] 37.28; Kaibel 875b FdD III 1 509; Marcadé I 60

407

Philomelos (Phokis)

355–​354 bc

406

Onymarchos (Phokis)

353–​352 bc

498

Archidamos III (Sparta) Phryne (Thespiai)

mid-​4th c. bc  (died 338) mid-​4th c. bc

Ath. 13.591b

368

Idrieus and Ada (Caria)

351–​344 bc

444

Hermias, tyrant of Atarneus

ca. 350–​325 bc

Marcadé I 93; Choix Delphes 47 Diog. Laert. 5.7.11

330

465

(none)

369 bc (or posthumous?)

Marcadé I 66; Choix Delphes 34

Paus. 10.15.1; Ath. 13.591b–​c

Marble; inside treasury of Akanthians Self-​representation, gilded bronze

Dedicated by father Pausanias II; signed by Kleon of Sikyon Dedicated by Thessalians, signed by Lysippos Equestrian portrait of Phocian general, removed 343 bc Equestrian portrait of Phocian general, removed 343 bc Spartan king on column base Self-​representation, gilded bronze portrait on column base Dedicated by Milesians, signed by Satyros Posthumous, dedicated by Aristotle

229

229

Appendix 2

Jacquemin no.

Subject Name(s)

Date

Sources

Description

510

Philip II (Macedon) Skyllias and Hydna Philip II (Macedon)

346–​336 bc

Ath. 13.591b

4th c. bc?

Paus. 10.19.1

Macedonian king on column base Retrospective?

391

Daochos group

330s bc

134

Astronomer Kallippos

001

Charidemos of Pitane

ca. 330 bc (renewed 2nd c. bc) ca. 330 bc (or early 3rd c.?)

083

Melanopos (Delphi)

ca. 325–​300 bc

Marcadé I 32–​3

350

Krateros monument (incl. portraits of Alexander and Krateros) Alexandros, son of Polyperchon, and wife Kratesipolis (Macedon) Peisis (Thespiai)

Ca. 320–​300 bc

Pliny HN 34.64; Plut. Alex. 40

312 bc

Marcadé I 122

Olympiodoros (Athenian general)

ca. 300 bc

Paus. 1.26.3

054 061

437

102

279

after 336 bc Löhr 2000, 118–​23, no. 139; Choix Delphes 48

Posthumous, dedicated by Amphissa All-​male genealogical group incl. Pythian victors Dedicated by his birth city Kyzikos

Marcadé I 89

ca. 315 bc or posthumous (Alexandros killed in 314)

Dedicated by people of Abydos; signed by Praxiteles I or Praxiteles II Dedicated by Athenians, signed by Ergophilos Dedicated by Krateros’ son Krateros

Dedicated by Timokleides of Sikyon

Deceased soldier dedicated by Boiotians sent to liberate Opuntian Locrians Dedicated by Phocians of Elateia (defeat of Cassander)

230

NOTES

INTRODUCTION: WHY PORTRAITS?

1 For continuity between the Classical and early Hellenistic periods, and the lack of clear dividing lines in 338 bc (battle of Chaironeia) or 323 bc (death of Alexander), see P. J. Rhodes, “‘Classical’ and ‘Hellenistic’ in Athenian History,” Electrum 11 (2006), 27–​ 43. Continuity from late Classical to early Hellenistic in Greek sculpture: Schultz and von den Hoff 2007. 2 See esp. Gauthier 1985 on the Classical origins of honorific portraits; the essays in Wörrle and Zanker 1995; and Ma 2013b on the Hellenistic period, with earlier bibliography. 3 Dillon 2006 deals with both the Greek male portraits of the Classical and Hellenistic periods and their Roman reception. Additional recent studies of Greek portraiture with a focus on the Hellenistic period: Fittschen 1988b; Smith 1988 (royal portraits); Stewart 1993 (portraits of Alexander); von den Hoff 1994 (philosopher portraits); Queyrel 2003 (Attalids of Pergamon); Schultz and von den Hoff 2007 (early Hellenistic period); and Dillon 2010 (female portraits). 4 Studies of Greek portraiture with a focus on the Archaic and Classical periods include: Pfuhl 1988 [orig. publ. 1927]; Studniczka 1988 [1928–​9]; Schweitzer 1963; Gauer 1968a; Metzler 1971; Borbein 1973; Lazzarini 1984–​5; Himmelmann 1994, 49–​ 88; Krumeich 1997; Himmelmann 2001; Tanner 1992 and 2006, 97–​140; and Ma 2013a. 5 Examples: Schweitzer 1963, 169–​70 (most restrictive definition); Breckenridge 1969, esp. 3–​14; Dörig 1980; and Richter 1965, I 12 (“A portrait as we understand it is the representation of an individual.The artist must penetrate into the characteristics of a particular person and reproduce these in a way that sums up his individuality”). For an extended critique of the concepts of likeness and individuality in Greek portraiture, see O. Jaeggi, Die griechischen Porträts: Antike Repräsentation –​Moderne Projektion, Berlin: Reimer, 2008. 6 For the religious character of early Greek portraiture generally, see Himmelmann 2001; R. Krumeich,“Ehrenstatuen als Weihgeschenke auf der Athener Akropolis. Staatliche Ehrungen in religiösem Kontext,” in C. Frevel and H. von Hesberg, eds., Kult und Kommunikation: Medien in Heiligtümern der Antike (Zentrum für die Antiken Kulturen des Mittelmeerraumes 4), Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2007, 381–​413; and Krumeich 2007. 7 I will use a constellation of terms deriving in English-​ language scholarship from R. MacMullen’s reference to the “epigraphic habit” in a study of Latin epigraphy (“The Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire,” AJP 103 (1982), 233–​ 46). For the Greek “epigraphic habit,” see Meyer 1993 and Hedrick 1999. “Statue habit”: Smith 2007 and Ma 2013b. “Documentary culture”: Oliver 2007 and Lambert 2010a. 8 Richter 1965, revised and condensed by R. R. R. Smith (G. M. A. Richter, The Portraits of the Greeks, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984). 9 Himmelmann 1994, 49–​88. 10 The base for the Salamis Apollo has been identified: A. Jacquemin and D. Laroche, “Une base pour l’Apollon de Salamine à Delphes,” BCH 112 (1988), 235–​46. For an attempt to interpret some examples of commemorative divine images, see Hölscher 1998a. 11 Votive inscriptions within the context of Archaic literary genres: M. Depew, “Enacted and Represented Dedications: Genre and Greek Hymn,” in Depew and Obbink 2000, 59–​79;

230

231

Notes

Day 2000; Fantuzzi and Hunter 2004, 283–​349; Day 2010; and Baumbach, Petrovic, and Petrovic 2010b. 12 E. Guralnick, “Proportions of Korai,” AJA 85 (1981), 269–​80. 13 The prose votive inscription on the base for a lost bronze statue dedicated on Delos more than 250 years after Nikandre’s kore, in the first half of the fourth century bc, is similar in its wording and equally uninformative about the statue: Ἀρχίππη Σωστράτου θυγάτηρ, Ἰκαρίου γυνή, Μυκονίη, Ἀρτέμιδι (ID 52 = IGB 146) (Archippe, daughter of Sostratos, wife of Ikarios, of Mykonos, [dedicated] to Artemis). 14 For further remarks on the statue (NM 1), see G. M. A. Richter, Korai, Archaic Greek Maidens, London/​New York: Phaidon, 1968, no. 1, and A. A. Donohue, Greek Sculpture and the Problem of Description, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, esp. 20–​56, with references to earlier scholarship. Kron (1996, 142–​9) interprets it as a portrait of Nikandre herself. 15 Löhr 2000, 100–​1, no. 118, and Hermary 2007. For the Artemis statue dedicated by Areïs on Paros (Paros A 757), see I. Kleemann, “Ein Weihgeschenk an die delische Artemis in Paros,” AM 77 (1962), 207–​28. 16 S. C. Humphreys, “Family Tombs and Tomb-​ Cult in Classical Athens:  Tradition or Traditionalism?,” in The Family, Women and Death:  Comparative Studies, 2nd edn, Ann Arbor:  University of Michigan Press, 1993, 79–​134, and C. Sourvinou-​Inwood, ‘Reading’ Greek Death: To the End of the Classical Period, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995, 140–​297. Death at the height of youth and beauty as the “beautiful death”: Vernant 1991, 50–​74 and 84–​91. 17 Ostia herm:  Richter 1965, I.  16–​ 21; Drerup 1988 [orig.  1960]; Fittschen 1988b, 18; Sichtermann 1988 [orig. 1964], esp. 313–​21; Himmelmann 1994, 66–​9; Krumeich 1997, 72–​ 87 and 241, no. A 47. Two other herms inscribed with Themistokles’ name are missing their heads: Krumeich 1997: 243, nos. A55 and A56. 18 Richter 1961–​2; Richter 1965, I 18–​20; Tanner 2006, 97–​140. 19 See esp. E. K. Gazda, “Roman Sculpture and the Ethos of Emulation:  Reconsidering Repetition,” HSCP 97 (1995) (Greece in Rome:  Influence, Integration, Resistance), 121–​56, and Gazda 2002; E. Perry, The Aesthetics of Emulation in the Visual Arts of Ancient Rome, Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2005; and Marvin 2008; cf. C. H. Hallett, “Emulation versus Replication:  Redefining Roman Copying,” JRA 18 (2005), 419–​35. A. Corso (“Classical, Not Classicistic:  Thoughts on the Origins of ‘Classicizing’ Roman Sculpture,” Eulimene 3 (2002), 18 [1–​22]) explicitly addresses the influence of the methods of Classical textual criticism on Kopienkritik in a discussion of the history of modern scholarship on Greek sculpture. 20 As Sheila Dillon (2000, 35–​7), has noted, 75 percent of the known Roman examples represent the same restricted list of the most popular subjects: the remaining 25 percent or so of known Roman portraits of Greek subjects are either unique or attested by a small number of examples. Many of these remain anonymous to us because they lack inscribed name labels. 21 Bust format: Fittschen 1988b, 6–​7 and Dillon 2006, 33. Seamless blending of male and female portraits: in the peristyle garden of the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum, a collection of thirteen marble herms arranged on either side of a pool included two female subjects, an Athena and another identified as either Hestia or a Hellenistic queen, among male subjects (Dillon 2000, 23–​6 and n. 9). 22 The association with Herakles seems to have been made first by G. Hafner, “Zwei Meisterwerke der Vorklassik,” AA 1952, cols. 100–​2 [73–​102]. 23 For the Herakles metopes as a model of heroic arete to be imitated by Olympic athletes, see Barringer 2005. Herakles as a model for Greek athletes generally:  D. J. Lunt, “The Heroic Athlete in Ancient Greece,” Journal of Sport History 36 (2009), 375–​92. Archaic and fifth-​century architectural sculptural depicted panhellenic heroes and myths that all Greeks competed to emulate (Hölscher 2011, 53–​6). 24 For a succinct introduction to Greek heroes, see G. Ekroth, “Heroes and Hero-​Cults,” in A Companion to Greek Religion, ed. Daniel Ogden, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007, 100–​14.

231

232

232

Notes

25 This aspect of hero cult was stressed by Fontenrose 1968 and Bohringer 1979. 26 Malkin 1987. 27 Heroization and divine cult for fifth-​ century athletes: M. Bentz and C. Mann, “Zur Heroisierung von Athleten,” in von den Hoff and Schmidt 2001, 225–​40; Currie 2002, 2005. Heroization of the Greek dead at Plataia and the other battles of the Persian Wars: Boedeker 1998; cf. Bremmer (2006), who doubts that the dead of Plataia, or any other Greek war dead, received hero cult before the Peloponnesian War. Against the widespread heroization of poets before the Hellenistic period: Connolly 1998. For Archilochos, see Chapter 2, nn. 51 and 52. 28 Mitchell 2012, 2013. 29 For further discussion, see Chapter 4. 30 For the inscription, see also IGB 23; Lazzarini 1976, no. 853; and LSAG2 342, no. 19. 31 For Pythagoras, see Pliny HN 34.59 and 34.60.  At Olympia, he also made portraits of Mnaseas (latest victory in 484 bc), Dromeus (480), Astylos (480), Protolaos (464), Kratisthenes (464), and Leontiskos (452). 32 Barron 1999 and Lazzarini 1984–​5, 89–​91. 33 Invention of physiognomic likeness in the fifth century:  Richter 1961–​2; Richter 1965, I 18–​20; Metzler 1971, 314–​26; Barron 1999; and Tanner 2006, 97–​140. 34 For the Samian technique, see Keesling 2003, 79–​81. 35 Barron (1999) suggested that the epigram originally consisted of two hexameter verses but was changed into an elegiac couplet. Jeffery in LSAG2 (331) and Ebert (70 n. 2) both noted that the correction and addition look close in date to the original inscription. Amandry’s (1957, 64 n. 6) description of the renewal or “refreshing” of the inscription is misleading. 36 Schweitzer (1963, 135), in his study of early Greek portraiture, sought to associate both the change of the wording of the second verse of the epigram and the addition of ἀνέθηκε with rules governing victor portraits made and enforced by the Elean authorities. 37 Currie (2002) argues that Euthymos received hero cult during his own lifetime. Cf. F. Costabile (I ninfei di Locri Epizefiri:  Architettura, culti erotici, sacralità delle acque, Soveria Mannelli/​Catanzaro: Rubbettino, 1991, 212–​13), who dates the change in the wording of the epigram to ca. 450–​425 bc and associates it with a posthumous deification of Euthymos. 38 Quintillian Instit. 12.10.9 and Lucian Philops. 18–​20. See Keesling 2010a; cf. Metzler (1971, 314–​26), who dated Demetrios’ work too early, in the last quarter of the fifth century, in keeping with his overarching view of the fifth-​century Athenian democracy as the decisive force behind the invention of likeness in Greek portraiture. 39 For the (lost) portrait of Philitas and Poseidippos’ epigram, see A. Hardie, “The Statue(s) of Philitas (P. Mil.Vogl.VIII 309 Col. X.16–​25 and Hermesianax fr. 7.75–​78P),” ZPE 143 (2003), 27–​36; Sens 2005, 209–​13; Stewart 2005; É. Prioux, Regards alexandrins: Histoire et théorie des arts dans l’épigramme hellénistique (Hellenistica Groningana 12), Louvain/​Paris: Peeters, 2007, 19–​74; and Stewart 2007, 128–​32. 40 Pfuhl 1988; cf. Studniczka (1988), arguing for true portraiture in the fifth century bc, and Schweitzer 1963 (end of the fifth century/​beginning of the fourth century). 41 Connection with Lysippos: Pfuhl 1988 and Dillon 2006, 5–​6. Pliny (HN 35.153) claimed that Lysippos’ brother Lysistratos of Sikyon invented a new method for making portrait likenesses. For discussion of naturalism and likeness in Greek portraits of the late Classical and early Hellenistic periods, see also von den Hoff 2007. For Lysippos as portraitist, see Edwards 1996 and Stewart 1993, passim. 42 The portraits of Mausollos and the Hekatomnid dynasty of Caria may have been a milestone in this and other respects (Ma 2013a). Bergemann (2007) notes that several conventions in the depiction of men and women on Athenian gravestones from the first half of the fourth century bc, such as the bakterion (walking staff) for men and a seated pose for women, had little or no purchase in contemporary freestanding portraiture. 43 Ma 2013b; Wörrle and Zanker 1995, passim.

233

Notes

44 For the performativity of social identity, see T. Hodos, “Local and Global Perspectives in the Study of Social and Cultural Identities,” in Hales and Hodos 2010, 17–​19 [3–​31], and A. Alexandridis, “Neutral Bodies? Female Portrait Statue Types from the Late Republic to the Second Century ce,” in Hales and Hodos 2010, 252–​79, esp. 262–​3. 1  FROM VOTIVE STATUES TO HONORIFIC PORTRAITS

1 Pausanias as a source on Archaic and Classical Greece: Arafat 1996; Habicht 1998; Alcock et al. 2001; Hutton 2005. 2 For the history of Plinian scholarship from the Renaissance to the present day, see Isager 1991, 9–​17. 3 Honors for Konon: Ma 2006. 4 For the decree in honor of Euagoras, see Lewis and Stroud 1979. Hortatory intention clauses: A. S. Henry, “The Hortatory Intention in Athenian State Decrees,” ZPE 112 (1996), 105–​19, and J. P. Sickinger, “Nothing to do with Democracy: ‘Formulae of Disclosure’ and the Athenian Epigraphic Habit,” in Mitchell and Rubinstein 2009, 87–​102. 5 Ma 2012, 238: “the culture of honours worked as a system tending towards uniformity.” 6 Formulae of honorific portrait inscriptions:  Henry 1983 (Athens); H. Kotsidu, Τιμὴ καὶ δόξα:  Ehrungen für hellenistische Herrscher im griechischen Mutterland und in Kleinasien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der archäologischen Denkmäler, Berlin: Akademie, 2000 (honors for Hellenistic kings); Ma 2007a and 2013b, 15–​63. 7 Ma 2012, 241: “Agency was wielded by the honouring body, capturing and controlling elite identity.” 8 Stewart 1979, esp.  115–​ 32; Ma 2012; Ma 2013b. Standardized language of honorific decrees: Whitehead 1993. 9 Broadening of honors to include non-​generals: Oliver 2007; Lambert 2011 and 2012, 4: “Athens began regularly inscribing decrees honoring its own citizens in the 340s.” Retrenchment and rethinking of immediate honors after ca. 335: I. Kralli, “Athens and her Leading Citizens in the Early Hellenistic Period (338–​261 B.C.): The Evidence of the Decrees Awarding the Highest Honours,” Archaiognosia 16 (1999–​2000), 133–​62; cf. Azoulay (2009), who argues that Athenian attitudes toward statue honors changed after the tyranny of Demetrios of Phaleron (317–​307 bc). 10 For descriptions of these developments, see Mikalson 1998, 242–​87; K. Fittschen, “Eine Stadt für Schaulustige und Müssiggänger. Athen im 3.  und 2.  Jh. v.  Chr.,” in Wörrle and Zanker 1995, 55–​77; S. B. Aleshire and S. D. Lambert, “Making the Peplos for Athena:  A  New Edition of IG II2 1060 + IG II2 1036,” ZPE 142 (2003), 65–​86; P. Hamon, “Élites dirigeantes et processus d’aristocratisation à l’époque hellénistique,” in H.-​L. Fernoux and C. Stein, eds., Aristocratie antique:  modèles et exemplarité sociale, Dijon:  Editions universitaires de Dijon-​ Université de Bourgogne, 2007, 77–​ 98; É. Perrin-​Saminadayar, “Traditions religieuses et stratégies familiales, sur quelques familles sacerdotales athéniennes de l’époque hellénistique,” in M.-​F. Baslez and F. Prévot, eds., Prosopographie et histoire religieuse:  Actes du colloque tenu en l’Université Paris XII–​Val de Marne, les 27 et 28 octobre 2000, Paris: de Boccard, 2005, 51–​67 and 401–​4; and Spawforth 2012, 39–​48. 11 H. Blanck (“Porträt-​Gemälde als Ehrendenkmäler,” BJb 168 (1968), 1–​12) dates the earliest painted portrait awarded by the Athenian demos to 178/​7 bc; for a possible early Hellenistic example, see Paus. 1.3.4 (discussed by Krumeich in Stemmer 1995, 281). Painted portraits are attested as private dedications in sanctuaries as early as the fifth century. For brief surveys of the evidence for early Greek portrait paintings, see M. Nowicka, Le portrait dans la peinture antique (Bibliotheca Antiqua 22), Warsaw: Institut d’Archeologie et d’Ethnologie, Académie Polonaise des Sciences, 1993, 63–​75, and Krumeich 1997, 84–​5. 12 Tuchelt 1979. Roman women:  Eule 2001 and Dillon 2010. Emperors and their families: Rose 1997.

233

234

234

Notes

13 For collections of ancient testimonia, see Wycherley 1957, nos. 256–​80 and Brunnsåker 1971, 2–​45. For recent discussions of the Tyrannicides monument, see Krumeich in Stemmer 1995, 300–​4; Krumeich 1997, 57–​9; Anderson 2003, 198–​206; Bumke 2004, 131–​45; Neer 2010, 78–​85; and Azoulay 2014. In favor of a date between 508/​7 and 500 bc for Antenor’s Tyrannicides group, see Fornara 1970 and Castriota 1998, 206–​15; cf. A. E. Raubitschek (“Two Monuments Erected After the Victory of Marathon,” AJA 44 (1940), 53–​9), who dated it after the ostracism of the Peisistratid relative Hipparchos, son of Charmos, in 488/​7 bc, and associated the inscription found in the Athenian Agora with Antenor’s version. 14 T. Hölscher, “The City of Athens:  Space, Symbol, Structure,” in A. Molho, K. Raaflaub, and J. Emlen, eds., City States in Classical Antiquity and Medieval Italy:  Athens and Rome, Florence and Venice, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1991, 371–​3 [355–​80]; Hölscher 1998a, 158–​63; and Hölscher 1998b, 85–​7. Cf. W. R. Connor (“‘Sacred’ and ‘Secular’, ἱερὰ καὶ ὅσια and the Classical Athenian Concept of the State,” Ancient Society 19 (1988), 161–​88), who stresses that seeing a move toward “secularization” in fifth-​century Athens is anachronistic. 15 For Kleisthenes’ reforms of 508/​7 bc as a true revolution, see J. Ober, “‘I Besieged that Man’: Democracy’s Revolutionary Start,” in K. A. Raaflaub and R. W.  Wallace, eds., Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece, Berkeley-​Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2007, 83–​104. 16 For a similar emphasis upon reception, see Azoulay 2014. 17 Cf. Brunnsåker 1971, 39, nos. b, f, and g, and 44–​5 (in favor of return by Alexander). In an apparent duplication, Pliny (HN 34.70) claims that tyrant-​slayers made by Praxiteles were carried off by Xerxes and restored by Alexander. 18 Grethlein (2010, 214–​20) argues that Thucydides’ location of the murder of Hipparchos near the Leokorion is a key to interpreting his treatment of this episode. In contrast to Leos, who willingly sacrificed his daughters to save Athens, Harmodios and Aristogeiton murdered Hipparchos as the result of a tawdry lovers’ quarrel, and botched the job by not killing the tyrant Hippias instead. If the Leokorion has been correctly identified with a small abaton (shrine enclosure) found by the Athenian Agora excavations, then the Tyrannicides stood near where the Panathenaic Way enters the Agora from the northwest. J. Camp (“The Origins of the Classical Agora,” in E. Greco, ed., Teseo e Romolo: Le origini di Atene e Roma a confronto (Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene, Atene, 30 giugno–​1 luglio 2003) (Tripodes 1), Athens: Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene, 2005, 197–​209) argues convincingly that the Athenian Agora was established on its present site by Peisistratos and his sons. In light of the Peisistratid associations of the Altar of the Twelve Gods, which stood not far from the abaton shrine identified with the Leokorion, one wonders if the original Tyrannicides by Antenor were placed where they were to help “rebrand” the Agora as democratic. In favor of a location farther south, near the Augustan Odeion of Agrippa, see Azoulay 2014, 195–​201. 19 Megistai timai modeled after honors for Harmodios and Aristogeiton: Gauthier 1985, 81; for the clearest discussion of honors for individuals in Athens in the fifth and fourth centuries, see Gauthier 1985, 77–​128. An important part of the picture is the text of the so-​called oath of Demophantos (Andokides 1.96–​8), sworn collectively by the Athenians in 409 bc, after the downfall of the oligarchy of the 400. This oath cites the honors for Harmodios and Aristogeiton and their descendants as a precedent for honors to be granted to hypothetical future tyrannicides. The text as we have it, however, does not explicitly mention portrait statues, and we know from the Prytaneion decree (discussed later in this chapter) that the descendants of Harmodios and Aristogeiton were granted sitesis in the Prytaneion. For discussion, see (in addition to Gauthier) Mikalson 1998, 17–​18; D. A. Teegarden, Death to Tyrants! Ancient Greek Democracy and the Struggle Against Tyranny, Princeton:  Princeton University Press, 2014, 30–​53; and Azoulay 2014, 90–​2. 20 For the “new Simonides” and its significance, see Boedeker 1996; Boedeker 1998; and Boedeker and Sider 2001. 21 G. Steinhauer, “Στήλη πεσόντων τῆς Ἐρεχθηίδος,” Horos 17–​21 (2004–​9), 679–​92; W. Ameling,“Die Gefallenen der Phyle Erechtheis im Jahr 490 v. Chr.,” ZPE 176 (2011), 10–​23;

235

Notes

and C. M. Keesling, “The Marathon Casualty List from Eua-​Loukou and the Plinthedon Style in Attic Inscriptions,” ZPE 180 (2012), 139–​48. The inscription is SEG LVI 430. 22 N. T. Arrington (“Topographic Semantics: The Location of the Athenian Public Cemetery and its Significance for the Nascent Democracy,” Hesperia 79 (2010), 499–​539, esp. 503–​6 and Arrington 2015, 39–​49) dates the creation of the demosion sema to ca. 500 bc; the earliest public monuments erected there seem to have been the tomb of Harmodios and Aristogeiton and a centotaph for Marathon (the so-​called Monument of the Persian War epigrams, for which see Matthaiou 2003). 23 For full discussion, and a defense of the attribution to Simonides, see A. Petrovic, Kommentar zu den simonideischen Versinschriften, Leiden/​Boston: Brill, 2007, 113–​31. 24 The new Marathon epigram translates as follows: “The divine utterance [their fame?], as it reaches the ends of the glowing [the word used here is ε̣ὐφαοῦς, derived from φῶς = light] earth, will learn the virtue of these men here, because they have died fighting the Medes and have crowned Athens, having taken on the battle being very few against the many” (trans. A. Petrovic, “The Battle of Marathon in Pre-​Herodotean Sources:  On Marathon Verse-​ Inscriptions (IG I3 503/​504; SEG LVI 430),” in C. Carey and M. Edwards, eds., Marathon –​ 2,500 Years, Proceedings of the Marathon Conference 2010 (BICS Supp. 124), London: Institute of Classical Studies, University of London, 2013, 45–​61). 25 Matthaiou 2003. For the generic problems posed by the epigram on the base for the Tyrannicides portraits, see J. W. Day, “Epigrams and History: The Athenian Tyrannicides, a Case in Point,” in The Greek Historians, Literature and History: Papers Presented to A. E. Raubitschek, Saratoga, CA: ANMA, 1985, 25–​46, esp. 29–​32. For the “light of deliverance,” see Boedeker 1998, 233 and Anderson 2003, 201. Neer (2010, 78–​85) interprets the statues by Kritios and Nesiotes in relation to this epic metaphor. 26 For the significance of enagismata, see Parker 2005. J. L. Shear (“The Tyrannicides, their Cult, and the Panathenaia: A Note,” JHS 132 (2012), 107–​19) argues that the sacrifices to Harmodios and Aristogeiton mentioned by the pseudo-​Aristotelian Ath. Pol. were performed at the Panathenaia rather than the Epitaphia festival for the war dead. 27 Cf. Boehringer (1996, 49–​50), who likens the Tyrannicides’ heroization to that of Greek city founders (oikists). 28 Athena Promachos statuettes:  Keesling 2003, 81–​5. G. Pinney (“Pallas and Panathenaea,” in J. Christiansen and T. Melander, eds., Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Ancient Greek and Related Pottery, Copenhagen:  Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 1988, 465–​77) connects the Promachos pose with Athena’s victory dance performed after the Gigantomachy; some “moves” in the pyrrhic dance contest conducted at the Panathenaia were conceived of as imitations of Athena’s own poses. Apollo: Carpenter 1997, 171–​6. 29 Iconographic connection between Theseus vase scenes and Kritios and Nesiotes’ Tyrannicides: B. B. Shefton, “Some Iconographic Remarks on the Tyrannicides,” AJA 64 (1960), 173–​9; J. P. Barron, “New Light on Old Walls:  Murals of the Theseion,” JHS 92 (1972), 20–​45, esp. 39–​40; and M. W. Taylor, The Tyrant Slayers, 2nd edn, Salem, NH:  Ayer, 1991, 36–​63 (Kimonian influence). Unclear whether the pose originates with Antenor’s statues or Theseus vase scenes: Castriota 1998, 212. Bumke (2004, 137, n. 763) identifies at least one example of the Aristogeiton pose in vase painting dating to ca. 520–​510 bc. For an emphasis on the “mythical dimension” of the Tyrannicides statues, see Castriota 1998, 204–​5. For the evolution of the image of Theseus over the course of the fifth century, in reponse to Athenian ideology, see R.  von den Hoff, “Die Posen des Siegers:  Die Konstruktion von Überlegenheit in attischen Theseusbildern des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.,” in von den Hoff and Schmidt 2001, 73–​88 and Hölscher 2011. 30 For the eponymous heroes of the tribes and the heroes assigned to the age groups of Athenian citizens as models to be emulated, see B. Steinbock, “A Lesson in Patriotism:  Lycurgus’ Against Leocrates, the Ideology of the Ephebeia, and Athenian Social Memory,” ClAnt 30 (2011), 279–​317.

235

236

236

Notes

31 For the grouping of portraits with gods and divine personifications in the Athenian Agora, see Krumeich and Witschel 2009, 186–​209. Konon was recognized explicitly as a bringer of freedom to Athens’ allies in the honorific decree awarding him a portrait (as quoted by Dem. 20.69). As Mikalson (1998, 80–​1) explains, different honors for the same individuals were neatly compartmentalized in the Agora: portraits of Antigonos and Demetrios were placed near the Tyrannicides to honor them as fighters against tyranny, while an altar elsewhere recognized them as savior gods; in yet another part of the Agora, portraits of them as tribal heroes were grouped with the original ten eponymous heroes of Athens. 32 Fragmentary base for portrait of Brutus: A. E. Raubitschek, “Brutus in Athens,” Phoenix 11 (1957), 1–​11, and “The Brutus Statue in Athens,” in Atti del terzo congresso internazionale di epigrafia greca e latina (Roma, 4–​8 settembre 1957), Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1959, 15–​21. Shear (2011, 279) suggests that the portraits of Konon and Euagoras in the Agora were depicted carrying weapons like Harmodios and Aristogeiton. The idea that Konon’s portrait in the Agora showed him in the guise of a warrior gains support from the base for the honorific portrait of Konon at Kaunos (I.Kaunos 81). 33 For the Antigonid portrait group in the Agora, see T.  M. Brogan, “Liberation Honors: Athenian Monuments from Antigonid Victories in their Immediate and Broader Contexts,” in Palagia and Tracy 2003, 194–​7 [194–​205]. 34 Shear (2011, 274–​85) sees 403 bc as the decisive moment for the use of the Agora as a display place for political monuments. Cf. Meyer (2013), who places a rethinking of the Agora space as early as the 420s. 35 Aristotle (Rh. 1368a) also refers to Harmodios and Aristogeiton as the first individuals to have their portraits set up in the Agora. 36 Timotheos, Iphikrates, and Chabrias (named in that order): Dem. 23.196–​8. For the date of Iphikrates’ honorific portrait, see Gauthier 1985, 177–​80 and Azoulay 2014, 148–​52. 37 Liddel 2003 and Lambert 2010a. Even before Euagoras was honored with a portrait statue in 393 bc in the Agora, the Athenians had granted him Athenian citizenship by decree in 407, and that inscribed decree stood on the Acropolis (IG I3 113). 38 For Greek portraiture conceived as a product of the Athenian democracy, see Metzler 1971 and, most recently,Tanner 1992 and Tanner 2006, 97–​140 (140: “The practices of portraiture were not only brought into being by the democratic social order; they also served to make and sustain it.The development of an institution of honorific portrait-​giving, in the context of a wider reward system, far from being an indication of the decline of the polis and civic values, as traditional art historians have argued, represents a fuller institutionalization of the normative culture of the democratic polis”). 39 Harmodios and Aristogeiton likened to athletes:  D.  Boedeker, “Presenting the Past in Fifth-​Century Athens,” in Boedeker and Raaflaub 1998, 185–​202, and A. Ajootian, “A Day at the Races:  The Tyrannicides in the Fifth-​Century Agora,” in K. J. Hartswick and M. C. Sturgeon, eds., Stephanos:  Studies in Honor of B.  S. Ridgway (Philadelphia:  University of Pennsylvania Museum, 1998), 1–​13. Prytaneion decree: E. J. Morrissey, “Victors in the Prytaneion Decree,” GRBS 19 (1978), 121–​5; W. E. Thompson, “The Prytaneion Decree Once Again,” GRBS 20 (1979), 325–​9; D. M. Pritchard, “Public Honours for Panhellenic Sporting Victors in Democratic Athens,” Nikephoros 25 (2012), 209–​ 20; and Pritchard 2013, 85. 40 Jacquemin 1999, 202–​3. 41 Kyriakou (2007) likens the divine favor (kydos) granted to Agamemnon and other kings in epic poetry with kydos as god-​g iven victory in the epinician poetry of Bacchylides and Pindar: “Kydos designates mainly the power granted by a god to a man and/​or a group in order to enable him and/​or them to vanquish their adversaries” (119). Charisma: Currie 2005, 120–​57 and Day 2010, 198–​228.Talismanic power: L. Kurke,“The Politics of ἁβρΌσύνη in Archaic Greece,” ClAnt 11 (1992), 111–​12 [91–​120] and Kurke 1993, 149–​50. 42 Heroization of victorious athletes:  Fontenrose 1968; Bohringer 1979; S. Lattimore, “The Nature of Early Greek Victor Statues,” in S. J. Bandy, ed., Coroebus Triumphs: The Alliance

237

Notes

of Sport and the Arts, San Diego, CA: San Diego State University Press, 1988, 245–​56; and Currie 2002. 43 For the victor as kosmos and the identity of statue and victor, see esp. Kurke 1991, 163–​94 and 207–​8; D. T. Steiner, “Pindar’s Oggetti Parlanti,” HSCP 95 (1993), 166 [159–​80]; Steiner 1998; and Steiner 2001. 44 For the date, cf. LSAG2 456, no. 1a and 458 (late sixth century bc?). The Greek text I reproduce follows Hansen (CEG 394), with two exceptions: I have added macrons to long vowels for clarity, and I have included the single-​dot punctuation marks clearly visible in the drawing of the inscription published by L. Dubois, Inscriptions grecques dialectales de Grande Grèce, vol. II. Colonies achéennes (Hautes études du monde gréco-​romain 30), Geneva: Droz, 2002, 23–​7, Sybaris 5). Dubois explains the two letters (ΔΟ) before Kleombrotos’ name as an indication of which of the phratries of Sybaris he belonged to. The prizes (ἀϝέθλο̄ν = genitive plural of ἄθλα) here must refer to money awarded to Kleombrotos by the city of Sybaris rather than the crown he won at Olympia. 45 See Ebert 251–​5; for further discussion along the same lines, see L. Moretti, “Supplemento al catalogo degli Olympionikai,” Klio 52 (1970), 295–​6 [295–​303]; Moretti 1987, 81–​3; and Kurke 1993, 141–​2. Hornblower (2004, 366 and n.  51)  points to phrases similar to the formula μᾶκός τε πάχος τε in both Homer (Od. 9.324) and Pindar (Pyth. 4.245): neither reference is to statues. 46 The earliest example of the use of andrias to refer to a female statue may occur in the so-​ called testament of Epikteta from Thera, dated to ca. 210–​195 bc (IG XII 3 330). Earlier literary sources and inscriptions use kore to refer to female figures. 47 H. A. Harris (Sport in Greece and Rome, London: Thames & Hudson, 1972, 142–​50) discusses this and other inscribed “weight-​lifting stones” from Greece and elsewhere. His interpretation of the Bybon inscription as “satirical,” however, misses the point. 48 For honorific crowning in Athens and its origins, see esp. Bommelaer 1981, 17–​23; Gauthier 1985, 113–​25; I. Kasper-​Butz, Die Göttin Athena im klassischen Athen: Athena als Repräsentantin des demokratischen Staates, Frankfurt/​New York: Peter Lang, 1990, 115–​29; Domingo Gygax 2006 and Scafuro 2009. Domingo Gygax cites Alcibiades in 408 bc (Plut. Per. 33) as the earliest Athenian citizen to be crowned for a military victory; Plutarch’s (Per. 28)  reference elsewhere to the crowning of Perikles may be an anachronism. In 409 bc, the metic Thrasyboulos of Kalydon was awarded a gold crown for his role in the assassination of Phrynichos, the leader of the 400, in 411 (ML 85; Lysias 13.70–​2). The crowning of military victors is already implicit, however, in the iconography of Pheidias’ Athena Parthenos cult statue completed in 438 bc: Athena is victorious in battle and crowned by winged Nike. Athletic metaphors for warfare and political conflict were pervasive in epinician and other fifth-​century literary genres (Hornblower 2004, 49–​50 and 336–​42; Pritchard 2013). The motif of crowning by the gods or by Nike, seen in some honorific statue groups and in the document reliefs that accompanied some honorific decrees, evolved in the Hellenistic period into depictions of the honorand crowned by a personification of the city or political community (Ma 2013b, 46–​8). 49 Smith 2007, esp. 99–​111. 50 The scarcity of inscribed bases for sixth-​and fifth-​century victor portraits in southern Italy and Sicily themselves may be a fluke of preservation: as the Kleombrotos inscription shows, the western Greeks preferred to inscribe on bronze plaques and attach them to stone bases. 51 The leading proponents of an east Greek origin for portraiture are Studniczka 1988; Dörig 1980; Lazzarini 1984–​5; see also Amandry 1957, 72; Gauer 1968a, 147–​50; Ma 2013a. 52 For the decree authorizing Konon’s portrait at Erythrai (RO 8), see Ma (2006), who suggests the statue stood in the sanctuary of Aphrodite Pontia. I disagree with Ma’s suggestion that the portrait was not gilded, and that gilded bronze portraits were uncommon. On gilding, see Krumeich 2007 and P. Schultz, “The Akroteria of the Temple of Athena Nike,” Hesperia 70 (2001), 2–​5 [1–​47].

237

238

238

Notes

53 East Greek portraits on gemstones and coins: Gauer 1968a, 161–​9; Breckenridge 1969, 93–​5; and Dörig 1980. 54 A. Aymard, “Sur quelques vers d’Euripide qui poussèrent Alexandre au meurtre,” in A. Aymard, ed., Études d’histoire ancienne, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1967, 51–​72 [orig. 1949]; Habicht 1970, 236–​42; for the clearest statement of the problem of the “rise of the individual” in relation to Greek portraiture, see Borbein 1973, 84–​8. For a predominantly literary study of the role of the individual in Classical historiography, see Ferrario 2014. 55 Alcibiades: D. Gribble,  Alcibiades and Athens,  A Study in Literary Presentation, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999, 1–​89, and Shapiro 2009. Lysander: Bommelaer 1981 and Cartledge 1987, 77–​98. 56 B. Jordan, “The Honors for Themistokles after Salamis,” AJP 109 (1988), 547–​71. 57 For general remarks on the shift from statues of gods and heroes to portraits, see Felten 1996. 58 Major proponents of this view: Schweitzer (1963, esp. 189–​94) and Metzler 1971. For a critique of Metzler’s linkage between the growth of individualism soon after the Persian Wars and realistic portraiture, see M. I. Finley, “In lieblicher Bläue,” Arion 3 (1976), 79–​95. 59 The quotation is from Furley (1996, 92 [83–​92]), critiquing the notion of a religious crisis. See also Parker 1996, 199–​217 and W. D. Furley, “Thucydides and Religion,” in A. Rengakos and A. Tsakmakis, eds., Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, Leiden/​Boston: Brill 2006, 415–​38. 60 “La consecration à un dieu n’est évidemment plus ici qu’une pieuse survivance; on a affaire en réalité à de véritables dédicaces honorifiques en l’honneur d’un homme” (Veyne 1962, 89). See also Rouse 1902, 269: “It is but a short step from these [honorific gold crowns] to the honorific statues, which in the later ages and especially under the Roman rule meet us in swarms. The dedication of these is a departure from the simple thanksgiving of the older worshippers, which recognised only the divine help, to a feeling which soon degenerates into flattery or self-​glorification.” 61 Epithets derived from personal names: J. Wallenstein, “Personal Protection and Tailor-​Made Deities:  The Use of Individual Epithets,” Kernos 21 (2008), 81–​95. Cf. R. Parker (“The Problem of the Greek Cult Epithet,” OpAth 28 (2003), 173–​83), in an essay on the continuing vitality of Hellenistic cult: “ ‘Trans-​god’ epithets of rather vague meaning, such as soter or hegemon, seem to become more common in the Hellenistic period” (quotation on 174). 62 Dedications to the gods as a collective: cf. Schörner 2003, 181–​2. Loss of local character and diminishing awareness of the local dimension of cults: Geagan 1996. Dream, epiphany, and oracle dedications: F.Van Straten, “Daikrates’ Dream: A Votive Relief from Kos, and Some Other kat’onar Dedications,” BABesch 51 (1976), 1–​38 and G. Renberg, “Dream-​Narratives and Unnarrated Dreams in Greek and Latin Dedicatory Inscriptions,” in E. Scioli and C. Walde, eds., Sub imagine somni: Nighttime Phenomena in Greco-​Roman Culture, Pisa: Edizioni ETS, 2010, 33–​61. 63 Schörner 2003 and J. M. Müller, “ ‘… weihte es der Athena.’ Basen von Weihgeschenken für Athena auf der nachklassischen Akropolis,” in Krumeich and Witschel 2010, 157–​217. 64 For the concept of a Hellenistic and Roman koine in votive texts, see M. L. Lazzarini, “Iscrizioni votive greche,” ScAnt 3–​4 (1989–​90), 845–​59. 65 For a primarily descriptive approach to ca. 430–​380 bc as “a period of discontinuity in art, literature, language, philosophy, and politics,” see the essays collected by Osborne 2007 (the quotation is from p. 4). 66 See esp. A. Ford, The Origins of Criticism:  Literary Culture and Poetic Theory in Classical Greece, Princeton:  Princeton University Press, 2002 and the essays in Yunis (2003); for the emergence of poetry books and literary epigram, see K. J. Gutzwiller, Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context, Berkeley-​Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1998; Gutzwiller 2005; and Baumbach, Petrovic, and Petrovic 2010a. Eric Havelock’s “literate revolution” at the end of the fifth century encompassed not only the greater authority assigned to writing in Greek culture at this time, but (more problematically) the claim that a new way of thinking developed as a consequence of increased literacy (E. A. Havelock, The Literate Revolution in Greece and its Cultural Consequences, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982).

239

Notes

67 A. Momigliano, The Development of Greek Biography, expanded edn, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993. 68 M. Lefkowitz, The Lives of the Greek Poets, 2nd edn, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2012 [orig. 1981], and Kivilo 2010. 69 For these aspects of Herodotus’ and Thucydides’ histories, see esp. Hedrick 1995; Moles 1999; Grethlein 2010, 149–​280; and J.  Grethlein, “Democracy, Oratory, and the Rise of Historiography in Fifth-​Century Greece,” in Arnason, Raaflaub, and Wagner 2013, 126–​43. 70 J. A. S. Evans, Herodotus, Explorer of the Past: Three Essays, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991, 107–​8; Möller 2001; A. Möller “Greek Chronographic Traditions about the First Olympic Games,” in R. M. Rosen, ed., Time and Temporality in the Ancient World, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2004, 169–​84; and “Epoch-​Making Eratosthenes,” GRBS 45 (2005), 245–​60. 71 Christesen 2007. 72 Eponymity: R. K. Sherk, “The Eponymous Officials of Greek Cities: I,” ZPE 83 (1990), 249–​88. 73 “Innovationist turn”:  A. D’Angour, The Greeks and the New:  Novelty in Ancient Greek Imagination and Experience, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011, 216–​24. 74 Hedrick 1999; P. Liddel, “Epigraphy, Legislation, and Power within the Athenian Empire,” BICS 53 (2010), 99–​128, esp.  103–​15 (increase in the publication on stone of honorific decrees in Athens and allied cities linked to the waning of the Athenian empire); and E. A. Meyer, “Inscriptions and the City in Democratic Athens,” in Arnason, Raaflaub, and Wagner 2013, 205–​23. Development of the stele format: E. A. Meyer, “Posts, Kurbeis, Metopes: The Origins of the Athenian Documentary Stele,” Hesperia 85 (2016), 323–​83. 75 For the Acropolis inventories (IG I3 292–​362 and IG II2 1370–​1496), see Harris 1995, esp. 25–​39, and Pébarthe 2006, 268–​83. 76 See D. M. Lewis, “Temple Inventories in Ancient Greece,” in Lewis 1997a, 40–​50, who also pointed out that we have examples of inscribed Archaic dedications in sanctuaries commemorating gifts of metal vessels, but no inscribed inventory lists of such objects until 433 bc in Athens. For the inventories of the Athenian Asklepieion, see S. B. Aleshire, The Athenian Asklepieion: The People, their Dedications, and the Inventories, Amsterdam:  Gieben, 1989; for the Delian inventories, see R. Hamilton, Treasure Map: A Guide to the Delian Inventories, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2000, and C. Prêtre, Nouveau choix d’inscriptions de Délos: Lois, comptes et inventaires, Athens: École Française d’Athènes, 2002. 77 C. W. Hedrick, “The Prehistory of Greek Chronography,” in V. B. Gorman and E. W. Robinson, eds., Oikistes: Studies in Constitutions, Colonies, and Military Power in the Ancient World Offered in Honor of A.  J. Graham (Mnemosyne supp.  234), Leiden/​ Boston:  Brill, 2002, 13–​32. 78 See K. Clinton, “The Nature of the Late Fifth-​Century Revision of the Athenian Law Code” (Hesperia supp. 19), Princeton: American School of Classical Studies, 1982, 27–​37; Parker 1996, 43–​5 and 218–​20; S. D. Lambert, “The Sacrificial Calendar of Athens,” BSA 97 (2002), 353–​99; Pébarthe 2006, 129–​50; L. Gawlinski, “The Athenian Calendar of Sacrifices: A New Fragment from the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 76 (2007), 37–​55; and most recently G. Davis, “Axones and Kurbeis: A New Answer to an Old Problem,” Historia 60 (2011), 1–​35 and Shear 2011, 238–​59. 79 Sickinger 1994 and Pébarthe 2006, 143–​71. 80 T. F. Winters, “Kleisthenes and Athenian Nomenclature,” JHS 113 (1993), 162–​65; Meyer 1993; C. M. Keesling, “Name Forms on Athenian Dedications of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.,” in A. Martínez Fernández, ed., Estudios de Epigrafia Griega, La Laguna, Spain: Universidad de La Laguna, 2009, 349–​56. 81 A. D’Angour (“Archinus, Eucleides and the Reform of the Athenian Alphabet,” BICS 43 (1999), 109–​30) stresses the political significance of this development; for the decree

239

240

240

Notes

proposed by Archinos in 403/​2, see Theopompos of Chios FGrH 115 F155. Several Athenian proxeny decrees inscribed on stone before 403 bc were renewed after the reestablishment of the democracy in 403; for examples, see M. B. Walbank, Athenian Proxenies of the Fifth Century, B.C. Toronto/​Sarasota, FL: S. Stevens, 1978. 82 Portraits in Ionian sculpture and the Marathon painting as precursors of portraits in sculpture: Studniczka 1988. For the Ionian, Lydian, and Persian traditions of historical painting and relief, see J. Borchhardt, “Narrative Ereignis-​und Historienbilder im mediterranen Raum von der Archaik bis in den Hellenismus,” in M. Bietak and M. Schwarz, eds., Krieg und Sieg: Narrative Wanddarstellungen von Altägypten bis ins Mittelalter, Internationales Kolloquium 29.–​30. Juli 1997 im Schloss Haindort, Langenlois (Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes 20), Vienna:  Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002, 81–​136. 83 Athena Nike temple frieze: P. Schultz, “The North Frieze of the Temple of Athena Nike,” in Palagia 2009, 128–​67. Demosion sema casualty lists with reliefs: Goette 2009. Arrington (2015) now dates the first production of reliefs along with these lists to the 430s bc. 84 Pythodoros relief:  Hölscher 1973, 99–​101; Krumeich 1997, 127–​9, no. A44; Goette 2009, 198–​9; and Arrington 2015, 194–​5. Dedication by Simon: Krumeich 1997, 145–​6 and nos. A45 and A46, and Keesling 2010a. Cf. Pliny HN 34.76, who identifies the lost statue that stood on top of the relief base as an equestrian portrait rather than a statue of a horse. 85 For the beginning of the Attic grave stelai in ca. 430, see Palagia 2006, 144–​5. For an argument that inscribed Athenian epitaphs became more individualized over the course of the fourth century, see S. B. Ferrario, “Replaying Antigone:  Changing Patterns of Public and Private Commemoration at Athens, c.  440–​350 B.C.,” in C. B. Patterson, ed., Antigone’s Answer:  Essays on Death and Burial, Family and State in Classical Athens (Helios 33 supp.), Lubbock, TX:  Classical Association of the Southwest, 2006, 98–​104 [79–​117], and Ferrario 2014, 215–​28; for the formulae of Athenian epitaphs in general, see Meyer 1993. 86 A. Stewart (Classical Greece and the Birth of Western Art, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, 234–​9) and R. Osborne (“Democratic Ideology, the Events of War and the Iconography of Attic Funerary Sculpture,” in D. M. Pritchard, ed., War, Democracy and Culture in Classical Athens, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, 245–​65) have both cited the funerary relief stele for Dexileos (394 bc) from the Kerameikos as symptomatic of the trend toward the focus on the individual in fourth-​century Greek art. 87 Fifth-​century Athenian democratic ideology and restraint in material display: Gauer 1968a, 118–​24; Morris 1994 and 2000, 109–​44. 88 Neer 2010, 183–​214. 89 C. L. Lawton, “Attic Votive Reliefs and the Peloponnesian War,” in Palagia 2009, 66–​93. 90 For Greek sculptors’ signatures generally, see Hurwit 2015. 91 For the Trojan horse made by Strongylion, see F. W   . Hamdorf, “Zur W   eihung des Chairedemos auf der Akropolis von Athen,” in Στήλη, Τόμος εἰς μνήμην Νικολάου Κοντολέοντος, Athens: To Somateion ton philon tou Nikolaou Kontoleontos, 1980, 231–​5. For the dating of the Hermolykos/​Kresilas dedication on the Acropolis to ca. 410–​400 bc, see Keesling 2004. 92 Tracy 2008. 93 Tanner 1999, 158–​64. 94 Eikon as a true portrait likeness: Metzler 1971, 157–​60; Lazzarini 1984–​5, 89–​91; Barron 1999; and Tanner 2006, 104–​8. 95 Vernant 1991, 141–​92, esp. 152; for a critique, see Neer 2010, 14–​19. 96 For Pausanias’ use of agalma, which occurs approximately 700 times in his text, see V. Pirenne-​Delforge, “Image des dieux et rituel dans le discours de Pausanias: De l’ ‘axiologie’ à la théologie,” MÉFRA 116 (2004), 811–​25. She notes that representations of heroes are occasionally called eikon or andrias if they are not recipients of cult worship; there is only a single example (10.7.1) where Pausanias calls a divine image eikon (816, n. 30).

241

Notes

97 Naxian Apollo: CEG 401. Kouros as andrias: Lazzarini 1976, nos. 767 (Neandria) and 768 (over-​lifesize kouros from Didyma). 98 Cf. Hermary (1994), who considers andrias the normal term for portraits in Herodotus. 99 Aristophanes (Pax line 1183) refers to a statue of the Athenian hero Pandion as an andrias. 100 Though the term ε]ικόνα χαλκῆν is preserved in the text, the designation [ἐπίχρυσον] (gilded) has been restored.The term eikon has also been plausibly restored in the Athenian decree awarding Konon and Euagoras honorific portraits in 393 (Lewis and Stroud 1979). 101 Examples: CEG 2 745 (Eleusis); CEG 2 762 and 780 (Athenian Acropolis). In his description of the statues in a sanctuary of Poseidon and Kleito in Atlantis, Plato (Critias 116d-​e) calls the cult statues agalmata, the votive statues dedicated inside the temple anathemata, and the portraits of the ten founding kings of Atlantis and their wives eikones. 102 F. Piejko, “Antiochus Epiphanes Savior of Asia,” RivFil 114 (1986), 425–​36. 103 For the distinction, see G. Rodenwaldt, Theoi rheia zoöntes (Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-​Historische Klasse 13), Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1944, 3–​8, and Stewart 1979, 109. Herodotus (2.46.2) uses agalmatopoios only once, in reference to Egyptian sculptors. 104 For examples, see Wycherley 1957, 207–​17. 105 For Pliny as an upholder of traditional Roman practices of ancestral portraiture, see Carey 2003, 141–​9. 106 D. I. Lazarides, “Ἐπίγραμμα Παρίων ἀπὸ τὴν Ἀμφίπολιν,” ArchEph (1876), 164–​81, and Αμφίπολις, Athens: Greek Ministry of Culture, Archaeological Receipts Fund, 1993. 107 H. B. Siedentopf, Das hellenistische Reiterdenkmal, Waldsassen, Bavaria: Stiftland, 1968, and Chamoux 1989, 51–​6. 108 Pliny’s frequent appeals to “laws” regulating the display of portrait images may be an exaggeration even of Roman practice: Carey 2003, 153–​4 with further bibliography. 109 For Roman honorific portraits, see Lahusen 1983; W. Eck, “Senatorial Self-​ Representation:  Developments in the Augustan Period,” in F. Millar and E. Segal, eds., Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984, 142–​52 [129–​67]; Oliver 1996; and P. Stewart 2003, 83–​91. A. Wallace-​Hadrill (“Roman Arches and Greek Honours: The Language of Power at Rome,” PCPhS 36 (1990), 143–​81) stresses that Greek-​style honorific decrees and portraits were far from the norm in Republican Rome, where elite families commemorated themselves with public monuments: honorific culture was both promoted, and restricted, by Augustus (see also P. Stewart 2003, 28–​35). Another possible innovation of Augustus (in the 30s bc) is the introduction of honorific portraits of imperial women to Rome: E. A. Hemelrijk, “Octavian and the Introduction of Public Statues for Women in Rome,” Athenaeum 93 (2005), 309–​17. 110 Gross 1969. Gross makes an analogy between Pliny’s use of the term iconicas here and his statement elsewhere (HN 35.57) that the representations of the Athenian leaders Miltiades, Kallimachos, and Kynegeiros in the early Classical painting of the battle of Marathon in the Stoa Poikile in Athens were “iconic.” 111 Hyde 1921, 45–​6; Krumeich 1997, 20 (Kallias’ feet were more than 40  cm long, which suggests that his portrait stood as tall as 3 m):  Lehmann 2003, esp.  28–​35. Polydamas of Skotoussa: Taeuber 1997. 112 My discussion of the four-​cubit format is indebted to Lehmann 2003 and 2004. 113 For the Hellanodikai, see Siewert 1992, 114–​15, and N. B. Crowther,“Elis and Olympia: City, Sanctuary and Politics,” in D. J. Phillips and D. Pritchard, eds., Sport and Festival in the Ancient Greek World, Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2003, 61–​73. 114 See also Krumeich 1997, 204–​5. Cf. another late, and anachronistic, claim about restrictions on size or scale: according to Harpokration (s.v. Mikon), the fifth-​century painter Mikon was fined 30 minas for making the Greeks smaller than the Persians in his Marathon painting in the Stoa Poikile in Athens. Tanner (1999, 140) takes this claim at face value as an example of civic scrutiny and oversight of artists in fifth-​century Athens.

241

242

242

Notes

115 Cf. Smith 2007, 96–​7. For a series of unpublished sixth-​century inscriptions on bronze preserving sacred laws and the Elean judges’ rules for the conduct of the games, see Siewert 1992. Neither these nor any other inscribed texts from Olympia deal with the custom of setting up victor portraits in the sanctuary. 116 For Roman regulations governing portraits, see Lahusen 1983, 113–​27 (ius imaginis) and Oliver 1996, 140 and 145. 117 Fifth-​century portraits of living versus deceased subjects: Raubitschek 1939. 118 E. Lupu, Greek Sacred Law: A Collection of New Documents (NGSL2), 2nd edn (Religions in the Graeco-​Roman World 152), Leiden/​Boston: Brill, 2009, 31–​3, and Lombardi 2009. 119 An interesting corollary to the notion that portraits were restricted is the belief that some Greek artists of the fifth century bc had included portraits of themselves hidden in their own works. The best examples of crypto-​portraits are the representations of himself and of his patron Perikles that Pheidias supposedly included among the Athenians fighting the Amazons on the exterior of the Athena Parthenos cult statue’s shield, mentioned by several late authors (Cic. Tusc. 1.15.34; Dio Chrys. Or. 12.5–​6; and Plut. Per. 31.4). Pseudo-​Aristotle De caelo 399b (a treatise dated to the Roman imperial period) adds the detail that Pheidias somehow constructed the shield so that the Athena would collapse if his portrait were removed. I  agree with E. B. Harrison (“The Composition of the Amazonomachy on the Shield of Athena Parthenos,” Hesperia 35 (1966), 107–​33) and F. Preisshofen (“Phidias–​Daedalus auf dem Schild der Athena Parthenos? Ampelius 8,10,” JdI 89 (1974), 50–​69) in rejecting these crypto-​portraits as an anachronistic invention. In 302 bc, the Athenians voted to honor their “liberators” Antigonos Monophthalmos and his son Demetrios Poliorketes by including their likenesses alongside Zeus and Athena in the Gigantomachy scene woven into the Panathenaic peplos (Plut. Dem. 12.2–​3). Perhaps the real honor of portraits inserted into one of the most significant scenes in Athenian mytho-​ history inspired the belief that crypto-​portraits of famous fifth-​century figures were to be found in similar contexts. Cf. Metzler (1971, 289–​306), who dated the tradition to the fifth century, and Schweitzer (1963, 162–​7), who dated it to the fourth; R. Di Cesare (“Iconicità (Fidia, ritratto di sé),” NumAntCl 35 (2006), 125–​62) has recently argued that Pheidias, by including what looked to be a portrait of himself on the shield, violated fifth-​century Athenian norms: an “iconic” portrait was a right to be granted only by the demos, as was a painted name label appended to a figure ostensibly representing a mythological subject. The claim that Polygnotos in his Iliupersis painting in the Stoa Poikile made the figure of Laodike into a crypto-​portrait of Kimon’s sister Elpinike is also suspect. For a painting of Hermes by the Classical Athenian painter Parrhasios said to be a crypto-​portrait of the painter himself, see Themistius Or. 2.29c (fourth century bc), discussed by Platt 2007, 266–​7. 120 Cf. Tzifopoulos (1993), who argues that Pausanias defines anathemata at Olympia specifically as statues of Zeus. Pausanias does not mention four other bases with Mummius’ name on them at Olympia: two are honorific portraits of Mummius dedicated by others, and two are equestrian statues (H. Philipp and W. Koenigs, “Zu den Basen des L. Mummius in Olympia,” AM 97 (1979), 193–​216). Tzifopoulos (1993, 98–​9) identifies the latter as representations of the Dioskouroi. 121 Cf. M. Koortbojian, “Forms of Attention: Four Notes on Replication and Variation,” in Gazda 2002, 183–​9 [173–​204]. 122 It is possible that Pheidias’ kleidouchos, if it in fact existed, was indeed an Athena rather than a portrait: for literary references to Athena as kleidouchos and the kleidouchoi of Pheidias and Euphranor, see Mantis 1990, 40 and 74–​5. 123 Fourth-​century grave reliefs:  A. Kosmopoulou, “‘Working Women’:  Female Professionals on Classical Attic Gravestones,’ BSA 96 (2001), 292–​9 and 311–​16, nos. P1–​P10 [281–​319]. Record relief: Lawton 1995, 125, no. 91, pl. 48. The funerary relief of Polyxena from Boiotia, now in Berlin (C. Blümel, Die klassisch griechischen Skulpturen der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Berlin: Akademie, 1966, 17–​18, no. K26), showing a priestess holding a small divine image in

243

Notes

her left hand and possibly a metal key in her right, should date near the end of the fifth century bc; it need not reflect the appearance of any lost freestanding portrait statue of a priestess. 124 For Pliny’s unreliability in the identification of Greek sculptors and their works, see Ridgway 1984, 21–​4 and 28–​9 and Palagia 2010. 125 There are two possible identifications of the subject Artemon: either a military engineer who took part in the Athenian siege of Samos under Perikles, or a late Archaic contemporary of the poet Anacreon (cf. Plut. Per. 27). For a full discussion of the evidence, see C. Brown, “From Rags to Riches: Anacreon’s Artemon,” Phoenix 37 (1983), 1–​15. 126 K. Welch (“A New View of the Origins of the Basilica: The Atrium Regium, Graecostasis, and Roman Diplomacy,” JRA 16 (2003), 31–​3 [5–​34]) links the display of these portraits at the entrance to the Curia with the function of this area (encompassing the so-​called Graecostasis and the Atrium Regium) as a place where the Romans welcomed Greek embassies in the middle Republic. For another dubious portrait of Alcibiades, see HN 36.28–​9 and the critique of Palagia 2010, 97–​8:  Pliny reidentifies a marble statue normally called Eros holding a thunderbolt in the Curia of Octavia in Rome as a portrait of Alcibiades, “the most handsome youth of his time.” 127 For the Roman genre of the inscribed cursus seen in the inscriptions for the summi viri, see Lahusen 1983, 23–​6; W.  Eck, “ ‘Tituli honorarii,’ Curriculum Vitae und Selbstdarstellung in der Hohen Kaiserzeit,” in Solin, Salomies, and Liertz 1995, 211–​37; and M. Beard, “Vita Inscripta,” in La biographie antique (Entretiens Fondation Hardt 44), Geneva: Vandoevres, 1998, 83–​118. For Pliny’s use of Greek sculpture to illustrate Roman attitudes, see Isager 1991, 83–​91. 128 For the coining of the term damnatio memoriae in modern times, see Varner 2004, 1–​9. 129 Flower 2006.  The ineffectiveness of such measures, particularly in the eastern Mediterranean, is stressed by M.  Kajava, “Some Remarks on the Erasure of Inscriptions in the Roman World (with Special Reference to the case of Cn. Piso, cos 7 B.C.),” in Solin, Salomies, and Liertz 1995, 201–​10, and E. Culasso Gastaldi, “Abbattere la stele: Riscrittura epigrafica e revisione storica ad Atene,” Cahiers du Centre Gustave-​Glotz 14 (2003), 241–​62. In the Samian Heraion, the name of the wife of Cn. Calpurnius Piso was partially erased, apparently in response to his damnatio proclaimed from Rome; in the Amphiareion at Oropos, the inscription on the base of a portrait naming Piso himself remained untouched. 130 E. R. Varner, From Caligula to Constantine: Tyranny and Transformation in Roman Portraiture, Atlanta, GA: Michael C. Carlos Museum, 2000, and Varner 2004. 131 For the destruction of portraits of Sejanus, see Juvenal 10.56–​64. 132 For Pliny’s treatment of M.  Aemilius Scaurus, see Isager 1991, 144–​7 and Carey 2003, 96–​7. For Demetrios of Phaleron and his portraits, see Tracy 1995, 49 and n. 76; S.V. Tracy, “Demetrius of Phalerum:  Who was he and Who was he Not?,” in W. W. Fortenbaugh and E. Schütrumpf, eds., Demetrius of Phalerum:  Text, Translation, and Discussion (Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities 9), New Brunswick, NJ:  Transaction, 2000, 331–​45; and Azoulay 2009. 133 The base for a bronze equestrian portrait of Demetrios Phanostratou, dedicated by the demesmen of Sphettos and signed by the sculptor Antignotos, was flipped upside down and reused to support a marble statue (found near Koropi in Attica and published by Kalogéropoulou 1969=SEG XXV 206). Cf. Tracy (1995, 35–​51), who argues that this Demetrios was the homonymous grandson of Demetrios of Phaleron (honored by another portrait at Eleusis, IG II2 2971)  rather than Demetrios himself. A  statue base found at Panakton on the border between Attica and Boiotia may show the erasure of Demetrios’ name after 304 bc, when the Athenians regained control of Panakton from Cassander (M. Munn, “The First Excavations at Panakton on the Attic-​Boiotian Frontier,” Boeotia Antiqua 6 (1996), 53–​5 and pl. 20 [47–​58]=SEG XLVI 249). 134 I. Savalli-​Lestrade, “Usages civiques et usages dynastiques de la damnatio memoriae dans le monde hellénistique (323–​30 av. J.-​C.),” in S. Benoist et al., eds., Mémoires partagées, memoires disputées:  écriture et réécriture de l’histoire (Publications du Centre Régional Universitaire

243

244

244

Notes

Lorrain d’Histoire-​Site de Metz 39), Metz: Centre Régional Universitaire Lorrain d’Histoire, Site de Metz, 2009, 129, n. 6 [127–​58]. 135 For discussion and further examples, see C. M. Keesling, “Endoios’ Painting from the Themistoklean Wall: A Reconstruction,” Hesperia 68 (1999), 514–​15 [509–​49]. 136 The monument, according to Vitruvius, consisted of a two-​figure allegorical statue group showing Artemisia branding a personification of the Rhodian state; he calls this monument a trophy (tropaeum) and the construction that hid it from view statio Graea. R. M. Berthold (“A Historical Fiction in Vitruvius,” CP 73 (1978), 129–​34) doubts the historicity of the incident Vitruvius associates with the statue group. 137 Keesling 2003, 179. 138 Gauthier 1985, 109–​10. 139 See Gauer (1968a, 155–​9) on Favorinus [Dio Chrys.] Or. 37.20-​2 (a trial was held to determine which portraits to melt down, and only one of Gelon and one of Dionysios survived) and Plut. Tim. 23.4–​5 (all but one portrait of Gelon were melted down). For the portraits of the Deinomenids, including their dedications commemorating athletic victories at Olympia and Delphi, see Krumeich 1997, 27–​49 and Harrell 2002. 140 For critiques of ahistorical approaches to early Greek sculpture, see A. Duplouy, “La sculpture grecque est-​elle un objet d’histoire? À propos de deux ouvrages récents,” AntCl 74 (2005), 275–​81; Duplouy 2006; and Franssen 2011. 2  ARETE, HEROISM, AND DIVINE CHOICE IN EARLY GREEK PORTRAITURE

1 See, in general, F. I. Zeitlin, “The Artful Eye:  Vision, Ecphrasis, and Spectacle in Euripidean Theatre,” in S. Goldhill and R. Osborne, eds., Art and Text in Ancient Greek Culture, Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1994, 138–​ 96, and Steiner 2001, esp. 190–​4. M. Stieber (Euripides and the Language of Craft (Mnemosyne supplement 327), Leiden/​Boston: Brill, 2011, 115–​94) considers the use of agalma and sculptural language in Euripides. 2 Agamemnon: D. T. Steiner, “Eyeless in Argos: A Reading of Agamemnon 416–​19,” JHS 110 (1995), 175–​82. Satyr play: Hallett 1986; M. Stieber, “Aeschylus’s Theoroi and Realism in Greek Art,” TAPA 124 (1994), 85–​119 (passage related to late Archaic art); R. Krumeich, “Die Weihgeschenke der Satyrn in Aischylos’ Theoroi oder Isthmiastai,” Philologus 144 (2000), 176–​92 (where the satyrs’ images are explained as painted pinakes, not statues); and Steiner 2001, 44–​50. 3 As argued by Fornara 1971.The latest event mentioned by Herodotus is usually taken to be the murder of Spartan ambassadors by the Athenians in 430 bc (7.137). 4 Standard discussions of Homeric arete are A. W. H. Adkins, Merit and Responsibility: A Study in Greek Values (Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1960) and “Homeric Gods and the Values of Homeric Society,” JHS 92 (1972), 1–​19. 5 My discussion here is indebted to M. Finkelberg, “Timê and Aretê in Homer,” CQ 48 (1998), 14–​28, and Finkelberg 2002. 6 M. Gagarin (“The Purpose of Plato’s Protagoras,” TAPA 100 (1969), 133–​64) argues that the Protagoras should be read as a defense of the teachability of arete; cf. J. Walsh (“The Dramatic Dates of Plato’s Protagoras and the Lesson of Arete,” CQ 34 (1984), 101–​6), who considers the central question of the dialogue unresolved. 7 J. Gould, “Give and Take in Herodotus,” in Gould 2001, 285 [281–​303]. 8 J. Gould, “Herodotus and Religion,” in Gould 2001, 373 [359–​77]. 9 A. A. Donohue, Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture, Atlanta, GA:  Scholars Press, 1988, 25–​7. 10 Thucydides’ omission of the statues may not be so surprising:  Thucydides cites monuments as proofs (tekmeria) to back up his historical account of events, but the portraits of Harmodios and Aristogeiton were misleading tekmeria because they encouraged the popular belief that the Athenian Tyrannicides had assassinated Hippias and ended the Peisistratid

245

Notes

tyranny (E. A. Meyer, “Thucydides on Harmodios and Aristogeiton, Tyranny, and History,” CQ 58 (2008), 13–​34, and Grethlein 2010, 214–​18). 11 Sesostris at Memphis: A. B. Lloyd, Herodotus Book II: Introduction and Commentary, 2nd edn, Leiden/​New York: Brill, 1993, vol. III, 36–​7. 12 Another Persian portrait in Herodotus: 1.183 (colossal solid gold statue of a man inside the temple of Bel at Babylon in the time of Cyrus; Babylonian rather than Persian?). 13 The late Hellenistic Lindian temple chronicle calls the two agalmata dedicated by Amasis golden rather than stone (E. D. Francis and M.Vickers,“Amasis and Lindos,” BICS 31 (1984), 120–​1 [119–​30] and “Green Goddess:  A  Gift to Lindos from Amasis of Egypt,” AJA 88 (1984), 68–​9). 14 For an Archaic bronze bowl supported by over-​lifesize kneeling figures, see Hdt. 4.152. Cf. L. Kurke and A. Garrett, “Pudenda Asiae Minoris,” HSCP 96 (1994), 75–​83 and Jacquemin 1999, 198 (no. 344). 15 For the statues, see Jacquemin 1999, 172, 246, 285 and nos. 071 and 072, and Bumke 2004, 59–​69. 16 J. Hall (“How Argive was the ‘Argive’ Heraion? The Political and Cultic Geography of the Argive Plain, 900–​400 B.C.,” AJA 99 (1995), 594–​6 [577–​613]) suggests that the Kleobis and Biton story picked up by Herodotus was not very old. 17 Faure 1985; V. Brinkmann, Die Polychromie der archaischen und frühklassischen Skulptur (Studien zur antiken Malerei und Farbgebung 5). Munich:  Biering & Brinkmann, 2003, no.  206 A and B.Vatin’s reading (“Monuments votifs de Delphes,” BCH 106 (1982), 509–​25) of the name Polydeukes inscribed on the thigh of one of the kouroi is not convincing. 18 Sansone (1991) explores the implicit analogy between Kleobis and Biton and sacrificial victims, points to the elements the story shares with myths of the Dioskouroi, and stresses the athletic character of Kleobis and Biton’s accomplishment. Herodotus’ language here recalls his singling out of individuals by name in his battle descriptions, e.g. Kallimachos of Aphidna at the battle of Marathon (6.114). 19 Kurke (1993, 154) remarks that Herodotus’ version of the story “replicates the conventions of athletic victory and its commemoration.” 20 For Aristeas, see J. D.  P. Bolton, Aristeas of Proconnesus, Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1962; J. Bremmer, The Early Greek Concept of the Soul, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983, 25–​39; Pritchett 1993, 25–​7; Harvey 2004; and S. R. West, “Herodotus on Aristeas,” in C. Tuplin and G. Tsetskhladze, eds., Pontus and the Outside World: Studies in Black Sea History, Historiography, and Archaeology (Colloquia Pontica 9), Leiden/​Boston: Brill, 2004, 52 [43–​67]. 21 The temenos of Apollo in the agora of Metapontum has been located (D. Giacometti, Gli dei e gli eroi nella storia di una polis in Magna Grecia, Cosenza: Lionello Giordano, 2005, 42–​51, and J. C. Carter, Discovering the Greek Countryside at Metaponto (Jerome Lectures, 23rd series), Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006, 216–​18), with a large base that once supported the statues of Apollo and Aristeas. 22 Kallon of Elis: Pliny HN 34.49; Paus. 5.27.8 and IvO 271. The (slightly?) later addition of an elegiac poem by Hippias to a pre-​existing monument could be the result of an epigram contest of the kind described by Petrovic 2009. Bell (M. Bell, III, “Il canto del choreutes. Un bronzo greco dal Gianicolo,” in E. M. Steinby, ed., Ianiculum-​Gianicolo: Storia, topografia, monumenti, leggende dall’antichità al rinascimento (ActaInstRomFin 16), Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 1996, 77–​99, and “A Greek Choral Singer from Rome,” in Mattusch et al. 2000, 132–​3) identifies a bronze figure of ca. 480–​470, found in Rome and now in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, as a representation of a similar chorus boy. 23 For the statue and epigram, see C. M. Bowra, “Arion and the Dolphin,” MusHelv 20 (1963), 121–​34; and Pritchett 1993, 20–​2. Harvey (2004, 297) suggests that the statuette at Tainaron represented Poseidon or a mythological hero saved by a dolphin (such as Melikertes-​ Palaimon) rather than Arion. 24 For examples and discussion, see C. Habicht, “Danksagungen Geretteter an die Götter,” Hyperboreus 7 (2001), 301–​7, and “Weitere Weihungen Geretteter,” Hyperboreus 8 (2002),

245

246

246

Notes

340–​4. Rouse (1902, 226–​33) cited examples that did not involve portraits, most made by individuals who survived being lost at sea. 25 For the so-​called “turma Alexandri,” see Stewart 1993, 123–​30 and T103–​7; Bringmann and Steuben no. 112, 179–​81, and B. Schmidt-​Dounas, Geschenke erhalten die Freundschaft: Politik und Selbstdarstellung im Spiegel der Monumente (Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtümer 2.2), Berlin: Akademie 2000, 119–​20. Arrian (Anab. 1.16.4) mentions only the statues of the Companions, but V   elleius Paterculus (1.11.3-​4) refers to both the Companions and a portrait of Alexander himself, all brought by Q. Metellus Macedonicus to Rome, where they stood facing the temples inside the Porticus Metelli, later surrounded by the Porticus Octaviae. 26 For votive wax images in early modern Europe, see D. Freedberg, The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response, Chicago/​London: University of Chicago 1989, 192–​ 245, esp. 225–​31. For the use of lifesize wax images in present-​day Greek Orthodox worship, see J. B. Connelly,“Standing Before One’s God: Votive Sculpture and the Cypriot Religious Tradition,” BiblArch 52 (1989), 210–​18. 27 Herodotus calls the colossal figure at Delphi simply an andrias, a male figure, holding the akroterion of a ship in its hand; we know it was an Apollo from Pausanias. 28 For Alexander I’s portraits, cf. Krumeich 1997, 25–​7 and nos. H 1 and 2. 29 Scott 2010, 81–​8. Epidaurian Apollo: Jacquemin 1999, 284. 30 Scott (2010, 87, n. 57): “his [Alexander’s] offering, like the Aeginetans’, was particularly un-​ Greek. It was an enormous golden statue of himself (the first such commemorative statue at Delphi with the exception of the statues of Pythian victors).” 31 Claim of descent from Zeus by the Argead kings of Macedon: see Chapter 3. 32 Mitchell 2012 and 2013 (esp. 34–​41). 33 For Symmachos of Pellana and his epigram, see Petrovic 2009, 196–​8. 34 Marcadé I 60; Jacquemin 1999, no. 329; Löhr 2000, no. 80. For the sculptor Kleon of Sikyon, a student of the elder Polykleitos active in the first quarter of the fourth century, see also Arnold 1969, 204–​6. 35 For a list of these portraits, see Ma 2013b, 4–​5 and n. 18. Ma (2013a, 165–​6) reconstructs a group including Mausollus, Artemisia, and their father Hekatomnos at Kaunos (cf. Löhr 2000, no. 93). 36 Erythrai: Ma 2013b, 85: “had Artemisia shown particular piety towards that deity and her shrine? Was the choice of marble, and of the shrine of the female goddess, felt to be more appropriate, in the early fourth century, for a female honorand?” Milesian dedication of bronze portraits of Mausollos and Artemisia at Delphi: FdD III 4 176; Marcadé I 93; Löhr 2000, no. 134; and Ma 2013b, 27. 37 Waywell 1993. 38 For the eidolon, see Krumeich 1997, 153–​4. Schäfer (1957) concluded that it was a lifesize, physiognomically accurate likeness. Gauer (1968a, 153–​5) concentrated exclusively on the issue of likeness, connecting the portraits of the mid-​fourth-​century Spartan king Archidamos III at Olympia (Paus. 6.4.9 and 6.15.7) and Delphi (Ath. 591B-​C) with the eidolon of kings killed in battle (Archidamos died in 338 bc). Cartledge (1987, 333–​4) suggested that the eidolon ritual described by Herodotus applied only to Leonidas, whose body was mutilated after the battle of  Thermopylai (Hdt. 7.225). For the funerals of Spartan kings in general, see Cartledge 1987, 331–​43 and Richer 1994. 39 According to Pausanias (3.14.1), the bones of Leonidas were removed from Thermopylai to the sanctuary of Athena Chalkioikos on the acropolis of Sparta in ca. 440 bc. Both W. R. Connor (“Pausanias 3.14.1: A Sidelight on Spartan History, c. 440 B.C.?,” TAPA 109 (1979), 21–​7) and M. Jung (“ ‘Wanderer, kommst du nach Sparta … ’: Die Bestattung der Perserkämpfer Leonidas und Pausanias im Heiligtum der Athena Chalkioikos,” in Haake and Jung 2011, 95–​108) accept that a heroön for Leonidas and Pausanias I, the commander at Plataia, could date to this period.

247

Notes

40 Succession of Agesilaos, who was congenitally lame in one leg: Cartledge 1987, 20–​2 and 112–​15. 41 See Carlier 1984, 292–​301. 42 See Cartledge 1987, 335–​6; P. A. Cartledge, “Yes, Spartan Kings were Heroized,” LCM 13.3 (1988), 43–​4 (in reply to R. Parker, “Were Spartan Kings Heroized?,” LCM 13.1 (1988), 9–​ 10); and Currie 2005, 244–​5. 43 For the literary sources and an emphasis upon religious motives, see Krumeich 1997, no. S5 and 156–​9; for the oracle, see H. W. Parke and D. E. W. Wormell, The Delphic Oracle, Oxford: Blackwell, 1956, I 182–​3 and II 51, no. 114. For the statues as part of a ghost-​banning ritual, see C. Faraone, Talismans and Trojan Horses: Guardian Statues in Ancient Greek Myth and Ritual, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992, 81–​4. Cf. A. W. Gomme (A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, 2nd edn, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972, 437), who treated the statues of Pausanias as straightforward civic honorific portraits: “It is clear that the Regent [Pausanias] was honoured after his death, and therefore, that he had strong supporters in Sparta.” 44 Richer 1994, 83–​94. Cf. Himmelmann (2001, 38), who compares the Egyptian practice of double portraits not only with the two statues of Pausanias at Sparta, but also with the Syracusans’ dedication of two portraits of Hieron II at Olympia in the fourth century (Paus. 6.12.4). 45 For the Liparian dedication, see Jacquemin 1999, 172–​3. 46 For the archons’ oath statues, see also Suidas s.v. χρυσῆ εἰκών, who picks up the term eikon from Plato, and claims that the archons vowed to dedicate a statue not only at Delphi, but also at Olympia and Athens. For discussion, see Rouse 1902, 315; Krumeich 1997, 26–​7 and 59–​62; and Kurke 1999, 314–​16, who takes isometreton here to mean “lifesize.” 47 F. Hölscher 2008. 48 Morgan 1994. Himmelmann (2001, 14–​20 and figs. 3–​5) stresses the religious character of both the Delphi and Olympia portraits. Pseudo-​Plutarch (X orat. 839b) quotes a similar epigram, this one from a portrait of the orator Isokrates, dedicated in Athens by his adopted son Aphareus: Aphareus dedicated this portrait of his father, Isokrates, to Zeus, revering the gods and the arete of his ancestors. Isokrates, like Gorgias, lived to an advanced age. Timotheos, son of Konon and a student of Isokrates, also supposedly dedicated a portrait of Isokrates with an inscribed epigram at Eleusis (also quoted at X orat. 838d). Extreme longevity was interpreted as evidence of arete, and as a motive for portraiture in itself, in the fourth century. 49 Portrait of Phryne: Ath. 13.591b–​c (dedicated by either the Amphictyony or the Delphians and inscribed with a name label) and Paus. 10.15.1 (dedicated by Phryne herself). Another motive for dedicating this portrait at Delphi may have been to encourage comparison with the late Archaic offering of a pile of iron spits (obeloi) on a stone base by the courtesan Rhodopis (Hdt. 2.135 and SEG XIII 364: C. M. Keesling, “Heavenly Bodies: Monuments to Prostitutes in Greek Sanctuaries,” in C. A. Faraone and L. K. McClure, eds., Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World, Madison: University of W   isconsin 2006, 59–​76). For portraits as kosmos, see also CEG 2 775=IG II2 4596 (fourth-​century dedication to Aphrodite Pandemos by a priestess and her relatives, discussed by Kron 1996, 154–​5 and Löhr 2000, 130–​1, no. 149). 50 Cf. A. Ohnesorg (“Der dorische Prostylos des Archilocheion auf Paros,” AA 1982, 271–​90), who reconstructs a Doric naïskos on Paros, dated to the second half of the fourth century, as the first heroön of Archilochus. Neither the funerary column renovated in the second half of the fourth century nor the cult precinct of Mnesiepes seems to have included a portrait statue, though the Sosthenes inscription mentions a relief showing Archilochus. 51 Hellenistic heroization of poets: Boehringer 1996, 37, and Connolly 1998, 16–​20. For a less cautious approach, see M.-​C. Beaulieu, “L’héroïsation du poète Hésiode en Grèce ancienne,” Kernos 17 (2004), 103–​17. Clay (2004) conjecturally associated an uninscribed late Archaic Totenmahl relief of ca. 510 bc with early hero cult for Archilochus.

247

248

248

Notes

52 Z. Newby, “Reading the Allegory of the Archelaos Relief,” in Newby and Leader-​Newby 2007, 156–​78. 53 Curiously, Zanker (1995, 14–​22) dates the lost Greek original behind a Roman marble portrait head of Homer in the Munich Glyptothek to ca. 460 on the basis of its style, but at the same time argues against any connection with the Homer dedicated by Mikythos. For a more general argument against the mechanical copying of the Greek bronze originals in the sanctuary at Olympia, see Ridgway 1984, 40–​3. 54 Eckstein 1969, 33–​42 and 112–​16. 55 For the role of river gods in childbirth and tutelage, see R. Parker, “Theophoric Names and the History of Greek Religion,” in S. Hornblower and E. Matthews, eds., Greek Personal Names:  Their Value as Evidence (ProcBritAc 104), Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2000, 59–​61 [53–​80]. 56 For discussion of the inscription and its meaning, see Purvis 2003, 21–​4. Purvis tentatively identifies the male figure on the relief whom Xenokrateia and her son approach as Dionysos or a local hero rather than Kephisos; cf. Parker 2005, 430. 57 For other presentation scenes, see Acr. 3030, a votive relief showing a man and a toddler boy approaching Athena, with an owl perched on her outstretched right hand (Lawton 2007, 162–​3); and IG II2 4553, an early fourth-​century inscribed relief in the Louvre showing a man and a teenage boy approaching the hero Theseus (G. Ekroth, “Theseus and the Stone: The Iconographic and Ritual Contexts of a Greek Votive Relief in the Louvre,” in Mylonopoulos 2010, 143–​69). 58 Bergemann (1991) dates the original portrait to ca. 450–​440 bc, leaving open the possibility that it was posthumous; cf. Himmelmann (2001, 6–​7), who assumes that Pindar dedicated his own portrait statue in a Greek sanctuary. 59 Himmelmann 1994, 69–​74. 60 B. S. Ridgway, “The Sculpture,” in C. J. Eiseman and B. S. Ridgway, eds., The Porticello Shipwreck: A Mediterranean Merchant Vessel of 415–​385 B.C., College Station, TX: Texas A and M University, 1987, 63–​8, no. S1 and 100–​6 [63–​106] and “The Porticello Bronzes Once Again,” AJA 114 (2010), 331–​42. 61 For the problematic identification of Pindar and the date of the group, see M. Bergmann, “The Philosophers and Poets in the Sarapieion at Memphis,” in Schultz and von den Hoff 2007, 246–​63. 62 Wycherley 1957, no. 708. The portrait of Pindar is described as standing near the temple of Ares by Pausanias (1.8.4). 63 For Greek priestess portraits, see Mantis 1990; Connelly 2007; von den Hoff 2008; Dillon 2010 passim; and M. Horster, “Lysimache and the Others: Some Notes on the Position of Women in Athenian Religion,” in Reger, Ryan, and Winters 2010, 177–​92. 64 Blok and Lambert 2009 and Lambert 2010b, 155–​6; see also M.  Horster, “The Tenure, Appointment and Eponymy of Priesthoods and their (Debatable) Ideological and Political Implications,” in Horster and Klöckner 2012, 161–​208. 65 Kron 1996, 142–​9; Connelly 2007, 125–​7. 66 Kouros and kore dedicated by Timonax at Klaros: M. Dewailly, M. Pécasse, and S.Verger, “Les sculptures archaïques de Claros,” MonPiot 83 (2004), 47–​55, no. 5, and 25–​35, no. 2 [5–​59]; Keesling 2010b, 93. 67 The subject of one supposed fifth-​century portrait of a priestess is “Charite, who delivered oracles at Delphi,” made by the sculptor Phradmon of Argos. Her statue was one of three brought to Ostia from somewhere in the Greek world in the late Republic and displayed on new statue bases. The excavator, Fausto Zevi, identified Phradmon’s Charite as one of the earliest known Greek portraits of a female subject (Zevi 1969–​70, 110–​16; see also Richter 1971, 434–​5). Phradmon worked at the end of the fifth century and the beginning of the fourth. There are reasons, however, to question the statue base from Ostia as an attestation of a fifth-​century bc priestess portrait. At Delphi, despite the extensive dedication of portraits in the sanctuary in the Hellenistic period, no inscribed bases for portraits of either Pythias or

249

Notes

male priests of Apollo dating before the Hadrianic period have been found: the only known statue at Delphi at all comparable to the supposed portrait of the Pythia Charite by Phradmon is a representation of the mythical first Pythia, Phemonoe, daughter of Delphos and Kastalia, dedicated in the third century bc by the people of Alexandria in Egypt (Jacquemin 1999, 68, 180, 202, and no. 013; cf. Connelly 2007, 72–​81 on the role of the Pythia).  A portrait of a “real” Pythia named Charite at Delphi before the Roman imperial period would be an anomaly. 68 For Lysimache’s portrait statue and its base, see Mantis 1990, 70–​4; Kron 1996, 143–​4; Lewis 1997b [orig.  1955], 191–​4; Connelly 2007, 130–​1; von den Hoff 2008, 120–​4; and Keesling 2012. 69 I have reproduced and translated P. A. Hansen’s version of the text (CEG 2 757), with one exception: Hansen does not restore Lysimache’s name at the beginning of line 5. 70 The statue of Lysimache seems to have dropped out of Pausanias’ text (1.27.4), but is attributed to Demetrios by Pliny (HN 34.19), who also seems to derive the length of Lysimache’s service as priestess from the inscription. 71 Document relief (Acr. 2758 + 2427): Lawton 1995, 125, no. 91; Connelly 2007, 96–​7; and von den Hoff 2008, 118–​20. As S. D. Lambert (“The Social Construction of Priests and Priestesses in Athenian Honorific Decrees from the Fourth Century bc to the Augustan Period,” in Horster and Klöckner 2012, 69 [67–​133]) notes, “Priestesses are the only Athenian women honoured in inscribed decrees.” 72 Keesling 2012. 73 J. Six, “Ikonographische Studien:  XX. Lysimache, Priesterin der Athene,” RM 27 (1912), 83–​5.The association with Lysimache’s portrait is rejected by Mantis 1990, 70–​4; Kron 1996, 142–​4; and Connelly 2007, 131 (“it is highly unlikely that Lysimache or any priestess of the early fourth century would have been portrayed as a wrinkled old woman”). As von den Hoff (2008, 120–​4) points out, the strophion is also worn by Aristonoe, a third-​century bc priestess at Rhamnous whose portrait survives (Dillon 2010, 106–​10). 74 Dillon 2010. 75 For Demetrios, see Keesling 2010a (with earlier bibliography). 76 Bergemann 2007, 42–​3. 77 For the gentilician (genos-​based) priesthoods of Athens, see Blok and Lambert 2009. 78 J. Lougovaya-​Ast, “Myrrhine, the First Priestess of Athena Nike,” Phoenix 60 (2006), 211–​25, with references to earlier scholarship. As Lambert (2010b) points out, the use of allotment was not strictly democratic, since earlier genos-​based priesthoods had also used allotment to choose priests and priestesses. 79 C. Feyel, “Xénophôn, fils de Philoxénos, du dème de Myrrhinonte: à propos d’une inscription métrique méconnue,” in N. Badoud, ed., Philologos Dionysios: Mélanges offerts au professeur Denis Knoepfler (Recueil de travaux publiés par la Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de l’Université de Neuchâtel 56), Geneva: Droz, 2011, 23–​37, and I. Bultrighini, “‘Twin Inscriptions’ from the Attic Deme of Myrrhinous,” ZPE 186 (2013), 141–​51. 80 Earliest evidence for the Eleusinion:  Miles 1998, 16–​ 20; date of the temple of Triptolemos: Miles 1998, 38–​43. 81 Miles 1998, 187, no. 1. Στεφάνω as a dual accusative: Clinton 1974, 69, no. 1; as a portrait-​ herm representing a daughter of Lysistrate named Stephano:  Geagan 2011, 10, no. A10. Parallels for στεφανω = Στεφάνου on Athenian dedications and ostraca dating to the mid-​ fifth century:  F. van Straten, “Gifts for the Gods,” in H. S. Versnel, ed., Faith, Hope, and Worship:  Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (Studies in Greek and Roman Religion 2), Leiden:  Brill, 1981, 75 [65–​ 151] and Kaczko 2009, 107 n.  50 (on IG I3 983 = CEG 312). For much later (first century bc) dedications of portrait herms in the sanctuary, see Miles 1998, 192, nos. I 19–​21. 82 Chairippe base: Orphanou-​Phlorake 2000–​3; Ajootian 2007, 25–​7; and Blok and Lambert 2009, 119, no. 3. 83 Unknown priestess: Blok and Lambert 2009, 119, no. 4; Miles 1998, 188, no. 3; and Geagan 2011, 307, no. V584. Both Miles and Geagan restore ἀνέθηκεν at the end of the second

249

250

250

Notes

line, but there seems to be room on the stone only for a name label in the nominative. Archippe:  Miles 1998, 189, no.  10 and Ajootian 2007, 19–​20; Spoudias and Kleiokrateia (name labels once again): Miles 1998, 188–​9, no. 7 and Ajootian 2007, 20–​5. 84 Miles 1998, 66, 84, and 198, no. I 35. 85 For dedications in the Athena sanctuary, see Carter 1983, 250–​67 (32 bases for portraits and 26 marble statues) and IvPr 156–​68; for dedications to Demeter, see IvPr 170–​3. For portraits in the Agora of Priene, see W. Raeck, “Der mehrfache Apollodoros: Zur Präsenz des Bürgers im hellenistischen Stadtbild am Beispiel von Priene,” in Wörrle and Zanker 1995, 231–​40 and Ma 2013b, 142–​8 (IvPr 231–​86). 86 Timonassa: Dillon 2010, 41. For the style and iconography of the portrait of Nikeso, often interpreted as a representation of Demeter herself, see Ridgway 1990, 210–​12; Mantis 1990, 123; Kron 1996, 146–​8; Lindenlauf in Stemmer 1995, 203–​4; Eule 2001, 43–​4 and 105–​7; and most recently Dillon 2010, 77–​8 and 124–​6. 87 R. Balot, Courage in the Democratic Polis: Ideology and Critique in Classical Athens, Oxford/​ New  York:  Oxford University Press, 2014, 317–​ 28, and Arrington 2015. L. Foxhall (“Monumental Ambitions: The Significance of Posterity in Greece,” in N. Spencer, ed., Time, Tradition and Society in Greek Archaeology:  Bridging the ‘Great Divide’, London and New York: Routledge, 1995, 132–​49) treats Kleobis and Biton and Tellos as examples of two divergent Greek models of time and posterity,“monumental” time and “human” time. 88 Bergemann 1997. 89 P. Zanker, “The Hellenistic Grave Stelai from Smyrna: Identity and Self-​Image in the Polis,” in A. Bulloch et al., eds., Images and Ideologies: Self-​Definition in the Hellenistic World, Berkeley/​ Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993, 212–​30. 90 Ma 2013b, 164–​5 and 216–​17. 3  PORTRAITS IN GREEK SANCTUARIES

1 For Pausanias’ Athenocentrism, see Paus. 1.17.1 and 4.35.5. 2 Selection principles and lack of interest in post-​146 bc material: H. Whittaker, “Pausanias and his Use of Inscriptions,” SymbOslo 66 (1991), 171–​86; K. W. Arafat, “Pausanias’ Attitude to Antiquities,” BSA 87 (1992), 387–​409; Arafat 1996, esp. 43–​79; Kreilinger 1997; Habicht 1998, 130–​4; Hutton 2005, 317–​22. 3 For victor portraits at Olympia in the Hellenistic and Roman imperial periods, see A. Farrington, “Olympic Victors and the Popularity of the Olympic Games in the Imperial Period,” Tyche 12 (1997), 15–​46, and O. Peim, “Die Siegerstatuen von Schwerathleten in Olympia und ihre Zusammenstellung durch Pausanias,” Nikephoros 13 (2000), 95–​109. 4 For recent attempts to weave buildings, dedications, and historical events into unified sanctuary histories, see Franssen (2011) on the Athenian Acropolis and the Samian Heraion in the Archaic period, and Scott (2010) on Delphi and Olympia down to the end of the Classical period. 5 For the study of victor portraits at Olympia, the detailed catalogue of victors assembled by H.-​V. Herrmann (1988) is essential. The standard chronology of Olympic victors (Moretti) has been updated by Moretti 1987. For the statues themselves, nearly all lost, see Hyde 1921; Serwint 1987; Rausa 1994; Smith 2007. 6 For thoughts on Archaic and fifth-​century victor dedications of all types, see R. Thomas, “Fame, Memorial, and Choral Poetry: The Origins of Epinikian Poetry –​An Historical Study,” in Hornblower and Morgan 2007, 141–​66. 7 Amandry 1957. Sculptors are an important component of Pausanias’ account of Olympia: he reports the names of approximately 50 percent of the sculptors of athletic victor portraits there, as opposed to about 20 percent of the sculptors of other portraits in the Periegesis. 8 Another supposed Archaic portrait of an Olympic victor, that of the pankratiast Arrhachion of Phigalia, seems to me to be a red herring. According to Pausanias (8.40.1–​3), Arrhachion

251

Notes

was killed by his opponent during his attempt to win a third Olympic crown in 564 bc, but was proclaimed the victor anyway. Pausanias identified an Archaic kouros he saw in the agora of Phigalia as a portrait of Arrhachion, with an inscription engraved on the statue itself: “There is a statue in the agora of the Phigalians of Arrhachion the pankratiast, old in other respects and not least in its pose: the feet are not far apart, and the arms are close to the sides touching the thighs.The portrait has been made of stone, and they say there is an inscription on it, but this has faded over time.” The statue Pausanias saw was identified by W. W. Hyde (“The Oldest Dated Victor Statue,” AJA 18 (1914), 156–​64) as a marble kouros from Phigaleia now in the Olympia Museum (G. M. A. Richter, Kouroi: Archaic Greek Youths, London/​New York: Phaidon, 1970, 77 and 67, no. 41 and figs. 144–​6), but the remains of that statue suggest an Apollo with both forearms outstretched holding attributes. Further on in his account of Phigalia (8.42.1–​13), Pausanias reports that the local inhabitants of his own time professed complete ignorance of a famous cult statue of Demeter Melaina by Onatas that once stood in a temple there; these same locals may have mistaken an Archaic kouros in their own agora for a portrait of Arrhachion. For Pausanias’ account of Phigalia, see Pretzler 2005, 245. 9 Smith 2007, 99. 10 Cf. Smith 2007, 97: “We should believe this explicit statement, placed in a prominent place in Pausanias’ text.” 11 Hausmann 1977, 62–​5 with pls. 17.3–​4 and 18.3–​4. 12 Cf. four enigmatic late Archaic/​early Classical marble torsos of athletes found on Delos: one javelin thrower, two discus throwers, and one of unidentified type (A. Hermary, La sculpture archaïque et Classique: Catalogue des sculptures classiques de Délos (Exploration Archéologique de Délos 34), Paris: de Boccard, 1984, 8–​19, cat. nos. 5–​8 and pls. IV–​IX). Their presence on Delos cannot easily be explained, given the absence of inscriptions for athletic victor dedications there before the Hellenistic period. 13 For a discussion of the role of Ageladas in Poseidippos’ poem, see Stewart 2005, 182–​8. 14 Amandry 1957, 73–​4. Cf. P. Moreno in Künstlerlexikon (I, s.v. Hageladas I and Hageladas II), who divides the attested works between late Archaic (ca. 520–​507 bc) and early Classical (ca. 474–​430) homonyns, without justification in my view. See also Stewart 1990, 247–​8 and T 25. 15 For the remains of this base and its inscription, see also IGB 28; LSAG2 111–​13, no. 12; and Eckstein 1969, 54–​60. 16 A. Stewart,“The Persian and Carthaginian Invasions of 480 B.C.E. and the Beginning of the Classical Style: Part 2, The Finds from Other Sites in Athens, Attica, Elsewhere in Greece, and on Sicily; Part 3, The Severe Style: Motivations and Meaning,” AJA 112 (2008), 593–​7 [581–​615]. Cf. E.Walter-​Karydi (Die äginetische Bildhauer-​Schule:  Werke und schriftliche Quellen (Alt-​Ägina 2.2), Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1987), who favored late sixth-​century dates for the work of the Aeginetan bronze sculptors. For Onatas of Aegina, see the comments by K. Hallof, K. Herrmann, and S. Prignitz, “Alte und neue Inschriften aus Olympia I,” Chiron 42 (2012), 221–​4 [213–​38]. 17 Point made by Amandry 1957, 74–​5. Simonides’ epinician ode on one of Glaukos’ victories (discussed by R.  Rawles, “Early Epinician:  Ibycus and Simonides,” in Agócs, Carey, and Rawles 2012, 12–​13 and 17–​18 [3–​27]) could date as early as ca. 520, but it could also be contemporary with Pindar and Bakchylides. 18 One victor portrait that seems to have dated before 480 bc is that of one of the most famous of all Olympic victors, Milo of Croton, a wrestler who won his latest victory in 516 bc. Pausanias’ account (6.14.5–​8; cf. Philostratos VA 4.28) of Milo’s legendary feats of strength sounds like an oral tradition inspired by the pose of a relatively static late Archaic statue: he could stand still on a greased discus and no one could push him off, and no one could pry open one hand holding a pomegranate or bend the fingers of the other stretched out straight (Keesling 2005, 49–​57). It is tempting to connect a round base with a damaged upper surface (IvO 264=IGB 414) with Milo’s portrait: a fragmentary inscription in Archaic lettering on the top permits the restoration of Milo’s patronymic Diotimou. Lehmann

251

252

252

Notes

(2004, 320) restores an over-​lifesize bronze figure from possible outlines of the feet visible on top of this base. Ebert (61) dates a poem about a statue of Milo preserved in the literary tradition (Anth. Plan. 16.24) to the Hellenistic period. 19 For the followers of Polykleitos, see Amandry 1957, 75–​87; Arnold 1969; Bommelaer 1981, 52–​5. 20 One victor portrait that poses an insoluble chronological problem is that of Philippos of Pellana in Arcadia, victor in the boys’ boxing in 436 bc. Pausanias (6.8.5) saw his portrait and attributed it to the mid-​fifth-​century sculptor Myron of Eleutherai. A bronze plaque inscribed with an epigram in honor of an athlete named Philippos from Arcadia has been dated to ca. 300 bc (IvO 174 = Ebert 55 = CEG 2 827). The simplest explanation is that there were two different Arcadian victors named Philippos 130 years apart. 21 Two different sculptors, Kallikles of Megara and Naukydes of Argos, are associated with the portraits in the Diagorid group. Both could have been active in ca. 400 bc, when the third generation of Diagorid victors won their victories. For the Diagorids of Rhodes, see Pomeroy 1997, 86–​92; Duplouy 2006, 71–​5; and S. Hornblower, “What Happened Later to the Families of Pindaric Patrons –​and to Epinician Poetry?,” in Agócs, Carey, and Rawles 2012, 94–​5 [93–​107]. 22 Schweitzer 1963, 135–​7, and Lazzarini 1984–​5, 91. Rouse (1902, 167–​9), Amandry (1957, 69–​ 71), and Ebert (16–​22) placed this transformation slightly earlier, during the Peloponnesian War. Cf. IvO (cols. 235–​42) and Hyde (1921, 37–​40), who thought that monuments celebrating chariot and hippic victories were more “votive” from the beginning than those consisting of the victor’s portrait alone. 23 A. Köhnken, “Epinician Epigram,” in P. Bing and J. S. Bruss, eds., Brill’s Companion to Hellenistic Epigram, down to Philip, Leiden/​Boston: Brill, 2007, 295–​312. 24 For the aggelia, see Kurke 1993, 137–​49; Day 1994, 63–​71; Day 2010, 198–​228. In victor epigrams, “the father or the city can be omitted, but the consistent occurrence of the whole list and its similarity to what we know of the proclamation confirm its origin in that ritual utterance” (Day 1994, 65). 25 For name labels and what Ma calls the “great man” nominative, see Ma 2013b, 21–​3. 26 For Hippias’ catalogue of victors and its date, see Christesen 2007, 1–​50. Christesen stresses that Hippias’ catalogue was intended to support Elean claims to control over the games against the Spartans at the end of the Peloponnesian War. 27 For Theogenes of  Thasos, see Pouilloux 1994 and Keesling 2005, 56, n. 46. 28 See Moreno 1995, 91–​3; Taeuber 1997; A. Kosmopoulou, The Iconography of Sculptured Statue Bases in the Archaic and Classical Periods, Madison:  University of Wisconsin, 2002, 200–​2, no. 36; and Lehmann 2003, 33–​5. By the time of Lucian (Dial. D. 12), Polydamas’ portrait at Olympia was credited with healing fevers. 29 For general remarks on the importance of Olympia for the western Greeks, especially the Sicilians, see C. Antonaccio, “Elite Mobility in the West,” in Hornblower and Morgan 2007, 265–​85. 30 For Phormis, see Zizza 2006, 247–​56. Borbein (1973, 74–​5) wondered if Pausanias mistook name labels identifying Phormis and Lykortas for a dedication. Hölscher (1973, 88–​90) suggested that Phormis himself was represented only once, in the central pair of fighters. Eckstein (1969, 43–​9) reconstructed the pairs of fighters at the center of a single, T-​shaped base, flanked by two horses and charioteers (grooms?). 31 Acropolis bases: DAA 140=IG II2 4156 and Korres 1994, 86–​7, MB and MB’. Berlin Foundry Cup: C. C. Mattusch, “The Berlin Foundry Cup: The Casting of Greek Bronze Statuary in the Early Fifth Century B.C.,” AJA 84 (1980), 435–​44; Mattusch 1996a, 182–​4; J. Neils, “Who’s Who on the Berlin Foundry Cup,” in Mattusch et al. 2000, 75–​80; and Keesling 2003, 189–​90 and 197–​8. 32 Apollonian dedication: LSAG2 229; Eckstein 1969, 15–​22; Ioakimidou 2000, 73–​6; Bumke 2004, 171–​85. Achaian dedication signed by Onatas:  Eckstein 1969, 27–​32; A. Ajootian, “Homeric Time, Space, and the Viewer at Olympia,” in A. Roesler-​Friedenthal and J.

253

Notes

Nathan, eds., The Enduring Instant, Time and the Spectator in the Visual Arts (A Section of the XXXth International Congress for the History of Art, London), Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 2003, 137–​63, esp. 121–​7; Bumke 2004, 166–​71; and A. Ajootian, “Heroic and Athletic Sortition at Ancient Olympia,” in G. P. Schaus and S. R. Wenn, eds., Onward to the Olympics, Historical Perspectives on the Olympic Games (Publications of the Canadian Institute in Greece 5), Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2007, 115–​29. 33 Schultz 2007a and 2009, with references to earlier scholarship. 34 Schultz (2007a, 216–​17) suggests that a marble female figure found in the sanctuary of the goddess Eukleia in the agora of   Vergina (ancient Aigai) in Macedonia represents Eurydike, and that this statue might closely resemble the portrait of Eurydike in the Philippeion. The Vergina statue goes with the base for a votive dedication of the mid-​fourth century bc to Eukleia made by Eurydike (C. Saatsoglou-​Paliadeli,“Queenly Appearances at Vergina-​Aegae: Old and New Epigraphic and Literary Evidence,” AA ( 2000), 395–​7 [387–​403]). The figure wears a heavy peplos and resembles both Hippodameia in the east pediment of the Olympia temple and the elder Kephisodotos’ Peace with the infant Wealth. But since the formula of the inscription is votive, the statue could be an image of Eukleia herself rather than Eurydike: in contrast, another, contemporary dedication from the Eukleia sanctuary is a royal family portrait group inscribed with name labels. One would expect Eurydike in the Philippeion group to resemble Oinomaos’ wife Sterope rather than the young bride Hippodameia. 35 For the Macedonian kings’ interest in Zeus and claims to heroic ancestry, see Hdt. 5.22.1; Thuc. 2.99.3 and 5.80.2; and le Bohec-​Bouhet 2002. Schultz (2009, 136–​9) makes the connection with the Argive heroes group at Delphi, but also considers the representation of the women of the Hekatomnid Carian dynasty to be an important precedent: “the presence of the Argead queens in the Philippeion is obviously and directly based on Karian dynastic portrait groups which always included images of women” (170, n. 63). 36 τῷ Διὶ τἈχαιοὶ τἀγάλματα ταῦτ᾽ ἀνέθηκαν,/​ ἔγγονοι ἀντιθέου Τανταλίδα Πέλοπος: To Zeus the Achaians dedicated these [agalmata], /​descendants of the godlike Tantalid, Pelops. 37 See Schultz 2009, 130–​ 3; D. Damaskos (Untersuchungen zu hellenistischen Kultbildern, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1999, 266–​7, n. 52) is equivocal. For arguments against the dedication of their own portraits by Philip and Alexander, see Schmidt-​Dounas 1989. 38 For a full discussion of royal portraits and other monuments in the early Hellenistic period at Olympia, see K. Freitag, “Olympia als ‘Erinnerungsort’ in hellenistischer Zeit,” in Haake and Jung 2011, 69–​94. 39 For the arrangement of portraits in the Altis, see Hyde 1921, 339–​75; T. Hölscher, “Rituelle Räume und politische Denkmäler im Heiligtum von Olympia,” in H. Kyrieleis, ed., Olympia 1875–​2000:  125 Jahre Deutsche Ausgrabungen (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Internationales Symposion, Berlin 9.–​11. November 2000), Mainz:  Philipp von Zabern, 2002, 339–​42 [331–​ 45] (“Nur im Raum vor und um den Zeus-​Tempel vermischen sich die Standbilder der Athleten und der Staatsmänner”); J. M. Barringer, “The Olympic Altis Before the Temple of Zeus,” JdI 124 (2009), 223–​50; and Scott 2010, 196–​201 (athletes grouped around military victory monuments). 40 See esp. le Bohec-​Bouhet 2002, 42–​3. 41 Here I follow T. Kruse,“Zwei Denkmäler der Antigoniden in Olympia: Eine Untersuchung zu Pausanias 6,16,3,” AM 107 (1992), 273–​93. 42 A portrait of Ptolemy II was dedicated by his strategos in the 260s (Paus. 6.17.2); Ptolemy II himself dedicated a portrait of Areus I of Sparta (Paus. 6.12.5 and IvO 308). 43 Gorgias portrait and epigram: Tzifopoulos 2013, 158–​61. 44 Phormis of Mainalos dedicated at Delphi as well as at Olympia: Paus. 5.27.1 and Jacquemin 1999, no. 353. 45 Decline in statues of Apollo: Felten 1982, 84; animal statues at Delphi: Lacroix 1992 and Keesling 2009, 297–​302. 46 A. Jacquemin, “Ordre des termes des dédicaces delphiques,” AnnArchStorAnt 2 (1995), 141–​57.

253

254

254

Notes

47 Jacquemin 1999, 202–​3. 48 Statistic based upon Scott 2010, 310–​47. 49 Statistics based upon Jacquemin 1999. 50 Adornato 2008; Jacquemin 1999, no. 445. 51 For Hieron’s portrait, see Krumeich 1997, 31–​ 3 and 224, no. H5 (ca. 480–​ 467/​ 6 bc) and Jacquemin 1999, no.  452. Elsewhere, Krumeich (“Zu den goldenen Dreifüssen der Deinomeniden in Delphi,” AM 106 (1991), 37–​62) argues that the Deinomenids’ other, non-​ portrait dedications at Delphi commemorating their victories over the Carthaginians were not inspired directly by the Persian War monuments in the sanctuary (cf. Jacquemin 1999, 252–​3). 52 M. Flashar and R. von den Hoff (“Die Statue des sogennanten Philosophen Delphi im Kontext einer mehrfigurigen Stiftung,” BCH 117 (1993), 407–​33) identify a draped male figure, a female figure, and a statue of Dionysos as a possible row group of the late fourth or early third century bc. Since there is no base for these statues, I would prefer to see here a dedication by a priest of Dionysos of portraits of himself and of his wife; since the statues are made of marble, they probably stood under the shelter of a naïskos or a roofed exedra. This priest may have dedicated the statue of Dionysos separately, a pattern we see in the fourth century at both Epidauros and Lindos. 53 Borbein 1973, 77–​9 and 86. 54 Jacquemin 1999, 216–​20, and Scott 2010, 121–​4. 55 Cf. Jacquemin (1999, 192), who dates the First Phocian group to ca. 490 bc, and suggests that no row groups combining gods and heroes with portraits were set up during the fourth century. Other Phocian statue groups at Delphi: Hdt. 8.27 (statues standing around a tripod); Paus. 10.13.7 (Apollo, Athena, and Artemis group and struggle over a tripod), discussed by Jacquemin 1999, 52–​3 and 191. First Phocian group: Ioakimidou 1997, 34–​6 and 135–​43, Jacquemin 1999, no. 401.The only Phocian statue groups attested by archaeological remains (Jacquemin 1999, nos. 396 and 397) date after 346 bc when Phocis returned to the Delphic Amphictyony. For the battles between the Phocians and the Thessalians commemorated with victory monuments at Delphi, see P. Ellinger, La légende nationale phocidienne: Artémis, les situations extrêmes et les récits de guerre d’anéantissement (BCH supp. 27), Paris: de Boccard, 1993, 233–​40, and J. McInerney, The Folds of Parnassos: Land and Ethnicity in Ancient Phokis, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1999, 173–​8. Pausanias associates the First Phocian statue group with the so-​called “Phocian desperation” battle also described by Plut. Mor. 244b–​d. There is no other evidence for the date of the sculptor Aristomedon of Argos (cf. DNO 470–​1). 56 For the Liparian statue groups, see Ioakimidou 2000, 65–​9; Ioakimidou 1997, 55–​7, no. 7, and Jacquemin 1999, no. 339 (group consisting of andriantes); Paus. 10.16.7, Ioakimidou 1997, 47–​50, no. 5, and Jacquemin 1999, no. 337 (twenty statues of Apollo); and Ioakimidou 1997, 50–​5, no. 6, and Jacquemin 1999, no. 338 (mid-​fifth century bc base for bronze standing figures, inscription renewed in the second half of the fourth century). 57 Lower Tarentine group: Ioakimidou 2000, 69–​71. 58 Upper Tarentine monument: Amandry 1949; Lacroix 1992, 171–​4; Ioakimidou 1997, 77–​82, no. 12, and 200–​13; Jacquemin 1999, no. 455; and Ioakimidou 2000, 71–​3. The few blocks associated with this dedication (Syll.3 40B) show that the original fifth-​century inscription was renewed in the fourth century bc. 59 The so-​called Piot bronze in the British Museum is the armored leg of a lifesize, early Classical horseman purchased in the nineteenth century somewhere in the far south of the Italian peninsula (D. Williams, “Knight Rider: The Piot Bronze,” AA (1989), 529–​51). D. Williams, in a study of the leg and associated fragments, suggested that they came from Taras, and that they might even belong to a duplicate of the Delphic Upper Tarentine group set up in Taras itself. Since the findspot is not known, I wonder whether the leg and other fragments were in fact found at Brindisi, where bronze statues removed from the Greek mainland were taken to be melted down in the Roman imperial period. Pliny (HN

255

Notes

33.130 and 34.160) mentions the metal foundries at Brindisi, and archaeological evidence that Greek bronze statues were being broken up on site and loaded onto ships for sale as scrap metal comes from Olympia (P. C. Bol, Grossplastik aus Bronze in Olympia (OlForsch 9), Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978), the Antikythera shipwreck of the first century bc (P. C. Bol, Die Skulpturen des Schiffsfundes von Antikythera (AM-​BH 2), Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1972, esp. 29–​32 with pls. 13–​14, and 35–​36 with pl. 15; Mattusch 1997, 4–​6), and the Brindisi shipwreck of the sixth century ad (Mattusch 1997, 13–​14). Could the Piot bronze leg really derive from one of the early Classical row groups at Delphi or Olympia? 60 The most thorough study of the Athenian Treasury base is Amandry 1998. The short dedicatory inscription (ML 19) identifies the statues that once stood on the base, and probably also the treasury itself, as a collective Athenian dedication of akrothinia (select war booty) from Marathon. The surviving dowel holes for the statues’ feet show several figures in the Polykleitan contrapposto pose, which fits a dating in the mid-​fifth century, and also agrees with an attribution to Pheidias:  several of the Parthenon sculptures, and the Athena Parthenos herself, stand in this pose. It is also likely that the statues on the Athenian Treasury base represented the eponymous heroes: the base was enlarged with additional blocks after ca. 280 bc (for the portraits of the new eponymoi of 307, Antigonos and Demetrios) and the dedicatory inscription was recarved, perhaps when Ptolemy III was added in 224/​3 bc. For discussion of the theory that the Treasury base supported Pheidias’ Marathon statue group, see Davison and Lundgreen 2009, 307–​8; cf. Jacquemin 1999, 229. There were no name labels, but the eponymous heroes monument in the Athenian Agora (set up after ca. 350 bc) did not have them either (Ioakimidou 1997, 100–​6, no. 20). If the Marathon group, including the portrait of Miltiades, originally stood on this base, it was an official dedication by the Athenians and not a private offering of Kimon.When and why the statues would have been relocated lower down the sacred way where Pausanias describes them remains unknown. 61 This position was most recently argued by Duplouy 2006, 66–​9. 62 Descent of Miltiades and Kimon’s genos Philaidai from Theseus: J. P. Barron, “Bakchylides, Theseus and a Wooly Cloak,” BICS 27 (1980), 1–​8. Philaios: Vidal-​Naquet 1986 [orig. 1967]. For the mid-​fifth century bc Atthidographer Pherekydes of Athens as an important source for the Philaid genealogy, see Duplouy 2006, 58–​64. 63 U. Kron, Die zehn attischen Phylenheroen:  Geschichte, Mythos, Kult und Darstellungen (AM-​ BH 5), Berlin:  Gebr. Mann, 1976, 215–​27, and Krumeich 1997, 93–​102. For the possible arrangements of the figures, see also Gauer 1968b, 65–​70; Harrison 1996, 23–​8; Davison and Lundgreen 2009, 303–​18. 64 For the surviving blocks and their reconstruction, see esp. Arnold 1969, 33–​6 and 97–​109 and Bommelaer 1981, 14–​23, no. 15. 65 Pausanias (10.9.7) attributes the Aegospotamoi row group to the Spartans, but Plutarch (Lys. 18.1) calls it a dedication by Lysander himself. 66 Cf. Despinis 2001, 117–​22, and E. B. Harrison (“Agora S898 + 722: A Brief Description,” JdI 116 (2001), 123–​7), who identified a group of Roman marble heads of Athena, Apollo, and Miltiades found in Athens as copies of Pheidias’ Marathon group at Delphi, and postulated that Athena was depicted raising her right arm to crown Miltiades. 67 Cartledge 1987, 82 and 83. 68 For Ion of Samos and his epigrams, see also Petrovic 2009, 200–​3. Argive row group: Jacquemin 1999, 220 and no. 066. 69 Synthetic discussions of Greek family portrait groups: Borbein 1973, 88–​90; Schanz 1980; Hintzen-​Bohlen 1990; von Thüngen 1994 (exedra bases only); R. Van Bremen, The Limits of Participation: Women and Civic Life in the Greek East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, Amsterdam: Gieben, 1996, 173–​80; Löhr 2000; and Ma 2013b, 155–​239. 70 Smith 1988, 25. 71 The use of inscribed epigrams, typical for portraits made by Lysippos but uncommon at Delphi and rare for family portrait groups, is an argument in favor of Lysippan authorship. For a Lysippan epigram at Delphi, see CEG 2 791 (portrait of Pelopidas).

255

256

256

Notes

72 Cf. Edwards (1996, 135–​7), who argued for the independence of the statues in the Daochos group from the Lysippan statues at Pharsalos. For a similar use of πρῶτος (first) in athletic epigrams, see CEG 2 nos. 849, 862, and 879. The appearance of the word πρῶτος in a pre-​ existing epigram for Agias may help to explain why Aknonios, Daochos’ earliest ancestor and the one standing just to the right of Agias, did not get an epigram: an epigram read before the one signaling Agias as “first” might have struck a discordant note. For similarities between these epigrams and Pindar’s Nemean 6, written in honor of three victorious brothers from Aegina, see M. F. Cummins, “The Praise of Victorious Brothers in Pindar’s Nemean Six and on the Monument of Daochus at Delphi,” CQ 59 (2009), 317–​34. 73 Jacquemin and Laroche 1999 and 2001; cf.Themelis (1979) for the reconstruction of a seated Apollo at the far right end of the base. 74 Geominy 1998 and 2007; for a detailed synopsis with earlier bibliography on the Daochos group, see Löhr 2000, 118–​23, no. 139. For the so-​called ΠΑΝ base and its date, see Ajootian 1996, 93. 75 One positive argument in favor of a date soon after 338 bc has been overlooked. As Stephen Miller (“The Date of the First Pythiad,” CSCA 11 (1978), 139–​44 and pl. 1.3 [127–​58]) noticed, the number of the athlete Agias’ Pythian victories in the epigram beneath his portrait was changed from five (πέντε) to three (τρίς): this correction could be a response to the publication of Aristotle and Kallisthenes’ Pythian victor list in the 330s bc (Christesen 2007, 124). 76 O. Palagia and N. Herz, “Investigation of Marbles at Delphi,” in J. J. Hermann, Jr., N. Herz, and R. Newman, eds., Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone (Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston 1998) (ASMOSIA 5), London: Archetype, 2002, 240–​9. 77 E. M. M. Aston (“Thessaly and Macedon at Delphi,” in E. Dabrowa, ed., The Greek World in the 4th and 3rd Centuries B.C. (Electrum 19), Krakow: Jagiellonian University Press, 2012, 41–​60) sees an intentional link between the Daochos group and the building just to the east identified as the tomb and heroön of Neoptolemos, son of Achilles, both heroes from Phthiotis in Thessaly (Paus. 10.24.4). A base for as many as four statues seems to have been set up inside this building after the end of the Third Sacred War in 346 bc (Scott 2010, 127 and no. 282). Jacquemin and Laroche, however, reidentify this building as the terrace of Attalos I  (“La terrasse d’Attale Ier revisitée,” BCH 116 (1992), 248–​50 [229–​58] and Jacquemin 1999, 139 and no. 585). 78 Krateros died on campaign in 320 bc (Heckel 2006, 95–​9), and the monument at Delphi was dedicated by Krateros’ son of the same name: see ISE 2 73; Stewart 1993, no. S13 (T108–​ 11); Bringmann and Steuben 141–​3, no. 90; FdD III 4 137; and CEG 2 878. Interestingly, τάδε in the inscribed epigram seems to refer to the statues of Alexander, Krateros, and the lion as agalmata. 79 Jacquemin 1999, 205–​6, no. 384; Löhr 2000, 143–​5, no. 164; and Heckel 2006, 43. 80 Cf. Ma 2013b, 5, and Jacquemin 1999, 198–​9; J.  Bousquet (“Une statue de Pélopidas à Delphes signée de Lysippe,” RA 14 (1939), 125–​32) argued that the portrait of Pelopidas at Delphi was posthumous. Jacquemin characterizes the portraits of Onymarchos, Philomelos, and Pelopidas as “diplomatic,” reflecting the need of the Phocians and the Thessalians to ensure good relations with powerful individuals. But why would the Phocians need to flatter their own strategoi at this time? 81 Jacquemin 1999, no.  015. For the narratives associated with animal statues at Delphi, see Lacroix 1992 and Keesling 2009. 82 Archaic sculpture from the Heraion: Freyer-​Schauenburg 1974. For the role of monumental votive statues in the early development of the sanctuary, see esp. Kienast 1992b; H. J. Kienast, “Topography and Architecture of the Archaic Heraion at Samos,” in M. Stamatopoulou and M.Yeroulanou eds., Excavating Classical Culture: Recent Archaeological Discoveries in Greece (BAR International Series 1031), Oxford: Beazley Archive and Archaeopress, 2002, 317–​25; Duplouy 2006, 190–​203 and 236–​46; and Franssen 2011.

257

Notes

83 For this interpretation of the Geneleos group, see Walter-​Karydi 1985; Kienast 1992a, 1992b; Löhr 2000, 14–​17, no. 10; Bumke 2004, 82–​90; Duplouy 2006, 195–​7; and Franssen 2011, 60–​2, 108–​9 (male figure of –​ilarches), and 112–​17. 84 Cf. E. Buschor (Altsamische Standbilder, vol. I, Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1934, 26–​9), who identified the reclining figure as female and a priestess of Hera. Schanz (1980, 17–​18) and U. Kron (“Kultmahle im Heraion von Samos archaischer Zeit: Versuch einer Rekonstruktion,” in R. Hägg, N. Marinatos, and G.C. Nordquist, eds., Early Greek Cult Practice: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Swedish Institute in Athens, 1986, Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen, 1988, 135–​48) argued that all of the figures in the Geneleos group were female. An early Hellenistic marble figure from Samos has been interpreted as a portrait of a priestess (by Connelly 2007, 139–​40, and Dillon 2010, 97–​8 and fig. 45), but no bases for priestess portraits survive from the Heraion. 85 Franssen 2011, 108–​9, and Baughan (2011), who suggests (41–​2) that the figure in the Geneleos group was the first and that it inspired the others. A new semi-​circular base found in the Heraion (described by Duplouy 2006, 245–​6) could be for another familial portrait group. 86 See Tuchelt 1970, 212–​14; Ridgway 1993, 185–​8; Tuchelt et  al. 1996; and the important recent discussion by Duplouy 2006, 203–​14 and 228–​33. 87 For the statue and inscription of Chares, see LSAG2 332, no. 29; Tuchelt 1970, 78–​80, no. K47, and pls. 43–​6; and Keesling 2003, 102–​6. For its appearance in the Molpoi decree, see Herda 2006, 327–​43. 88 Herda (2006, 343–​50) interprets the statues found in the temenos as representations of the founding members of a genos, and the two smaller statues as representations of less important individuals rather than children. 89 Though the seated statue dedicated by Aiakes from Samos has often been taken to be Aiakes’ own portrait, its inscription (IG XII 6 1 561) is ambiguous: Aiakes, son of Brychon, dedicated it, he who as epistates brought in plunder for Hera. By analogy with the seated portraits at Didyma, this could be a portrait of Aiakes himself (Freyer-​Schauenburg 1974, 139–​46, no. 67, and Duplouy 2006, 244–​6). But the iconography of the throne, with lions seated atop the armrests, supports an identification as Hera (Ridgway 1993, 191–​3 and nn. 5.27–​8). This particular statue’s identity is important because the father of Polykrates, tyrant of Samos in the third quarter of the sixth century, was named Aiakes (Shipley 1987, 70–​2). Franssen (2011, 79–​80) suggests that the Aiakes statue could come from a sanctuary other than the Heraion. 90 Kyrieleis (1996, 108–​20) discussed Egyptian influence upon the large-​scale Archaic marble sculpture of the Samian Heraion in relation to the colossal kouros dedicated by Isches; Schanz (1980, 14–​18 and 37) sought an Egyptian prototype for the Geneleos group; cf. Löhr 2000, 172–​3. 91 For statue and inscription, see Masson and Yoyotte 1988. 92 Franssen 2011, 109–​12 and no. A49. 93 As Krumeich (1997, 195–​7 and 249 no. X 8) points out, the conjuction καί after the name Hegesagoras, son of Zoiïlotos, in the last preserved line of the epigram opens up the possibility that it honors more than one individual, yet the base is not wide enough to have supported more than one statue. Alternative interpretations and restorations of the epigram remain possible; cf. Dunst (1972, 152–​3), who takes Hegesagoras to be the commanding officer of a ship who won aristeia in a naval battle. 94 See also Dunst 1972, 153–​5, and Krumeich 1997, 197–​8 and 250 no. X9. Unusually for the Heraion, no mention is made of Hera or any other recipient deity in this inscription. 95 A third inscribed base (IG XII 6 1 445), now dated by the editors of IG XII 6 to the second half of the fifth century, also seems to name the recipient of a bronze portrait in the dative: the subject is called “the son of Pseromandros,” and the name Zoïilos may belong either to the honorand himself or to the father of the dedicator. The placement of the inscription on the top of the low base, unusual for Samos but typical of fifth-​century victor portraits at Olympia, makes me wonder whether the statue might be a victor portrait. Cf. Dunst 1972, 129–​30.

257

258

258

Notes

96 Lazzarini 1984–​5. 97 For an account of Samos in this period, see Shipley 1987, 144–​68. 98 K. Hallof and C. Habicht (“Buleuten und Beamte der athenischen Kleruchie in Samos,” AM 110 (1995), 273–​304) have suggested that a statue base (IG XII 6 1 334) reused after 321 bc originally belonged to a portrait of Lysander in the Heraion, taken down when the Athenians sent a cleruchy to colonize Samos in 365 bc. After the restoration of Samos to Samian control in 321, this base was reused to support the honorific portrait of a victor in the Lysandreia, the restored games in honor of Lysander, and placed in a prominent location just inside the Archaic north gate (Nordtor) into the Heraion sanctuary. The statue base may have remained in situ and vacant until it was reused in connection with the revival of Lysander’s memory on Samos after 321. 99 P. Herrmann 1960, 96–​7. 100 For early Athenian portraiture generally, see Gauer 1968a, 118–​47; Tanner 1992 (who interprets fifth-​century portraits as civic honors); Keesling 2003, 165–​98; and von den Hoff 2003. 101 Acropolis korai as individualized female portraits: M. Stieber, The Poetics of Appearance in the Attic Korai, Austin,TX: University of   Texas Press, 2004. L. Schneider (Zur sozialen Bedeutung der archaischen Korenstatuen, Hamburg: Buske 1975) interpreted the Acropolis korai as the wives and daughters of the dedicators, but stressed that they represented idealized aristocratic parthenoi rather than nameable individuals. For a similar interpretation, see Franssen 2011, 253–​313. 102 Arrhephoroi or kanephoroi:  Shapiro 2001, 93–​4; kanephoroi or other female cult agents: Connelly 2007, 127–​9; aristocratic parthenoi in sacred service: K. Karakasi, Archaic Korai, Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2003, 135–​9. For a critique of these interpretations, see Keesling 2010b. The only evidence for portraits of kanephoroi in the fifth century is Cicero’s reference (Verr. 2.4.5) to two figures called kanephoroi that G. Verres stole from Sicily and that were said to have been made by Polykleitos, an attribution that inspires little confidence. Pliny (HN 36.25) attributed a marble kanephoros to the fourth-​century sculptor Skopas of Paros. 103 Cf. the dedication of Kynarbos dated to ca. 500–​480 bc (IG I3 745 = DAA 79), which seems to have consisted of two bronze statuettes of Athena offered as a prayer on behalf of two daughters named in the inscription (Keesling 2003, 114–​15; cf. Schweitzer 1963, 128–​9; Löhr 2000, 26 no. 23; and Himmelmann 2001, 41–​2). 104 Portraits of kanephoroi and arrhephoroi:  Geagan 1994; G. Donnay, “L’arrhéphorie:  initiation ou rite civique? Un cas d’école,” Kernos 10 (1997), 177–​205; von den Hoff 2008; and R. Schmidt, “Mädchen im Heiligtum. Die Arrhephoren auf der Akropolis im Hellenismus und in der Kaiserzeit,” in Krumeich and Witschel 2010, 219–​32. 105 Moschophoros: Franssen 2011, 169–​70 and no. B69. 106 For the concept of “divine reflexivity,” see K. C. Patton, Religion of the Gods: Ritual, Paradox, and Reflexivity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. 107 Rampin rider: Franssen 2011, 178–​80 and no. B181. I. Trianti (Το Μουσείο Ακροπόλεως, Athens: Eurobank, 1998, 183) dissociates the Rampin rider from its supposed “twin”; see also Schäfer 2002, 107–​8, 138–​41 and nos. P4 (Rampin rider) and P5. Cf. Prost (1998), assuming that the two statues formed a pair; yet separating the Rampin horseman from his “twin” supports Prost’s (24–​6) own arguments in favor of identifying the statue as a victor portrait. For a possible pair of Archaic marble horsemen from Delos dated ca. 540–​525 bc and identified as either the Dioskouroi or portraits of Hippias and Hipparchos, see P.  Jockey, “Les Dioscures, Pisistrate et les Pisistratides: A propos de deux cavaliers montés archaïques du Musée de Délos,” RÉA 95 (1993), 45–​59. 108 NM 61 head from Eleusis: Schäfer 2002, 145–​7 and no. P6, and Franssen 2011, 322–​3 and no. C21. 109 I. Trianti (“La statue 629 de l’Acropole et la tête Ma 2718 du Musée du Louvre,” MonPiot 76 (1998), 1–​33) has joined the fragments Acr. 306 and Louvre 2718 (the Fauvel head) to the head of the scribe statue; Keesling 2003, 182–​5 and ­figure 58 (photograph showing the joins to the statue’s head); Duplouy 2006, 65; Day 2010, 197.

259

Notes

110 A. J. M. Whitley, “The Monuments that Stood Before Marathon: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Archaic Athens,” AJA 90 (1994), 213–​30 [quotation on 230]. 111 Hegelochos’ dedication:  Blanck 1969, 80–​1, no. B30; Keesling 2003, 185–​90; Shear 2007, 381–​2; Krumeich 2008a, 359–​61; Krumeich 2010, no. B5 and 341–​3; Krumeich 2011, 89–​95; Arrington 2015, 188–​9. 112 J. Pouilloux, “Trois notes thasiennes,” BCH 75 (1951), 90–​100. 113 Dedication of Thrasyllos and Gnathios:  Blanck 1969, 78–​9, no. B27; Korres 1994, 90–​1, MB13; Löhr 2000, no.  39; Keesling 2003, 190; Krumeich 2010, 380–​1, no. B4. For their family, see APF 1395 and the fourth-​century speech Isaeus 7. 114 “Résémantisation” of the Tyrannicides: Azoulay 2014. 115 Most discussion of this plaque has centered on the erasure of the name of Megakles, who was called kalos in a dipinto just to the right of the warrior’s head, and its replacement with the name Glaukytes (e.g.Varner 2004, 14). Megakles was ostracized in 487/​6 bc (ML 40): is this an example of damnatio memoriae, or was the name substitution made for another reason? 116 Hallett 2005, 17 (fuller discussion: 5–​60). No nudity for portraits of living subjects except athletes before Alexander: N. Himmelmann, Herrscher und Athlet: Die Bronzen vom Quirinal, Milan: A. Mondadori, 1989, 62–​5. Ideal nudity: Himmelmann 1990; cf. T   . Hölscher, review of Himmelmann 1990, in Gnomon 65 (1993), 519–​28. For a critique of “heroic nudity,” see J. M. Hurwit, “The Problem with Dexileos: Heroic and Other Nudities in Greek Art,” AJA 111 (2007), 45–​55 [35–​60]. 117 Riace bronzes: Vlad Borrelli and Pelagotti 1984; Mattusch 1988, 200–​11; Mattusch 1996b, 62–​5; Mattusch 1996c, 29–​30. Harrison (1985, 48–​51) and O. Deubner (“Die Statuen von Riace,” JdI 103 (1988), 127–​53) associated the statues with Onatas’ hero group at Olympia, but newer scientific findings (alluded to briefly by A. Melucco Vaccaro,“The Riace Bronzes 20 Years Later: Recent Advances after the 1992–​95 Intervention,” in Mattusch et al. 2000, 125–​31) may point to Delphi or Argos as their place of origin. P. Moreno (I bronzi di Riace: Il maestro di Olimpia e I Sette a Tebe, Milan: Electa, 1998) identifies them as the heroes Tydeus (Riace A) and Amphiaraos (Riace B) from a group representing the Seven Against Thebes in Argos; he attributes Riace A to Ageladas of Argos and Riace B to Alkamenes of Athens. 118 Strategos type: Rouse 1902, 135–​38 (no evidence for portraits of victorious generals outside row groups in the fifth century); E. Bielefeld, “Gott, Heros oder Feldherr?,” Gymnasium 71 (1964), 479–​534; Pandermalis 1969; Dontas 1977;Voutiras 1980; Himmelmann 1990, 86–​101 (argument for diverse body types rather than uniform nudity); Krumeich 1997, 15–​16 and 148–​50; Schäfer 1997; Dillon 2006, 107–​10. 119 Kresilas’ Perikles:  Krumeich 1997, 114–​ 25 (with references to earlier scholarship) and Keesling 2003, 193–​5. 120 Dieitrephes portrait: Keesling 2004 (with earlier references) and Arrington 2015, 189–​92. 121 For the family, see APF 161–​5, no. 4386. 122 Buckler 1972 and Anderson 1963. Burnett and Edmonson (1961) had argued that Chabrias was shown crouching on his knees behind his shield. 123 The Chabrias base, as reconstructed by Burnett and Edmonson, measures 0.79 m wide by ca. 1.08 m deep; cf. 0.64 by 1.29 m for the Hegelochos base, and 0.50 by 0.76 for the base for Konon’s portrait at Kaunos (I.Kaunos 81). 124 The document relief belonging to an inscribed honorific decree for Herodoros dating to 295/​4 bc shows him fully armed (IG II2 646; Lawton 1995, no. 59; Dillon 2006, 107–​10). Cf. Dillon’s (2006, 109) comment: “we should imagine that whatever the portrait costume worn by the fourth-​century general statues in the Agora –​hoplite armor, short-​sleeved chiton, or nude –​it always included” the military chlamys. A Roman marble portrait herm, found at Herculaneum and now in Naples (inv. 6156), wears a cuirass and baldric: he has been identified as the Spartan king Archidamos III based upon a name label in Greek painted on the shoulder of the cuirass (Richter 1965, II, 160–​1). Archidamos died in 338 bc, and was represented by portraits at both Delphi and Olympia. Fully armed warrior portraits seem

259

260

260

Notes

to have been the norm in late third-​century bc Dodona (J. Ma, Review of N. Katsikoudis, Dodone: Oi Timetikoi Andriantes (Dodona: The Honorary Statues) in BMCR 2008.02.27). See also I. Laube, Thorakophoroi: Gestalt und Semantik des Brustpanzers in der Darstellung des 4. bis 1. Jhs. v. Chr. (Tübinger Archäologische Forschungen 1), Rahden, Westphalia: Marie Leidorf, 2006. 125 Keesling 2003, 196; A. Stewart, 2008. “The Persian and Carthaginian Invasions of 480 B.C.E. and the Beginning of the Classical Style: Part 1, The Stratigraphy, Chronology, and Significance of the Acropolis Deposits,” AJA 112 (2008), 387–​8 [377–​412] (dated soon after 480); and Franssen 2011, 517 and no. B173. 126 Pastoret head: Richter 1965, I, 101 and 107 (Lysander?); Voutiras 1980, 112–​21; Krumeich 1997, 137, with references to earlier scholarship; and Himmelmann 2001, 54–​8. B.Vierneisel-​ Schlörb (Klassische Skulpturen des 5.  und 4.  Jahrhunderts v.  Chr. (Glyptothek München, Katalog der Skulpturen II), Munich: C. H. Beck, 1979, 227–​33, no. 21) favors a date in the 390s and an identification as Konon. 127 Schäfer 1997, esp. 43–​70. Pandermalis (1969, 88–​94) stressed the use of heroic models for fifth-​century strategos portraits, but saw a secularization of the statue type in the fourth century. 128 For the use of hoplite imagery as an expression of Athenian citizen ideology, see Arrington 2015, 183–​93 and 221–​5. 129 Cf. T. Hölscher, “Images of War in Greece and Rome: Between Military Practice, Public Memory, and Cultural Symbolism,” JRS 93 (2003), 1–​17: “The nude body of Greek warriors in art is … not a phenomenon of idealization: the body was a real factor in the conception of war. Since nudity frequently characterizes anonymous warriors without elevating them above other warriors wearing armour or clothes, it also does not signify heroization. And since it gives expression to a concept of definitely contemporary significance, it is not a Homeric anachronism either. In the Hellenistic age, when athletic training lost its central significance as the social foundation of warfare, nude bodies of warriors became obsolete in Greek art” [quotation on 8]. 130 For a summary of the new discoveries, see Löhr 2000, 76–​7, no. 86; cf. Stevens 1946, 4–​10. IG II2 3774 is incomplete: the inscription now reads “Konon son of Timotheos, Timotheos son of Konon, dedicated it,” with Timotheos’ name added and the verb anatithemi changed from singular to plural. For the family of Konon and Timotheos, see APF no. 13700. 131 One of Konon’s dedications on the Acropolis was a gold crown that appears in the Erechtheion inventories (IG II2 1425, line 284 = Harris 1995, 231 and VI.59). 132 Explicit reference to inheritance by will as a source of funding for dedications seems to be limited to late Hellenistic Asia Minor, where the formula kata diatheken (according to will) appears on some statue bases (e.g. IvPr 99–​104 and 268). For the problem of posthumous dedications generally, see C. M. Keesling, “The Callimachus Monument on the Athenian Acropolis (CEG 256) and Athenian Commemoration of the Persian Wars,” in Baumbach, Petrovic, and Petrovic 2010a, 113–​16 [100–​30]. 133 Kephisodotos/​Demetrios dedication: Löhr 2000, 94–​5, no. 111. Family of Kephisodotos of Aithalidai: S. D. Lambert, “IG II2 2345, Thiasoi of Herakles and the Salaminioi Again,” ZPE 125 (1999), 116–​17 [93–​130]. Konon’s family had a similar history of Acropolis dedications: witness DAA 47 ( = IG I3 863), dedicated in the mid-​fifth century by an earlier Timotheos, son of Konon. Contra Raubitschek (1939) and Kyle (1987, no. P113), we should not assume that Timotheos’ dedication was a victor portrait; see Krumeich 1997, 111–​13. 134 Von den Hoff 2003, 179–​80; von den Hoff 2008, 125–​6; Blok and Lambert 2009, 109–​13. 135 The painter Ismenias of Chalkis, named by pseudo-​Plutarch, is otherwise unknown (DNO 2742–​3). 136 A very fragmentary Acropolis inventory from the Lycurgan period inscribed on stone (IG II2 1498–​1500 of the 330s bc) lists a series of bronze statues, most of which seem to be

261

Notes

portraits, including figures called pais (child) or paidiskos (little child). In inventories, however, such references are probably an attempt to differentiate small figures from one more or less lifesize rather than references to statues of children (Kosmetatou 2003, 40–​1). Diane Harris-​Cline (Harris 1992 and Harris-​Cline, “Broken Statues, Shattered Illusions: Mimesis and Bronze Body Parts on the Akropolis,” in Mattusch et al. 2000, 135–​41) interprets this inventory as a kathairesis, a list of damaged objects under the control of the Acropolis tamiai destined to be melted down to provide metal for new dedications. This interpretation poses problems (as noted by Mattusch 1996b, 101–​2; Kosmetatou 2003; Keesling 2010c, 304–​5). Here it will suffice to mention that several of the twenty-​five figures mentioned in the extant parts of the inventory were gymnoi (nude male figures), and that the objects and attributes associated with them include shields, helmets, daggers, a leather cap with a crest (to be worn underneath a helmet?), and akrothinia (ships’ ornaments?). See also Krumeich 1997, 147–​8. 137 Löhr 2000, no. 161, with earlier references.The five blocks of Pentelic marble that make up the base for the Pandaites and Pasikles statue group were flipped upside down and reused to support portraits of Augustus,Tiberius, Germanicus, and Drusus in ad 4 (IG II2 3253–​6); a statue of T   rajan was later added (IG II2 3284). 138 Habicht 1992–​8 and 2000–​3. 139 Bergemann 1997. 140 For athletes and their portraits generally, see Raubitschek 1939 (with critique by Krumeich 1997, 16–​17 and 200–​5); Kyle 1987. 141 K. Seaman, “Athletes and Agora-​phobia? Commemorative Athletic Sculpture in Classical Athens,” Nikephoros 15 (2002), 99–​115. 142 DAA 317 ( = IG I3 597), dedicated in the mid-​sixth century by Alkmeonides to commemorate a hippic victory, supported a bronze bowl or tripod, not a portrait. Two other early examples hint at ostentatious portrait displays by prominent Athenian families in ca. 480. Kallias II Hipponikou Alopekethen, a member of the genos Kerykes and dadouch-​priest at Eleusis, also a three-​time athletic victor, dedicated a bronze statue with a simple votive formula (DAA 111 = IG I3 835).Was this a victor portrait? This Kallias was later (450 bc) the originator of the Peace of Kallias, and he married Kimon’s sister Elpinike. DAA 171 ( = IG I3 752) might also be a victor monument with a Kimonian connection, but this is highly uncertain. Raubitschek identified this dedication by the son of the unknown [P]‌etalos as the base for a quadriga based upon its large size; he dated it before 480 because of its lettering and because it was found broken into small fragments. S. D. Lambert (“Ten Notes on Attic Inscriptions,” ZPE 135 (2001), 51 [51–​62]) restored the name as [Th]et(t)alos: both the tyrant Peisistratos and Kimon had sons by this name. Was this really the base for a quadriga, and if so, could it date either as early as the Peisistratid tyranny, or as late as Kimon’s son? 143 M. Romano (“L’epigrafe ateniese a Phaÿllos (IG, I3, 2. 823),” ZPE 123 (1998), 105–​16) suggested that three portraits of Persian War-​era athletes on the Acropolis –​Phaÿllos of Kroton, Epicharinos, and Hermolykos (1.23.11–​12) –​were grouped together not far from Pheidias’ colossal bronze Athena Promachos. He assumed that all three were honorific. Phaÿllos’ dedication (IG I3 823 = DAA 176 = CEG 265), not mentioned by Pausanias, has been identified as a marble tripod, not a portrait statue (M. C. Monaco, “Un’isolata presenza occidentale sull’Acropoli di Atene: L’anathema di Faillo di Crotone,” in E. Greco and M. Lombardo, eds., Atene e l’Occidente, I grandi temi: Le premesse, i protagonisti, le forme della comunicazione e dell’interazione, i modi dell’intervento ateniese in Occidente (Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Atene 25–​27 maggio 2006) (Tripodes 5), Athens: Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene, 2007, 155–​89). 144 Portrait of Epicharinos: Hausmann 1977, 67–​74 and Keesling 2003, 171–​2. A late Archaic/​ early Classical bronze statuette (now in Tübingen) showing a hoplitodromos duplicates the starting pose of Epicharinos’ portrait: Hausmann 1977, esp. 67–​74. 145 Pronapes and his dedication:  APF no.  12250; Raubitschek 1939, 158–​60; Korres 2000, 296–​ 313; and C. M. Keesling, “Solon’s Property Classes on the Athenian Acropolis? A  Reconsideration of IG 13.831 and Ath. Pol. 7.4,” in K. F. Daly and L. A. Riccardi,

261

262

262

Notes

eds., Cities Called Athens:  Studies Honoring John McK. Camp II, Lewisburg, PA:  Bucknell University Press, 2015, 122–​7 [115–​35]. This Pronapes is almost certainly identical with the Pronapes named as a cavalry commander on DAA 135 ( = IG I3 511), a dedication of a bronze horse and groom by the Athenian cavalry in ca. 450–​430 bc. 146 J. Ober, Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:  Rhetoric, Ideology, and the Power of the People, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989; Pritchard 2013, 85–​92. 147 This is IG II2 3125 ( = Ebert 40 = CEG 2 758), dated to the first half of the fourth century. The inscription translates: Diophanes, son of Empedion, victory at Isthmia. Two Athenian sons of an Empedion, the beardless Diophanes and his [homonymous] grandfather, won crowns in the pankration at the Isthmus; they proved their strength of hands. 148 Alcibiades’ victory dedications:  E. Pemberton, “Dedications by Alkibiades and Thrasyboulos,” BSA 76 (1981), 309–​21 (including a quadriga group attributed by Pliny HN 34.80 to Phyromachos) and Shapiro 2009, 238–​44. 149 Priestess by Kephisodotos and Timarchos: Marcadé I 57–​8 and Mantis 1990, 74. Her name has usually been restored as Lysimache (II) because D. M. Lewis (1997b) thought Syeris was the diakonos of this later priestess. 150 See Chapter 2, nn. 82 and 83. 151 The summary treatment by Tomlinson (1983) is now joined by Melfi 2007, 17–​209. Burford’s (1969) study of the inscribed building accounts is supplemented by Prignitz 2014. 152 Early honorific portrait: it represented a civic benefactor named Kleombrotos of Astypalaia, and the prose inscription includes a listing of honors and the word eikon. Freestanding Greek portraits of women that showed them seated are difficult to find. L. Koch (Weibliche Sitzstatuen der Klassik und des Hellenismus und ihre kaiserzeitliche Rezeption:  Die bekleideten Figuren (Charybdis Schriften zur Archäologie 4), Münster/​Hamburg: Lit, 1994, 123–​7) tentatively identified two seated, heavily draped pudicitia portrait types in Roman marble sculpture that might derive from early Hellenistic Greek originals. 153 Cf. Löhr (2000, 65 no. 70) who translates the inscription slightly differently (Antiphilos dedicated these statues, these gifts of himself and of his children) and hesitates to identify the statues as portraits. The verb records a dedication in the singular by the father Antiphilos alone, and by this date andriantes as portrait statues are well attested. 154 These are: IG IV2 1 322 (early fourth century), IG IV2 1 241 (third century: mother and son?), and IG IV2 1 347 (father and toddler son?). 155 Fourth century or fourth/​third century bc: IG IV2 1 200 and 202–​4. Others: IG IV2 1 201 (dekate), 208, 226, 242, 349?; W. Peek, Neue Inschriften aus Epidauros (AbhLeip 63.5), Berlin: Akademie, 1972, no. 45; and SEG LII 341 (Roman imperial period). 156 These are: IG IV2 1 199 (fourth century), 209, 211, 213, 227, 228, 239, 245?, 259, and 318. 157 For catalogues and discussions of marble portraits of children, see Vorster 1983; Rühfel 1984; Raftopoulou 2000; Bobou 2015. 158 See e.g. a marble statue of a girl, probably dedicated to Artemis or Artemis Eileithyia, found in the Ilissos river area in Athens (N. Kaltsas and H. A. Shapiro, eds., Worshiping Women:  Ritual and Reality in Classical Athens, New  York:  Alexander S.  Onassis Public Benefit Foundation/​National Archaeological Museum, 2008, 302–​3, no. 133). 159 I. Svoronos, “Ἀσκληπιακὰ μνημεῖα καὶ κιονολατρεία ἐν Ἀθήναις,” ArchEph 1917, 83–​7 [78–​ 104]. For this statue group, see also N. Kaltsas, Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens, trans. D. Hardy, Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2002, 262–​3, no. 549, and Bobou 2015, 135, no. 30. For critiques of Svoronos’ interpretation when applied to other statues of children, see Vorster 1983, 48–​51 and LIMC s.v. Asklepios (B. Holtzmann), 868–​9, nos. 1–​8. 160 Bobou 2008. Cf. Vorster 1983, 215–​16 and 382, no.  156 (all five figures represent children); Raftopoulou 2000, no. 36 (representation of parents with their heroized deceased children). 161 Dedications of children’s portraits to Artemis Eileithyia:  S. Pingiatoglou, Eileithyia, Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 1981; I.Thespiai 236, 242A, and 243; Vorster 1983, 70–​1 and nos. 34, 57, 83, 84, 109–​12, 121, 146–​8, and 199.

263

Notes

162 Reference to a vow or prayer: IG IV2 1 199 (fourth century), 208, and 226. 163 For an alternative version of Asklepios’ birth story in which he was exposed on a mountaintop and saved by a goatherd, see Pausanias 2.26.3–​10. 164 Vorster 1983, 51–​3; Rühfel 1984, 213–​16; Parker 2005, 37–​49 and 426–​39; Lawton 2007. 165 Burford 1969, 136. 166 For the revised, earlier dating of the construction of the Asklepios temple and the inscribed building account associated with it, see Prignitz 2014. 167 G. Roux, L’architecture de l’Argolide aux IVe et IIIe siècles avant J.-​C. (BÉFAR 199), Paris: de Boccard, 1961, vol. I, 302–​15, and von Thüngen 1994, 159–​62, no. 142 and pl. 62.1–​2. 168 Peek 1969, 142–​3. IG IV2 1 334 is an additional fragment naming two female members of the family, possibly from a second familial portrait group. 169 Sacrifices without fire: C. Blinkenberg, L’image d’Athana Lindia, Copenhagen: Andr. Fed. Høst & Son, 1917, 10–​12, and D. Morelli, I culti in Rodi (Studi classici ed orientali 8), Pisa: Libreria Goliardica, 1959, 3–​11 and 80–​9. 170 For these events and the dating of the temple to 295 bc, see Lippolis 1988–​9, 116–​33. For the history of Rhodes in the Classical period, see also R. M. Berthold, “Fourth Century Rhodes,” Historia 29 (1980), 32–​49. 171 P. M. Fraser, “The Tribal-​Cycles of Eponymous Priests at Lindos and Kamiros,” Eranos 51 (1953), 23–​47. For further discussion of the deme system and the priesthood of Athena Lindia, see Lippolis 1988–​9, 120–​3 and 154–​6; Gabrielsen 1997, 130–​4; Dignas 2003; and C. Habicht, “Notes on the Priests of Athena Lindia,” Studi ellenistici 16 (2005), 71–​8. 172 For the distinctive corporate identity of the Lindian aristocracy, see Lippolis 1988–​9, 154–​6, and Dignas 2003. 173 For a survey of the use of the formula hyper (ὑπέρ) in inscribed dedications, see T. S. F. Jim (“On Greek Dedicatory Practices: The Problem of hyper,” GRBS 54 (2014), 616–​37), who however does not consider what was being dedicated with this formula. 174 The earliest official honorific portrait of a priest seems to be Lindos II 151, dated to ca. 197 bc. In 170 bc, the names of the annual priests began to be inscribed on three large stelai of matching dimensions that continued in use until space for new names ran out in 47 bc (Lindos II 1, with discussion in cols. 61–​148, esp. 97–​101).These stelai were attached to the interior walls of the pronaos of the temple of Athena Lindia. Thus the decision to begin a new and more monumental inscribed list of priests in 170 bc follows soon after the Lindian demos’ takeover of what had been the private practice of dedicating portraits of priests in the sanctuary. From then on, the addition of a new priest’s name to the list every year was paralleled by the frequent decision to award honorific portraits to priests, and sometimes their wives as well. 175 For the dress and regalia of Greek priests, see Clinton 1974; W. Geominy, “Eleusinische Priester,” in H.-​U. Cain, H. Gabelmann, and D. Salzmann, eds., Festschrift für Nikolaus Himmelmann, Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1989, 253–​64; and M. C. Miller, “The Ependytes in Classical Athens,” Hesperia 58 (1989), 313–​29. 4  RETROSPECTIVE PORTRAITS AS HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS

1 For a suggested reconstruction, see C. Papastamati-​ von Moock, “Menander und die Tragikergruppe: Neue Forschungen zu den Ehrenmonumenten im Dionysostheater von Athen,” AM 122 (2007), 273–​327. 2 For pseudo-​Plutarch as a source for Lycurgan Athens, see M. Faraguna, “I documenti nelle ‘Vite dei X Oratori’ dei Moralia Plutarchei,” in A. M. Biraschi et al., eds., L’uso dei documenti nella storiografia antica (Incontri perugini di storia della storiografia 12), Naples:  Edizioni scientifiche italiane, 2003, 481–​503. 3 For the Lycurgan “program” in Athens and Attica, see M. Faraguna, Atene nell’età di Alessandro:  problemi politici, economici, finanziari, Rome:  Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1992, 245–​ 85; Parker 1996, 242–​55; Hintzen-​Bohlen 1997; Mikalson 1998,

263

264

264

Notes

20–​32; S. C. Humphreys, “Lycurgus of Boutadai: An Athenian Aristocrat” and Afterword, in The Strangeness of Gods:  Historical Perspectives on the Interpretation of Athenian Religion, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, 77–​129; V. Azoulay, “Les métamorphoses du koinon athénien:  autour du Contre Léocrate de Lycurgue,” in Azoulay and Ismard 2011, 191–​217; Faraguna 2011. 4 A Greek portrait head known from ten extant copies –​the so-​called Kolotes type –​has been identified as Lycurgus, though not necessarily as a copy of the honorific portrait in the Agora (S. F. Schröder, “Neue Dokumente zur Identifizierung des sogenannten Kolotes-​ Porträts mit Lykurgos von Athen,” MM 41 (2000), 355–​6, and von den Hoff 2007, 58–​9). See also Krumeich 2008b, 170–​1. 5 Philosopher portraits seem to have been an important class of posthumous monuments in fourth-​century Athens:  Plato in the Academy, made by Silanion and dedicated by Mithradates (Diog. Laert. 3.25), and Aristotle in the Lyceum (Diog. Laert. 5.51). The existence of a retrospective portrait of Socrates by Lysippos in the Pompeion has been doubted by E. Voutiras, “Sokrates in der Akademie: Die früheste bezeugte Philosophenstatue,” AM 109 (1994), 133–​61. 6 Klug in Stemmer 1995, 184–​5 (Copenhagen statue) and Wölfel in Stemmer 1995, 443 (inscribed herm from Trastevere in the Conservatori Museum, Rome). 7 For Anacreon’s biography, see Rosenmeyer 1992, 13–​14. 8 Zanker 1995, 22–​31; Shapiro 2001, 96; and Shapiro 2012. Cf. Ridgway’s (1998) skepticism about reconstructing the lost “original” of this portrait from the extant copies. 9 This representation of a calm and dignified Anacreon was a far cry from (imaginary?) Hellenistic portraits, exemplified by Leonidas of Tarentum’s epigram (Anth. Pal. 16.306) describing a representation of Anacreon as an aged, stumbling drunk who has lost one of his shoes. For the epigram, see Rosenmeyer 1992, 25–​7. 10 Hölscher’s (1988, orig. 1975)  suggestion that Perikles himself dedicated a portrait group consisting of Anacreon and Perikles’ father Xanthippos is a conjecture based upon Pausanias’ description of the two portraits standing near one another. 11 In a talk entitled “The Acropolis Anacreon and Athenian Claims to Ionia” presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, Stephanie Pearson made a similar argument about the Ny Carlsberg Anacreon, noting that “by portraying Anacreon the Ionian in Athenian guise, the statue attempts to legitimize Athens’s claims to dominance over Ionia.” 12 Kaczko 2009, esp. 97–​108. 13 Anacreon and Periclean music: Shapiro 2001, 96. 14 There are two dedications by this Kallias on the Acropolis: IG I3 835 ( = DAA 111), possibly a portrait of himself dedicated after his Olympic victories, and IG I3 876 ( = DAA 136), signed by the sculptor Kalamis. 15 For a recent study of Demosthenes’ portrait, see R. von den Hoff, “Die Bildnisstatue des Demosthenes als öffentliche Ehrung einer Bürgers in Athen,” in C. Mann, M. Haake, and R. von den Hoff, eds., Rollenbilder in der athenischen Demokratie: Medien, Gruppen, Räume im politischen und sozialen System, Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2009, 193–​220. 16 I.Worthington (“The Siting of Demosthenes’ Statue,” BSA 81 (1986), 389) notes that, while in exile after the Harpalus affair of 324, Demosthenes provided support to Lycurgus’ sons in a lawsuit after Lycurgus’ death. Both Lycurgus and Demosthenes were prominent in politics in the post-​335 period when Oropos came under Athenian control. 17 For the circumstances surrounding Kephisotodos’ Eirene and Ploutos and the date of the group, see Ridgway 1997, 258–​60 and 280 n. 62, and A. C. Smith, Polis and Personification in Classical Athenian Art (Monumenta Graeca et Romana 19), Leiden/​Boston: Brill, 2011, 110–​12. 18 Badian (1987) postulated two visits by Kallias to Artaxerxes, the first occurring in ca. 465 after Xerxes’ death, and the second after Kimon’s death and at Perikles’ behest in 449. 19 For Theopompos on the peace of Kallias, see Higbie 1999, 62–​4.

265

Notes

20 This is the conclusion reached by Habicht 1961, 25–​6 and 32. Cf. Badian (1987, 18), who thought a contemporary stele was replaced in the fourth century: “the stele was not meant to deceive: it was a re-​engraving of an original that cannot possibly have survived the events of 411–​403 B.C.: the two oligarchies, the actual collapse of the treaty (with the King becoming Athens’ most powerful enemy), and the defeat of Athens … Whichever peace (‘with Darius’) Theopompus saw, it was one of a series of fifth-​century documents destroyed during the Peloponnesian War and re-​engraved when they became important in the fourth. The Peace with the King became important after the very different peace made by the Spartans, and was re-​engraved at that time: it is not surprising that we first hear of it in the 380s.” Plutarch (Cim. 13.6), perhaps influenced by the presence of Kallias’ portrait near the altar of Peace, associated its dedication with Kimon’s victory at the Eurymedon in ca. 466 bc. 21 Cf. Thomas (1989, 203–​5) on the supposed eclipse of Kimon’s memory in fourth-​century Athens: “[Aeschines] does not seem to know the name of the general so modestly omitted from the epigrams.” 22 Pausanias (1.21.1–​2) identified a portrait of Aeschylus  –​not the one that stood with Sophocles and Euripides –​as retrospective. After dismissing most of the portraits of playwrights he saw in the precinct of the Theater of Dionysos as representations of “the undistinguished ones,” Pausanias remarked of a portrait of Aeschylus, “the portrait of Aeschylus is, I think, much later than his death and the painting which depicts the action at Marathon.” The inscribed base IG II2 4265 may belong to the portrait Pausanias mentioned. 23 Portrait of Aeschines: Dillon 2006, 61–​3. 24 Cf. Zanker 1995, 43–​50. 25 For the Salamis elegy, see M. Noussia, “Strategies of Persuasion in Solon’s Elegies,” in Blok and Lardinois 2006, 135–​9 [134–​56] and Noussia-​Fantuzzi 2010, 85 (Greek text) and 203–​16 (commentary). 26 For the problem of dating the war over Salamis, see M. C. Taylor, Salamis and the Salaminioi: The History of an Unofficial Athenian Demos (Archaia Ellas 5), Amsterdam: Gieben, 1997, 21–​47. 27 E. Irwin, “The Transgressive Elegy of Solon?,” in Blok and Lardinois 2006, 40–​4 [36–​78]. Cf. Diogenes Laertius (1.46), who says that Solon wore a crown rather than a cap (πιλίδιον). For the possible significance of the cap, see Noussia-​Fantuzzi 2010, 203–​4. 28 For the herald’s stone, see Wycherley 1957 no. 540. Dillon (2006, 104) suggests that Solon’s portrait dated soon after 403 bc. It seems safer to suppose that Solon’s retrospective portrait was set up after the honorific portraits of Konon and Euagoras had been placed in front of the Stoa of Zeus in 393 bc. 29 Demosthenes (19.251–​5) and Cicero (Off. 1.30.108) tell the story of Solon’s performance without localizing it in the Agora. 30 Xanthippos was not only Perikles’ father, but was also mentioned by both Herodotus and Thucydides. For Tolmides and Theainetos, see D. M. Lewis in CAH2 V, 117–​19; Krumeich 1997, 109–​11, cat. no. A58; and A. Moreno, “Athenian Bread-​Baskets: The Grain-​Tax Law of 374/​3 B.C. Reinterpreted,” ZPE 145 (2003), 103–​4 [97–​106].Tolmides, son of   Tolmaios, was killed at Koroneia in 447/​6 bc after having been elected strategos for seven years running; he and his men were buried in the demosion sema (Paus. 1.29.14). Thucydides’ brief mention of the battle (1.113) omits Tolmides. The name of Tolmides’ mantis (seer) Theainetos has been restored in Pausanias’ text on the basis of Thuc. 3.20.1 (a description of Theainetos’ service as seer at Plataia in 427 bc). Like Perikles and Dieitrephes, Tolmides and Theainetos might have had their portraits dedicated on the Acropolis by their sons after their deaths. But since Tolmides’ son was also named Theainetos, Gabriel Herman (1989, 90–​1) points out that the portrait pair on the Acropolis may in fact have represented Tolmides and his son Theainetos, not his seer. Since neither Tolmides’ raid on the Peloponnese in 456/​5 bc (described by Diod. Sic. 11.84) nor his later activities in the Aegean (Diod. Sic. 11.88.3 and Paus. 1.27.5) were mentioned by Thucydides, it is possible

265

266

266

Notes

that his portrait was retrospective and inspired by his enhanced role in fourth-​century oratory and historiography. Cf. M. Nouhaud (“Sur une allusion d’Eschine (Ambassade, 75) au stratège athénien Tolmidès,” RÉG 99 (1986), 342–​6), who argues just the opposite: that Tolmides became more important in fourth-​century sources because he had a portrait on the Acropolis. Despite the ambiguity of Pausanias’ wording, these portraits surely did not stand on the same base as a mythological group representing Erechtheus fighting Eumolpos (pace Ioakimidou 1997, 262–​73). For the portrait of Phormion, see Krumeich 1997, 239 no. A42. His exploits at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War are described by Thucydides (1.79–​94). 31 This is the chronology implied by [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 1.1; for a full discussion of this and other ancient sources for Kylon, see Rhodes 1981, 79–​84. 32 For further comparison of Herodotus’ and Thucydides’ accounts, see M. Lang, “Kylonian Conspiracy,” CP 62 (1967), 243–​9. Cf. Plut. Sol. 12.1–​9: Kylon’s supporters attached a thread to the agalma and attempted to keep hold of it as they attempted to go down from the Acropolis to the Agora for trial, but the thread broke and they were slaughtered. 33 Rouse 1902, 313–​14; cf. A. Scholl, “ ‘Es sind da auch alte Athena-​Statuen …’: Pausanias und die vorpersischen Akropolisvotive,” in Krumeich and Witschel 2010, 256–​7 [251–​69] and Nakassis (2011), who connects the Athenians’ attempt to expiate the Kylonian pollution with the Bouphonia ritual performed on the Acropolis. See also Keesling 2003, 167–​8 and 177. 34 Nakassis (2011, 365–​6) dismisses this problem. 35 Cf. Rhodes (1981, 83): “Most probably the link with Solon is a later fiction of the kind which readily came to be attached to Solon’s name, and dates in the 590’s for Epimenides’ purification are derived from that fiction …” 36 See esp. J. Dillery, “Chresmologues and Manteis:  Independent Diviners and the Problem of Authority,” in S. I. Johnston and P. T. Struck, eds., Mantikê, Studies in Ancient Divination (Religions in the Graeco-​Roman World 155), Leiden/​Boston: Brill, 2005, 181–​3 [167–​231]; Kivilo 2010, 216–​17; and FGrH 457. 37 For the date of the Triptolemos temple, see Miles 1998, 48–​52. Cf. Shapiro (2001, 95–​6), who suggests that the portrait of Epimenides might have been an Archaic seated figure like the three “scribes” dedicated on the Athenian Acropolis. 38 D. Harris-​Cline (“Archaic Athens and the Topography of the Kylon Affair,” BSA 94 (1999), 309–​20) argues that the altars of the Semnai Theai (the Eumenides), where Kylon’s supporters tried to seek asylum in Thucydides’ version of the story, were located due north of the Acropolis, where Kimon founded the Theseion after 476 bc (314–​18). She also suggests that, instead of going through the western gateway of the Acropolis, the conspirators used the Mycenaean postern gate in the Acropolis north wall: for a critique, see Nakassis 2011, 368–​9, n. 28. 39 For the scanty remains of inscribed statue bases found in the Heraion, none of them belonging to priestess portraits, see J. L. Caskey and P. Amandry, “Investigations at the Heraion of Argos, 1949,” Hesperia 21 (1952), 165–​221. 40 Priestess portraits in front of the entrance to a temple: Paus. 2.35.8 (sanctuary of Demeter at Hermione) and 7.25.4 (stone eikones of women said by local people to be priestesses in the sanctuary of the Eumenides at Keryneia); further examples are cited by Kron 1996, 142 and 144. Artemis Polo on Thasos: Dillon 2010, 136–​47 (second century bc); Sardis: W. H. Buckler and D. M. Robinson, Greek and Latin Inscriptions (Sardis 7.1), Leiden: Brill, 1932, 65–​8, nos. 50–​4. 41 For the dating of the second temple, see Pfaff 2003, 191–​6. 42 For Hellanicus, who may have composed his work as early as the late 420s bc, see Möller 2001, 241–​62, esp. 254–​8. 43 Cf. IG IV 531 from the Argive Heraion, an inscription in late lettering that reads Ἄδματας (of Admete). Pace Mantis (1990, 25, n. 41) and Connelly (2007, 310, n. 97), this inscription does not come from the base for the portrait of a priestess of Hera named Admete (mentioned by Ath. 15.162a); it seems instead to be a name label from a lost relief.

267

Notes

44 The fundamental study remains Gauer 1968b. For the reception of Herodotus’ account of the Persian Wars, see J. Priestley, Herodotus and Hellenistic Culture: Literary Studies in the Reception of the Histories, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. 45 For the Persian Wars as a focus for retrospection in fourth-​century Athens, see B. Hintzen-​ Bohlen, “Retrospektive Tendenzen im Athen der Lykurg-​Ära,” in Flashar, Gehrke, and Heinrich 1996, 100–​2 [87–​112]. 46 For later portraits at Delphi dedicated by the Amphictyony, see Jacquemin 1999, 310–​12, nos. 019–​060 (Skyllias and Hydna are no. 054). Jacquemin (1999, 15 and 47, no. 018) redates the colossal Apollo Sitalkas statue dedicated by the Amphictyony (Paus. 10.15.1–​2) from the aftermath of the Third Sacred War in the fourth century to the Second Sacred War in the mid-​fifth century; cf. another Amphictyonic Apollo still dated to the mid-​fourth century (Paus. 10.15.7 and Jacquemin 1999, no. 017). For the increasing epigraphic presence of the Amphictyony in the sanctuary after 373 bc, see Scott 2010, 120–​1. 47 For the temple and cult, see Gauer 1968b, 98–​100. According to Pausanias, the temple pronaos featured paintings by Polygnotos and Onasias; for Pheidias’ cult statue, a gilded acrolith, see Lapatin 2001, 198–​9. 48 Painted portrait of   Themistokles in the Parthenon: Duplouy 2006, 69–​71. 49 One factor contributing to the difficulty of finding early examples of portrait statues inside temples is the use of hieron to mean either temple or sanctuary. It is also difficult to isolate examples of honorific portraits amid the attestations of portraits representing Hellenistic rulers that may have been considered synnaoi theoi sharing the gods’ temples (for the distinction, see B. Schmidt-​Dounas, “Statuen hellenisticher Könige als Synnaoi Theoi,” Egnatia 4 (1993–​ 4), 71–​141). Among the certain examples cited by A. D. Nock (“Συνναὸς θεός,” in Z. Stewart, ed., Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, vol. I, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972, 242–​4 [202–​51]), only the portrait of the Hekatomnid queen Artemisia in the temple of Athena at Erythrai (Syll.3 168, 357–​355 bc) dates before the Hellenistic period. Cf. Arr. Anab. 1.17.10–​11, a reference to a portrait of Philip II in the hieron of Artemis at Ephesos, which may simply mean the sanctuary. Nock’s generalization that “for a city it meant no more to set up a representation in a temple than in the market place” seems unwarranted. 50 For the development of the rites for the war dead at Plataia and the Eleutheria, see esp. Jung 2006, 225–​95. 51 R. Étienne and M. Piérart, “Un décret du koinon des Hellènes à Platées en l’honneur de Glaucon, fils d’Étéoclès, d’Athènes,” BCH 99 (1975), 63–​8 [51–​75]. Wallace (2011) dates the founding of the Eleutheria more precisely to 335, contemporary with the destruction of Thebes by Alexander. Thucydides (2.71.2) says that after the battle, the Greek allies sacrificed to Zeus Eleutherios in the agora of Plataia. For the Hellenistic and Roman development of the Eleutheria, see also Jung 2006, 298–​360 and Spawforth 2012, 130–​8. 52 Garland 1992, 75. Eleusinian Demeter also made a memorable appearance in Herodotus when the Spartan Demaratos and the Athenian exile Dikaios saw a ghost procession to Eleusis in the days leading up to Salamis (Hdt. 8.65). 53 Krumeich 1996 and Krumeich 1997, 55–​6. 54 Krumeich 1997, 86–​7. 55 For the Attalid barbarian battle groups on the Acropolis, see A. Stewart, Attalos, Athens, and the Akropolis:  The Pergamene ‘Little Barbarians’ and their Roman and Renaissance Legacy, Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2004. Krumeich (2008b, 166–​ 7) dates the Miltiades and Themistokles groups in the Theater of Dionysos to the imperial period. 56 Though originally constructed from the spoils of the Persian Wars in the fifth century, the Persian Stoa seems to have been rebuilt or extensively remodeled at a late date:  see esp. G. B. Waywell, “Sparta and its Topography,” BICS 43 (1999), 1–​26, and Spawforth 2012, 118–​21 (the “circumstantial case for the Augustan age is strong”). Cf. R. M. Schneider (Bunte Barbaren:  Orientalenstatuen aus farbigem Marmor in der römischen Repäsentationskunst, Worms: Wernersche Verlagsgesellschaft, 1986, 109–​14), who had proposed an early date for the Persian portraits.

267

268

268

Notes

57 Robert BE 1962, 155 no. 137; Robert BE 1977, 15 n. 46; and Robert BE 1984, no. 183. If the remains of the Athenian Prytaneion have been correctly identified by G. C. R. Schmalz (“The Athenian Prytaneion Discovered?,” Hesperia 75 (2006), 33–​81), then the building was remodeled in the Augustan period, a date that coincides with the reinscription of the portraits (Spawforth 2012, 114 and 219–​20). Schmalz (2009, 61–​2, no. 75) redates the archonship of Rhoimetalkes to ad 37/​38. For Nicanor, see also Schmalz 2009, 16–​20 nos. 7, 10, and 11; 27–​8 no. 17; and 161–​3 nos. 198–​202; Spawforth 2012, 113–​17. 58 Cf. Zanker 1995, 63–​7. 59 For the “gallery” of portraits in the Prytaneion, see Krumeich 1997, 85–​6; Krumeich and Witschel 2009, 191–​2. 60 Drerup (1988, 286–​91) highlighted the problem posed by the lack of a helmet. 61 The report on the excavation is Threpsiades and Vanderpool 1964; for further discussion of the Artemis Aristoboule sanctuary and its restoration by Neoptolemos, see also Garland 1992, 71–​81; Hintzen-​Bohlen 1997, 50–​1; and Mikalson 1998, 34–​5. The doubts about the identification of the site expressed by Amandry (1967–​8) seem to me not justified. A fragmentary votive pillar without an inscription, found inside the pronaos of the Artemis Aristoboule temple (Threpsiades and Vanderpool 1964, 33, no. 2 = Agora A 3372), might in fact be the base for the eikonion of Themistokles seen by Plutarch. 62 Parker 1996, 245–​8. According to ps.-​Plut. X orat. 843–​4, Neoptolemos was awarded an honorific portrait. 63 For the use of eikonion to mean either a small statue or a painting, see Amandry 1967–​8, 276–​7; all attestations of the term date to the Roman imperial period. 64 See G. Steinhauer, “Demendekrete und ein neuer Archon des 3. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. aus dem Aphrodision von Halai Aixonides,” AM 113 (1998), 235–​48. 65 Cf. Drerup (1988), who hypothesized that the original behind the Ostia portrait was set up in Argos, where Themistokles took refuge immediately after his exile from Athens in 471/​0 bc. Richter (1965, I 99) was non-​committal: “Whether the Ostia head can be identified as reproducing any of the recorded portraits is doubtful.” 66 Demosthenes (20.71–​4) explicitly compares Konon’s rebuilding of the Long Walls and the walls of Piraeus with Themistokles’ rebuilding of the city wall of Athens in 478 bc. For further points of similarity between Konon and Themistokles, see Funke 1983. A fragment of Ammonios of Lamptrai (FGrH 361 F5) claims that the sanctuary of Aphrodite Euploia in Piraeus had been founded not by Konon, but by Themistokles. 67 Culley (1975, 214) restores [ἱερὸν Ἀθηνᾶς Ἑ]ρ̣κάνης ὃ ἱδρύσατο Θεμιστοκλῆς πρὸ τῆς περὶ Σαλαμῖνα ναυμαχίας· (the sanctuary of Athena Herkane which Themistokles established before the naval battle around Salamis). In the absence of any other evidence for a goddess with this epithet in Athens, Artemis is perhaps to be preferred. See also Funke 1983, 184–​6. For the dating of the restoration decree in the Augustan period, between ca. 10/​9 and 2/​ 1 bc, see Culley 1975, 219–​21; G. R. Culley, “The Restoration of Sanctuaries in Attica, II,” Hesperia 46 (1977), 282–​98; G. C. R. Schmalz, “Inscribing a Ritualized Past: The Attic Restoration Decree IG II2 1035 and Cultural Memory in Augustan Athens,” Eulimene 8–​9 (2007–​8), 14–​16 [9–​46]; Schmalz 2009, 10–​11, no. 2; and Spawforth 2012, 107–​17. 68 Magnesia portrait:  Krumeich 1997, 80–​3 and 242, no. A49. For the possible connection between the portrait statue and the suicide story, see Plut. Them. 31.3–​5 (Themistokles made a sacrifice to the gods, said goodbye to his friends, and drank the bull’s blood). See Gardner 1898 and F. Frost, Plutarch’s Themistocles, A  Historical Commentary, rev. edn, Chicago:  Ares, 1998, 203–​4; cf. J. Marr, “The Death of Themistocles,” Greece and Rome 42 (1995), 159–​67. Even if the Magnesia portrait dated soon after Themistokles’ death, it might have been moved after the city of Magnesia was relocated in 400/​399 bc. Malkin (1987, 223–​8) argues that Themistokles received hero cult as the city founder of Magnesia. Heads depicted on the obverses of a series of fifth-​century coins from Magnesia interpreted as portraits of Themistokles (H. A. Cahn and D. Gerin 1988, “Themistocles at Magnesia,” NumChron 148 (1988), 13–​20) have been reidentified by Nollé (1996) as representations of Hephaistos and the founding hero of Magnesia, Leukippos.

269

Notes

69 Jameson 1960; Jameson 1961; M. H. Jameson,“A Revised Text of the Decree of Themistokles from Troizen,” Hesperia 31 (1962), 310–​15; and Jameson 1963. 70 S. Dow (“The Purported Decree of Themistokles: Stele and Inscription,” AJA 66 (1962), 353–​68) advocated a mid-​third-​century date. N. Robertson (“The Decree of Themistocles in its Contemporary Setting,” Phoenix 36 (1982), 1–​44) attempts to connect the production and display of the Themistokles decree at Troizen with a hypothetical alliance of Troizen with Ptolemy II Philadelphos between ca. 275 and 255 bc. 71 Habicht 1961. Good evidence that the text of the Themistokles decree originates in Athens, even if the stele itself does not, comes from Demosthenes’ (19.303) mention, in a speech delivered in 343 bc, of the recitation of decrees proposed by both Miltiades and Themistokles to the Athenian Ekklesia by Aeschines soon after the destruction of Olynthos by Philip II in 348. On retrospective inscribed documents and their role in fourth-​century and later historiography, see also N. Robertson, “False Documents at Athens. Fifth-​Century History and Fourth-​Century Publicists,” Historical Reflections 3 (1976), 3–​25; Hansen 1989, 81; Rhodes 1993; Davies 1996; Higbie 1999; Pébarthe 2006, 285–​8; and RO 88 (Athenian ephebic oath and the oath of Plataia). RO p. 445: “Aeschines and Lycurgus show clearly the tendency evident in Athens in the middle of the fourth century to elaborate texts around known historical circumstances and to elaborate historical circumstances around texts.” 72 Cf. Hdt. 8.41, who says that most of the women and children went to Troizen, but that others went to Aegina and Salamis. 73 For the place and circumstances of discovery, see Jameson 1961. 74 See RE 30 (1939) s.v. Troezen, cols. 617–​54 (Ernst Meyer) and Welter 1941, esp. 13–​19. 75 E.g. H.A. Shapiro, “Theseus, Athens, and Troezen,” AA (1982), 291–​7: “We may speculate that this [the dedication of the portraits] took place soon after 479 B.C., since the statues were meant to be likenesses of particular people” [quotation on  293]; cf. Gauer (1968b, 121, no.  5), who interpreted the portraits as retrospective and associated them with the Themistokles decree. Plutarch (Them. 10.2–​3), who quotes directly from the opening of the Themistokles decree, also mentions a decree of the Troizenians concerning their treatment of the Athenian refugees (Habicht 1961, 17–​18). 76 Dillon 2010, 22–​3. 77 For what it is worth, one of the few inscribed statue bases found at Troizen is a votive dedication by a priest of Apollo signed by the Athenian sculptor Kephisodotos, the son of Praxiteles (IG IV 766). 78 National time:  P. Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, vol. I, trans. K.  McLaughlin and D. Pellauer, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984; A. Liakos, “The Construction of National Time:  The Making of the Modern Greek Historical Imagination,” in G. Levi and J. Revel, eds., Political Uses of the Past:  The Recent Mediterranean Experience, London/​Portland, OR:  Frank Cass, 2002, 27–​42, and “Hellenism and the Making of Modern Greece: Time, Language, Space,” in K. Zacharia, ed., Hellenisms: Culture, Identity, and Ethnicity from Antiquity to Modernity, Farnham, UK/​Burlington, VT:  Ashgate 2008, 201–​36. 79 Welter 1941, 17. 80 For the date of the battle, see Badian 1987, 6–​10. 81 For the Athenian Eurymedon dedication, see Gauer 1968b, 105–​7, and Jacquemin 1999, no. 081. 82 Krumeich (1997, 194–​5 and 250, no. X 10) also argues in favor of a retrospective portrait. 83 Maiandrios was the name of the Samian who, according to Herodotus (3.142–​9), attempted to introduce democracy to Samos after Polykrates’ death in 522 bc.The name became common on Samos in the fourth and third centuries bc. 84 Mitchell 1975, 87–​8. W. Peek (“Ein Seegefecht aus den Perserkriegen,” Klio 32 (1939), 289–​ 306) took IG XII 6 1 277, the name list reused as a base for Maiandrios’ portrait, to be a casualty list (from a centotaph?). For Samos’ role in the events of this period, see Shipley 1987, 104–​11.

269

270

270

Notes

85 Mitchell 1975, 90–​1, and S. West, “Herodotos’ Epigraphical Interests,” CQ 35 (1985), 282–​3 [278–​305]. For inscribed name lists and epigrams as Persian War monuments, see Hölscher 1998b, 91–​5. 86 LSAG2 330 and 342, no. 17 (pl. 63) and Scott 2010, 75 and 83–​4. 87 The closest comparison may be with early Hellenistic monuments that focalized the memory of a battle or military campaign through the portrait of a single casualty, inscribed with an epigram praising his sacrifice for the common good. One such example is the portrait of Eugnotos of Akraiphia in Boiotia (ISE 69; J. Ma, “The Many Lives of Eugnotos of Akraiphia,” Studi ellenistici 16 (2005), 141–​91; and Ma 2013b, 300). Similar is the portrait of Peisis of Thespiai at Delphi (CEG 2 789). 5  EARLY GREEK PORTRAITS UNDER ROMAN RULE

1 Whitmarsh 2010. 2 Palimpsest metaphor: Kinney 1997. 3 Damage to bronze statues, in particular their arms, hands, and hand-​held attributes, may have been common. In his speech against the reinscription of portrait statues by the Rhodians (discussed later in this chapter), Dio Chrysostom (31.82–​3) likens the removal of attributes or body parts from statues (spears, helmet crests, shields, bridles, phialai, hands, or fingers) to temple robbing. For references in Roman-​period sources to the theft of foil gilding and attributes from statues, see D. E. Strong, “Roman Museums,” in Roman Museums: Selected Papers on Roman Art and Architecture, London: Pindar Press, 1994, 13–​30. 4 See M. C. Hoff, “Laceratae Athenae: Sulla’s Siege of Athens in 87/​6 B.C. and its Aftermath,” in M. C. Hoff and S. I. Rotroff, eds., The Romanization of Athens: Proceedings of an International Conference held at Lincoln, Nebraska (April 1996) (Oxbow Monograph 94), Oxford: Oxbow, 1997, 33–​51. 5 For a distinction between the appropriation of earlier monuments, which could be either positive or negative in intent, and spoliation, which involves a forcible transfer of monuments’ ownership, see D. Kinney, “Introduction,” in Kinney and Brilliant 2011, 1–​11. 6 Tanner 2006, 222–​6. 7 For the “Age of Plunder” between 211 and 146 bc, see Pollitt 1978 (including lists of the Greek statues and paintings brought to Rome during this period). For discussion of the removal of Greek art works by the Romans, see K. Welch, “Domi militiaeque:  Roman Domestic Aesthetics and War Booty in the Republic,” in S. Dillon and K. Welch, eds., Representations of War in Ancient Rome, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 91–​ 161, and Miles 2008, 13–​104. 8 This is true even of the collection of Archaic, Classical, and early Hellenistic statues displayed inside the Heraion at Olympia in Pausanias’ time, presumably chosen by the Elean authorities: the only portraits among them seem to have been Leochares’ Eurydike and Olympias from the Philippeion group (R. Krumeich, “Vom Haus der Gottheit zum Museum? Zu Ausstattung und Funktion des Heraion von Olympia und des Athenatempels von Lindos,” AntK 51 (2008), 73–​95). 9 For the Greek statues assembled in the Porticus Octaviae complex, see Rutledge 2012, 257–​ 62, and Bravi 2012, 117–​29. For portraits among the lists of Greek statues taken to Rome, see M. Pape, Griechische Kunstwerke aus Kriegsbeute und ihre öffentliche Aufstellung in Rom, von der Eroberung von Syrakus bis in augusteische Zeit (Diss. Hamburg 1975), 213–​15 and Ridgway 1984, 109–​11. Turma Alexandri from Dion: Isager 1991, 160, and Miles 2008, 234. 10 See Chapter 2, n. 67. 11 The portraits of Dion of Ephesos, Timotheos, Hypereides, and Lysis are attested by Jacob Spon’s transcription of a series of statue base inscriptions he saw in the Villa Mattei in Rome. The portrait of Seleukos I is one of a pair (along with a portrait of the unknown Aeolos of Macedon made by Teisikrates, IGUR IV 1497) that may belong to the collection of Greek

271

Notes

sculpture in the Theater of Pompey complex (as suggested by B. Ruck, “Das Denkmal der Cornelia in Rome,” RM 111 (2004), 485 and n. 47 [477–​94]). The base for a portrait of a priest named Charmides by Leochares was found in the baths of  Titus in Rome. 12 LaRocca 2001, 195–​200. For the art works assembled in the Forum Pacis complex generally, see Rutledge 2012, 272–​84 and Bravi 2012, 167–​81. 13 Blanck 1969. Other general (though brief) discussions of portrait reinscription are F. Poulsen, “Le remploi des statues dans l’antiquité,” Gazette des Beaux-​Arts ns 12 (1934), 1–​7; F. Felten, “Römische Machthaber und hellenistische Herrscher. Berührungen und Umdeutungen,” ÖJh 56 Beiblatt (1985), cols. 109–​54; W. K. Pritchett, Pausanias Periegetes I, Amsterdam: Gieben, 1998, 87–​97; Hallett 2005, 138–​41; and Platt 2007. 14 Perrin-​Saminadayar 2004. 15 A decree of ad 22 from Lindos (Lindos II 419), though often taken to refer to portrait reinscription, in fact seems to call for the auctioning off of the right to rededicate existing statues to the gods (M. Kajava, “Inscriptions at Auction,” Arctos 37 (2003), 69–​80; cf. L. Robert, “X. Épigramme de Smyrne,” Hellenica 2 (1946), 109–​13, and Blanck 1969, 101–​3). 16 The quotation is from A.  Esch, “On the Reuse of Antiquity:  The Perspectives of the Archaeologist and of the Historian,” in Kinney and Brilliant 2011, 27 [13–​31], speaking of the appropriation of earlier architectural material in late antique Rome. 17 Decree awarding the titles new Themistokles and new Homer:  IG II2 1069 (ad 4–​14; Schmalz 2009, no. 12). See also Schmalz 2009, 16–​20 nos. 7, 10, and 11; and 27–​8 no. 17; Spawforth 2012, 113–​17. 18 Gaius Caesar as the new Ares: IG II2 3250 and Schmalz 2009, no. 129. It is now clear that this honor was not connected with divine cult for Gaius. 19 N. Cecioni (“Octavian and Orestes in Pausanias,” CQ 43 (1993), 506) takes the Orestes/​ Augustus statue in the Argive Heraion as evidence for a positive connection between Augustus and Orestes, before the analogy was pursued with more negative overtones in Virgil Georgics 1.511–​14. Though Pausanias mentions an inscription on the statue’s base naming Augustus, his identification of Orestes as the subject probably came from oral testimony that was not necessarily reliable. 20 For the various Domitii Ahenobarbi and their honors in the Greek world, see C. Eilers, “Some Domitii Ahenobarbi and their Greek clientela:  Five Inscriptions,” in Atti del XI Congresso Internazionale di Epigrafia Greca e Latina, Roma, 18–​24 settembre 1997, vol. I, Rome: Quasar 1999, 325–​33, and J. Carlsen, The Rise and Fall of a Roman Noble Family: The Domitii Ahenobarbi, 196 B.C.–​A.D. 68, Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 2006. 21 On Dio, see C. P. Jones, The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom, Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press, 1978. 22 One exception is Blanck 1969, 86, no. B43 ( = ClRh II 204, no. 37) from Kameiros.Though it has sometimes been taken as an example of portrait reinscription, a large exedra base for portraits of the imperial family in the sanctuary of Athena Lindia (Lindos II 414) seems to have been reused without its original statues. See Rose 1997, 154–​5, no. 89, who dates the group to ad 18. 23 Cf. Platt’s (2007, 247–​66) discussion of Dio Chrys. 31, which seems to assume that the practice of portrait reinscription in the Greek world involved only honorific portraits. 24 Cf. Blanck 1969, 115–​16, and Krumeich 2010, 346–​50 (in favor of head replacement). Pliny HN 35.2.4 (the heads of portraits are exchanged for others) may be thinking of the portraits of Roman emperors changed into their successors by replacement of the face or the whole head. Statius Silvae 1.1.84 mentions a Lysippan equestrian portrait of Alexander in the Forum Iulium in Rome with its head replaced by one of Julius Caesar. 25 For the detachability of head and body in Roman sculpture generally, see P.  Stewart 2003, 47–​59. 26 A similar apographe, dating to the first century ad, has been found on the nearby island of Kos: IG XII 4 2 471 = M. Segre, Iscrizioni di Cos (Monografie della Scuola Archeologica

271

272

272

Notes

di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 6), Rome: Quasar, 1993, ED 230; see also C. Habicht, “Inschriften aus Kos,” ZPE 112 (1996), 86 [83–​94]. 27 I will describe two such examples briefly here. At Priene, a colossal marble portrait head identified as the Hekatomnid queen Ada was found inside the cella of the temple of Athena Polias, where the portrait may have been reidentified as a female relative of Augustus (Carter 1983, 264–​6 and no. 85, 271–​6). At Kos, the late third-​century bc portrait of a local female poet named Delphis was reinscribed in the first century ad in honor of a contemporary Greek female poet with victories in contests at Kos and Alexandria (D. Bosnakis, “Zwei Dichterinnen aus Kos:  Ein neues inschriftliches Zeugnis über das öffentliche Auftreten von Frauen,” in K. Höghammar, ed., The Hellenistic Polis of Kos: State, Economy, and Culture, Uppsala: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, 2004, 99–​ 108). The latter is worth mentioning here because the new inscription notes that the portrait had originally represented Delphis: the fact of reinscription may have been mentioned explicitly in this case because the new honorand (like the original one) was a Greek of local significance. 28 For statue base reuse in the Heraion, see the general comments of P. Herrmann 1960, 97–​8. 29 Renovation of the base for the Geneleos group: Kienast 1992a and 1992b. Cf. Bumke (2004, 83, n.  465), who hypothetically dates the restoration of the Geneleos group base to the Augustan period, connecting it with the portraits of Gaius and Lucius Caesar set up near the Geneleos group along the Sacred Way. 30 Kouros and tripod:  Kyrieleis 1981, 122–​3, no.  29 and fig.  93. Two korai dedicated by Cheramyes: H. Kyrieleis, “Eine neue Kore des Cheramyes,” AntP 24 (1995), 15–​21 and figs. 5–​10 [7–​36]. 31 For the Cicero family group, see F. K. Dörner and G. Gruben, “Die Exedra der Ciceronen,” AM 68 (1953), 63–​76; Tuchelt 1979, 48; and von Thüngen 1994, 151–​3, no. 131. 32 During his proconsulship of Cilicia in 51–​50 bc, Marcus Cicero may have returned to Samos some of the art works removed by Verres, and this provides a possible occasion for the portrait group. 33 For an individual portrait of Q.  Tullius Cicero dating to his proconsulship of Asia, see Tuchelt 1979, 165, no. L 34 (Klaros). 34 Portraits of the Scribonii: H. J. Kienast and K. Hallof, “Ein Ehrenmonument für samische Scribonii aus dem Heraion,” Chiron 29 (1999), 205–​23. 35 Portraits of Gaius and Lucius: P. Herrmann 1960, 106–​10, no. 13. Consuls of ad 23: Herrmann 1960, 150 h and pl. 50, figs. 1–​4. 36 A similar combination of re-​erected Archaic monuments and portraits of Romans has been found in the sanctuary of Artemis and Apollo at Klaros, located across from Samos on the Ionian mainland. There as many as five kouroi were placed on a new base late in the seond century bc, when a series of new Roman portraits was begun. See J. de La Genière, “Claros, Bilan provisoire de dix campagnes de fouilles,” RÉA 100 (1998), 235–​68; J.-​L. Ferrary and S. Verger, “Contribution à l’histoire du sanctuaire de Claros à la fin du IIe et au Ier siècle av. J.-​ C.: L’apport des inscriptions en l’honneur des Romains et des fouilles de 1994–​1997,” CRAI (1999), 838–​49 [811–​50]; and J.-​L. Ferrary, “Le sanctuaire de Claros à l’époque hellénistique et romaine,” in J. de La Genière, A.Vauchez, and J. Leclant, eds., Les sanctuaires et leur rayonnement dans le monde méditerranéen de l’antiquité à l’époque moderne (Cahiers de la Villa Kérylos 21), Paris: Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-​Lettres, 2010, 91–​114. 37 For the role of the exegetai at Olympia in the Roman imperial period, see C. P. Jones,“Pausanias and his Guides,” in Alcock et al. 2001, 33–​9; Hutton 2005, 245–​7; and M. Nafissi, “Sotto il sole di Olimpia. Pausania interprete di epigrafi:  tradizioni locali e testo,” Mediterraneo Antico 10 (2007), 197–​200 [197–​214]. At 5.20.4–​5, Pausanias names a specific exegete as his source for the story of a dead soldier whose body was found hidden underneath the roof of the Hera temple. For general thoughts on Pausanias’ account of Olympia, see Newby 2005, 202–​28. 38 Cf. Blanck (1969, 75–​6, no. B20), who identified IvO 213/​638 ( = IGB 72) as the base for a reinscribed portrait statue. I consider it more likely an example of simple base reuse in

273

Notes

the 30s bc. The original dedication was erased, but the signature of the Athenian sculptor Polymnestos on the right side of the block was left behind, perhaps in error. For a similar reused base with the sculptor’s signature left in place, see IvO 229/​230. Other bases were flipped upside-​down for reuse with their original inscriptions completely erased (IvO 310, 312, and 325). 39 On the base for the portrait of Damoxenidas of Mainalos (IvO 158), the signature of the sculptor Nikodamos is preserved on the top surface, but the name label inscribed beside it is a first-​century bc renewal; the original name label may have been located on the lost short side of the block. 40 The remaining fifth-​century victors whose portraits Pausanias mentioned but which did not have their inscriptions renewed are the following: Euthymos of Lokroi (IvO 144 and Paus. 6.6.4; here Figure 5), Kallias Didymiou of Athens (IvO 146 and Paus. 6.6.1), Kyniskos of Mantinea (IvO 149 and Paus. 6.4.11), and Xenombrotos of Kos (IvO 170 and Paus. 6.14.12). 41 Further evidence for statue removals before Nero and renovations in the sanctuary associated with Augustus and Agrippa: eighteen blocks from an early Classical quadriga group were found reused in the substructure of a triumphal arch dated to the early Roman imperial period (A. Mallwitz, “Ergebnisse und Folgerungen,” in A. Mallwitz and K. Herrmann, eds., XI. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia, Berlin/​New York: De Gruyter, 1999, 270–​4 [181–​284]). 42 The most thorough discussion of the careers of Polykleitos I and Polykleitos II is Amandry 1957, 79–​87. 43 Here I agree with Arnold’s (1969, 23–​4) interpretation of the Pythokles base and its two phases of use. She attributes the original portrait of Pythokles to the younger Polykleitos (Polykleitos II). If the attribution is correct, then Pythokles’ portrait at Olympia dates fifty years or more after his known victory in 452 bc. The use of the Argive epichoric alphabet for Polykleitos’ signature should be considered an archaism. For Polykleitos II and the “Polykleitan School,” see Todisco 1993, 45–​55. Cf. F. Studniczka, “Das Standmotiv des polykletischen Pythokles,” ÖJh 9 (1906), 131–​8; Hyde 1921, 211–​14; and Ridgway (1984, 42 and 47–​8, n. 36, and “Paene ad exemplum: Polykleitos’ Other Works,” in W. G. Moon, ed., Polykleitos, the Doryphoros and Tradition, Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1995, 184 [177–​ 99]), whose doubts that the original portrait was taken to Rome seem unjustified. 44 LaRocca (2001, 196–​7), superseding earlier discussions of the statue base in Rome. Since the Pythokles/​Polykleitos base in Rome, which dates after a fire in the Templum Pacis complex in ad 192, is missing its top block, the cuttings visible on top of the base are not relevant to the pose of Pythokles’ portrait statue (as noted by E. Loewy, “Die Siegerstatue des Eleers Pythokles,” WS 24 (1902), 398–​405). Pausanias (6.9.3) mentions another portrait of an Olympic victor in the Forum Pacis, that of Cheimon of Argos by Naukydes, and claims that it was brought to Rome from Argos. Pausanias saw Cheimon’s portrait at Olympia still standing in situ. 45 Newby 2005, 217–​18. 46 For these, see esp. Pliny HN 34.55–​62 and 86–​91; Newby 2005, 88–​140. 47 Smith 2007, 106–​7. For Pausanias’ interest in the subjects of athletic victor portraits, see also Kreilinger 1997, 472. 48 Myron’s Discobolos: Newby 2005, 122–​5, and A. Anguissola, “Roman Copies of Myron’s Discobolus,” JRA 18 (2005), 317–​35; see also P. Zanker, Klassizistische Statuen: Studien zur Veranderung des Kunstgeschmacks in der römische Kaiserzeit, Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1974, 4–​40; Smith 2007, 120–​2; and Marvin 2008, 151–​64. Diadumenos: D. Kreikenbom, Bildwerke nach Polyklet, Kopienkritische Untersuchungen zu den männlichen statuarischen Typen nach polykleitischen Vorbildern:  ‘Diskophoros’, Hermes, Doryphoros, Herakles, Diadumenos, Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1990, 109–​40 and 188–​203. 49 For Mikythos’ dedications and their bases, see Eckstein 1969, 33–​42 and 112–​16. Two blocks and a few small fragments from the base of one of the groups (IvO 267–​9) preserve their dedicatory inscriptions and the dowel holes for statues.

273

274

274

Notes

50 For fourth-​century Pisa as a polis in competition with Elis, see Nielsen 2007, 29–​54 and J.  Roy, “Elis,” in Funke and Luraghi 2009, 30–​48. M.  Giangiulio (“The Emergence of Pisatis,” in Funke and Luraghi 2009, 71–​82 [65–​85]) argues that stories of primeval Pisatan control over the Olympic games are charter myths arising out of the brief period between 369 and 362 bc when the Pisatans, with Arcadian support, wrested control of the sanctuary at Olympia away from Elis. For the dispute over control of the games, see Xen. Hell. 2.2.31. 51 Felten 1982; Jacquemin 1999, 101–​7; Scott 2010. 52 Scott 2010, 62. According to Plutarch (Mor. 400d–​f), after the fall of the Archaic tyrant Kypselos, the Corinthians asked the Delphians to change the treasury Kypselos had dedicated into a collective offering by the Corinthians; the Delphians allowed this change, but the Eleans would not allow the Corinthians to change the inscription on a famous statue of Zeus that Kypselos had dedicated at Olympia (discussion by Scott 2010, 44–​5). 53 For Epidauros and the Asklepieion from the second century bc through the first century ad, see Melfi, “Rebuilding the Myth of Asklepios at the Sanctuary of Epidauros in the Roman Period,” in A. D. Rizakis and C. E. Lepenioti, eds., Roman Peloponnese III: Society, Economy and Culture under the Roman Empire:  Continuity and Innovation (Meletemata 63), Athens/​Paris: de Boccard, 2010, 329–​39. 54 See, in addition to the entries in IG IV 12, new readings and comments on some of the reused bases in J. Marcadé, “Notes sur quelques bases d’Epidaure,” BCH 73 (1949), 133–​51. 55 For the Hellenistic royal philoi in general, see P. Paschidis, Between City and King: Prosopographical Studies on the Intermediaries between the Cities of the Greek Mainland and the Aegean and the Royal Courts in the Hellenistic Period (322–​190 B.C.) (Meletemata 59), Athens/​Paris:  de Boccard, 2008. For their portraits, see Smith (1988, 17, 21, 47, 67, and 158, nos. 15–​16), who hypothesized that they imitated the appearance of royal portraits; Stewart 1993, 453–​5 (Hephaistion); and Ma 2013b, 183–​7. 56 For Gorgos, see Heisserer 1980, esp. 194–​202, and Heckel 2006, 127 s.v. Gorgus [1]‌. IG IV2 1 616 ( = CEG 2 817) from Epidauros translates as follows: O Gorgos, for the sake of noble and god-​wrought ordinances, vine-​clad Epidauros gave this deathless thanks for your son (and you), whom, sprung from Iasos, much-​praised Kos, seat of the Meropes, nourished and taught the deeds of renowned Ares; it revealed a servant always faithful to the godlike king (trans. Heisserer). IG IV2 1 617 (Heisserer 1980, 198–​202) is a small fragment of a similar statue base naming Gorgos, but with later lettering: a replacement for the original monument? Gorgos and his brother Minnion were also honored by Samos (Syll.3 312) and by their home city of Iasos (Syll.3 307=RO 90). 57 This base is on display (unlabeled) in the museum at Epidauros. The entire inscribed face was carelessly erased at the time of reuse. The signature of Hektoridas was recarved, but retains fourth-​century letter forms (as noted by Hiller von Gaertringen in IG IV 12) and the typical fourth-​century spelling of ἐπόησεν. 58 For Hektoridas’ work on the Temple of Asklepios, see IG IV 12 102, lines 89, 104, 111, and 303; Burford 1969, 143–​5 and 215–​17; Prignitz 2014, 244–​5; Schultz 2007b; and P. Schultz, “Accounting for Agency at Epidauros: A Note on IG IV2 102 AI-​BI and the Economies of Style,” in P. Schultz and R. von den Hoff, eds., Structure, Image, Ornament: Architectural Sculpture in the Greek World, Proceedings of an International Conference held at the American School of Classical Studies, 27–​28 November 2004, Oxford/​Oakville, CT: Oxbow 2009, 70–​8. 59 On one of the large, family group exedras marking the northern end of the sacred area (IG IV 12 665 and 674), the original identifying inscriptions for two male portraits were erased, but Eunous’ signature was preserved. See von Thüngen 1994, 73–​4, no. 34 (Epidauros 11). 60 For this exedra, see also von Thüngen 1994, 84–​5, no.  47 (Epidauros 8). C. Blinkenberg (“Les inscriptions d’Épidaure,” Nordiske Tidsskrift for filologi 3 (1895), 168–​9, no. 27 [153–​78]) noticed that the lettering of the signature appeared older than that of the dedication, as did Peek (1969, 126, no. 289); cf. Fraenkel in IG IV, who took the signature to be contemporary despite the apparent alteration of early letter forms (e.g. nu with a serif added) in his facsimile drawing.

275

Notes

61 Löhr 1993; Ma 2007b; Ma 2012; Ma 2013b, 139–​42 and 221–​2. See also Petrakos 1968, 143–​70. 62 These are Publius Servilius Isauricus (I.Oropos 445), Gaius Scribonius Curio (I.Oropos 444), and Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus (I.Oropos 446). 63 Hierokles Pythonos (I.Oropos 426)  on the base of the portrait reinscribed for Gaius Scribonius Curio (I.Oropos 444), and Dionysodoros (I.Oropos 441) on the base reinscribed for Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus (I.Oropos 446). For discussion, see Ma 2007b. 64 For Cicero’s attitude toward the purchase and collecting of Greek statues to decorate his villa, for which Atticus himself served as an agent, see M. Marvin, “Copying in Roman Sculpture:  The Replica Series,” in Retaining the Original:  Multiple Originals, Copies, and Reproductions (CASVA Symposium Papers 7)  Washington, DC/​Hanover, NH:  National Gallery of Art/​University Press of New England, 1989, 29–​45. 65 One exception is Agora I 6051, the base for a Hellenistic portrait reinscribed in honor of the future emperor Tiberius’ teacher of rhetoric, Theodoros of Gadara (E.Vanderpool, “An Athenian Monument to Theodoros of Gadara,” AJP 80 (1959), 366–​9). 66 Main sources on portrait reinscription in Athens:  Graindor 1927, 198–​245; Blanck 1969, 78–​85; Keesling 2007; Shear 2007; Krumeich 2010. 67 Cf. Queyrel (2003, 299–​308), who associates the Agrippa monument with Eumenes II’s Panathenaic victory of 170 bc. 68 W. B. Dinsmoor (“The Monument of Agrippa at Athens,” AJA 24 (1920), 83) suggested that the monument was reused for portraits of both M. Antonius (38 bc) and Cleopatra VII (32 bc), but reuse of the monument for Antonius alone is more likely. For the phases of use, see Korres 2000, 314–​19, and Queyrel 2003, 302–​6. For Antonius’ damnatio memoriae by the Roman Senate and partial rehabilitation by Octavian/​Augustus, see Flower 2006, 116–​21. The other two Pergamene pillars are IG II2 3272 near the northeast corner of the Parthenon, and IG II2 4209 in front of the Stoa of Attalos. 69 Roman imperial portraits on the Acropolis: S. Aneziri, “Kaiserzeitliche Ehrenmonumente auf der Akropolis:  Die Identität der Geehrten und die Auswahl des Aufstellungsortes,” in Krumeich and Witschel 2010, 287–​98 [271–​302]. The “new” Roman portraits on the Acropolis may begin with Sextus Pompeius, honored with a bronze portrait statue in ca. 120 bc (IG II2 4100, discussed by Krumeich 2008a, 357–​8). Eleusis: I.Eleusis. 70 Blanck 1969, 85, no. B41; Shear 2007, 233–​5; Krumeich 2010, 378–​9, no. B1. 71 Serwint 1987, 124–​31 (portraits of athletic victors shown pouring libations or praying). 72 Himmelmann 2001, 54–​62. 73 Reinscribed portrait bases with complete erasure:  IG II2 3792 (Blanck 1969, 85 no. B40 and Krumeich 2010, 369–​70, no. A2: reinscribed for Barea Soranus, Stoic philosopher and proconsul of Asia, executed by Nero in ad 66); IG II2 4119/​3691 (Krumeich 2010, 376–​7, no. A10: equestrian portrait reinscribed for the Augustan legate Gaius Ma[rius] Marcellus; contra Krumeich, the demotic inscribed on the top of the base probably relates to its reuse in the second or third century ad); and IG II2 4128 (Krumeich 2010, 377–​8, no. A11: reinscribed for the Augustan consul Paullus Fabius Maximus). 74 Fifth-​century Acropolis statue bases reused in later periods: DAA 137/​IG II2 4336; DAA 305/​IG II2 3434 (base for a stele or votive relief, reused for a portrait of Archelaos V, king of Cappadocia, in the late Augustan period): cf. Krumeich (2010, 385, no. B9), who interprets this as an example of portrait reinscription. DAA 140/​IG II2 4156, included by Krumeich in his catalogue of reinscribed portraits on the Acropolis (Krumeich 2010, 339–​40 and 379–​80, no. B3; Krumeich 2011, 95–​103), looks to me like another case in which a fifth-​century Pentelic marble base was reused to support a new statue. The cuttings for the feet of the bronze portrait of P.  Octavius, identified as the proconsul of Crete between ad 14 and 29, are of a type not yet in use in the early Classical period. As the anathryoses on both right and left sides of the block show, the base consisted originally of three blocks joined together, with an original length of at least 3 m.  The strangely shaped cuttings on the top of the base, which Krumeich suggests held bronze votive sickles, instead belong to

275

276

276

Notes

the original early Classical statue group. The early Classical statues may have been paired warriors in combat, like the contemporary dedication of Phormis of Mainalos at Olympia, or the group of Erechtheus fighting Eumolpos mentioned by Pausanias (Paus. 1. 27.5; the uninscribed base for another such group has been published by Korres 1994, 86–​7, MB and MB’). Another possibility is the dedication of two bronze bovines: the cuttings on the top of the Acropolis base are similar in size and shape to those on the base of the early Classical Eretrian bull dedication at Olympia (IvO 248 and Eckstein 1969, 50–​3 and figs. 12–​13). The parallels for bronze sickles set into votive stelai discussed by U. Kron (“Sickles in Greek Sanctuaries: Votives and Cultic Instruments,” in R. Hägg, ed., Ancient Greek Cult Practice, Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen, 1998, 187–​215) and Schörner (2003, 76–​8) date to the late Hellenistic and Roman imperial periods. 75 Names of original subjects copied onto the sides or backs of statue bases on the Acropolis: Krumeich and Witschel 2009, 217–​19, and Krumeich 2010. 76 Case in point: DAA 167 ( = IG I3 515). This is a round, Pentelic marble base recording a votive dedication to Athena by members of the Athenian Boule from the tribe Erechtheis in 408/​7 bc. As the holes on the top of the base show, these bouleutai probably dedicated a small bronze Athena. In the first century bc or ad, the base was flipped upside down and reused for a portrait of a Roman named Lucius Canuleius Crispus (IG II2 4136). The name of a Greek, Python Pythonos, was inscribed along the new top edge of the base. Since only the base was reused this name cannot belong to an earlier portrait subject. Could this be the name of an Athenian official who inventoried this base and identified it as a candidate for future reuse? 77 Integral signatures of Greek sculptors in late Hellenistic and Roman imperial sculpture: U. Kron, “Eine Pandion-​Statue in Rom mit einem Exkurs zu Inschriften auf Plinthen,” JdI 92 (1977), 139–​68; M. Donderer, “Bildhauersignaturen auf griechischer Rundplastik,” ÖJh 65 (1996), 87–​104; M. Donderer, “Antike Bildhauersignaturen –​Wo man sie nich erwarten würde,” ÖJh 73 (2004), 81–​96. 78 Demetrios Philonos Pteleasios:  M. Haake, “Der attische Bildhauer Demetrios, Sohn des Philon, aus Ptelea,” ZPE 153 (2005), 127–​30, and “Der Ephebe Demetrios, Sohn des Philon, Teilnehmer an der Pythaïs des Jahres 138/​7, und der Bildhauer Demetrios, Sohn des Philon, aus Ptelea  –​Eine prosopographische Notiz,” ZPE 169 (2009), 123–​4. The last Athenian sculptor to sign exclusively on his own, and with his name only, seems to be Meidias in the third century bc (IG II2 4276). 79 Collaboration and family sculptural workshops in the Hellenistic period: V. C. Goodlett, “Rhodian Sculptural Workshops,” AJA 95 (1991), 669–​81. Eucheir and Euboulides: Despinis 1995, 321–​38. Kaikosthenes and Dies: IG II2 3470 and 4286 (joint signatures with patronymic and demotic); cf. the name-​only signatures IG II2 2800, 3472, 4285, 4287, and 4288. Polykles family: Despinis 1995, 339–​69; F. Coarelli, “Polycles,” in Revixit Ars, Arte e ideologia a Roma: Dai modelli ellenistici alla tradizione repubblicana, Rome: Quasar, 1996, 258–​79; Stewart 2012 (with a new stemma of the family on 668–​70). 80 I base the remarks that follow upon Keesling 2007, 150–​2, and Keesling 2010c, with modifications inspired by Krumeich 2010. 81 Cf. Graindor (1927, 211–​15). 82 Ephesos Apoxyomenos: Ridgway 1990, 76–​8. Other apoxyomenoi/​perixyomenoi in the literary tradition: Pliny HN 34.55 (Polykleitos), 34.76 (Daidalos), 34.87 (Daïppos). 83 Statue bases for early Hellenistic tyrannicide portraits outside Athens:  IG XII 6 280 (Samian Heraion) and Syll.3 284: statue of Philites at Erythrai, discussed by A. J. Heisserer, “The Philites Stele,” Hesperia 48 (1979), 281–​93; P. Gauthier, “Notes sur trois décrets honorant des citoyens bienfaiteurs,” RPhil 56 (1982), 215–​31; and J. Ober, “Tyrant Killing as Therapeutic Stasis: A Political Debate in Images and Texts,” in K. A. Morgan, ed., Popular Tyranny:  Sovereignty and its Discontents in Ancient Greece, Austin, TX:  University of  Texas Press, 2003, 226–​8 [215–​50]. 84 Kalogéropoulou 1969.

277

Notes

85 See Krumeich 2010, 370–​1, no. A4, who reports the discovery of Satyros’ name by Klaus Hallof. Krumeich identifies the new honorand of this portrait as Raskouporis I, an associate of Pompey who in 44 bc helped Brutus and Cassius before the battle of Philippi. It seems more likely to me, however, that this Raskouporis was the father of the Kotys chosen as archon of Athens between ad 14 and 19 (Schmalz 2009, 39 no.  40). This interpretation is consistent with Krumeich’s own dating of most reinscribed portrait bases from the Acropolis to the Augustan and Julio-​Claudian periods. 86 For patterns in Athenian marble use, see esp. N. Herz, “Stable Isotope Analysis of Greek and Roman Marble: Provenance,Association, and Authenticity,” in Marble:Art Historical and Scientific Perspectives on Ancient Sculpture, Malibu: J. Paul Getty Museum, 1990, 101–​10; H. R. Goette et al.,“Investigation of the Greyish Blue Marble of Pentelikon and Hymettus,” in M. Schvoerer, ed. Archéomatériaux, marbres et autres roches (Asmosia 4), Bordeaux: Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux, 1999, 83–​90; and Palagia 2006, 125–​7. Use of Pentelic marble outside Athens: A. M. Abraldes, Pentelethen:The Export of Pentelic Marble and its Use in Architectural and Epigraphical Monuments (Diss. University of California Berkeley, 1996) and S. G. Bernard, “Pentelic Marble in Architecture at Rome and the Republican Marble Trade,” JRA 23 (2010), 35–​54. 87 Another Acropolis statue base was reinscribed in honor of Kotys (Krumeich 2010, 371–​2, no. A5). This base is a true palimpsest, and since it is now lost certainty is not possible. From the epigraphical publications (IG II2 3443 and 4129, IGB 315, and Graindor 1927, 88 and 212–​14), one cannot be sure how the three different names on the base relate to Antignotos’ signature. The name Eumnestos Sosikratidou Paianieus probably belongs to the original portrait subject:  the name fits easily into a known fourth-​century Athenian family, and this could be another example of copying the name of the portrait’s subject on the back of the base at the time of reinscription. I would suggest that the portrait of Eumnestos by Antignotos was first reinscribed in honor of Paullus Fabius Maximus sometime before his death in ad 14; then it was reinscribed again in honor of Kotys, whom I identify as the one appointed archon between ad 14 and 19. 88 For “new” portraits of other Augustan client kings in Athens, see Schmalz 2009, 126–​8, nos. 157–​61. 89 For the careers of Praxiteles and his sons, see esp. Marcadé II 119–​22; Stewart 1979, 106–​11; Ajootian 1996; P.  Schultz, “Kephisodotos the Younger,” in Palagia and Tracy 2003, 186–​93; Ajootian 2007; Pasquier and Martinez 2007. For the Praxiteles family of Sybridai, see APF 8334. For the hypothetical later sculptors named Praxiteles as Praxiteles V, VI, and VII, see Graindor 1927, 242–​3; G. M.  A. Richter, Three Critical Periods in Greek Sculpture, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951, 37–​65; and Künstlerlexikon s.v. Praxiteles V. 90 Signatures of the elder Kephisodotos at Eleusis: IG II2 4552 ( = I.Eleusis 57, ca. 375 bc); IG II2 4608 + 4934 (I.Eleusis 58, ca. 375 bc); and IG II2 4304 (I.Eleusis 75: this could belong to the younger Kephisodotos). As Tracy (2008) has shown, the inscriptions on the bases signed by Praxiteles and his sons were visually distinctive. For Praxiteles’ portraits of women in Athens, see Chapter 2. 91 The existence of a homonymous grandson of Praxiteles (Praxiteles II) who also worked as a sculptor is hypothetical, based upon a reference in a late scholion to Theocritus (5.105 and 178 Wendel) and a signature at Delphi (FdD III 4 215) that probably belongs to Praxiteles I (Keesling 2007, 153, and Ajootian 2007, 31, n. 22; cf. Marcadé I 89). Even the family of Sthennis of Olynthos, which produced as many as five different sculptors active in the Hellenistic period (Sthennis, Herodoros I, Sthennis II, Kalliades, and Herodoros II), can only be traced through four generations, beginning in ca. 320 and ending in ca. 200 bc (Habicht 1992–​8 and 2000–​3). 92 Stewart’s (2012) suggestion that the Large and Small Herculaneum woman types in Roman portraiture ultimately derive from the female portraits made by Praxiteles and his sons in Athens is attractive. 93 Corso 1988–​91.

277

278

278

Notes

94 This is IG II2 4240 ( = IGB add. 319a), a small fragment with clear signs of erasure, inscribed in late (Augustan?) lettering, showing the name of a woman (one of a portrait pair?) and the signature [Praxit]eles epoiesen. The only other evidence for a late Hellenistic or early imperial Greek sculptor named Praxiteles is IG II2 3886 ( = IGB 236), a statue base made of Eleusinian limestone found built into a section of the post-​Herulian wall near the City Eleusinion, where it remains in situ (A. E. Raubitschek, “Greek Inscriptions,” Hesperia 12 (1943), 55–​6, no. 13 [12–​88]). The inscriptions, in lettering of the first century bc or first century ad, are a name label and signature:  Lysanias Nikodemou Xypetaion. Praxiteles epoiesen. The name of the portrait subject fits easily into a known fourth-​century liturgical family (APF 10814), and Graham Oliver now reads this name in an Athenian decree of the Lycurgan period (IG II2 552). We believe that the original name label and signature from an honorific portrait of Lysanias were copied at a later date. For other possible instances of the copying of fifth-​and fourth-​century inscriptions in later periods, see Keesling 2010c, 316–​20. 95 IGB 318; Graindor 1927, 59–​61, no. 1; Blanck 1969, no. B39; Keesling 2007, 153–​4; Keesling 2010c, 311–​12; Krumeich 2010, 374–​5, no. A8. 96 For the family, see APF no. 12883. 97 For an early Hellenistic funerary stele from Rhodes showing the deceased nude and leaning on a herm, see P. Valavanis, “Panathenäische Amphoren auf Monumenten spätklassischer, hellenistischer und römischer Zeit,” in M. Bentz and N. Eschbach, eds., Panathenaïka: Symposion zu den Panathenäischen Preisamphoren (Rauischholzhausen 25.–​29.11. 1998), Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2001, 165 and pl. 43.4 [161–​73]. 98 As Schmalz (2009, 200–​1, no.  257)  points out, the term kedemonia (caretaking) is rare in Athenian honorific inscriptions, where we more typically see Romans honored for their arete. Kedemonia and eunoia (goodwill) in the inscription for the provincial governor Acceronius Proculus stress his civil rather than his military role. 99 IGB 319; Graindor 1927, 59–​61 no. 1 and 242–​3; Blanck 1969, no. B37; Keesling 2007, 152–​4; Shear 2007, 229–​33; Keesling 2010c, 311–​12; Krumeich 2010, 375–​6, no. A9. 100 Shear (2007, 231–​2) notes that “the latest reference to proxenoi at Athens belongs as the end of the second century B.C.,” but dates the Dionysios inscription to the first century bc.The Dionysios inscription may look different from the Aelius Gallus inscription because they were carved by different hands. 101 The signature of Kephisodotos appears on a reinscribed Pentelic base that originally supported a portrait pair (IG II2 4102; Korres 1994, MB 8; cf. Shear 2007, 225–​9, and Krumeich 2010, 373–​4, no. A7). Both this and another reinscribed base, this one with a signature of Mikion Pythogenous (IGB 313; Blanck 1969, no. B31; Krumeich 2010, 372–​3, no. A6) seem to show the names of the original portrait subjects written alongside the statues’ feet:  Archinos Phaniou Eleusinios and Phanomachos Phaniou Eleusinios (brothers?). Pace Shear and Krumeich, I  now see no compelling reason to link these two individuals with the Phanias whose name occurs in the deme Eleusis ca. 100 bc: Phanias, Archinos, and Phanomachos were all common names in Classical and Hellenistic Athens (cf. Keesling 2010c, 314–​16). The portrait by Mikion, reinscribed in honor of L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, is not likely to be the one mentioned by Favorinus in his speech. 102 S. E. Alcock, Graecia Capta:  The Landscapes of Roman Greece, Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1993, 198.

CONCLUSION: THE LIMITS OF REPRESENTATION

1 For Alexander as the new Herakles and Achilles, see Stewart 1993, 78–​86. 2 For the epigram, see A. Sens, Asclepiades of Samos: Epigrams and Fragments, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, 291–​300; cf. Stewart 1993, 22–​3.

279

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adornato, G. 2008. “Delphic Enigmas? The Γέλας ἀνάσσων, Polyzalos, and the Charioteer Statue,” AJA 112, 29–​55. Agócs, P., C. Carey, and R. Rawles, eds. 2012. Reading the Victory Ode, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ajootian, A. 1996. “Praxiteles,” in Palagia and Pollitt 1996, 91–​129. Ajootian, A. 2007. “Praxiteles and Fourth-​Century Athenian Portraiture,” in Schultz and von den Hoff 2007, 13–​33. Alcock, S. E., J. F. Cherry, and J. Elsner, eds. 2001. Pausanias, Travel and Memory in Roman Greece, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Amandry, P. 1949. “Notes de topographie et d’architecture delphiques, II. Le monument commémoratif de la victoire des Tarentins sur les Peucétiens,” BCH 73, 447–​63. Amandry, P. 1957. “À propos de Polyclète: Statues d’olympioniques et carrières de sculpteurs,” in K. Schauenburg, ed., Charites, Studien zur Altertumswissenschaft E.  Langlotz gewidmet, Bonn: Athenäum, 63–​87. Amandry, P. 1967–​8. “Thémistocle à Mélitè,” in Χαριστήριον εις Αναστάσιον Κ. Ορλάνδον, vol. IV, Athens: Athens Archaeological Society, 265–​79. Amandry, P. 1998. “Notes de topographie et d’architecture delphiques, X. Le ‘socle marathonien’ et le trésor des Athéniens,” BCH 122, 75–​90. Anderson, G. 2003. The Athenian Experiment: Building an Imagined Community in Ancient Attica, 508–​490 B.C., Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Anderson, J. K. 1963. “The Statue of Chabrias,” AJA 67, 411–​13. Arafat, K.W. 1996. Pausanias’ Greece,Ancient Artists and Roman Rulers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arnason, J. P., K. A. Raaflaub, and P. Wagner, eds. 2013. The Greek Polis and the Invention of Democracy, Malden, MA/​Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. Arnold, D. 1969. Die Polykletnachfolge: Untersuchungen zur Kunst von Argos und Sikyon zwischen Polyklet und Lysipp (JdI-​EH 25), Berlin: De Gruyter. Arrington, N. T. 2015. Ashes, Images, and Memories:  The Presence of the War Dead in Fifth-​ Century Athens, Oxford/​New York: Oxford University Press. Azoulay, V. 2009. “La gloire et l’outrage. Heurs et malheurs des statues honorifiques de Démétrios de Phalère,” Annales: Histoire, Sciences Sociales 64, 303–​40. Azoulay, V   ., and P. Ismard, eds. 2011. Clisthène et Lycurgue d’Athènes, autour du politique dans la cité classique (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-​Sorbonne, Histoire ancienne et médiévale 109), Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. Azoulay,V. 2014. Les tyrannicides d’Athènes, vie et mort de deux statues, Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Badian, E. 1987. “The Peace of Callias,” JHS 107, 1–​39. Barringer, J. M. 2005. “The Temple of Zeus at Olympia, Heroes, and Athletes,” Hesperia 74, 211–​41.

279

280

280

Selected Bi b l io g raphy

Barron, J. P. 1999. “Pythagoras’ Euthymos: Some Thoughts on Early Classical Portraits,” in R. Mellor and L. Tritle, eds., Text and Tradition: Studies in Greek History and Historiography in Honor of Mortimer Chambers, Claremont, CA: Regina Books, 37–​59. Baughan, E. P. 2011. “Sculpted Symposiasts of Ionia,” AJA 115, 19–​53. Baumbach, M., A. Petrovic, and I. Petrovic, eds. 2010a. Archaic and Classical Greek Epigram, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baumbach, M.,A. Petrovic, and I. Petrovic. 2010b.“Archaic and Classical Greek Epigram: An Introduction,” in Baumbach, Petrovic, and Petrovic 2010a, 1–​19. Bergemann, J. 1991. “Pindar: Das Bildnis eines konservativen Dichters,” AM 106, 157–​89. Bergemann, J. 1997. Demos und Thanatos:  Untersuchungen zum Wertsystem der Polis im Spiegel der attischen Grabreliefs des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. und zur Funktion der gleichzeitigen Grabbauten, Munich: Biering & Brinkmann. Bergemann, J. 2007.“Attic Grave Reliefs and Portrait Sculpture in Fourth-​Century Athens,” in Schultz and von den Hoff 2007, 34–​46. Blanck, H. 1969. Wiederverwendung alter Statuen als Ehrendenkmäler bei Griechen und Römern, Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Blok, J., and S. D. Lambert 2009. “The Appointment of Priests in Attic Gene,” ZPE 169, 95–​121. Blok, J. H., and A. P. M. H. Lardinois, eds. 2006. Solon of Athens: New Historical and Philological Approaches (Mnemosyne supp. 272), Leiden/​Boston: Brill. Bobou, O. 2008. “Private Sentiments in Public Places: Two Votive Groups from Epidauros,” in D. Kurtz, ed., Essays in Classical Archaeology for Eleni Hatzivassiliou, 1977–​2007 (BAR International Series 1976), Oxford: Beazley Archive and Archaeopress, 213–​19. Bobou, O. 2015. Children in the Hellenistic World:  Statues and Representation, Oxford/​ New York: Oxford University Press. Boedeker, D. 1996. “Heroic Historiography: Simonides and Herodotus on Plataea,” in D. Boedeker and D. Sider, eds., The New Simonides = Arethusa 29.2, 223–​42. Boedeker, D. 1998. “The New Simonides and Heroization at Plataia,” in N. Fisher and H. van Wees, eds., Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence, London: Duckworth/​ Classical Press of   Wales, 231–​49. Boedeker, D., and K. A. Raaflaub, eds. 1998. Democracy, Empire and the Arts in Fifth-​Century Athens, Cambridge, MA/​London: Harvard University Press. Boedeker, D., and D. Sider, eds., 2001. The New Simonides:  Contexts of Praise and Desire, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Boehringer, D. 1996. “Zur Heroisierung historischer Persönlichkeiten bei den Griechen,” in Flashar, Gehrke, and Heinrich 1996, 37–​61. Bohringer, F. 1979. “Cultes d’athlètes en Grèce classique: propos politiques, discours mythique,” RÉA 81, 5–​18. Bommelaer, J.-​ F. 1981. Lysandre de Sparte:  Histoire et traditions (BÉFAR 240), Athens/​ Paris: École française d’Athènes/​de Boccard. Borbein, A. H. 1973. “Die griechische Statue des 4.  Jhs. v.  Chr.:  Formanalytische Untersuchungen zur Kunst der Nachklassik,” JdI 88, 43–​212. Bravi, A. 2012. Ornamenta urbis: Opere d’arte greche negli spazi romani, Bari: Edipuglia. Breckenridge, J. D. 1969. Likeness:  A  Conceptual History of Ancient Portraiture, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. Bremmer, J. N. 2006.“The Rise of the Hero Cult and the New Simonides,” ZPE 158, 15–​26. Brunnsåker, S. 1971. The Tyrant-​Slayers of Kritios and Nesiotes: A Critical Study of the Sources and Restorations, 2nd edn, Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen.

281

Selected Bi b l io graphy

Buckler, J. 1972. “A Second Look at the Monument of Chabrias,” Hesperia 41, 466–​74. Bumke, H. 2004. Statuarische Gruppen in der frühen griechischen Kunst (JdI-​EH 32), Berlin/​ New York: De Gruyter. Burford, A. 1969. The Greek Temple Builders at Epidauros:  A  Social and Economic Study of Building in the Asklepian Sanctuary during the Fourth and Early Third Centuries B.C., Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Burnett, A. P., and C. N. Edmonson 1961. “The Chabrias Monument in the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 30, 74–​91. Carey, S. 2003. Pliny’s Catalogue of Culture, Art and Empire in the Natural History, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carlier, P. 1984. La royauté en Grèce avant Alexandre, Strasbourg: AECR. Carpenter,T. H. 1997. “Harmodios and Apollo in Fifth-​Century Athens: What’s in a Pose?,” in J. H. Oakley et al., eds., Athenian Potters and Painters, Oxford: Oxbow, 171–​80. Carter, J. C. 1983. The Sculpture of the Sanctuary of Athena Polias at Priene (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 42), London: Society of Antiquaries. Cartledge, P. A. 1987. Agesilaus and the Crisis of Sparta, Baltimore, MD:  Johns Hopkins University. Castriota, D. 1998. “Democracy and Art in Late Sixth-​and Fifth-​Century B.C. Athens,” in I. Morris and K. A. Raaflaub, eds., Democracy 2500? Questions and Challenges, Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt, 197–​216. Chamoux, F. 1989. “I monumenti equestri in Grecia,” in A. Melucco Vaccaro and A. M. Sommella, eds., Marco Aurelio: Storia di un monumento e del suo restauro, Milan: Silvano, 51–​62. Christesen, P. 2007. Olympic Victor Lists and Ancient Greek History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clay, D. 2004. Archilochos Heros: The Cult of Poets in the Greek Polis (Hellenic Studies 6), Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. Clinton, K. 1974. The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries, Philadelphia:  American Philosophical Society. Connelly, J. B. 2007. Portrait of a Priestess:  Women and Ritual in Ancient Greece, Princeton: Princeton University. Connolly, A. 1998. “Was Sophocles Heroised as Dexion?,” JHS 118, 1–​21. Corso, A. 1988–​91. Prassitele: Fonti epigrafiche e letterarie, vita e opera, 3 vols. (Xenia Quaderni 10), Rome: De Luca Edizioni d’Arte/​Leonardo-​De Luca Editori. Culley, G. R. 1975. “The Restoration of Sanctuaries in Attica: I.G., II2, 1035,” Hesperia 44, 207–​23. Currie, B. 2002. “Euthymos of Locri: A Case Study of Heroization in the Classical Period,” JHS 122, 24–​44. Currie, B. 2005. Pindar and the Cult of Heroes, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davies, J. K. 1996. “Documents and ‘Documents’ in Fourth-​Century Historiography,” in P. Carlier, ed., Le IVe siècle av. J.-​C.: Approches historiographiques, Nancy: ADRA, 29–​39. Davison, C. C., and B. Lundgreen 2009. Pheidias: The Sculptures and Ancient Sources, 3 vols. (BICS Supp.  105), London:  Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London. Day, J. W. 1994. “Interactive Offerings:  Early Greek Dedicatory Epigrams and Ritual,” HSCP 96, 37–​74. Day, J. W. 2000. “Epigram and Reader:  Generic Force as (Re-​)Activation of Ritual,” in Depew and Obbink 2000, 37–​57.

281

282

282

Selected Bi b l io g raphy

Day, J. W. 2010. Archaic Greek Epigram and Dedication:  Representation and Reperformance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Depew, M., and D. Obbink, eds. 2000. Matrices of Genre:  Authors, Canons, and Society, Cambridge, MA/​London: Harvard University Press. Despinis, G. I. 1995. “Studien zur hellenistischen Plastik I:  Zwei Künstlerfamilien aus Athen,” AM 110, 321–​72. Despinis, G. I. 2001. “Vermutungen zum Marathon-​Weihgeschenk der Athener in Delphi,” JdI 116, 103–​23. Dignas, B. 2003. “Rhodian Priests after the Synoecism,” Ancient Society 33, 35–​51. Dillon, S. 2000. “Subject Selection and Viewer Reception of Greek Portraits from Herculaneum and Tivoli,” JRA 13, 21–​40. Dillon, S. 2006. Ancient Greek Portrait Sculpture:  Contexts, Subjects, and Styles, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dillon, S. 2010. The Female Portrait Statue in the Greek World, Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press. Dörig, J. 1980. “Quelques remarques sur l’origine ionienne du portrait grec,” in R. A. Stucky and I. Jucker, eds., Eikones:  Studien zum griechischen und römischen Bildnis Hans Jucker zum sechszigsten Geburtstag gewidmet (AntK-​BH 12), Bern: Francke, 89–​95. Domingo Gygax, M. 2006. “Plutarch on Alcibiades’ Return to Athens,” Mnemosyne 59, 481–​500. Dontas, G. 1977. “Bemerkungen über einige attische Strategenbildnisse der klassischen Zeit,” in U. Hockmann and A. Krug, eds., Festschrift für Frank Brommer, Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 79–​92. Drerup, H. 1988. “Das Themistoklesporträt in Ostia,” in Fittschen 1988a, 286–​93. Dunst, G. 1972. “Archaische Inschriften und Dokumente der Pentekontaetie aus Samos,” AM 87, 99–​163. Duplouy, A. 2006. Le prestige des élites: Recherches sur les modes de reconnaissance sociale en Grèce entre les Xe et Ve siècles avant J.-​C., Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Eckstein, F. 1969. ΑΝΑΘΗΜΑΤΑ: Studien zu den Weihgeschenken strengen Stils im Heiligtum von Olympia, Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Edwards, C. M. 1996. “Lysippos,” in Palagia and Pollitt 1996, 130–​53. Eule, J. C. 2001. Hellenistische Bürgerinnen aus Kleinasien:  Weibliche Gewandstatuen in ihrem antiken Kontext, Istanbul: Tarih, Arkeoloji, Sanat ve Kültür Mirasini Koruma Vakfi. Fantuzzi, M., and R. Hunter 2004. Tradition and Innovation in Hellenistic Poetry, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Faraguna, M. 2011. “Lykourgan Athens?,” in Azoulay and Ismard 2011, 67–​86. Faure, P. 1985. “Les Dioscures à Delphes,” AntCl 54, 56–​65. Felten, F. 1982. “Weihungen in Olympia und Delphi,” AM 97, 79–​97. Felten, F. 1996. “Griechische Heiligtümer in hellenistischer Zeit,” in F. Blakolmer et  al., eds., Fremde Zeiten:  Festschrift für Jürgen Borchhardt zum sechzigsten Geburtstag, vol. II, Vienna: Phoibos, 139–​58. Ferrario, S. B. 2014. Historical Agency and the “Great Man” in Classical Greece, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Finkelberg, M. 2002. “Virtue and Circumstances: On the City-​State Concept of Arete,” AJP 123, 35–​49. Fittschen, K., ed. 1988a. Griechische Porträts, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Fittschen, K. 1988b. “Introduction,” in Fittschen 1988a, 1–​38. Flashar, M., H.-​J. Gehrke, and E. Heinrich, eds. 1996. Retrospektive: Konzepte von Vergangenheit in der griechisch-​römischen Antike, Munich: Biering & Brinkmann.

283

Selected Bi b l io graphy

Flower, H. I. 2006. The Art of Forgetting:  Disgrace and Oblivion in Roman Political Culture, Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. Fontenrose, J. 1968. “The Hero as Athlete,” CSCA 1, 74–​104. Fornara, C. W. 1970. “The Cult of Harmodios and Aristogeiton,” Philologus 114, 155–​80. Fornara, C. W. 1971. “Evidence for the Date of Herodotus’ Publication,” JHS 91, 25–​34. Franssen, J. 2011. Votiv und Repräsentation: Statuarische Weihungen archaischer Zeit aus Samos und Attika (Archäologie und Geschichte 13), Heidelberg: Archäologie und Geschichte. Freyer-​Schauenburg, B. 1974. Bildwerke der archaischen Zeit und des strengen Stils (Samos 11), Bonn: R. Habelt. Funke, P. 1983. “Konons Rückkehr nach Athen im Spiegel epigraphischer Zeugnisse,” ZPE 53, 149–​89. Funke, P. and N. Luraghi, eds. 2009. The Politics of Ethnicity and the Crisis of the Peloponnesian League (Center for Hellenic Studies), Cambridge, MA/​London: Harvard University Press. Furley,W. D. 1996. Andokides and the Herms: A Study of Crisis in Fifth-​Century Athenian Religion, London: Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London. Gabrielsen,V. 1997. The Naval Aristocracy of Hellenistic Rhodes, Aarhus: University Press. Gardner, P. 1898, “A Themistoclean Myth,” CR 12, 21–​3. Garland, R. 1992. Introducing New Gods: The Politics of Athenian Religion. London: Duckworth. Gauer,W. 1968a. “Die griechischen Bildnisse der klassischen Zeit als politische und personliche Denkmäler,” JdI 83, 118–​79. Gauer, W. 1968b. Weihgeschenke aus den Perserkriegen (IstMitt-​BH 2), Tübingen: E. Wasmuth. Gauthier, P. 1985. Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (BCH Suppl. 12), Athens/​Paris: École Française d’Athènes/​de Boccard. Gazda, E.K., ed. 2002. The Ancient Art of Emulation: Studies in Artistic Originality and Tradition from the Present to Classical Antiquity (MAAR supp. 1), Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Geagan, D. 1994.“Children in Athenian Dedicatory Monuments,” Boeotia Antiqua 4 (McGill University Monographs in Classical Archaeology and History 15), 163–​73. Geagan, D. 1996. “Who was Athena?,” in M. Dillon, ed., Religion in the Ancient World: New Themes and Approaches, Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 145–​64. Geagan, D. 2011. Inscriptions:  The Dedicatory Monuments (The Athenian Agora 18), Princeton: American School of Classical Studies. Geominy, W. 1998. “Zum Daochus-​Weihgeschenk,” Klio 80, 369–​402. Geominy,W. 2007. “The Daochos Monument at Delphi: The Style and Setting of a Family Portrait in Historic Dress,” in Schultz and von den Hoff 2007, 84–​98. Goette, H. R. 2009. “Images in the Athenian ‘Demosion Sema’,” in Palagia 2009, 188–​206. Gould, J. 2001. Myth, Ritual, Memory, and Exchange: Essays in Greek Literature and Culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Graindor, P. 1927. Athènes sous Auguste, Cairo: Impr. Misr. Grethlein, J. 2010. The Greeks and their Past, Poetry, Oratory and History in the Fifth Century BCE, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gross, W. H. 1969. “Quas iconicas vocant. Zum Porträtcharakter der Statuen dreimaliger olympischer Sieger,” in Fittschen 1988a, 359–​74. Gutzwiller, K. J., ed. 2005. The New Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haake, M., and M. Jung, eds. 2011. Griechische Heiligtümer als Erinnerungsorte, von der Archaik bis in den Hellenismus (Erträge einer internationalen Tagung in Münster, 20.-​21. Januar 2006), Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Habicht, C. 1961. “Falsche Urkunden zur Geschichte Athens im Zeitalter der Perserkriege,” Hermes 89, 1–​35.

283

284

284

Selected Bi b l io g raphy

Habicht, C. 1970. Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte, 2nd edn, Munich: C. H. Beck. Habicht, C. 1992–​8. “Sthennis,” Horos 10–​12, 21–​6. Habicht, C. 1998. Pausanias’ Guide to Ancient Greece, 2nd edn (Sather Classical Lectures 50), Berkeley-​Los Angeles: University of California Press. Habicht, C. 2000–​3. “Sthennis: Postscriptum,” Horos 14–​16, 125–​7. Hales, S., and T. Hodos, eds. 2010. Material Culture and Social Identities in the Ancient World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hallett, C. H. 1986. “The Origins of the Classical Style in Sculpture,” JHS 106, 71–​84. Hallett, C. H. 2005. The Roman Nude:  Heroic Portrait Statuary 200 B.C.–​ A.D. 300, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hansen, M. H. 1989. “Solonian Democracy in Fourth-​Century Athens,” ClMed 40, 71–​99. Harrell, S. E. 2002. “King or Private Citizen: Fifth-​Century Sicilian Tyrants at Olympia and Delphi,” Mnemosyne 55, 439–​64. Harris, D. 1992. “Bronze Statues on the Athenian Acropolis: The Evidence of a Lycurgan Inventory,” AJA 96, 637–​52. Harris, D. 1995. The T   reasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harrison, E. B. 1985. “Early Classical Sculpture:  The Bold Style,” in C. G. Boulter, ed., Greek Art, Archaic into Classical:  A  Symposium, University of Cincinnati, April 2–​3, 1982, Leiden: Brill, 40–​65. Harrison, E. B. 1996. “Pheidias,” in Palagia and Pollitt 1996, 16–​65. Harvey, D. 2004.“Herodotus Mythistoricus: Arion and the Liar? (1.23–​4),” in V. Karageorghis and I.Taifacos, eds., The World of Herodotus: Proceedings of an International Conference held at the Foundation Anastasios G. Leventis, Nicosia, September 18–​21, 2003, Nicosia: Foundation Anastasios G. Leventis, 287–​305. Hausmann, U. ed. 1977. Der Tübinger Waffenläufer (Tübinger Studien zur Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte 4), Tübingen: E. Wasmuth. Heckel, W. 2006. Who’s Who in the Age of Alexander the Great: Prosopography of Alexander’s Empire, Malden, MA/​Oxford: Blackwell. Hedrick, C. W., Jr. 1995. “Thucydides and the Beginnings of Archaeology,” in D. Small, ed., Methods in the Mediterranean, Leiden/​Boston: Brill, 45–​88. Hedrick, C. W., Jr. 1999. “Democracy and the Athenian Epigraphical Habit,” Hesperia 68, 387–​439. Heisserer, A. J. 1980. Alexander the Great and the Greeks: The Epigraphic Evidence, Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma. Henry, A. S. 1983. Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees: The Principal Formulae of Athenian Honorary Decrees, Hildesheim/​New York: G. Olms. Herda, A. 2006. Der Apollon-​Delphinios-​Kult in Milet und die Neujahrsprozession nach Didyma (Milesische Forschungen 4), Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Herman, G. 1989. “Nikias, Epimenides and the Question of Omissions in Thucydides,” CQ ns 39, 83–​93. Hermary, A. 1994. “Les noms de la statue chez Hérodote,” in M.-​Cl. Amouretti and P. Villard, eds., ΕΥΚΡΑΤΑ: Mélanges offerts à Claude Vatin, Aix-​en-​Provence: Université de Provence, 21–​9. Hermary, A. 2007. “L’offrande de la parienne Krinô à l’Artemis délienne,” in E. Semantoni-​ Bournia et  al. eds., Ἀμύμονα ἔργα:  Τιμητικός τόμος για τον καθηγητή Βασίλη Κ. Λαμπρινουδάκι (Archaiognosia supp. 5), Athens: Athens University School of Philosophy, 485–​93. Herrmann, H.-​V. 1988. “Die Siegerstatuen von Olympia,” Nikephoros 1, 119–​83.

285

Selected Bi b l io graphy

Herrmann, P. 1960. “Die Inschriften römischer Zeit aus dem Heraion von Samos,” AM 75, 68–​183. Higbie, C. 1999. “Craterus and the Use of Inscriptions in Ancient Scholarship,” TAPA 129, 43–​83. Himmelmann, N. 1990. Ideale Nacktheit in der griechischen Kunst (JdI-​EH 26), Berlin/​ New York: De Gruyter. Himmelmann, N. 1994. Realistische Themen in der griechischen Kunst der archaischen und klassischen Zeit, Berlin/​New York: De Gruyter. Himmelmann, N. 2001. Die private Bildnisweihung bei den Griechen, zu den Ursprüngen des abendländlischen Porträts, Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Hintzen-​Bohlen, B. 1990. “Die Familien-​Gruppe: Ein Mittel zur Selbstdarstellung hellenistischer Herrscher,” JdI 105, 129–​54. Hintzen-​Bohlen, B. 1997. Die Kulturpolitik des Eubulos und des Lykurg: Die Denkmäler-​und Bauprojekte in Athen zwischen 355 und 322 v. Chr., Berlin: Akademie. Hölscher, F. 2008. “Goldene Bildnis-​Statuen der athener Archonten?,” AM 123, 225–​34. Hölscher, T. 1973. Griechische Historienbilder des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Beiträge zur Archäologie 6), Würzburg: Triltsch. Hölscher, T. 1988. “Die Aufstellung der Perikles-​ Bildnisses und ihre Bedeutung,” in Fittschen 1988a, 377–​91. Hölscher, T. 1998a. “Images and Political Identity: The Case of Athens,” in Boedeker and Raaflaub 1998, 153–​83. Hölscher, T. 1998b. Öffentliche Räume in frühen griechischen Städten (Schriften der Philosophisch-​historischen Klasse der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften 7), Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter. Hölscher, T. 2011. “Myths, Images, and the Typology of Identities in Early Greek Art,” in E. S. Gruen, ed., Cultural Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 47–​65. Hornblower, S. 2004. Thucydides and Pindar, Historical Narrative and the World of Epinikian Poetry, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hornblower, S., and C. Morgan, eds. 2007. Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons, and Festivals: From Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Horster, M., and A. Klöckner, eds. 2012. Civic Priests:  Cult Personnel in Athens from the Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 58), Berlin: De Gruyter. Hurwit, J. M. 2015. Artists and Signatures in Ancient Greece, Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press. Hutton, W. E. 2005. Describing Greece: Landscape and Literature in the Periegesis of Pausanias, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hyde, W.   W. 1921. Olympic Victor Monuments and Greek Athletic Art,  Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution. Ioakimidou, C. 1997. Die Statuenreihen griechischer Poleis und Bünde aus spätarchaischer und klassischer Zeit (Quellen und Forschungen zur Antiken Welt 23), Munich: Tuduv. Ioakimidou, C. 2000.“Auch wir sind Griechen! Statuenreihen westgriechischer Kolonisten in Delphi und Olympia,” Nikephoros 13, 63–​94. Isager, J. 1991. Pliny on Art and Society,The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on the History of Art, London/​ New York: Routledge. Jacquemin, A. 1999. Offrandes monumentales à Delphes (BÉFAR 304), Athens/​Paris:  de Boccard.

285

286

286

Selected Bi b l io g raphy

Jacquemin, A., and D. Laroche 1999. “L’ephemère gloire de Daochos,” RÉG 112, x–​xi. Jacquemin,   A., and D. Laroche 2001. “Le monument de Daochos ou le trésor des Thessaliens,” BCH 125, 305–​32. Jameson, M. H. 1960. “A Decree of Themistokles from Troizen,” Hesperia 29, 198–​223. Jameson, M. H. 1961. “Waiting for the Barbarian: New Light on the Persian Wars,” GaR 8, 5–​18. Jameson, M. H. 1963. “The Provisions for Mobilization in the Decree of Themistokles,” Historia 12, 385–​404. Jex-​ Blake, K., and E. Sellers 1896. The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on the History of Art, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jung, M. 2006. Marathon und Plataiai. Zwei Perserschlachten als ‘lieux de mémoire’ im antiken Griechenland (Hypomnemata 164), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Kaczko, S. 2009. “From Stone to Parchment: Epigraphic and Literary Transmission of Some Greek Epigrams,” Trends in Classics 1, 90–​117. Kalogéropoulou, A.G. 1969. “Base en l’honneur de Démétrius de Phalère,” BCH 93, 56–​71. Keesling, C. M. 2003. The Votive Statues of the Athenian Acropolis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keesling, C. M. 2004.“The Hermolykos/​Kresilas Base and the Date of Kresilas of Kydonia,” ZPE 147, 79–​91. Keesling, C. M. 2005. “Misunderstood Gestures: Iconatrophy and the Reception of Greek Sculpture in the Roman Imperial Period,” ClAnt 24, 41–​79. Keesling, C. M. 2007. “Early Hellenistic Portrait Statues in Athens:  Survival, Reuse, Transformation,” in Schultz and von den Hoff 2007, 141–​60. Keesling, C. M. 2009. “Exemplary Animals: Greek Animal Statues and Human Portraiture,” in T. Fögen and M. M. Lee, eds., Bodies and Boundaries in Graeco-​Roman Antiquity, Berlin/​ New York: De Gruyter, 283–​309. Keesling, C. M. 2010a. “Athenian Sculpture in Transition:  Two Statue Bases Signed by Demetrios of Alopeke (IG, II2, 4895 and SEG, 12, 61),” in Reger, Ryan, and Winters 2010, 193–​205. Keesling, C. M. 2010b. “Finding the Gods: Greek and Cypriot Votive Korai Revisited,” in Mylonopoulos 2010, 87–​103. Keesling, C. M. 2010c. “The Hellenistic and Roman Afterlives of Dedications on the Athenian Akropolis,” in Krumeich and Witschel 2010, 303–​27. Keesling, C. M. 2012. “Syeris, Diakonos of the Priestess Lysimache on the Athenian Acropolis (IG II2 3464),” Hesperia 81, 467–​505. Kienast, H. J. 1992a. “Die Basis der Geneleos-​Gruppe,” AM 107, 29–​42. Kienast, H. J. 1992b. “Topographische Studien im Heraion von Samos,” AA, 171–​213. Kinney, D. 1997. “Spolia, Damnatio and Renovatio Memoriae,” MAAR 42, 117–​48. Kinney, D. and R. Brilliant, eds. 2011. Reuse Value:  Spolia and Appropriation in Art and Architecture, from Constantine to Sherrie Levine, Farnham: Ashgate. Kivilo, M. 2010. Early Greek Poets’ Lives: The Shaping of the Tradition, Leiden/​Boston: Brill. Korres, M. 1994. Study for the Restoration of the Parthenon, vol. IV, The West Wall of the Parthenon and Other Monuments, Athens: Ministry of Culture Committee for the Preservation of the Acropolis Monuments. Korres, M. 2000. “Αναθηματικά και τιμητικά τεθρίππα στην Αθήνα και τους Δελφούς,” in A. Jacquemin, ed., Delphes cent ans après la grande fouille: Essai de bilan (BCH supp. 36), Paris/​Athens: École Française d’Athènes/​de Boccard, 293–​329. Kosmetatou, E. 2003. “Reassessing IG II2 1498-​1501A: Kathairesis or Eksetasmos?,” Tyche 18, 33–​45.

287

Selected Bi b l io graphy

Kreilinger, U. 1997. “Τὰ ἀξιολογώτατα τοῦ Παυσανίου. Die Kunstauswahlkriterien des Pausanias,” Hermes 125, 470–​91. Kron, U. 1996. “Priesthoods, Dedications and Euergetism: What Part did Religion Play in the Political and Social Status of Greek Women?,” in P. Hellström and B. Alroth, eds., Religion and Power in the Ancient Greek World (Boreas 24), Uppsala:  S. Academiae Ubsaliensis, 139–​82. Krumeich, R. 1996.“Namensbeischrift oder Weihinscrift? Zum Fehlen des Miltiadesnamens bei Marathongemälde,” AA, 43–​51. Krumeich, R. 1997. Bildnisse griechischer Herrscher und Staatsmänner im 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr., Munich: Biering und Brinkmann. Krumeich, R. 2007. “Human Achievement and Divine Favor: The Religious Context of Early Hellenistic Portraiture,” in Schultz and von den Hoff 2007, 161–​80. Krumeich, R. 2008a. “Formen der statuarischen Repräsentation römischer Honoranden auf der Akropolis von Athen im späten Hellenismus und in der frühen Kaiserzeit,” in S. Vlizos, ed., Athens during the Roman Period: Recent Discoveries, New Evidence (Mouseio Benaki, 4th supp.), Athens: Benaki Museum, 353–​70. Krumeich, R. 2008b. “Vergegenwärtigung einer ‘grossen’ Vergangenheit. Zitate älterer Bildnisse und retrospektive Statuen berühmter Athener im Athen der römischen Kaiserzeit,” in K. Junker and A. Stähli, eds., Original und Kopie. Formen und Konzepte der Nachahmung in der antiken Kunst, Akten des Kolloquiums in Berlin, 17.–​19. Februar 2005, Wiesbaden: Reichert, 159–​175. Krumeich, R. 2010. “Vom klassischem Hintergrund. Zum Phänomen der Wiederver­ wendung älterer Statuen auf der Athener Akropolis als Ehrenstatuen für Römer,” in Krumeich and Witschel 2010, 329–​98. Krumeich, R. 2011. “Vom Krieger zum Konsul. Zwei frühklassische Weihgeschenke auf der Akropolis von Athen und ihre Weiterverwendung in der frühen Kaiserzeit,” in O. Pilz and M. Vonderstein, eds., Keraunia: Beiträge zu Mythos, Kult und Heiligtum in der Antike (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 298), Berlin: De Gruyter, 87–​104. Krumeich, R. and C. Witschel 2009. “Hellenistische Statuen in ihrem räumlichen Kontext: Das Beispiel der Akropolis und der Agora von Athen,” in A. Matthaei and M. Zimmermann, eds., Stadtbilder im Hellenismus, Berlin: Verlag Antike, 173–​226. Krumeich, R., and C. Witschel, eds. 2010. Die Akropolis von Athen im Hellenismus und in der römischen Kaiserzeit, Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kurke, L. 1991. The Traffic in Praise: Pindar and the Poetics of Social Economy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Kurke, L. 1993. “The Economy of Kudos,” in C. Dougherty and L. Kurke, eds., Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece:  Cult, Performance, Politics, Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 131–​63. Kurke, L. 1999. Coins, Bodies, Games, and Gold:  The Politics of Meaning in Archaic Greece, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kyle, D. B. 1987. Athletics in Ancient Athens (Mnemosyne supp. 95), Leiden: Brill. Kyriakou, P. 2007. “Epidoxon Kydos: Crown Victory and its Rewards,” ClMed 58, 119–​58. Kyrieleis, H. 1981. Führer durch das Heraion von Samos, Athens: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Kyrieleis, H. 1996. Der grosse Kuros von Samos (Samos 10), Bonn: R. Habelt. Lacroix, L. 1992. “À propos des offrandes à Apollon des Delphes et du témoignage de Pausanias, du réel à l’imaginaire,” BCH 116, 157–​76. Lahusen, G. 1983. Untersuchungen zur Ehrenstatue in Rom, Literarische und epigraphische Zeugnisse, Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider.

287

288

288

Selected Bi b l io g raphy

Lambert, S. D. 2010a. “Connecting with the Past in Lykourgan Athens:  An Epigraphic Perspective,” in L. Foxhall, H.-​J. Gehrke, and N. Luraghi, eds., Intentional History, Spinning Time in Ancient Greece, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 225–​38. Lambert, S. D. 2010b. “A Polis and its Priests:  Athenian Priesthoods Before and After Pericles’ Citizenship Law,” Historia 59, 143–​75. Lambert, S. D. 2011. “What was the Point of Inscribed Honorific Decrees in Classical Athens?,” in S.D. Lambert, ed., A Sociable Man: Essays in Ancient Greek Social Behaviour in Honour of Nick Fisher, Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 193–​214. Lambert, S. D. 2012. Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees 352/​1–​322/​1 B.C.:  Epigraphical Essays, Leiden/​Boston: Brill. Lapatin, K. D.  S. 2001. Chryselephantine Statuary in the Ancient Mediterranean World, Oxford: Oxford University Press. La Rocca, E. 2001. “La nuova immagine dei fori Imperiali: Appunti in margine agli scavi,” RM 108, 171–​213. Lawton, C. 1995. Attic Document Reliefs, Art and Politics in Ancient Athens, Oxford: Clarendon. Lawton, C. L. 2007.“Children in Classical Attic Votive Reliefs,” in A. Cohen and J. B. Rutter, eds., Constructions of Childhood in Ancient Greece and Italy (Hesperia supp. 41), Princeton: American School of Classical Studies, 41–​60. Lazzarini, M. L. 1976. Le formule delle dediche votive nella Grecia arcaica (MemLinc 19), Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Lazzarini, M. L. 1984–​5. “Epigrafia e statua ritratto: alcuni problemi,” Atti e Memorie dell’Academia Patavina 97, 83–​103. Le Bohec-​ Bouhet, S. 2002. “The Kings of Macedon and the Cult of Zeus,” in D. Ogden, ed., The Hellenistic World, New Perspectives, London:  Classical Press of Wales/​ Duckworth, 41–​57. Lehmann, S. 2003. “‘Der Mensch  –​Mass aller Dinge?’ Zur Deutung griechischer Athletenstatuen,” in M. Lämmer and B. Ränsch-​Trill, eds., Der ‘künstliche Mensch’: Eine sportwissenschaftliche Perspektive?, Sankt Augustin, Germany: Akademia, 17–​39. Lehmann, S. 2004. “Statuen griechischer Sieger,” in R. Wünsche and F. Knauss, eds., Lockender Lorbeer. Sport und Spiel in der Antike, Munich: Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptotek, 320–​35. Lewis, D. M. 1997a. Selected Papers in Greek and Near Eastern History, ed. P. J. Rhodes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, D. M. 1997b. “Who was Lysistrata?,” in Lewis 1997a, 187–​202. Lewis, D. M. and R. S. Stroud 1979. “Athens Honors King Euagoras of Salamis,” Hesperia 48, 180–​93. Liddel, P. 2003. “The Places of Publication of Athenian State Decrees from the 5th Century B.C. to the 3rd Century A.D.,” ZPE 143, 79–​93. Lippolis, E. 1988–​9. “Il santuario di Athana a Lindo,” ASAtene 66–​7, 97–​157. Löhr, C. 1993. “Die Statuenbasen im Amphiareion von Oropos,” AM 108, 183–​212. Löhr, C. 2000. Griechische Familienweihungen:  Untersuchungen einer Repräsentationsform von ihren Anfängen bis zum Ende des 4. Jhs. v. Chr. (Internationale Archäologie 54), Rahden, Westphalia: Marie Leidorf. Lombardi, P. 2009. “Ἀναθέτω ἐν τὸ ἱερόν: Esempi di regolamentazione della dedica votive nel mondo greco,” in J. Bodel and M. Kajava, eds., Religious Dedications in the Greco-​Roman World:  Distribution, Typology, Use (ActaInstRomFin 35), Rome:  Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 95–​126. Ma. J. 2006. “A Gilt Statue for Konon at Erythrai?,” ZPE 157, 124–​6.

289

Selected Bi b l io graphy

Ma, J. 2007a. “Hellenistic Honorific Statues and their Inscriptions,” in Newby and Leader-​ Newby 2007, 203–​20. Ma, J. 2007b. “Notes on Honorific Statues at Oropos (and Elsewhere),” ZPE 160, 89–​96. Ma, J. 2012. “Honorific Statues and Hellenistic History,” in C. Smith and L. M.Yarrow, eds., Imperialism, Cultural Politics, and Polybius, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 230–​51. Ma, J. 2013a. “The History of Hellenistic Honorific Statues,” in P. Martzavou and N. Papazarkadas, eds., Epigraphical Approaches to the Post-​ Classical Polis, Fourth Century B.C. to Second Century A.D. (Oxford Studies in Ancient Documents), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 165–​81. Ma, J. 2013b. Statues and Cities: Honorific Portraits and Civic Identity in the Hellenistic World, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Malkin, I. 1987. Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece (Studies in Greek and Roman Religion 3), Leiden/​New York: Brill. Mantis, A. 1990. Προβλήματα της εικονογραφίας των ιερείων και των ιερειών στην αρχαία ελληνική τέχνη, Athens: Archaeological Receipts Fund. Marvin, M. 2008. The Language of the Muses,The Dialogue between Roman and Greek Sculpture, Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum. Masson, O. and J.Yoyotte 1988. “Une inscription ionienne mentionnant Psammétique Ier,” EpigAnat 11, 171–​9. Matthaiou, A. P. 2003. “‘Ἀθηναίοισι τεταγμένοισι ἐν τεμένεϊ Ὴρακλέος’ (Hdt. 6.108.1),” in P. Derow and R. Parker, eds., Herodotus and his World: Essays from a Conference in Memory of George Forrest, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 190–​202. Mattusch, C. C. 1988. Greek Bronze Statuary from the Beginnings through the Fifth Century B.C., Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Mattusch, C. C., ed. 1996a. The Fire of Hephaistos: Large Classical Bronzes from North American Collections, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Art Museums. Mattusch, C. C. 1996b. Classical Bronzes: The Art and Craft of Greek and Roman Statuary, Ithaca, NY/​London: Cornell University Press. Mattusch, C. C. 1996c. “The Preferred Medium: The Many Lives of Classical Bronzes,” in Mattusch 1996a, 15–​43. Mattusch, C. C. 1997. The Victorious Youth, Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum. Mattusch, C. C., A. Brauer, and S. E. Knudsen, eds. 2000. From the Parts to the Whole, vol. I (JRA supp. 39), Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Melfi, M. 2007. I santuari di Asclepio in Grecia, vol. I, Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Metzler, D. 1971. Porträt und Gesellschaft über die Entstehung der griechischen Porträts in der Klassik, Münster: E. Wasmuth. Meyer, E. A. 1993. “Epitaphs and Citizenship in Classical Athens,” JHS 113, 99–​121. Meyer, E. A. 2013. “Inscriptions as Honors and the Athenian Epigraphic Habit,” Historia 62, 453–​505. Mikalson, J. D. 1998. Religion in Hellenistic Athens, Berkeley-​Los Angeles:  University of California Press. Miles, M. M. 1998. The City Eleusinion (The Athenian Agora 31), Princeton:  American School of Classical Studies. Miles, M. M. 2008. Art as Plunder:  The Ancient Origins of Debate about Cultural Property, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mitchell, B. M. 1975. “Herodotus and Samos,” JHS 95, 75–​91. Mitchell, L. G. 2012. “The Women of Ruling Families in Archaic and Classical Greece,” CQ ns 62, 1–​21.

289

290

290

Selected Bi b l io g raphy

Mitchell, L. G. 2013. The Heroic Rulers of Archaic and Classical Greece, London: Bloomsbury. Mitchell, L., and L. Rubinstein, eds. 2009. Greek History and Epigraphy: Essays in Honour of P. J. Rhodes, Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Möller, A. 2001. “The Beginning of Chronography: Hellanicus’ Hiereiai,” in N. Luraghi, ed., The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 241–​62. Moles, J. 1999. “Ἀνάθημα καὶ κτῆμα:  The Inscriptional Inheritance of Ancient Historiography,” Histos 3, 27–​69. Moreno, P. 1995. Lisippo: L’arte e la fortuna, Milan: Fabbri. Moretti, L. 1987. “Nuovo supplemento al catalogo degli olympionikai,” Miscellanea greca e romana 12, 67–​91. Morgan, K. A. 1994. “Socrates and Gorgias at Delphi and Olympia:  Phaedrus 235d6–​ 236b4,” CQ ns 44, 375–​86. Morris, I. 1994. “Everyman’s Grave,” in A. L. Boegehold and A. C. Scafuro, eds., Athenian Identity and Civic Ideology, Baltimore/​London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 67–​101. Morris, I. 2000. Archaeology as Cultural History: Words and Things in Iron Age Greece, Malden, MA/​Oxford: Blackwell. Mylonopoulos, J., ed. 2010. Divine Images and Human Imaginations in Ancient Greece and Rome (Religions in the Graeco-​Roman World 170), Leiden/​Boston: Brill. Nakassis, D. 2011. “Athens, Kylon, and the Dipolieia,” GRBS 51, 363–​81. Neer, R. 2010. The Emergence of the Classical Style in Greek Sculpture, Chicago/​ London: University of Chicago Press. Newby, Z. 2005. Greek Athletics in the Roman World:  Victory and Virtue, Oxford:  Oxford University Press. Newby, Z., and R. Leader-​Newby, eds. 2007 Art and Inscriptions in the Ancient World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nielsen,T. H. 2007. Olympia and the Classical Hellenic City-​State Culture (Historisk-​filosofiske Meddelelser 96), Copenhagen: Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters. Nollé, J. 1996. “Themistokles in Magnesia: Über der Anfänge der Mentalität, das eigene Porträt auf Münzen zu setzen,” SNR 75, 5–​25. Noussia-​Fantuzzi, M. 2010. Solon the Athenian: The Poetic Fragments (Mnemosyne supp. 326), Leiden/​Boston: Brill. Oliver, A. 1996. “Honors to Romans: Bronze Portraits,” in Mattusch 1996a, 138–​60. Oliver, G. J. 2007. “Space and the Visualization of Power in the Greek Polis: The Award of Portrait Statues in Decrees from Athens,” in Schultz and von den Hoff 2007, 181–​204. Orphanou-​Phlorake, B. 2000–​3. “Πραξιτέλης ἐποίησε,” Horos 14–​16, 113–​17. Osborne, R., ed. 2007. Debating the Athenian Cultural Revolution: Art, Literature, Philosophy, and Politics 430–​380 B.C., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palagia, O. 2006. “Classical Athens,” in O. Palagia, ed., Greek Sculpture: Function, Materials, and Techniques in the Archaic and Classical Periods, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 119–​62. Palagia, O. ed. 2009. Art in Athens during the Peloponnesian War, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palagia, O. 2010. “Pheidias epoiesen:  Attribution as Value Judgment,” BICS supp. 104, 97–​107. Palagia, O. and and J. J. Pollitt, eds. 1996. Personal Styles in Greek Sculpture (YCS 30), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palagia, O., and S. V   . Tracy, eds. 2003. The Macedonians in Athens, 322–​229 B.C. (Proceedings of an International Conference held at the University of Athens, May 24–​26, 2001), Oxford: Oxbow.

291

Selected Bi b l io graphy

Pandermalis, D. 1969. Untersuchungen zu den klassischen Strategenköpfen (Diss. Freiburg im Breisgau), Berlin: E. Wasmuth. Parker, R. 1996. Athenian Religion: A History, Oxford: Clarendon. Parker, R. 2005. Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pasquier, A., and J.-​L. Martinez, eds. 2007. Praxitèle (Exhibition Paris, Musée du Louvre, 23 mars–​18 juin 2007), Paris: Somogy. Pébarthe, C. 2006. Cité, démocratie, et écriture: Histoire de l’alphabétisation d’Athènes à l’époque classique, Paris: de Boccard. Peek, W. 1969. Inschriften aus dem Asklepieion von Epidauros (AbhLeip 60.2), Berlin: Akademie. Perrin-​Saminadayar, É. 2004. “Aere perennius: Remarques sur les commandes publiques de portraits en l’honneur des grands hommes à Athènes à l’époque hellénistique: modalities, statut, reception,” in Y. Perrin and T. Petit, eds., Iconographie imperial, iconographie royale, iconographie des élites dans le monde gréco-​romain, St.-​Etienne: Publications de l’Université de Saint-​Etienne, 109–​37. Petrakos, B. C. 1968. Ὁ Ὠρωπὸς καὶ τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ Ἀμφιαράου (βιβλιοθήκη τῆς ἐν Ἀθηναῖς Ἀρχαιολογικὴς Ἐταιρεῖας 63), Athens: Athens Archaeological Society. Petrovic, A. 2009. “Epigrammatic Contests, poeti vaganti, and Local History,” in R. Hunter and I. Rutherford, eds., Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 195–​216. Pfaff, C. A. 2003. The Argive Heraion , vol. I. The Architecture of the Classical Temple of Hera , Princeton: American School of Classical Studies. Pfuhl, E. 1988. “Die Anfänge der griechischen Bildniskunst: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Individualität,” in Fittschen 1988a, 224–​52. Platt, V. 2007. “ ‘Honour Takes Wing’: Unstable Images and Anxious Orators in the Greek Tradition,” in Newby and Leader-​Newby 2007, 247–​71. Pollitt, J. J. 1978. “The Impact of Greek Art on Rome,” TAPA 108, 155–​74. Pomeroy, S. B. 1997. Families in Classical and Hellenistic Greece: Representations and Realities, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pouilloux, J. 1994. “Théogénès de Thasos … quarante ans après,” BCH 118, 199–​206. Pretzler, M. 2005. “Pausanias and Oral Tradition,” CQ 55, 235–​49. Prignitz, S. 2014. Bauurkunden und Bauprogramm von Epidauros (400–​350):  Asklepiostempel, Tholos, Kultbild, Brunnenhaus, Munich: C. H. Beck. Pritchard, D. M. 2013. Sport, Democracy and War in Classical Athens, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pritchett, W. K. 1993. The Liar School of Herodotos, Amsterdam: Gieben. Prost, F. 1998. “Notes de sculpture grecque: La barbe du Cavalier Rampin,” Topoi 8, 9–​29. Purvis, A. 2003. Singular Dedications: Founders and Innovators of Private Cults in Classical Greece, New York/​London: Routledge. Queyrel, F. 2003. Les portraits des Attalides: Fonction et representation (BÉFAR 308), Athens/​ Paris: École Française d’Athènes/​de Boccard. Raftopoulou, E. 2000. Figures enfantines du Musée National d’Athènes, Département des Sculptures, Athens: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Raubitschek, A. E. 1939. “Leagros,” Hesperia 8, 155–​64. Raubitschek, A. E. 1939–​40. “Early Attic Votive Monuments,” BSA 40, 17–​37. Rausa, F. 1994. L’immagine del vincitore: L’atleta nella statuaria greca dall’età arcaica all’ ellenismo, Treviso/​Rome: Fondazione Benetton/​Viella. Reger, G., F. X. Ryan, and T. F. Winters, eds. 2010. Studies in Greek Epigraphy and History in Honor of Stephen V.Tracy (Ausonius Études 26), Bordeaux: Ausonius.

291

292

292

Selected Bi b l io g raphy

Rhodes, P. J. 1981. A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia, Oxford: Clarendon. Rhodes, P. J. 1993. “‘Alles eitel Gold?’ The Sixth and Fifth Centuries in Fourth-​Century Athens,” in M. Piérart, ed., Aristote et Athènes/​Aristoteles and Athens, Fribourg (Suisse) 23–​25 mai 1991, Fribourg: Séminaire d’histoire ancienne de l’Université de Fribourg, 53–​64. Richer, N. 1994. “Aspects des funérailles à Sparte,” Cahiers de Centre G. Glotz, Revue d’Histoire Ancienne 5, 51–​96. Richter, G. M. A. 1961–​2. “The Greek Portraits of the Fifth Century B.C.,” RendPontAcc 34, 37–​57. Richter, G. M. A. 1965. The Portraits of the Greeks, 3 vols., London: Phaidon. Richter, G. M. A. 1971. “New Signatures of Greek Sculptors,” AJA 75, 434–​5. Ridgway, B. S. 1984. Roman Copies of Greek Sculpture: The Problem of the Originals (Jerome Lectures, 15th series), Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Ridgway, B. S. 1990. Hellenistic Sculpture, vol. I, The Styles of ca. 331–​200 B.C., Madison: University of Wisconsin. Ridgway, B. S. 1993. The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture, 2nd edn, Chicago: Ares. Ridgway, B. S. 1997. Fourth-​ Century Styles in Greek Sculpture, Madison:  University of Wisconsin. Ridgway, B. S. 1998. “An Issue of Methodology:  Anakreon, Perikles, Xanthippos,” AJA 102, 717–​38. Rose, C. B. 1997. Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio-​Claudian Period, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rosenmeyer, P. 1992. The Poetics of Imitation:  Anacreon and the Anacreontic Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rouse, W. H.  D. 1902. Greek Votive Offerings:  An Essay in the History of Greek Religion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rühfel, H. 1984. Das Kind in der griechischen Kunst von der minoisch-​mykenischen Zeit bis zum Hellenismus, Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Rutledge, S. H. 2012. Ancient Rome as a Museum: Power, Identity, and the Culture of Collecting, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sansone, D. 1991. “Cleobis and Biton in Delphi,” Nikephoros 4, 121–​32. Scafuro, A. C. 2009. “The Crowning of Amphiaraos,” in Mitchell and Rubinstein 2009, 59–​86. Schäfer, H. 1957. “Das Eidolon des Leonidas,” in Charites: Studien zur Altertumswissenschaft E. Langlotz gewidmet, Bonn: Athenäum, 223–​33. Schäfer, M. 2002. Zwischen Adelsethos und Demokratie: Archäologische Quellen zu den Hippeis im archaischen und klassischen Athen, Munich: Tuduv. Schäfer, T. 1997. Andres Agathoi: Studien zum Realitätsgehalt der Bewaffnung attischer Krieger auf Denkmälern klassischer Zeit (Quellen und Forschungen zur antiken Welt 27), Munich: Tuduv. Schanz, H. L. 1980. Greek Sculptural Groups: Archaic and Classical, New York: Garland. Schmalz, G. C.  R. 2009. Augustan and Julio-​ Claudian Athens:  A  New Epigraphy and Prosopography (Mnemosyne supp. 302), Leiden/​Boston: Brill. Schmidt-​Dounas, B. 1989. “Παρατηρήσεις σχετικά με την αναθέση βασιλικών ανδριάντων της ελληνιστικής εποχής,” Egnatia 1, 101–​27. Schörner, G. 2003. Votive im römischen Griechenland: Untersuchungen zur späthellenistischen und kaiserzeitlichen Kunst-​und Religionsgeschichte (Altertumswissenschaftliches Kolloquium 7), Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Schultz, P. 2007a. “Leochares’ Argead Portraits in the Philippeion,” in Schultz and von den Hoff 2007, 205–​33.

293

Selected Bi b l io graphy

Schultz, P. 2007b. “Style and Agency in an Age of T   ransition,” in Osborne 2007, 144–​87. Schultz, P. 2009. “Divine Images and Royal Ideology in the Philippeion at Olympia,” in J. T. Jensen et al., eds., Aspects of Ancient Greek Cult: Context, Ritual and Iconography (Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity 8), Aarhus/​Oakville, CT: Aarhus University Press/​ Oxbow, 125–​93. Schultz, P., and R. von den Hoff 2007. Early Hellenistic Portraiture:  Image, Style, Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schweitzer, B. 1963. “Studien zur Entstehung des Porträts bei den Griechen,” in Zur Kunst der Antike (Ausgewählte Schriften II), Tübingen: E. Wasmuth, 115–​67. Scott, M. 2010. Delphi and Olympia:  The Spatial Politics of Panhellenism in the Archaic and Classical Periods, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sens, A. 2005. “The Art of Poetry and the Poetry of Art:  The Unity and Poetics of Posidippus’ Statue-​Poems,” in Gutzwiller 2005, 206–​25. Serwint, N. 1987. Greek Athletic Sculpture from the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.:  An Iconographic Study (Diss. Princeton University). Shapiro, H. A. 2001. “Zum Wandel der attischen Gesellschaft nach den Perserkriegen,” in D. Papenfuss and V. M. Strocka, eds., Gab es das griechische Wunder? Griechenland zwischen dem Ende des 6. und der Mitte des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 91–​8. Shapiro, H. A. 2009. “Alcibiades: The Politics of Personal Style,” in Palagia 2009, 236–​63. Shapiro, H. A. 2012. Re-​fashioning Anakreon in Classical Athens (Morphomata Lectures Cologne 2), Munich: Wilhelm Fink. Shear, J. L. 2007. “Reusing Statues, Rewriting Inscriptions and Bestowing Honours in Roman Athens,” in Newby and Leader-​Newby 2007, 221–​46. Shear, J. L. 2011. Polis and Revolution:  Responding to Oligarchy in Classical Athens, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shipley, G. 1987. A History of Samos, 800–​188 B.C., Oxford: Clarendon. Sichtermann, H. 1988. “Der Themistokles von Ostia, Seine Wirkung in fünfundzwanzig Jahren,” in Fittschen 1988a, 302–​36. Sickinger, J. P. 1994. “Inscriptions and Archives in Classical Athens,” Historia 43, 286–​96. Siewert, P. 1992. “The Olympic Rules,” in W. Coulson and H. Kyrieleis, eds., Proceedings of an International Symposium on the Olympic Games, 5–​9 September 1988, Athens: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 113–​17. Smith, R. R. R. 1988. Hellenistic Royal Portraits, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Smith, R. R. R. 2007. “Pindar, Athletes, and the Early Greek Statue Habit,” in Hornblower and Morgan 2007, 83–​139. Solin, H., O. Salomies, and U.-​M. Liertz, eds. 1995. Acta Colloquii Epigraphici Latini, Helsingiae 3.–​6. Sept. 1991 habiti, Helsinki: Societas Scientarum Fennica. Spawforth, A. J. S. 2012. Greece and the Augustan Cultural Revolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Steiner, D. T. 1998. “Moving Images: Fifth-​Century Victory Monuments and the Athlete’s Allure,” ClAnt 17, 123–​50. Steiner, D.  T. 2001. Images in Mind: Statues in Archaic and Classical Greek Literature and Thought, Princeton: Princeton University. Stemmer, K., ed. 1995. Standorte: Kontext und Funktion antiker Skulptur, Berlin: Freunde und Förderer der Abguss-​Sammlung antiker Plastik E.V. Stevens, G. P. 1946. “The Northeast Corner of the Parthenon,” Hesperia 15, 1–​26. Stewart, A. 1979. Attika: Studies in Athenian Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age, London: Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies. Stewart, A. 1990. Greek Sculpture: An Exploration, New Haven/​London:Yale University Press.

293

294

294

Selected Bi b l io g raphy

Stewart, A. 1993. Faces of Power:  Alexander’s Image and Hellenistic Politics, Berkeley-​Los Angeles: University of California. Stewart, A. 2005. “Posidippus and the Truth in Sculpture,” in Gutzwiller 2005, 183–​205. Stewart, A. 2007. “Alexander, Philitas, and the Skeletos:  Poseidippos and Truth in Early Hellenistic Portraiture,” in Schultz and von den Hoff 2007, 123–​38. Stewart, A. 2012. “Hellenistic Free-​ Standing Sculpture from the Athenian Agora, Part 2: Demeter, Kore, and the Polykles Family,” Hesperia 81, 655–​89. Stewart, P. 2003. Statues in Roman Society:  Representation and Response, Oxford:  Oxford University Press. Studniczka, F. 1988.“Die Anfänge der griechischen Bildniskunst,” in Fittschen 1988a, 253–​66. Taeuber, H. 1997. “Ein Inschriftenfragment des Pulydamas-​Basis von Olympia,” Nikephoros 10, 235–​43. Tanner, J. J. 1992. “Art as Expressive Symbolism: Civic Portraits in Classical Athens,” CAJ 2, 167–​90. Tanner, J. 1999. “Culture, Social Structure, and the Status of Visual Artists in Classical Greece,” PCPhS 45, 136–​75. Tanner, J. 2006. The Invention of Art History in Ancient Greece: Religion, Society, and Artistic Rationalisation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Themelis, P. 1979. “Contribution à l’étude de l’ex-​voto delphique de Daochos,” BCH 103, 507–​20. Thomas, R. 1989. Oral T   radition andWritten Record in Classical Athens, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Threpsiades, J., and E.Vanderpool 1964. “Themistocles’ Sanctuary of Artemis Aristoboule,” ArchDelt 19A, 26–​36. Todisco, L. 1993. Scultura greca del IV secolo: Maestri e scuole di statuaria tra classicità ed ellenismo, Milan: Longanesi. Tomlinson, R. A. 1983. Epidauros, Austin: University of Texas. Tracy, S. V. 1995. Athenian Democracy in Transition:  Attic Letter-​Cutters of 340 to 290 B.C., Berkeley-​Los Angeles: University of California. Tracy, S.V. 2008. “The Statue Bases of Praxiteles Found in Athens,” ZPE 167, 27–​32. Tuchelt, K. 1970. Die archaischen Skulpturen von Didyma (IstForsch 27), Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Tuchelt, K. 1979. Frühe Denkmäler Roms in Kleinasien , vol. I. Roma und Promagistrate (IstMitt 23), Tübingen: E. Wasmuth. Tuchelt, K., et al. 1996. Ein Kultbezirk an der Heiligen Strasse von Milet nach Didyma (Didyma 3/​1), Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Tzifopoulos, Y. Z. 1993. “Mummius’ Dedications at Olympia and Pausanias’ Attitude to the Romans,” GRBS 30, 93–​100. Tzifopoulos, Y. Z. 2013. “Inscriptions as Literature in Pausanias’ Exegesis of Hellas,” in P. Liddel and P. Low, eds., Inscriptions and their Uses in Greek and Latin Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 149–​65. Varner, E. R. 2004. Mutilation and Transformation: Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture, Leiden/​Boston: Brill. Vernant, J.-​P. 1991. Mortals and Immortals: Collected Essays, ed. F. I. Zeitlin, Princeton: Princeton University. Veyne, P. 1962. “Les honneurs posthumes de Flavia Domitilla et les dédicaces grecques et latines,” Latomus 21, 49–​98. Vidal-​Naquet, P. 1986. “An Enigma at Delphi: The Marathon Base (Pausanias 10.10.1–​2),” in The Black Hunter: Forms of Thought and Forms of Society in the Greek World, trans. A. Szegedy-​Maszak, Baltimore/​London: Johns Hopkins University, 302–​24.

295

Selected Bi b l io graphy

Vlad Borrelli, L., and P. Pelagatti, eds. 1984. Due bronzi da Riace: Rinvenimento, restauro, analisi e ipotesi di interpretazione, 2 vols. (BdA serie speciale 3), Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. von den Hoff, R. 1994. Philosophenporträts des Früh-​und Hochhellenismus, Munich: Biering & Brinkmann. von den Hoff, R. 2003. “Tradition and Innovation: Portraits and Dedications on the early Hellenistic Akropolis,” in Palagia and Tracy 2003, 173–​85. von den Hoff, R. 2007.   “Naturalism and Classicism: Style and Perception of Early Hellenistic Portraits,” in Schultz and von den Hoff 2007, 49–​62. von den Hoff, R. 2008. “Images and Prestige of Cult Personnel in Athens between the Sixth and the First Centuries B.C.,” in B. Dignas and K. Trampedach, eds., Practitioners of the Divine:  Greek Priests and Religious Officials from Homer to Heliodorus, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 107–​41. von den Hoff, R., and S. Schmidt, eds. 2001. Konstruktionen von Wirklichkeit:  Bilder im Griechenland des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. von Thüngen, S. Freifrau 1994. Die frei stehende griechische Exedra, Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Vorster, C. 1983. Griechische Kinderstatuen, Berlin: E. Wasmuth. Voutiras, E. 1980. Studien zu Interpretation und Stil griechischer Porträts des 5.  und frühen 4. Jahrhunderts (Diss. Bonn), Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-​Wilhelms-​Universität. Wallace, S. 2011. “The Significance of Plataia for Greek Eleutheria in the Early Hellenistic Period,” in A. Erskine and L. Llewellyn-​ Jones, eds., Creating a Hellenistic World, Swansea: Classical Press of   Wales, 147–​76. Walter-​Karydi, E. 1985. “Geneleos,” AM 100, 91–​104. Waywell, G. B. 1993.“The Ada, Zeus and Idrieus Relief from Tegea in the British Museum,” in O. Palagia and W. Coulson, eds., Sculpture from Arcadia and Laconia: Proceedings of an International Conference held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, April 10–​14, 1992 (Oxbow Monograph 30), Oxford: Oxbow, 79–​86. Welter, G. 1941. Troizen und Kalaureia, Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Whitehead, D. 1993. “‘Cardinal’ Virtues:  The Language of Public Approbation in Democratic Athens,” ClMed 44, 37–​76. Whitmarsh, T. 2010. “Thinking Local,” in T. Whitmarsh, ed., Local Knowledge and Microidentities in the Imperial Greek World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–​16. Wörrle, M. and P. Zanker, eds. 1995. Stadtbild und Bürgerbild im Hellenismus, Kolloquium München 1993 (Vestigia 47), Munich: C. H. Beck. Wycherley, R. E. 1957. Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia (The Athenian Agora 3). Princeton: American School of Classical Studies. Yunis, H., ed. 2003. Written Texts and the Rise of Literate Culture in Ancient Greece, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zanker, P. 1995. The Mask of Socrates: The Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity, trans. H. A. Shapiro (Sather Classical Lectures 59), Berkeley-​Los Angeles: University of California. Zevi, F. 1969–​70. “Tre iscrizioni con firme di artisti greci,” RendPontAcc 42, 95–​116. Zizza, C. 2006. Le iscrizioni nella Periegesi di Pausania, Commento ai testi epigrafici (Studi e testi di storia antica diretti da Mauro Moggi 16), Pisa: Edizioni ETS.

295

296

INDEX

Page numbers in italics are figures; with ‘n’ are notes; with ‘t’ are tables. Acanthus Column 110 Acceronius Proculus, Gnaeus 211–12, 212f. 63, 212f. 64, 213 Achaian dedication at Olympia 93 Acropolis, Athenian 28, 119, 140 Anacreon of Teos 119, 155–57, 156f. 48 Athena Nike temple 37, 38f. 9 athletes 138–39 family groups 135–37 korai/​male figures 119–24, 121f. 35, 122f. 36 reinscription/​renewal/​reuse 203–14, 208f. 61, 209f. 62, 212f. 63, 212f. 64, 214f. 65, 216 warriors/​strategoi/​fathers and sons 124–35, 125f. 38, 126f. 39, 127f. 40, 128f. 41, 129f. 42, 131f. 43, 132f. 44, 133f. 45, 134f. 46 Ada 63–64, 64f. 13 Adornato, Gianfranco 100 Aelius Gallus, Gaius 213–14, 214f. 65 Aeschines 6, 153, 159, 160f. 49 on Miltiades 171 on Solon 159 Aeschylus 53–54, 154 agalma 41, 43 Herodotus use of term 41, 43, 56 Agamemnon (Aeschylus) 53–54 age in portraits, advanced 55, 74, 75, 76–77, 77f. 19, 80 Ageladas (Hageladas/​Hagelaides) 84–86, 102 Agesipolis of Sparta 63, 112 aggelia 89 agon 99 Agrippa monument 205

296

Ahenobarbus 189 Aiakes 257n. 89 Aigospotamoi statue group 101, 104–8, 106f. 27., 107f. 28., 218, 219 Alcibiades 32, 33, 49, 118, 169 paintings of 139 removal of portrait 184, 189 Alcock, Susan 215 Aleuadai of Larissa 111 Alexander I 55, 62 golden statue at Delphi 41, 42–43, 57t. 1, 62 Alexander III (the Great) 24, 61, 94–95, 96, 217–18 and Krateros 112 Alkainetos of Elean Lepreon family group 87 Alkimachos 121–22, 123f. 37 Alkmeonides 261n. 142 Alkmeonid curse 163–64 alphabets 37 Amandry, Pierre 83, 86 Amasis 41, 57, 57t. 1 Amphiareion at Oropos 202–3, 204f. 60 Amphictyons, Skyllis and Hydna at Delphi 167–69, 184 anachronisms damnatio memoriae 49–51 gradations of honor 45 Isokrates and Pindar 74 in late literary sources 44 nicknames/​duplicates in Pliny 48–49 restrictions on portraits 45–47 subject categories 44–45 victor portraits 47–48

297

297

I ndex

Anacreon of Teos 119, 155–57, 156f. 48 anathemata 47–48 andrias/​andriantes 30, 41, 43 Herodotus use of term 42–43 Plutarch use of term 66 anetheke 88–89 animal statues, Delphi 100, 113 Anochos of Tarentum 84 Antenor, Harmodios and Aristogeiton statues 23 Antignotos 208–10, 208f. 61, 214 Antigonos Monophthalmos 27–28, 236n. 31 Antipater 50 Antisthenes 184 Apollo and Asklepios 142–43 at Delphi 62, 96, 99–100, 148 divine intervention of 102–3, 106, 112–13, 218 in Metapontum 60 poses of 26–27 Pythios sanctuary 78 Salamis 3, 62, 96, 99–100, 180 Samian 180 sanctuary at Didyma 32 sanctuary at Troizen 174–75 terminology for statues of 42–43 Apollonian dedication, Olympia 93 Apoxyomenos (Lysippos) 195–96, 208 Arbinas of Lycia 55, 63 Arcadian dedication at Delphi 96 Archaic period, defined 1 Archedamos III 112 Archelaos relief 70, 70f. 15, 71f. 16 Archilochos of Paros 9, 69 Archippe 79 Archon of Pella 112 archons of Athens, and the golden oath statues 66–67, 68 arete 14, 53–55, 61, 79–80, 99, 148 familial 135–37, 139 Herodotus on 69, 219 and kings 62–64 and Kleobis and Biton 59 and longevity 75 and Lucius Cassius 206 statue bases at Samian Heraion 117

and Themistokles 9 Timo 53 and victor portraits 29 Argive dedication at Delphi 96 Argive Heraion 165–67, 166f. 51 Arimnestos of Plataia 169–71 Arion of Methymna 55, 57t. 1., 61 Aristarchos Ergilou 143–44 Aristeas of Proconnesos 55, 57t. 1., 59–61 aristeion 117, 119 Aristodemos 66 Aristogeiton 7, 19–20, 23–28, 25f. 7, 44, 219 and arete 55 and the Prytaneion decree 28 Thucydides on 56 Aristophanes Birds 39, 54 on Themistokles 173–74 Aristotle dedication of Hermias portrait 112 family portraits 60–61 on Harmodios and Aristogeiton 236n. 35 Pythian victor list 90 arrhephoroi 120, 140 Artemis Aristoboule (sanctuary, Athens), Themistokles 161f. 50., 172–74 Artemisia 51, 63–64 Artemision at Ephesos 118 Artemon 49 Asclepiades 217 Asklepieion at Epidauros 140–44, 148–49, 200–2, 201f. 59 Asklepios 176 Astylos of Kroton 84 Athena Areia 171 bronze by Pheidias 3, 148 “Promachos” pose 26, 119, 146 Athena Lindia (Acropolis of Lindos, Rhodes) 75, 144–47 Athena Nike temple, friezes 37, 38f. 9 Athena Promachos (Pheidias) 3, 119 Athenian Marathon row group (Delphi) 103–4 Athens Agora 28, 138, 160–62, 161f. 50, 234n. 18 Treasury 103 see also Acropolis, Athenian

298

298

I ndex

athletic victor portraits 219 Athenian Acropolis 119, 138–39, 138f. 47 Kylon of Athens 119, 163–64 Olympia 83–91, 85f. 20, 85f. 21 regulation of portraits 45–46 sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros 140 as votive offerings 47–48 and the Western Greeks 28–32 see also Daochos group Attalid pillar monuments 205 Augustus 45 authors’ portraits 154 see also poets bakterion 77, 232n. 42 banqueter figures 114 Barron, John 105 Baucis of Troezen 87 benefaction, public 23 Bergemann, J. 232n. 42 biography, literary 35 Birds (Aristophanes) 39, 54 Blanck, Horst 186, 205 Blinkenberg, C. 147 Bobou, Olympia 142 body-​replicas 29, 61, 113 of kings 57t. 1., 63, 64–66 and priests/​priestesses 75 booty, war 184 Borbein, Adolf 101 Branchidai group 114–16, 115f. 33 bread baker statue, Croesus’ 41, 57, 57t. 1. Brinkmann,Vinzenz 59 bronze 43 damage 270n. 3 head of warrior 131–32, 132f. 44 hollow casting 31–32 “Philosopher” 74 Piot 254n. 59 statue group of Messene chorus 60 statues in Rhodes 189 Zane statues 66 Buckler, John 130 bust format 6 Bybon 31 Caesar, Gaius 187, 192 Caesar, Lucius 141, 192, 201 Calf-​Bearer (Moschophoros) 120 Camp, J. 234n. 18

Cartledge, Paul 105 Cassius Longinus, Lucius 124, 206 catalogues see lists/​catalogues cemeteries see demosion sema centaurs 74 Chabrias 28, 130, 131f. 43 Chairion 121–22 Chairippe 79, 140 Chares 115–16, 115f. 33 Chares of Lindos, Rhodian colossus 46, 145 chariots 44 Agrippa monument 205 Pronapes Pronapidou dedication 138–39, 138f. 47 Charite 248n. 67 Charmides 184, 194 Cheimon of Argos 87 Cheramyes 192 children 176 at Troizen 174–77 in family portraits 136 portraits at the sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros 141–44 Chionis of Sparta 84, 90 chronography 36–37, 83 Chrysis 75 Cicero, Marcus Tullius 39, 192 on reinscription 203–4 City Eleusinion (Athens) 78–79 Classical Period, defined 1 Claudius Pulcher, Appius 203–4 coins, portraits on 10, 10f. 4, 32, 173 copying of portrait statues 183 Corso, Antonio 211 Croesus bread baker statue 41, 57, 57t. 1 golden lion statue 41, 57 crowning by a god 105, 106–7 crypto-​portraits 242n. 119 cult heroes see heroes/​heroization cult servants 120 cults foreign 34 Peace 158 see also heroes/​heroization curse, Alkmeonid 163–64 damnatio memoriae 49–51 Daochos group 96, 108–11, 109f. 29, 199–200

299

299

I ndex

Day, Joseph 89 death, premature 113 decrees honorific 21–22, 28, 34–35, 36, 43, 186 Konon/​Euagoras 27 priestesses 48–49, 76 Molpoi 115 Prytaneion 234n. 19 Themistokles 174–77 Deinomenid tyrants 31, 51, 99 and Delphi dedications 100 Delphi 62, 96, 99–100, 112–13, 148, 218, 228t. B Arcadian dedication 96 Argive dedication 96 Daochos group 96, 108–11, 109f. 29, 199–200 early honorific portraits 112 inscriptions 89 renewal/​reuse of monuments 199–200 row groups/​portraits 100–4, 227t. A Lysander/​Aigospotamoi group 104–8, 106f. 27, 107f. 28 Salamis Apollo 3 Skyllias and Hydna 167–69, 184 Demades 51 Demetrios of Alopeke 12, 39, 75–76, 77, 77f. 19., 135 Demetrios of Phaleron (Phanostratou) 50, 208–9, 208f. 61 Demetrios Philonos Pteleasios 207 Demetrios Poliorcetes 27–28, 236n. 31 Demophantos, oath of 234n. 19 demosion sema 24, 26, 37, 80, 130, 265n. 30 Demosthenes 28, 62, 158 on Solon 153, 159–61 Diadumenos (Polykleitos) 195–97 Diagorids of Rhodes group 87–88, 194 didaskalia 72–73 Didyma 118 Chares’ statue 32, 115f. 33 sanctuary of Apollo 32 Dieitrephes 39, 119, 129 Dienekes 36 Dillon, Sheila 13 Dio Chrysostom 44 on damaging portraits 270n. 3 on Nero’s removal of portraits 185 Oration 31, on reinscription 182, 183, 186, 188–91, 204

Diodoros Siculus 96, 130 Diogenes Laertius on Demetrios of Phaleron 50 on Epimenides of Knossos 165 Dion, sanctuary of Zeus 61, 95 Dioskouroi 59, 66 Lysander/​Aigospotamoi group 104–5, 106, 108, 113 Discobolos (Myron) 45, 195 divine choice 9, 55, 63, 69, 219 see also Aigospotamoi statue group; Arion of Methymna; Kleobis and Biton document reliefs 64f. 13., 76, 237n. 48, 259n. 124 documentary culture 2, 33–41, 51–52, 89–90 see also lists/​catalogues dolphins and Apollo 102 Arion of Methymna 55, 57t. 1, 61 Donohue, A. A. 56 Dorieus of Rhodes 89, 194 Doryphoros (Polykleitos of Argos) 86, 196–97 dress priests 147 see also himations; nudity Drymos Theodorou 140 Dubois, Laurent 30 Dunst, G. 179 duplicates of statues in Pliny 48–49 Eastern Greek portraiture 32–33 Ebert, Joachim 30 Egypt block statue of Pedon 116–17, 116f. 34 Herodotus on sculpture in 56–57 statue bases at Samian Heraion 117–18 eidolon 69 Herodotus use of term 41–42 Spartan 57t. 1., 64–66 eikon (term) 41–43, 51, 219 Ekphantos 124–25, 125f. 38 elegy, on Salamis by Solon 159–60, 162 Eleusis during Roman rule 187 votive relief of Pythodoros 37, 38f. 10 enagismata 26 Ephesos 19, 32–33, 118

300

300

I ndex

Epicharinos 119, 138 Epidauros, sanctuary of Asklepios 140–44, 148–49, 200–2, 201f. 59, 216 epigrams/​inscriptions 43, 88–90 Ageladas 86 Agesipolis of Sparta 63 Alexander the Great 217 Antiphilos 141 Aristarchos 143–44 at Delphi 100 Chares 115 Daochos group 108–10, 199–200 Euthymos of Lokroi 11 Gorgias 67–68, 99 Hegelochos 124 Hegesagoras 117 herms for Kimon’s victory 159 Inaros to Leokritos 117 Lindos 145–47 Lysander 99 Lysander/​Aigospotamoi group 107–8 Lysimache 75–76 Lysistrate 78–79 Maiandrios 177, 178f. 53., 179–80 ‘Memphis’ 117 Nikandre 4–5 Poseidippos 46 Syeris 76 Xenokles of Mainalos 88–89 see also reinscription Epimenides of Knossos 164–65 equestrian statues 44–45, 120–21, 121f. 35, 122f. 36 erasures of inscriptions 188, 191, 201 Amphiareion 203 Athenian Acropolis 205, 207 Dio Chrysostom on 182, 190 Polyzalos 100 Samian Heraion 191–92 Erechtheion 78 Erechtheus 210 Erichthonios 210 Erythrai, decree in honor of Konon 21–22, 32 Eteoboutadai 78, 136 Étienne, Roland 169 Euagoras of Salamis 20–21, 27 Eukles of Rhodes 46, 87, 194

Eumolpos 210 Eunous 201–2, 201f. 59 Euphranor 49 Euripides 154 Eutelidas of Sparta 84 Euthymides, votive plaque 126–27, 127f. 40 Euthymos of Lokroi 10–12, 12f. 5, 41, 43 family portrait groups 149 Asklepieion at Epidauros 141–44 Lindos 146, 147 Samos 192 see also Branchidai group; Daochos group; Geneleos portrait group fathers and sons/​warriors/​strategoi portraits 124–35, 125f. 38, 126f. 39, 127f. 40, 128f. 41, 129f. 42, 131f. 43, 132f. 44, 133f. 45, 134f. 46 Faure, Gabriel 59 Favorinus of Arles (Dio Chrysostom 37) 188–89 on the Deinomenid tyrants 51 on Demetrios of Phaleron 50 fighting pairs 92 Finkelberg, Margalit 54 First Phocian group 101 Flower, Harriet 49 Foundry Cup 92, 92f. 22 Francavilla Marittima (Italy) 30–31 Franssen, Jürgen 117 Fraser, P.M. 145 friends, royal 200 friezes, Athena Nike temple 37, 38f. 9 Fufius Calenus, Quintus 203, 204f. 60 funerary monuments 54, 80, 232n. 42 Archaic 5–6 Classical period 37–39 funerary practice, Spartan 64–66 Gauer, W. 179 Gauthier, Philippe 24 Gelon of Syracuse 86, 89 Geneleos portrait group in the Samian Heraion 13, 32, 113–14, 192 generals see strategoi genos groups 78, 115, 118 Geominy, Wilfred 110 Glaukias of Aegina 86–87, 90

301

301

I ndex

Glaukos of Karystos 86 Gnathios 125 Gorgias of Leontinoi 12, 55, 67–69, 68f. 14, 77 Gorgos of Iasos 200 Gould, John 56 Grethlein, J. 234n. 18 Gross, Werner 45 Habicht, Christian 137, 155, 174 Hageladas/​Hagelaides/​Ageladas 84–86, 102 Hallett, Christopher 127 Hallof, Klaus 179 Hansen, Peter Allan 43 Harmodios 19–20, 23–28, 44, 219 and arete 55 and the Prytaneion decree 28 Thucydides on 56 “Harmodios blow” 27 Harris-​Cline, Diane 165 Hecataeus 12–13 Hegelochos 124–25, 125f. 38, 126f. 39 reinscription 187–88, 206 Hegesagoras 117 Hektoridas 141, 201 Hellanikos 36 Hellanikos of Lepreon 89, 194 Hellenistic period 22–23 defined 1–2 sanctuaries 34 Heraion of Samos 113–19, 115f. 33., 116f. 34., 216 Geneleos group 32, 113f. 31, 114f. 32, 192 Maiandrios 177–81, 178f. 53, 178f. 54 painting by Mandrokles 37 reuse of monuments 191–93 Herakles Argive dedication at Olympia 96 Hercules Farnese type 8f. 3., 91 Temple of Zeus at Olympia 8, 8f. 3 herald’s stone 162 Hermary, Antoine 5 Hermias of Atarneus 112 Hermolykos 119 herms 155 for Kimon’s victory 159 Lysistrate dedication 79 Miltiades 172

Perikles 8 Themistokles 6–10 Herodoros 214 Herodotus 35–36, 54, 56–57, 57t. 1., 69, 219 on the Aleuadai of Larissa 111 on Arimnestos 170 on Arion of Methymna 55, 57t. 1., 61 on Aristeas of Proconnesos 59–61 battle narratives 119 on bronze Salamis Apollo 180 on Delphic heroes and Xerxes’ invasion 102–3 on Harmodios and Aristogeiton 23 on Kallias 158 on Kleobis and Biton 42f. 12., 53, 58–59, 79–80 on Kylon 163 on Mikythos 71 portraits of kings 64–66, 64f. 13 on Samian monuments 180 sculpture terminology 41–43 on Skyllias and Hydna 167–69 Tellos the Athenian 79–80 on Themistokles 171 Heroes of Phyle inscription 40, 40f. 11 heroes/​heroization 9–10 and arete 55 fighting pairs 92 and kings 62–63 and Olympia 99 of poets 9, 69–70 and victor portraits 29 see also Aristogeiton; Harmodios; Philippeion Hesiod 35, 62, 70–73 Hieron 100 himations 147, 172 portrait type 13, 80, 160f. 49, 213 Himmelmann, Nikolaus 2–3, 74, 206 Hipparchos 51, 234n. 18 Hippias of Elis 36, 60, 83, 90 historical documents portraits as 2 see also documentary culture Histories (Herodotus) see Herodotus Hölscher, Fernande 67 Hölscher, Tonio 23–24 Homer 35, 62, 70–73

302

302

I ndex

honorific portraiture 2, 20, 54, 219 honors, public 22 hoplite statue, Samian Heraion 117 hoplitodromos victors 84, 85f. 20., 85f. 21 Hydna see Skyllias and Hydna at Delphi Idrieus and Ada 55, 63–64, 64f. 13 Iliad (Homer) 62 inappropriate display 51 Inaros 117 inscriptions see epigrams/​inscriptions inventories, temple 36 Ion of Samos 107–8, 199 Ionia see Eastern Greek portraiture Iphikrates 28, 133 Isokrates 74 Jacquemin, Anne 29, 100, 107–8, 109–10 Jameson, Michael 174 Jeffery, L. H. 58–59 Kallias II Hipponikou Alopekethen 261n. 142 Kallias (son of Didymias) 46, 89, 139 Kallias (son of Hipponikos) 157–58, 176 Kallikles of Megara 252n. 21 Kallikrates 36, 170 Kallimachos 36 Kallon of Elis 60 kanephoroi 120, 140 Kaunos 21, 32, 130 Kephisodotos 135–36 Kephisodotos (sculptor) 214 elder 39, 210 and Peace and Wealth bronze 158 son of Praxiteles 210 “key-​bearers” (kleidouchos) 48–49, 75 Kimon 33, 104, 159, 255n. 60 Eurymedon River victory 177–79 kings/​kingship 62–66, 69, 98, 99 Klaros 75, 272n. 36 Kleidikos Kineou Lamptre(us) 212–13 Kleisthenes, reforms 23, 24 Kleobis and Biton 41, 42f. 12, 53, 113, 219 Herodotus on 55, 57t. 1., 58–59, 79–80 Kleombrotos 30–31, 83 Kleon of Sikyon 63 Kleosthenes of Epidamnos 84–86 Knidia, by Praxiteles 211

kolossos 57, 167 Athena Promachos (Pheidias) 3, 119 Chares’ Rhodian colossus 46, 145 Egyptian 56–57, 69 Foundry Cup figure 92, 92f. 22 Naxian Apollo 42–43 Poseidippos of Pella on 86 Poseidon at Isthmus 3 Salamis Apollo 3, 62, 96, 99–100, 180 Zeus at Olympia 3, 67 Konon 20–22, 21f. 6, 27, 32, 118, 119, 130, 133–35, 134f. 46, 173 Kopienkritik 6 korai 5–6, 75 Athenian Acropolis 119–20 Geneleos group 113–14, 113f. 31., 114f. 32, 192 Nikandre dedication 3–5, 4f. 1, 75 Korres, Manolis 205 Kotys 209–10 kouroi 5–6, 42 Kleobis and Biton 41, 42f. 12, 58–59 Kleombrotos figure 31 kourotrophoi 142, 143, 144 Krateros 112 Kresilas of Kydonia 39 Dieitrephes portrait 129 Perikles 128–29, 129f. 42 Krino 5 Kritios and Nesiotes Epicharinos 138 Hegelochos portrait 124–25, 125f. 38, 126f. 39, 187–88, 206 Tyrannicides group 7, 24, 25f. 7, 26, 148 Krumeich, R. 171, 205, 210, 213 kydos 236n. 41 Kylon of Athens 119, 163–64, 165 Kynegeiros 36 Kyniskos of Mantinea 87 Kyriakou, P. 236n. 41 labels 105, 113–14, 135 Lacedaemonians see Sparta Ladas 195 LaRocca, Eugenio 184–85 Laroche, Didier 109–10 lawcode of Nikomachos 161 Leochares 94, 136–37, 184, 218 Leokritos 117–18

303

303

I ndex

Leonidas 36 lifesize 46 see also body-​replicas; regulation of portraits likeness 2–3, 12, 13, 20 in Aeschylus’ Agamemnon 53 and Conon 22 eikon (term) 41–43, 51, 219 and Euthymos of Lokroi 11, 12 and Herodotus 69 and Kleombrotos 31 Pliny on 44, 45–46 and Themistokles 6, 9, 10 Lindos reinscription 189 sanctuary of Athena Lindia 144–47 lion, Croesus’ golden 41, 57 Lipara statue groups 101 lists/​catalogues 36–37, 90 Athena Lindia 144 Samians at Mykale 179 Livy 44, 200 Löhr, Christoph 202 Lower Tarentine group see Taras, row groups Lucian 44, 46 Lycurgus of Boutadai 154, 158 family group 135 Lykortas of Syracuse 92 Lysander of Sparta 32, 33, 99, 101, 104–8, 106f. 27, 107f. 28, 118–19, 218, 219 Lysikles, portrait of Plato (comic poet) 184 Lysimache 12, 75–78, 77f. 19., 119 Lysimachos Lysitheidou Agrylethen 61, 206 Lysippos of Sikyon 13, 184 Alexander the Great 217, 218 Apoxyomenos 195–96, 208 and the Daochos group 109 Pelopidas 112 Polydamas of Skotoussa 46, 81–82, 90–91 Socrates 154 Lysistrate 78–79 Ma, John 13, 80, 202 Magnesia, and Themistokles 10, 10f. 4, 173–74 Maiandrios 177–81, 178f. 53, 178f. 54

Mandrokles 37 Marathon 24–25 frieze from Athena Nike temple 37, 38f. 9 painting of battle of 37 Marathon row group (Delphi) 103–4 marble 175, 210 Marmor Parium 24 Matthaiou, Angelos 26 Mausollos of Caria 63–64, 118, 232n. 42 megistai timai 23, 74, 234n. 19 Memorabilia (Xenophon) 43 memory cultural 215–16 familial 135–37 “memory sanction” 49 ‘Memphis’ epigram 117 Meno Plato 54 Messene (Sicily), chorus portraits 60, 176 metagraphy see reinscription Metapontum see Aristeas of Proconnesos metonomasia see reinscription Metzler, Dieter 11 Mikalson, J.D. 236n. 31 Mikon 46, 241n. 114 Mikythos of Rhegion 70–73, 91, 198 Miltiades 33, 103–4, 167 paired with Themistokles 171–72 Mitchell, Lynette 62 Mneson 125 Momigliano, Arnaldo 35 Morgan, Kathryn 67 Morris, Ian 39 Moschophoros (Calf-​Bearer) 120 Mummius, L. 48 Myron of Eleutherai 61, 84, 90 Discobolos 45, 195 portrait of Ladas 195 names Athenian citizen 37 nicknames of portraits 48–49 national time 176 Naturalis Historia (Pliny the Elder), on portrait statues 19, 20 Naukydes of Argos 46, 87, 252n. 21 Neer, Richard 39 Nemean 5 (Pindar) 29 Nepos, Cornelius 112, 130 on Themistokles 173

304

304

I ndex

Nero, removal of portraits 183–84, 185, 195 Nesiotes see Kritios and Nesiotes Nicanor, Gaius Julius 187 nicknames of statues in Pliny the Elder 48–49 Nikandre 3–5, 31, 75 Nikeso 79 Niko 79 Nikomachos, lawcode of 161 nudity Anacreon portrait 156–57 warrior portraits 126–28, 127f. 40, 128f. 41, 131–33, 138 Themistokles 172 oath of Demophantos 234n. 19 Ober, Josiah 139 Oibotas of Dyme 84 oikists 9 Oinomaos 84 Olympia 93f. 23., 98–99, 147–48, 218, 221–27 athletic victor portraits 31–32, 83–91, 85f. 20, 85f. 21 renewal/​reuse 193–99, 194f. 55, 196f. 56, 197f. 57, 198f. 58, 216 bronze sculpture group by Kallon of Elis 60 Euthymos of Lokroi 10–12, 12f. 5, 41, 43 kings 98, 99 non-​athletic subjects 91–98, 92f. 22, 94f. 24 poets at 69–74, 70f. 15, 71f. 16, 73f. 18 statue of Zeus 3 Temple of Zeus 7–8, 98–99, 198–99 Onatas of Aegina 86, 93 Onymarchos 112 Oration 31 (Dio Chrysostom) 182, 183, 186, 188–91 Oration 37 (Dio Chrysostom) 188 Oropos, Amphiareion 202–3, 204f. 60 Ostia 184 Themistokles herm 6–10, 7f. 2 Ovid, on Erichthonios and Eumolpos 210 paintings 23 and Alcibiades 139 Amasis 57, 57t. 1

of Habron in the Erechtheion 147 of historical events 37 on Marathon in the Stoa Poikile 171 mentioned in Herodotus 56 Samian Heraion 37 Themistokles 173 Paionios of Mende 39, 99 Palagia, Olga 110–11 Pandaites and Pasikles group 136–37 Pastoret head 132–33, 133f. 45 Paullus, L. Aemilius 200, 206 Pausanias 20, 26, 32, 55 on Alcibiades portrait 169 on Anacreon portrait 155 on Arimnestos portrait 169 on athletic victor portraits 47–48, 83–91 on Biton portrait 58 on Delphi 100, 101–2, 103, 104–5 on Dietrephes portrait 39 on Epiharinos portrait 138 on Epimenides of Knossos portrait 164 on Erectheus and Eumolpos statues 210 on Homer and Hesiod portraits 70–72 on Kallias (son of Hipponikos) portrait 157–58 on Kylon portrait 163, 165 on Ladas portrait by Myron 195 on Messene chorus portraits 60 on Miltiades and Themistokles portraits 171 on Nero’s removal of statues 185 on Olympia 83–88, 91–96, 98–99, 193, 194–95, 198–99 on painted pinax 136 on Perikles portrait 8 on Polydamas of Skotoussa portrait 81–82 on prayerful portraits 206 on priestesses portraits 165–66 on reinscription of earlier portraits 172, 188 on the Samians 118 on sanctuaries 82–83, 140 on Skyllias and Hydna portraits 167 on Solon portrait 161 on the statues on the Athenian Acropolis 119, 133–35

305

305

I ndex

on Syeris portrait 76 on Troizen 174–75, 176–77 use of andrias 41 Pausanias I of Sparta 65–66 Pausanias II of Sparta 63, 112 Peace of Kallias 157–58 Peace and Wealth 158 Pedon, Egyptian block statue dedication 116–17, 116f. 34 Peek, Werner 144 Peisiphon 146 Peisistratos 51, 234n. 18 Pelopidas 112 penitential statues 66 Periegesis (Pausanias) 82 Perikles 8, 119, 128–29, 129f. 42, 264n. 10 Perrin-​Saminadayar, Éric 186 Persian War 96, 99–100 see also retrospective portraits, Persian War Persians, Herodotus on Persian portraits 57 Pfuhl, Ernst 13 Phaedrus (Plato) 66–67 Phalanthos 102 Phaÿllos of Kroton 100 Pheidias Athena Areia 171 bronze Athena on the Athenian Acropolis 3, 119 crypto-​portraits 242n. 119 key-​bearer 75 Marathon row group 103–4, 167 Philip II of Macedon 93–98, 99, 112, 218 Philippe portrait (Geneleos group) 113–14, 114f. 32., 192 Philippeion, at Olympia 93–98, 94f. 24 Philitas of Kos 12–13 Philomelos 112 Philon of Corcyra 86 philosopher portraits 264n. 5 “Philosopher” (bronze head) 74 Phocians, First Phocian group 101 Phormion 119, 163 Phormis of Mainalos 91–92, 125 Phradmon of Argos 248n. 67 Phryne of Thespiai 68–69 Phyromachos 184 Pierart, Marcel 169

pillar monuments 205 Pindar 29, 32, 73–74, 73f. 18., 142–43 Piot bronze 254n. 59 Plataia see Arimnestos of Plataia Plataia tripod 96, 99–100 Plato on Epimenides of Knossos 164 Meno 54 Phaedrus 66–67 Protagoras 55 Plato (comic poet) 184 Pliny the Elder 19–20, 23, 28–29 anachronisms 44–47, 48–49 on Antignotos 208 on bronze statues in Rhodes 189 on Demetrios of Phaleron 50 on Harmodios and Aristogeiton 23, 44 on Lysimache 249n. 70 on M. Aemilius Scaurus 50 on Peace and Wealth 158 on Polykleitos and Myron of Eleutherai 86 Plutarch 44 on Arimnestos 170–71 on the Deinomenid tyrants 51 on Demetrios of Phaleron 50 on Epimenides of Knossos 164 and the golden oath statues 66 on Pausanias I 66 on Solon 162 on Themistokles 9, 172 poets 55, 69–70, 70f. 15 Anacreon of Teos 119, 155–57, 156f. 48 Hesiod 35, 62, 70–73 Homer 35, 62, 70–73 Pindar 29, 32, 73–74, 73f. 18, 142–43 Polydamas (Poulydamas) of Skotoussa 46, 81–82, 90–91, 99 Polykleitos of Argos 87 Diadumenos 195–97 Doryphoros 86, 196–97 statue of Artemon 49 Polykleitos II (the Younger) 87, 195, 197–98, 197f. 57, 198f. 58 Polykles Polykrateos 146 Polykles (sculptor) 189 Polyllos 60 Polystratos 60

306

306

I ndex

Polyzalos 100 portrait/​portraiture defined 2 Poseidippos of Pella 12–13, 86 poses Harmodios and Aristogeiton 26–27 warrior 125, 130 see also prayerful attitude Praxidamas of Aegina 84 Praxiteles 39, 210–14 Acceronius Proculus, Gnaeus 211–12, 212f. 63, 212f. 64, 213 Aelius Gallus, Gaius 213–14, 214f. 65 Archippe 79 Chairippe 140 Knidia 211 prayerful attitude 129f. 42., 133f. 45, 206 Priene, sanctuaries 79 priests/​priestesses 74–79, 77f. 19, 140 Chrysis 165–67 “key-​bearers” 48–49 on Lindos 144–47 Pronapes Pronapidou quadriga group 138–39, 138f. 47 Protagoras (Plato) 55 Prytaneion decree 28, 234n. 19 pseudo-​Aristotle 68, 242n. 119 Pythagoras 49 Pythagoras of Samos/​Rhegion (sculptor) 11, 184 Pythodoros 37, 38f. 10 Pythokles of Elis 87, 195, 197–98, 197f. 57, 198f. 58 quadriga monuments see chariots queens, portraits at Olympia 98 Rampin rider 120–21, 121f. 35 Raskouporis of Thrace 209–10, 209f. 62 realism 2–3, 12–13 see also likeness regulation of portraits 45–47 reinscription under Roman rule 183, 185–88, 214–16 Amphiareion at Oropos 202–3, 204f. 60 Athenian Acropolis 203–14, 208f. 61, 209f. 62, 212f. 63, 212f. 64, 214f. 65 Delphi 199–200 in Oration 31 (Dio Chrysostom) 188–91

religion, decline 34 removal of portraits under Roman rule 183–85, 185t. 2 renewal of portraits under Roman rule 183 see also Olympia, renewal/​reuse of statues restrictions on portraits 45–47 retrospective historical documents 155 retrospective portraits 14–15, 148, 153–55, 181, 219–20 Anacreon of Teos 119, 155–57, 156f. 48 athletic victors 83–91, 153–54 Chrysis 165–67 Epimenides of Knossos 164–65 Kallias (son of Hipponikos) 157–58 Kylon of Athens 119, 163–64, 165 Persian War subjects 167 Arimnestos of Plataia 169–71 Maiandrios in the Samian Heraion 177–81, 178f. 53, 178f. 54 Miltiades and Themistokles in Athens 171–72 Skyllias and Hydna at Delphi 167–69, 184 Themistokles Decree/​Athenian women and children at Troizen 174–77, 175f. 52 Themistokles in the sanctuary of Artemis Aristoboule in Athens 161f. 50, 172–74 and retrospective historical documents 155 Solon 158–63 see also Persian War subjects reuse of monuments 191–93 Rhexibios of Opous 84 Rhodes Athena Lindia 75, 144–47 and Nero’s removal of statues 185 and reinscription of portraits 182, 186, 189–91 Riace warriors 127–28, 128f. 41 Richer, Nicholas 66 Richter, Gisela 2 riders see equestrian statues Robert, Louis 172, 187 role-​portraits 54–55 Roman era 15, 220 anachronisms

307

307

I ndex

damnatio memoriae 49–51 gradations of honor 45 in late literary sources 44 nicknames/​duplicates in Pliny 48–49 Pindar and Isokrates 74 restrictions on portraits 45–47 subject categories 44–45 reinscription 183, 185–88, 214–16 Amphiareion at Oropos 202–3, 204f. 60 Athenian Acropolis 203–14, 208f. 61, 209f. 62, 212f. 63, 212f. 64, 214f. 65 Delphi 199–200 in Oration 31 (Dio Chrysostom) 188–91 removal of portraits 183–85, 185t. 2 renewal of portraits 183 Olympia 193–99, 194f. 55, 196f. 56, 197f. 57, 198f. 58, 216 reuse of portraits 191–93 votive dedications 34 Roux, Georges 143 row groups/​portraits, Delphi 100–4, 227t. A sacred laws 47, 115, 242n. 115 Salamis and Euagoras 20–21 Solon portrait 159–60 Salamis Apollo 3, 96, 99–100, 180 Samian Heraion 113–19, 177–81, 178f. 53, 178f. 54, 216 Samos 19 Heraion 113–19, 116f. 34 Geneleos group 32, 113f. 31, 114f. 32, 192 Maiandrios 177–81, 178f. 53, 178f. 54 painting by Mandrokles 37 reuse of monuments 191–93 sanctuaries 14, 23, 34, 81–83, 147–49 Amphiareion at Oropos 202–3, 204f. 60 Apollo at Didyma 32 Apollo Pythios 78 Artemis Aristoboule in Athens, Themistokles 161f. 50, 172–74 Asklepios at Epidauros 140–44 Athena Lindia, Acropolis of Lindos (Rhodes) 144–47 Hellenistic period 34, 116f. 34

Heraion of Samos 113–19, 113f. 31, 114f. 32, 115f. 33 Priene 79 see also Acropolis, Athenian; Delphi; Olympia Scaurus, M. Aemilius 50 Schultz, Peter 94, 96 Schweitzer, Bernhard 88 Scott, M. 199 scribe statues 13, 121–22, 123f. 37 sculptors competition with each other 99 shortage under Roman rule 186 signatures 39–40, 99, 201–2, 201f. 59 signatures of 39–40, 40f. 11, 99, 201–2, 201f. 59, 207–8 see also individual sculptors self-​representation 48, 122–24 Gorgias 12, 55, 67–69, 68f. 14 Lindos 147 Shapiro, H.A. 156 Shear, Julia 206 signatures of sculptors 39–40, 40f. 11., 99, 201–2, 201f. 59, 207–9, 208f. 61 Simalos 203, 204f. 60 Simon, relief base for statue of horse 37 Simonides, on Plataia 24–26, 169 Sisyphos II 110–11, 111f. 30, 213 sitesis 139 size of statues see regulation of portraits Skyllias and Hydna at Delphi 167–69, 184 Smith, R. R. R. 31–32, 84, 108, 196–97 Socrates, by Lysippos 154 Solon 153, 158–63 Sophocles 154 Sostratos of Pellana 84 Sparta, king portraits 64–66 stelai 5–6, 36 with Chionis’ victories 90 Marathon casualty 26 with names of exiles 51 and the Peace of Kallias 158 sanctuary of Asklepios 140 Solon’s laws 162 Themistokles decree 174, 175f. 52 Stevens, Gorham Philips 133–34 Stewart, Andrew 86 Sthennis of Olynthos 136–37, 184, 214

308

308

I ndex

Strabo 44, 115 on Demetrios of Phaleron 50 strategoi (generals) 22, 128, 132–33 Chabrias 28, 130, 131f. 43 Dieitrephes 39, 119 Iphikrates 28, 133 Kimon 33, 103–4, 255n. 60 Konon 20–22, 21f. 6, 27, 32, 118, 119, 133–35, 134f. 46 Miltiades 33, 103–4 Onymarchos 112 Pelopidas 112 Perikles 8, 119, 128–29, 129f. 42 Philomelos 112 Phormion 119, 163 Strombichides Diotimou Euonymeus 130 Theainetos 163 Timotheos 28, 119, 133–35 Tolmides 119, 163 Strombichides Diotimou Euonymeus 130 Strongylion 39 subject categories, and anachronisms 44–45 Sulla 186, 203 Svoronos, Ioannes 142 Syeris 76–78, 119 Symmachos of Pellana 63

Theseus 27, 27f. 8, 104 Thrasyllos 125 Thucydides 35–36 on Chrysis 166 Egypt invasion 117 on Harmodios and Aristogeiton 23, 56 on inappropriate display 51 on Kylon 163–64 on Pausanias I of Sparta 65–66 on Persian/​Greek peace agreement 158 on Plataia 169 Timarchos 39, 210 Timo 53 Timonax 75 Timotheos 28, 118, 119, 133–35, 176, 184 Tolmides 119, 163 tragedy, portraits in 53–54 tripods, Plataia 96, 99–100 Troizen, Athenian women and children portraits 174–77, 175f. 52 “turma Alexandri” 184 types, portrait 13, 44–45 tyrannicides see Aristogeiton; Harmodios

Tanner, Jeremy 11, 40 Taras, row groups 96, 101–3 Tegea, relief of Ada and Idrieus 64, 64f. 13 tekmeria 215–16, 219 Tellon 193, 194f. 55 temenos, Heraion at Samos 115–16 terminology for portraits 41–43 Theainetos 163 Theater of Dionysos (Athens) 154 Themistokles 33, 171 Ostia herm 6–10, 7f. 2, 172–74 painting 173 paired with Miltiades 171–72, 187 posthumous statue as hero of Magnesia 10, 10f. 4 sanctuary of Artemis Aristoboule in Athens 161f. 50., 172–74 Theogenes (Theagenes) of Thasos 86, 90 Theogony (Hesiod) 62 Theopompos of Chios 158

Vernant, Jean-​Pierre 41 Veyne, Paul 34 victors, athletic see athletic victors Vitruvius, on monument set up by Artemisia 51 votive formulae 3, 5, 20, 22, 35, 88–90 see also epigrams/​inscriptions votive portraiture 3–5, 34, 54 and athletic victor portraits 47–48

Upper Tarentine group see Taras, row groups

warrior statues 117, 124–35, 125f. 38, 126f. 39, 127f. 40, 128f. 41, 129f. 42, 131f. 43., 132f. 44, 133f. 45, 134f. 46 Waywell, Geoffrey 64 Welter, Gabriel 174–75, 175f. 52 Western Greeks, and athletic victors 28–32 Whitley, James 124 women 63–64 in Acropolis family portraits 136–37 at Troizen 174–77

309

309

I ndex

portraits at the sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros 140 wooden statues Athena Polias 163 Lycurgus family 136 pharaoh Amasis 41, 57, 57t. 1 Praxidamas of Aegina 84 priests of Amun at Thebes 57 Rhexibios of Opous 84 Xanthippos 119, 163, 264n. 10 Xenokles of Mainalos 88–89

Xenokrateia 72–73, 72f. 17 Xenophon, Memorabilia 43 Xenophon (son of Philoxenos) 78 Zane statues 66 Zanker, Paul 80, 156 Zeus Temple at Olympia 7–8, 67, 98–99, 198–99 east pediment 95f. 25 metope, Herakles 8, 8f. 3 votive image at Olympia 3

310