Third International Conference on The Archaeology of Paros and the Cyclades: Skopas of Paros. Paros,...

π¡™∆π∆√À∆√ ∞ƒÃ∞π√§√°π∞™ ¶∞ƒ√À ∫∞π ∫À∫§∞¢ø¡

THE PAROS AND CYCLADES INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

PAROS III

™∫√¶∞™ √ ¶∞ƒπ√™SKOPAS OF PAROS

∆OªO™ ¶∂ƒπ§∏æ∂ø¡ °’ ¢π∂£¡OÀ™ ™À¡∂¢ƒπOÀ ∞ƒÃ∞π√§√°π∞™ ¶∞ƒ√À ∫∞π ∫À∫§∞¢ø¡

¶∞ƒ√π∫π∞, ¶∞ƒ√™, 11-14 π√À¡π√À 2010

ABSTRACTS VOLUME OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCEON THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF PAROS AND THE CYCLADES

PAROIKIA, PAROS, 11-14 JUNE 2010

Edited by Dora Katsonopoulou

∂Î‰ÔÙÈÎ‹ ÂÈÌ¤ÏÂÈ·: ¡ÙfiÚ· ∫·ÙÛˆÓÔÔ‡ÏÔ˘

SKOPAS ABSTRACTS 25-05-10 02:04 ¶M ™ÂÏ›‰·1

© DORA KATSONOPOULOU58 Solomou StreetAthens 106 82email: [email protected]

™¯Â‰È·ÛÌfi˜ ÂÍˆÊ‡ÏÏÔ˘:© ¡∆√ƒ∞ ∫∞∆™ø¡√¶√À§√À(∂ÈÎfiÓÂ˜ ·fi ∞. ™Ù·˘Ú›‰Ô˘, 1996)

EÈÌ¤ÏÂÈ· ¶·Ú·ÁˆÁ‹˜:EK¢O™EI™ ¢IKTYNNA E¶EE˘ÊÚÔÓ›Ô˘ 25, 116 34 Aı‹Ó·TËÏ.: 210 7228614-5, Fax: 210 7228614email: [email protected]


∂ÈÛÙËÌÔÓÈÎ‹ ∂ÈÙÚÔ‹ – Scientific Committee

¶ÚfiÂ‰ÚÔ˜ – President:∞Ó. ∫·ı. ¡ÙfiÚ· ∫·ÙÛˆÓÔÔ‡ÏÔ˘

∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏfiÁÔ˜ ¶ÚfiÂ‰ÚÔ˜ πÓÛÙÈÙÔ‡ÙÔ˘ ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏÔÁ›·˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘ Î·È ∫˘ÎÏ¿‰ˆÓ

ª¤ÏË – Members:√ÌfiÙ. ∫·ı. ¶¤ÙÚÔ˜ £¤ÌÂÏË˜

∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏfiÁÔ˜¶ÚfiÂ‰ÚÔ˜ ∂Ù·ÈÚÂ›·˜ ªÂÛÛËÓÈ·ÎÒÓ ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏÔÁÈÎÒÓ ªÂÏÂÙÒÓ

Prof. Erik Ostby ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏfiÁÔ˜University of Bergen, Norway

Prof. Salvatore Settis ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏfiÁÔ˜Director of Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa, Italy

∫·ı. ¡›ÎÔ˜ ™Ù·ÌÔÏ›‰Ë˜ ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏfiÁÔ˜¢ÈÂ˘ı˘ÓÙ‹˜ ªÔ˘ÛÂ›Ô˘ ∫˘ÎÏ·‰ÈÎ‹˜ ∆¤¯ÓË˜

Prof. Andrew Stewart ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏfiÁÔ˜University of Berkeley, USA

√ÚÁ·ÓˆÙÈÎ‹ ∂ÈÙÚÔ‹ – Organizing Committee

¶ÚfiÂ‰ÚÔ˜ – President:∞Ó. ∫·ı. ¡ÙfiÚ· ∫·ÙÛˆÓÔÔ‡ÏÔ˘

∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏfiÁÔ˜¶ÚfiÂ‰ÚÔ˜ πÓÛÙÈÙÔ‡ÙÔ˘ ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏÔÁ›·˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘ Î·È ∫˘ÎÏ¿‰ˆÓ

°Ú·ÌÌ·Ù¤·˜ – Secretary:Î. √˘Ú·Ó›· æËÏÔ‡

∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏfiÁÔ˜ª¤ÏÔ˜ πÓÛÙÈÙÔ‡ÙÔ˘ ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏÔÁ›·˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘ Î·È ∫˘ÎÏ¿‰ˆÓ

ª¤ÏË – Members:Î. ∞ÓÓ· ∫¿ÁÎ·ÓË

∞ÓÙÈ‰‹Ì·Ú¯Ô˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘

Î. ™‡ÚÔ˜ ªËÙÚÔÁÈ¿ÓÓË˜ °ÂÓ. °Ú·ÌÌ·Ù¤·˜ πÓÛÙÈÙÔ‡ÙÔ˘ ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏÔÁ›·˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘ Î·È ∫˘ÎÏ¿‰ˆÓ

Î. ¶·Ï·Û›· °ÂˆÚÁÈ¿‰Ô˘ ∞ÓÙÈÚfiÂ‰ÚÔ˜ ¶ÔÏÈÙÈÛÙÈÎÔ‡ ™˘ÏÏfiÁÔ˘ «∞Ú¯›ÏÔ¯Ô˜» ¶¿ÚÔ˘


SKOPAS – ABSTRACTS, 2010 5

¶EPIEXOMENA – CONTENTS

Desperately Seeking Skopas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Andrew Stewart

√ ™Îfi·˜ ÛÙÔÓ ∆fiÔ ∫·Ù·ÁˆÁ‹˜ ÙÔ˘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10¡ÙfiÚ· ∫·ÙÛˆÓÔÔ‡ÏÔ˘

∏ ¶·ÚÈ·Ó‹ °Ï˘ÙÈÎ‹ ÚÈÓ ·fi ÙÔÓ ™Îfi· Û‡ÌÊˆÓ· ÌÂ Ù· ∂˘Ú‹Ì·Ù· ÙË˜ ∆ÂÏÂ˘Ù·›·˜ 30ÂÙ›·˜ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12ºˆÙÂÈÓ‹ ∑·ÊÂÈÚÔÔ‡ÏÔ˘

∆Ô ∞Ú¯·˚Îfi πÂÚfi ÙÔ˘ ∞fiÏÏˆÓ· Î·È Ù· ¶·ÚÈ·Ó¿ ∂ÚÁ·ÛÙ‹ÚÈ· °Ï˘ÙÈÎ‹˜ ÚÈÓ ·fi ÙËÓ ∂Ô¯‹ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13°È¿ÓÓÔ˜ ∫Ô˘Ú¿ÁÈÔ˜

Parian Traditions in Delos: Sculptures from Paros in the Sanctuary of Apollo before and after Skopas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Francis Prost

Aristion of Paros and the Style of 6th Century Parian Sculpture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Vasiliki Barlou

Three Sculptors Named Skopas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Olga Palagia

Skopas of Paros and the Fourth Century BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19David Tandy

™Îfi·˜ Ô ¶¿ÚÈÔ˜: ∞Ú¯ÈÙ¤ÎÙˆÓ Î·È °Ï‡ÙË˜ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21¶¤ÙÚÔ˜ £¤ÌÂÏË˜

Drawings after Ancient Statuary and Workshop Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Salvatore Settis

Skopas and Dionysiac Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Filippo Giudice

Praxiteles of Athens, Skopas of Paros: Bridging the Gap? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Aileen Ajootian

The Artemision of Ephesos in the Time of Skopas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Anton Bammer

...una a Scopa...: Sculpture from the Artemision at Ephesos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Ulrike Muss


6 SKOPAS – ABSTRACTS, 2010

The Twisted Amazon: A Small Mistake with Big Effect at the Mausolleion of Halikarnassos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Stephan G. Schmid

Skopas at Halikarnassos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Claudia Lucchese

Skopas in Knidos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Christine Özgan

Searching for Skopas in Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Giuliana Calcani

Skopas’ Echoes in Alexandrian Sculpture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Elena Ghisellini

The Influence of Skopas’ Style on Ancient Art from the Northern Black Sea Shore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Anna Trofimova

The Base for the Reconstruction of the Sanctuary of Hestia on Paros (“Peristylbau”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Aenne Ohnesorg

∏ ∞Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ‹ ¢ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ›· ÙË˜ ™¯ÔÏ‹˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·: ¶ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·Ù· ÙË˜ ¶ÂÏÔÔÓÓËÛÈ·Î‹˜ ∆¤¯ÓË˜ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39¢ËÌ‹ÙÚË˜ ∫Ô‡ÛÔ˘Ï·˜

Skopas the Architect: Architectural Relations between the 4th Century BC Ionian Renaissance and Mainland Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Poul Pedersen

Skopas from Paros: Peloponnesian Architect at Tegea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Erik Ostby

√ ™Îfi·˜ Î·È Ô µˆÌfi˜ ÛÙÔ πÂÚfi ÙË˜ ∞ıËÓ¿˜ ∞Ï¤·˜ ÛÙËÓ ∆ÂÁ¤· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46πÊÈÁ¤ÓÂÈ· §Â‚¤ÓÙË

¶ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·Ù· ∞Ó··Ú¿ÛÙ·ÛË˜ ÙˆÓ ∞ÂÙˆÌ·ÙÈÎÒÓ ™˘Óı¤ÛÂˆÓ Î·È ÙˆÓ ∞ÎÚˆÙËÚ›ˆÓ ÙÔ˘ ¡·Ô‡ ÙË˜ ∞ıËÓ¿˜ ∞Ï¤·˜ ÛÙËÓ ∆ÂÁ¤· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48°ÂÒÚÁÈÔ˜ ªÔÛÙÚ¿ÙÔ˜

Skopas in Samothrace? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Clemente Marconi

Skopas’ Aphrodite and Pothos and the Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Bonna D. Wescoat



™ÎÔ·‰ÈÎ¿ IVH ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË, Ô ¶fiıÔ˜ Î·È Ô º·¤ıˆÓ ÛÙÔ πÂÚfi ÙˆÓ ªÂÁ¿ÏˆÓ £ÂÒÓ ÙË˜ ™·ÌÔıÚ¿ÎË˜: £ÂˆÚËÙÈÎ¤˜ ∞ÊÂÙËÚ›Â˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ∂·ÓÂÎÙ›ÌËÛË ÙˆÓ ¢Â‰ÔÌ¤ÓˆÓ Î·È ÙËÓ ∞Ó·˙ˆ‡ÚˆÛË ÙË˜ ∂ÚÂ˘ÓËÙÈÎ‹˜ ¢È¿ıÂÛË˜ . . . . . . . . . . . . 53∞ÁÁÂÏÔ˜ ¢ÂÏË‚ÔÚÚÈ¿˜

Longing for Pothos at Samothrace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Ersilia Lopes

Two Gems from the Museum of Thorvaldsens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Marie Kluge

"Ekphrasis" as Oral Performance: Kallistratos’ Rhetoricising Description of Skopas’ Statue of a Maenad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Ioannis Petropoulos

∞fi ÙËÓ §·Óı¿ÓÔ˘Û· ∫›ÓËÛË ÙˆÓ ∞Ú¯·˚ÎÒÓ ∞Á·ÏÌ¿ÙˆÓ ÛÙÔ ÃÔÚfi ÙË˜ M·ÈÓ¿‰·˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59∫·ÙÂÚ›Ó· ∫·Ú·Î¿ÛË

The Maenad from Dresden and the Conception of Movement in Time and Space in the 4th Century BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Christina Wolf

Some Observations on the Iconography and Origin of the Dresden Maenad . . . . 62Beryl Barr-Sharrar

Looking for a New Skopaic Maenad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Wilfred Geominy

¶·ÚÈ·ÓÔ› ¢ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁÔ› Î·È ¤Ó· ¡¤Ô ∂‡ÚËÌ· ÙË˜ ∂Ô¯‹˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ÛÙÔ˘˜ ¢ÂÏÊÔ‡˜ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64∂ÏÂÓ· ¶·ÚÙ›‰·

∂Ó· ¡¤Ô ∞Á·ÏÌ· ∏Ú·ÎÏ‹ ·fi ÙË µ›ÏÏ· ÙÔ˘ ∏ÚÒ‰Ë ∞ÙÙÈÎÔ‡ ÛÙËÓ ∞ÚÎ·‰›· . . . . . . 65°ÈÒÚÁÔ˜ ™˘ÚfiÔ˘ÏÔ˜

™ÎÔ¿‰ÂÈ· ∂ÚÁ· ÛÙ· ª¤Á·Ú· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67™Ù¤ÏÏ· ¢Ú¤ÓË

The Marble Statue of Eros Ceraunophoros Attributed to Skopas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68Antonio Corso

KATA§O°O™ ™YNE¢PøN – LIST OF PARTICIPANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70



Desperately Seeking Skopas

Andrew Stewart

Department of History of Art, University of Berkeley, USA

<[email protected], [email protected]>

In America today, opinion has turned against the resurrection of artistic personalities fromGreek antiquity. Yet is it really true that (to quote one leading authority on Greek sculp-

ture), “the ‘discovery’ of the artist as a distinct and distinctive personality did not occur un-til the fifteenth century”? I think not.

After investigating some reasons why some American scholars have taken this extremeposition, I attempt to counter it both methodologically and philologically. I then proceed toa discussion of the little that we know about Skopas himself. In particular, how do we ex-plain his frequent appearance alongside Praxiteles in the sources, disputes over attributionincluded?

I then examine some individual works, particularly those that resemble the Tegea sculp-tures in style and those that, for one reason or another, have been reattributed to Skopas’sfather or descendants. Finally, not wishing to slight his contribution to Greek architecture, Irevisit the Tegea temple itself, offering a new reconstruction and evaluation of its interiordesign, based on recent work at Tegea by Jari Pakkanen.

∞Ó·˙ËÙÒÓÙ·˜ Â›ÌÔÓ· ÙÔÓ ™Îfi·

™‹ÌÂÚ· ÛÙËÓ ∞ÌÂÚÈÎ‹, ˘¿Ú¯ÂÈ ÌÈ· Ù¿ÛË ÂÓ·ÓÙ›ÔÓ ÙË˜ Â·Ó·ÊÔÚ¿˜ Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÒÓ ·fi ÙËÓÂÏÏËÓÈÎ‹ ·Ú¯·ÈfiÙËÙ· ˆ˜ ·˘ÙfiÓÔÌˆÓ ÚÔÛˆÈÎÔÙ‹ÙˆÓ. øÛÙfiÛÔ (ÌÂÙ·Ê¤ÚÔÓÙ·˜ ÙËÓ ¿Ô„Ë

ÎÔÚ˘Ê·›·˜ ·˘ıÂÓÙ›·˜ ÛÙËÓ ÂÏÏËÓÈÎ‹ ÁÏ˘ÙÈÎ‹), Â›Ó·È Ú¿ÁÌ·ÙÈ ·ÏËı¤˜ fiÙÈ «Ë “·Ó·Î¿Ï˘„Ë”ÙÔ˘ Î·ÏÏÈÙ¤¯ÓË ˆ˜ ‰È·ÎÚÈÙ‹˜ Î·È ÍÂ¯ˆÚÈÛÙ‹˜ ÚÔÛˆÈÎfiÙËÙ·˜ ‰ÂÓ Û˘Ó¤‚Ë Ì¤¯ÚÈ ÙÔ ‰¤Î·ÙÔ ¤-ÌÙÔ ·ÈÒÓ·»; ¢ÂÓ ÙÔ ÈÛÙÂ‡ˆ.

∞ÊÔ‡ ‰ÈÂÚÂ‡ÓËÛ· ÙÔ˘˜ ÏfiÁÔ˘˜ ÁÈ· ÙÔ˘˜ ÔÔ›Ô˘˜ Î¿ÔÈÔÈ ∞ÌÂÚÈÎ·ÓÔ› ÌÂÏÂÙËÙ¤˜ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ¿ÚÂÈ·˘Ù‹ ÙËÓ ·ÎÚ·›· ı¤ÛË, ÚÔÛ·ıÒ Ó· ÙÔ ·ÓÙÈÌÂÙˆ›Ûˆ ÙfiÛÔ ÌÂıÔ‰ÔÏÔÁÈÎ¿ fiÛÔ Î·È ÊÈÏÔÏÔÁÈ-Î¿. ™ÙË Û˘Ó¤¯ÂÈ· ÚÔ¯ˆÚÒ ÛÂ ÌÈ· Û˘˙‹ÙËÛË ÁÈ· Ù· Ï›Á· Ô˘ ÁÓˆÚ›˙Ô˘ÌÂ ÁÈ· ÙÔÓ ™Îfi·. ∂È‰È-ÎfiÙÂÚ·, Ò˜ ÌÔÚÔ‡ÌÂ Ó· ÂÍËÁ‹ÛÔ˘ÌÂ ÙËÓ Û˘¯Ó‹ ÂÌÊ¿ÓÈÛ‹ ÙÔ˘ Ì·˙› ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ¶Ú·ÍÈÙ¤ÏË ÛÙÈ˜ËÁ¤˜, Û˘ÌÂÚÈÏ·Ì‚¿ÓÔÓÙ·˜ Î·È ‰È·ÊˆÓ›Â˜ ·Ó·ÊÔÚÈÎ¿ ÌÂ ÙËÓ ·fi‰ÔÛË ¤ÚÁˆÓ ÙÔ˘˜;

™ÙË Û˘Ó¤¯ÂÈ· ÂÍÂÙ¿˙ˆ ÔÚÈÛÌ¤Ó· ÂÈÌ¤ÚÔ˘˜ ¤ÚÁ·, È‰›ˆ˜ ÂÎÂ›Ó· Ô˘ ÌÔÈ¿˙Ô˘Ó ÙÂ¯ÓÔÙÚÔÈÎ¿ ÌÂÙ· ÁÏ˘Ù¿ ÙË˜ ∆ÂÁ¤·˜ Î·È ¿ÏÏ· Ô˘, ÁÈ· ÙÔÓ ¤Ó·Ó ‹ ÙÔÓ ¿ÏÏÔ ÏfiÁÔ, ¤¯Ô˘Ó ·Ô‰ÔıÂ› ÂÎ Ó¤Ô˘ÛÙÔÓ ·Ù¤Ú· ‹ ÛÙÔ˘˜ ·ÔÁfiÓÔ˘˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·. ∆¤ÏÔ˜, ¯ˆÚ›˜ Ó· ÂÈı˘ÌÒ Ó· ÌÂÈÒÛˆ ÙË Û˘Ì‚ÔÏ‹ÙÔ˘ ÛÙËÓ ÂÏÏËÓÈÎ‹ ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ‹, Â·ÓÂÍÂÙ¿˙ˆ ÙÔÓ ›‰ÈÔ ÙÔ Ó·fi ÙË˜ ∆ÂÁ¤·˜ ÍÂ¯ˆÚÈÛÙ¿, ÚÔ-ÛÊ¤ÚÔÓÙ·˜ ÌÈ· Ó¤· ·ÔÎ·Ù¿ÛÙ·ÛË Î·È ·ÍÈÔÏfiÁËÛË ÙÔ˘ ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈÎÔ‡ Û¯Â‰È·ÛÌÔ‡ ÙÔ˘, ÌÂ ‚¿ÛË ÙÈ˜ÚfiÛÊ·ÙÂ˜ ÂÚÁ·Û›Â˜ ÛÙËÓ ∆ÂÁ¤· ·fi ÙÔÓ Jari Pakkanen.



√ ™Îfi·˜ ÛÙÔÓ ∆fiÔ ∫·Ù·ÁˆÁ‹˜ ÙÔ˘

¡ÙfiÚ· ∫·ÙÛˆÓÔÔ‡ÏÔ˘

πÓÛÙÈÙÔ‡ÙÔ ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏÔÁ›·˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘ Î·È ∫˘ÎÏ¿‰ˆÓ, ¶¿ÚÔ˜

<[email protected]>

√™Îfi·˜ ·fi ÙËÓ ¶¿ÚÔ ÂÌÏÔ‡ÙÈÛÂ ÙËÓ Ù¤¯ÓË ÙÔ˘ 4Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã. ÌÂ ÙÈ˜ ÚˆÙÔfiÚÂ˜ Î·ÈÈ‰ÈÔÊ˘Â›˜ Û˘ÏÏ‹„ÂÈ˜ ÙÔ˘. À‹ÚÍÂ ·ÔÎÏÂÈÛÙÈÎ¿ ÁÏ‡ÙË˜ ÙÔ˘ Ì·ÚÌ¿ÚÔ˘ (¤Ó· ÌfiÓÔ ¤ÚÁÔ

ÙÔ˘ ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÂÙ·È ÛÂ ¯·ÏÎfi) Î·È ÂÈÛ‹Á·ÁÂ ÛÙË ÁÏ˘ÙÈÎ‹ ÙËÓ ·ÂÈÎfiÓÈÛË ÙˆÓ ¤ÓÙÔÓˆÓ Î·È ÈÛ¯˘-ÚÒÓ Û˘Ó·ÈÛıËÌ¿ÙˆÓ. ∆Ô ¤ÚÁÔ ÙÔ˘ ÛÙÔÓ ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎfi Û¯Â‰È·ÛÌfi, ÁÓˆÛÙfi Î˘Ú›ˆ˜ ·fi ÙÔ Ó·fiÙË˜ ∞ıËÓ¿˜ ∞Ï¤·˜ ÛÙËÓ ∆ÂÁ¤· ÙË˜ ∞ÚÎ·‰›·˜ Ô˘ ˘ÂÚ¤‚·ÏÂ ÛÂ Ì¤ÁÂıÔ˜ Î·È Î·Ù·ÛÎÂ˘‹ fiÏÔ˘˜ÙÔ˘˜ Ó·Ô‡˜ ÙË˜ ¶ÂÏÔÔÓÓ‹ÛÔ˘ Î·Ù¿ ÙÔÓ ¶·˘Û·Ó›· (8.45.5), ¯·Ú·ÎÙËÚ›˙ÂÙ·È Â›ÛË˜ ·fi ÓÂˆ-ÙÂÚÈÎ¿ ÛÙÔÈ¯Â›· Î·È Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÈÎ¤˜ È‰È·ÈÙÂÚfiÙËÙÂ˜.

√ ™Îfi·˜ ÚÔÛÎÏ‹ıËÎÂ Ó· ·Ó·Ï¿‚ÂÈ ÙËÓ ÂÎÙ¤ÏÂÛË ÌÂÁ¿ÏˆÓ ¤ÚÁˆÓ ÛÂ ÔÏÏ¤˜ Î·È ÌÂÙ·Í‡ÙÔ˘˜ ·ÔÌ·ÎÚ˘ÛÌ¤ÓÂ˜ ÂÚÈÔ¯¤˜ ÙÔ˘ ·Ú¯·›Ô˘ ÎfiÛÌÔ˘, ÛÙËÓ ∞ÙÙÈÎ‹, ÙË µÔÈˆÙ›· Î·È ÙËÓ ¶ÂÏÔ-fiÓÓËÛÔ, ÙË ™·ÌÔıÚ¿ÎË, ÙËÓ ¶ÚÔÔÓÙ›‰·, ÙËÓ πˆÓ›· Î·È ÙËÓ ∫·Ú›· ÛÙË ª. ∞Û›·. ™˘ÓÂÚÁ¿ÛıË-ÎÂ ÌÂ ¿ÏÏÔ˘˜ ÁÓˆÛÙÔ‡˜ ÁÏ‡ÙÂ˜ ÙÔ˘ 4Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· ÛÙÔ ª·˘ÛˆÏÂ›Ô ÙË˜ ∞ÏÈÎ·ÚÓ·ÛÛÔ‡ Î·È ˘‹ÚÍÂÛ‡Á¯ÚÔÓÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ ·ıËÓ·›Ô˘ ¶Ú·ÍÈÙ¤ÏË, ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ÔÔ›Ô ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÂÙ·È Û˘¯Ó¿ ÛÙÈ˜ ·Ú¯·›Â˜ ËÁ¤˜.

∞Ó Î·È ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÁÚ·ÊÂ› ÔÏÏ¿ ÁÈ· ÙÔÓ ™Îfi· Î·È ÙÔ ¤ÚÁÔ ÙÔ˘ ÙÂÏÂ˘Ù·›·, ÂÏ¿¯ÈÛÙË ¤ˆ˜ ÌË‰·-ÌÈÓ‹ ÚÔÛÔ¯‹ ¤¯ÂÈ ‰ÔıÂ› ÛÙË Û¯¤ÛË ÙÔ˘ ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ÙfiÔ Î·Ù·ÁˆÁ‹˜ ÙÔ˘ Î·È ÌÂ ÙËÓ Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÈÎ‹·Ú¿‰ÔÛË ÙË˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘. øÛÙfiÛÔ, Ë ÂÈÌÂÏ‹˜ ¤ÚÂ˘Ó· ÙÔ˘ ·Â›ÌÓËÛÙÔ˘ G. Gruben ÙËÓ ÙÂÏÂ˘Ù·›·ÂÈÎÔÛ·ÂÙ›· ¤¯ÂÈ ÚÔÛÊ¤ÚÂÈ Ó¤· ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎ¿ ÛÙÔÈ¯Â›· ÁÈ· ÙË ‰Ú·ÛÙËÚÈfiÙËÙ· ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ÛÙËÓ ¶¿-ÚÔ Î·Ù¿ ÙËÓ ÚÒÈÌË ÂÚ›Ô‰Ô ÙË˜ Î·ÚÈ¤Ú·˜ ÙÔ˘ Î·È ÚÈÓ ·fi ÙËÓ ·Ó¿ÏË„Ë ÙˆÓ ÌÂÁ¿ÏË˜ ÎÏ›-Ì·Î·˜ ¤ÚÁˆÓ ÂÎÙfi˜ ÙË˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘, fiˆ˜ ÛÙËÓ ∞ÏÈÎ·ÚÓ·ÛÛfi, ÙËÓ ∂ÊÂÛÔ ‹ ÙËÓ ∆ÂÁ¤·.

£· Û˘˙ËÙ‹Ûˆ Â‰Ò ·˘Ù‹ ÙËÓ ÂÚ›Ô‰Ô ÙË˜ ˙ˆ‹˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· Î·È ÙÔ ¤ÚÁÔ ÙÔ˘ ÛÙÔÓ ÙfiÔ Î·Ù·-ÁˆÁ‹˜ ÙÔ˘. £· ÂÍÂÙ¿Ûˆ Â›ÛË˜ ÙÈ˜ Èı·Ó¤˜ ÂÈÚÚÔ¤˜ Ô˘ ¿ÛÎËÛÂ ÙÔ Ê˘ÛÈÎfi, ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎÔÔÏÈÙÈ-Îfi Î·È ÔÏÈÙÈÛÙÈÎfi ÂÚÈ‚¿ÏÏÔÓ ÙË˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘ ÛÙË ‰È·ÌfiÚÊˆÛË ÙË˜ ÍÂ¯ˆÚÈÛÙ‹˜ ÚÔÛˆÈÎfiÙËÙ·˜Î·È Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÈÎ‹˜ È‰ÈÔÊ˘›·˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·.



Skopas in his Native Island

Skopas of Paros enriched Greek art in the 4th century BC with his pioneering and ingen-ious ideas. A sculptor of marble (only one work is mentioned in bronze), Skopas intro-

duced the representation of intense and powerful emotions into sculpture. His architecturalwork, best known from the Tegean temple of Athena Alea in Arkadia that surpassed all oth-er temples in the Peloponnesos according to Pausanias (8.45.5), also shows innovative ideasand artistic novelties.

Skopas was invited to participate in significant projects in many places of the ancientworld, in Attica, Boeotia, the Peloponnesos, Samothrace, the Propontis, Ionia, and Karia. Hecollaborated on the Mausolleion at Halikarnassos with other well-known sculptors of the 4thcentury and was a close contemporary of Praxiteles of Athens, alongside whom he is oftenmentioned.

Although Skopas and his work have been the subject of many publications over the lastdecades, little if any attention has been paid to Skopas’ connection with his own place ofbirth and with the artistic traditions of Paros. Nevertheless, the late G. Gruben’s painstakingstudy has provided interesting new data on the early phases of Skopas’ career in Paros priorto his major engagements in artistic projects outside the island, such as those at Halikarnas-sos, Ephesos, or Tegea.

I will discuss here this period of Skopas’ life and work in his native island. I will exami-ne also the possible influences exerted on Skopas’ exceptional personality and artistic talentunder the natural, socio-political and cultural environment of Paros.



∏ ¶·ÚÈ·Ó‹ °Ï˘ÙÈÎ‹ ÚÈÓ ·fi ÙÔÓ ™Îfi· Û‡ÌÊˆÓ· ÌÂ Ù· ∂˘Ú‹Ì·Ù· ÙË˜ ∆ÂÏÂ˘Ù·›·˜ 30ÂÙ›·˜

ºˆÙÂÈÓ‹ ∑·ÊÂÈÚÔÔ‡ÏÔ˘

∂›ÙÈÌË ∂ÊÔÚÔ˜ ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÙ‹ÙˆÓ

∞Ú¯ÈÂÈÛÎfiÔ˘ ÃÚ˘ÛÔÛÙfiÌÔ˘ ¶··‰ÔÔ‡ÏÔ˘ 8

¡. ºÈÏ·‰¤ÏÊÂÈ·, 143 42 ∞ı‹Ó·

ø˜ ÂÚ›Ô˘ Ù· Ì¤Û· ÙÔ˘ 20Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· Ï›Á· ‹Ù·Ó Û¯ÂÙÈÎ¿ Ù· ÛÙÔÈ¯Â›· Ô˘ ‰È¤ıÂÙÂ Ô ÂÚÂ˘ÓË-Ù‹˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·ÛÊ·Ï‹ ·fi‰ÔÛË ÂÓfi˜ ¤ÚÁÔ˘ ÛÂ ¶·ÚÈ·Ófi ÁÏ‡ÙË, fiÙ·Ó Ì¿ÏÈÛÙ· ‰ÂÓ ıÂˆÚÂ›-

ÙÔ ‚¤‚·ÈÔ fiÙÈ ˘‹Ú¯Â ¶·ÚÈ·Ó‹ ™¯ÔÏ‹ ÌÂ Ù· ‰ÈÎ¿ ÙË˜ È‰È·›ÙÂÚ· ¯·Ú·ÎÙËÚÈÛÙÈÎ¿. √È ·Ó·ÛÎ·Ê¤˜fiÌˆ˜ ÛÙËÓ ›‰È· ÙËÓ ¶¿ÚÔ ¤ÊÂÚ·Ó ÛÙÔ Êˆ˜, ÛÙÔ ‚’ ÌÈÛfi ÙÔ˘ 20Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ·, ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎ¿ ¤ÚÁ· Ô˘fi¯È ÌfiÓÔÓ ¿ÏÏ·Í·Ó ÙÂÏÂ›ˆ˜ Ù· ‰Â‰ÔÌ¤Ó·, ·ÏÏ¿ ‚Ô‹ıËÛ·Ó ÛÙËÓ Ù·‡ÙÈÛË ÔÏÏÒÓ ¿ÏÏˆÓ ¤ÚÁˆÓÙ· ÔÔ›· ‰ÂÓ ‹Ù·Ó Â‡ÎÔÏÔ ˆ˜ ÙfiÙÂ Ó· ·Ô‰ÔıÔ‡Ó ÛÂ ¶·ÚÈ·ÓÔ‡˜ Î·ÏÏÈÙ¤¯ÓÂ˜.

∂› Ï¤ÔÓ ·Ô‰Â›¯ıËÎÂ fiÙÈ Ë ¶·ÚÈ·Ó‹ ÁÏ˘ÙÈÎ‹, ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ÔÔ›· fiÏÔÈ ÔÈ ÌÂÏÂÙËÙ¤˜ ıÂˆÚÔ‡-Û·Ó fiÙÈ ¿Ú¯ÈÛÂ Ó· ·Ó·Ù‡ÛÛÂÙ·È ·fi ÙÔ ‚’ Ù¤Ù·ÚÙÔ ÙÔ˘ 6Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã. Î·È ÌÂÙ¿, Â›¯Â ÛÙÔ ÂÓÂÚ-ÁËÙÈÎfi ÙË˜ ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎ¿ ¤ÚÁ· ÙÔ˘Ï¿¯ÈÛÙÔÓ ·fi ÙÈ˜ ·Ú¯¤˜ ÙÔ˘ 7Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã. ∂ÔÌ¤Óˆ˜, Ô ™Îfi-·˜ Î·È ÔÈ ÁÏ‡ÙÂ˜ ÙÔ˘ 4Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã. Â›¯·Ó ÌÈ· Ì·ÎÚfiÙ·ÙË ·Ú¿‰ÔÛË fi¯È ÌfiÓÔ ˘„ËÏ‹˜ Ù¤-¯ÓË˜ ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÌÔÓ·‰ÈÎ‹˜, Û¯Â‰fiÓ Ù¤ÏÂÈ·˜, ÙÂ¯ÓÈÎ‹˜ Ô˘ ‰ÈÎ·ÈˆÌ·ÙÈÎ¿ ÙÔ˘˜ Î·Ù·Ù¿ÛÛÂÈ ÛÙÔ˘˜ÚˆÙÔfiÚÔ˘˜ Î·È ÂÌÓÂ˘ÛÌ¤ÓÔ˘˜ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁÔ‡˜ ÙË˜ ·Ú¯·ÈÔÂÏÏËÓÈÎ‹˜ Ï·ÛÙÈÎ‹˜.

Parian Sculpture before Skopas as Evidenced by New Finds of the Last 30 Years from Paros

Until about the middle of the 20th century, there was little evidence at the researcher’shands to attribute with certainty a work of art to a Parian sculptor, particularly because

a Parian artistic school with its own characteristic traits had not been recognized. However,excavations in Paros in the second half of the 20th century brought to light some importantworks that completely changed the known data and contributed to the identification ofmany others as creations of Parian artists.

In addition, new evidence showed that Parian sculpture, formerly considered as havingdeveloped from the 2nd quarter of the 6th century BC onwards, had produced significantworks of art at least from the beginning of the 7th century BC. Therefore, Skopas and otherfourth century Parian sculptors were able to draw on a long tradition of high artistic qualityand a unique, almost perfect, technique that allowed them to become pioneers and inspiredcreators of ancient Greek sculpture.



∆Ô ∞Ú¯·˚Îfi πÂÚfi ÙÔ˘ ∞fiÏÏˆÓ· Î·È Ù· ¶·ÚÈ·Ó¿ ∂ÚÁ·ÛÙ‹ÚÈ· °Ï˘ÙÈÎ‹˜ ÚÈÓ ·fi ÙËÓ ∂Ô¯‹ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·

°È¿ÓÓÔ˜ ∫Ô˘Ú¿ÁÈÔ˜

∫∞’ ∂ÊÔÚÂ›· ¶ÚÔ˚ÛÙÔÚÈÎÒÓ Î·È ∫Ï·ÛÈÎÒÓ ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÙ‹ÙˆÓ, ∞ı‹Ó·

<[email protected]>

∆· ÙÂÏÂ˘Ù·›· 23 ¯ÚfiÓÈ· ÙÔ Ï‹ıÔ˜ ÙˆÓ ÛˆÛÙÈÎÒÓ ·Ó·ÛÎ·ÊÒÓ ÏfiÁˆ ÙË˜ ·˘ÍËÌ¤ÓË˜ ÙÔ˘ÚÈ-ÛÙÈÎ‹˜ ÂÎÌÂÙ¿ÏÏÂ˘ÛË˜ ÙÔ˘ ÓËÛÈÔ‡ ÙË˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘, ÛÙÔ Î¤ÓÙÚÔ ÙË˜ ¶·ÚÔÈÎÈ¿˜ ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÛÙÈ˜

Á‡Úˆ ÂÚÈÔ¯¤˜, ¤ÊÂÚÂ ÛÙÔ Êˆ˜ ÏËıÒÚ· Ó¤ˆÓ ·Ú¯·ÈÔÏÔÁÈÎÒÓ ı¤ÛÂˆÓ Ô˘ ÂÌÏÔ‡ÙÈÛ·Ó ÙÈ˜ÁÓÒÛÂÈ˜ Ì·˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·Ú¯·›· fiÏË ÙË˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘. ∏ Û‡Á¯ÚÔÓË ¶·ÚÔÈÎÈ¿ Â›Ó·È ÂÍ ÔÏÔÎÏ‹ÚÔ˘ ÎÙÈ-ÛÌ¤ÓË Â¿Óˆ ÛÙËÓ ·Ú¯·›· fiÏË Ô˘ È‰Ú‡ÂÙ·È ÛÙ· ÁÂˆÌÂÙÚÈÎ¿ ¯ÚfiÓÈ· Î·È Û˘ÓÂ¯›˙ÂÙ·È ¤ˆ˜ ÙÈ˜Ì¤ÚÂ˜ Ì·˜. ∏ ÙÔÔÁÚ·Ê›· ÙË˜ ·Ú¯·›·˜ fiÏË˜ ¤ÁÈÓÂ Ï¤ÔÓ ÁÓˆÛÙ‹, ÂÓÒ Ù·˘Ùfi¯ÚÔÓ· ÂÌÏÔ˘Ù›-ÛÙËÎÂ ÌÂ Ó¤· Â˘Ú‹Ì·Ù· ÁÏ˘ÙÈÎ‹˜ ÙË˜ ·Ú¯·˝Î‹˜ ÂÚÈfi‰Ô˘, ÙÔ ‹‰Ë ÏÔ‡ÛÈÔ ÛÂ ÁÏ˘ÙÈÎ‹ ªÔ˘-ÛÂ›Ô ÙÔ˘ ÓËÛÈÔ‡.

∂ÎÙfi˜ ·fi ÙËÓ ›‰È· ÙËÓ fiÏË ÙË˜ ¶·ÚÔÈÎÈ¿˜ Ô˘ ¤‰ˆÛÂ ÂÍ·›ÛÈ· Â˘Ú‹Ì·Ù·, ¤Ú¯ÔÓÙ·È Ó· ÚÔ-ÛÙÂıÔ‡Ó ÛÙÔ ªÔ˘ÛÂ›Ô, Ù· ÌÔÓ·‰ÈÎ¿ Â˘Ú‹Ì·Ù· ·Ú¯·˝Î‹˜ ÂÚÈfi‰Ô˘ ·fi ÙÔ ÈÂÚfi ÙÔ˘ ∞fiÏÏˆÓ·ÛÙË ı¤ÛË ª¿Ó‰Ú· ÙÔ˘ ¢ÂÛÔÙÈÎÔ‡ ‰˘ÙÈÎ¿ ÙË˜ ∞ÓÙÈ¿ÚÔ˘. ∏ ›‰Ú˘ÛË ÙÔ˘ ÈÂÚÔ‡ ı· ÌÔÚÔ‡ÛÂ Ó·Û˘Ó‰ÂıÂ› ÌÂ ¤Ó· ÁÂÓÈÎfiÙÂÚÔ ÔÈÎÔ‰ÔÌÈÎfi ÚfiÁÚ·ÌÌ· ÙˆÓ ¶·Ú›ˆÓ Ô˘ Û˘ÌÂÚÈÂÏ¿Ì‚·ÓÂ Î·È ¿Ï-Ï· ıÚËÛÎÂ˘ÙÈÎ¿ ÎÙ›ÚÈ· ÛÙÔ ›‰ÈÔ ÙÔ ÓËÛ› ÙË˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘ ÛÙ· Ù¤ÏË ÙÔ˘ 6Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã., fiˆ˜ Ô Ó·fi˜ÙË˜ ∞ıËÓ¿˜ ÛÙÔ ∫¿ÛÙÚÔ (525 .Ã.), Ô Ó·fi˜ «∞», Î·È ÙÔ ÈÂÚfi ÙÔ˘ ¢ËÏ›Ô˘ ∞fiÏÏˆÓ· ÛÙÔ ¢‹ÏÈÔ.∏ ›‰Ú˘ÛË ·˘ÙÔ‡ ÙÔ˘ ÙfiÛÔ ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ˘ ÈÂÚÔ‡ ÂÎÙfi˜ fiÏÂˆ˜ ˘Ô‰ËÏÒÓÂÈ ÙËÓ ·Ó¿ÁÎË ÙˆÓ ¶·Ú›ˆÓÁÈ· Â¤ÎÙ·ÛË Î·È Â·Ó·ÚÔÛ‰ÈÔÚÈÛÌfi ÙË˜ ÁÂˆÁÚ·ÊÈÎ‹˜ Î·È ÔÏÈÙÈÎ‹˜ Î˘ÚÈ·Ú¯›·˜ ÙÔ˘˜ ÛÙËÓÂÚÈÔ¯‹ ÙˆÓ ∫˘ÎÏ¿‰ˆÓ.

∆· Ó¤· Â˘Ú‹Ì·Ù· ·Ô‰ÂÈÎÓ‡Ô˘Ó Î·È ÂÈ‚Â‚·ÈÒÓÔ˘Ó fiÙÈ Ë ¶¿ÚÔ˜, ÛÙÔ Î¤ÓÙÚÔ ÙˆÓ ∫˘ÎÏ¿‰ˆÓ,˘‹ÚÍÂ ÛÙËÓ ·Ú¯·˚Î‹ ÂÚ›Ô‰Ô ÙÔ Î¤ÓÙÚÔ ÌÈ·˜ ÂÍ·ÈÚÂÙÈÎ‹˜ Î·È ÔÏ‡ ‰Ú·ÛÙ‹ÚÈ·˜ Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÈÎ‹˜‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ›·˜ ÌÂ ÌÂÁ¿ÏË ·ÎÙÈÓÔ‚ÔÏ›· ÛÂ fiÏÔ ÙÔÓ ÙfiÙÂ ÁÓˆÛÙfi ·Ú¯·›Ô ÎfiÛÌÔ. ∏ ÌÂÁ¿ÏË ‰Ú·ÛÙË-ÚÈfiÙËÙ· ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È Ë ÔÈÎÈÏ›· ÛÙËÓ ·Ú·ÁˆÁ‹, ̂ ˜ Â› ÙÔ ÏÂ›ÛÙÔÓ ·Ú¯·˝ÎÒÓ ÁÏ˘ÙÒÓ, Ô˘ ¤Êı·-Û·Ó ÛÂ ·ÎÌ‹ ÛÙÔÓ ÚÒÈÌÔ 6Ô Î·È Û˘ÓÂ¯›˙ÔÓÙ·È ¤ˆ˜ ÙÔ Ù¤ÏÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ 5Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã. Î·Ù·‰ÂÈÎÓ‡Ô˘ÓfiÙÈ Ë ¶¿ÚÔ˜ ‰È¤ıÂÙÂ ÌÈ· Úˆ˚ÌfiÙÂÚË ÂÓÂÚÁ‹ ™¯ÔÏ‹ ÁÏ˘ÙÈÎ‹˜ Î·È ÌÈ· ÁÂÓÈÎ¿ ·˘ÙfiÓÔÌË Î·ÏÏÈ-ÙÂ¯ÓÈÎ‹ ‰Ú·ÛÙËÚÈfiÙËÙ·, Ô˘ ‹Ù·Ó ‹‰Ë ÁÓˆÛÙ‹ ·fi Ù· ÔÏÏ¿ ÂÓ˘fiÁÚ·Ê· ¤ÚÁ· ¶·Ú›ˆÓ Î·ÏÏÈ-ÙÂ¯ÓÒÓ, fiˆ˜ Ô ¶Ï¿ÙıË˜, Ô ∫Ï¤ÓË˜, Ô ∞ÚÈÛÙ›ˆÓ, Ô ∫ÚÈÙˆÓ›‰Ë˜, Ô ∂‡ÊÚˆÓ, Ô £Ú·Û˘Ì‹‰Ë˜. ∏™¯ÔÏ‹ ·˘Ù‹ ‹Ù·Ó ÁÓˆÛÙ‹ Î·È ·fi Ù· ›‰È· Ù· ÌÓËÌÂ›· ÛÙ· ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎfiÙÂÚ· Î¤ÓÙÚ· ÙË˜ ÂÏÏËÓÈÎ‹˜ÂÈÎÚ¿ÙÂÈ·˜, fiˆ˜ Ë ∞ı‹Ó·, Ë ¢‹ÏÔ˜, Ë ™›ÊÓÔ˜, ÔÈ ¢ÂÏÊÔ›, Ë √Ï˘Ì›·. ∆· Ó¤· Â˘Ú‹Ì·Ù· ÂÈ‚Â-‚·ÈÒÓÔ˘Ó ÙËÓ ÛÔ˘‰·ÈfiÙËÙ· ÙˆÓ ÂÚÁ·ÛÙËÚ›ˆÓ ÙË˜ ·Ú¯·˝Î‹˜ ÂÔ¯‹˜, Ô˘ ·Ó·ÌÊ›‚ÔÏ· ÂËÚ¤·-Û·Ó Î·È ÚÔÂÙÔ›Ì·Û·Ó ÙËÓ ÂÍ¤¯Ô˘Û· Î·È ÌÔÓ·‰ÈÎ‹ ÚÔÛˆÈÎfiÙËÙ· ÙÔ˘ ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ˘ ¶·ÚÈ·ÓÔ‡ ÁÏ‡-ÙË ™Îfi· ÙÔÓ 4Ô ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã.



The Archaic Sanctuary of Apollo and the Parian Sculpture Workshops before Skopas

Due to rapid tourist and building development on the island of Paros, the KA’ Ephorate ofPrehistoric and Classical Antiquities has conducted the past 23 years a large number of

rescue excavations that have brought to light many new archaeological sites in the town ofParoikia and surrounding areas. This research has yielded new evidence about the topographyof the ancient city since the Geometric period and has proved that the modern town is buildon top of the ancient one. Not only has our knowledge about the ancient city of Paros beenenhanced, but new masterpieces of Parian sculpture have been discovered and the Archaeo-logical Museum of Paroikia has greatly enriched its collection of archaic sculpture.

The discovery of the sanctuary of Apollo on the uninhabited island of Despotiko at thewest of Antiparos has fulfilled our knowledge about the Archaic period in the Cyclades. Theestablishment of this sanctuary in the late 6th century BC was most probably part of a widerbuilding project in and around the city of Paros, which included the temple of Athena on theacropolis, “Temple A”, and the Delion sanctuary. The need for an extra-urban sanctuary atsuch a distance from the city of Paros would indicate a desire of the Parians to re-claimterritory at a time when other islands like Siphnos and Naxos were also trying to gain politi-cal and geographical power in the central Cyclades.

These recent archaeological finds indicate that an exceptional art school flourished duringthe Archaic period on the island of Paros that became famous throughout the ancient world.This school created fine sculptures since the 7th century, reached its peak in the 6th centu-ry, and remained active during the 5th century.

Many Parian sculptors are known thanks to the discovery of their signed works. They in-clude Platthes, Klenes, Aristion, Kritonides, Euphron, and Thrasymedes. Their sculptures deco-rated monuments in some of the most important centers of the Archaic and Classical period,like Athens, Delos, Delphi, and Olympia. There is no doubt that this early school of sculpturehad great influence on the brilliant personality of the 4th century Parian sculptor Skopas.



Parian Traditions in Delos: Sculptures from Paros in the Sanctuary of Apollo before and after Skopas

Francis Prost

University of Paris 1-Panthéon Sorbonne, France

<[email protected]>

Skopas was a sculptor from Paros. Although he worked all over the Greek world, his fami-ly and his workshop always seem to have kept in touch with his native island and its

marble. This workshop was active in the Cyclades, especially on Delos. There, the head of ahermaic pillar (A 6992), probably dated at the end of the 4th century BC, is very close inboth proportions and style to the heads of figures usually attributed to Skopas. Moreover, anAristandros, son of Skopas, repaired Roman sculptures of Agasias of Ephesos that were dam-aged in 88 BC. In sum, the styles and subjects of the sculpture of Skopas himself are rootedin the Cycladic tradition.

The scope of my paper is to propose a panorama of the Parian traditions, influences andworks found in the sanctuaries of Delos. Delos was the main sanctuary of the Cyclades dur-ing the Archaic and Classical periods and received many marble offerings from Paros. Study-ing the archaic and classical fragments is an excellent way to reconstruct the evolution ofParian sculpture. Since I am preparing the corpus of the archaic sculpture of Delos for theExploration Archéologique de Délos of the Ecole Française d’Athènes, I would like to recon-sider the relations between the two islands, in order to understand the nature of the pres-ence of Parian marble offerings in all the sanctuaries of the sacred island.

∏ ¶·ÚÈ·Ó‹ ¶·Ú¿‰ÔÛË ÛÙË ¢‹ÏÔ: °Ï˘Ù¿ ·fi ÙËÓ ¶¿ÚÔÛÙÔ πÂÚfi ÙÔ˘ ∞fiÏÏˆÓ· ÚÈÓ Î·È ÌÂÙ¿ ÙÔÓ ™Îfi·

√™Îfi·˜ ‹Ù·Ó ¤Ó·˜ ÁÏ‡ÙË˜ ·fi ÙËÓ ¶¿ÚÔ. ∞Ó Î·È ÂÚÁ¿ÛÙËÎÂ ÛÂ fiÏÔ ÙÔÓ ÂÏÏËÓÈÎfi Îfi-ÛÌÔ, Ë ÔÈÎÔÁ¤ÓÂÈ¿ ÙÔ˘ Î·È ÙÔ ÂÚÁ·ÛÙ‹ÚÈfi ÙÔ˘ Ê·›ÓÂÙ·È fiÙÈ ¿ÓÙÔÙÂ ‰È·Ù‹ÚËÛ·Ó Â·Ê‹ ÌÂ

ÙÔ ÓËÛ› Î·Ù·ÁˆÁ‹˜ ÙÔ˘ Î·È ÌÂ ÙÔ Ì¿ÚÌ·ÚÔ. ∆Ô ÂÚÁ·ÛÙ‹ÚÈfi ÙÔ˘ ‹Ù·Ó ‰Ú·ÛÙ‹ÚÈÔ ÛÙÈ˜ ∫˘ÎÏ¿‰Â˜,Î·È È‰È·›ÙÂÚ· ÛÙË ¢‹ÏÔ. ∏ ÎÂÊ·Ï‹ ÌÈ·˜ ÂÚÌ·˚Î‹˜ ÛÙ‹ÏË˜ ÛÙË ¢‹ÏÔ (∞ 6992), Ô˘ Èı·ÓfiÙ·Ù·¯ÚÔÓÔÏÔÁÂ›Ù·È ÛÙ· Ù¤ÏË ÙÔ˘ 4Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã., Â›Ó·È ÔÏ‡ ÎÔÓÙ¿ ÛÙÈ˜ ·Ó·ÏÔÁ›Â˜ Î·È ÛÙËÓ ÙÂ¯ÓÔ-ÙÚÔ›· ÙˆÓ ÎÂÊ·ÏÒÓ ÙˆÓ ÌÔÚÊÒÓ Ô˘ Û˘Ó‹ıˆ˜ ·Ô‰›‰ÔÓÙ·È ÛÙÔÓ ™Îfi·. ∂ÈÏ¤ÔÓ, ¤Ó·˜ ∞Ú›-ÛÙ·Ó‰ÚÔ˜, ÁÈÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·, ÂÈÛÎÂ‡·ÛÂ ÚˆÌ·˚Î¿ ÁÏ˘Ù¿ ÙÔ˘ ∞Á·Û›· ÙË˜ ∂Ê¤ÛÔ˘ Ô˘ Â›¯·Ó Î·-Ù·ÛÙÚ·ÊÂ› ÙÔ 88 .Ã. ∂Ó ÔÏ›ÁÔÈ˜, Ë ÙÂ¯ÓÔÙÚÔ›· Î·È Ù· ı¤Ì·Ù· ÙˆÓ ÁÏ˘ÙÒÓ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ¤¯Ô˘ÓÙÈ˜ Ú›˙Â˜ ÙÔ˘˜ ÛÙËÓ Î˘ÎÏ·‰›ÙÈÎË ·Ú¿‰ÔÛË.

√ ÛÙfi¯Ô˜ ÙË˜ ÔÌÈÏ›·˜ ÌÔ˘ Â›Ó·È Ó· ÚÔÙÂ›Óˆ ¤Ó· ·ÓfiÚ·Ì· ÙˆÓ ¶·ÚÈ·ÓÒÓ ·Ú·‰fiÛÂˆÓ, ÙˆÓÂÈÚÚÔÒÓ Î·È ÙˆÓ ¤ÚÁˆÓ Ô˘ ‚Ú¤ıËÎ·Ó ÛÙ· ÈÂÚ¿ ÙË˜ ¢‹ÏÔ˘. ∏ ¢‹ÏÔ˜ ‹Ù·Ó ÙÔ Î‡ÚÈÔ ÈÂÚfi ÙˆÓ∫˘ÎÏ¿‰ˆÓ Î·Ù¿ ÙË ‰È¿ÚÎÂÈ· ÙˆÓ ∞Ú¯·˚ÎÒÓ Î·È ∫Ï·ÛÈÎÒÓ ¯ÚfiÓˆÓ, fiÔ˘ ·ÊÈÂÚÒıËÎ·Ó ÔÏÏ¿Ì·ÚÌ¿ÚÈÓ· ¤ÚÁ· ·fi ÙËÓ ¶¿ÚÔ. ªÂÏÂÙÒÓÙ·˜ Ù· ·Ú¯·˚Î¿ Î·È ÎÏ·ÛÈÎ¿ ıÚ·‡ÛÌ·Ù·, Â›Ó·È ¤Ó·˜ÂÍ·ÈÚÂÙÈÎfi˜ ÙÚfiÔ˜ ÁÈ· Ó· ·Ó·Û˘Óı¤ÛÔ˘ÌÂ ÙËÓ ÂÍ¤ÏÈÍË ÙË˜ ¶·ÚÈ·Ó‹˜ ÁÏ˘ÙÈÎ‹˜. ∫·ıÒ˜ ÚÔÂ-ÙÔÈÌ¿˙ˆ ÙÔ corpus ÙË˜ ·Ú¯·˚Î‹˜ ÁÏ˘ÙÈÎ‹˜ ÙË˜ ¢‹ÏÔ˘ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ °·ÏÏÈÎ‹ ™¯ÔÏ‹ ÙË˜ ∞ı‹Ó·˜, ı·‹ıÂÏ· Ó· Â·ÓÂÍÂÙ¿Ûˆ ÙÈ˜ Û¯¤ÛÂÈ˜ ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ÙˆÓ ‰‡Ô ÓËÛÈÒÓ, ÌÂ ÛÙfi¯Ô ÙËÓ ÔÏÈÙÔÁÚ¿ÊËÛË ÙË˜·ÚÔ˘Û›·˜ ÙˆÓ ·ÊÈÂÚˆÌ¿ÙˆÓ ·fi ·ÚÈ·Ófi Ì¿ÚÌ·ÚÔ ÛÂ fiÏ· Ù· ÈÂÚ¿ ÙÔ˘ ÓËÛÈÔ‡ ÙË˜ ¢‹ÏÔ˘.



Aristion of Paros and the Style of 6th Century Parian Sculpture

Vasiliki Barlou

Winckelmann Institute, University of Berlin, Germany

<[email protected]>

The first archaic Parian sculptor known to us by name and through a signed work is Aris-tion of Paros, master of the famous kore of Phrasikleia in the National Museum at

Athens. Even though we know very little about Aristion’s life and work, certainly much lessthan about Skopas, there are some striking parallels in their artistic careers. Like Skopas,Aristion seems to have worked mainly abroad, as indicated by his signatures, all found in At-tica. As in Skopas’ case, there has been great controversy about the specific character of hisstyle and whether it can be related to his homeland, Paros. The reason for this dispute is theparticularities of his statue for Phrasikleia: As often noted by scholars, her appearance di-verges in many respects from what we know so far about the Parian style of the 6th centuryBC. Therefore, according to common opinion the kore should illustrate the strong influenceof the foreign artistic environment on Aristion’s work. It is worth pointing out that scholarshave been reluctant to accept her as an original Parian work, although she is the only sur-viving archaic sculpture signed by a Parian.

As I will argue in the presentation, a careful re-examination of the statue as well as recentresearch on archaic Parian sculpture by the author suggest that contrary to common belief,the kore can indeed be considered Parian after all despite her special features. Aristion thusdid not abandon his artistic roots by choosing an Attic stylistic approach as a result of ad-justing to his new working environment as has often been suggested. Instead, new statueswhich can be attributed to Paros through detailed stylistic analysis show that there are seri-ous reasons to reassess the current image of Parian style. The stylistic range of 6th centuryParian artists proves to be much wider than has previously been realised and their presenceabroad already by the mid-6th century BC should be viewed in a different light.



∞ÚÈÛÙ›ˆÓ Ô ¶¿ÚÈÔ˜ Î·È Ë ¶·ÚÈ·Ó‹ °Ï˘ÙÈÎ‹ ÙÔÓ 6Ô ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã.

√ÚÒÙÔ˜ ¶·ÚÈ·Ófi˜ ÁÏ‡ÙË˜ ÙË˜ ·Ú¯·˚Î‹˜ ÂÔ¯‹˜ Ô˘ Ì·˜ Â›Ó·È ÁÓˆÛÙfi˜ ÔÓÔÌ·ÛÙÈÎ¿ Î·È·fi ÂÓ˘fiÁÚ·ÊÔ ¤ÚÁÔ ÙÔ˘, Â›Ó·È Ô ∞ÚÈÛÙ›ˆÓ Ô ¶¿ÚÈÔ˜, ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁfi˜ ÙË˜ ‰È¿ÛËÌË˜ ÎfiÚË˜

ÙË˜ ºÚ·Û›ÎÏÂÈ·˜ ÛÙÔ ∂ıÓÈÎfi ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏÔÁÈÎfi ªÔ˘ÛÂ›Ô ÙË˜ ∞ı‹Ó·˜. ∞Ó Î·È ÂÏ¿¯ÈÛÙ· ÁÓˆÚ›˙Ô˘ÌÂÁÈ· ÙË ˙ˆ‹ Î·È ÙÔ ¤ÚÁÔ ÙÔ˘ ∞ÚÈÛÙ›ˆÓ·, Û·ÊÒ˜ ÔÏ‡ ÏÈÁfiÙÂÚ· ·’ fi,ÙÈ ÛÙËÓ ÂÚ›ÙˆÛË ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi-·, ˘¿Ú¯Ô˘Ó ÂÓÙ˘ˆÛÈ·Î¤˜ ·ÓÙÈÛÙÔÈ¯›Â˜ ÛÙËÓ Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÈÎ‹ ÙÔ˘˜ Î·ÚÈ¤Ú·. √ ∞ÚÈÛÙ›ˆÓ, fiˆ˜Î·È Ô ™Îfi·˜ Ê·›ÓÂÙ·È ˆ˜ ÂÚÁ¿ÛÙËÎÂ Î˘Ú›ˆ˜ Ì·ÎÚÈ¿ ·fi ÙËÓ ·ÙÚ›‰· ÙÔ˘, fiˆ˜ ‰Â›¯ÓÔ˘Ó˘ÔÁÚ·Ê¤˜ ¤ÚÁˆÓ ÙÔ˘, Ô˘ ‚Ú¤ıËÎ·Ó fiÏÂ˜ ÛÙËÓ ∞ÙÙÈÎ‹. √ˆ˜ Î·È ÛÙËÓ ÂÚ›ÙˆÛË ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·,Ù· ÂÈ‰ÈÎ¿ ÁÓˆÚ›ÛÌ·Ù· ÙË˜ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÙÚÔ›·˜ ÙÔ˘ ∞ÚÈÛÙ›ˆÓ· Î·È ÙÔ Â¿Ó ÌÔÚÔ‡Ó Ó· Û˘Û¯ÂÙÈÛÙÔ‡Ó ÌÂÙËÓ ·ÙÚ›‰· ÙÔ˘, ÙËÓ ¶¿ÚÔ, ¤¯Ô˘Ó Á›ÓÂÈ ·ÓÙÈÎÂ›ÌÂÓÔ ¤ÓÙÔÓË˜ Û˘˙‹ÙËÛË˜. √ ÏfiÁÔ˜ ·˘Ù‹˜ ÙË˜·ÓÙÈ·Ú¿ıÂÛË˜ ‚Ú›ÛÎÂÙ·È ÛÙÈ˜ È‰ÈÔÌÔÚÊ›Â˜ ÙÔ˘ ·Á¿ÏÌ·ÙÔ˜ ÙË˜ ºÚ·Û›ÎÏÂÈ·˜, Ô˘ ·ÔÎÏ›ÓÂÈ ÛÂÔÏÏ¿ ÛËÌÂ›· ·fi fiÛ· ÁÓˆÚ›˙Ô˘ÌÂ ¤ˆ˜ ÙÒÚ· ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ¶·ÚÈ·Ó‹ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÙÚÔ›· ÙÔ˘ 6Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ·.Ã., fiˆ˜ Û˘¯Ó¿ ¤¯ÂÈ ÛËÌÂÈˆıÂ› ·fi ÌÂÏÂÙËÙ¤˜. ∂ÔÌ¤Óˆ˜, Û‡ÌÊˆÓ· ÌÂ ÙË ÁÂÓÈÎ‹ ¿Ô„Ë ËÎfiÚË ıÂˆÚÂ›Ù·È ¯·Ú·ÎÙËÚÈÛÙÈÎfi ‰Â›ÁÌ· ÙË˜ ¤ÓÙÔÓË˜ ÂÈÚÚÔ‹˜ Ô˘ ¿ÛÎËÛÂ ÙÔ Í¤ÓÔ Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÈ-Îfi ÂÚÈ‚¿ÏÏÔÓ ÛÙÔ ¤ÚÁÔ ÙÔ˘ ∞ÚÈÛÙ›ˆÓ·. ∞Í›˙ÂÈ Ó· ÛËÌÂÈˆıÂ› fiÙÈ ÔÈ ÌÂÏÂÙËÙ¤˜ ÁÂÓÈÎ¿ Â›Ó·È·Úfiı˘ÌÔÈ Ó· ·Ô‰Â¯ÙÔ‡Ó ÙË ºÚ·Û›ÎÏÂÈ· ˆ˜ ÁÓ‹ÛÈÔ ¶·ÚÈ·Ófi ¤ÚÁÔ ·Ó Î·È Â›Ó·È ÙÔ ÌfiÓÔ Ûˆ˙fi-ÌÂÓÔ ·Ú¯·˚Îfi ÁÏ˘Ùfi Ô˘ Ê¤ÚÂÈ ÙËÓ ˘ÔÁÚ·Ê‹ ¶¿ÚÈÔ˘ ÁÏ‡ÙË.

√ˆ˜ ı· Î·Ù·‰Â›Íˆ ÌÂ ÙËÓ ·ÚÔ˘Û›·ÛË, ÚÔÛÂÎÙÈÎ‹ Â·ÓÂÍ¤Ù·ÛË ÙÔ˘ ÁÏ˘ÙÔ‡ Î·ıÒ˜ Î·ÈÚfiÛÊ·ÙË ¤ÚÂ˘Ó¿ ÌÔ˘ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·Ú¯·˚Î‹ ¶·ÚÈ·Ó‹ ÁÏ˘ÙÈÎ‹ ‰Â›¯ÓÔ˘Ó fiÙÈ Ë ÎfiÚË, ÛÂ ·ÓÙ›ıÂÛË ÌÂÙËÓ ÎÔÈÓÒ˜ ·Ô‰ÂÎÙ‹ ¿Ô„Ë, ÌÔÚÂ› Ú¿ÁÌ·ÙÈ Ó· ıÂˆÚËıÂ› ¶·ÚÈ·Ó‹ ·Ú¿ Ù· ‰È·ÊÔÚÂÙÈÎ¿ ¯·-Ú·ÎÙËÚÈÛÙÈÎ¿ ÙË˜. ∫·Ù’ Â¤ÎÙ·ÛË, Ô ∞ÚÈÛÙ›ˆÓ ÂÈÏ¤ÁÔÓÙ·˜ ÌÈ· «·ÙÙÈÎ‹» ÙÂ¯ÓÔÙÚÔÈÎ‹ ÚÔÛ¤Á-ÁÈÛË ÚÔÛ·ÚÌÔ˙fiÌÂÓÔ˜ ÛÙÔ Ó¤Ô ÂÚÁ·ÛÈ·Îfi ÙÔ˘ ÂÚÈ‚¿ÏÏÔÓ, fiˆ˜ Û˘¯Ó¿ ¤¯ÂÈ ÁÚ·ÊÙÂ›, ‰ÂÓÂÁÎ·Ù¤ÏÂÈ„Â ÙÈ˜ Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÈÎ¤˜ ÙÔ˘ Ú›˙Â˜. ∞ÓÙ›ıÂÙ·, Ó¤· ÁÏ˘Ù¿ Ô˘ ÌÔÚÔ‡Ó Ó· ·Ô‰ÔıÔ‡ÓÛÙËÓ ¶¿ÚÔ Ì¤Ûˆ ÏÂÙÔÌÂÚÔ‡˜ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÙÚÔÈÎ‹˜ ·Ó¿Ï˘ÛË˜ ‰Â›¯ÓÔ˘Ó fiÙÈ ˘¿Ú¯Ô˘Ó ÛÔ‚·ÚÔ› ÏfiÁÔÈÓ· Â·ÓÂÍÂÙ¿ÛÔ˘ÌÂ ÙËÓ ¤ˆ˜ ÙÒÚ· ÂÈÎfiÓ· Ì·˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ¶·ÚÈ·Ó‹ Ù¤¯ÓË. ∆Ô ÙÂ¯ÓÔÙÚÔÈÎfi Â‡ÚÔ˜ÙˆÓ ¶·ÚÈ·ÓÒÓ Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÒÓ ÙÔ˘ 6Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã. ·Ô‰ÂÈÎÓ‡ÂÙ·È fiÙÈ Â›Ó·È ÔÏ‡ ÌÂÁ·Ï‡ÙÂÚÔ ·’fi,ÙÈ ÌÔÚÔ‡Û·ÌÂ Ó· ÂÈÎ¿ÛÔ˘ÌÂ ¤ˆ˜ ÙÒÚ·, ÂÓÒ Ë ·ÚÔ˘Û›· ÙÔ˘˜ ÂÎÙfi˜ ÙË˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘, ‹‰Ë ·fi Ù·Ì¤Û· ÙÔ˘ 6Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã., ı· Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ıÂˆÚËıÂ› Î¿Ùˆ ·fi ¤Ó· Ó¤Ô Êˆ˜.



Three Sculptors Named Skopas

Olga Palagia

Department of History and Archaeology

University of Athens, Greece

<[email protected]>

In addition to the famous Skopas of Paros of the fourth century, the ancient sources pro-vide some evidence for the existence of two other sculptors of the same name, perhaps

members of the same family. In a notoriously confused passage regarding sculptors whoflourished around 420 BC, Pliny names Skopas as a contemporary of Myron and Polykleitos.This has been too readily dismissed as a mistake; taken in conjunction, however, with theinformation that Skopas collaborated with the fifth-century sculptor Kalamis in the creationof a group of three Furies on the Athenian Areopagos, the possibility of a fifth-centurySkopas should be considered seriously.

Three statue bases of the first century BC from Delos are signed by Aristandros son ofSkopas of Paros as restorer. His father, Skopas, may have been a sculptor of the late Hel-lenistic period. Strabo records a cult statue of Apollo Smintheus by Skopas in Chryse in theTroad; the temple of Apollo on the site, however, belongs to the Hellenistic period. This pa-per will attempt to assess the evidence for the existence of at least three different sculptorsnamed Skopas.

∆ÚÂÈ˜ °Ï‡ÙÂ˜ ÌÂ ÙÔ √ÓÔÌ· ™Îfi·˜

™‡ÌÊˆÓ· ÌÂ ÏËÚÔÊÔÚ›Â˜ ÙË˜ ·Ú¯·›·˜ ÁÚ·ÌÌ·ÙÂ›·˜, ÂÎÙfi˜ ·fi ÙÔÓ ÁÓˆÛÙfi ÁÏ‡ÙË ™Îfi·ÙÔ˘ 4Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã., ˘‹Ú¯·Ó Î·È ¿ÏÏÔÈ ‰‡Ô ÌÂ ÙÔ ›‰ÈÔ fiÓÔÌ·, ›Ûˆ˜ Ì¤ÏË ÙË˜ ›‰È·˜ ÔÈÎÔ-

Á¤ÓÂÈ·˜. ∞·ÚÈıÌÒÓÙ·˜ Î·ÏÏÈÙ¤¯ÓÂ˜ Ô˘ ¿ÎÌ·Û·Ó Á‡Úˆ ÛÙÔ 420 .Ã., Ô ¶Ï›ÓÈÔ˜ ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÂÈ ¤Ó·™Îfi·, Û‡Á¯ÚÔÓÔ ÙÔ˘ ª‡ÚˆÓ· Î·È ÙÔ˘ ¶ÔÏ˘ÎÏÂ›ÙÔ˘. ∏ ¤ÚÂ˘Ó· Û˘Ó‹ıˆ˜ ıÂˆÚÂ› ÙÔ ¯ˆÚ›Ô ·˘Ùfiˆ˜ ·Ú·ÓfiËÛË ÙÔ˘ ¶ÏÈÓ›Ô˘, ˘¿Ú¯ÂÈ fiÌˆ˜ Î·È Ë ÏËÚÔÊÔÚ›· fiÙÈ Ô ™Îfi·˜ ·˘Ùfi˜ Û˘ÓÂÚÁ¿ÛÙË-ÎÂ ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ÁÏ‡ÙË ÙÔ˘ 5Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· ∫¿Ï·ÌÈ ÛÙËÓ Î·Ù·ÛÎÂ˘‹ ÂÓfi˜ Û˘ÓÙ¿ÁÌ·ÙÔ˜ ∂ÚÈÓ‡ˆÓ Ô˘ ‹Ù·ÓÛÙËÌ¤ÓÔ ÛÙÔÓ ∞ÚÂÈÔ ¶¿ÁÔ ÙË˜ ∞ı‹Ó·˜.

∆ÚÂÈ˜ ·Á·ÏÌ·ÙÈÎ¤˜ ‚¿ÛÂÈ˜ ÙÔ˘ 1Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã. ·fi ÙË ¢‹ÏÔ Ê¤ÚÔ˘Ó ÙËÓ ˘ÔÁÚ·Ê‹ ÙÔ˘ ∞Ú›-ÛÙ·Ó‰ÚÔ˘, ÁÈÔ‡ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·, ·fi ÙËÓ ¶¿ÚÔ, ˆ˜ Û˘ÓÙËÚËÙ‹. √ ·Ù¤Ú·˜ ÙÔ˘, ™Îfi·˜, Èı·ÓfiÓ Ó·‹Ù·Ó ÁÏ‡ÙË˜ ÙÔ˘ ˘ÛÙ¤ÚÔ˘ 2Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã. ∫·Ù¿ ÙÔÓ ™ÙÚ¿‚ˆÓ·, Ô ™Îfi·˜ ¤Î·ÓÂ ÙÔ Ï·ÙÚÂ˘ÙÈÎfi¿Á·ÏÌ· ÙÔ˘ ∞fiÏÏˆÓ· ™ÌÈÓı¤· ÛÙË ÃÚ‡ÛË ÙË˜ ∆Úˆ¿‰·˜. √ Ûˆ˙fiÌÂÓÔ˜ Ó·fi˜ ÙÔ˘ ıÂÔ‡ ·˘ÙÔ‡¯Ù›ÛÙËÎÂ ÙÔÓ 2Ô ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã. Î·È Èı·ÓfiÓ ÙÔ Ï·ÙÚÂ˘ÙÈÎfi ¿Á·ÏÌ· Ó· ·Ó‹ÎÂÈ ÛÙËÓ ›‰È· ÂÚ›Ô‰Ô. ∏·ÚÔ‡Û· ·Ó·ÎÔ›ÓˆÛË ı· Û˘ÁÎÂÓÙÚÒÛÂÈ fi,ÙÈ ÛÙÔÈ¯Â›· ¤¯Ô˘ÌÂ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ‡·ÚÍË ÙÔ˘Ï¿¯ÈÛÙÔÓ ÙÚÈÒÓÁÏ˘ÙÒÓ ÌÂ ÙÔ fiÓÔÌ· ™Îfi·˜.



Skopas of Paros and the Fourth Century BC

David Tandy

Department of Classics, University of Tennessee, USA

<[email protected]>

∞fter the common peace was imposed on the Aegean world by the Persian King in 386BC, Paros turned her face westward, founding a colony on Pharos in the Adriatic in

385/4 and shortly thereafter joining the Second Athenian League. Paros’s reputation forwealth throughout antiquity was not diminished in the fourth century. She was known forher wine and figs, for her ceramics and shipbuilding, but the main source of prosperity wasthe marble quarries that yielded the beautiful white material prized by sculptors like Skopas,her native son.

This paper will discuss the ways by which Skopas’s career intersected with the politicaland economic patterns that we can discern in the fourth century. In some cases these pat-terns may help us to date some of Skopas’s oeuvre. Two contrasting examples:

The date of the temple of Athena Alea at Tegea, in eastern Arkadia, has been the subjectof much scrutiny by art historians, who date it anywhere between 370 and 335. A consensusnow has come down for a later date (ca. 345-335) based on artistic criteria, although an eco-nomic and political analysis of Tegea, a chronically poor polis, tends to support an earlierdate (360s). For all that, it remains unexplained just how the Tegeans would have paid forthe most magnificent of fourth-century temples in the Peloponnesos.

By contrast, the erotic group at Megara has attracted little attention regarding its date,since it is lost and in other ways is difficult to address. Megara’s shrewd policy of ever-changing allegiances and neutralities, which enabled her in the fourth century to developand grow rich from her woolen industry as well as from specialty crops, would have beenwell positioned to hire Skopas at any time during his active period. When was she at herwealthiest? When could she best afford to engage both Skopas and Praxiteles--if indeed theirjuxtaposed works were commissioned more or less simultaneously? These and other ques-tions will be taken up in this political and economic survey of the Aegean world duringSkopas’s career.



™Îfi·˜ o ¶¿ÚÈÔ˜ Î·È Ô ∆¤Ù·ÚÙÔ˜ ∞ÈÒÓ·˜ .Ã.

ªÂÙ¿ ÙË Û˘Óı‹ÎË ÂÈÚ‹ÓË˜ ·fi ÙÔÓ ‚·ÛÈÏÈ¿ ÙˆÓ ¶ÂÚÛÒÓ ÙÔ 386 .Ã., Ë ¶¿ÚÔ˜ ÛÙÚ¿ÊËÎÂÚÔ˜ ‰˘ÛÌ¿˜, È‰Ú‡ÔÓÙ·˜ ÙËÓ ·ÔÈÎ›· ÙË˜ º¿ÚÔ˘ ÛÙËÓ ∞‰ÚÈ·ÙÈÎ‹ ÙÔ 385/4 Î·È Û˘ÌÌÂÙ¤-

¯ÔÓÙ·˜ Ï›ÁÔ ÌÂÙ¿ ÛÙË ‰Â‡ÙÂÚË ∞ıËÓ·˚Î‹ ™˘ÌÌ·¯›·. ∏ Ê‹ÌË ÙË˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘ Û¯ÂÙÈÎ¿ ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ÏÔ‡ÙÔÙË˜ ÛÂ fiÏË ÙËÓ ·Ú¯·ÈfiÙËÙ· ‰ÂÓ Â›¯Â ÌÂÈˆıÂ› ÛÙÔÓ Ù¤Ù·ÚÙÔ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã. ∏Ù·Ó ÁÓˆÛÙ‹ ÁÈ· ÙÔ ÎÚ·-Û› Î·È Ù· Û‡Î· ÙË˜, ÁÈ· Ù· ÎÂÚ·ÌÈÎ¿ Î·È Ù· Ó·˘ËÁÂ›· ÙË˜, ·ÏÏ¿ Ë Î‡ÚÈ· ËÁ‹ Â˘ËÌÂÚ›·˜ ‹Ù·ÓÙ· Ï·ÙÔÌÂ›· Ì·ÚÌ¿ÚÔ˘ Ô˘ ÙË˜ ÚÔÌ‹ıÂ˘·Ó ÙÔ fiÌÔÚÊÔ ÏÂ˘Îfi ˘ÏÈÎfi Ô˘ ÙÈÌ‹ıËÎÂ ·fi ÁÏ‡-ÙÂ˜ fiˆ˜ Ô ™Îfi·˜, ÁËÁÂÓ‹˜ ÙË˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘.

™Â ·˘Ù‹ ÙËÓ ÂÚÁ·Û›· ı· Û˘˙ËÙ‹ÛÔ˘ÌÂ ÙÔ˘˜ ÙÚfiÔ˘˜ ÌÂ ÙÔ˘˜ ÔÔ›Ô˘˜ Ë Î·ÚÈ¤Ú· ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·Û˘ÌÏ¤ÎÂÙ·È ÌÂ Ù· ÔÏÈÙÈÎ¿ Î·È ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ¿ ÚfiÙ˘· Ô˘ ÌÔÚÔ‡ÌÂ Ó· ‰È·ÎÚ›ÓÔ˘ÌÂ ÙÔÓ Ù¤-Ù·ÚÙÔ ·ÈÒÓ·. ™Â ÔÚÈÛÌ¤ÓÂ˜ ÂÚÈÙÒÛÂÈ˜, ·˘Ù¿ Ù· ÌÔÓÙ¤Ï· ÌÔÚÂ› Ó· Ì·˜ ‚ÔËı‹ÛÔ˘Ó Ó· ¯ÚÔÓÔ-ÏÔÁ‹ÛÔ˘ÌÂ ÔÚÈÛÌ¤Ó· ·fi Ù· ¤ÚÁ· ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·. ∞˜ ‰Ô‡ÌÂ ‰‡Ô ·ÓÙ›ıÂÙ· ·Ú·‰Â›ÁÌ·Ù·:

∏ ¯ÚÔÓÔÏfiÁËÛË ÙÔ˘ Ó·Ô‡ ÙË˜ ∞ıËÓ¿˜ ∞Ï¤·˜ ÛÙËÓ ∆ÂÁ¤·, ÛÙËÓ ·Ó·ÙÔÏÈÎ‹ ∞ÚÎ·‰›·, ˘‹ÚÍÂÙÔ ·ÓÙÈÎÂ›ÌÂÓÔ ÔÏÏÒÓ ÌÂÏÂÙÒÓ ·fi ÈÛÙÔÚÈÎÔ‡˜ ÙË˜ Ù¤¯ÓË˜, ÔÈ ÔÔ›ÔÈ ÙËÓ ÙÔÔıÂÙÔ‡Ó ÔÔ˘-‰‹ÔÙÂ ÌÂÙ·Í‡ 370 Î·È 335. ªÈ· Û˘ÌÊˆÓ›· ¤¯ÂÈ ÙÒÚ· ÂÈÙÂ˘¯ıÂ› ÁÈ· ÌÂÙ·ÁÂÓ¤ÛÙÂÚË ¯ÚÔÓÔÏfi-ÁËÛË (ÂÚ›Ô˘ 345-335) ÌÂ ‚¿ÛË Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÈÎ¿ ÎÚÈÙ‹ÚÈ·, ·Ó Î·È ÌÈ· ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎÔ-ÔÏÈÙÈÎ‹ ·Ó¿-Ï˘ÛË ÙË˜ ∆ÂÁ¤·˜, Ô˘ ‹Ù·Ó Ì›· ÊÙˆ¯‹ fiÏË, ÙÂ›ÓÂÈ Ó· ÛÙËÚ›ÍÂÈ ÌÈ· ÚÔÁÂÓ¤ÛÙÂÚË ¯ÚÔÓÔÏfiÁË-ÛË (Á‡Úˆ ÛÙÔ 360). ¶·Ú·Ì¤ÓÂÈ ÁÈ’ ·˘ÙÔ‡˜ ÙÔ˘˜ ÏfiÁÔ˘˜ ·ÓÂÍ‹ÁËÙÔ ÙÔ Ò˜ ÔÈ ∆ÂÁÂ¿ÙÂ˜ ı· ÌÔ-ÚÔ‡Û·Ó Ó· ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÏËÚÒÛÂÈ ÁÈ· ÙÔÓ ÈÔ ı·˘Ì¿ÛÈÔ Ó·fi ÙÔ˘ Ù¤Ù·ÚÙÔ˘ ·ÈÒÓ· ÛÙËÓ ¶ÂÏÔfiÓÓËÛÔ.

∞ÓÙ›ıÂÙ·, ÙÔ ÂÚˆÙÈÎfi Û‡ÌÏÂÁÌ· ÛÙ· ª¤Á·Ú· ¤¯ÂÈ Û˘ÁÎÂÓÙÚÒÛÂÈ ÌÈÎÚ‹ ÚÔÛÔ¯‹, fiÛÔÓ ·ÊÔ-Ú¿ ÙË ¯ÚÔÓÔÏfiÁËÛ‹ ÙÔ˘, ·ÊÔ‡ ¤¯ÂÈ ¯·ıÂ› Î·È Â›Ó·È ‰‡ÛÎÔÏÔ Ó· ıÂˆÚËıÂ› ÌÂ ¿ÏÏÔ˘˜ ÙÚfiÔ˘˜.∏ ·ÓÔ‡ÚÁ· ÔÏÈÙÈÎ‹ ÙË˜ fiÏË˜ ÙˆÓ ªÂÁ¿ÚˆÓ Ô˘ ¿ÏÏ·˙Â ‰È·ÚÎÒ˜ Û˘ÌÌ·¯›Â˜ Î·È Ô˘‰ÂÙÂÚfi-ÙËÙÂ˜, ÙË˜ Â¤ÙÚÂ„Â Ó· ·Ó·Ù˘¯ıÂ› Î·È Ó· ÏÔ˘Ù›ÛÂÈ ·fi ÙË ‚ÈÔÌË¯·Ó›· Ì·ÏÏÈÔ‡ ÙÔÓ Ù¤Ù·ÚÙÔ·ÈÒÓ·, Î·ıÒ˜ Â›ÛË˜ Î·È ·fi ÂÍÂÈ‰ÈÎÂ˘Ì¤ÓÂ˜ Î·ÏÏÈ¤ÚÁÂÈÂ˜. ∆· ª¤Á·Ú·, ÏÔÈfiÓ, ı· ÌÔÚÔ‡Û·ÓÓ· ÚÔÛÏ¿‚Ô˘Ó ÙÔÓ ™Îfi·, ·Ó¿ ¿Û· ÛÙÈÁÌ‹ Î·Ù¿ ÙË ‰È¿ÚÎÂÈ· ÙË˜ Î·ÚÈ¤Ú·˜ ÙÔ˘. ¶fiÙÂ ‹Ù·Ó ËfiÏË ÛÙË ÌÂÁ·Ï‡ÙÂÚË ·ÎÌ‹; ¶fiÙÂ ı· ÌÔÚÔ‡ÛÂ Ó· ¤¯ÂÈ ÙËÓ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹ ‰˘Ó·ÙfiÙËÙ· Ó· ··-Û¯ÔÏ‹ÛÂÈ ÙÔÓ ™Îfi· Î·È Ì·˙› ÙÔÓ ¶Ú·ÍÈÙ¤ÏË -·Ó fiÓÙˆ˜ Ù· ¤ÚÁ· ÙÔ˘˜ ·Ó·Ï‹ÊıËÎ·Ó Û¯Â‰fiÓÙ·˘Ùfi¯ÚÔÓ·; ∞˘Ù¿ Î·È ¿ÏÏ· ÂÚˆÙ‹Ì·Ù· ı· Û˘˙ËÙËıÔ‡Ó ÛÂ ·˘Ù‹ ÙËÓ ÔÏÈÙÈÎ‹ Î·È ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹¤ÚÂ˘Ó· ÙÔ˘ ∞ÈÁ·È·ÎÔ‡ ÎfiÛÌÔ˘ Î·Ù¿ ÙË ‰È¿ÚÎÂÈ· ÙË˜ ÛÙ·‰ÈÔ‰ÚÔÌ›·˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·.



™Îfi·˜ Ô ¶¿ÚÈÔ˜: ∞Ú¯ÈÙ¤ÎÙˆÓ Î·È °Ï‡ÙË˜

¶¤ÙÚÔ˜ £¤ÌÂÏË˜

∂Ù·ÈÚÂ›· ªÂÛÛËÓÈ·ÎÒÓ ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏÔÁÈÎÒÓ ªÂÏÂÙÒÓ, ∞ı‹Ó·

<[email protected]>

√ÊËÌÈÛÌ¤ÓÔ˜ Î·ÏÏÈÙ¤¯ÓË˜ ™Îfi·˜ Ô ¶¿ÚÈÔ˜ ¯·Ú·ÎÙËÚ›˙ÂÙ·È ·Ú¯ÈÙ¤ÎÙˆÓ ·fi ÔÚÈÛÌ¤ÓÔ˘˜·Ú¯·›Ô˘˜ Û˘ÁÁÚ·ÊÂ›˜. ¢ÈÎ·›ˆ˜ ¿ÏÏˆÛÙÂ, ÂÊfiÛÔÓ ·˘Ùfi˜ ‹Ù·Ó Ô ÂÌÓÂ˘ÛÙ‹˜ ÙË˜ ÌÔÚÊ‹˜

ÙÔ˘ Ó·Ô‡ ÙË˜ ∞Ï¤·˜ ∞ıËÓ¿˜ ÛÙËÓ ∆ÂÁ¤· ÙË˜ ∞ÚÎ·‰›·˜, ÂÓfi˜ Ó·Ô‡, Ô ÔÔ›Ô˜ ÔÏf ‰‹ ÙÈ ÙáÓ Ó·áÓ,¬ÛÔÈ ¶ÂÏÔÔÓÓËÛ›ÔÈ˜ ÂåÛ›Ó, â˜ Î·Ù·ÛÎÂ˘‹Ó ÚÔ¤ Â̄È ÙcÓ ôÏÏËÓ Î·d â˜ Ì¤ÁÂıÔ˜.

∆Ô Ê·ÈÓfiÌÂÓÔ ÙÔ˘ Û˘Ó‰˘·ÛÌÔ‡ ÙË˜ ÁÓÒÛË˜ Î·È ÙˆÓ ‰‡Ô ÙÂ¯ÓÒÓ, ·˘Ù‹˜ ÙÔ˘ ·Ú¯ÈÙ¤ÎÙÔÓ· Î·ÈÂÎÂ›ÓË˜ ÙÔ˘ ÁÏ‡ÙË, ÛÙËÓ ÂÎÚËÎÙÈÎ‹ ÚÔÛˆÈÎfiÙËÙ· ÙÔ˘ ¶¿ÚÈÔ˘ ™Îfi· ı· ·Ó·Ï˘ıÂ› Î·Ù¿ ÙÔ‰˘Ó·Ùfi ÛÙËÓ ·ÚÔ‡Û· ·Ó·ÎÔ›ÓˆÛË ÛÂ Û‡ÁÎÚÈÛË ÌÂ ¿ÏÏÂ˜ ·Ó¿ÏÔÁÂ˜ ÂÚÈÙÒÛÂÈ˜, fiˆ˜ ÙÔ˘ ·Ú-¯ÈÙ¤ÎÙÔÓ· Î·È ÁÏ‡ÙË £Ú·Û˘Ì‹‰Ë, Â›ÛË˜ ·fi ÙËÓ ¶¿ÚÔ, Ô˘ ÂÚÁ¿ÛÙËÎÂ ÛÙÔ Ó·fi ÙÔ˘ ∞ÛÎÏË-ÈÔ‡ ÛÙËÓ ∂›‰·˘ÚÔ.

Skopas of Paros: Architect and Sculptor

The famous sculptor Skopas of Paros is rightly mentioned by ancient writers as architectas well since he was the author of the temple of Athena Alea at Tegea of Arkadia, a tem-

ple which far excelled the others in the Peloponnesos: ÔÏf ‰‹ ÙÈ ÙáÓ Ó·áÓ, ¬ÛÔÈ ¶ÂÏÔÔÓÓËÛ›ÔÈ˜ÂåÛ›Ó, â˜ Î·Ù·ÛÎÂ˘‹Ó ÚÔ¤ Â̄È ÙcÓ ôÏÏËÓ Î·d â˜ Ì¤ÁÂıÔ˜.

The phenomenon of combined knowledge in both arts (architecture and sculpture) asseen in the explosive personality of Skopas will be analyzed in this paper, in comparisonwith analogous personalities such as the architect and sculptor Thrasymedes, also fromParos, who worked on the temple of Asklepios at Epidauros.



Drawings after Ancient Statuary and Workshop Practice

Salvatore Settis

Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa, Italy


Arecently published papyrus scroll in Turin, dated around the first half of the first cen-tury AD, includes among other things (a large portion of text by the geographer

Artemidoros of Ephesos, century 100 BC, an unfinished map, and several drawings of realand fantastic animals) a series of drawings of human heads, hands and feet.

It can be shown that these drawings were made after as many “segments” of statues (mostlikely, plaster casts such as those from Baiae), including, in one instance, a statuary typeclose to Skopas. This paper will explore the nature of these drawings, their sources, andtheir significance both for ancient workshop practice and in the process of formation of a“canon” of statuary types, expressions, and gestures.

™¯¤‰È· ∞Ú¯·›·˜ ∞Á·ÏÌ·ÙÔÔÈ›·˜ Î·È ∂ÚÁ·ÛÙËÚÈ·Î‹ ¶Ú·ÎÙÈÎ‹

∂Ó·˜ ÚfiÛÊ·Ù· ‰ËÌÔÛÈÂ˘Ì¤ÓÔ˜ ¿˘ÚÔ˜ ÛÙÔ ∆ÔÚ›ÓÔ, Ô˘ ¯ÚÔÓÔÏÔÁÂ›Ù·È Á‡Úˆ ÛÙÔ ÚÒÙÔÌÈÛfi ÙÔ˘ ÚÒÙÔ˘ ·ÈÒÓ· Ì.Ã., ÂÚÈÏ·Ì‚¿ÓÂÈ ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ¿ÏÏˆÓ (¤Ó· ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ Ì¤ÚÔ˜ ÎÂÈÌ¤ÓÔ˘ ÙÔ˘

ÁÂˆÁÚ¿ÊÔ˘ ∞ÚÙÂÌ›‰ˆÚÔ˘ ÙË˜ ∂Ê¤ÛÔ˘, ÂÚ› ÙÔ 100 .Ã., ¤Ó·Ó ËÌÈÙÂÏ‹ ¯¿ÚÙË, Î·È Î¿ÌÔÛ· Û¯¤-‰È· Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÈÎÒÓ Î·È Ê·ÓÙ·ÛÙÈÎÒÓ ˙ÒˆÓ), ÌÈ· ÛÂÈÚ¿ ·fi Û¯¤‰È· ·ÓıÚÒÈÓˆÓ ÎÂÊ·ÏÒÓ, ¯ÂÚÈÒÓÎ·È Ô‰ÈÒÓ.

ªÔÚÂ› Ó· ·Ô‰ÂÈ¯ıÂ› fiÙÈ ·˘Ù¿ Ù· Û¯¤‰È· Â›¯·Ó Á›ÓÂÈ ÌÂ ‚¿ÛË «ÙÌ‹Ì·Ù·» ·Á·ÏÌ¿ÙˆÓ (Î·Ù¿¿Û· Èı·ÓfiÙËÙ·, Á‡„ÈÓ· ÂÎÌ·ÁÂ›·), Û˘ÌÂÚÈÏ·Ì‚·ÓÔÌ¤ÓÔ˘, ÛÂ Ì›· ÂÚ›ÙˆÛË, ÂÓfi˜ Ù‡Ô˘·Á·ÏÌ·ÙÔÔÈ›·˜ ÙË˜ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÙÚÔ›·˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·. ∏ ÂÚÁ·Û›· ·˘Ù‹ ı· ‰ÈÂÚÂ˘Ó‹ÛÂÈ ÙË Ê‡ÛË ·˘ÙÒÓÙˆÓ Û¯Â‰›ˆÓ, ÙËÓ ÚÔ¤ÏÂ˘Û‹ ÙÔ˘˜, Î·È ÙË ÛËÌ·Û›· ÙÔ˘˜, ÙfiÛÔ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ Ú·ÎÙÈÎ‹ ÛÙÔ ·Ú¯·›Ô ÂÚ-Á·ÛÙ‹ÚÈÔ fiÛÔ Î·È ÛÙË ‰È·‰ÈÎ·Û›· ‰È·ÌfiÚÊˆÛË˜ ÂÓfi˜ «Î·ÓfiÓ·» Û¯ÂÙÈÎ¿ ÌÂ Ù‡Ô˘˜ ·Á·ÏÌ¿ÙˆÓ,ÂÎÊÚ¿ÛÂÈ˜ Î·È ¯ÂÈÚÔÓÔÌ›Â˜.



Skopas and Dionysiac Themes

Filippo Giudice

Department of Archaeological, Filological and Historical Studies

University of Catania, Italy

<[email protected]>

In studies of Skopas, Dionysiac themes have had only a minor space. Scholarly interests,in fact, have focused mainly on the Maenad, giving lesser importance to themes concern-

ing Dionysos and his companions. The recent discovery of the bronze statue of the Satyr ofMazara and a representation on an unpublished kylix of the Meleager Painter pose, however,raises the problem of the sculptor’s interest in such themes.

™Îfi·˜ Î·È ¢ÈÔÓ˘ÛÈ·Î¿ £¤Ì·Ù·

™ÙÈ˜ ÌÂÏ¤ÙÂ˜ ÁÈ· ÙÔ ™Îfi·, Ù· ¢ÈÔÓ˘ÛÈ·Î¿ ı¤Ì·Ù· Â›¯·Ó Ì¤¯ÚÈ ÙÒÚ· ÌÈÎÚfi ÌfiÓÔ ¯ÒÚÔ. ∆Ô·Î·‰ËÌ·˚Îfi ÂÓ‰È·Ê¤ÚÔÓ, ÛÙËÓ Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÈÎfiÙËÙ·, Â›¯Â ÂÈÎÂÓÙÚˆıÂ› Î˘Ú›ˆ˜ ÛÙËÓ ª·ÈÓ¿‰·,

‰›ÓÔÓÙ·˜ ÏÈÁfiÙÂÚË ÛËÌ·Û›· ÛÂ ı¤Ì·Ù· Û¯ÂÙÈÎ¿ ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ¢ÈfiÓ˘ÛÔ Î·È ÙÔ˘˜ ·ÎÔÏÔ‡ıÔ˘˜ ÙÔ˘.√Ìˆ˜, Ë ÚfiÛÊ·ÙË ·Ó·Î¿Ï˘„Ë ÙÔ˘ ¯¿ÏÎÈÓÔ˘ ·Á¿ÏÌ·ÙÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ ™·Ù‡ÚÔ˘ ÙË˜ Mazara Î·È ÌÈ· ·-Ú¿ÛÙ·ÛË ÛÂ ÌÈ· ·‰ËÌÔÛ›Â˘ÙË Î‡ÏÈÎ· ÙÔ˘ ˙ˆÁÚ¿ÊÔ˘ ªÂÏ¤·ÁÚÔ˘ ı¤ÙÔ˘Ó ÙÔ Úfi‚ÏËÌ· ÙÔ˘ ÂÓ-‰È·Ê¤ÚÔÓÙÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ ÁÏ‡ÙË ÁÈ· Ù¤ÙÔÈ· ı¤Ì·Ù·.



Praxiteles of Athens, Skopas of Paros: Bridging the Gap?

Aileen Ajootian

Department of Classics, University of Mississippi, USA

<[email protected]>

Vitruvius linked Praxiteles of Athens and Skopas of Paros with a major architectural proj-ect in Asia Minor, the Mausolleion at Halicarnassos. The archaeological evidence for

their collaboration in Caria does not substantiate his claim, but another ancient intersectionin Asia Minor between the two sculptors can be recognized. At Aphrodisias, the so-calledPortico of Tiberius (ca early 1st century AD), a long stoa just south of the Agora, was deco-rated with a frieze of carved faces quoting various Classical styles. One replicates theAphrodite at Knidos, the single lost work of Praxiteles for which we have secure informa-tion. Other faces on the Portico reproduced sculptural types that are now attributed toSkopas, although it is not clear that the ancient designer of the Portico's sculptural programalso made this connection.

Evidence shapes modern ideas about ancient artists. For Praxiteles, at least seven fourth-century inscribed statue bases supported his (probably bronze) portraits of private individu-als dedicated to gods. Some of these statues stood in Athens and one was set up somewherenear Thespiae in Boeotia. Another base found at Delphi, long connected with a shadowythird-century Praxiteles, can now be assigned to the oeuvre of the famous earlier artist. Onit stood the bronze portrait of Charidemos from Pitane (in Aiolis) dedicated by the demosAbydos in the Troad and set up at the mainland Panhellenic shrine. Thus there is epigraphi-cal evidence for Praxiteles being commissioned by patrons from Asia Minor, albeit not Car-ian satraps. Overall, the archaeological evidence illuminates Praxiteles’ career as a sculptorof bronze portraits; the textual sources present him as the creator of gods and mythologicalbeings.

For Skopas, while the literary information documenting his career as sculptor and archi-tect is full, no inscribed statue bases survive. There is little evidence that he made portraits,although other fourth-century Parian artists did; they are named on statue bases, even inAthens. Skopas’ artistic profile must be reconstructed exclusively from ancient sources. Thetestimonia overlap with the archaeology at Tegea in Arkadia, where Skopas is said to havedesigned the Temple of Athena Alea and also to have created cult images of Asklepios andHygeia flanking a statue of Athena. Based on these reports, some critics believe Skopas alsomade the statuary decorating this temple. These fourth-century survivors have generated ourideas about the artist’s style. An inscribed relief found near the Temple of Athena at Tegeatouches obliquely on the Skopas-Halicarnassos connection. The fragmentary record relief (?)depicts Ada and Idrieus, Carians in power ca 351-344 BC, flanking Zeus Stratios. It has beeninterpreted as evidence of Skopas’ work both on the Mausolleion and also the Athena shrine.

Ada and Idrieus turn up again at Delphi. The inscribed base for a pair of bronze statuesattests that they were dedicated to Apollo by Milesians honoring the royal pair, more evi-dence, perhaps, of their donations to mainland Greek sanctuaries. Satyros, son of Isotimos of



Paros, was the sculptor, contemporary with Praxiteles and the bronze portrait at Delphicommissioned by Milesians. According to Pliny, Satyros worked with Skopas on the Mau-solleion. Following the trail of inscriptions from Athens toTegea to Delphi we get a glimpseof fourth-century artistic production accounting for the connection between Praxiteles andother Parian sculptors except Skopas. The ancient evidence constructs the artistic persona ofthese ancient sculptors. Both are traditionally considered creators of gods and mythologicalfigures, but the archaeological record tells a different story about Praxiteles.

¶Ú·ÍÈÙ¤ÏË˜ Ô ∞ıËÓ·›Ô˜, ™Îfi·˜ Ô ¶¿ÚÈÔ˜: °ÂÊ˘ÚÒÓÔÓÙ·˜ ÙÔ Ã¿ÛÌ·;

√µÈÙÚÔ‡‚ÈÔ˜ Û˘Ó‰¤ÂÈ ÙÔÓ ¶Ú·ÍÈÙ¤ÏË ÙË˜ ∞ı‹Ó·˜ Î·È ÙÔÓ ™Îfi· ÙË˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘ ÌÂ ¤Ó· ÛËÌ·-ÓÙÈÎfi ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎfi ¤ÚÁÔ ÛÙË ªÈÎÚ¿ ∞Û›·, ÙÔ ª·˘ÛˆÏÂ›Ô ÙË˜ ∞ÏÈÎ·ÚÓ·ÛÛÔ‡. H ·Ú¯·ÈÔ-

ÏÔÁÈÎ‹ Ì·ÚÙ˘Ú›· ‰ÂÓ ÙÂÎÌËÚÈÒÓÂÈ ÙÔÓ ÈÛ¯˘ÚÈÛÌfi ÙÔ˘ ÁÈ· ÙË Û˘ÓÂÚÁ·Û›· ÙÔ˘˜ ÛÙËÓ ∫·Ú›·, ·ÏÏ¿ÌÈ· ¿ÏÏË Û˘ÌfiÚÂ˘ÛË ÙˆÓ ‰‡Ô Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÒÓ ÌÔÚÂ› Ó· ÂÓÙÔÈÛÙÂ› ÛÙË ªÈÎÚ¿ ∞Û›·. ∏ ÏÂÁfiÌÂ-ÓË ™ÙÔ¿ ÙÔ˘ ∆È‚ÂÚ›Ô˘ (·Ú¯¤˜ 1Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· Ì.Ã.) ÛÙËÓ ∞ÊÚÔ‰ÈÛÈ¿‰·, ÌÈ· Ì·ÎÚ¿ ÛÙÔ¿ ·ÎÚÈ‚Ò˜ Ófi-ÙÈ· ÙË˜ ∞ÁÔÚ¿˜, ‹Ù·Ó ‰È·ÎÔÛÌËÌ¤ÓË ÌÂ ˙ˆÊfiÚÔ ·fi ÁÏ˘Ù¿ Ô˘ ·Ó··Ú¿ÁÔ˘Ó ‰È¿ÊÔÚ· ÎÏ·ÛÈ-Î¿ ÛÙ˘Ï. ∂Ó· ·Ó··Ú¿ÁÂÈ ÙËÓ ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË ÙË˜ ∫Ó›‰Ô˘, ÙÔ ÌÔÓ·‰ÈÎfi ¯·Ì¤ÓÔ ¤ÚÁÔ ÙÔ˘ ¶Ú·ÍÈÙ¤ÏË,ÁÈ· ÙÔ ÔÔ›Ô ¤¯Ô˘ÌÂ ·ÛÊ·ÏÂ›˜ ÏËÚÔÊÔÚ›Â˜. ∞ÏÏ· ÁÏ˘Ù¿ ·Ó··Ú¿ÁÔ˘Ó ÌÔÚÊ¤˜ Ô˘ ·Ô‰›‰Ô-ÓÙ·È Ï¤ÔÓ ÛÙÔ ™Îfi·, ·Ó Î·È ‰ÂÓ Â›Ó·È Û·Ê¤˜ fiÙÈ Ô ·Ú¯·›Ô˜ Û¯Â‰È·ÛÙ‹˜ ÙÔ˘ ÁÏ˘ÙÔ‡ ‰È¿ÎÔ-ÛÌÔ˘ ÙË˜ ÛÙÔ¿˜ ¤Î·ÓÂ Â›ÛË˜ ·˘Ù‹ ÙË Û‡Ó‰ÂÛË.

∏ Ì·ÚÙ˘Ú›· ‰È·ÌÔÚÊÒÓÂÈ ÙÈ˜ Û‡Á¯ÚÔÓÂ˜ È‰¤Â˜ ÁÈ· ÙÔ˘˜ ·Ú¯·›Ô˘˜ Î·ÏÏÈÙ¤¯ÓÂ˜. ™¯ÂÙÈÎ¿ ÌÂÙÔÓ ¶Ú·ÍÈÙ¤ÏË, ÂÙ¿ ÙÔ˘Ï¿¯ÈÛÙÔÓ ÂÓÂ›ÁÚ·ÊÂ˜ ‚¿ÛÂÈ˜ ÙÔ˘ Ù¤Ù·ÚÙÔ˘ ·ÈÒÓ· ¤ÊÂÚ·Ó ÔÚÙÚ·›Ù·(Èı·ÓÒ˜ ¯¿ÏÎÈÓ·) È‰ÈˆÙÒÓ, ·ÊÈÂÚˆÌ¤Ó· ÛÙÔ˘˜ ıÂÔ‡˜. √ÚÈÛÌ¤Ó· ·fi ·˘Ù¿ Ù· ·Á¿ÏÌ·Ù· Â›¯·ÓÛÙËıÂ› ÛÙËÓ ∞ı‹Ó· Î·È ¤Ó· Î¿Ô˘ ÎÔÓÙ¿ ÛÙÈ˜ £ÂÛÈ¤˜ ÙË˜ µÔÈˆÙ›·˜. ∞ÏÏË Ì›· ‚¿ÛË Ô˘ ‚Ú¤-ıËÎÂ ÛÙÔ˘˜ ¢ÂÏÊÔ‡˜, Î·È Â›¯Â Â› Ì·ÎÚfiÓ Û˘Ó‰ÂıÂ› ÌÂ ¤Ó·Ó ÔÌÈ¯ÏÒ‰Ë ¶Ú·ÍÈÙ¤ÏË ÙÔ˘ ÙÚ›ÙÔ˘·ÈÒÓ·, ÌÔÚÂ› Ï¤ÔÓ Ó· ·Ô‰ÔıÂ› ÛÙÔ ¤ÚÁÔ ÙÔ˘ ‰È¿ÛËÌÔ˘ Úˆ˚ÌfiÙÂÚÔ˘ Î·ÏÏÈÙ¤¯ÓË. ™Â ·˘Ù‹ ÙË‚¿ÛË Â›¯Â ÛÙËıÂ› ÙÔ ¯¿ÏÎÈÓÔ ÔÚÙÚ·›ÙÔ ÙÔ˘ Ã·Ú›‰ËÌÔ˘ ·fi ÙËÓ ¶ÈÙ¿ÓË ÙË˜ ∞ÈÔÏ›‰Ô˜, ·ÊÈ¤Úˆ-Ì· ·fi ÙÔÓ ‰‹ÌÔ ÙË˜ ∞‚‡‰Ô˘ ÛÙËÓ ∆Úˆ¿‰·, Ô˘ Â›¯Â ÙÔÔıÂÙËıÂ› ÛÙÔ ¶·ÓÂÏÏ‹ÓÈÔ ÈÂÚfi ÙË˜Î˘Ú›ˆ˜ ∂ÏÏ¿‰Ô˜. À¿Ú¯ÂÈ ÂÔÌ¤Óˆ˜ ÂÈÁÚ·ÊÈÎ‹ Ì·ÚÙ˘Ú›· ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·Ó¿ıÂÛË ¤ÚÁˆÓ ÛÙÔÓ ¶Ú·ÍÈ-Ù¤ÏË ·fi ‰˘Ó¿ÛÙÂ˜ ÙË˜ ªÈÎÚ¿˜ ∞Û›·˜, ÌÔÏÔÓfiÙÈ fi¯È ∫¿ÚÂ˜ Û·ÙÚ¿Â˜. °ÂÓÈÎ¿, Ë ·Ú¯·ÈÔÏÔÁÈÎ‹Ì·ÚÙ˘Ú›· ÊˆÙ›˙ÂÈ ÙËÓ Î·ÚÈ¤Ú· ÙÔ˘ ¶Ú·ÍÈÙ¤ÏË ˆ˜ ÁÏ‡ÙË ¯¿ÏÎÈÓˆÓ ÔÚÙÚ·›ÙˆÓ ÂÓÒ ÔÈ ÁÚ·Ù¤˜ËÁ¤˜ ÙÔÓ ·ÚÔ˘ÛÈ¿˙Ô˘Ó ˆ˜ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁfi ·Á·ÏÌ¿ÙˆÓ ıÂÒÓ Î·È Ì˘ıÔÏÔÁÈÎÒÓ fiÓÙˆÓ.

°È· ÙÔÓ ™Îfi·, ·Ó Î·È Ë ÊÈÏÔÏÔÁÈÎ‹ Ì·ÚÙ˘Ú›· Ô˘ ÙÂÎÌËÚÈÒÓÂÈ ÙËÓ Î·ÚÈ¤Ú· ÙÔ˘ ˆ˜ ÁÏ‡ÙËÎ·È ·Ú¯ÈÙ¤ÎÙÔÓ· Â›Ó·È Ï‹ÚË˜, ‰ÂÓ ÛÒ˙ÔÓÙ·È ÂÓÂ›ÁÚ·ÊÂ˜ ‚¿ÛÂÈ˜ ·Á·ÏÌ¿ÙˆÓ ÙÔ˘. À¿Ú¯Ô˘Ó Ï›-Á· ÛÙÔÈ¯Â›· fiÙÈ ¤Î·ÓÂ ÔÚÙÚ·›Ù·, ·Ó Î·È ÙÔÓ Ù¤Ù·ÚÙÔ ·ÈÒÓ· ¿ÏÏÔÈ ¶·ÚÈ·ÓÔ› Î·ÏÏÈÙ¤¯ÓÂ˜ ¤Î·-Ó·Ó, fiˆ˜ Ì·ÚÙ˘ÚÔ‡Ó ‚¿ÛÂÈ˜ ·Á·ÏÌ¿ÙˆÓ, ·ÎfiÌË Î·È ÛÙËÓ ∞ı‹Ó·. ∆Ô Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÈÎfi ÚÔÊ›Ï ÙÔ˘™Îfi· Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ·Ó·Û˘ÓÙÂıÂ› ·ÔÎÏÂÈÛÙÈÎ¿ ·fi ÙÈ˜ ·Ú¯·›Â˜ ËÁ¤˜. ∆· ÛÙÔÈ¯Â›· Û˘Ì›ÙÔ˘Ó ÌÂÙËÓ ·Ú¯·ÈÔÏÔÁ›· ÛÙËÓ ∆ÂÁ¤· ÙË˜ ∞ÚÎ·‰›·˜, fiÔ˘ Ô ™Îfi·˜ Ï¤ÁÂÙ·È fiÙÈ Û¯Â‰›·ÛÂ ÙÔ Ó·fi ÙË˜∞ıËÓ¿˜ ∞Ï¤·˜ Î·È Â›ÛË˜ Î·Ù·ÛÎÂ‡·ÛÂ Ù· Ï·ÙÚÂ˘ÙÈÎ¿ ·Á¿ÏÌ·Ù· ÙÔ˘ ∞ÛÎÏËÈÔ‡ Î·È ÙË˜ ÀÁÂ›-·˜ ÂÎ·Ù¤ÚˆıÂÓ ·Á¿ÏÌ·ÙÔ˜ ÙË˜ ∞ıËÓ¿˜. ªÂ ‚¿ÛË ·˘Ù¤˜ ÙÈ˜ ·Ó·ÊÔÚ¤˜, ÔÚÈÛÌ¤ÓÔÈ ÎÚÈÙÈÎÔ› È-ÛÙÂ‡Ô˘Ó fiÙÈ Ô ™Îfi·˜ ¤ÊÙÈ·ÍÂ Â›ÛË˜ Î·È ÙÔÓ ÁÏ˘Ùfi ‰È¿ÎÔÛÌÔ ÙÔ˘ Ó·Ô‡. ∞fi ·˘Ù¿ Ù· Ûˆ˙fi-ÌÂÓ· ÁÏ˘Ù¿ ÙÔ˘ Ù¤Ù·ÚÙÔ˘ ·ÈÒÓ· ËÁ¿˙Ô˘Ó ÔÈ È‰¤Â˜ Ì·˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÙÚÔ›· ÙÔ˘ Î·ÏÏÈÙ¤¯ÓË.



∂Ó· ÂÓÂ›ÁÚ·ÊÔ ·Ó¿ÁÏ˘ÊÔ Ô˘ ‚Ú¤ıËÎÂ ÎÔÓÙ¿ ÛÙÔ Ó·fi ÙË˜ ∞ıËÓ¿˜ ÛÙËÓ ∆ÂÁ¤· Î·È ·ÂÈÎÔÓ›-˙ÂÈ ÙËÓ ∞‰· Î·È ÙÔÓ π‰ÚÈ¤·, ÈÛ¯˘ÚÔ‡˜ ∫¿ÚÂ˜ ÂÚ› ÙÔ 351-344 .Ã., ÂÎ·Ù¤ÚˆıÂÓ ÙÔ˘ ¢Èfi˜ ™ÙÚ·-Ù›Ô˘, ˘Ô‰ËÏÒÓÂÈ ¤ÌÌÂÛ· ÙËÓ Û‡Ó‰ÂÛË ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ÌÂ ÙËÓ ∞ÏÈÎ·ÚÓ·ÛÛfi. ∆Ô ¤ÚÁÔ ¤¯ÂÈ ÂÚÌËÓÂ˘-ıÂ› ˆ˜ ·fi‰ÂÈÍË ÙË˜ ÂÚÁ·Û›·˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ÛÙÔ ª·˘ÛˆÏÂ›Ô Î·È ÛÙÔ ‚ˆÌfi ÙË˜ ∞ıËÓ¿˜.

∏ ∞‰· Î·È Ô π‰ÚÈÂ‡˜ ÂÌÊ·Ó›˙ÔÓÙ·È Í·Ó¿ ÛÙÔ˘˜ ¢ÂÏÊÔ‡˜. ∏ ÂÓÂ›ÁÚ·ÊË ‚¿ÛË ˙Â‡ÁÔ˘˜ ¯¿ÏÎÈ-ÓˆÓ ·Á·ÏÌ¿ÙˆÓ ÈÛÙÔÔÈÂ› fiÙÈ ‹Û·Ó ·ÊÈÂÚÒÌ·Ù· ÛÙÔÓ ∞fiÏÏˆÓ· ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ ªÈÏ‹ÛÈÔ˘˜, ÚÔ˜ ÙÈ-Ì‹Ó ÙÔ˘ ‚·ÛÈÏÈÎÔ‡ ˙Â‡ÁÔ˘˜. πÛˆ˜ Â‰Ò ¤¯Ô˘ÌÂ ÈÛ¯˘Ú‹ Ì·ÚÙ˘Ú›· ÙˆÓ ‰ˆÚÂÒÓ ÙÔ˘˜ ÛÂ ÎÂÓÙÚÈÎ¿ÂÏÏËÓÈÎ¿ ÈÂÚ¿. √ ÁÏ‡ÙË˜ ‹Ù·Ó Ô ™¿Ù˘ÚÔ˜, ÁÈÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ πÛfiÙÈÌÔ˘ ÙË˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘, Û‡Á¯ÚÔÓÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ ¶Ú·-ÍÈÙ¤ÏË Î·È ÙÔ˘ ¯¿ÏÎÈÓÔ˘ ÔÚÙÚ·›ÙÔ˘ Ô˘ ·ÊÈ¤ÚˆÛ·Ó ÔÈ ªÈÏ‹ÛÈÔÈ ÛÙÔ˘˜ ¢ÂÏÊÔ‡˜. ™‡ÌÊˆÓ· ÌÂÙÔÓ ¶Ï›ÓÈÔ, Ô ™¿Ù˘ÚÔ˜ ÂÚÁ¿ÛÙËÎÂ ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ™Îfi· ÛÙÔ ª·˘ÛˆÏÂ›Ô. ∞ÎÔÏÔ˘ıÒÓÙ·˜ Ù· ›¯ÓË ÙˆÓÂÈÁÚ·ÊÒÓ ·fi ÙËÓ ∞ı‹Ó· ÛÙËÓ ∆ÂÁ¤· ÛÙÔ˘˜ ¢ÂÏÊÔ‡˜, ·›ÚÓÔ˘ÌÂ ÌÈ· È‰¤· ÙË˜ Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÈÎ‹˜·Ú·ÁˆÁ‹˜ ÙÔ˘ Ù¤Ù·ÚÙÔ˘ ·ÈÒÓ· Û¯ÂÙÈÎ¿ ÌÂ ÙË Û‡Ó‰ÂÛË ·Ó¿ÌÂÛ· ÛÙÔÓ ¶Ú·ÍÈÙ¤ÏË Î·È ¿ÏÏÔ˘˜¶·ÚÈ·ÓÔ‡˜ ÁÏ‡ÙÂ˜ ÂÎÙfi˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·. √È ·Ú¯·›Â˜ Ì·ÚÙ˘Ú›Â˜ ‰È·ÌÔÚÊÒÓÔ˘Ó ÙËÓ Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÈÎ‹ÚÔÛˆÈÎfiÙËÙ· ·˘ÙÒÓ ÙˆÓ ·Ú¯·›ˆÓ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁÒÓ. ∫·È ÔÈ ‰‡Ô ıÂˆÚÔ‡ÓÙ·È ·Ú·‰ÔÛÈ·Î¿ ÁÏ‡ÙÂ˜·Á·ÏÌ¿ÙˆÓ ıÂÒÓ Î·È Ì˘ıÔÏÔÁÈÎÒÓ ÌÔÚÊÒÓ, ·ÏÏ¿ Ù· ·Ú¯·ÈÔÏÔÁÈÎ¿ ‰Â‰ÔÌ¤Ó· ‰ÈËÁÔ‡ÓÙ·È ÌÈ·‰È·ÊÔÚÂÙÈÎ‹ ÈÛÙÔÚ›· ÁÈ· ÙÔÓ ¶Ú·ÍÈÙ¤ÏË.



The Artemision of Ephesos in the Time of Skopas

Anton Bammer

Crisler Library at Ephesos, Turkey

<[email protected]>

Skopas and Praxiteles are known from literary sources to have worked on the Artemisionat Ephesos: Skopas on the temple, Praxiteles on the altar. The Artemision is among those

monuments in Asia Minor that were constructed during the Ionian Renaissance, a phenome-non that started with the Mausolleion at Halikarnassos and spread to Priene, Ephesos, Didy-ma, Lesbos, and later also to Pergamon. This was a revival of archaic Ionian art and archi-tecture with a systematic new address both to Athenian architecture and to the ideas of Pre-socratic philosophy.

Since Skopas worked as an architect at Tegea we can assume that his knowledge also wasexploited during the construction of the late classical Artemision. This temple repeats ele-ments of its archaic predecessor such as its columnae caelatae but not its sculptured sima,and in addition it seems to have included one more row of columns on the façade. The lateclassical Artemision’s altar also reused the foundations of its archaic predecessor, but itsscreen wall with relieves of Amazons and its inclusion of a colonnade above the frieze arecompletely new, and become the prototype of later monumental altars.

∆Ô ∞ÚÙÂÌ›ÛÈÔ ÙË˜ ∂Ê¤ÛÔ˘ ÙËÓ ∂Ô¯‹ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·

∞fi ÙÈ˜ ÊÈÏÔÏÔÁÈÎ¤˜ ËÁ¤˜ Â›Ó·È ÁÓˆÛÙfi fiÙÈ Ô ™Îfi·˜ Î·È Ô ¶Ú·ÍÈÙ¤ÏË˜ ÂÚÁ¿ÛÙËÎ·Ó ÛÙÔ∞ÚÙÂÌ›ÛÈÔ ÙË˜ ∂Ê¤ÛÔ˘: √ ™Îfi·˜ ÛÙÔ Ó·fi, Ô ¶Ú·ÍÈÙ¤ÏË˜ ÛÙÔ ‚ˆÌfi. ∆Ô ∞ÚÙÂÌ›ÛÈÔ Û˘ÁÎ·-

Ù·Ï¤ÁÂÙ·È ·Ó¿ÌÂÛ· ÛÙ· ÌÓËÌÂ›· ÙË˜ ªÈÎÚ¿˜ ∞Û›·˜, Ô˘ Î·Ù·ÛÎÂ˘¿ÛÙËÎ·Ó Î·Ù¿ ÙË ‰È¿ÚÎÂÈ· ÙË˜πˆÓÈÎ‹˜ ∞Ó·Á¤ÓÓËÛË˜, ¤Ó· Ê·ÈÓfiÌÂÓÔ Ô˘ ÍÂÎ›ÓËÛÂ ÌÂ ÙÔ ª·˘ÛˆÏÂ›Ô ÙË˜ ∞ÏÈÎ·ÚÓ·ÛÛÔ‡ Î·ÈÂÍ·ÏÒıËÎÂ ÛÙËÓ ¶ÚÈ‹ÓË, ÙËÓ ∂ÊÂÛÔ, Ù· ¢›‰˘Ì·, ÙË §¤Û‚Ô, Î·È ·ÚÁfiÙÂÚ· Â›ÛË˜ ÛÙÔ ¶¤ÚÁ·-ÌÔ. ¶ÚfiÎÂÈÙ·È ÁÈ· ·Ó·‚›ˆÛË ÙË˜ ·Ú¯·˚Î‹˜ πˆÓÈÎ‹˜ Ù¤¯ÓË˜ Î·È ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ‹˜ ÌÂ ÌÈ· Û˘ÛÙËÌ·-ÙÈÎ‹ Ó¤· Î·ÙÂ‡ı˘ÓÛË ÚÔ˜ ÙËÓ ·ıËÓ·˚Î‹ ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ‹ Î·È ÙÈ˜ È‰¤Â˜ ÙË˜ ÚÔÛˆÎÚ·ÙÈÎ‹˜ ÊÈ-ÏÔÛÔÊ›·˜.

∂ÊfiÛÔÓ Ô ™Îfi·˜ ÂÚÁ¿ÛÙËÎÂ ˆ˜ ·Ú¯ÈÙ¤ÎÙÔÓ·˜ ÛÙËÓ ∆ÂÁ¤·, ÌÔÚÔ‡ÌÂ Ó· ˘Ôı¤ÛÔ˘ÌÂ fiÙÈ ËÁÓÒÛË ÙÔ˘ ¯ÚËÛÈÌÔÔÈ‹ıËÎÂ Â›ÛË˜ Î·Ù¿ ÙË ‰È¿ÚÎÂÈ· ÙË˜ Î·Ù·ÛÎÂ˘‹˜ ÙÔ˘ ˘ÛÙÂÚÔÎÏ·ÛÈÎÔ‡∞ÚÙÂÌÈÛ›Ô˘. ∞˘Ùfi˜ Ô Ó·fi˜ Â·Ó·Ï·Ì‚¿ÓÂÈ ÛÙÔÈ¯Â›· ÙÔ˘ ·Ú¯·˚ÎÔ‡ ÚÔÎ·Ùfi¯Ô˘ ÙÔ˘, fiˆ˜ Ù··Ó¿ÁÏ˘Ê· ÛÙËÓ Î¿Ùˆ ¿ÎÚË ÙÔ˘ ÎÔÚÌÔ‡ ÙˆÓ ÎÈfiÓˆÓ (columnae caelatae), ·ÏÏ¿ fi¯È ÙË ÁÏ˘Ù‹Û›ÌË, Î·È ÂÈÏ¤ÔÓ Ê·›ÓÂÙ·È Ó· ¤¯ÂÈ Û˘ÌÂÚÈÏ¿‚ÂÈ ÌÈ· ·ÎfiÌË ÛÂÈÚ¿ ·fi Î›ÔÓÂ˜ ÛÙËÓ ÚfiÛÔ„Ë.™ÙÔ ‚ˆÌfi ÙÔ˘ ˘ÛÙÂÚÔÎÏ·ÛÈÎÔ‡ ∞ÚÙÂÌÈÛ›Ô˘ Â›ÛË˜ Â·Ó·¯ÚËÛÈÌÔÔÈ‹ıËÎ·Ó Ù· ıÂÌ¤ÏÈ· ÙÔ˘ ·Ú-¯·˚ÎÔ‡ ÚÔÎ·Ùfi¯Ô˘ ÙÔ˘, ·ÏÏ¿ Ù· ·Ó¿ÁÏ˘Ê· ÙˆÓ ∞Ì·˙fiÓˆÓ Î·È Ë ¤ÓÙ·ÍË ÌÈ·˜ ÎÈÔÓÔÛÙÔÈ¯›·˜¿Óˆ ·fi ÙÔ ‰È¿˙ˆÌ· Â›Ó·È ÂÓÙÂÏÒ˜ Ó¤· ÛÙÔÈ¯Â›· Ô˘ ·ÔÙ¤ÏÂÛ·Ó ÙÔ ÚfiÙ˘Ô ÌÂÙ·ÁÂÓ¤ÛÙÂÚˆÓÌÓËÌÂÈˆ‰ÒÓ ‚ˆÌÒÓ.



...una a Scopa...: Sculpture from the Artemision at Ephesos

Ulrike Muss

Crisler Library at Ephesos, Turkey

<[email protected]>

For the Artemision in the 5th century BC the most spectacular sculptures seem to be thebronze statues of five Amazons, made by the most famous sculptors of that time. Only

Roman copies have survived of these figures.For the 4th century, we have not only the original remains of the temple architecture and

of the figured columns (columnae caelatae) but also original sculptures from the altar. Twofamous artists are mentioned by ancient sources as having worked in the Artemision. Skopaswho is said by Pliny to have made one of the columnae caelatae of the Temple of Artemisand Praxiteles is mentioned by Strabo as having decorated the altar. The excavation of the al-tar brought to light colossal, over life size, and life size sculptures of various kinds.

Skopas’s work at Ephesos is controversial. Vague Skopaic “influence” has been seen in BM1206, the best preserved of the sculptured drums. “Skopaic intensity of expression” has beenascribed to one of the heads discovered during the Austrian excavations. And BM 1204 hasbeen related to one of Skopas’ reliefs from the Mausolleion. The paper will follow the sup-position that Skopas and his workshop were present during the construction of the 4th cen-tury Artemis Temple at Ephesos.

...una a Scopa...: °Ï˘ÙÈÎ‹ ·fi ÙÔ ∞ÚÙÂÌ›ÛÈÔ ÙË˜ ∂Ê¤ÛÔ˘

∆· ÈÔ ÂÓÙ˘ˆÛÈ·Î¿ ÁÏ˘Ù¿ ÁÈ· ÙÔ ∞ÚÙÂÌ›ÛÈÔ ÙÔ˘ 5Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã., Â›Ó·È Ù· ¯¿ÏÎÈÓ· ·Á¿ÏÌ·-Ù· ÙˆÓ ¤ÓÙÂ ∞Ì·˙fiÓˆÓ Ô˘ Î·Ù·ÛÎÂ˘¿ÛÙËÎ·Ó ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ ‰È·ÛËÌfiÙÂÚÔ˘˜ ÁÏ‡ÙÂ˜ ÙË˜ ÂÔ-

¯‹˜. ∞fi ·˘Ù¿ ÌfiÓÔ ÚˆÌ·˚Î¿ ·ÓÙ›ÁÚ·Ê· ÛÒ˙ÔÓÙ·È Û‹ÌÂÚ·.√Ìˆ˜ ÁÈ· ÙÔÓ 4Ô ·ÈÒÓ· ‰È·ı¤ÙÔ˘ÌÂ fi¯È ÌfiÓÔ Ù· ·Ú¯ÈÎ¿ ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ¿ Î·Ù¿ÏÔÈ· ÙÔ˘ Ó·Ô‡

Î·È ÙˆÓ ·Ó¿ÁÏ˘ÊˆÓ ÎÈfiÓˆÓ (columnae caelatae) ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÚˆÙfiÙ˘· ÁÏ˘Ù¿ ·fi ÙÔ ‚ˆÌfi.¢‡Ô Â›Ó·È ÔÈ ‰È¿ÛËÌÔÈ Î·ÏÏÈÙ¤¯ÓÂ˜ Ô˘ ÂÚÁ¿ÛÙËÎ·Ó ÛÙÔ ∞ÚÙÂÌ›ÛÈÔ Û‡ÌÊˆÓ· ÌÂ ÙÈ˜ ·Ú¯·›Â˜ Ë-Á¤˜. √ ™Îfi·˜, Ë ·ÚÔ˘Û›· ÙÔ˘ ÔÔ›Ô˘ ÛÙËÓ ∂ÊÂÛÔ ˆ˜ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁÔ‡ ÂÓfi˜ ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ ‰È·ÎÔÛÌË-Ì¤ÓÔ˘˜ Î›ÔÓÂ˜ ÙÔ˘ Ó·Ô‡ ÙË˜ ∞ÚÙ¤ÌÈ‰Ô˜ ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÂÙ·È ·fi ÙÔÓ ¶Ï›ÓÈÔ, Î·È Ô ¶Ú·ÍÈÙ¤ÏË˜ Ô˘ ÂÚ-Á¿ÛıËÎÂ ÛÙË ‰È·ÎfiÛÌËÛË ÙÔ˘ ‚ˆÌÔ‡, Û‡ÌÊˆÓ· ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ™ÙÚ¿‚ˆÓ·. ∏ ·Ó·ÛÎ·Ê‹ ÙÔ˘ ‚ˆÌÔ‡ ¤ÊÂ-ÚÂ ÛÙÔ Êˆ˜ ÎÔÏÔÛÛÈÎ¿, ˘ÂÚÌÂÁ¤ıË Î·È Ê˘ÛÈÎÔ‡ ÌÂÁ¤ıÔ˘˜ ÁÏ˘Ù¿ ‰È·ÊfiÚˆÓ ÂÈ‰ÒÓ.

∏ ·ÚÔ˘Û›· ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ÛÙËÓ ∂ÊÂÛÔ Â›Ó·È ·ÌÊÈÏÂÁfiÌÂÓË. ∞Ì˘‰Ú‹ ÛÎÔ·‰ÈÎ‹ ÂÈÚÚÔ‹ ¤¯ÂÈ ‰È·-ÈÛÙˆıÂ› ÁÈ· ÙÔ ˘’ ·ÚÈıÌ. BM 1206, Ô˘ Â›Ó·È Ô Î·Ï‡ÙÂÚ· ‰È·ÙËÚËÌ¤ÓÔ˜ ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ ‰È·ÎÔÛÌËÌ¤-ÓÔ˘˜ ÛÔÓ‰‡ÏÔ˘˜ ÙˆÓ ÎÈfiÓˆÓ. «™ÎÔ·‰ÈÎ‹ ¤ÓÙ·ÛË ÙË˜ ¤ÎÊÚ·ÛË˜» ¤¯ÂÈ ÂÓÙÔÈÛıÂ› ÛÂ Ì›· ·fi ÙÈ˜ÎÂÊ·Ï¤˜ Ô˘ ‚Ú¤ıËÎ·Ó Î·Ù¿ ÙË ‰È¿ÚÎÂÈ· ÙË˜ ·˘ÛÙÚÈ·ÎÒÓ ·Ó·ÛÎ·ÊÒÓ ÂÓÒ ÙÔ ̆ ’ ·ÚÈıÌ. BM 1204·Ó¿ÁÏ˘ÊÔ ¤¯ÂÈ Û˘Û¯ÂÙÈÛıÂ› ÌÂ ¤Ó· ·fi Ù· ·Ó¿ÁÏ˘Ê· ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ÛÙÔ ª·˘ÛˆÏÂ›Ô.

™ÙËÓ ·ÚÔ‡Û· ÂÚÁ·Û›· ı· ·ÎÔÏÔ˘ı‹Ûˆ ÙËÓ ˘fiıÂÛË fiÙÈ Ô ™Îfi·˜ Î·È ÙÔ ÂÚÁ·ÛÙ‹ÚÈfi ÙÔ˘‹Û·Ó ·ÚfiÓÙÂ˜ Î·Ù¿ ÙË ‰È¿ÚÎÂÈ· ÙË˜ Î·Ù·ÛÎÂ˘‹˜ ÙÔ˘ Ó·Ô‡ ÙË˜ ∞ÚÙ¤ÌÈ‰Ô˜ ÛÙËÓ ∂ÊÂÛÔ ÙÔÓ 4Ô·ÈÒÓ·.



The Twisted Amazon: A Small Mistake with Big Effectat the Mausolleion of Halikarnassos

Stephan G. Schmid

Winckelmann Institute, University of Berlin, Germany

<[email protected]>

The Mausolleion at Halikarnassos is probably the most spectacular building to whosesculptural decoration Skopas contributed. Although it has not been possible –and proba-

bly never will– to determine which sculptor is responsible for what part of the Amazonfrieze, some of its general stylistic and technical features indeed conform quite well toSkopas’s style.

However, this contribution tackles a different issue. On one of the slabs of the frieze, thesculptor succumbed to an interesting error. Not only is the composition of a group with oneGreek and two Amazons strangely composed without any real interaction among them, butalso one of the Amazons is sculpted with a torso that is completely dislocated from her legsand vice versa. This mistake was probably invisible to the ancient spectator owing to the el-evated position of the frieze. It is however of a certain importance, since on the one hand itgives us some information about the use of pattern books in Antiquity. On the other hand,the mistake clearly refers to a new element in the representation of the battle betweenGreeks and Amazons, namely, the moment when Achilles and Penthesilea fell in love. Whilein archaic and early classical iconography the meeting between Achilles and Penthesilea ex-clusively illustrated the armed combat between the two, it is precisely towards the mid 4th-century BC that a new element was introduced for illustrating their story: the moment whenAchilles realised that he had just fallen in love with the woman he had mortally wounded.

On the Mausolleion, the sculptor of this slab with the twisting Amazon apparently hesi-tated between the two versions, the traditional aggressive one and the new tragic one. Thiswas what led to his somewhat picturesque mistake, which has so far gone unobserved inmodern research.



∏ ™ÙÚÂÊfiÌÂÓË ∞Ì·˙fiÓ·: ∂Ó· ªÈÎÚfi §¿ıÔ˜ ÌÂ ªÂÁ¿Ïo∞ÓÙ›ÎÙ˘Ô ÛÙÔ ª·˘ÛˆÏÂ›Ô ÙË˜ ∞ÏÈÎ·ÚÓ·ÛÛÔ‡

∆Ô ª·˘ÛˆÏÂ›Ô ÙË˜ ∞ÏÈÎ·ÚÓ·ÛÛÔ‡ Â›Ó·È Èı·ÓÒ˜ ÙÔ ÈÔ ÂÓÙ˘ˆÛÈ·Îfi ÎÙ›ÚÈÔ, ÛÙÔ˘ ÔÔ›Ô˘ÙËÓ ÁÏ˘ÙÈÎ‹ ‰È·ÎfiÛÌËÛË Û˘Ó¤‚·ÏÂ Ô ™Îfi·˜. ∞Ó Î·È ‰ÂÓ Â›Ó·È ‰˘Ó·Ùfi -Î·È Èı·ÓÒ˜ ‰ÂÓ

ı· Â›Ó·È ÔÙ¤- Ó· Î·ıÔÚÈÛÙÂ› ÔÈÔ˜ ÁÏ‡ÙË˜ Â›Ó·È ˘Â‡ı˘ÓÔ˜ ÁÈ· ÔÈÔ Ì¤ÚÔ˜ ÙË˜ ˙ˆÊfiÚÔ˘ ÌÂÙËÓ ·Ú¿ÛÙ·ÛË ÙË˜ ·Ì·˙ÔÓÔÌ·¯›·˜, ÌÂÚÈÎ¿ ÁÂÓÈÎ¿ ÛÙ˘ÏÈÛÙÈÎ¿ Î·È ÙÂ¯ÓÈÎ¿ ÛÙÔÈ¯Â›· Û˘ÌÊˆÓÔ‡ÓÚ¿ÁÌ·ÙÈ ·ÚÎÂÙ¿ ÌÂ ÙËÓ Ù¤¯ÓË ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·.

∂ÓÙÔ‡ÙÔÈ˜, ÙÔ ı¤Ì· ·˘Ù‹˜ ÙË˜ Û˘Ì‚ÔÏ‹˜ Â›Ó·È ¿ÏÏÔ. ™Â ÌÈ· ·fi ÙÈ˜ Ï¿ÎÂ˜ ÙË˜ ˙ˆÊfiÚÔ˘, ÔÁÏ‡ÙË˜ ˘¤ÂÛÂ ÛÂ ¤Ó· ÂÓ‰È·Ê¤ÚÔÓ ÛÊ¿ÏÌ·. √¯È ÌfiÓÔ Ë Û‡ÓıÂÛË ÂÓfi˜ Û˘ÌÏ¤ÁÌ·ÙÔ˜ ÌÂ ¤Ó·Ó∂ÏÏËÓ· Î·È ‰‡Ô ·Ì·˙fiÓÂ˜ ¤ÁÈÓÂ ÌÂ ·Ú¿ÍÂÓÔ ÙÚfiÔ, ¯ˆÚ›˜ ÔÈ ÌÔÚÊ¤˜ Ó· ¤¯Ô˘Ó Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÈÎ‹·ÏÏËÏÂ›‰Ú·ÛË ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ÙÔ˘˜, ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÌÈ· ·fi ÙÈ˜ ·Ì·˙fiÓÂ˜ ·ÂÈÎÔÓ›˙ÂÙ·È ÌÂ ¤Ó·Ó ÎÔÚÌfi Ô˘‰ÂÓ Ù·ÈÚÈ¿˙ÂÈ ÌÂ Ù· fi‰È· ÙË˜ Î·È Ù·Ó¿·ÏÈÓ. ∞˘Ùfi ÙÔ Ï¿ıÔ˜ Èı·ÓÒ˜ ‰ÂÓ ‹Ù·Ó ÔÚ·Ùfi ÁÈ· ÙÔÓ·Ú¯·›Ô ıÂ·Ù‹ ÏfiÁˆ ÙË˜ ˘ÂÚ˘„ˆÌ¤ÓË˜ ı¤ÛË˜ ÙË˜ ˙ˆÊfiÚÔ˘. ∂¯ÂÈ fiÌˆ˜ Û˘ÁÎÂÎÚÈÌ¤ÓË ÛËÌ·Û›·,Î·ıfiÛÔÓ ·Ê’ ÂÓfi˜ Ì·˜ ‰›ÓÂÈ Î¿ÔÈÂ˜ ÏËÚÔÊÔÚ›Â˜ Û¯ÂÙÈÎ¿ ÌÂ ÙË ¯Ú‹ÛË ÂÁ¯ÂÈÚÈ‰›ˆÓ ÛÙËÓ ·Ú-¯·ÈfiÙËÙ· Î·È ·Ê’ ÂÙ¤ÚÔ˘ ÙÔ Ï¿ıÔ˜ ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÂÙ·È Û·ÊÒ˜ ÛÂ ¤Ó· Ó¤Ô ÛÙÔÈ¯Â›Ô ÛÙËÓ ·Ú¿ÛÙ·ÛË ÙË˜Ì¿¯Ë˜ ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ∂ÏÏ‹ÓˆÓ Î·È ·Ì·˙fiÓˆÓ, Û˘ÁÎÂÎÚÈÌ¤Ó· ÛÙË ÛÙÈÁÌ‹ Ô˘ Ô ∞¯ÈÏÏ¤·˜ Î·È Ë ¶ÂÓıÂ-Û›ÏÂÈ· ÂÚˆÙÂ‡ÔÓÙ·È. ∂ÓÒ ÛÙËÓ ·Ú¯·˚Î‹ Î·È ÚÒÈÌË ÎÏ·ÛÈÎ‹ ÂÈÎÔÓÔÁÚ·Ê›·, Ë Û˘Ó¿ÓÙËÛË ÌÂÙ·-Í‡ ∞¯ÈÏÏ¤· Î·È ¶ÂÓıÂÛ›ÏÂÈ·˜ ·ÊÔÚÔ‡ÛÂ ·ÔÎÏÂÈÛÙÈÎ¿ ÙËÓ ¤ÓÔÏË Ì¿¯Ë ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ÙˆÓ ‰‡Ô, ·ÎÚÈ-‚Ò˜ ÚÔ˜ Ù· Ì¤Û· ÙÔ˘ 4Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã. ¤Ó· Ó¤Ô ÛÙÔÈ¯Â›Ô ÂÈÛ‹¯ıË ÛÙËÓ ·fi‰ÔÛË ÙË˜ ÈÛÙÔÚ›·˜ÙÔ˘˜: Ë ÛÙÈÁÌ‹ Ô˘ Ô ∞¯ÈÏÏ¤·˜ Û˘ÓÂÈ‰ËÙÔÔ›ËÛÂ fiÙÈ ÌfiÏÈ˜ Â›¯Â ÂÚˆÙÂ˘ıÂ› ÙË Á˘Ó·›Î· Ô˘ Â›¯Âı·Ó¿ÛÈÌ· ÙÚ·˘Ì·Ù›ÛÂÈ.

√ ÁÏ‡ÙË˜ ÙË˜ Ï¿Î·˜ ÌÂ ÙËÓ ÛÙÚÂÊfiÌÂÓË ·Ì·˙fiÓ· ÛÙÔ ª·˘ÛˆÏÂ›Ô ÙË˜ ∞ÏÈÎ·ÚÓ·ÛÛÔ‡ÚÔÊ·ÓÒ˜ ‹Ù·Ó ·ÌÊ›ÚÚÔÔ˜ ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ÙˆÓ ‰‡Ô ÂÎ‰Ô¯ÒÓ, ÙË˜ ·Ú·‰ÔÛÈ·Î‹˜ ÂÈıÂÙÈÎ‹˜ Î·È ÙË˜ÓÂfiÙÂÚË˜ ÙÚ·ÁÈÎ‹˜. ¶ÚÔÊ·ÓÒ˜ ·˘Ùfi Ô‰‹ÁËÛÂ ÛÂ ¤Ó· Ì¿ÏÏÔÓ ÁÚ·ÊÈÎfi Ï¿ıÔ˜ Ô˘ Ì¤¯ÚÈ ÙÒÚ·¤¯ÂÈ ÂÚ¿ÛÂÈ ··Ú·Ù‹ÚËÙÔ ÛÙË Û‡Á¯ÚÔÓË ¤ÚÂ˘Ó·.



Skopas at Halikarnassos

Claudia Lucchese

Department of Ancient Studies, University of Bari, Italy

<[email protected]>

Pliny (NH 36.30-31) tells us that Skopas participated in the execution of the eastern sideof the Mausolleion at Halikarnassos. On the basis of this information, scholars have ad-

vanced many proposals of attribution to Skopas of the slabs of the frieze and the free-stand-ing sculptures of this famous monument.

Despite all these attempts based on style, today it is still difficult to attribute fragments withcertainty to Skopas rather than to Timotheos, Leochares or Bryaxis, for they all worked at Ha-likarnassos and are mentioned by the same literary sources. B. F. Cook, Relief Sculptures of theMausolleion at Halicarnassus, 2005 offers a synthesis of the proposals of attribution.

Starting from these considerations, my paper will investigate the position of the Mau-solleion in the topography of the ancient town and will study its structure and function. Inthis way, a motive for Pliny’s remarks on Skopas will be sought in the arrangement of thesculptural decoration and in the logic of its composition.

√ ™Îfi·˜ ÛÙËÓ ∞ÏÈÎ·ÚÓ·ÛÛfi

√¶Ï›ÓÈÔ˜ (NH 36.30-31) ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÂÈ fiÙÈ Ô ™Îfi·˜ Û˘ÌÌÂÙÂ›¯Â ÛÙËÓ ÂÎÙ¤ÏÂÛË ÙË˜ ·Ó·ÙÔÏÈÎ‹˜ÏÂ˘Ú¿˜ ÙÔ˘ ª·˘ÛˆÏÂ›Ô˘ ÙË˜ ∞ÏÈÎ·ÚÓ·ÛÛÔ‡. ªÂ ‚¿ÛË ·˘Ù¤˜ ÙÈ˜ ÏËÚÔÊÔÚ›Â˜, ÌÂÏÂÙËÙ¤˜

¤¯Ô˘Ó ÚÔˆı‹ÛÂÈ ÔÏÏ¤˜ ÚÔÙ¿ÛÂÈ˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·fi‰ÔÛË ÛÙÔÓ ™Îfi· ÔÚÈÛÌ¤ÓˆÓ ·fi ÙÈ˜ Ï¿ÎÂ˜ÙË˜ ˙ˆÊfiÚÔ˘ Î·È ·fi Ù· ÂÏÂ‡ıÂÚ· ÁÏ˘Ù¿ ÙÔ˘ ‰È¿ÛËÌÔ˘ ·˘ÙÔ‡ ÌÓËÌÂ›Ô˘.

¶·Ú’ fiÏÂ˜ ·˘Ù¤˜ ÙÈ˜ ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈÂ˜ Ô˘ ‚·Û›˙ÔÓÙ·È ÛÙËÓ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÙÚÔ›·, Û‹ÌÂÚ· ÂÍ·ÎÔÏÔ˘ıÂ› Ó·Â›Ó·È ‰‡ÛÎÔÏÔ Ó· ·Ô‰ÔıÔ‡Ó ÌÂ ‚Â‚·ÈfiÙËÙ· ıÚ·‡ÛÌ·Ù· ÛÙÔÓ ™Îfi· Î·È fi¯È ÛÙÔÓ ∆ÈÌfiıÂÔ, ÙÔÓ§Âˆ¯¿ÚË ‹ ÙÔÓ µÚ‡·ÍÈ, Î·ıÒ˜ fiÏÔÈ ·˘ÙÔ› ÂÚÁ¿ÛÙËÎ·Ó ÛÙËÓ ∞ÏÈÎ·ÚÓ·ÛÛfi Î·È ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÔÓÙ·È ·fiÙÈ˜ ›‰ÈÂ˜ ÊÈÏÔÏÔÁÈÎ¤˜ ËÁ¤˜. ™‡ÓıÂÛË ÙˆÓ ÚÔÙ¿ÛÂˆÓ ÁÈ· ÙÈ˜ Û¯ÂÙÈÎ¤˜ ·Ô‰fiÛÂÈ˜ ÚÔÛÊ¤ÚÂÙ·ÈÛÙÔ ¤ÚÁÔ B.F. Cook, °Ï˘Ù¿ ·fi ÙÔ ª·˘ÛˆÏÂ›Ô ÙË˜ ∞ÏÈÎ·ÚÓ·ÛÛÔ‡, 2005.

•ÂÎÈÓÒÓÙ·˜ ·fi ·˘Ù¤˜ ÙÈ˜ ÂÎÙÈÌ‹ÛÂÈ˜, ÛÙËÓ ÂÚÁ·Û›· ÌÔ˘ ı· ‰ÈÂÚÂ˘Ó‹Ûˆ ÙË ı¤ÛË ÙÔ˘ ª·˘-ÛˆÏÂ›Ô˘ ÛÙËÓ ÙÔÔÁÚ·Ê›· ÙË˜ ·Ú¯·›·˜ fiÏË˜ Î·È ı· ÌÂÏÂÙ‹Ûˆ ÙË ‰ÔÌ‹ Î·È ÏÂÈÙÔ˘ÚÁ›· ÙÔ˘. ªÂÙÔÓ ÙÚfiÔ ·˘Ùfi, ı· ·Ó·˙ËÙËıÂ› ÙÔ Î›ÓËÙÚÔ ÁÈ· ÙÈ˜ ·Ú·ÙËÚ‹ÛÂÈ˜ ÙÔ˘ ¶ÏÈÓ›Ô˘ ·Ó·ÊÔÚÈÎ¿ ÌÂÙÔÓ ™Îfi· ˆ˜ ÚÔ˜ ÙÔÓ Û¯Â‰È·ÛÌfi ÙÔ˘ ÁÏ˘ÙÔ‡ ‰È·ÎfiÛÌÔ˘ Î·È ÙË ÏÔÁÈÎ‹ ÙË˜ Û‡ÓıÂÛ‹˜ ÙÔ˘.



Skopas in Knidos

Christine Özgan

Department of Archaeology

Mimar Sinan University of Fine Arts, Istanbul, Turkey

<[email protected]>

It is known from the written sources that Skopas made at least two statues for Knidos. Onewas a statue of the god Dionysos who was worshipped on a wide terrace near the big har-

bour. Many of the sculptures found in Knidos can be dated in the 4th century BC. Some ofthese show clearly Skopasian influence. Knidos was part of the principality of Mausolos, and itseems that Skopas came to Knidos together with other sculptors from the Mausolleion to re-alise some sculptures for the city.

O ™Îfi·˜ ÛÙËÓ ∫Ó›‰Ô

∂›Ó·È ÁÓˆÛÙfi ·fi ÙÈ˜ ÁÚ·Ù¤˜ ËÁ¤˜ ˆ˜ Ô ™Îfi·˜ ‰ËÌÈÔ‡ÚÁËÛÂ ÙÔ˘Ï¿¯ÈÛÙÔÓ ‰‡Ô ·Á¿ÏÌ·-Ù· ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ∫Ó›‰Ô. ∆Ô ¤Ó· ‹Ù·Ó ÙÔ ¿Á·ÏÌ· ÙÔ˘ ıÂÔ‡ ¢ÈÔÓ‡ÛÔ˘, Ô˘ Ï·ÙÚÂ˘fiÙ·Ó ÛÂ ÌÈ· ÌÂ-

Á¿ÏË ÂÍ¤‰Ú· ÎÔÓÙ¿ ÛÙÔ ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ ÏÈÌ¿ÓÈ. ¶ÔÏÏ¿ ·fi Ù· ÁÏ˘Ù¿ Ô˘ ‚Ú¤ıËÎ·Ó ÛÙË ∫Ó›‰Ô ÌÔ-ÚÔ‡Ó Ó· ¯ÚÔÓÔÏÔÁËıÔ‡Ó ÛÙÔÓ 4Ô ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã. ∫¿ÔÈ· ·fi ·˘Ù¿ Ê·ÓÂÚÒÓÔ˘Ó Û·ÊÒ˜ Â›‰Ú·ÛËÙË˜ ™ÎÔ¿‰ÂÈ·˜ Ù¤¯ÓË˜. ∏ ∫Ó›‰Ô˜ ‹Ù·Ó ÙÌ‹Ì· ÙË˜ Û·ÙÚ·Â›·˜ ÙÔ˘ ª·‡ÛˆÏÔ˘, Î·È Ê·›ÓÂÙ·È fiÙÈÔ ™Îfi·˜ ‹ÚıÂ ÛÙËÓ ∫Ó›‰Ô Ì·˙› ÌÂ ¿ÏÏÔ˘˜ ÁÏ‡ÙÂ˜ ·fi ÙÔ ª·˘ÛˆÏÂ›Ô ÁÈ· Ó· Î·Ù·ÛÎÂ˘¿ÛÂÈÁÏ˘Ù¿ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ fiÏË.



Searching for Skopas in Rome

Giuliana Calcani

Department of History, Art and Archaeology

University of Rome (Roma Tre), Italy

<[email protected]>

∞s is well known, many of Skopas’ works are identified through Roman copies, and some-times the high quality of that production can be used to recuperate the original’s iconog-

raphy and style -as in the case of the Pothos, for example. Sometimes, though, scholars placeexaggerated trust in the ancient productions for Roman clients and link the name of Skopas toworks that seem very distant from any conception of his art that we can reconstruct. These arethe main consequences of the connection between Skopas and Rome. One of the issues mostdiscussed in these studies is the presence in Rome of original statues by Skopas. In fact, the lit-erary testimony of Pliny opens two different avenues of questioning, namely, (1) about theidentification of the artist; and (2) about the identification of the works.

Who is the Skopas mentioned by Pliny as author of the works visible in Rome? Is he thegreat sculptor of the fourth century BC or is he Skopas Minor, who is known only from afragmentary inscription found in Rome? This gives us two opposing alternatives for theartist’s identity, but hypotheses about the statues certified in Rome by Pliny are many more.Those attested are: the Hestia in the Horti Serviliani; the colossal statue of Apollo in the tem-ple of Apollo Palatinus; the Canephora in the Atrium Libertatis; the group of Poseidon,Achilleus, Thetis and a sea thiasos in the Aedes Neptuni in Circo; the Ares and Aphrodite inthe temple of Mars in Circo; and a herm of Ianus Pater in an unknown location. Every oneof these works poses problems of identification and attribution.

Moreover, we have other works uncertainly attributed by Pliny to Skopas or Praxiteles,such as the Eros-Alkibiades and the group of the Niobids. The analysis, focusing on thoseSkopaic statues in Rome listed by Pliny, sheds some new light on Skopas and his influenceon Roman art and culture.



AÓ·˙ËÙÒÓÙ·˜ ÙÔÓ ™Îfi· ÛÙË ƒÒÌË

√ˆ˜ Â›Ó·È ÁÓˆÛÙfi, ÔÏÏ¿ ·fi Ù· ¤ÚÁ· ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· Ù·˘ÙÔÔÈÔ‡ÓÙ·È Ì¤Ûˆ ÚˆÌ·˚ÎÒÓ ·ÓÙÈ-ÁÚ¿ÊˆÓ, Î·È ÌÂÚÈÎ¤˜ ÊÔÚ¤˜ Ë ˘„ËÏ‹ ÔÈfiÙËÙ· ·˘Ù‹˜ ÙË˜ ·Ú·ÁˆÁ‹˜ ÌÔÚÂ› Ó· ¯ÚËÛÈ-

ÌÔÔÈËıÂ› ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·Ó¿ÎÙËÛË ÙË˜ ·Ú¯ÈÎ‹˜ ÂÈÎÔÓÔÁÚ·Ê›·˜ Î·È ÛÙ˘Ï -fiˆ˜ ÛÙËÓ ÂÚ›ÙˆÛË ÙÔ˘¶fiıÔ˘, ÁÈ· ·Ú¿‰ÂÈÁÌ·. ªÂÚÈÎ¤˜ ÊÔÚ¤˜, fiÌˆ˜, ÔÈ ÌÂÏÂÙËÙ¤˜ ÂÌÈÛÙÂ‡ÔÓÙ·È ˘ÂÚ‚ÔÏÈÎ¿ ÙÈ˜ ·Ú-¯·›Â˜ ·Ú·ÁˆÁ¤˜ ÁÈ· ÏÔÁ·ÚÈ·ÛÌfi ƒˆÌ·›ˆÓ ÂÏ·ÙÒÓ Î·È Û˘Ó‰¤Ô˘Ó ÙÔ fiÓÔÌ· ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ÌÂ ¤Ú-Á· Ô˘ Ê·›ÓÔÓÙ·È Ó· ·¤¯Ô˘Ó ÔÏ‡ ·fi Î¿ıÂ Û‡ÏÏË„Ë ÙË˜ Ù¤¯ÓË˜ ÙÔ˘ Ô˘ ı· ÌÔÚÔ‡Û·ÌÂ Ó··Ó·Û˘Óı¤ÛÔ˘ÌÂ. ∞˘Ù¤˜ Â›Ó·È ÔÈ Î˘ÚÈfiÙÂÚÂ˜ Û˘Ó¤ÂÈÂ˜ ÙË˜ Û˘Û¯¤ÙÈÛË˜ ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· Î·È ÙË˜ƒÒÌË˜. ∂Ó· ·fi Ù· ÈÔ ÔÏ˘Û˘˙ËÙËÌ¤Ó· ı¤Ì·Ù· ·˘ÙÒÓ ÙˆÓ ÌÂÏÂÙÒÓ Â›Ó·È Ë ·ÚÔ˘Û›· ÛÙË ƒÒ-ÌË ÚˆÙfiÙ˘ˆÓ ·Á·ÏÌ¿ÙˆÓ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·. ™ÙËÓ Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÈÎfiÙËÙ·, Ë ÊÈÏÔÏÔÁÈÎ‹ Ì·ÚÙ˘Ú›· ÙÔ˘¶Ï›ÓÈÔ˘ ·ÓÔ›ÁÂÈ ‰‡Ô ‰È·ÊÔÚÂÙÈÎÔ‡˜ ‰ÚfiÌÔ˘˜ ·Ó·˙‹ÙËÛË˜, ‰ËÏ·‰‹, (1) Û¯ÂÙÈÎ¿ ÌÂ ÙËÓ ·Ó·ÁÓÒ-ÚÈÛË ÙÔ˘ Î·ÏÏÈÙ¤¯ÓË Î·È (2) Û¯ÂÙÈÎ¿ ÌÂ ÙËÓ Ù·‡ÙÈÛË ÙˆÓ ¤ÚÁˆÓ.

¶ÔÈÔ˜ Â›Ó·È Ô ™Îfi·˜ Ô˘ ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÂÙ·È ·fi ÙÔÓ ¶Ï›ÓÈÔ ˆ˜ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁfi˜ ¤ÚÁˆÓ ÛÙË ƒÒÌË; ∂›-Ó·È Ô ‰È¿ÛËÌÔ˜ ÁÏ‡ÙË˜ ÙÔ˘ Ù¤Ù·ÚÙÔ˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã. ‹ Â›Ó·È Ô ™Îfi·˜ ∂Ï¿ÛÛˆÓ, Ô˘ Â›Ó·È ÁÓˆ-ÛÙfi˜ ÌfiÓÔ ·fi ÌÈ· ·ÔÛ·ÛÌ·ÙÈÎ‹ ÂÈÁÚ·Ê‹ Ô˘ ‚Ú¤ıËÎÂ ÛÙË ƒÒÌË; ∏ ÂÚ›ÙˆÛË ·˘Ù‹, Ì·˜‰›ÓÂÈ ‰‡Ô ·ÓÙÈÎÚÔ˘fiÌÂÓÂ˜ ÂÓ·ÏÏ·ÎÙÈÎ¤˜ Ï‡ÛÂÈ˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ Ù·˘ÙfiÙËÙ· ÙÔ˘ Î·ÏÏÈÙ¤¯ÓË, ·ÏÏ¿ ÔÈ˘Ôı¤ÛÂÈ˜ Û¯ÂÙÈÎ¿ ÌÂ Ù· ‚Â‚·ÈˆÌ¤Ó· ·fi ÙÔÓ ¶Ï›ÓÈÔ ·Á¿ÏÌ·Ù· ÛÙË ƒÒÌË Â›Ó·È ÔÏ‡ ÂÚÈÛÛfi-ÙÂÚÂ˜. ∆· ‚Â‚·ÈˆÌ¤Ó· ¤ÚÁ· Â›Ó·È: Ë ∂ÛÙ›· ÛÙÔ˘˜ Î‹Ô˘˜ ÙÔ˘ ™ÂÚ‚ÈÏ›Ô˘, ÙÔ ÎÔÏÔÛÛÈÎfi ¿Á·ÏÌ·ÙÔ˘ ∞fiÏÏˆÓ· ÛÙÔ Ó·fi ÙÔ˘ ∞fiÏÏˆÓ· ÛÙÔ ¶·Ï·Ù›ÓÔ, Ë ∫·ÓËÊfiÚÔ˜ ÛÙÔ ·›ıÚÈÔ ÙË˜ ∂ÏÂ˘ıÂÚ›·˜,ÙÔ Û‡ÌÏÂÁÌ· ÙÔ˘ ¶ÔÛÂÈ‰ÒÓ·, ∞¯ÈÏÏ¤·, £¤ÙÈ‰Ô˜ Î·È ı·Ï¿ÛÛÈÔ˘ ıÈ¿ÛÔ˘ ÛÙÔÓ √›ÎÔ ÙÔ˘ ¶ÔÛÂÈ-‰ÒÓ· ÛÙÔ Circus, o ∞ÚË˜ Î·È Ë ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË ÛÙÔ Ó·fi ÙÔ˘ ∞ÚË ÛÙÔ Circus Î·È Ë ÂÚÌ·˚Î‹ ÛÙ‹ÏË ÙÔ˘π·ÓÔ‡ Pater ÛÂ ¿ÁÓˆÛÙË ÙÔÔıÂÛ›·. ∫¿ıÂ ¤Ó· ·fi ·˘Ù¿ Ù· ¤ÚÁ· ı¤ÙÂÈ ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·Ù· Ù·‡ÙÈÛË˜ Î·È·fi‰ÔÛË˜.

∂ÈÏ¤ÔÓ, ¤¯Ô˘ÌÂ ¿ÏÏ· ¤ÚÁ· Ô˘ ·Ô‰fiıËÎ·Ó ¯ˆÚ›˜ ‚Â‚·ÈfiÙËÙ· ·fi ÙÔÓ ¶Ï›ÓÈÔ ÛÙÔÓ ™Îfi-· ‹ ÙÔÓ ¶Ú·ÍÈÙ¤ÏË, fiˆ˜ Ô ∂Úˆ˜-∞ÏÎÈ‚È¿‰Ë˜ Î·È ÙÔ Û‡ÌÏÂÁÌ· ÙˆÓ ¡ÈÔ‚È‰ÒÓ. ∏ ÂÈÎ¤ÓÙÚˆ-ÛË ÙË˜ ·Ó¿Ï˘ÛË˜ ÌÂ ÙËÓ ·ÚÔ‡Û· ÂÚÁ·Û›·, ÛÂ ·˘Ù¿ Ù· ™ÎÔ·‰ÈÎ¿ ·Á¿ÏÌ·Ù· ÛÙË ƒÒÌË Ô˘··ÚÈıÌÔ‡ÓÙ·È ·fi ÙÔÓ ¶Ï›ÓÈÔ, Ú›¯ÓÂÈ Ó¤Ô Êˆ˜ ÛÙÔÓ ™Îfi· Î·È ÛÙËÓ ÂÈÚÚÔ‹ ÙÔ˘ ÛÙË ÚˆÌ·˚-Î‹ Ù¤¯ÓË Î·È ÙÔÓ ÔÏÈÙÈÛÌfi.



Skopas’ Echoes in Alexandrian Sculpture

Elena Ghisellini

Department of Archaeology and History of Greek and Roman Art

University of Rome (“Tor Vergata”), Italy


The paper will address the following main points: (a) Discussion of Pliny, NH 36.28 re-ferring to a Ianus Pater transferred to Rome from Egypt in the Augustan age. The sculp-

ture, originally representing Hermes Dikephalos, is dubiously attributed by Pliny to Praxite-les or Skopas and can perhaps be identified with the Hermes by Skopas mentioned in theepigram Anthologia Planudea 192, (b) Analysis of some Alexandrian sculptures that displaySkopas’ influence on iconography or style, (c) Inquiry into the possible vehicles of Skopas’influence on Alexandrian sculpture.

∞ÓÙ·Ó·ÎÏ¿ÛÂÈ˜ ÙË˜ ∆¤¯ÓË˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ÛÙËÓ ∞ÏÂÍ·Ó‰ÚÈÓ‹ °Ï˘ÙÈÎ‹

∏ÂÚÁ·Û›· ı· ·Û¯ÔÏËıÂ› ÌÂ Ù· ·ÎfiÏÔ˘ı· Î‡ÚÈ· ÛËÌÂ›·: (·) ™˘˙‹ÙËÛË ÙÔ˘ ÎÂÈÌ¤ÓÔ˘ ÙÔ˘¶ÏÈÓ›Ô˘, º˘ÛÈÎ‹ πÛÙÔÚ›· 36.28, Ô˘ ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÂÙ·È ÛÙÔ ¿Á·ÏÌ· ÙÔ˘ π·ÓÔ‡ Ô˘ ÌÂÙ·Ê¤ÚıËÎÂ

ÛÙË ƒÒÌË ·fi ÙËÓ ∞›Á˘ÙÔ ÙËÓ ÂÔ¯‹ ÙÔ˘ ∞˘ÁÔ‡ÛÙÔ˘. ∆Ô ÁÏ˘Ùfi, Ô˘ ·Ú¯ÈÎ¿ ·ÓÙÈÚÔÛÒÂ˘ÂÙÔÓ ∂ÚÌ‹ ¢ÈÎ¤Ê·ÏÔ, ·Ô‰›‰ÂÙ·È ÌÂ ·ÌÊÈ‚ÔÏ›· ·fi ÙÔÓ ¶Ï›ÓÈÔ ÛÙÔÓ ¶Ú·ÍÈÙ¤ÏË ‹ ÙÔÓ ™Îfi·Î·È ÌÔÚÂ› ›Ûˆ˜ Ó· Ù·˘ÙÈÛÙÂ› ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ∂ÚÌ‹ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· Ô˘ ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÂÙ·È ÛÙÔ Â›ÁÚ·ÌÌ· 192 ÙË˜Anthologia Planudea, (‚) ∞Ó¿Ï˘ÛË ÔÚÈÛÌ¤ÓˆÓ ∞ÏÂÍ·Ó‰ÚÈÓÒÓ ÁÏ˘ÙÒÓ Ô˘ ‰Â›¯ÓÔ˘Ó ÂÈÚÚÔ‹ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ÛÙËÓ ÂÈÎÔÓÔÁÚ·Ê›· ‹ ÙËÓ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÙÚÔ›·, (Á) ¢ÈÂÚÂ‡ÓËÛË ÙˆÓ Èı·ÓÒÓ Ì¤ÛˆÓ Â›‰Ú·-ÛË˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ÛÙËÓ ∞ÏÂÍ·Ó‰ÚÈÓ‹ ÁÏ˘ÙÈÎ‹.



The Influence of Skopas’ Style on Ancient Art from the Northern Black Sea Shore

Anna Trofimova

Greek and Roman Antiquities Department

The State Hermitage Museum, Russia

<[email protected]>

The Hermitage collection of ancient sculpture from the Northern Black Sea Pontic areademonstrates the strong influence of the style of the leading Greek sculptors of the 4th

century BC. The influence of Skopas is especially obvious. It can be traced in various mediasuch as monumental marble sculptures, statuettes, terracottas, and reliefs.

Comparing the data from the collections in the State Moscow Historical Museum, thePushkin Museum of Fine Arts, and the Kerch State Historical Cultural Reserve, I shall exam-ine a number of the objects. They are Greek originals found in Olbia, Panticapaion, andChersonessos, dated to the 4th century BC and the Hellenistic period. It should be noted thatsome of these sculptures are made of Parian marble.

Expressiveness is a characteristic feature of this local taste, and monuments in Skopas’style served this preference perfectly. Imported from the mother sites of Greece and AsiaMinor, they played an important role in the art of the Greek colonies on the Northern BlackSea shore.

∂È‰Ú¿ÛÂÈ˜ ÙË˜ ∆Â¯ÓÔÙÚÔ›·˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ÛÙËÓ ∞Ú¯·›·∆¤¯ÓË ·fi ÙËÓ ∞ÎÙ‹ ÙË˜ µfiÚÂÈ·˜ ª·‡ÚË˜ £¿Ï·ÛÛ·˜

∏Û˘ÏÏÔÁ‹ ·Ú¯·›ˆÓ ÁÏ˘ÙÒÓ ·fi ÙËÓ ¶ÔÓÙÈÎ‹ ÂÚÈÔ¯‹ ÙË˜ µfiÚÂÈ·˜ ª·‡ÚË˜ £¿Ï·ÛÛ·˜ÛÙÔ ªÔ˘ÛÂ›Ô ∂ÚÌÈÙ¿˙ Î·Ù·‰ÂÈÎÓ‡ÂÈ ÙËÓ ÈÛ¯˘Ú‹ ÂÈÚÚÔ‹ ÙË˜ Ù¤¯ÓË˜ ÎÔÚ˘Ê·›ˆÓ ∂ÏÏ‹ÓˆÓ

Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÒÓ ÙÔ˘ 4Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã. ∏ ÂÈÚÚÔ‹ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· Â›Ó·È È‰È·›ÙÂÚ· ÂÌÊ·Ó‹˜. ªÔÚÂ› Ó·ÂÓÙÔÈÛÙÂ› ÛÂ ÔÈÎ›Ï· ¤ÚÁ·, ÌÓËÌÂÈ·Î¿ Ì·ÚÌ¿ÚÈÓ· ÁÏ˘Ù¿, ·Á·ÏÌ·Ù›‰È·, ‹ÏÈÓ· ÂÈ‰ÒÏÈ· Î·È·Ó¿ÁÏ˘Ê·.

™˘ÁÎÚ›ÓÔÓÙ·˜ ¤ÚÁ· ·fi ÙÈ˜ Û˘ÏÏÔÁ¤˜ ÙÔ˘ πÛÙÔÚÈÎÔ‡ ∫Ú·ÙÈÎÔ‡ ªÔ˘ÛÂ›Ô˘ ÙË˜ ªfiÛ¯·˜, ÙÔ˘ªÔ˘ÛÂ›Ô˘ ∫·ÏÒÓ ∆Â¯ÓÒÓ ¶Ô‡ÛÎÈÓ Î·È ÙÔ˘ ∫Ú·ÙÈÎÔ‡ πÛÙÔÚÈÎÔ‡ ªÔ˘ÛÂ›Ô˘ ÛÙÔ ∫ÂÚÙ˜, ı· ÂÍÂÙ¿-Ûˆ ÔÚÈÛÌ¤Ó· ·fi ·˘Ù¿ Ù· ·ÓÙÈÎÂ›ÌÂÓ·. ¶ÚfiÎÂÈÙ·È ÁÈ· ÂÏÏËÓÈÎ¿ ÚˆÙfiÙ˘· Ô˘ ‚Ú¤ıËÎ·Ó ÛÙËÓ√Ï‚È·, ÛÙÔ ¶·ÓÙÈÎ¿·ÈÔÓ Î·È ÛÙËÓ ÃÂÚÛfiÓËÛÔ Î·È ¯ÚÔÓÔÏÔÁÔ‡ÓÙ·È ÛÙÔÓ 4Ô ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã. Î·ÈÛÙËÓ ∂ÏÏËÓÈÛÙÈÎ‹ ÂÚ›Ô‰Ô. £· Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ÛËÌÂÈˆıÂ› fiÙÈ ÔÚÈÛÌ¤Ó· ·fi ·˘Ù¿ Ù· ÁÏ˘Ù¿ Â›Ó·È Î·-Ù·ÛÎÂ˘·ÛÌ¤Ó· ·fi ·ÚÈ·Ófi Ì¿ÚÌ·ÚÔ.

∏ ÂÎÊÚ·ÛÙÈÎfiÙËÙ· Â›Ó·È ÙÔ ¯·Ú·ÎÙËÚÈÛÙÈÎfi ÛÙÔÈ¯Â›Ô ·˘Ù‹˜ ÙË˜ ÙÔÈÎ‹˜ Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÈÎ‹˜ ÎÏ›-ÛË˜, ÚÔÙ›ÌËÛË Ô˘ ˘ËÚÂÙ‹ıËÎÂ Î·Ù¿ Ù¤ÏÂÈÔ ÙÚfiÔ ·fi Ù· ¤ÚÁ· ÙË˜ ™ÎÔ¿‰ÂÈ·˜ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÙÚÔ-›·˜. ∆· ¤ÚÁ· ·˘Ù¿ Ô˘ ÂÈÛ‹¯ıËÛ·Ó ·fi ÙÈ˜ ÌËÙÚÔfiÏÂÈ˜ ÙË˜ ∂ÏÏ¿‰·˜ Î·È ÙË˜ ªÈÎÚ¿˜ ∞Û›·˜,¤·ÈÍ·Ó ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎfi ÚfiÏÔ ÛÙËÓ Ù¤¯ÓË ÙˆÓ ÂÏÏËÓÈÎÒÓ ·ÔÈÎÈÒÓ ÛÙËÓ ·ÎÙ‹ ÙË˜ µfiÚÂÈ·˜ ª·‡ÚË˜£¿Ï·ÛÛ·˜.



The Base for the Reconstruction of the Sanctuary of Hestia on Paros (“Peristylbau”)

Aenne Ohnesorg

Technical University of Munich, Germany

<[email protected]>

In 1982, Gottfried Gruben published the architecture of a Parian peristyle building of theearlier 4th century BC which he interpreted compellingly as the sanctuary of Hestia. Fur-

ther installations belong to the peristyle, an ashlar altar with barriers, and probably the smalltholos that later constituted the apse of the chapel of the Venetian Kastro in Paroikia of Paros.The original location of these structures within the ancient city of Paros is unknown.

In 1999, Gruben published further architectural members of the peristyle building thathad been carried off to Naxos for the early Christian basilica of Angidia near the chora. Sothe parts of this building not only were incorporated into the three churches of the JustinianKatapoliani complex of Paros but were also brought to the neighbouring island of Naxos.They served for the erection of a roughly contemporary basilica –an interesting history ofthe `wandering’ of architectural pieces which even continued into later times.

In both publications Gruben established the connection of the peristyle architecture withthe Parian sculptor Skopas. He “doubtlessly” was the author of the famous cult statue of Hes-tia that Tiberius took to Rome. At the Mausolleion he had already worked as an architect,and is said to have created one of the columnae caelatae of the Ephesian Artemision. Thereare similarities between the Parian peristyle and the architectural forms of the temple ofTegea, his main work as an architect. The altar of the Ephesian Artemision as well is relatedas Ulrike Muss has pointed out.

In the actual paper I present the drawings of the architectural members that led to the al-ready published reconstruction of the peristyle. Until now mostly photograps of them wereshown. There are fragments of the steps of the krepis and the walls. One nearly completeEphesian-type column base shows the profile of the earlier 4th century BC. Three columnshafts have survived on Paros, ten further on Naxos, none of them complete. In addition tothe one corner capital from Paros known before the 1990’s, another four, partly fragmen-tary, have appeared on Naxos. The numerous fragments of the entablature all still are builtinto the main church and the Baptistery of the Katapoliani. Some wall blocks and the frag-ments of two different types of sima are to be found in the Archaeological Museum of Paros.The elements of an apse attest a niche in which the famous cult statue of Hestia might havebeen placed. Further fragments of the same period and high quality might be included in thecomplex as well.



∏ µ¿ÛË ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ∞Ó·Û‡ÛÙ·ÛË ÙÔ˘ πÂÚÔ‡ ÙË˜ ∂ÛÙ›·˜ ÛÙËÓ ¶¿ÚÔ (“Peristylbau”)

∆Ô 1982, Ô Gottfried Gruben ‰ËÌÔÛ›Â˘ÛÂ ÙËÓ ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ‹ ÂÓfi˜ ¶·ÚÈ·ÓÔ‡ ÂÚ›ÛÙ˘ÏÔ˘ ÎÙÈ-Ú›Ô˘ ÙÔ˘ ÚÒÈÌÔ˘ 4Ô˘ ·È .Ã., ÙÔ ÔÔ›Ô ÂÚÌ‹ÓÂ˘ÛÂ ÌÂ ÂÈÛÙÈÎfi ÙÚfiÔ ˆ˜ ÙÔ ÈÂÚfi ÙË˜

∂ÛÙ›·˜. ™ÙÔ ÂÚ›ÛÙ˘ÏÔ ·Ó‹ÎÔ˘Ó Î·È ¿ÏÏ· ÎÙ›ÛÌ·Ù·, fiˆ˜ ‚ˆÌfi˜ ÌÂ ÎÚ·ÙÂ˘Ù¤˜, Î·È ›Ûˆ˜ Ë ÌÈ-ÎÚ‹ ıfiÏÔ˜ Ô˘ ·ÔÙ¤ÏÂÛÂ ·ÚÁfiÙÂÚ· ÙËÓ ·„›‰· ÙÔ˘ ·ÚÂÎÎÏËÛ›Ô˘ ÙÔ˘ ∂ÓÂÙÈÎÔ‡ ∫¿ÛÙÚÔ˘ ÛÙËÓ¶·ÚÔÈÎÈ¿ ÙË˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘. ∏ ·Ú¯ÈÎ‹ ı¤ÛË ÙˆÓ ÂÓ ÏfiÁˆ Î·Ù·ÛÎÂ˘ÒÓ ÛÙÔ ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈÎfi ÙË˜ ·Ú¯·›·˜ fi-ÏË˜ ÙË˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘ Â›Ó·È ¿ÁÓˆÛÙË.

∆Ô 1999, Ô Gruben ‰ËÌÔÛ›Â˘ÛÂ ÓÂfiÙÂÚ· ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ¿ Ì¤ÏË ÙÔ˘ ÂÚ›ÛÙ˘ÏÔ˘ ÎÙÈÚ›Ô˘ Ô˘ Â›-¯·Ó ÌÂÙ·ÊÂÚıÂ› ÛÙË ¡¿ÍÔ ÁÈ· Ó· ¯ÚËÛÈÌÔÔÈËıÔ‡Ó ÛÙËÓ ·Ï·ÈÔ¯ÚÈÛÙÈ·ÓÈÎ‹ ‚·ÛÈÏÈÎ‹ ÛÙ·∞ÁÎ›‰È·. ∂ÔÌ¤Óˆ˜, Ù· Ì¤ÏË ·˘ÙÔ‡ ÙÔ˘ ÎÙÈÚ›Ô˘ fi¯È ÌfiÓÔÓ Â›¯·Ó ÂÓÛˆÌ·ÙˆıÂ› ÛÙÈ˜ ÙÚÂÈ˜ ÂÎÎÏË-Û›Â˜ ÙÔ˘ πÔ˘ÛÙÈÓÈ¿ÓÂÈÔ˘ Û˘ÁÎÚÔÙ‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ ÙË˜ ∫·Ù·ÔÏÈ·Ó‹˜ ·ÏÏ¿ Â›¯·Ó Â›ÛË˜ ÌÂÙ·ÊÂÚıÂ› ÛÙÔÁÂÈÙÔÓÈÎfi ÓËÛ› ÙË˜ ¡¿ÍÔ˘. ÃÚËÛÈÌÔÔÈ‹ıËÎ·Ó ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·Ó¤ÁÂÚÛË ÌÈ·˜ ÂÚ›Ô˘ Û‡Á¯ÚÔÓË˜ ‚·-ÛÈÏÈÎ‹˜ -ÌÈ· ÂÓ‰È·Ê¤ÚÔ˘Û· ÈÛÙÔÚ›· ÙË˜ «ÂÚÈÏ¿ÓËÛË˜» ÙˆÓ ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎÒÓ ÌÂÏÒÓ Ô˘ Û˘ÓÂ-¯›ÛÙËÎÂ Î·È ÛÂ ÌÂÙ¤ÂÈÙ· ¯ÚfiÓÈ·.

∫·È ÛÙÈ˜ ‰‡Ô ‰ËÌÔÛÈÂ‡ÛÂÈ˜, Ô Gruben Û˘Ó¤‰ÂÛÂ ÙËÓ ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ‹ ÙÔ˘ ÂÚÈÛÙ˘Ï›Ô˘ ÌÂ ÙÔÓ¶·ÚÈ·Ófi ÁÏ‡ÙË ™Îfi·. ∞˘Ùfi˜ «·Ó·ÌÊ›‚ÔÏ·» ‹Ù·Ó Ô ÁÏ‡ÙË˜ ÙÔ˘ ÂÚ›ÊËÌÔ˘ Ï·ÙÚÂ˘ÙÈÎÔ‡·Á¿ÏÌ·ÙÔ˜ ÙË˜ ∂ÛÙ›·˜ ÙÔ ÔÔ›Ô Ô ∆È‚¤ÚÈÔ˜ ‹ÚÂ ÛÙË ƒÒÌË. ™ÙÔ ª·˘ÛˆÏÂ›Ô Â›¯Â ‹‰Ë ÂÚÁ·ÛÙÂ›ˆ˜ ·Ú¯ÈÙ¤ÎÙÔÓ·˜, Î·È Ï¤ÁÂÙ·È fiÙÈ ‹Ù·Ó Ô ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁfi˜ ÂÓfi˜ ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ ·Ó¿ÁÏ˘ÊÔ˘˜ Î›ÔÓÂ˜(columnae caelatae) ÛÙÔ ∞ÚÙÂÌ›ÛÈÔ ÙË˜ ∂Ê¤ÛÔ˘. À¿Ú¯Ô˘Ó ÔÌÔÈfiÙËÙÂ˜ ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ÙÔ˘ ¶·ÚÈ·ÓÔ‡ÂÚÈÛÙ˘Ï›Ô˘ Î·È ÙˆÓ ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎÒÓ ÌÔÚÊÒÓ ÙÔ˘ Ó·Ô‡ ÙË˜ ∆ÂÁ¤·˜, ÙÔ Î‡ÚÈÔ ¤ÚÁÔ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·ˆ˜ ·Ú¯ÈÙ¤ÎÙÔÓ·. √ ‚ˆÌfi˜ ÙÔ˘ ∞ÚÙÂÌÈÛ›Ô˘ ÙË˜ ∂Ê¤ÛÔ˘ Â›ÛË˜ Û˘Ó‰¤ÂÙ·È ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ™Îfi·, Î·ıÒ˜ÂÈÛËÌ·›ÓÂÈ Ë Ulrike Muss.

™ÙËÓ ÂÚÁ·Û›· ÌÔ˘ ı· ·ÚÔ˘ÛÈ¿Ûˆ Ù· Û¯¤‰È· ÙˆÓ ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎÒÓ ÌÂÏÒÓ Ô˘ Ô‰‹ÁËÛ·Ó ÛÙËÓ‹‰Ë ‰ËÌÔÛÈÂ˘ıÂ›Û· ·Ó·Û‡ÓıÂÛË ÙÔ˘ ÂÚÈÛÙ˘Ï›Ô˘. ª¤¯ÚÈ Û‹ÌÂÚ· Î˘Ú›ˆ˜ ÊˆÙÔÁÚ·Ê›Â˜ ÙÔ˘˜¤¯Ô˘Ó ‰ËÌÔÛÈÂ˘ıÂ›. À¿Ú¯Ô˘Ó ÙÌ‹Ì·Ù· ·fi ÙÈ˜ ‚·ıÌ›‰Â˜ ÙË˜ ÎÚË›‰Ô˜ Î·È ÙˆÓ ÙÔ›¯ˆÓ. ª›· Û¯Â-‰fiÓ ·Î¤Ú·È· ‚¿ÛË Î›ÔÓ· ÙÔ˘ Ù‡Ô˘ ÙË˜ ∂Ê¤ÛÔ˘ ‰Â›¯ÓÂÈ ÙÔ ÚÔÊ›Ï ÙÔ˘ ÚÒÈÌÔ˘ 4Ô˘ ·È .Ã. ∆Ú›·ÙÌ‹Ì·Ù· ÎÈfiÓˆÓ ÂÈ‚›ˆÛ·Ó ÛÙËÓ ¶¿ÚÔ, Î·È ‰¤Î· ·ÎfiÌË ÛÙË ¡¿ÍÔ. ∂ÈÏ¤ÔÓ ÙÔ˘ ÁÓˆÛÙÔ‡ ÚÈÓ·fi ÙÔ 1990 ÁˆÓÈ·ÎÔ‡ ÎÈÔÓÔÎÚ¿ÓÔ˘ ·fi ÙËÓ ¶¿ÚÔ, ¿ÏÏ· Ù¤ÛÛÂÚ·, ÂÓ Ì¤ÚÂÈ ·ÔÛ·ÛÌ·ÙÈÎ¿ Ûˆ-˙fiÌÂÓ·, ¤¯Ô˘Ó ‚ÚÂıÂ› ÛÙË ¡¿ÍÔ. ∆· ÔÏ˘¿ÚÈıÌ· ıÚ·‡ÛÌ·Ù· ÙÔ˘ ıÚÈÁÎÔ‡ ÂÍ·ÎÔÏÔ˘ıÔ‡Ó Ó· Â›Ó·ÈfiÏ· ÂÓÛˆÌ·ÙˆÌ¤Ó· ÛÙÔÓ Î˘Ú›ˆ˜ Ó·fi Î·È ÙÔ µ·ÙÈÛÙ‹ÚÈÔ ÙË˜ ∫·Ù·ÔÏÈ·Ó‹˜. √ÚÈÛÌ¤ÓÔÈ ‰fiÌÔÈÙÔ›¯ˆÓ Î·È ıÚ·‡ÛÌ·Ù· ‰‡Ô ‰È·ÊÔÚÂÙÈÎÒÓ Ù‡ˆÓ Û›ÌË˜ ‚Ú›ÛÎÔÓÙ·È ÛÙÔ ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏÔÁÈÎfi ªÔ˘ÛÂ›ÔÙË˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘. ™ÙÔÈ¯Â›· ÌÈ·˜ ·„›‰·˜ Ì·ÚÙ˘ÚÔ‡Ó ÙËÓ ·ÚÔ˘Û›· ÎfiÁ¯Ë˜, ÛÙËÓ ÔÔ›· ı· Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· Â›-¯Â ÛÙËıÂ› ÙÔ ÂÚ›ÊËÌÔ Ï·ÙÚÂ˘ÙÈÎfi ¿Á·ÏÌ· ÙË˜ ∂ÛÙ›·˜. ∫·È ¿ÏÏ· ıÚ·‡ÛÌ·Ù· ˘„ËÏ‹˜ ÔÈfiÙËÙ·˜ÙË˜ ›‰È·˜ ÂÚÈfi‰Ô˘ ı· Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· Û˘ÌÂÚÈÏËÊıÔ‡Ó ÛÙÔ Û˘ÁÎÚfiÙËÌ·.



∏ ∞Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ‹ ¢ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ›· ÙË˜ ™¯ÔÏ‹˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·: ¶ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·Ù· ÙË˜ ¶ÂÏÔÔÓÓËÛÈ·Î‹˜ ∆¤¯ÓË˜

¢ËÌ‹ÙÚË˜ ∫Ô‡ÛÔ˘Ï·˜

¢’ ∂ÊÔÚÂ›· ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÙ‹ÙˆÓ, ¡·‡ÏÈÔ

<[email protected]>

ª›· ·fi ÙÈ˜ Ï¤ÔÓ ÂÓ‰È·Ê¤ÚÔ˘ÛÂ˜ ÂÎÊ¿ÓÛÂÈ˜ ÙË˜ Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÈÎ‹˜ ‰Ú¿ÛË˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· Î·È ÙˆÓÌ·ıËÙÒÓ ÙÔ˘ ·ÔÙÂÏÂ› Ô ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎfi˜ Û¯Â‰È·ÛÌfi˜ Ó·ÒÓ. ™‡ÌÊˆÓ· ÌÂ ÙËÓ Ì·ÚÙ˘Ú›· ÙÔ˘

¶·˘Û·Ó›· (8.45.4), Û˘Ó‰¤ÂÙ·È ÌÂ ÙÔÓ Ó·fi ÙË˜ ∞ıËÓ¿˜ ∞Ï¤·˜ ÛÙËÓ ∆ÂÁ¤· fi¯È ÌfiÓÔ ˆ˜ ÁÏ‡ÙË˜,·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ˆ˜ ·Ú¯ÈÙ¤ÎÙÔÓ·˜. ∏ ‰ÈÙÙ‹ ·˘Ù‹ Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÈÎ‹ ˘fiÛÙ·Û‹ ÙÔ˘ Û˘Ó¿‰ÂÈ ÌÂ ÙËÓ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘Ú-Á›· ¿ÏÏˆÓ Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÒÓ ÙÔ˘ 4Ô˘ .Ã. ·ÈÒÓ·, fiˆ˜ Ô ¶ÔÏ‡ÎÏÂÈÙÔ˜ Ô ÓÂÒÙÂÚÔ˜ ‹ Ô §Âˆ¯¿ÚË˜.

¶·Ú¿ ÙÔÓ ·ÔÛ·ÛÌ·ÙÈÎfi ¯·Ú·ÎÙ‹Ú· ÙË˜ ‰È·Ù‹ÚËÛË˜ ÙÔ˘ ÙÂÁÂ¿ÙÈÎÔ˘ Ó·Ô‡, Â›Ó·È ÂÌÊ·ÓÂ›˜ÔÈ È‰È¿˙Ô˘ÛÂ˜ Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÈÎ¤˜ ·ÓÙÈÏ‹„ÂÈ˜ Î·È È‰È·ÈÙÂÚfiÙËÙ¤˜ ÙÔ˘. ∏ Â˘ÚËÌ·ÙÈÎ‹ ‰È·›ÚÂÛË ÙÔ˘ÙÂÚÔ‡, Ô˘ ·Ú·¤ÌÂÈ ÛÙÔÓ Ó·fi ÙÔ˘ ∂ÈÎÔ˘Ú›Ô˘ ∞fiÏÏˆÓÔ˜, Ë ‡·ÚÍË ‰‡Ô ÂÈÎÏÈÓÒÓ ·Ófi-‰ˆÓ ÚÔ˜ ÙËÓ Â˘ı˘ÓÙËÚ›· ÁÈ· Ï·ÙÚÂ˘ÙÈÎÔ‡˜ ÛÎÔÔ‡˜, Ô Û˘Ó‰˘·ÛÌfi˜ ÙÚÈÒÓ ‰È·ÊÔÚÂÙÈÎÒÓ ·Ú¯È-ÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎÒÓ Ú˘ıÌÒÓ -‰ˆÚÈÎfi˜, ÈˆÓÈÎfi˜ Î·È ÎÔÚÈÓıÈ·Îfi˜- Î·È Ë ÂÚ›ÙÂ¯ÓË ‰È·ÎfiÛÌËÛË ÙÔ˘ ÙÔÈ-¯Ô‚¿ÙË Î·È ÙÔ˘ ÂÈÛÙ˘Ï›Ô˘ ‰ÈÎ·ÈÒÓÔ˘Ó ÙÔÓ ¶Ï›ÓÈÔ, Û‡ÌÊˆÓ· ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ÔÔ›Ô Scopae laus cum hiscertat (NH 36.25). ™ÙÔ ÌÓËÌÂ›Ô ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÂÈÛËÌ·ÓıÂ› ÎÙÂÚ›ÛÌ·Ù· Î·È ÂÈ‰Ú¿ÛÂÈ˜ ex Oriente, ‚¿-ÛÂÈ ÙˆÓ ÔÔ›ˆÓ ÙÔÔıÂÙÂ›Ù·È ÛÙËÓ ¯ÚÔÓÈÎ‹ ‚·ıÌ›‰· 360-340 .Ã.

∞ÓÙ›ÛÙÔÈ¯Â˜ Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÈÎ¤˜ ÂÈÚÚÔ¤˜ ÂÌÊ·Ó›˙ÔÓÙ·È ÛÙÔÓ ˘ÛÙÂÚÔÎÏ·ÛÈÎfi Ó·fi ÙÔ˘ ¢Èfi˜ ÛÙË¡ÂÌ¤·. ¶ÚfiÎÂÈÙ·È ÁÈ· ¤Ó· ÌÓËÌÂ›Ô ÌÂ È‰ÈfiÌÔÚÊË ÙÂ¯ÓÔÙÚÔÈÎ‹ Ê˘ÛÈÔÁÓˆÌ›·, Ô˘ ·Ú·¤ÌÂÈÌÂ Û¯ÂÙÈÎ‹ ‚Â‚·ÈfiÙËÙ· ÛÙÔ ÙÂÁÂ¿ÙÈÎÔ ÚfiÙ˘Ô. √ Ó·fi˜ ¤¯ÂÈ ‹‰Ë Û˘Ó‰ÂıÂ› ÌÂ ÙÔÓ Î‡ÎÏÔ ÙÔ˘¶·Ú›Ô˘ ÁÏ‡ÙË.

ªÂ ÙÔ ÂÚÁ·ÛÙ‹ÚÈÔ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· Û˘Ó‰¤ÂÙ·È ÂÓ‰Â¯ÔÌ¤Óˆ˜ Ô Ó·fi˜ ÙË˜ ∂ÊÂÛ›·˜ ∞ÚÙ¤ÌÈ‰Ô˜ ÛÙËÓ∞Ï¤·, Ô˘ ÌÓËÌÔÓÂ‡ÂÙ·È ·fi ÙÔÓ ¶·˘Û·Ó›·. √ ÂÚÈÔÚÈÛÌfi˜ ÙˆÓ ·Ó·ÛÎ·ÊÈÎÒÓ ‰ÈÂÚÂ˘Ó‹ÛÂˆÓÙÔ˘ ¯ÒÚÔ˘ ‰ÂÓ ÂÈÙÚ¤ÂÈ ÙËÓ ÂÍ·ÁˆÁ‹ ·ÛÊ·ÏÒÓ Û˘ÌÂÚ·ÛÌ¿ÙˆÓ. øÛÙfiÛÔ, Ë ·ÚÔ˘Û›· Ì›·˜·ÌÈÁÒ˜ ·ÛÈ·ÙÈÎ‹˜ Ï·ÙÚÂ›·˜, ¿ÁÓˆÛÙË˜ ÛÙËÓ ËÂÈÚˆÙÈÎ‹ ∂ÏÏ¿‰·, ÛÂ Ì›· ·ÔÌ·ÎÚ˘ÛÌ¤ÓË ÂÚÈÔ-¯‹ ÙË˜ ÔÚÂÈÓ‹˜ ∞ÚÁÔÏ›‰·˜ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁÂ› ˘fiÓÔÈÂ˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ Û˘Û¯¤ÙÈÛË ÌÂ ÙÔ˘˜ ÏÈıÔÔÈÔf˜ ÙË˜ ∆Â-Á¤·˜. ∏ ˘fiıÂÛË ·˘Ù‹ ÂÓÈÛ¯‡ÂÙ·È ·fi ÙÈ˜ Â·Ê¤˜ ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ÙˆÓ ‰‡Ô fiÏÂˆÓ, Ô˘ ˘Ô‰ËÏÒÓÔ˘ÓË Û‡Ó‰ÂÛ‹ ÙÔ˘˜ Ì¤Ûˆ Ô‰ÈÎÔ‡ ‰ÈÎÙ‡Ô˘ Î·È Ë Û˘Ó–Ï·ÙÚÂ›· ÙË˜ ıÂ¿˜ ∞ıËÓ¿˜ ˆ˜ ∞Ï¤·˜.

√ È‰È·›ÙÂÚÔ˜ ¯·Ú·ÎÙ‹Ú·˜ ÙË˜ ÛÎÔ·‰Â›Ô˘ Ù¤¯ÓË˜ ‰È·ÌfiÚÊˆÛÂ Ì›· ÙÂ¯ÓÔÙÚÔÈÎ‹ Ù¿ÛË(maniera) Ô˘, ÂËÚÂ¿˙ÔÓÙ·˜ ÙËÓ Ù¤¯ÓË ÙˆÓ ÂÏÏËÓÈÛÙÈÎÒÓ Î·È ÚˆÌ·˚ÎÒÓ ¯ÚfiÓˆÓ, ·ÓÈ¯ÓÂ‡ÂÙ·ÈÛÙË ‚˘˙·ÓÙÈÓ‹ ˙ˆÁÚ·ÊÈÎ‹ Î·È Î·Ù·Ï‹ÁÂÈ ÛÙËÓ ÂÚ›Ô‰Ô ÙË˜ ∞Ó·Á¤ÓÓËÛË˜. ∆Ô ÛÎÔ¿‰ÂÈÔ ‚Ï¤Ì-Ì·, Ô˘ ·¤‰ˆÛÂ fiÛ· …ÙÉ˜ àÓıÚˆ›ÓË˜ ÌfiÓË˜ („˘¯É˜) âÔ›Î·ÛÈÓ âÈÛÎÔÂÖÓ (∞ÚÈÛÙ., ¶ÂÚd „˘¯É˜,402b), Ë ·fi‰ÔÛË ÙË˜ ÙÚ›ÙË˜ ‰È¿ÛÙ·ÛË˜ Î·È Ë ÂÚÈ‰›ÓËÛË ÙˆÓ ÌÔÚÊÒÓ ·ÔÙÂÏÔ‡Ó Ù· ÂÎÊÚ·-ÛÙÈÎ¿ Ì¤Û· ÙˆÓ ÁÏ˘ÙÒÓ ¤ÚÁˆÓ ÙÔ˘. §fiÁˆ ÙË˜ ·Ô˘Û›·˜ Û¯ÂÙÈÎÔ‡ ˘ÏÈÎÔ‡, Ë ‰Ú·ÛÙËÚÈÔÔ›ËÛ‹ÙÔ˘ ÛÙË Ó·Ô‰ÔÌ›· ·ÓÈ¯ÓÂ‡ÂÙ·È ·fi ¤ÌÌÂÛÂ˜ Ì·ÚÙ˘Ú›Â˜ Î·È ·Ú·ÏÏËÏÈÛÌÔ‡˜.



The Architectural Creation of Skopas’ School:Problems of Peloponnesian Art

One of the most interesting aspects of the creativity of Skopas and his school is the ar-chitectural design of temples. According to Pausanias’s text (8.45.4), he is connected

with the temple of Athena Alea at Tegea not only as a sculptor, but as an architect as well.This double role was assumed by other fourth-century craftsmen, such as Polykleitos theYounger and Leochares.

In spite of the ruined character of the Tegean temple, its certain cultural characteristicscan be easily traced. The innovative division of the pteron, which also has been detected atthe temple of Apollo Epikourios at Bassai; the existence of two ramps to access the euthyn-teria for religious purposes; the combination of three different architectural orders –Doric,Ionian and Corinthian; and the decoration of the toichobate and epistylion all remind us ofPliny's statement: Skopae laus cum his certat (NH 36.25). During the excavations of the tem-ple, offerings and elements ex Oriente have been traced; according to these, it can be datedbetween 360-340 BC.

Similar decorative references appear at the late Classical temple of Zeus at Nemea. Thismonument has an artistic identity reminiscent of the Tegean model, and so has been con-nected with Skopas’ school.

The temple of Artemis Ephesia at Alea can also be associated with his school, as men-tioned by Pausanias. Limited excavation there does not allow certain conclusions, but thepresence of an Asiatic cult, unknown in general except at Asia, a distant site in the northernArgolid, is indicative of the connection to the Tegean ÏÈıÔÔÈÔf˜. This supposition is rein-forced by the relations between the two city-states, as the ancient roads and the commoncult of Athena Alea imply.

The specific character of Skopas’s art is a tendency toward mannerism that influences theart of Hellenistic and Roman periods and continues in Byzantine painting to the Quattro-cento. The Skopaic gaze, which gave what …ÙÉ˜ àÓıÚˆ›ÓË˜ ÌfiÓË˜ („˘¯É˜) âÔ›Î·ÛÈÓ âÈÛÎÔÂÖÓ(∞rist., ¶ÂÚd „˘¯É˜ 402b), the rendering of the third dimension, and the twist of the humanbody are his characteristic expressive devices. Due to a lack of archaeological evidence, hisactivity as an architect must be traced mostly through indirect sources and parallels.



Skopas the Architect: Architectural Relations between the 4th Century BC

Ionian Renaissance and Mainland Greece

Poul Pedersen

Department of Classical Studies

University of Southern Denmark, Denmark

<[email protected]>

Skopas travelled widely in the eastern Aegean and left examples of his art from Samoth-race in the north through Ephesos in Ionia to Karian Halikarnassos and Knidos in the

south. The exact dates of his travels are not known, but apparently fell between about 360and 335 BC. This was a time when western Asia Minor –still under Persian rule– experienceda major economic and cultural revival. Among its achievements were two of the Seven Won-ders of the World, and Skopas worked on both of them.

Since the coastal cities of the eastern Aegean had suffered more than half a century ofpoverty with very little sculptural and architectural activity, this revival created a demandfor expert builders and sculptors from the Greek mainland. Many came and their influencecan be seen in the period’s architecture. From now on, Ionic temples regularly includedmainland-style opisthodomoi and often curvature as well. At the Mausolleion the foundationsfor the peribolos seem to be almost identical to those of the Arsenal in Peiraeus. Fortunate-ly, we know the names of the most famous of these artists: Skopas, of course, and Praxiteles,whose draped Aphrodite went to Kos while his naked Aphrodite was bought by Knidos–both under Hekatomnid rule at the time. Also Timotheos, fresh from his work in Epidau-ros, Leochares, Bryaxis, and no doubt many more.

It is regrettable that so few sculptures of this Ionian renaissance are preserved, but muchof the architecture still survives. And although the two Wonders of the World at Halikarnas-sos and Ephesos are not so impressive today, their remains together with those at Labraun-da, Priene, Iasos, and Amyzon are substantial enough that it is possible to draw a detailedpicture of the architecture of this Ionian renaissance. It was a distinct and quite long-livedphase that had decisive importance for the development of Hellenistic architecture.

Although all these artists from the Greek mainland brought their own ideas and tech-niques with them, it is clear that the sculptors among them also were asked to produce newkinds of sculpture. In addition to the familiar mythological themes they produced portraitsof the satrap and his family for a number of places in Karia and Ionia and even on the Greekmainland. And they worked on themes of ruler-representation in impressive monumentslike the Mausolleion.

The architects were not asked to make buildings similar to mainland ones. They had toconstruct a new east Greek style or rather to re-cast the architecture of Ionia in a new andmodern idiom. The most influential of them was no doubt Pytheos, as the books of Vitruviusclearly show. He disliked Doric architecture, and predictably the Doric order is almost com-pletely absent from this building boom. The new architectural style is widespread and quiteuniform. A revived Ionic archaic style, it uses simple proportions and a lay-out mostly based



on a grid system, which cannot easily be applied to Doric temples because of their anglecontraction. A very special lewis system was invented for this architecture and is seen onlyhere. The dowels are of special shape and dovetail clamps often are used in a decorativemanner on the krepis.

Skopas must have stayed for quite a long time in this busy cultural environment andprobably got to know architects such as Pytheos in person while he was in Halikarnassos,thereby acquiring a good knowledge of the new architectural style. But is this what we seein his Temple of Athena at Tegea? Where on the Greek mainland do we see with some cer-tainty the influence of this Ionian renaissance, and what does it look like? These questionswill be discussed in this paper.

™Îfi·˜ Ô ∞Ú¯ÈÙ¤ÎÙˆÓ: √È ™¯¤ÛÂÈ˜ ÛÙËÓ ∞Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ‹ ·Ó¿ÌÂÛ· ÛÙËÓ πˆÓÈÎ‹

∞Ó·Á¤ÓÓËÛË ÙÔ˘ 4Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã. Î·È ÙËÓ ∫˘Ú›ˆ˜ ∂ÏÏ¿‰·

√™Îfi·˜ Ù·Í›‰Â„Â ÂÎÙÂÙ·Ì¤Ó· ÛÙÔ ·Ó·ÙÔÏÈÎfi ∞ÈÁ·›Ô Î·È ¿ÊËÛÂ ›Ûˆ ÙÔ˘ ·Ú·‰Â›ÁÌ·Ù·ÙË˜ Ù¤¯ÓË˜ ÙÔ˘, ·fi ÙË ™·ÌÔıÚ¿ÎË ÛÙÔ ‚ÔÚÚ¿ Î·È ÙËÓ ∂ÊÂÛÔ ÛÙËÓ πˆÓ›· ¤ˆ˜ ÙËÓ ∞ÏÈ-

Î·ÚÓ·ÛÛfi Î·È ÙËÓ ∫Ó›‰Ô ÙË˜ ∫·Ú›·˜ ÛÙÔ ÓfiÙÔ. √È ·ÎÚÈ‚Â›˜ ËÌÂÚÔÌËÓ›Â˜ ÙˆÓ Ù·ÍÈ‰ÈÒÓ ÙÔ˘ ‰ÂÓÂ›Ó·È ÁÓˆÛÙ¤˜, ·ÏÏ¿ ÛÂ ÁÂÓÈÎ¤˜ ÁÚ·ÌÌ¤˜ ¤Ï·‚·Ó ¯ÒÚ· ÂÚ›Ô˘ ÌÂÙ·Í‡ 360 Î·È 335 .Ã., ÛÂ ÌÈ·ÂÔ¯‹ Ô˘ Ë ‰˘ÙÈÎ‹ ªÈÎÚ¿ ∞Û›· -·ÎfiÌË ˘fi ÂÚÛÈÎ‹ Î˘ÚÈ·Ú¯›·- ‚ÚÈÛÎfiÙ·Ó ÛÂ ÌÂÁ¿ÏË ÔÈÎÔ-ÓÔÌÈÎ‹ Î·È ÔÏÈÙÈÛÙÈÎ‹ ¿ÓıËÛË. ∞Ó¿ÌÂÛ· ÛÙ· ÂÈÙÂ‡ÁÌ·Ù¿ ÙË˜, Û˘ÌÂÚÈÏ·Ì‚¿ÓÔÓÙ·È ‰‡Ô ·fiÙ· ∂Ù¿ £·‡Ì·Ù· ÙÔ˘ ∫fiÛÌÔ˘ Î·È Ô ™Îfi·˜ ÂÚÁ¿ÛÙËÎÂ Î·È ÛÙ· ‰‡Ô.

¢Â‰ÔÌ¤ÓÔ˘ fiÙÈ ÔÈ ·Ú·ÏÈ·Î¤˜ fiÏÂÈ˜ ÙÔ˘ ·Ó·ÙÔÏÈÎÔ‡ ∞ÈÁ·›Ô˘ ˙Ô‡Û·Ó ÁÈ· ¿Óˆ ·fi ÌÈÛfi ·È-ÒÓ· ÛÂ Î·Ù¿ÛÙ·ÛË ÊÙÒ¯ÂÈ·˜ ÌÂ ÂÓÈ¯Ú‹ ‰Ú·ÛÙËÚÈfiÙËÙ· ÛÙË ÁÏ˘ÙÈÎ‹ Î·È ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ‹, Ë Ó¤·¿ÓıËÛË ‰ËÌÈÔ‡ÚÁËÛÂ ÙËÓ ·Ó¿ÁÎË ·Ó·˙‹ÙËÛË˜ ¤ÌÂÈÚˆÓ Î·Ù·ÛÎÂ˘·ÛÙÒÓ Î·È ÁÏ˘ÙÒÓ ·fi ÙËÓÌËÙÚÔÔÏÈÙÈÎ‹ ∂ÏÏ¿‰·. ¶ÔÏÏÔ› ‹Úı·Ó Î·È Ë ÂÈÚÚÔ‹ ÙÔ˘˜ ‰È·ÎÚ›ÓÂÙ·È ÛÙËÓ ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ‹ ·˘-Ù‹˜ ÙË˜ ÂÚÈfi‰Ô˘. √È πˆÓÈÎÔ› Ó·Ô› ·fi ÙÒÚ· Î·È ÛÙÔ ÂÍ‹˜ ¤¯Ô˘Ó fiÏÔÈ ÔÈÛıfi‰ÔÌÔ˘˜ Î·Ù¿ Ù·ÂÏÏËÓÈÎ¿ ÚfiÙ˘· ÙË˜ ËÂÈÚˆÙÈÎ‹˜ ∂ÏÏ¿‰·˜ Î·È Û˘¯Ó¿ Â›ÛË˜ Î·Ì˘ÏfiÙËÙ·. ™ÙÔ ª·˘ÛˆÏÂ›ÔÙ· ıÂÌ¤ÏÈ· ÁÈ· ÙÔÓ ÂÚ›‚ÔÏÔ Ê·›ÓÂÙ·È Ó· Â›Ó·È Û¯Â‰fiÓ ·ÓÔÌÔÈfiÙ˘· ÌÂ ÂÎÂ›Ó· ÙË˜ ™ÎÂ˘Ôı‹-ÎË˜ ÛÙÔÓ ¶ÂÈÚ·È¿. ∂˘Ù˘¯Ò˜, ÁÓˆÚ›˙Ô˘ÌÂ Ù· ÔÓfiÌ·Ù· ÙˆÓ ‰È·ÛËÌfiÙÂÚˆÓ ·fi ·˘ÙÔ‡˜ ÙÔ˘˜ Î·Ï-ÏÈÙ¤¯ÓÂ˜: Ô ™Îfi·˜ ‚Â‚·›ˆ˜, Î·È Ô ¶Ú·ÍÈÙ¤ÏË˜, ÙÔ˘ ÔÔ›Ô˘ Ë ÂÓ‰Â‰˘Ì¤ÓË ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË ‹ÁÂ ÛÙËÓ∫ˆ, ÂÓÒ Ë Á˘ÌÓ‹ ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË ·ÁÔÚ¿ÛÙËÎÂ ·fi ÙËÓ ∫Ó›‰Ô -‰‡Ô ÂÚÈÔ¯¤˜ Ô˘ ‚Ú›ÛÎÔÓÙ·Ó ˘fi ÙËÓÂÍÔ˘Û›· ÙˆÓ ∂Î·ÙÔÌÓÈ‰ÒÓ. ∂›ÛË˜ Ô ∆ÈÌfiıÂÔ˜ Ô˘ ÌfiÏÈ˜ Â›¯Â ÔÏÔÎÏËÚÒÛÂÈ ÙÔ ¤ÚÁÔ ÙÔ˘ ÛÙËÓ∂›‰·˘ÚÔ, Ô §Âˆ¯¿ÚË˜, Ô µÚ‡·ÍÈ˜ Î·È ·Ó·ÌÊ›‚ÔÏ· ÔÏÏÔ› ¿ÏÏÔÈ.

∂›Ó·È Ï˘ËÚfi fiÙÈ Ï›Á· ÌfiÓÔ ÁÏ˘Ù¿ ·˘Ù‹˜ ÙË˜ πˆÓÈÎ‹˜ ·Ó·Á¤ÓÓËÛË˜ ÛÒ˙ÔÓÙ·È, ·ÏÏ¿ ÌÂÁ¿-ÏÔ Ì¤ÚÔ˜ ÙË˜ ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ‹˜ Â›Ó·È ·ÎfiÌ· ÂÎÂ›. ∫·È ·ÚfiÏÔ Ô˘ Ù· ‰‡Ô £·‡Ì·Ù· ÙÔ˘ ∫fiÛÌÔ˘,ÛÙËÓ ∞ÏÈÎ·ÚÓ·ÛÛfi Î·È ÛÙËÓ ∂ÊÂÛÔ, ‰ÂÓ Â›Ó·È ›Ûˆ˜ ÙfiÛÔ ÂÓÙ˘ˆÛÈ·Î¿ Û‹ÌÂÚ·, Ù· ÂÚÂ›È¿ ÙÔ˘˜Ì·˙› ÌÂ ÂÎÂ›Ó· ÛÙË §·‚Ú¿Ó‰·, ÙËÓ ¶ÚÈ‹ÓË, ÙËÓ π·Ûfi Î·È ÙËÓ ∞Ì˘˙fi Â›Ó·È ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎ¿ ÒÛÙÂ Â›Ó·È‰˘Ó·Ùfi Ó· ·ÓÙÏ‹ÛÔ˘ÌÂ Ì›· ÏÂÙÔÌÂÚ‹ ÂÈÎfiÓ· ÙË˜ ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ‹˜ ÙË˜ πˆÓÈÎ‹˜ ·Ó·Á¤ÓÓËÛË˜,Ô˘ ˘‹ÚÍÂ ÌÈ· ÍÂ¯ˆÚÈÛÙ‹ Î·È Ì·ÎÚ¿˜ ‰È¿ÚÎÂÈ·˜ Ê¿ÛË ÌÂ Î·ıÔÚÈÛÙÈÎ‹ ÛËÌ·Û›· ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·Ó¿-Ù˘ÍË ÙË˜ ∂ÏÏËÓÈÛÙÈÎ‹˜ ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ‹˜.

¶·Ú¿ ÙÔ ÁÂÁÔÓfi˜ fiÙÈ fiÏÔÈ ·˘ÙÔ› ÔÈ Î·ÏÏÈÙ¤¯ÓÂ˜ ·fi ÙËÓ ÌËÙÚÔÔÏÈÙÈÎ‹ ∂ÏÏ¿‰· ¤ÊÂÚ·Ó ÙÈ˜‰ÈÎ¤˜ ÙÔ˘˜ È‰¤Â˜ Î·È ÙÂ¯ÓÔÁÓˆÛ›·, Â›Ó·È Û·Ê¤˜ fiÙÈ ÔÈ ÁÏ‡ÙÂ˜ ÎÏ‹ıËÎ·Ó Â›ÛË˜ Ó· ·Ú¿ÁÔ˘Ó



ÂÈÏ¤ÔÓ Ó¤· Â›‰Ë ÁÏ˘ÙÈÎ‹˜. ∂ÎÙfi˜ ·fi Ù· ÁÓˆÛÙ¿ Ì˘ıÔÏÔÁÈÎ¿ ı¤Ì·Ù·, Î·Ù·ÛÎÂ‡·Û·Ó ÔÚ-ÙÚ·›Ù· ÙÔ˘ Û·ÙÚ¿Ë Î·È ÙË˜ ÔÈÎÔÁ¤ÓÂÈ¿˜ ÙÔ˘ ÛÂ ÔÏÏ¤˜ ÂÚÈÔ¯¤˜ ÛÙËÓ ∫·Ú›· Î·È πˆÓ›· Î·È·ÎfiÌË ÛÙËÓ Î˘Ú›ˆ˜ ∂ÏÏ¿‰·. ∂ÈÏ¤ÔÓ ÂÚÁ¿ÛÙËÎ·Ó ÛÂ ÂÓÙ˘ˆÛÈ·Î¿ ÌÓËÌÂ›·, fiˆ˜ ÙÔ ª·˘Ûˆ-ÏÂ›Ô, ÛÂ Û¯¤ÛË ÌÂ ÙËÓ ·ÂÈÎfiÓÈÛË ÙÔ˘ ËÁÂÌfiÓ·.

√È ·Ú¯ÈÙ¤ÎÙÔÓÂ˜ ‰ÂÓ ÎÏ‹ıËÎ·Ó Ó· Î·Ù·ÛÎÂ˘¿ÛÔ˘Ó ÎÙ›ÚÈ· ·ÚfiÌÔÈ· ÌÂ ·˘Ù¿ ÙË˜ Î˘Ú›ˆ˜∂ÏÏ¿‰·˜ ·ÏÏ¿ Ó· ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ‹ÛÔ˘Ó ¤Ó· Ó¤Ô ·Ó·ÙÔÏÈÎfi-ÂÏÏËÓÈÎfi ÛÙ˘Ï ‹ Ì¿ÏÏÔÓ Ó· ·Ó·‰È·ÌÔÚ-ÊÒÛÔ˘Ó ÙËÓ ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ‹ ÙË˜ πˆÓ›·˜ ÛÂ ÌÈ· Ó¤· Î·È Û‡Á¯ÚÔÓË ÂÎ‰Ô¯‹. √ ·Ú¯ÈÙ¤ÎÙÔÓ·˜ Ô˘¿ÛÎËÛÂ ÙË ÌÂÁ·Ï‡ÙÂÚË ÂÈÚÚÔ‹ ÛÂ ·˘Ù‹ ÙË ‰È·‰ÈÎ·Û›· ‹Ù·Ó ·Ó·ÌÊ›‚ÔÏ· Ô ¶‡ıÂÔ˜, fiˆ˜ ·Ó·-Ê¤ÚÂÙ·È ·fi ÙÔÓ µÈÙÚÔ‡‚ÈÔ. ¢ÂÓ ÙÔ˘ ¿ÚÂÛÂ Ë ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ‹ ‰ˆÚÈÎÔ‡ Ú˘ıÌÔ‡, Ë ÔÔ›· Â›Ó·ÈÛ¯Â‰fiÓ ÂÓÙÂÏÒ˜ ·Ô‡Û· ÛÙËÓ ¤ÎÚËÍË ·˘Ù‹˜ ÙË˜ ·ÓÔÈÎÔ‰fiÌËÛË˜. ∆Ô Ó¤Ô ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎfi ÛÙ˘Ï·Ú·ÙËÚÂ›Ù·È ÛÂ Â˘ÚÂ›· ÎÏ›Ì·Î· Î·È ¤¯ÂÈ ÔÌÔÈÔÌÔÚÊ›·. ¶ÚfiÎÂÈÙ·È ÁÈ· ÌÈ· ·Ó·‚›ˆÛË ÙÔ˘ ·Ú¯·˚-ÎÔ‡ πˆÓÈÎÔ‡ Ú˘ıÌÔ‡ Ô˘ ¯ÚËÛÈÌÔÔÈÂ› ·Ï¤˜ ·Ó·ÏÔÁ›Â˜ Î·È ¤Ó· Û¯¤‰ÈÔ ‚·ÛÈÛÌ¤ÓÔ Â› ÙÔ ÏÂ›-ÛÙÔÓ ÛÂ ¤Ó· Û‡ÛÙËÌ· Î·ÓÓ¿‚Ô˘ Ô˘ ‰ÂÓ ÌÔÚÂ› Â‡ÎÔÏ· Ó· ÂÊ·ÚÌÔÛıÂ› ÛÂ ‰ˆÚÈÎÔ‡˜ Ó·Ô‡˜, Ïfi-Áˆ ÙÔ˘ ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ ÁˆÓÈ·ÎÔ‡ ÌÂÙ·ÎÈfiÓÈÔ˘ ‰È·ÛÙ‹Ì·ÙÔ˜. ∂Ó· ÔÏ‡ ÂÈ‰ÈÎfi Û‡ÛÙËÌ· ÂÈ-ÓÔ‹ıËÎÂ ÁÈ· ·˘ÙÔ‡ ÙÔ˘ Â›‰Ô˘˜ ÙËÓ ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ‹ Ô˘ ‚Ï¤Ô˘ÌÂ ÌfiÓÔÓ Â‰Ò, ÌÂ Û˘Ó‰ÂÙÈÎ¿ Î·Ú-ÊÈ¿ ÂÈ‰ÈÎÔ‡ Û¯‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ Î·È Û˘¯Ó‹ ¯Ú‹ÛË ‰È·ÎÔÛÌËÙÈÎÒÓ ÛÊÈÁÎÙ‹ÚˆÓ ÚÔÛ·ÚÌÔÁ‹˜.

√ ™Îfi·˜ Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ·Ú¤ÌÂÈÓÂ ÁÈ· ·ÚÎÂÙ¿ ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ ¯ÚÔÓÈÎfi ‰È¿ÛÙËÌ· ÛÂ ·˘Ùfi ÙÔ ÔÏ˘¿Û¯Ô-ÏÔ ÔÏÈÙÈÛÙÈÎfi ÂÚÈ‚¿ÏÏÔÓ Î·È Â›¯Â Èı·ÓfiÙ·Ù· ÙËÓ Â˘Î·ÈÚ›· ÂÓÒ ‚ÚÈÛÎfiÙ·Ó ÛÙËÓ ∞ÏÈÎ·ÚÓ·Û-Ûfi Ó· ÁÓˆÚ›ÛÂÈ ÚÔÛˆÈÎ¿ ·Ú¯ÈÙ¤ÎÙÔÓÂ˜, fiˆ˜ Ô ¶‡ıÂÔ˜, ·ÔÎÙÒÓÙ·˜ ¤ÙÛÈ ÌÈ· Î·Ï‹ ÁÓÒÛËÙÔ˘ Ó¤Ô˘ ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎÔ‡ ÛÙ˘Ï. ∞ÏÏ¿ Â›Ó·È ·˘Ùfi Ô˘ ‚Ï¤Ô˘ÌÂ ÛÙÔÓ Ó·fi ÙÔ˘, ÙË˜ ∞ıËÓ¿˜ ÛÙËÓ∆ÂÁ¤·; ™Â ÔÈÔ Ì¤ÚÔ˜ ÙË˜ ÌËÙÚÔÔÏÈÙÈÎ‹˜ ∂ÏÏ¿‰·˜ ·Ú·ÙËÚÔ‡ÌÂ ÌÂ Î¿ÔÈ· ‚Â‚·ÈfiÙËÙ· ÙËÓÂ›‰Ú·ÛË ·˘Ù‹˜ ÙË˜ πˆÓÈÎ‹˜ ·Ó·Á¤ÓÓËÛË˜, Î·È Ò˜ Â›Ó·È ·˘Ù‹; ∞˘Ù¿ Ù· ÂÚˆÙ‹Ì·Ù· ı· Û˘˙ËÙË-ıÔ‡Ó ÛÙËÓ ·ÚÔ‡Û· ÂÚÁ·Û›·.



Skopas from Paros: Peloponnesian Architect at Tegea

Erik Ostby

Institute of Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies and Religion

University of Bergen, Norway

<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>

The only building that the ancient sources connect with Skopas is the temple of AthenaAlea at Tegea (Paus. 8.45.7), one of the most important and best documented monu-

ments of Doric temple architecture of the 4th century BC. It can safely be considered a cre-ation of the period from about 350 to 330 BC, shortly before the better dated temple of Zeusat Nemea, and doubtless after the artist’s activity at Halikarnassos. It is in many ways an old-fashioned building, heavily conditioned by the dimensions and shape of the Archaic templeon the same site. Its unusual dimensions (its foundations are 21.20 m wide, compared with15 m-plus in other contemporary temples); the design of its peristasis (6 by 14 columns,against the 6 by 12 or 11 which are usual for the period); and the conventional shape of itsnaos with its deep opisthodomos –all these features recall 5th century temples. Fourth-cen-tury parallels are found without exception only where earlier buildings set such conditions,and the very small difference in the axial spacings of its façade and flank columns also tendsto recur as a sort of subliminal memory of old traditions at these sites.

Contemporary trends, on the other hand, are evident in the proportions of the elevation,and especially in the embellishment of the interior with its profusion of Ionic ornamentsand Corinthian half-columns, developing themes from Bassai and the tholos at Epidauros butconnecting them with the engineering feat of roofing the 9 m wide interior without innersupports.

Aside from Skopas’s address to the earlier building, his temple inserts itself very clearlyin a Peloponnesian tradition that begins at Epidauros (with the temple of Asklepios and thetholos) and continues with the Nemea temple, which clearly used the slightly earlier Tegeanbuilding as a model. One detail connecting all these buildings except the tholos is the slight-ly increased width of the central intercolumniation of the façade, of the type best known inWestern architecture as “double contraction”. The evidence for this at Nemea and Epidauroshas been overlooked, and there is reason to believe that it was used also at Tegea. It has re-cently been identified also in the archaic temple of Apollo at Delphi, which may have servedas a model for this unexpected feature in mainland Greek architecture. Another rare featurewhich emerges from recent studies of the Tegean temple is the presence of convex curvaturenot only in the foundations, but also in the epistyle.

Since Skopas leans heavily on traditions at Epidauros, where he also seems to have re-ceived much of his sculptural training, it is all the more interesting to see that his interiorCorinthian capitals are so radically different from the best known and most influentialCorinthian capital of the period, the one from the tholos at Epidauros. In this capital,Skopas’s creativity inaugurated a secondary but nevertheless long-lived tradition in the laterdevelopment of the Corinthian capital.



√ ™Îfi·˜ ·fi ÙËÓ ¶¿ÚÔ: ¶ÂÏÔÔÓÓ‹ÛÈÔ˜ ∞Ú¯ÈÙ¤ÎÙÔÓ·˜ ÛÙËÓ ∆ÂÁ¤·

∆Ô ÌfiÓÔ ÎÙ›ÚÈÔ Ô˘ ÔÈ ·Ú¯·›Â˜ ËÁ¤˜ Û˘Ó‰¤Ô˘Ó ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ™Îfi· Â›Ó·È Ô Ó·fi˜ ÙË˜ ∞ıËÓ¿˜ ∞Ï¤-·˜ ÛÙËÓ ∆ÂÁ¤· (¶·˘Û. 8.45.7), ¤Ó· ·fi Ù· ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎfiÙÂÚ· Î·È Î·Ï‡ÙÂÚ· ÙÂÎÌËÚÈˆÌ¤Ó·

ÌÓËÌÂ›· ÙË˜ ¢ˆÚÈÎ‹˜ ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ‹˜ Ó·ÒÓ ÙÔ˘ 4Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã. ªÔÚÂ› ÌÂ ·ÛÊ¿ÏÂÈ· Ó· ıÂˆ-ÚËıÂ› Ì›· ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ›· ÙË˜ ÂÚÈfi‰Ô˘ ÂÚ›Ô˘ ·fi ÙÔ 350 ¤ˆ˜ 330 .Ã., Ï›ÁÔ ÚÈÓ ·fi ÙÔÓ Î·Ï-Ï›ÙÂÚ· ¯ÚÔÓÔÏÔÁËÌ¤ÓÔ Ó·fi ÙÔ˘ ¢Èfi˜ ÛÙË ¡ÂÌ¤·, Î·È ·Ó·ÌÊ›‚ÔÏ· ÌÂÙ¿ ÙË ‰Ú·ÛÙËÚÈfiÙËÙ· ÙÔ˘Î·ÏÏÈÙ¤¯ÓË ÛÙËÓ ∞ÏÈÎ·ÚÓ·ÛÛfi. ∂›Ó·È ·fi ÔÏÏ¤˜ ·fi„ÂÈ˜ ¤Ó· ÎÙ›ÚÈÔ ·Ï·ÈfiÙÂÚÔ˘ Û¯Â‰È·ÛÌÔ‡Ô˘ ˘·ÁÔÚÂ‡ıËÎÂ ÛÂ ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ ‚·ıÌfi ·fi ÙÈ˜ ‰È·ÛÙ¿ÛÂÈ˜ Î·È ÙÔ Û¯‹Ì· ÙÔ˘ ·Ú¯·˚ÎÔ‡ Ó·Ô‡ ÛÙÔÓ›‰ÈÔ ¯ÒÚÔ. √È ·Û˘Ó‹ıÈÛÙÂ˜ ‰È·ÛÙ¿ÛÂÈ˜ ÙÔ˘ (Ù· ıÂÌ¤ÏÈ· Â›Ó·È 21.20 Ì. Ï¿ÙÔ˜, ÛÂ Û‡ÁÎÚÈÛË ÌÂ Ù·15 Ì. ¿ÏÏˆÓ Û‡Á¯ÚÔÓˆÓ Ó·ÒÓ), ÙÔ Û¯¤‰ÈÔ ÙË˜ ÂÚ›ÛÙ·ÛË˜ (6x14 Î›ÔÓÂ˜ ·ÓÙ› 6x12 ‹ 11 Ô˘‹Ù·Ó ÙÔ Û‡ÓËıÂ˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ÂÚ›Ô‰Ô) Î·È ÙÔ Û˘Ì‚·ÙÈÎfi Û¯‹Ì· ÙÔ˘ Ó·Ô‡ ÙÔ˘ ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ‚·ı‡ ÔÈÛıfi-‰ÔÌÔ –fiÏ· ·˘Ù¿ Ù· ¯·Ú·ÎÙËÚÈÛÙÈÎ¿ ·Ó·Î·ÏÔ‡Ó ÙÔ˘˜ Ó·Ô‡˜ ÙÔ˘ 5Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ·. ¶·Ú¿ÏÏËÏ· ÛÙÔÓ 4Ô·ÈÒÓ· ‚Ú›ÛÎÔÓÙ·È ¯ˆÚ›˜ ÂÍ·›ÚÂÛË ÌfiÓÔÓ fiÔ˘ ÚÔÁÂÓ¤ÛÙÂÚ· ÎÙ›ÚÈ· ÔÚ›˙Ô˘Ó ·˘Ù¤˜ ÙÈ˜ ÚÔ¸Ô-ı¤ÛÂÈ˜ Î·È Ë ÔÏ‡ ÌÈÎÚ‹ ‰È·ÊÔÚ¿ ÛÙ· ‰È·ÛÙ‹Ì·Ù· ÙË˜ ÚfiÛÔ„Ë˜ Î·È ÙˆÓ ÏÂ˘ÚÈÎÒÓ ÎÈfiÓˆÓÙÂ›ÓÂÈ Ó· Â·Ó·Ï·Ì‚¿ÓÂÙ·È ˆ˜ ¤Ó· Â›‰Ô˜ ÌÓ‹ÌË˜ ÙÔ˘ ÌÂÁ·ÏÂ›Ô˘ ·Ï·ÈÒÓ ·Ú·‰fiÛÂˆÓ ÛÙÔ˘˜¯ÒÚÔ˘˜ ·˘ÙÔ‡˜.

™‡Á¯ÚÔÓÂ˜ Ù¿ÛÂÈ˜, ·fi ÙËÓ ¿ÏÏË ÏÂ˘Ú¿, Â›Ó·È ÂÌÊ·ÓÂ›˜ ÛÙÈ˜ ·Ó·ÏÔÁ›Â˜ ÙË˜ ·Óˆ‰ÔÌ‹˜, Î·ÈÈ‰›ˆ˜ ÛÙÔÓ ÂÍˆÚ·˚ÛÌfi ÙÔ˘ ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈÎÔ‡ ¯ÒÚÔ˘ ÌÂ ÙËÓ ·ÊıÔÓ›· ÙˆÓ πˆÓÈÎÒÓ ÛÙÔÈ¯Â›ˆÓ Î·È ÙˆÓ∫ÔÚÈÓıÈ·ÎÒÓ ËÌÈÎÈfiÓˆÓ, ÛÂ ÌÈ· Â›‰ÂÈÍË ÂÚ·ÈÙ¤Úˆ ·Ó¤ÏÈÍË˜ ÛÙÔÈ¯Â›ˆÓ ·fi ÙÈ˜ µ¿ÛÛÂ˜ Î·È ÙË£fiÏÔ ÙË˜ ∂È‰·‡ÚÔ˘ Î·È ÙË˜ Û‡Ó‰ÂÛ‹˜ ÙÔ˘˜ ÌÂ ÙÔ Î·ÙfiÚıˆÌ· ÙË˜ ÌË¯·ÓÈÎ‹˜, ÙÔ˘ Ó· ÛÙÂÁ·-ÛıÂ› ÙÔ ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈÎfi Ï¿ÙÔ˘˜ 9 Ì¤ÙÚˆÓ ¯ˆÚ›˜ ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈÎ¿ ˘ÔÛÙËÚ›ÁÌ·Ù·.

∂ÎÙfi˜ ·fi ÙÔ fiÙÈ Ô ™Îfi·˜ ‰È·ÙËÚÂ› ÛÙÔÈ¯Â›· ·fi ÙÔ ÚˆÈÌfiÙÂÚÔ ÎÙ›ÚÈÔ, Ô ›‰ÈÔ˜ Ô Ó·fi˜ ÙÔ˘ÂÓÙ¿ÛÛÂÙ·È ÌÂ ÌÂÁ¿ÏË Û·Ê‹ÓÂÈ· ÛÙËÓ ¶ÂÏÔÔÓÓËÛÈ·Î‹ ·Ú¿‰ÔÛË Ô˘ ÍÂÎÈÓ¿ ·fi ÙËÓ ∂›‰·˘-ÚÔ (ÌÂ ÙÔ Ó·fi ÙÔ˘ ∞ÛÎÏËÈÔ‡ Î·È ÙË £fiÏÔ) Î·È Û˘ÓÂ¯›˙ÂÙ·È ÌÂ ÙÔ Ó·fi ÙË˜ ¡ÂÌ¤·˜, Ô ÔÔ›Ô˜Û·ÊÒ˜ ¤¯ÂÈ ˆ˜ ÌÔÓÙ¤ÏÔ ÙÔ ÂÏ·ÊÚ¿ ÚÔÁÂÓ¤ÛÙÂÚÔ ∆ÂÁÂ·Îfi ÎÙ›ÚÈÔ. ª›· ÏÂÙÔÌ¤ÚÂÈ· Ô˘ Û˘Ó‰¤-ÂÈ fiÏ· ·˘Ù¿ Ù· ÎÙ›ÚÈ·, ÂÎÙfi˜ ·fi ÙË £fiÏÔ Â›Ó·È ÙÔ ÂÏ·ÊÚÒ˜ ·˘ÍËÌ¤ÓÔ Ï¿ÙÔ˜ ÙˆÓ ÎÂÓÙÚÈÎÒÓÌÂÙ·ÎÈfiÓÈˆÓ ‰È·ÛÙËÌ¿ÙˆÓ ÙË˜ ÚfiÛÔ„Ë˜, ÙÔ˘ Ù‡Ô˘ ÁÓˆÛÙÔ‡ ÛÙË ¢˘ÙÈÎ‹ ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ‹ ˆ˜«‰ÈÏ‹ Û˘ÛÙÔÏ‹». ∏ Û¯ÂÙÈÎ‹ Ì·ÚÙ˘Ú›· ÁÈ’ ·˘Ùfi ÛÙË ¡ÂÌ¤· Î·È ÙËÓ ∂›‰·˘ÚÔ ¤¯ÂÈ ÂÚ¿ÛÂÈ ··-Ú·Ù‹ÚËÙË, Î·È ˘¿Ú¯ÂÈ ÏfiÁÔ˜ Ó· ÈÛÙÂ‡Ô˘ÌÂ fiÙÈ ¯ÚËÛÈÌÔÔÈ‹ıËÎÂ Â›ÛË˜ ÛÙËÓ ∆ÂÁ¤·. ¶Úfi-ÛÊ·Ù· ¤¯ÂÈ ÂÓÙÔÈÛÙÂ› Â›ÛË˜ ÛÙÔÓ ·Ú¯·˚Îfi Ó·fi ÙÔ˘ ∞fiÏÏˆÓ· ÛÙÔ˘˜ ¢ÂÏÊÔ‡˜, Ô ÔÔ›Ô˜ ÌÔ-ÚÂ› Ó· ¤¯ÂÈ ¯ÚËÛÈÌÂ‡ÛÂÈ ˆ˜ ÚfiÙ˘Ô ÁÈ· ÙÔ ·ÚÔÛ‰fiÎËÙÔ ·˘Ùfi ¯·Ú·ÎÙËÚÈÛÙÈÎfi ÛÙËÓ ·Ú¯ÈÙÂ-ÎÙÔÓÈÎ‹ ÙË˜ Î˘Ú›ˆ˜ ∂ÏÏ¿‰·˜. ∂Ó· ¿ÏÏÔ Û¿ÓÈÔ ¯·Ú·ÎÙËÚÈÛÙÈÎfi Ô˘ ·Ó·‰ÂÈÎÓ‡ÂÙ·È ·fi Úfi-ÛÊ·ÙÂ˜ ÌÂÏ¤ÙÂ˜ ÙÔ˘ Ó·Ô‡ ÙË˜ ∆ÂÁ¤·˜ Â›Ó·È Ë ·ÚÔ˘Û›· Î˘ÚÙ‹˜ Î·Ì˘ÏfiÙËÙ·˜ fi¯È ÌfiÓÔ ÛÙ· ıÂ-Ì¤ÏÈ·, ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÛÙÔ ÂÈÛÙ‡ÏÈÔ.

∂ÊfiÛÔÓ Ô ™Îfi·˜ ÛÂ ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ ‚·ıÌfi ‚·Û›˙ÂÙ·È ÛÙÈ˜ ·Ú·‰fiÛÂÈ˜ ÙË˜ ∂È‰·‡ÚÔ˘, fiÔ˘ Ê·›ÓÂ-Ù·È Â›ÛË˜ Ó· ¤¯ÂÈ Ï¿‚ÂÈ ¤Ó· ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ Ì¤ÚÔ˜ ÙË˜ Î·Ù¿ÚÙÈÛ‹˜ ÙÔ˘ ÛÙË ÁÏ˘ÙÈÎ‹, Â›Ó·È ·ÎfiÌË ÈÔÂÓ‰È·Ê¤ÚÔÓ ÙÔ fiÙÈ Ù· ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈÎ¿ ÎÔÚÈÓıÈ·Î¿ ÎÈÔÓfiÎÚ·Ó· ÛÙÔ ‰ÈÎfi ÙÔ˘ ‰ËÌÈÔ‡ÚÁËÌ· ‰È·Ê¤ÚÔ˘ÓÙfiÛÔ ÚÈ˙ÈÎ¿ ·fi ÙÔ Ï¤ÔÓ ÁÓˆÛÙfi Î·È ÌÂ ÈÛ¯˘Ú‹ ÂÈÚÚÔ‹ ÎÔÚÈÓıÈ·Îfi ÎÈÔÓfiÎÚ·ÓÔ ÙË˜ ÂÚÈfi-‰Ô˘, ·˘Ùfi ·fi ÙË £fiÏÔ ÙË˜ ∂È‰·‡ÚÔ˘. ™Â ·˘Ùfi ÙÔ ÎÈÔÓfiÎÚ·ÓÔ, Ë ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁÈÎfiÙËÙ· ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·ÂÁÎ·ÈÓ›·ÛÂ Ì›· ‰Â˘ÙÂÚÂ‡Ô˘Û·, ·ÏÏ¿ ·ÚfiÏ· ·˘Ù¿ Ì·ÎÚ¿˜ ‰È¿ÚÎÂÈ·˜ ·Ú¿‰ÔÛË ÛÙËÓ ÌÂÙ¤ÂÈÙ·ÂÍ¤ÏÈÍË ÙÔ˘ ÎÔÚÈÓıÈ·ÎÔ‡ ÎÈÔÓÔÎÚ¿ÓÔ˘.



√ ™Îfi·˜ Î·È Ô µˆÌfi˜ ÛÙÔ πÂÚfi ÙË˜ ∞ıËÓ¿˜ ∞Ï¤·˜ ÛÙËÓ ∆ÂÁ¤·

πÊÈÁ¤ÓÂÈ· §Â‚¤ÓÙË

∆Ì‹Ì· πÛÙÔÚ›·˜, ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏÔÁ›·˜ Î·È ∫ÔÈÓˆÓÈÎ‹˜ ∞ÓıÚˆÔÏÔÁ›·˜

¶·ÓÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÈÔ £ÂÛÛ·Ï›·˜

<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>

∏ÚËÙ‹ Ì·ÚÙ˘Ú›· ÙÔ˘ ¶·˘Û·Ó›· (8.45.5), fiˆ˜ Â›Ó·È ÁÓˆÛÙfi, ·Ú·‰›‰ÂÈ ÙÔ fiÓÔÌ· ÙÔ˘ ‰È¿-ÛËÌÔ˘ ¶¿ÚÈÔ˘ ÁÏ‡ÙË ™Îfi· ˆ˜ ·Ú¯ÈÙ¤ÎÙÔÓ· ÙÔ˘ Ó·Ô‡ ÙË˜ ∞ıËÓ¿˜ ∞Ï¤·˜ ÙÔ˘ 4Ô˘ ·ÈÒ-

Ó· .Ã. ÛÙËÓ ∆ÂÁ¤· ÙË˜ ∞ÚÎ·‰›·˜. ™Â Û˘Ó¤¯ÂÈ· ÙË˜ ·Ú¿‰ÔÛË˜ ·˘Ù‹˜, ÔÈ ·Ú¯·ÈÔÏfiÁÔÈ ÙÔ˘ ‡ÛÙÂ-ÚÔ˘ 19Ô˘ Î·È ÚÒÈÌÔ˘ 20Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· ·¤‰ˆÛ·Ó Ù· ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ¿ ÁÏ˘Ù¿ ÛÙÔ ™Îfi·, ¿Ô„Ë Ô˘ÂÈÎÚ¿ÙËÛÂ ÁÈ· ÔÏÏ¤˜ ‰ÂÎ·ÂÙ›Â˜ ÛÙËÓ ¤ÚÂ˘Ó·. ™Ù· ‰ËÌÔÛÈÂ‡Ì·Ù· ÙˆÓ ÙÂÏÂ˘Ù·›ˆÓ ¯ÚfiÓˆÓ Û˘Û-ÛˆÚÂ‡ÔÓÙ·È ÔÈ ÂÓ‰Â›ÍÂÈ˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·ÔÛ‡Ó‰ÂÛË ÙˆÓ ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎÒÓ ÁÏ˘ÙÒÓ ÙÔ˘ Ó·Ô‡ ÙË˜ ∞ıË-Ó¿˜ ·fi ÙÔÓ ÎÏ·ÛÈÎfi ÁÏ‡ÙË ™Îfi·, fiˆ˜ ¿ÏÏˆÛÙÂ Î·È ÙˆÓ ·Á·ÏÌ¿ÙˆÓ ÙÔ˘ ∞ÛÎÏËÈÔ‡ Î·ÈÙË˜ ÀÁÂ›·˜ ·fi ÂÓÙÂÏÈÎfi Ì¿ÚÌ·ÚÔ Ô˘ Â›‰Â Ô ¶·˘Û·Ó›·˜ Ì¤Û· ÛÙÔ ÛËÎfi ÙÔ˘ Ó·Ô‡ (8.47.1). ∆·ÙÂÏÂ˘Ù·›· ·Ô‰fiıËÎ·Ó ·fi ÙËÓ ˘ÔÁÚ¿ÊÔ˘Û· ÛÙÔÓ ˘ÛÙÂÚÔÂÏÏËÓÈÛÙÈÎfi ÁÏ‡ÙË ™Îfi· ÙÔ ÓÂfi-ÙÂÚÔ. ∞ÓÙ›ıÂÙ·, ÛÙÔ ÚÔÛÎ‹ÓÈÔ ÙË˜ Û˘˙‹ÙËÛË˜ Û¯ÂÙÈÎ¿ ÌÂ ÙÔ ¤ÚÁÔ ÙÔ˘ ÎÏ·ÛÈÎÔ‡ ÁÏ‡ÙË ™Îfi-· ÛÙËÓ ∆ÂÁ¤· ¤¯ÂÈ ¤ÚıÂÈ ÚfiÛÊ·Ù· Ë ÎÂÊ·Ï‹ ÙË˜ ÏÂÁfiÌÂÓË˜ ÀÁÂ›·˜ ·fi ÙÔ ÈÂÚfi ÛÂ ·ÚÈ·ÓfiÌ¿ÚÌ·ÚÔ (∞ı‹Ó·, ∂∞ª 3602) Ô˘ Â›ÙÂ ·Ô‰›‰ÂÙ·È ÛÙÔ ÌÓËÌÂÈÒ‰Ë ‚ˆÌfi ÙÔ˘ ÈÂÚÔ‡, Ô˘ ÂÚÈ-ÁÚ¿ÊÂÈ Â›ÛË˜ Ô ¶·˘Û·Ó›·˜ (8.47.3), Î·È Ù· ıÂÌ¤ÏÈ· ÙÔ˘ ÔÔ›Ô˘ Â›¯·Ó ·Ó·ÛÎ·ÊÂ› ÙÔÓ 19Ô ·ÈÒ-Ó·, Â›ÙÂ ıÂˆÚÂ›Ù·È ·ÓÂÍ¿ÚÙËÙÔ ¤ÚÁÔ ÙÔ˘ ÁÏ‡ÙË.

∏ ·ÚÔ‡Û· ·Ó·ÎÔ›ÓˆÛË Û˘˙ËÙ¿ ÎÚÈÙÈÎ¿ ÙÈ˜ ·Ú·¿Óˆ ·fi„ÂÈ˜ Î·È Ô‰ËÁÂ›Ù·È ÛÙË Û‡Ó‰ÂÛËÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ˆ˜ ·Ú¯ÈÙ¤ÎÙÔÓ· Î·È ÁÏ‡ÙË ÌÂ ÙÔ ‚ˆÌfi ÙÔ˘ ÈÂÚÔ‡, ÙÔ ÌÓËÌÂ›Ô Ô˘ Û˘Ó¿ÙÂÙ·È Î·-Ï‡ÙÂÚ· ÌÂ ÙËÓ ÚÔËÁÔ‡ÌÂÓË ÂÌÂÈÚ›· ÙÔ˘ ÛÙÔ ª·˘ÛˆÏÂ›Ô Î·È ÌÂ ÙË Ì·ÚÙ˘ÚËÌ¤ÓË ·fi ÙÔ ÁÓˆ-ÛÙfi „ËÊÈÛÌ·ÙÈÎfi ·Ó¿ÁÏ˘ÊÔ ÛÙÔ µÚÂÙ·ÓÈÎfi ªÔ˘ÛÂ›Ô ·Ó¿ÌÂÈÍË ÙˆÓ ∂Î·ÙÔÌÓÈ‰ÒÓ ËÁÂÌfiÓˆÓ ÛÙÔÈÂÚfi ÙË˜ ∆ÂÁ¤·˜. ∏ Á˘Ó·ÈÎÂ›· ÎÂÊ·Ï‹ ∂∞ª 3602 ·Ó·ÁÓˆÚ›˙ÂÙ·È ˆ˜ ªÔ‡Û· ‹ ¡‡ÌÊË, ¤ÚÁÔ ÙÔ˘ÁÏ‡ÙË Î·È ·Ô‰›‰ÂÙ·È ÛÙË ‰È·ÎfiÛÌËÛË ÙÔ˘ ‚ˆÌÔ‡ Ô˘ ·ÂÈÎfiÓÈ˙Â ÙÔ ¢›· ˆ˜ Ó‹ÈÔ ·Ó¿ÌÂÛ·ÛÂ ¡‡ÌÊÂ˜, ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÙÈ˜ ªÔ‡ÛÂ˜. ¶ÂÚ·ÈÙ¤Úˆ ‰È·Ù˘ÒÓÂÙ·È Ë ˘fiıÂÛË fiÙÈ fiÏÂ˜ ÔÈ ·Ó·ÊÂÚfiÌÂ-ÓÂ˜ ·fi ÙÔÓ ¶·˘Û·Ó›· ÌÔÚÊ¤˜ Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ‹Ù·Ó ·Á¿ÏÌ·Ù· ÛÙËÌ¤Ó· ÛÙ· ÌÂÙ·ÎÈfiÓÈ· ‰È·ÛÙ‹Ì·Ù·ÙˆÓ ÛÙÔÒÓ ÙÔ˘ ‚ˆÌÔ‡. ∞Ó·‰ÂÈÎÓ‡ÂÙ·È Ù¤ÏÔ˜, Ô ÎÔÌ‚ÈÎfi˜ ÚfiÏÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ÙÔ˘ 4Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã.ÛÙËÓ ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ‹ ‰È·ÌfiÚÊˆÛË Î·È ÙÔ ÁÏ˘Ùfi ‰È¿ÎÔÛÌÔ ÙˆÓ ‚ˆÌÒÓ ·˘ÙÔ‡ ÙÔ˘ Ù‡Ô˘, ‰È·ÎÔ-ÛÌËÌ¤ÓˆÓ ÌÂ ·Á¿ÏÌ·Ù·, ÙˆÓ ÔÔ›ˆÓ ÙÔ ÚˆÈÌfiÙÂÚÔ ·Ú¿‰ÂÈÁÌ· Ê·›ÓÂÙ·È Ó· Â›Ó·È ·ÎÚÈ‚Ò˜ Ô‚ˆÌfi˜ ÙË˜ ∆ÂÁ¤·˜. H ·Ú¿‰ÔÛ‹ ÙÔ˘ Û˘ÓÂ¯›˙ÂÙ·È ÛÙÔ˘˜ ÂÏÏËÓÈÛÙÈÎÔ‡˜ ¯ÚfiÓÔ˘˜ ÌÂ ÎÔÚ˘Ê·›Ô ÙÔµˆÌfi ÙÔ˘ ¶ÂÚÁ¿ÌÔ˘.



Skopas and the Altar in the Sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea

Pausanias (8.45.5) names the famous Parian sculptor Skopas as the architect of the 4thcentury BC temple of Athena Alea at Tegea in Arkadia. Following this tradition, archae-

ologists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries assigned the architectural sculptures of thetemple to that sculptor, a view that predominated in modern scholarship for many decades.However, recent publications have questioned that Skopas worked on the pedimental sculp-tures and acroteria of this temple. Another attribution to Skopas at Tegea (Pausanias 8.47.1),the Asklepios and Hygieia of Pentelic marble standing in the cella of the temple, may be as-signed to the late Hellenistic Skopas Minor, as I have argued elsewhere. Recent research hasfocused also on the Parian marble head previously connected with the Hygieia in the Tegeatemple, now housed in Athens (NM 3602), which scholars now either associate with thesculptural decoration of the monumental altar described briefly by Pausanias (8.47.3) or rec-ognize as an independent votive statue by Skopas.

This paper reviews these opinions and argues that the monument that most probably canbe attributed to Skopas as both architect and sculptor is the altar of the Tegean sanctuary. Theargument is based on Skopas’ previous work experience at the Mausolleion in Halikarnassosand the Hecatomnid connection to the Alea Athena sanctuary attested by a document reliefnow in the British Museum. The female head NM 3602, formerly considered to be Hygieia, isre-identified here as a Muse or Nymph belonging to the altar’s decoration, where Skopas alsodepicted the new-born Zeus and his female offspring. Moreover this paper suggests that allthe figures decorating the altar that Pausanias saw were most probably statues standing in theintercolumniations. Last but not least, the leading role of the Parian Skopas in both the archi-tectural design and the sculptural decoration of similar altars are discussed. It is highly prob-able that the Tegea altar may have been the first example of this type of altar decorated withstatues, appearing in the 4th century BC and culminating in the Pergamon Altar.



¶ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·Ù· ∞Ó··Ú¿ÛÙ·ÛË˜ ÙˆÓ ∞ÂÙˆÌ·ÙÈÎÒÓ ™˘Óı¤ÛÂˆÓ Î·È ÙˆÓ ∞ÎÚˆÙËÚ›ˆÓ

ÙÔ˘ ¡·Ô‡ ÙË˜ ∞ıËÓ¿˜ ∞Ï¤·˜ ÛÙËÓ ∆ÂÁ¤·

°ÂÒÚÁÈÔ˜ ªÔÛÙÚ¿ÙÔ˜

¶·ÓÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÈÔ ∞ıËÓÒÓ

<[email protected]>

∏·ÚÔ‡Û· ·Ó·ÎÔ›ÓˆÛË ‰È·Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÂ‡ÂÙ·È Ù· ÂÈÎÔÓÔÁÚ·ÊÈÎ¿ ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·Ù· ÙˆÓ ‰‡Ô ÛËÌ·-ÓÙÈÎfiÙÂÚˆÓ Û˘Óı¤ÛÂˆÓ ÙÔ˘ ¶¿ÚÈÔ˘ ÁÏ‡ÙË ™Îfi·, ÙˆÓ ·ÂÙˆÌ·ÙÈÎÒÓ ÁÏ˘ÙÒÓ ÙÔ˘ Ó·Ô‡

ÙË˜ ∞ıËÓ¿˜ ∞Ï¤·˜ ÛÙËÓ ∆ÂÁ¤· (345-335 .Ã.). ∏ ·Ó··Ú¿ÛÙ·ÛË ÙˆÓ ÂÓ·ÂÙ›ˆÓ Û˘Óı¤ÛÂˆÓ ÙÔ˘Ó·Ô‡ ·˘ÙÔ‡ Â›Ó·È, Û˘Ó¿Ì·, ·fi Ù· ÈÔ ·ÌÊÈÏÂÁfiÌÂÓ· ı¤Ì·Ù· ÙË˜ Ï·ÛÙÈÎ‹˜ ÙÔ˘ 4Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã.Î·È ··Û¯ÔÏÂ› ÙËÓ ¤ÚÂ˘Ó· ·fi Ù· Ù¤ÏË ÙÔ˘ 19Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ·.

∆Ô ·Ó·ÙÔÏÈÎfi ·¤ÙˆÌ· ÙÔ˘ Ó·Ô‡ ·ÂÈÎfiÓÈ˙Â ÙË ı‹Ú· ÙÔ˘ ∫·Ï˘‰ˆÓ›Ô˘ Î¿ÚÔ˘ (¶·˘Û·Ó›·˜8.45.6-7) ÌÂ ÚˆÙ·ÁˆÓÈÛÙÈÎ‹ ÌÔÚÊ‹ ÙËÓ ∞Ù·Ï¿ÓÙË, ÙËÓ Î·ÙÂÍÔ¯‹Ó ËÚˆ›‰· ÙË˜ ∆ÂÁ¤·˜. ∂ÍÂÙ¿-˙ÂÙ·È ÙÔ ÎÂ›ÌÂÓÔ ÙÔ˘ ¶·˘Û·Ó›·, ÙÔ ÔÔ›Ô Â›Ó·È ·fi ÙÈ˜ ÈÔ ÏÂÙÔÌÂÚÂÈ·Î¤˜ ÂÚÈÁÚ·Ê¤˜ ÙÔ˘ Â-ÚÈËÁËÙ‹ ÁÈ· ÂÓ·¤ÙÈÂ˜ Û˘Óı¤ÛÂÈ˜, ÛÂ Û¯¤ÛË ÌÂ ÙÔ ‰È·Ûˆı¤Ó ˘ÏÈÎfi Î·È Á›ÓÂÙ·È ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈ· Ù·‡ÙÈ-Û‹˜ ÙÔ˘ ÌÂ ÙÈ˜ ÌÔÚÊ¤˜ Ô˘ ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÂÈ Ô ¶·˘Û·Ó›·˜. ∂›ÛË˜, Á›ÓÂÙ·È ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈ· ¤ÓÙ·ÍË˜ ·˘ÙÒÓÙˆÓ ÌÔÚÊÒÓ ÛÙÔÓ ÙÚÈÁˆÓÈÎfi ¯ÒÚÔ ÙÔ˘ ·ÂÙÒÌ·ÙÔ˜ Î·È ÂÍÂÙ¿˙ÔÓÙ·È ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·Ù· Û‡ÓıÂÛË˜.

∆Ô ‰˘ÙÈÎfi ·¤ÙˆÌ· ÙÔ˘ Ó·Ô‡ ·ÂÈÎfiÓÈ˙Â ÙË Ì¿¯Ë ·Ó¿ÌÂÛ· ÛÙÔÓ ∆‹ÏÂÊÔ Î·È ÙÔÓ ∞¯ÈÏÏ¤· ÛÙËÓÂ‰È¿‰· ÙÔ˘ ÔÙ·ÌÔ‡ ∫¿ÈÎÔ˘, Û‡ÌÊˆÓ· ÌÂ ÙË Ï·ÎˆÓÈÎ‹ ·Ó·ÊÔÚ¿ ÙÔ˘ ¶·˘Û·Ó›· (8.45.7). ∂ÍÂ-Ù¿˙ÔÓÙ·È Ù· ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·Ù· ÂÈÎÔÓÔÁÚ·Ê›·˜ Î·È Ù·‡ÙÈÛË˜ ÙÔ˘ ·ÔÛ·ÛÌ·ÙÈÎÒ˜ ‰È·Ûˆı¤ÓÙÔ˜ ˘ÏÈÎÔ‡Î·ıÒ˜ Î·È ÙÔ Úfi‚ÏËÌ· ÙË˜ ·ÂÈÎfiÓÈÛË˜ ÙË˜ ∞ıËÓ¿˜, ÙÔ˘ ∏Ú·ÎÏ‹ Î·È ÙÔ˘ ¢ÈÔÓ‡ÛÔ˘ ÛÙËÓ ·Â-ÙˆÌ·ÙÈÎ‹ Û‡ÓıÂÛË ÌÂ ‚¿ÛË ÙÔÓ Ì‡ıÔ Î·È ÙËÓ ÂÁ¯ÒÚÈ· Ï·ÙÚÂ›·. ∆¤ÏÔ˜, ÂÍÂÙ¿˙ÔÓÙ·È Ù· ·ÎÚˆÙ‹-ÚÈ· ÙÔ˘ Ó·Ô‡ ÛÂ Û¯¤ÛË ÌÂ ÙÔ ÂÚÈÂ¯fiÌÂÓÔ ÙˆÓ ÂÓ·ÂÙ›ˆÓ Û˘Óı¤ÛÂˆÓ.



Problems Surrounding the Reconstruction of the Pedimental Compositions and the Akroteria

of the Temple of Athena Alea at Tegea

This paper deals with the iconographical problems of the two most important composi-tions of the Parian sculptor Skopas, namely, the pedimental sculptures of the Temple of

Athena Alea at Tegea (345-335 BC). The reconstruction of the pedimental compositions ofthis temple is one of the most controversial topics in 4th century BC sculpture, and scholar-ship has been dealing with it since the end of the 19th century.

The east pediment of the temple depicted the hunt of the Calydonian Boar (Paus. 8.45.6-7)with Atalante as leading figure, the Tegean heroine par excellence. The paper focuses on thetext by Pausanias, which is one of the most detailed descriptions of the travel-writer con-cerning pedimental compositions, in relation to the surviving material, and tries to identifyit with the figures that are listed by Pausanias. Furthermore, this paper tries to place thesefigures in the triangular field of the pediment and examines problems of composition.

The west pediment of the temple represented the battle between Telephos and Achilles onthe plain of the river Kaïkos, according to the laconic note by Pausanias (8.45.7). The paperexamines the problems of iconography and identification of the fragmentary material aswell as the problem of the representation of Athena, Herakles and Dionysos in the pedi-mental composition, on the basis of the myth and the local cult.

Finally, the paper examines the akroteria of the temple in relation to the subject-matterof the pedimental compositions.



Skopas in Samothrace?

Clemente Marconi

Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, USA

<[email protected]>

In this paper I propose a new analysis of the evidence used to suggest an involvement ofSkopas with Samothrace. The first piece of evidence is the passage by Pliny (NH 36.25:

…fecit Venerem et Pothon qui Samothrace sanctissimis caerimoniis coluntur) concerning thePothos, which has often been taken as a reference to a group of Aphrodite and Pothos madeby Skopas for the Sanctuary of the Great Gods. A new analysis of the text by Pliny in relationto Samothracian cult confirms the suggestion by Todisco that the reference by the Latin au-thor is not to a statuary group by Skopas, but to the cult of Aphrodite and Pothos on the is-land. Pliny’s passage reflects the strong interest in the cult of the Great Gods during the Ear-ly Imperial period.

The second piece of evidence concerns the Hall of Choral Dancers, which PhyllisLehmann attributed to Skopas, as both the architect and the author of the sculptural decora-tion. A male head on a fragmentary coffer lid (C(S)3) from this building appears Skopasianin style. The style of the coffer lids is not homogeneous, however, and several of the headsare definitely not Skopasian. In addition, the architecture of the building now finds signifi-cant comparanda in the architecture of the northern Aegean. Even if the presence of Skopason Samothrace can be called into question, however, part of the decoration of the Hall ofChoral Dancers can still be regarded as an indication of the diffusion of the style of Skopasin this part of the Aegean before the end of the 4th century BC.

√ ™Îfi·˜ ÛÙË ™·ÌÔıÚ¿ÎË (;)

™Â ·˘Ù‹ ÙËÓ ÂÚÁ·Û›· ÚÔÙÂ›Óˆ ÌÈ· Ó¤· ·Ó¿Ï˘ÛË ÙË˜ Ì·ÚÙ˘Ú›·˜ Û¯ÂÙÈÎ¿ ÌÂ ÙËÓ ·Ó¿ÌÈÍË ÙÔ˘™Îfi· ÛÙË ™·ÌÔıÚ¿ÎË. ∏ ÚÒÙË Ì·ÚÙ˘Ú›· Â›Ó·È Ë ·Ó·ÊÔÚ¿ ·fi ÙÔÓ ¶Ï›ÓÈÔ (NH 36.25: ...

fecit Venerem et qui Pothon Samothrace sanctissimis caerimoniis coluntur) Û¯ÂÙÈÎ¿ ÌÂ ÙÔÓ¶fiıÔ Ô˘ Û˘¯Ó¿ ¤¯ÂÈ ıÂˆÚËıÂ› fiÙÈ ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÂÙ·È ÛÂ ¤Ó· Û‡ÌÏÂÁÌ· ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË˜ Î·È ¶fiıÔ˘, ¤ÚÁÔÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ÁÈ· ÙÔ πÂÚfi ÙˆÓ ªÂÁ¿ÏˆÓ £ÂÒÓ. ¡¤· ·Ó¿Ï˘ÛË ÙÔ˘ ÎÂÈÌ¤ÓÔ˘ ÙÔ˘ ¶ÏÈÓ›Ô˘ ÛÂ Û¯¤ÛËÌÂ ÙË Ï·ÙÚÂ›· ÛÙË ™·ÌÔıÚ¿ÎË, ÂÈ‚Â‚·ÈÒÓÂÈ ÙËÓ ÚfiÙ·ÛË ÙÔ˘ Todisco fiÙÈ Ë ·Ú·ÔÌ‹ ·fiÙÔ §·Ù›ÓÔ Û˘ÁÁÚ·Ê¤· ‰ÂÓ ·ÊÔÚ¿ ÙÔ Û‡ÌÏÂÁÌ· ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ·ÏÏ¿ ÙË Ï·ÙÚÂ›· ÙË˜ ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË˜ Î·ÈÙÔ˘ ¶fiıÔ˘ ÛÙÔ ÓËÛ›. ∏ ·Ó·ÊÔÚ¿ ·fi ÙÔÓ ¶Ï›ÓÈÔ ·ÓÙ·Ó·ÎÏ¿ ÙÔ ¤ÓÙÔÓÔ ÂÓ‰È·Ê¤ÚÔÓ ÁÈ· ÙË Ï·-ÙÚÂ›· ÙˆÓ ªÂÁ¿ÏˆÓ £ÂÒÓ Î·Ù¿ ÙË ‰È¿ÚÎÂÈ· ÙË˜ ÚÒÈÌË˜ ·˘ÙÔÎÚ·ÙÔÚÈÎ‹˜ ÂÚÈfi‰Ô˘.

∏ ‰Â‡ÙÂÚË Ì·ÚÙ˘Ú›· ·ÊÔÚ¿ ÛÙÔ ¶Úfi˘ÏÔ ÙˆÓ ÃÔÚÂ˘ÙÚÈÒÓ Ô˘ Ë Phyllis Lehmann ·¤‰ˆÛÂÛÙÔÓ ™Îfi·, ÙfiÛÔ ˆ˜ ·Ú¯ÈÙ¤ÎÙÔÓ· fiÛÔ Î·È ˆ˜ ÂÌÓÂ˘ÛÙ‹ ÙÔ˘ ÁÏ˘ÙÔ‡ ‰È·ÎfiÛÌÔ˘. ∂Ó· ·Ó‰ÚÈ-Îfi ÎÂÊ¿ÏÈ ÛÂ ıÚ·‡ÛÌ· Ê·ÙÓÒÌ·ÙÔ˜ (C (S) 3) ·fi ·˘Ùfi ÙÔ ÎÙ›ÚÈÔ Â›Ó·È ™ÎÔ¿‰ÂÈÔ ÛÙËÓ ÙÂ¯ÓÔ-ÙÚÔ›·. øÛÙfiÛÔ Ë ÙÂ¯ÓÔÙÚÔ›· ‰ÂÓ Â›Ó·È ÔÌÔÈÔÁÂÓ‹˜ Î·È ·ÚÎÂÙ¤˜ ·fi ÙÈ˜ ÎÂÊ·Ï¤˜ Û›ÁÔ˘Ú· ‰ÂÓÂ›Ó·È ™ÎÔ¿‰ÂÈÂ˜. ∂ÈÏ¤ÔÓ, Ë ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ‹ ÙÔ˘ ÎÙÈÚ›Ô˘ ¤¯ÂÈ ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎ¿ ·Ú¿ÏÏËÏ· ÌÂ ÙËÓ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎ‹ ÙÔ˘ ‚ÔÚÂ›Ô˘ ∞ÈÁ·›Ô˘. √Ìˆ˜, ·ÎfiÌË Î·È ·Ó Ë ·ÚÔ˘Û›· ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ÛÙË ™·ÌÔıÚ¿-ÎË ÌÔÚÂ› Ó· ·ÌÊÈÛ‚ËÙËıÂ›, Ì¤ÚÔ˜ ÙË˜ ‰È·ÎfiÛÌËÛË˜ ÙÔ˘ ¶ÚÔ‡ÏÔ˘ ÙˆÓ ÃÔÚÂ˘ÙÚÈÒÓ ÌÔÚÂ› Ó·ıÂˆÚËıÂ› ˆ˜ ¤Ó‰ÂÈÍË ÙË˜ ‰È¿‰ÔÛË˜ ÙË˜ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÙÚÔ›·˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ÛÂ ·˘Ù‹ ÙËÓ ÏÂ˘Ú¿ ÙÔ˘ ∞È-Á·›Ô˘ ÚÈÓ ·fi ÙÔ Ù¤ÏÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ 4Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã.



Skopas’ Aphrodite and Pothos and the Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

Bonna D. Wescoat

Art History Department, Emory University, Atlanta, USA

<[email protected]>

Pliny’s single sentence (NH 36.25): Is fecit Venerem et Pothon qui Samothrace sanctissimiscaerimoniis coluntur (He [Skopas] made the [statues of] Venus and Pothos that are wor-

shipped at Samothrace with the most sacred ceremonies), remains the only testimony con-necting the great Parian sculptor-architect with the northern Aegean island of Samothrace. Theassociation, alas, is not water-tight. As Luigi Todisco points out, it is unclear whether Plinymeans that the statues specifically, or the gods in general were worshipped on Samothrace.

But eliminating the Samothracian connection in favor of making Pliny’s Pothos one andthe same with the statue noticed by Pausanias in the Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Megara(1.43.6) generates more problems than it solves. Pliny’s mention of the Samothracian groupin his chapter on marble sculpture, in which all the other cited works by Skopas are to befound in Rome, is in itself highly significant, for the Romans felt strong ties with the islandthrough their mytho-historical lineage and through a connection between the Penates andthe Great Gods. Aphrodite’s stake in the island, secured by cultic, mythic and votive evi-dence, lends further credence to Pliny’s assertion.

Pliny’s emphasis on the worship of the statues presupposes a sacred setting; a fair as-sumption is that location should be the Sanctuary of the Great Gods, the premiere (but notonly) sanctuary on the island. The commission signals a connection with the larger Greekartistic world that would not have been anticipated by the archaeological evidence at the siteprior to the second half of the 4th century. Nevertheless, it is a suggestive coincidence thatthe date of the first major marble building constructed in the Sanctuary corresponds pre-cisely with the Skopaic commission. That building, formerly known as the Temenos andnow called the Hall of Choral Dancers, stands at the heart of the Sanctuary. P. W. Lehmannreconstructed the structure as an unroofed precinct with an elaborate Ionic marble propylon;she assigned the building to Skopas as designing architect-sculptor and placed his statue ofAphrodite and Pothos within the precinct. Further excavation by James R. McCredie has re-vealed that the building was radically different. The fully roofed structure was more thantwice the size envisioned by Lehmann; it consisted of two deep chambers connected acrossthe northern side by a deep Ionic prostoon with tetrastyle wings. A continuous frieze ofhundreds of dancing maidens encircled the whole. The western chamber partly incorporatesat least one earlier structure and several cultic installations, but the eastern chamber appearsto be new construction, a situation underscored by the difference in the elevation of thefloor of each chamber.

In light of our new understanding of the building, the likelihood of Skopas’ participationin the architectural project is remote. The possible stylistic connections are inconsistent andthe demands placed on Skopas’ career strained. However, this building remains the mostlikely place for the statue of Aphrodite and Pothos. It is here proposed that the new easternchamber of the Hall of Choral Dancers may well have been built to house the highly reveredstatue.



∏ ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË Î·È Ô ¶fiıÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· Î·È ÙÔ πÂÚfi ÙˆÓ ªÂÁ¿ÏˆÓ £ÂÒÓ ÛÙË ™·ÌÔıÚ¿ÎË

ªÈ· ÊÚ¿ÛË ÙÔ˘ ¶ÏÈÓ›Ô˘ (NH 36.25): Is fecit Venerem et Pothon qui Samothrace sanctissi-mis caerimoniis coluntur (∞˘Ùfi˜ [Ô ™Îfi·˜] Î·Ù·ÛÎÂ‡·ÛÂ Ù· [·Á¿ÏÌ·Ù·] ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË˜ Î·È

¶fiıÔ˘ Ô˘ Ï·ÙÚÂ‡ÔÓÙ·Ó ÛÙË ™·ÌÔıÚ¿ÎË ÌÂ ÙÈ˜ ÈÔ ÈÂÚ¤˜ ÙÂÏÂÙ¤˜), ·Ú·Ì¤ÓÂÈ Ë ÌÔÓ·‰ÈÎ‹ Ì·Ú-Ù˘Ú›· Ô˘ Û˘Ó‰¤ÂÈ ÙÔ ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ ·ÚÈ·Ófi ÁÏ‡ÙË-·Ú¯ÈÙ¤ÎÙÔÓ· ÌÂ ÙÔ ‚fiÚÂÈÔ ÓËÛ› ÙÔ˘ ∞ÈÁ·›Ô˘, ÙË™·ÌÔıÚ¿ÎË. ∏ Û‡Ó‰ÂÛË, ‰˘ÛÙ˘¯Ò˜, ‰ÂÓ Â›Ó·È ·‰È·ÌÊÈÛ‚‹ÙËÙË. √ˆ˜ ÂÈÛËÌ·›ÓÂÈ Ô LuigiTodisco, Â›Ó·È ·Û·Ê¤˜ Î·Ù¿ fiÛÔÓ Ô ¶Ï›ÓÈÔ˜ ÂÓÓÔÂ› fiÙÈ Ù· ·Á¿ÏÌ·Ù· ÂÈ‰ÈÎ¿, ‹ ÔÈ ıÂÔ› ÁÂÓÈÎ¿Ï·ÙÚÂ‡ÔÓÙ·Ó ÛÙË ™·ÌÔıÚ¿ÎË.

√Ìˆ˜, Â¿Ó ‰È·ÁÚ¿„Ô˘ÌÂ ÙË Û‡Ó‰ÂÛË ÌÂ ÙË ™·ÌÔıÚ¿ÎË Â˘ÓÔÒÓÙ·˜ ÙËÓ Ù·‡ÙÈÛË ÙÔ˘ ¶fiıÔ˘Ô˘ ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÂÈ Ô ¶Ï›ÓÈÔ˜ ÌÂ ÙÔ ¿Á·ÏÌ· Ô˘ ÂÈÛËÌ·›ÓÂÙ·È ·fi ÙÔÓ ¶·˘Û·Ó›· ÛÙÔ πÂÚfi ÙË˜∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË˜ ÛÙ· ª¤Á·Ú· (1.43.6), ·˘Ùfi ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁÂ› ÂÚÈÛÛfiÙÂÚ· ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·Ù· ·fi fiÛ· ÂÈÏ‡ÂÈ. ∏·Ó·ÊÔÚ¿ ÙÔ˘ ¶ÏÈÓ›Ô˘ ÛÙÔ Û‡ÌÏÂÁÌ· ÙË˜ ™·ÌÔıÚ¿ÎË˜ ÛÙÔ ÎÂÊ¿Ï·ÈÔ ÙÔ Û¯ÂÙÈÎfi ÌÂ ÙË ÁÏ˘ÙÈ-Î‹ ÛÂ Ì¿ÚÌ·ÚÔ, ÛÙÔ ÔÔ›Ô fiÏ· Ù· ¿ÏÏ· ·Ó·ÊÂÚfiÌÂÓ· ¤ÚÁ· ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ‚Ú›ÛÎÔÓÙ·Ó ÛÙË ƒÒÌË,Â›Ó·È ·˘Ù‹ Î·ı·˘Ù‹ ÔÏ‡ ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎ‹, Î·ıfiÛÔÓ ÔÈ ƒˆÌ·›ÔÈ ·ÈÛı¿ÓÔÓÙ·Ó ˆ˜ Â›¯·Ó ÈÛ¯˘ÚÔ‡˜ ‰Â-ÛÌÔ‡˜ ÌÂ ÙÔ ÓËÛ› Ì¤Ûˆ ÙË˜ Ì˘ıÈÎÔ-ÈÛÙÔÚÈÎ‹˜ ÁÂÓÂ·ÏÔÁ›·˜ Î·È ÙË˜ Û‡Ó‰ÂÛË˜ ÌÂ ÙÔ˘˜ ªÂÁ¿ÏÔ˘˜£ÂÔ‡˜. ∏ ·Ô‰Â‰ÂÈÁÌ¤ÓË Ï·ÙÚÂ›· ÙË˜ ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË˜ ÛÙÔ ÓËÛ› ‚¿ÛÂÈ Ï·ÙÚÂ˘ÙÈÎÒÓ, Ì˘ıÈÎÒÓ Î·È·Ó·ıËÌ·ÙÈÎÒÓ ÛÙÔÈ¯Â›ˆÓ, ÚÔÛÊ¤ÚÂÈ ÂÚ·ÈÙ¤Úˆ ·ÍÈÔÈÛÙ›· ÛÙÔÓ ÈÛ¯˘ÚÈÛÌfi ÙÔ˘ ¶ÏÈÓ›Ô˘.

∏ ¤ÌÊ·ÛË ÙÔ˘ ¶ÏÈÓ›Ô˘ ÛÙË Ï·ÙÚÂ›· ÙˆÓ ·Á·ÏÌ¿ÙˆÓ ÚÔ¸Ôı¤ÙÂÈ ¤Ó· ÈÂÚfi ¯ÒÚÔ Î·È ÌÔÚÔ‡-ÌÂ Ó· ˘Ôı¤ÛÔ˘ÌÂ fiÙÈ Ë ÙÔÔıÂÛ›· ·˘Ù‹ Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· Â›Ó·È ÙÔ ÈÂÚfi ÙˆÓ ªÂÁ¿ÏˆÓ £ÂÒÓ, ÙÔ Î‡ÚÈÔ(·ÏÏ¿ fi¯È ÌÔÓ·‰ÈÎfi) ÈÂÚfi ÛÙÔ ÓËÛ›. ∏ ·Ó¿ÏË„Ë ÙÔ˘ ¤ÚÁÔ˘ ÛËÌ·ÙÔ‰ÔÙÂ› ÌÈ· Û‡Ó‰ÂÛË ÌÂ ÙÔÓ Â˘-Ú‡ÙÂÚÔ ÂÏÏËÓÈÎfi Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÈÎfi ÎfiÛÌÔ Ô˘ ‰ÂÓ ı· ÌÔÚÔ‡ÛÂ Ó· ÙÔÔıÂÙËıÂ› ·fi ·Ú¯·ÈÔÏÔÁÈÎ¿‰Â‰ÔÌ¤Ó· ÚÈÓ ·fi ÙÔ ‰Â‡ÙÂÚÔ ÌÈÛfi ÙÔ˘ 4Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ·. ¶·Ú’ fiÏ· ·˘Ù¿, Â›Ó·È ÂÓ‰È·Ê¤ÚÔ˘Û· Û‡ÌÙˆ-ÛË fiÙÈ Ë ̄ ÚÔÓÔÏfiÁËÛË ÙÔ˘ ÚÒÙÔ˘ ÌÂÁ¿ÏË˜ ÎÏ›Ì·Î·˜ Ì·ÚÌ¿ÚÈÓÔ˘ ÎÙÈÚ›Ô˘ Ô˘ Î·Ù·ÛÎÂ˘¿ÛÙËÎÂÛÙÔ ÈÂÚfi ·ÓÙÈÛÙÔÈ¯Â› ·ÎÚÈ‚Ò˜ ÌÂ ÙËÓ ·Ó¿ıÂÛË ÛÙÔ ™Îfi·. ∞˘Ùfi ÙÔ ÎÙ›ÚÈÔ, ·Ï·ÈfiÙÂÚ· ÁÓˆÛÙfi ̂ ˜«∆¤ÌÂÓÔ˜» Î·È Û‹ÌÂÚ· ·ÔÎ·ÏÔ‡ÌÂÓÔ «¶Úfi˘ÏÔ ÙˆÓ ÃÔÚÂ˘ÙÚÈÒÓ», ‚Ú›ÛÎÂÙ·È ÛÙo Î¤ÓÙÚÔ ÙÔ˘ ÈÂ-ÚÔ‡. ∏ P.W. Lehmann ·ÔÎ·Ù¤ÛÙËÛÂ ÙËÓ Î·Ù·ÛÎÂ˘‹ Û·Ó ¤Ó· ÈÂÚfi ¯ˆÚ›˜ ÔÚÔÊ‹ ÌÂ ÂÚ›ÙÂ¯ÓÔÈˆÓÈÎfi Ì·ÚÌ¿ÚÈÓÔ Úfi˘ÏÔ. ∞¤‰ˆÛÂ ÙÔ ÎÙ›ÚÈÔ ÛÙÔÓ ™Îfi· ˆ˜ ÙÔÓ ˘Â‡ı˘ÓÔ ÙÔ˘ Û¯Â‰È·ÛÌÔ‡·Ú¯ÈÙ¤ÎÙÔÓ·-ÁÏ‡ÙË Î·È ÙÔÔı¤ÙËÛÂ Ù· ·Á¿ÏÌ·Ù· ÙË˜ ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË˜ Î·È ÙÔ˘ ¶fiıÔ˘ Ì¤Û· ÛÙÔ ÈÂÚfi.∏ ÂÚ·ÈÙ¤Úˆ ·Ó·ÛÎ·Ê‹ ÙÔ˘ ¯ÒÚÔ˘ ·fi ÙÔÓ James R. McCredie ·ÔÎ¿Ï˘„Â fiÙÈ ÙÔ ÎÙ›ÚÈÔ ‹Ù·ÓÚÈ˙ÈÎ¿ ‰È·ÊÔÚÂÙÈÎfi. ∆Ô Ï‹Úˆ˜ ÛÙÂÁ·ÛÌ¤ÓÔ ÔÈÎÔ‰fiÌËÌ· ‹Ù·Ó ÂÚÈÛÛfiÙÂÚÔ ·fi ‰ÈÏ¿ÛÈÔ ÛÂ Ì¤-ÁÂıÔ˜ ÂÎÂ›ÓÔ˘ Ô˘ Â›¯Â ÔÚ·Ì·ÙÈÛıÂ› Ë Lehmann Î·È ·ÔÙÂÏÂ›Ù·È ·fi ‰‡Ô ı·Ï¿ÌÔ˘˜ Ô˘ Û˘Ó‰¤-ÔÓÙ·Ó Î·Ù¿ Ì‹ÎÔ˜ ÙË˜ ‚fiÚÂÈ·˜ ÏÂ˘Ú¿˜ ·fi ÈˆÓÈÎfi ÚÔÛÙÒÔ ÌÂ ÙÂÙÚ¿ÛÙ˘Ï· ÙÂÚ¿. ªÈ· Û˘ÓÂ¯‹˜˙ˆÊfiÚÔ˜ ·fi ÂÎ·ÙÔÓÙ¿‰Â˜ ÎfiÚÂ˜ ¯ÔÚÂ‡ÙÚÈÂ˜ ÂÚÈ¤‚·ÏÂ ÙÔ Û‡ÓÔÏÔ. ∏ ‰˘ÙÈÎ‹ ·›ıÔ˘Û· ÂÓÛˆÌ·-ÙÒÓÂÈ ÂÓ Ì¤ÚÂÈ ÙÔ˘Ï¿¯ÈÛÙÔÓ Ì›· ÚˆÈÌfiÙÂÚË Î·Ù·ÛÎÂ˘‹ Î·È ·ÚÎÂÙ¤˜ ÙÂÏÂÙÔ˘ÚÁÈÎ¤˜ ÂÁÎ·Ù·ÛÙ¿-ÛÂÈ˜, ÂÓÒ Ë ·Ó·ÙÔÏÈÎ‹ Ê·›ÓÂÙ·È Ó· Â›Ó·È ÓÂfiÙÂÚË Î·Ù·ÛÎÂ˘‹, ÁÂÁÔÓfi˜ Ô˘ ˘ÔÁÚ·ÌÌ›˙ÂÙ·È ·fiÙËÓ ˘„ÔÌÂÙÚÈÎ‹ ‰È·ÊÔÚ¿ ÙˆÓ ‰·¤‰ˆÓ Î¿ıÂ ·›ıÔ˘Û·˜.

Àfi ÙÔ Êˆ˜ ÙË˜ Ó¤·˜ ·ÓÙ›ÏË„Ë˜ ÁÈ· ÙÔ ÎÙ›ÚÈÔ, Ë Èı·ÓfiÙËÙ· Û˘ÌÌÂÙÔ¯‹˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ÛÙÔ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎfi Ì¤ÚÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ ¤ÚÁÔ˘ Â›Ó·È ·ÔÌ·ÎÚ˘ÛÌ¤ÓË. √È Èı·Ó¤˜ ÛÙ˘ÏÈÛÙÈÎ¤˜ Û˘Ó‰¤ÛÂÈ˜ Â›Ó·È·‰‡Ó·ÌÂ˜ Î·È Ë ¤ÓÙ·Í‹ ÙÔ˘ ÛÙÔ Ï·›ÛÈÔ ÙË˜ Î·ÚÈ¤Ú·˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ÙÚ·‚ËÁÌ¤ÓË. øÛÙfiÛÔ, ·˘Ùfi ÙÔÎÙ›ÚÈÔ ·Ú·Ì¤ÓÂÈ ÙÔ ÈÔ Èı·Ófi Ì¤ÚÔ˜ ÁÈ· Ù· ·Á¿ÏÌ·Ù· ÙË˜ ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË˜ Î·È ÙÔ˘ ¶fiıÔ˘. ¶ÚÔÙÂ›-ÓÔ˘ÌÂ fiÙÈ Ë Ó¤· ·Ó·ÙÔÏÈÎ‹ ·›ıÔ˘Û· ÙÔ˘ «¶ÚÔ‡ÏÔ˘ ÙˆÓ ÃÔÚÂ˘ÙÚÈÒÓ» ÌÔÚÂ› Î¿ÏÏÈÛÙ· Ó· Â›¯Â¯ÙÈÛÙÂ› ÁÈ· Ó· ÛÙÂÁ¿ÛÂÈ ÙÔ ÂÍ·ÈÚÂÙÈÎÒ˜ ÈÂÚfi Û‡ÌÏÂÁÌ·.



™ÎÔ·‰ÈÎ¿ IVH ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË, Ô ¶fiıÔ˜ Î·È Ô º·¤ıˆÓ ÛÙÔ πÂÚfi

ÙˆÓ ªÂÁ¿ÏˆÓ £ÂÒÓ ÙË˜ ™·ÌÔıÚ¿ÎË˜: £ÂˆÚËÙÈÎ¤˜∞ÊÂÙËÚ›Â˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ∂·ÓÂÎÙ›ÌËÛË ÙˆÓ ¢Â‰ÔÌ¤ÓˆÓ Î·È

ÙËÓ ∞Ó·˙ˆ‡ÚˆÛË ÙË˜ ∂ÚÂ˘ÓËÙÈÎ‹˜ ¢È¿ıÂÛË˜

∞ÁÁÂÏÔ˜ ¢ÂÏË‚ÔÚÚÈ¿˜

ªÔ˘ÛÂ›Ô ªÂÓ¿ÎË, ∞ı‹Ó·

<[email protected]>

∏·Ó·ÎÔ›ÓˆÛË ÂÍÂÙ¿˙ÂÈ ÎÚÈÙÈÎ¿ fiÛÂ˜ ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈÂ˜ ¤ÁÈÓ·Ó Î·Ù¿ ÙÔ ·ÚÂÏıfiÓ ÚÔÎÂÈÌ¤ÓÔ˘Ó· Û¯ËÌ·ÙÈÛÙÂ› Î¿ÔÈ· Û·Ê¤ÛÙÂÚË ÂÈÎfiÓ· ÁÈ· ÙÔ Ì·ÚÙ˘ÚËÌ¤ÓÔ ÌfiÓÔ ·fi ÙÔÓ ¶Ï›ÓÈÔ (NH

36.25) ÛÎÔ·‰ÈÎfi Û‡ÓÙ·ÁÌ· ÙË˜ ™·ÌÔıÚ¿ÎË˜. ∂ÎÙÂ›ÓÂÙ·È ‰ËÏ·‰‹ Î˘Ú›ˆ˜ ·Ó¿ÌÂÛ· ÛÙËÓ ·Ó·-ÁÓÒÚÈÛË ÙÔ˘ ¶fiıÔ˘ ·fi ÙÔÓ Adolf Furtwängler Î·È ÙË Û¯ÂÙÈÎ¿ ÈÔ ÚfiÛÊ·ÙË ıÂÒÚËÛË ÙË˜ ‰Ë-ÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ›·˜ ·fi ÙÔÓ Andrew Stewart, Ë ·Ó··Ú¿ÛÙ·ÛË ÙÔ˘ ÔÔ›Ô˘ ˘ÚÔ‰ÔÙÂ› Î·È ÙËÓ ·Ó¿Ù˘ÍËÙË˜ fiÏË˜ Û˘ÏÏÔÁÈÛÙÈÎ‹˜. ™ÙÔ ÚÒÙÔ Ì¤ÚÔ˜ ÙË˜ ÂÈ¯ÂÈÚËÌ·ÙÔÏÔÁ›·˜ Ô˘ ÙË ÛÙËÚ›˙ÂÈ, ·Ó·ÈÚÔ‡-ÓÙ·È oÈ ÂÓÛÙ¿ÛÂÈ˜ ÔÈ ÔÔ›Â˜ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ‰È·Ù˘ˆıÂ› ˆ˜ ÚÔ˜ ÙËÓ Ù·‡ÙÈÛË ÙÔ˘ ¶fiıÔ˘. ™‡ÌÊˆÓ· Ì¿ÏÈ-ÛÙ· ÌÂ ÙÈ˜ ‰ÈÎ¤˜ ÙÔ˘ Û˘ÓıÂÙÈÎ¤˜ ÚÔ‰È·ÁÚ·Ê¤˜ ÔÚ›˙ÔÓÙ·È Î·È ÔÈ Û˘ÓÙÂÙ·ÁÌ¤ÓÂ˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·Ó·˙‹-ÙËÛË ÙÔ˘ ·Á·ÏÌ·ÙÈÎÔ‡ Ù‡Ô˘ ÙË˜ ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË˜: Ë ıÂ¿ ÙÔ˘ ∂ÚˆÙ· Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ÂÈÎÔÓÈ˙fiÙ·Ó Á˘ÌÓ‹,‚Á·›ÓÔÓÙ·˜ ·fi ÙË ı¿Ï·ÛÛ· Î·È ·ÙÒÓÙ·˜ ÙË ÁË ÙË˜ ∫‡ÚÔ˘ ·Ì¤Ûˆ˜ ÌÂÙ¿ ÙË Á¤ÓÓËÛ‹ ÙË˜.∂ÎÂ› Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· Â›¯Â ÂÓÙÔ›ÛÂÈ Ô ÁÏ‡ÙË˜ ÙÔÓ ıÂÌ·ÙÈÎfi ˘Ú‹Ó· ÌÈ·˜ ·Ú¿ÛÙ·ÛË˜ ÔÏÔÎÏËÚˆÌ¤-ÓË˜ ÌÂ ÙË ÌÔÚÊ‹ ÙÔ˘ º·¤ıÔÓÙ· Î·Ù¿ ÙËÓ ÚÔÛÊ˘‹ ·ÔÎ·Ù¿ÛÙ·ÛË ÙË˜ Ì·ÚÙ˘Ú›·˜ ÙÔ˘ ¶ÏÈÓ›Ô˘·fi ÙÔÓ Karl Kerényi.

∏ ·Ó·˙‹ÙËÛË Î¿ÔÈˆÓ ·ÓÙ·Ó·ÎÏ¿ÛÂˆÓ ·fi ÙÔÓ ·Á·ÏÌ·ÙÈÎfi Ù‡Ô ÙÔ˘ º·¤ıÔÓÙ· ·Ú·¤-ÌÂÙ·È ÛÙÈ˜ ÚÔÛ‰ÔÎ›Â˜ ÙÔ˘ Ì¤ÏÏÔÓÙÔ˜. ¢ÂÓ ·ÔÎÏÂ›ÂÙ·È fiÌˆ˜ Î·ıfiÏÔ˘ ÛÙ· ÚˆÌ·˚Î¿ ·ÓÙ›ÁÚ·-Ê· ÙÔ˘ ·Á·ÏÌ·ÙÈÎÔ‡ Ù‡Ô˘ ÙË˜ ∞Ó·‰˘ÔÌ¤ÓË˜ Î·È ÛÙÔ ÔÈÔÙÈÎ¿ Î·Ï‡ÙÂÚÔ ·Ú¿‰ÂÈÁÌ· ÙË˜µibliothèque Nationale ÙÔ˘ ¶·ÚÈÛÈÔ‡ Ó· ‰È·ÛÒ˙ÂÙ·È Ë ÌÔÚÊ‹ ÙË˜ ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË˜. ∏ ÛÎÔ·‰ÈÎ‹Û‡ÓıÂÛË Ê·›ÓÂÙ·È ˆ˜ ·Ó·ÌÂÙ¤‰È‰Â ÙÔ Ì‹Ó˘Ì· ÙË˜ ÙÚÈ·‰ÈÎ‹˜ ˘fiÛÙ·ÛË˜ ÙˆÓ ÌÂÁ¿ÏˆÓ ıÂ·ÈÓÒÓÙË˜ ÚÔ˚ÛÙÔÚ›·˜, ÔÈ ÔÔ›Â˜ ÂÈÊ·›ÓÔÓÙ·È ÂÓ›ÔÙÂ Ï·ÈÛÈˆÌ¤ÓÂ˜ ·fi ‰‡Ô Û˘ÓÔ‰Ô‡˜.



Skopadika IVAphrodite, Pothos and Phaethon in the Sanctuary

of the Great Gods on Samothrace: Theoretical Starting Points for Re-evaluating the Data and

Rekindling Research

The paper examines critically those attempts made in the past to form a clearer picture ofthe sculptural group by Skopas in Samothrace, attested only in Pliny (NH 36.25). It em-

braces, therefore, mainly the identification of the Pothos by Adolf Furtwängler and the rela-tively recent reassessment of the creation by Andrew Stewart, whose proposed reconstruc-tion has stimulated the development of the argument. In the first part of the supporting ar-gumentation, the objections raised regarding the identification of Pothos are removed. In-deed, the co-ordinates for seeking the statue type of Aphrodite are also defined according tohis compositional specifications: the goddess of Love must have been represented nude,emerging from the sea and stepping on the land of Cyprus, immediately after her birth. Thisis where the sculptor must have located the thematic core of a representation completed bythe figure of Phaethon, in accordance with Karl Kerényi’s ingenious restoration of Pliny’stestimony.

The quest for reflections of the statue type of Phaethon is left to future research. Howev-er, it may well be that the figure of Aphrodite is preserved in Roman copies of the statuetype of the Aphrodite Anadyomene, as represented by the highest quality example in theµibliothèque Nationale, Paris. It seems that the composition by Skopas transmitted the mes-sage of the triadic hypostasis of the three major prehistoric female deities, which inepiphany are sometimes flanked by two companions.



Longing for Pothos at Samothrace

Ersilia Lopes

University of Athens

<[email protected]>

Skopas carved the group of Aphrodite and Pothos on Samothrace (Pl. NH 36.25). Pausanias(1.43.6) informs that Praxiteles carved near the statue of Aphrodite at Megara the agal-

mata of Peitho and Paregoros, while Skopas carved the statues of Eros, Himeros, and Pothos.Adolf Furtwängler (1900) suggested that the figure of Pothos with goose and thyrsos on agem at Berlin was inspired by Skopas’s statue.

A red figured lekanis lid from the Kerameikos in the National Archaeological Museum atAthens bears a seated woman and a winged figure: both figures are painted white. I proposeto recognize Pothos in the winged boy. The hair is tied up in a ponytail and he looks upsweetly at the woman; he is wildly off-balance and puts the right hand on his hip. He recallsthe Pothos in Würzburg.

The well-known statuary type of the Pothos and the above mentioned figure on the vaseare quite similar, strongly suggesting a link between the two. This conclusion is strength-ened by the following observations: (1) the most faithful and the best preserved copy of thestatuary type of the Pothos is that in Rome, Museo dei Conservatori: the head of the boy canbest be appreciated in that copy; (2) the activity of Skopas on Samothrace is confirmed by ahead of a youth on a fragmentary coffer lid from the Propylon to the Hall of Choral Dancers:the style of this head is clearly Scopadic by comparison with a head of the west pediment ofthe temple of Athena Alea at Tegea. Finally, (3) a terracotta group in Corinth also may echothe statues of Aphrodite and Pothos on Samothrace.

Many scholars have tried to reconstruct the configuration of the Scopadic group onSamothrace, e.g., perhaps the Pothos of Skopas leaned directly on the goddess, "his left armperhaps gripping on her shoulder from behind" (Stewart 1996); or "Aphrodite probably[was] seated or, if standing colossal, against whom the Pothos may have been leaning" (Ridg-way 1997). In the case of the figures on the vase, Pothos leans on the woman’s legs. The re-lation between the two recalls a group in the Baiae Museum: a Pothos leans on the shoulderof a standing imperial Aphrodite. According to Pausanias, at Megara a previous statue ofAphrodite was made of ivory: perhaps trying to echo this material, the craftsman of the leka-nis chose white for his figures of Aphrodite and Pothos.

Given the iconographic syncretism of Axiokersa and Cybele on Samothrace, as suggestedby Phyllis Lehmann, I think that the group on the vase reflects the configuration of the Sco-padic original: the seated woman would be Aphrodite/Cybele and Pothos her putative son.Finally a poem by PhilodemÔs (Anth. Gr. 10.21) suggests that on Samothrace, Aphrodite andPothos were worshipped as gods of sailing. Pothos represented the personification of a far-away world of love, what Dante Alighieri (Purgatorio 8.1-5) calls disio (desire)--the desirefor home felt by seamen when the night comes.



§·¯Ù·ÚÒÓÙ·˜ ÁÈ· ÙÔÓ ¶fiıÔ ÛÙË ™·ÌÔıÚ¿ÎË

√™Îfi·˜ ‰ËÌÈÔ‡ÚÁËÛÂ ÙÔ Û‡ÌÏÂÁÌ· ÙË˜ ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË˜ Î·È ÙÔ˘ ¶fiıÔ˘ ÛÙË ™·ÌÔıÚ¿ÎË (Pl.NH 36.25). √ ¶·˘Û·Ó›·˜ (1.43.6) Ì·˜ ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÂ› fiÙÈ ÛÙ· ª¤Á·Ú· Ô ¶Ú·ÍÈÙ¤ÏË˜ ÛÎ¿ÏÈ-

ÛÂ Ì·˙› ÌÂ ÙÔ ¿Á·ÏÌ· ÙË˜ ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË˜ Î·È Ù· ·Á¿ÏÌ·Ù· ÙË˜ ¶ÂÈıÔ‡˜ Î·È ÙË˜ ¶·ÚËÁfiÚÔ˘ ÂÓÒ Ô™Îfi·˜ Ù· ·Á¿ÏÌ·Ù· ÙÔ˘ ∂ÚˆÙ·, ÙÔ˘ πÌÂÚÔ˘, Î·È ÙÔ˘ ¶fiıÔ˘. √ Adolf Furtwängler (1900) Úfi-ÙÂÈÓÂ fiÙÈ Ë ÌÔÚÊ‹ ÙÔ˘ ¶fiıÔ˘ ÌÂ ¯‹Ó· Î·È ı‡ÚÛÔ ÛÙÔ ÛÊÚ·ÁÈ‰fiÏÈıÔ ÛÙÔ µÂÚÔÏ›ÓÔ ‹Ù·Ó ÂÌÓÂ˘-ÛÌ¤ÓË ·fi ÙÔ ¿Á·ÏÌ· ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·.

™ÙÔ ÒÌ· ÂÚ˘ıÚfiÌÔÚÊË˜ ÏÂÎ·Ó›‰·˜ (350-325 .Ã.) ·fi ÙÔÓ ∫ÂÚ·ÌÂÈÎfi, ÛÙÔ ∂ıÓÈÎfi ∞Ú¯·È-ÔÏÔÁÈÎfi ªÔ˘ÛÂ›Ô ÙË˜ ∞ı‹Ó·˜, ·ÂÈÎÔÓ›˙ÔÓÙ·È Î·ıÈÛÙ‹ Á˘Ó·ÈÎÂ›· ÌÔÚÊ‹ Î·È ÌÈ· ‰Â‡ÙÂÚË ÊÙÂ-ÚˆÙ‹ ÌÔÚÊ‹: Î·È ÔÈ ‰‡Ô ·Ô‰›‰ÔÓÙ·È ÌÂ ÏÂ˘Îfi ¯ÚÒÌ·. ¶ÚÔÙÂ›Óˆ Ó· ·Ó·ÁÓˆÚ›ÛÔ˘ÌÂ ÛÙÔ ÊÙÂ-ÚˆÙfi ·ÁfiÚÈ ÙÔÓ ¶fiıÔ. ∆· Ì·ÏÏÈ¿ ÙÔ˘ Â›Ó·È ‰ÂÌ¤Ó· ÛÂ ·ÏÔÁÔÔ˘Ú¿ Î·È ÎÔÈÙ¿˙ÂÈ ÁÏ˘Î¿ ÚÔ˜ ÙËÁ˘Ó·ÈÎÂ›· ÌÔÚÊ‹, Â›Ó·È ÂÓÙÂÏÒ˜ ÂÎÙfi˜ ÈÛÔÚÚÔ›·˜ Î·È ·ÎÔ˘Ì¿ÂÈ ÙÔ ‰ÂÍ› ¯¤ÚÈ ÛÙÔ ÈÛ¯›Ô ÙÔ˘.ÀÂÓı˘Ì›˙ÂÈ ÙÔÓ ¶fiıÔ ÛÙÔ Würzburg.

O ÁÓˆÛÙfi˜ ·Á·ÏÌ·ÙÈÎfi˜ Ù‡Ô˜ ÙÔ˘ ¶fiıÔ˘ Î·È Ë ÌÔÚÊ‹ ÛÙÔ ·ÁÁÂ›Ô Ô˘ ·Ó·Ê¤ÚıËÎÂ ÈÔ ¿-Óˆ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ·ÚÎÂÙ¤˜ ÔÌÔÈfiÙËÙÂ˜ Ô˘ Ù· Û˘Ó‰¤Ô˘Ó. ∆Ô Û˘Ì¤Ú·ÛÌ· ·˘Ùfi ÂÓÈÛ¯‡ÂÙ·È ·fi ÙÈ˜ ÂÍ‹˜·Ú·ÙËÚ‹ÛÂÈ˜: (1) ÙÔ ÈÔ ÈÛÙfi Î·È Î·Ï‡ÙÂÚ· ‰È·ÙËÚËÌ¤ÓÔ ·ÓÙ›ÁÚ·ÊÔ ÙÔ˘ ·Á·ÏÌ·ÙÈÎÔ‡ Ù‡Ô˘ÙÔ˘ ¶fiıÔ˘ Â›Ó·È ÛÙË ƒÒÌË, Museo dei Conservatori: Ë ÎÂÊ·Ï‹ ÙÔ˘ ·ÁÔÚÈÔ‡ ÌÔÚÂ› Ó· ÂÎÙÈÌË-ıÂ› Î·ÏÏ›ÙÂÚ· ÛÂ ·˘Ùfi ÙÔ ·ÓÙ›ÁÚ·ÊÔ (2) Ë ‰Ú·ÛÙËÚÈfiÙËÙ· ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ÛÙË ™·ÌÔıÚ¿ÎË ÂÈ‚Â‚·È-ÒÓÂÙ·È ·fi ÙÔ ÎÂÊ¿ÏÈ ÂÓfi˜ Ó¤Ô˘ ÛÂ ¤Ó· ıÚ·‡ÛÌ· Ê·ÙÓÒÌ·ÙÔ˜ ·fi ÙÔ ¶Úfi˘ÏÔ ÙˆÓ ÃÔÚÂ˘-ÙÚÈÒÓ: ÛÙ˘ÏÈÛÙÈÎ¿ ·˘Ù‹ Ë ÎÂÊ·Ï‹ Â›Ó·È Û·ÊÒ˜ ™ÎÔ·‰ÈÎ‹ Û˘ÁÎÚÈÓfiÌÂÓË ÌÂ Ì›· ·fi ÙÈ˜ ÎÂÊ·-Ï¤˜ ÙÔ˘ ‰˘ÙÈÎÔ‡ ·ÂÙÒÌ·ÙÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ Ó·Ô‡ ÙË˜ ∞ıËÓ¿˜ ∞Ï¤·˜ ÛÙËÓ ∆ÂÁ¤·. ∂ÈÏ¤ÔÓ (3), ¤Ó· ‹ÏÈÓÔÛ‡ÌÏÂÁÌ· ÛÙËÓ ∫fiÚÈÓıÔ ÌÔÚÂ› Â›ÛË˜ Ó· ·ÓÙ·Ó·ÎÏ¿ Ù· ·Á¿ÏÌ·Ù· ÙË˜ ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË˜ Î·È ÙÔ˘¶fiıÔ˘ ÛÙË ™·ÌÔıÚ¿ÎË.

¶ÔÏÏÔ› ÂÚÂ˘ÓËÙ¤˜ ÚÔÛ¿ıËÛ·Ó Ó· ·Ô‰ÒÛÔ˘Ó ÙÔ ™ÎÔ·‰ÈÎfi Û‡ÌÏÂÁÌ· ÛÙË ™·ÌÔıÚ¿ÎË,.¯. ›Ûˆ˜ Ô ¶fiıÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ÛÙËÚÈ˙fiÙ·Ó ¿ÌÂÛ· ÛÙËÓ ıÂ¿, «ÙÔ ·ÚÈÛÙÂÚfi ÙÔ˘ ¯¤ÚÈ ›Ûˆ˜ ¤È·ÓÂÙÔÓ ÒÌÔ ÙË˜ ·fi ›Ûˆ» (Stewart 1996) ‹ «Ë ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË Èı·ÓÒ˜ [‹Ù·Ó] Î·ı‹ÌÂÓË ‹, Â¿Ó ÛÙÂÎfi-Ù·Ó, ÎÔÏÔÛÛÈÎ‹, ÚÔ˜ ÙËÓ ÔÔ›· ÌÔÚÂ› Ó· ·ÎÔ˘ÌÔ‡ÛÂ Ô ¶fiıÔ˜» (Ridgway 1997). ™ÙËÓ ÂÚ›-ÙˆÛË ÙˆÓ ÌÔÚÊÒÓ ÛÙÔ ·ÁÁÂ›Ô, Ô ¶fiıÔ˜ ·ÎÔ˘Ì¿ ÛÙ· fi‰È· ÙË˜ Á˘Ó·›Î·˜. ∏ Û¯¤ÛË ÌÂÙ·Í‡ÙˆÓ ‰‡Ô ˘ÂÓı˘Ì›˙ÂÈ ¤Ó· Û‡ÌÏÂÁÌ· ÛÙÔ ªÔ˘ÛÂ›Ô Baiae: ¤Ó·˜ ¶fiıÔ˜ ·ÎÔ˘Ì¿ ÛÙÔÓ ÒÌÔ ÌÈ·˜ÈÛÙ¿ÌÂÓË˜ ·˘ÙÔÎÚ·ÙÔÚÈÎ‹˜ ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË˜. ™‡ÌÊˆÓ· ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ¶·˘Û·Ó›·, ÛÙ· ª¤Á·Ú· ¤Ó· ·Ï·ÈfiÙÂ-ÚÔ ¿Á·ÏÌ· ÙË˜ ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË˜ ‹Ù·Ó ÊÙÈ·ÁÌ¤ÓÔ ·fi ÂÏÂÊ·ÓÙfi‰ÔÓÙÔ: ›Ûˆ˜ Ô Î·ÏÏÈÙ¤¯ÓË˜ ÙË˜ ÏÂÎ·-Ó›‰·˜ ÚÔÛ·ıÒÓÙ·˜ Ó· ·Ô‰ÒÛÂÈ ·˘Ùfi ÙÔ ˘ÏÈÎfi, Â¤ÏÂÍÂ ÙÔ ÏÂ˘Îfi ¯ÚÒÌ· ÁÈ· ÙÈ˜ ÌÔÚÊ¤˜ ÙË˜∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË˜ Î·È ÙÔ˘ ¶fiıÔ˘.

§·Ì‚¿ÓÔÓÙ·˜ ˘fi„Ë ÙÔÓ ÂÈÎÔÓÔÁÚ·ÊÈÎfi Û˘ÁÎÚËÙÈÛÌfi ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ÙË˜ AÍÈfiÎÂÚÛ·˜ Î·È ÙË˜ ∫˘-‚¤ÏË˜ ÛÙË ™·ÌÔıÚ¿ÎË, fiˆ˜ Ë Phyllis Lehmann ¤¯ÂÈ ÚÔÙÂ›ÓÂÈ, ÈÛÙÂ‡ˆ fiÙÈ Ë ÔÌ¿‰· ÙÔ˘ ·Á-ÁÂ›Ô˘ ·ÓÙ·Ó·ÎÏ¿ ÙÔ Û¯‹Ì· ÙÔ˘ ™ÎÔ·‰ÈÎÔ‡ ÚˆÙÔÙ‡Ô˘: Ë Î·ıÈÛÙ‹ Á˘Ó·›Î· ı· ÌÔÚÔ‡ÛÂ Ó·Â›Ó·È Ë ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË/∫˘‚¤ÏË Î·È Ô ¶fiıÔ˜ Ô ıÂˆÚÔ‡ÌÂÓÔ˜ ÁÈÔ˜ ÙË˜. ∆¤ÏÔ˜, ¤Ó· Ô›ËÌ· ÙÔ˘ ºÈÏfi-‰ËÌÔ˘ (Anth. Gr. 10. 21) ÂÈÛËÁÂ›Ù·È fiÙÈ ÛÙË ™·ÌÔıÚ¿ÎË, Ë ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË Î·È Ô ¶fiıÔ˜ Ï·ÙÚÂ‡ÔÓÙ·Óˆ˜ ıÂÔ› ÙË˜ ÈÛÙÈÔÏÔ˝·˜. √ ¶fiıÔ˜ ·ÓÙÈÚÔÛÒÂ˘Â ÙËÓ ÚÔÛˆÔÔ›ËÛË ÂÓfi˜ Ì·ÎÚÈÓÔ‡ ÎfiÛÌÔ˘ÙÔ˘ ¤ÚˆÙ·, ·˘Ùfi Ô˘ Ô ¢¿ÓÙË˜ (Purgatorio 8.1-5) ÔÓÔÌ¿˙ÂÈ disio (ÂÈı˘ÌÒ), ‰ËÏ·‰‹ ÙË ÓÔ-ÛÙ·ÏÁ›· Ô˘ ·ÈÛı¿ÓÔÓÙ·È ÔÈ Ó·‡ÙÂ˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·ÙÚ›‰· ÙÔ˘˜, fiÙ·Ó ¤ÊÙÂÈ Ë Ó‡¯Ù·.



Two Gems from the Museum of Thorvaldsens

Marie Kluge

Department of Classical Archaeology

University of Copenhagen, Denmark

<[email protected]>

The extensive collection of gems at Thorvaldsens Museum (Copenhagen) was first pub-lished by Müller (1847) and later by Fossing (1929). Despite the fact that only Fossing’s

publication reproduces both gems, registered as nr. 365 and 783 (Müller I516), the identifi-cation numbers used at Thorvaldsens Museum today are those of Müller’s catalogue.

The two scholars identify the figure depicted on the gems as Hymen (Müller, I516) andEros (Fossing, 783, 365), respectively. The ongoing digital registration of the antiquities inthe Collection of Thorvaldsen chooses Fossing’s designations, which implies that the gemsare believed to represent Eros. But could they in fact be representing one of most famousstatues created by Skopas of Paros - the Pothos?

¢‡Ô ™ÊÚ·ÁÈ‰fiÏÈıÔÈ ·fi ÙÔ ªÔ˘ÛÂ›Ô Thorvaldsens

∏ÂÎÙÂÙ·Ì¤ÓË Û˘ÏÏÔÁ‹ ÙˆÓ ÛÊÚ·ÁÈ‰fiÏÈıˆÓ ÛÙÔ ªÔ˘ÛÂ›Ô Thorvaldsens (∫ÔÂÁ¯¿ÁË) ‰ËÌÔ-ÛÈÂ‡ıËÎÂ ÁÈ· ÚÒÙË ÊÔÚ¿ ·fi ÙÔÓ Müller (1847) Î·È ·ÚÁfiÙÂÚ· ·fi ÙÔÓ Fossing (1929).

¶·Ú¿ ÙÔ ÁÂÁÔÓfi˜ fiÙÈ ÌfiÓÔ Ë ‰ËÌÔÛ›Â˘ÛË ÙÔ˘ Fossing ·Ó··Ú¿ÁÂÈ Î·È ÙÔ˘˜ ‰‡Ô ÛÊÚ·ÁÈ‰fiÏÈ-ıÔ˘˜, Î·Ù·¯ˆÚËÌ¤ÓÔ˘˜ ˆ˜ ˘’ ·ÚÈıÌ. 365 Î·È 783 (Müller π516), ÔÈ ·ÚÈıÌÔ› Ô˘ ¯ÚËÛÈÌÔÔÈ-Ô‡ÓÙ·È ÛÙÔ ªÔ˘ÛÂ›Ô Thorvaldsens Û‹ÌÂÚ· Â›Ó·È ·˘ÙÔ› ÙÔ˘ Î·Ù·ÏfiÁÔ˘ ÙÔ˘ Müller.

√È ÌÔÚÊ¤˜ Ô˘ ·ÂÈÎÔÓ›˙ÔÓÙ·È ÛÙÔ˘˜ ÛÊÚ·ÁÈ‰fiÏÈıÔ˘˜ Ù·˘Ù›˙ÔÓÙ·È ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ ‰‡Ô ÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÔ-ÓÂ˜ ˆ˜ ÀÌ‹Ó (Müller, π516) Î·È ∂Úˆ˜ (Fossing, 783, 365), ·ÓÙ›ÛÙÔÈ¯·. ∏ ÂÓ ÂÍÂÏ›ÍÂÈ „ËÊÈ·Î‹Î·Ù·ÁÚ·Ê‹ ÙˆÓ ·Ú¯·ÈÔÙ‹ÙˆÓ ÛÙË Û˘ÏÏÔÁ‹ Thorvaldsen ÂÈÏ¤ÁÂÈ ÙÔÓ ÔÚÈÛÌfi ÙÔ˘ Fossing,Ú¿ÁÌ· Ô˘ ÛËÌ·›ÓÂÈ fiÙÈ ÈÛÙÂ‡ÂÙ·È ˆ˜ ÛÙÔ˘˜ ÛÊÚ·ÁÈ‰fiÏÈıÔ˘˜ ·ÂÈÎÔÓ›˙ÂÙ·È Ô ∂Úˆ˜. ∞ÏÏ¿ ı·ÌÔÚÔ‡Û·Ó ÛÙËÓ Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÈÎfiÙËÙ· Ó· ·ÓÙÈÚÔÛˆÂ‡Ô˘Ó ÙÔÓ ¶fiıÔ, ¤Ó· ·fi Ù· ÈÔ ‰È¿ÛËÌ··Á¿ÏÌ·Ù· Ô˘ ‰ËÌÈÔ‡ÚÁËÛÂ Ô ™Îfi·˜ ÙË˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘;



“Ekphrasis” as Oral Performance: Kallistratos’ Rhetoricising Description

of Skopas’ Statue of a Maenad

Ioannis Petropoulos

Department of Greek Philology, Democritean University of Thrace

and Harvard University’s Center for Hellenic Studies of Nafplion

<[email protected]>

Skopas’ raging Maenad is the subject of an ekphrasis by Kallistratos. A veritable tour deforce -like the statue it purportedly describes, Kallistratos’ essay is more than a tissue of

Platonic and Neoplatonic verbal and conceptual clichés. More than an affecting reaction tothe writer's autopsy of Skopas’ early masterpiece (a copy of which may be seen in the so-called “Dresden Maenad”) the description may be regarded as a “performance” comparableto, say, Homer’s performance of the ekphrasis of Achilles shield in Iliad 18.

In the first part of this paper I shall summarise and briefly add to the main philologicaland philosophical comments in Baebler’s and Nesselrath’s Ars et verba, Die Kunstbescrei-bungen des Kallistratos (2006). In the second part I shall apply to this particular essay recentdiscussions of the hermeneutics of oral performance genres and of their interface with thevisual world they purportedly “reproduce” via mimesis.

∏ «∂ÎÊÚ·ÛË» ˆ˜ ¶ÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹ ∞·ÁÁÂÏ›·: ∏ ƒËÙÔÚ›˙Ô˘Û· ¶ÂÚÈÁÚ·Ê‹

ÙË˜ ª·ÈÓ¿‰·˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ·fi ÙÔÓ ∫·ÏÏ›ÛÙÚ·ÙÔ

∏Ì·ÈÓfiÌÂÓË ª·ÈÓ¿‰· ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· Â›Ó·È ÙÔ ı¤Ì· ÂÓfi˜ ÂÎ ÙˆÓ 14 ‰ÔÎÈÌ›ˆÓ ÙÔ˘ ÛÔÊÈÛÙ‹ ∫·Ï-Ï›ÛÙÚ·ÙÔ˘. ∏ «¤ÎÊÚ·ÛË» ·˘Ù‹ ÙÔ˘ ∫·ÏÏ›ÛÙÚ·ÙÔ˘ ‰ÂÓ ÂÍ·ÓÙÏÂ›Ù·È ÛÙËÓ ·ÍÈÔÔ›ËÛË ÎÔÈ-

ÓÒÓ ÙfiˆÓ ÙÔ˘ Ï·ÙˆÓÈÎÔ‡ Î·È ÓÂÔÏ·ÙˆÓÈÎÔ‡ ÏÂÍÈÏÔÁ›Ô˘ Î·È ÙˆÓ Û˘Ó·ÊÒÓ ÂÓÓÔÈÒÓ. ∏ ˘Ô-‚ÏËÙÈÎ‹ ÂÚÈÁÚ·Ê‹ ÙÔ˘ ¤ÚÁÔ˘ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· (Èı·Ófi ·ÓÙ›ÁÚ·ÊÔ ÙÔ˘ ÔÔ›Ô˘ Â›Ó·È Ë ÏÂÁfiÌÂÓË«ª·ÈÓ¿‰· ÙË˜ ¢Ú¤Û‰Ë˜»), Ë ÔÔ›· Èı·ÓfiÙ·Ù· ÛÙËÚ›˙ÂÙ·È ÛÂ ·˘ÙÔ„›·, ÌÔÚÂ› Î¿ÏÏÈÛÙ· Ó· ıÂ-ˆÚËıÂ› «··ÁÁÂÏ›·»/»ÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹ ÂÎÙ¤ÏÂÛË» (performance) Û˘ÁÎÚ›ÛÈÌË ÚÔ˜ ÙËÓ ··ÁÁÂÏ›·ÙË˜ ¤ÎÊÚ·ÛË˜ ÙË˜ ∞Û›‰Ô˜ ÙÔ˘ ∞¯ÈÏÏ¤· ÛÙË ™ Ú·„ˆ‰›· ÙË˜ πÏÈ¿‰Ô˜.

™ÙÔ ÚÒÙÔ Ì¤ÚÔ˜ ·˘Ù‹˜ ÙË˜ ·Ó·ÎÔ›ÓˆÛË˜ Û˘ÓÔ„›˙ˆ Î·È Û˘ÌÏËÚÒÓˆ Ù· Î˘ÚÈfiÙÂÚ· ÊÈÏÔÛÔ-ÊÈÎ¿ Î·È ÊÈÏÔÏÔÁÈÎ¿ Û¯fiÏÈ· ÙˆÓ Baebler & Nesselrath, Ars et verba, Die Kunstbescreibungendes Kallistratos (2006). ™ÙÔ ‰Â‡ÙÂÚÔ Ì¤ÚÔ˜ ı· ·ÍÈÔÔÈ‹Ûˆ ÚfiÛÊ·ÙÂ˜ ·Ó·Ï‡ÛÂÈ˜ ÙË˜ ÂÚÌËÓÂ˘-ÙÈÎ‹˜ ÙˆÓ ÚÔÊÔÚÈÎÒÓ ÂÈ‰ÒÓ (genres) ÁÈ· Ó· ÚÔÛÂÁÁ›Ûˆ ÙÔ ˙‹ÙËÌ· ÙË˜ Û¯¤ÛË˜ ÙË˜ ÚÔÊÔÚÈ-ÎfiÙËÙÔ˜ ÌÂ ÙË «Ì›ÌËÛË» ˆ˜ «·Ó··Ú·ÁˆÁ‹»/«·ÓÙÈÁÚ·Ê‹».



∞fi ÙËÓ §·Óı¿ÓÔ˘Û· ∫›ÓËÛË ÙˆÓ ∞Ú¯·˚ÎÒÓ∞Á·ÏÌ¿ÙˆÓ ÛÙÔ ÃÔÚfi ÙË˜ M·ÈÓ¿‰·˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·

∫·ÙÂÚ›Ó· ∫·Ú·Î¿ÛË

ÀÔ˘ÚÁÂ›Ô ¶ÔÏÈÙÈÛÌÔ‡ Î·È ∆Ô˘ÚÈÛÌÔ‡

°Ú·ÊÂ›Ô ∂.√.∆. ºÚ·ÓÎÊÔ‡ÚÙË˜, °ÂÚÌ·Ó›·

<[email protected]>

ªÂ ÙË Û˘Ó‰ÚÔÌ‹ ÙˆÓ Û˘ÌÂÚ·ÛÌ¿ÙˆÓ Ì·˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ÂÚÌËÓÂ›· ÙˆÓ ·Ú¯·˚ÎÒÓ ∫ÔÚÒÓ Î·È ¤¯Ô-ÓÙ·˜ ˆ˜ ‚¿ÛË Ù· ›‰È· Ù· ¤ÚÁ· ÙË˜ ·ÚÈ·Ó‹˜ Ï·ÛÙÈÎ‹˜, ÛÙËÓ ·Ó·ÎÔ›ÓˆÛ‹ Ì·˜ ı· ÂÈ¯ÂÈ-

Ú‹ÛÔ˘ÌÂ Ó· ·Ó·‰Â›ÍÔ˘ÌÂ ÙËÓ Èı·Ó‹ ÂÈÚÚÔ‹ ÙË˜ ‰È·ÈÛÙÔ‡ÌÂÓË˜ Ï·Óı¿ÓÔ˘Û·˜ Î›ÓËÛË˜ ÙˆÓ·Ú¯·˚ÎÒÓ ·Á·ÏÌ¿ÙˆÓ ÛÙËÓ ÂÍ¤ÏÈÍË ÙˆÓ ÔÏ˘Ô›ÎÈÏˆÓ Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÈÎÒÓ ÛÙÔÈ¯Â›ˆÓ Î·È ÙÂ¯ÓÔÙÚÔ-ÈÒÓ ÙˆÓ ·ÚÈ·ÓÒÓ ÂÚÁ·ÛÙËÚ›ˆÓ ÁÏ˘ÙÈÎ‹˜.

ªÂ ¿ÏÏ· ÏfiÁÈ·, ı· È¯ÓËÏ·Ù‹ÛÔ˘ÌÂ ÙÈ˜ ‚·ÛÈÎ¤˜ Û˘ÓÈÛÙÒÛÂ˜ Ô˘ Î·ıfiÚÈÛ·Ó ÙËÓ ÂÍÂÏÈÎÙÈÎ‹ÔÚÂ›· ÙˆÓ Î·ÏÏÈÙÂ¯ÓÒÓ ÙË˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘ ·fi ÙËÓ ·Ú¯·˚Î‹ ÂÔ¯‹ Ì¤¯ÚÈ Î·È ÙË ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ›· ÙË˜ ÂÎ-ÛÙ·ÙÈÎ‹˜ ª·ÈÓ¿‰·˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·, Ô˘ È‰È·›ÙÂÚ· ı·˘Ì¿ÛÙËÎÂ Î·È Â·ÈÓ¤ıËÎÂ ·ÎfiÌ· Î·È ÛÙËÓ∞Ú¯·ÈfiÙËÙ·.

From the Hidden Movement of Archaic Statues to the Dancing of Skopas’ Maenad

From our conclusions regarding the interpretation of the Archaic korai and based on Par-ian sculpture itself, we will attempt to show the possible influence of the hidden move-

ment observed on Archaic statues upon the evolution of the various artistic traits and stylesof the Parian sculpture workshops.

In other words, we will trace the basic forms which defined development in the artisticproduction of Parian sculptors from the Archaic period to the creation of Skopas’ ecstaticMaenad, much admired and praised even in antiquity.



The Maenad from Dresden and the Conception of Movement in Time and Space in the 4th Century BC

Christina Wolf

Department of History and Cultural Studies

Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany

<[email protected]>

The famous Maenad of Skopas (third quarter of the 4th century BC) is described by Kallis-tratos (Stat. Descr. 2). He informs us that Skopas was moved by divine inspiration when

he created her. The sculptor transformed the Parian marble into a “real” Maenad. Her move-ment and her hair were expressions of divine possession. She seemed to be so “real” thateveryone who looked at her was involved and moved. Even the flesh of the goat in her handwas livid in color like death. The marble was not marble anymore, but represented life anddeath together.

The only imitation of the original of Skopas we have is a small marble figure in Dresden(1st century AD). It was Georg Treu (1903) who identified it with the Maenad mentioned byKallistratos because of the back turned head with the “typical Skopasian expression” and thereconstruction with a goat in her hand and on her left shoulder (there are only some tracesof the animal which are still discussed).

In my dissertation, I compared the Maenad with the Satyr from Mazara del Vallo. Both arerepresented in a condition of Dionysiac trance and both are characterized by momentary, far-reaching movements. They capture the space around themselves even if they are totally ab-sent for the spectator –I mean they don’t “watch” the spectator as high-classical sculptures do.In both figures the movement is the most important thing. To use an expression of Plutarch,both are showing a figurative “schema”, which in the Satyr is part of the Dionysiac dance (astep or a figure of a dance) and in the Maenad is part of a movement, which is pure ecstasy.She is shown exactly in the moment, when she stops running on her right leg and when sheis just before changing her position on her left leg, thus turning her torso to the left.

Her hair is pressed on the back and shoulders because of the abrupt stop. Of course, the Satyris much younger than the “archetype” of the Maenad. However it is interesting to see how closethe way of composing both creations is. In fact the composition of the Satyr responds to the 4thcentury BC style. I do not believe that the Maenad was to be seen from all around. I think thatshe had to be watched from a precise point of view: a 3/4 view from the left side.

The representation of a Maenad in movement on the relief of a sarcophagus in the Bardi-ni Museum at Florence is very impressive: her “schema” is very similar to that of the Mae-nad from Dresden (she holds a knife and a goat in her hands). Close to her is a dancing Satyrsuch as the Satyr of Mazara del Vallo and also dancing women who show the position of the“Berliner Tänzerin” (identified by Moreno and Cittadini with the “Praxilla” of Lysippos). Ithink this sarcophagus not only lends support to the late classical origin of these “schemata”,but is also an indicator of their transmissions and thus shows how the statue of Skopas wasimportant. Of course the representation of movement changes throughout time. I intend toillustrate the different concepts of space through comparison with other statues that are bothearlier and later than the creation of the Maenad, focusing upon the evolution of space espe-cially in a Dionysiac context. My final aim is to explain the meaning of the Maenad in herown time from this point of view.



∏ ª·ÈÓ¿‰· ·fi ÙË ¢Ú¤Û‰Ë Î·È Ë ™‡ÏÏË„Ë ÙË˜ ∫›ÓËÛË˜ ÛÙÔ ÃÚfiÓÔ Î·È ÛÙÔ ÃÒÚÔ ÙÔÓ 4Ô ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã.

∏‰È¿ÛËÌË ª·ÈÓ¿‰· ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· (ÙÚ›ÙÔ Ù¤Ù·ÚÙÔ ÙÔ˘ 4Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã.) ÂÚÈÁÚ¿ÊÂÙ·È ·fi ÙÔÓ∫·ÏÏ›ÛÙÚ·ÙÔ (Stat. Descr. 2). ª·˜ ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÂ› fiÙÈ Ô ™Îfi·˜ fiÙ·Ó ÙË ‰ËÌÈÔ‡ÚÁËÛÂ ·Ú·-

ÎÈÓ‹ıËÎÂ ·fi Ì›· ıÂ›· ¤ÌÓÂ˘ÛË. √ ÁÏ‡ÙË˜ ÌÂÙ¤ÙÚÂ„Â ÙÔ ·ÚÈ·Ófi Ì¿ÚÌ·ÚÔ ÛÂ ÌÈ· «Ú·ÁÌ·-ÙÈÎ‹» ª·ÈÓ¿‰·. ∏ Î›ÓËÛ‹ ÙË˜ Î·È Ù· Ì·ÏÏÈ¿ ÙË˜ ‹Û·Ó Ë ¤ÎÊÚ·ÛË ÙË˜ ıÂ˚Î‹˜ Î·Ù¿ÏË„Ë˜. ∂‰ÂÈ-¯ÓÂ ÙfiÛÔ «Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÈÎ‹» ÒÛÙÂ fiÔÈÔ˜ ÙËÓ ÎÔ›Ù·˙Â Û˘ÌÌÂÙÂ›¯Â Î·È ·Ú·Û˘ÚfiÙ·Ó. ∞ÎfiÌË Î·È ËÛ¿ÚÎ· ÙÔ˘ ˙ÒÔ˘ (ÂÚÈÊ›Ô˘) Ô˘ ÎÚ·ÙÔ‡ÛÂ ÛÙÔ ¯¤ÚÈ ÙË˜ ‹Ù·Ó ÂÏÈ‰Ó‹ fiˆ˜ Ô ı¿Ó·ÙÔ˜. ∆Ô Ì¿Ú-Ì·ÚÔ ‰ÂÓ ‹Ù·Ó È· Ì¿ÚÌ·ÚÔ, ·ÏÏ¿ ÂÎÚÔÛˆÔ‡ÛÂ ÙË ˙ˆ‹ Î·È ÙÔ ı¿Ó·ÙÔ Ì·˙›.

∏ ÌÔÓ·‰ÈÎ‹ ·ÔÌ›ÌËÛË ÙÔ˘ ÚˆÙÔÙ‡Ô˘ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ÛÒ˙ÂÙ·È ÛÙÔ ÌÈÎÚfi Ì·ÚÌ¿ÚÈÓÔ ¿Á·ÏÌ·ÛÙË ¢Ú¤Û‰Ë (1Ô˜ ·ÈÒÓ·˜ Ì.Ã.). ∏ Ù·‡ÙÈÛ‹ ÙÔ˘ ÌÂ ÙË ª·ÈÓ¿‰· Ô˘ ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÂÈ Ô ∫·ÏÏ›ÛÙÚ·ÙÔ˜,¤ÁÈÓÂ ·fi ÙÔÓ Georg Treu (1903) ÏfiÁˆ ÙË˜ ÛÙÚÔÊ‹˜ ÙÔ˘ ÎÂÊ·ÏÈÔ‡ ÌÂ ÙËÓ «Ù˘ÈÎ‹ ™ÎÔ¿‰ÂÈ·¤ÎÊÚ·ÛË» ÚÔ˜ Ù· ›Ûˆ Î·È ÙË˜ ·Ó·Û‡ÓıÂÛË˜ ÌÂ ÙËÓ ·ÚÔ˘Û›· ÙÔ˘ ˙ÒÔ˘ ÛÙÔ ¯¤ÚÈ Î·È ¿Óˆ·fi ÙÔÓ ·ÚÈÛÙÂÚfi ÒÌÔ ÙË˜ (˘¿Ú¯Ô˘Ó ÌfiÓÔ Î¿ÔÈ· ›¯ÓË ·fi ÙÔ ˙ÒÔ Ô˘ Û˘˙ËÙÔ‡ÓÙ·È ·ÎfiÌË).

™ÙËÓ ‰È·ÙÚÈ‚‹ ÌÔ˘, ¤Î·Ó· Û‡ÁÎÚÈÛË ÙË˜ ª·ÈÓ¿‰·˜ ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ™¿Ù˘ÚÔ Mazara del Vallo. ∫·È Ù·‰‡Ô ·Á¿ÏÌ·Ù· ·Ó··Ú›ÛÙ·ÓÙ·È ÛÂ Ì›· Î·Ù¿ÛÙ·ÛË ¢ÈÔÓ˘ÛÈ·Î‹˜ ¤ÎÛÙ·ÛË˜ Î·È ¯·Ú·ÎÙËÚ›˙ÔÓÙ·È·fi ÛÙÈÁÌÈ·›Â˜, ÌÂ ÚÔÂÎÙ¿ÛÂÈ˜ ÎÈÓ‹ÛÂÈ˜. ∫·Ù·Ï·Ì‚¿ÓÔ˘Ó ÙÔ ¯ÒÚÔ Á‡Úˆ ÙÔ˘˜ ·ÎfiÌË Î·È ·Ó Â›-Ó·È ÔÏÔÎÏËÚˆÙÈÎ¿ ·fiÓÙ· ÁÈ· ÙÔ ıÂ·Ù‹ -ÂÓÓÔÒ fiÙÈ ‰ÂÓ «ÎÔÈÙ¿˙Ô˘Ó» ÙÔÓ ıÂ·Ù‹ fiˆ˜ Û˘Ì‚·›ÓÂÈÌÂ Ù· ÎÏ·ÛÈÎ¿ ÁÏ˘Ù¿. ∫·È ÛÙÈ˜ ‰‡Ô ÌÔÚÊ¤˜ Ë Î›ÓËÛË Â›Ó·È ÙÔ ÈÔ ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎfi Ú¿ÁÌ·.

°È· Ó· ¯ÚËÛÈÌÔÔÈ‹Ûˆ ÌÈ· ¤ÎÊÚ·ÛË ÙÔ˘ ¶ÏÔ˘Ù¿Ú¯Ô˘, Î·È ÔÈ ‰‡Ô ·ÚÔ˘ÛÈ¿˙Ô˘Ó ¤Ó· ÂÈÎÔÓÈ-ÛÙÈÎfi «Û¯‹Ì·», ÙÔ ÔÔ›Ô ÛÙËÓ ÂÚ›ÙˆÛË ÙÔ˘ ™¿Ù˘ÚÔ˘ Â›Ó·È Ì¤ÚÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ ¢ÈÔÓ˘ÛÈ·ÎÔ‡ ¯ÔÚÔ‡ (¤Ó·‚‹Ì· ‹ ÌÈ· ÊÈÁÔ‡Ú· ¯ÔÚÔ‡) Î·È ÛÙË ª·ÈÓ¿‰· ·ÔÙÂÏÂ› Ì¤ÚÔ˜ ÌÈ·˜ Î›ÓËÛË˜, Ô˘ Â›Ó·È Î·ı·Ú‹¤ÎÛÙ·ÛË. ∏ ª·ÈÓ¿‰· ·ÂÈÎÔÓ›˙ÂÙ·È ÛÙË ÛÙÈÁÌ‹ ÙË˜ ·‡ÛË˜ ÌÂ ÙÔ ‰ÂÍ› fi‰È Î·È ·ÎÚÈ‚Ò˜ ÚÈÓ·ÏÏ¿ÍÂÈ ÙË ı¤ÛË ÙË˜ ÛÙÔ ·ÚÈÛÙÂÚfi, ÛÙÚ¤ÊÔÓÙ·˜ ¤ÙÛÈ ÙÔ ÎÔÚÌ› ÙË˜ ÚÔ˜ Ù· ·ÚÈÛÙÂÚ¿.

∆· Ì·ÏÏÈ¿ ÙË˜ È¤˙ÔÓÙ·È ÚÔ˜ ÙËÓ Ï¿ÙË Î·È ÙÔ˘˜ ÒÌÔ˘˜ ·fi ÙËÓ ·fiÙÔÌË ·‡ÛË. ∞ÛÊ·-ÏÒ˜, Ô ™¿Ù˘ÚÔ˜ Â›Ó·È ÔÏ‡ ÓÂfiÙÂÚÔ˜ ·fi ÙÔ «·Ú¯¤Ù˘Ô» ÙË˜ ª·ÈÓ¿‰·˜. √Ìˆ˜, Â›Ó·È ÂÓ‰È·Ê¤ÚÔÓÓ· ‰Ô‡ÌÂ fiÛÔ ÎÔÓÙ¿ Â›Ó·È Ô ÙÚfiÔ˜ Û‡ÓıÂÛË˜ ÙˆÓ ‰‡Ô ¤ÚÁˆÓ. ™ÙËÓ Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÈÎfiÙËÙ·, Ë Û‡Ó-ıÂÛË ÙÔ˘ ™·Ù‡ÚÔ˘ ·ÓÙ·ÔÎÚ›ÓÂÙ·È ÛÙËÓ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÙÚÔ›· ÙÔ˘ 4Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã. ¢ÂÓ ÈÛÙÂ‡ˆ fiÙÈ Ëª·ÈÓ¿‰· ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ‹ıËÎÂ ÁÈ· Ó· Â›Ó·È ÔÚ·Ù‹ ·fi fiÏÂ˜ ÙÈ˜ ÏÂ˘Ú¤˜. ¡ÔÌ›˙ˆ fiÙÈ ¤ÚÂÂ Ó· ÙËÓ‰ÂÈ Î·ÓÂ›˜ ·fi ÌÈ· Û˘ÁÎÂÎÚÈÌ¤ÓË ÏÂ˘Ú¿: ÙËÓ ·ÚÈÛÙÂÚ‹ ÛÂ 3/4.

∏ ·Ú¿ÛÙ·ÛË ÌÈ·˜ ª·ÈÓ¿‰·˜ ÛÂ Î›ÓËÛË, ÛÙËÓ ·Ó¿ÁÏ˘ÊË Û·ÚÎÔÊ¿ÁÔ ÙÔ˘ ªÔ˘ÛÂ›Ô˘ BardiniÛÙË ºÏˆÚÂÓÙ›· Â›Ó·È ÔÏ‡ ÂÓÙ˘ˆÛÈ·Î‹: ÙÔ «Û¯‹Ì·» ÙË˜ Â›Ó·È ÔÏ‡ fiÌÔÈÔ ÌÂ ÂÎÂ›ÓÔ ÙË˜ ª·È-Ó¿‰·˜ ·fi ÙË ¢Ú¤Û‰Ë (ÎÚ·Ù¿ÂÈ Ì·¯·›ÚÈ Î·È ·›Á· ÛÙ· ¯¤ÚÈ· ÙË˜). ¢›Ï· ÙË˜ Â›Ó·È ¤Ó·˜ ™¿Ù˘ÚÔ˜Ô˘ ¯ÔÚÂ‡ÂÈ, fiˆ˜ Ô ™¿Ù˘ÚÔ˜ Mazara del Vallo Î·È Â›ÛË˜ Á˘Ó·›ÎÂ˜ Ô˘ ¯ÔÚÂ‡Ô˘Ó ÌÂ ÛÙ¿ÛË«Berliner Tänzerin» (Ô˘ Ù·˘Ù›ÛÙËÎÂ ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ Moreno Î·È Cittadini ÌÂ ÙËÓ «¶Ú¿ÍÈÏÏ·» ÙÔ˘§˘Û›Ô˘). ¡ÔÌ›˙ˆ fiÙÈ ·˘Ù‹ Ë Û·ÚÎÔÊ¿ÁÔ˜ fi¯È ÌfiÓÔ ÂÓÈÛ¯‡ÂÈ ÙËÓ ˘ÛÙÂÚÔÎÏ·ÛÈÎ‹ ÚÔ¤ÏÂ˘ÛË·˘ÙÒÓ ÙˆÓ «Û¯ËÌ¿ÙˆÓ», ·ÏÏ¿ Î·Ù·‰ÂÈÎÓ‡ÂÈ Â›ÛË˜ Î·È ÙË ‰È¿‰ÔÛ‹ ÙÔ˘˜ ·Ó·‰ÂÈÎÓ‡ÔÓÙ·˜ ¤ÙÛÈÙËÓ ÛÔ˘‰·ÈfiÙËÙ· ÙÔ˘ ·Á¿ÏÌ·ÙÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·.

∞ÛÊ·ÏÒ˜ Ë ·ÂÈÎfiÓÈÛË ÙË˜ Î›ÓËÛË˜ ·ÏÏ¿˙ÂÈ ÌÂ ÙËÓ ¿ÚÔ‰Ô ÙÔ˘ ¯ÚfiÓÔ˘. ™ÎÔÂ‡ˆ Ó· ·-ÚÔ˘ÛÈ¿Ûˆ ÙÈ˜ ‰È·ÊÔÚÂÙÈÎ¤˜ Û˘ÏÏ‹„ÂÈ˜ ÙÔ˘ ¯ÒÚÔ˘ Ì¤Ûˆ ÙË˜ Û‡ÁÎÚÈÛË˜ ÌÂ ¿ÏÏ· ·Á¿ÏÌ·Ù· ÙfiÛÔÚˆÈÌfiÙÂÚ· fiÛÔ Î·È ÌÂÙ·ÁÂÓ¤ÛÙÂÚ· ·fi ÙË ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ›· ÙË˜ ª·ÈÓ¿‰·˜, ÂÛÙÈ¿˙ÔÓÙ·˜ ÛÙËÓ ÂÍ¤ÏÈ-ÍË ÙÔ˘ ¯ÒÚÔ˘, È‰›ˆ˜ ÛÙÔ ¢ÈÔÓ˘ÛÈ·Îfi Ï·›ÛÈÔ. ∆ÂÏÈÎfi˜ ÛÎÔfi˜ ÌÔ˘ Â›Ó·È Ó· ÂÍËÁ‹Ûˆ ·fi ·˘Ù‹ÙËÓ ¿Ô„Ë, ÙË ÛËÌ·Û›· ÙË˜ ª·ÈÓ¿‰·˜ ÛÙËÓ ÂÔ¯‹ ÙË˜.



Some Observations on the Iconography and Origin of the Dresden Maenad

Beryl Barr-Sharrar

Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, USA


One of the major objections to the identification by G. Treu over a century ago of the ear-ly Roman marble statuette in Dresden as a small-scale adaptation of the Maenad by

Skopas has been the absence of the young goat described by Kallistratos (Stat. Descr. 2). Au-topsy of the 45.5-cm high figure reveals two ancient attempts to replace the loss of the Mae-nad’s original left arm with a separately carved one. The fracture marks on the shoulder andthe evidence of repairs suggest that her original left arm, carved from the same block of mar-ble as the figure, was strongly flexed so that her left hand was raised almost to the shoulder,holding an attribute that was supported by the arm and touched the shoulder only minimally.

A raised broken area on the shoulder near the curving end of the Maenad’s hair ribbonsuggests the likely presence of the extended left hoof of a small goat supported on her armand grasped in her hand by its right back leg, its head hanging down. This corrects Treu’srestoration drawing only slightly. The statuette copies or adapts a three-dimensional work ofsculpture that must also be reflected in a neo-Attic Maenad type appearing in marble reliefby 30 BC that distorts the placement of the goat.

¶·Ú·ÙËÚ‹ÛÂÈ˜ Û¯ÂÙÈÎ¿ ÌÂ ÙËÓ ∂ÈÎÔÓÔÁÚ·Ê›· Î·È¶ÚÔ¤ÏÂ˘ÛË ÙË˜ ª·ÈÓ¿‰·˜ ·fi ÙË ¢Ú¤Û‰Ë

ª›· ·fi ÙÈ˜ ÌÂÁ·Ï‡ÙÂÚÂ˜ ·ÓÙÈÚÚ‹ÛÂÈ˜ ÛÙËÓ Ù·‡ÙÈÛË ÙÔ˘ Ì·ÚÌ¿ÚÈÓÔ˘ ·Á·ÏÌ·Ù›Ô˘ ÙË˜ ÚÒÈ-ÌË˜ ÚˆÌ·˚Î‹˜ ÂÚÈfi‰Ô˘ ÛÙË ¢Ú¤Û‰Ë, ˆ˜ ÌÈÎÚ‹˜ ÎÏ›Ì·Î·˜ ·ÔÌ›ÌËÛË ÙË˜ ª·ÈÓ¿‰·˜ ÙÔ˘

™Îfi· ·fi ÙÔÓ G. Treu ÂÚÈÛÛfiÙÂÚÔ ·fi ¤Ó·Ó ·ÈÒÓ· ÚÈÓ, Â›Ó·È Ë ·Ô˘Û›· ÙÔ˘ ÂÚÈÊ›Ô˘ Ô˘ÂÚÈÁÚ¿ÊÂÈ Ô ∫·ÏÏ›ÛÙÚ·ÙÔ˜ (Stat. Descr. 2). ∏ ·˘ÙÔ„›· ÙÔ˘ ·Á·ÏÌ·Ù›Ô˘, ‡„Ô˘˜ 45,5 ÂÎ·Ù., ‰Â›-¯ÓÂÈ fiÙÈ ¤¯Ô˘Ó Á›ÓÂÈ ‰‡Ô ·fiÂÈÚÂ˜ ÛÙËÓ ·Ú¯·ÈfiÙËÙ· Ó· ·ÓÙÈÎ·Ù·ÛÙ·ıÂ› Ô ¯·Ì¤ÓÔ˜ ·Ú¯ÈÎfi˜ ·ÚÈ-ÛÙÂÚfi˜ ‚Ú·¯›ÔÓ·˜ ÙË˜ ª·ÈÓ¿‰·˜ ÌÂ ¤Ó·Ó ¿ÏÏÔ ÍÂ¯ˆÚÈÛÙ¿ Î·Ù·ÛÎÂ˘·ÛÌ¤ÓÔ. ∆· ÛËÌ¿‰È· ıÚ·‡-ÛË˜ ÛÙÔÓ ÒÌÔ Î·È ÔÈ ÂÈÛÎÂ˘¤˜ ˘Ô‰ËÏÒÓÔ˘Ó fiÙÈ Ô ·Ú¯ÈÎfi˜ ·ÚÈÛÙÂÚfi˜ ‚Ú·¯›ÔÓ·˜, ÊÙÈ·ÁÌ¤ÓÔ˜·fi ÙÔÓ ›‰ÈÔ fiÁÎÔ Ì·ÚÌ¿ÚÔ˘ fiˆ˜ Î·È Ë ÌÔÚÊ‹, ‹Ù·Ó ÈÛ¯˘Ú¿ ÎÂÎ·ÌÌ¤ÓÔ˜ ÒÛÙÂ ÙÔ ·ÚÈÛÙÂÚfiÙË˜ ¯¤ÚÈ ‹Ù·Ó Û¯Â‰fiÓ ÛÙÔ ›‰ÈÔ ‡„Ô˜ ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ÒÌÔ, ÎÚ·ÙÒÓÙ·˜ ¤Ó· ·ÓÙÈÎÂ›ÌÂÓÔ Ô˘ ˘ÔÛÙËÚÈ˙fi-Ù·Ó ·fi ÙÔÓ ‚Ú·¯›ÔÓ· Î·È ¿ÁÁÈ˙Â ÙÔÓ ÒÌÔ ÌfiÓÔ ÂÏ¿¯ÈÛÙ·.

ªÈ· ÂÍËÚËÌ¤ÓË ıÚ·˘ÛÌ¤ÓË ÂÚÈÔ¯‹ ÙÔ˘ ÒÌÔ˘ ÎÔÓÙ¿ ÛÙÔ Î·Ì‡ÏÔ ¿ÎÚÔ ÙË˜ Ù·ÈÓ›·˜ ÙˆÓÌ·ÏÏÈÒÓ ÙË˜ ª·ÈÓ¿‰·˜, ˘Ô‰ËÏÒÓÂÈ ÙËÓ Èı·Ó‹ ·ÚÔ˘Û›· ÙË˜ ·ÚÈÛÙÂÚ‹˜ ÔÏ‹˜ ÂÚÈÊ›Ô˘ Ô˘ÛÙËÚÈ˙fiÙ·Ó ÛÙÔÓ ÒÌÔ ÙË˜ Î·È ÎÚ·ÙÈfiÙ·Ó ÌÂ ÙÔ ¯¤ÚÈ ÙË˜ ·fi ÙÔ ‰ÂÍ› Ô›ÛıÈÔ fi‰È, ÂÓÒ ÙÔ ÎÂ-Ê¿ÏÈ ÙÔ˘ ÎÚÂÌfiÙ·Ó ÚÔ˜ Ù· Î¿Ùˆ. ∞˘Ùfi ‰ÈÔÚıÒÓÂÈ ÂÏ·ÊÚ¿ ÙËÓ ·ÔÎ·Ù¿ÛÙ·ÛË ÙÔ˘ Treu. ∆Ô·Á·ÏÌ¿ÙÈÔ Â›Ó·È ·ÓÙÈÁÚ·Ê‹ ‹ ÚÔÛ·ÚÌÔÁ‹ ÂÓfi˜ ÙÚÈÛ‰È¿ÛÙ·ÙÔ˘ ÁÏ˘ÙÔ‡ Ô˘ Ú¤ÂÈ Â›ÛË˜ Ó··ÓÙ·Ó·ÎÏ¿Ù·È ÛÂ ¤Ó· Ù‡Ô ÓÂÔ-·ÙÙÈÎ‹˜ ª·ÈÓ¿‰·˜, Ô˘ ÂÌÊ·Ó›˙ÂÙ·È ÛÂ Ì·ÚÌ¿ÚÈÓ· ·Ó¿ÁÏ˘Ê· Á‡-Úˆ ÛÙÔ 30 .Ã. Î·È ·ÚÔ˘ÛÈ¿˙ÂÈ ‰È·ÛÙÚÂ‚ÏˆÌ¤ÓË ÙË ı¤ÛË ÙÔ˘ ÂÚÈÊ›Ô˘.



Looking for a New Skopaic Maenad

Wilfred Geominy

Academic Museum of Art

University of Bonn, Germany

<[email protected]>

Three recent occurrences allow us to advance the study of the Berlin Maenad. First of all,there is the convincing new theory about the Dresden Maenad by Christiane Vorster.

Vorster has shown that this Maenad cannot be associated with the art of Skopas, but hasmore affinity with classicizing tendencies of the late Hellenistic period and even with Ro-man taste.

Secondly, but perhaps less convincingly, there is my own statement that struts and sup-ports are indicators of Roman copies in general and do not self-evidently reveal anythingabout the material of the original. In my opinion it is an error to believe that copies of mar-ble originals have no struts, whereas copies with struts furnish certain proof that they echobronze originals. This is why I think that the Berlin Maenad and not the Dresden one couldbe the Maenad of Skopas, which was of Parian marble. To the present day, nobody has daredto propose such a theory because of the Berlin Maenad’s struts.

A third new approach is prompted by the Satyr of Mazara del Vallo. This statue is veryclose in its movement to the Berlin Maenad, and attempts to date this figure impact the dat-ing of the Berlin Maenad as well.

∞Ó·˙ËÙÒÓÙ·˜ ÌÈ· ¡¤· ª·ÈÓ¿‰· ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·

∆ÚÂÈ˜ ÚfiÛÊ·ÙÂ˜ ÂÚÈÙÒÛÂÈ˜, Ì·˜ ÂÈÙÚ¤Ô˘Ó Ó· ÚÔ¯ˆÚ‹ÛÔ˘ÌÂ ÂÚ·ÈÙ¤Úˆ ÙË ÌÂÏ¤ÙË ÙË˜ª·ÈÓ¿‰·˜ ÙÔ˘ µÂÚÔÏ›ÓÔ˘. ¶ÚÒÙ· ·’ fiÏ·, Ë ÂÈÛÙÈÎ‹ Ó¤· ıÂˆÚ›· ÙË˜ Christiane Vorster

fiÙÈ Ë ª·ÈÓ¿‰· ÙË˜ ¢Ú¤Û‰Ë˜ ‰ÂÓ ÌÔÚÂ› Ó· Û˘Ó‰¤ÂÙ·È ÌÂ ÙËÓ Ù¤¯ÓË ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·, Î·ıÒ˜ ¤¯ÂÈ ÌÂ-Á·Ï‡ÙÂÚË Û˘ÁÁ¤ÓÂÈ· ÌÂ ÎÏ·ÛÈÎÈÛÙÈÎ¤˜ Ù¿ÛÂÈ˜ ÙË˜ ˘ÛÙÂÚÔÂÏÏËÓÈÛÙÈÎ‹˜ ÂÚÈfi‰Ô˘, ·ÎfiÌË Î·È ÌÂÚˆÌ·˚Î¿ ÁÔ‡ÛÙ·.

¢Â‡ÙÂÚÔÓ, Ë ÚÔÛˆÈÎ‹ ÌÔ˘ ¿Ô„Ë, ›Ûˆ˜ ÏÈÁfiÙÂÚÔ ÂÈÛÙÈÎ‹, fiÙÈ Ù· ˘ÔÛÙËÚ›ÁÌ·Ù· Â›Ó·ÈÁÂÓÈÎ¿ ‰ËÏˆÙÈÎ¿ ÚˆÌ·˚ÎÒÓ ·ÓÙÈÁÚ¿ÊˆÓ Î·È ‰ÂÓ ·ÔÙÂÏÔ‡Ó ·˘ÙÔÓÔ‹Ùˆ˜ ·fi‰ÂÈÍË ÁÈ· ÙÔ ˘ÏÈÎfi·fi ÙÔ ÔÔ›Ô Î·Ù·ÛÎÂ˘¿ÛÙËÎÂ ÙÔ ÚˆÙfiÙ˘Ô. ∫·Ù¿ ÙË ÁÓÒÌË ÌÔ˘, Â›Ó·È Ï¿ıÔ˜ Ó· ÈÛÙÂ‡Ô˘ÌÂfiÙÈ Ù· ·ÓÙ›ÁÚ·Ê· Ì·ÚÌ¿ÚÈÓˆÓ ÚˆÙÔÙ‡ˆÓ ‰ÂÓ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ˘ÔÛÙËÚ›ÁÌ·Ù·, ÂÓÒ ·ÓÙ›ıÂÙ· ·ÓÙ›ÁÚ·Ê·ÌÂ ˘ÔÛÙËÚ›ÁÌ·Ù· ·ÔÙÂÏÔ‡Ó ·fi‰ÂÈÍË fiÙÈ ·Ë¯Ô‡Ó ¯¿ÏÎÈÓ· ÚˆÙfiÙ˘·. ∞˘Ùfi˜ Â›Ó·È Ô ÏfiÁÔ˜Ô˘ ÌÂ Î¿ÓÂÈ Ó· ÈÛÙÂ‡ˆ fiÙÈ Ë ª·ÈÓ¿‰· ÙÔ˘ µÂÚÔÏ›ÓÔ˘, Î·È fi¯È ·˘Ù‹ ÙË˜ ¢Ú¤Û‰Ë˜, ı· ÌÔÚÔ‡-ÛÂ Ó· Â›Ó·È Ë ª·ÈÓ¿‰· ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· Ô˘ ‹Ù·Ó ·fi ·ÚÈ·Ófi Ì¿ÚÌ·ÚÔ. ª¤¯ÚÈ Û‹ÌÂÚ·, Î·ÓÂ›˜ ‰ÂÓ¤¯ÂÈ ÙÔÏÌ‹ÛÂÈ Ó· ÚÔÙÂ›ÓÂÈ ÌÈ· Ù¤ÙÔÈ· ıÂˆÚ›· ÂÍ·ÈÙ›·˜ ÙˆÓ ˘ÔÛÙËÚÈÁÌ¿ÙˆÓ Ô˘ Ê¤ÚÂÈ Ë ª·È-Ó¿‰· ÙÔ˘ µÂÚÔÏ›ÓÔ˘.

ªÈ· ÙÚ›ÙË Ó¤· ÚÔÛ¤ÁÁÈÛË ÌÔÚÂ› Ó· ÚÔˆıËıÂ› ·fi ÙÔ ™¿Ù˘ÚÔ Mazara del Vallo. ∞˘Ùfi ÙÔ¿Á·ÏÌ·, ̂ ˜ ÚÔ˜ ÙËÓ Î›ÓËÛ‹ ÙÔ˘, Â›Ó·È ÔÏ‡ ÎÔÓÙ¿ ÛÙË ª·ÈÓ¿‰· ÙÔ˘ µÂÚÔÏ›ÓÔ˘ Î·È ÔÈ ÚÔÛ¿-ıÂÈÂ˜ ¯ÚÔÓÔÏfiÁËÛ‹˜ ÙÔ˘ ÂËÚÂ¿˙Ô˘Ó Â›ÛË˜ ÙË ¯ÚÔÓÔÏfiÁËÛË ÙË˜ ª·ÈÓ¿‰·˜ ÙÔ˘ µÂÚÔÏ›ÓÔ˘.



¶·ÚÈ·ÓÔ› ¢ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁÔ› Î·È ¤Ó· ¡¤Ô ∂‡ÚËÌ· ÙË˜ ∂Ô¯‹˜ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ÛÙÔ˘˜ ¢ÂÏÊÔ‡˜

∂ÏÂÓ· ¶·ÚÙ›‰·

π’ ∂¶∫∞, ªÔ˘ÛÂ›Ô ¢ÂÏÊÒÓ, ¢ÂÏÊÔ›

<[email protected]>

∏·Ó·ÎÔ›ÓˆÛ‹ Ì·˜ Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÂ‡ÂÙ·È ·Ê’ ÂÓfi˜ ¤Ó· Û¿Ú·ÁÌ· ÁÏ˘ÙÔ‡ Ô˘ ‚Ú¤ıËÎÂ ÚfiÛÊ·Ù·ÛÙÔ˘˜ ¢ÂÏÊÔ‡˜ Î·È ÙÔ ÔÔ›Ô ·Ô‰›‰Ô˘ÌÂ ÛÂ ÌÓËÌÂ›Ô Û‡Á¯ÚÔÓÔ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·, ·Ê’ ÂÙ¤ÚÔ˘

ÙËÓ ·‰È¿ÎÔË Î·È ÏÔ‡ÛÈ· ‰Ú¿ÛË ¶·Ú›ˆÓ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁÒÓ ÛÙÔ˘˜ ¢ÂÏÊÔ‡˜. ∏‰Ë ÔÏ‡ ÚÈÓ ÙÔ ™Îfi-· ‰ÂÏÊÈÎ¿ Â˘Ú‹Ì·Ù· Ì·ÚÌ·ÚÔÙÂ¯Ó›·˜ ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ¯·ÏÎÔÏ·ÛÙÈÎ‹˜ ·Ô‰›‰ÔÓÙ·È ÛÂ ÂÚÁ·ÛÙ‹ÚÈ·ÙË˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘, ÌÂ Ì·ÎÚÔÚfiıÂÛÌË ÂÈÚÚÔ‹ ÛÂ ‰È¿ÊÔÚ· ÌÓËÌÂ›· Î·È ÁÂˆÁÚ·ÊÈÎ¤˜ ÂÚÈÔ¯¤˜ ÙË˜∂ÏÏ¿‰·˜. ™ÙËÓ ·Ú¯·˚Î‹ ÂÔ¯‹ Ì¿ÚÌ·ÚÔ Î·È ÙÂ¯Ó›ÙÂ˜ ¶·ÚÈ·Ó‹˜ ÚÔÂÏÂ‡ÛÂˆ˜ Î·Ù¤ÎÏ˘Û·Ó ÙÔÌ·ÓÙÈÎfi ÈÂÚfi, Û˘ÌÌÂÙ¤¯ÔÓÙ·˜ ÛÂ ÂÚÁÔÙ¿ÍÈ· ÔÈÎ›ÏˆÓ ∞ÈÁ·È·ÎÒÓ ·Ó·ıËÌ¿ÙˆÓ. ªÂÙ·Í‡ ¿ÏÏˆÓ,Â‰Ò ÚÔÙÂ›ÓÔ˘ÌÂ ÙËÓ ÂÚÌËÓÂ›· Î·È ·ÔÎ·Ù¿ÛÙ·ÛË ÂÓfi˜ ·Ó·ı‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ Ô˘ ÚÔÛ¤ÊÂÚÂ -Î·È Ì¿Ï-ÏÔÓ ÊÈÏÔÙ¤¯ÓËÛÂ, Â›ÛË˜- Î¿ÔÈÔ˜ ·fiÁÔÓÔ˜ ¶·Ú›Ô˘ ÁÏ‡ÙË ÛÙÔÓ 6Ô ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã.

§ÈÁfiÙÂÚÔ ÁÓˆÛÙ‹ Â›Ó·È ›Ûˆ˜ Ë Â¿ÓÔ‰Ô˜ ÙÔ˘ ¶·ÚÈ·ÓÔ‡ Ì·ÚÌ¿ÚÔ˘ Î·È ÙˆÓ ÙÂ¯ÓÔ˘ÚÁÒÓ ÙÔ˘Î·Ù¿ ÙÔÓ 4Ô ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã. ÁÈ· ·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈÎÔ‡˜ ÛÎÔÔ‡˜ Î·È ·ÚÁfiÙÂÚ·, Î·Ù¿ ÙË ÚˆÌ·˚Î‹ ÂÔ¯‹,ÁÈ· ÔÚÙÚ·›Ù· ÛÙÔ˘˜ ¢ÂÏÊÔ‡˜. ™ÙÔ ÌÂÙ·Í‡, ÛÙÔÓ 3Ô ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã. ¤Ó·˜ È‰È¿˙ˆÓ Ù‡Ô˜ ÌÓËÌÂ›Ô˘ Ê·-ÓÂÚÒÓÂÈ ÙËÓ ·Ó·ÓÂˆÌ¤ÓË ÚÔÙ›ÌËÛË ÁÈ· ¶¿ÚÈÔ Ì¿ÚÌ·ÚÔ Î·È ÓËÛÈˆÙÈÎ‹-∫˘ÎÏ·‰ÈÎ‹ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÙÚÔ›·,ÙÔÓ Î·ÈÚfi Ô˘ ¤Ó·˜ ¿ÏÏÔ˜ ™Îfi·˜ ÂÎÛÙÚ·ÙÂ‡ÂÈ ÛÙËÓ ∂ÏÏ¿‰·. √ÚÈÛÌ¤Ó· ·fi Ù· ·Ó·ı‹Ì·Ù· ÙˆÓ∞ÈÙˆÏÒÓ ÛÙÔ Ù¤ÌÂÓÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ ∞fiÏÏˆÓ· ˘Ô‰ËÏÒÓÔ˘Ó, ÈÛÙÂ‡Ô˘ÌÂ, ˆ˜ Ë ·Ó¿ÌÈÍË ¶·Ú›ˆÓ ‰ËÌÈ-Ô˘ÚÁÒÓ ÛÙ· ‰ÂÏÊÈÎ¿ ÌÓËÌÂ›· ‹Ù·Ó ÈÔ ·Ú·ÙÂÙ·Ì¤ÓË ·' fiÛÔ Ì¤¯ÚÈ Û‹ÌÂÚ· ÁÓˆÚ›˙·ÌÂ.

Parian Sculptors and a New Find of the Age of Skopas at Delphi

In the preamble of this paper we discuss a recent find from Delphi, a sculptural fragment,which may be attributed to a monument contemporary with Skopas. We further discuss

the relentless and diverse activities of Parian masters predating Skopas. Delphi offers abroad range of creations in marble and bronze as well, which can be associated with Parianateliers that exerted a long-term influence upon various regions. In the Archaic period mar-ble and artists from Paros manned the worksites of Aegean dedications in the sanctuary ofApollo. We put forward a proposal for the interpretation and restoration of one artifact dedi-cated -and probably carved, too- by some Parian in the 6th century BC.

Rather less well known is the recurrence of Parian marble and its masters for architec-tural purposes in the 4th century BC and for portraits in the Roman era. Meanwhile, in the3rd century BC, while another Skopas was leading his troops across Greece, a brand newtype of ex-voto at Delphi displayed a renewed preference for Parian marble and Cycladiccraftsmanship. Certain of these Aetolian dedications in the oracular sanctuary suggest thatthe commissioning of Parian sculptors there was more constant and more prolonged thanwe had thought hitherto.



∂Ó· ¡¤Ô ∞Á·ÏÌ· ∏Ú·ÎÏ‹ ·fi ÙË µ›ÏÏ· ÙÔ˘ ∏ÚÒ‰Ë ∞ÙÙÈÎÔ‡ ÛÙËÓ ∞ÚÎ·‰›·

°ÈÒÚÁÔ˜ ™˘ÚfiÔ˘ÏÔ˜

∫™∆’ ∂ÊÔÚÂ›· ¶ÚÔ˚ÛÙÔÚÈÎÒÓ Î·È ∫Ï·ÛÈÎÒÓ ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÙ‹ÙˆÓ, ¶ÂÈÚ·È¿˜

<[email protected]>

∫·Ù¿ ÙË ‰È¿ÚÎÂÈ· Û˘ÛÙËÌ·ÙÈÎÒÓ ·Ó·ÛÎ·ÊÒÓ ÛÙËÓ ¤·˘ÏË ÙÔ˘ ∏ÚÒ‰Ë ∞ÙÙÈÎÔ‡ ÛÙËÓ ∂‡·∫˘ÓÔ˘Ú›·˜ ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ £Âfi‰ˆÚÔ Î·È °ÈÒÚÁÔ ™˘ÚfiÔ˘ÏÔ, ‚Ú¤ıËÎÂ ÛÙÔÓ ÏÂÁfiÌÂÓÔ «∫‹Ô-

™Ù¿‰ÈÔ» ÙË˜ ¤·˘ÏË˜, fiÔ˘ Â›¯Â Î·È ·Ú¯ÈÎ¿ ÛÙËıÂ›, ·Î¤Ê·ÏÔ ¿Á·ÏÌ· ∏Ú·ÎÏ‹, ÂÍ·ÈÚÂÙÈÎ‹˜ ÔÈ-fiÙËÙ·˜ ·ÓÙ›ÁÚ·ÊÔ ÚˆÙfiÙ˘Ô˘ ¤ÚÁÔ˘ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ÙÔ˘ 4Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã.

™ÙËÓ ·ÚÔ‡Û· ÂÚÁ·Û›·, ·Ú¯ÈÎ¿ Á›ÓÂÙ·È ÏÂÙÔÌÂÚ‹˜ ÂÚÈÁÚ·Ê‹ Î·È ·ÔÎ·Ù¿ÛÙ·ÛË ÙÔ˘ ·Á¿Ï-Ì·ÙÔ˜ (ÛÙ¿ÛË ÛÒÌ·ÙÔ˜-·ÔÎ·Ù¿ÛÙ·ÛË ÙË˜ Î›ÓËÛË˜ ÙˆÓ ¯ÂÚÈÒÓ Î·È ÙË˜ ÎÂÊ·Ï‹˜, Ë ÔÔ›· ¤¯ÂÈ·ÔÎÔÂ›, Î.Ù.Ï.). ∆Ô ¿Á·ÏÌ· ·fi ÙËÓ ¤·˘ÏË ÔÌÔÈ¿˙ÂÈ ÛÙ˘ÏÈÛÙÈÎ¿ ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ÏÂÁfiÌÂÓÔ ∏Ú·ÎÏ‹Lansdowne, Ô ÔÔ›Ô˜ ·ÔÙÂÏÂ› ·ÓÙ›ÁÚ·ÊÔ ∞‰ÚÈ¿ÓÂÈ·˜ ÂÚÈfi‰Ô˘ Î·È ¤¯ÂÈ Î·Ù¿ ÎÔÈÓ‹ ÔÌÔÏÔÁ›··Ô‰ÔıÂ› ÛÙÔÓ ™Îfi· ÙË˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘, Î˘Ú›ˆ˜ ÂÍ·ÈÙ›·˜ ÙË˜ ÔÌÔÈfiÙËÙ¿˜ ÙÔ˘ ÌÂ Ù· ÁÏ˘Ù¿ ÙË˜ ∆ÂÁ¤-·˜. ∫·È Ù· ‰‡Ô ·Á¿ÏÌ·Ù· ÔÌÔÈ¿˙Ô˘Ó ·ÚÎÂÙ¿ fiÛÔÓ ·ÊÔÚ¿ ÙË ÁÂÓÈÎ‹ ÛÙ¿ÛË ÙÔ˘ ÛÒÌ·ÙÔ˜, ÙÔ ÛÙ˘ÏÎ·È ÙËÓ ÂÎÙ¤ÏÂÛË Î·È ÙÔÓ ÙÚfiÔ ·fi‰ÔÛË˜ ÙˆÓ Ì˘˚ÎÒÓ ÏÂÙÔÌÂÚÂÈÒÓ. ∫·È ÛÙ· ‰‡Ô Â›Ó·È ÂÌÊ·-Ó‹˜ Ë Â›‰Ú·ÛË ¤ÚÁˆÓ ÙÔ˘ 5Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ·. øÛÙfiÛÔ ÔÈ ‰È·ÊÔÚ¤˜ ·Ó¿ÌÂÛ· ÛÙ· ‰‡Ô ·Á¿ÏÌ·Ù· (.¯. ËÛÙ¿ÛË ÙˆÓ ¯ÂÚÈÒÓ Â›Ó·È ‰È·ÊÔÚÂÙÈÎ‹ Î.Ù.Ï.) Î·ıÈÛÙÔ‡Ó ·Ó·ÁÎ·›· Ì›· ÂÓ‰ÂÏÂ¯‹ Û‡ÁÎÚÈÛË ÙˆÓ‰‡Ô ·ÓÙÈÁÚ¿ÊˆÓ, Ë ÔÔ›· ı· Ì·˜ ÂÈÙÚ¤„ÂÈ Ó· ·Ó·Û˘Óı¤ÛÔ˘ÌÂ Ï‹Úˆ˜ ÙÔÓ Û˘ÁÎÂÎÚÈÌ¤ÓÔ·Á·ÏÌ·ÙÈÎfi Ù‡Ô Î·È Î·Ù¿ Û˘Ó¤ÂÈ· Ó· ÂÍ·ÎÚÈ‚ÒÛÔ˘ÌÂ ÔÈÔ ·fi Ù· ‰‡Ô ·ÓÙ›ÁÚ·Ê· ·Ó··Ú¿ÁÂÈÂÈÛÙÈÎfiÙÂÚ· ÙÔ ·Ú¯ÈÎfi ¤ÚÁÔ.

∫·ıÒ˜ ÙÔ ÛÙ˘Ï ÙÔ˘ ∏Ú·ÎÏ‹ Lansdowne Î·È ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ÁÂÓÈÎfiÙÂÚ· ·ÔÙÂÏÂ› ¤Ó· Â›‰Ô˜«·˙Ï» ÁÈ· ÙÔ˘˜ Û¯ÔÏÈ·ÛÙ¤˜ -Î¿ÔÈÔÈ ‰È·ÎÚ›ÓÔ˘Ó ÈÛ¯˘Ú¤˜ ¶ÔÏ˘ÎÏÂ›ÙÂÈÂ˜ ÂÈ‰Ú¿ÛÂÈ˜, ¿ÏÏÔÈ ÚÔ-Û‹ÏˆÛË ÛÂ Î·ı·Ú¿ ·ÙÙÈÎ¿ ÌÔÙ›‚· ‹ Î·Ï‡ÙÂÚ· Ì›· Û‡˙Â˘ÍË ¶ÂÏÔÔÓÓËÛÈ·ÎÒÓ Î·È ·ÙÙÈÎÒÓÂÈÚÚÔÒÓ- ÈÛÙÂ‡ˆ fiÙÈ ÙÔ Ó¤Ô ¿Á·ÏÌ· ·fi ÙËÓ ¤·˘ÏË, Ë ·ÔÎ·Ù¿ÛÙ·Û‹ ÙÔ˘ Î·È Ë Û‡ÁÎÚÈÛË ÌÂ¤ÚÁ· ÙÔ˘ È‰›Ô˘ Î·ÏÏÈÙ¤¯ÓË, ı· Ì·˜ ÂÈÙÚ¤„Ô˘Ó Ó· ·ÓÙÏ‹ÛÔ˘ÌÂ ÛÙÔÈ¯Â›· ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÙÚÔ›·ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·, ÙË ÁÂÓÈÎ‹ ·ÈÛıËÙÈÎ‹ ÛÙ¿ÛË Ô˘ ‚Ú‹ÎÂ ¤ÎÊÚ·ÛË ÛÙÔ ¤ÚÁÔ ÙÔ˘, ÙÈ˜ ·ÍÈfiÏÔÁÂ˜ Î·È-ÓÔÙÔÌ›Â˜ ÙÔ˘ ÛÙË Û‡ÏÏË„Ë Î·È ÙËÓ ÂÎÙ¤ÏÂÛË Î·È ÙËÓ ÂÈÚÚÔ‹ Ô˘ ÂÓ‰Â¯ÔÌ¤Óˆ˜ ¿ÛÎËÛÂ ÛÙÔ˘˜Û˘Á¯ÚfiÓÔ˘˜ ÙÔ˘.

∆¤ÏÔ˜, Î·ıÒ˜ ÔÏÏ¿ ·fi Ù· ·Á¿ÏÌ·Ù· Ô˘ ‚Ú¤ıËÎ·Ó ÛÙËÓ ¤·˘ÏË Â›¯·Ó Â›ÙÂ ¯ˆÚÈÛÙÂ› ÛÂÛ‡ÓÔÏ· ‹ ÂÎÙ›ıÂÓÙÔ ÛÂ Û˘ÌÌÂÙÚÈÎ¿ ˙Â‡ÁË, Á›ÓÂÙ·È ·Ó·ÊÔÚ¿ ÛÙÔÓ ÁÏ˘Ùfi ‰È¿ÎÔÛÌÔ ÙÔ˘ «∫‹Ô˘-™Ù·‰›Ô˘». ∞¤Ó·ÓÙÈ ·fi ÙÔÓ ∏Ú·ÎÏ‹ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· Â›¯Â ÛÙËıÂ›, fiˆ˜ ¤¯ÂÈ ‹‰Ë ·Ó·ÊÂÚıÂ› ·fi ÙÔÓ˘ÔÁÚ¿ÊÔÓÙ· ÛÂ Û¯ÂÙÈÎ¤˜ ‰ËÌÔÛÈÂ‡ÛÂÈ˜, ¤Ó· ¿ÏÏÔ ¿Á·ÏÌ· ÙÔ˘ ‹Úˆ·, Ô ÔÔ›Ô˜ ÎÚ·Ù¿ÂÈ ÛÙÔ ·ÚÈ-ÛÙÂÚfi ¯¤ÚÈ Ì‹Ï· ÙˆÓ ∂ÛÂÚ›‰ˆÓ, Èı·ÓfiÓ ·ÓÙ›ÁÚ·ÊÔ ¤ÚÁÔ˘ ÙÔ˘ §˘Û›Ô˘.



A New Statue of Herakles from the Villa of Herodes Attikos in Arkadia

During systematic excavations undertaken by Theodore Spyropoulos and George Spy-ropoulos in the Villa of Herodes AtticÔs at Eva in Arkadia, a headless statue of Herak-

les, an excellent copy of an original made by Skopas in the 4th century BC, was found in theso-called "Garden-Stadion" of the Villa, where it originally stood.

In the present paper, the new statue will be fully described and reconstructed (generalpose, position of the arms and head, which is now missing, etc.). The statue resembles sty-listically the so-called Herakles Lansdowne, a Hadrianic copy of a 4th century BC originalgenerally attributed to Skopas, mainly because of its resemblance to the Tegean sculptures.Both statues seem to be quite similar in pose, proportions, style and execution, and the waymusculature is rendered. They both seem to be influenced by 5th century models. Howeverthe differences between the two works (e.g., the different position of arms, etc.) necessitatea detailed comparison which can give us the overall composition (reconstruction) of the statuetype and at the same time reliable information on details, for example as to whether theLansdowne Herakles or the one from the Villa most objectively reproduces the ancientGreek original.

Since the style of the Herakles Lansdowne and of Skopas in general has always been a“puzzle” to scholars -some trace Polykleitan influences, while others see dependence onpurest Attic types or a blend of Peloponnesian and Athenian traits- I believe that the recon-struction and the comparison of the statue from the Villa with works attributed to the sameartist, will allow us to draw conclusions on the style of the artist, the general aesthetic atti-tude which found expression in his work, his remarkable innovations in style and executionand his influence on his contemporaries.

Finally, since many of the statues found in the Villa were either divided into groups ordisplayed as symmetrical pairs, reference will be made to the sculptural decoration of the"Garden-Stadion" of the Villa. As the author has already noted in previous publications, itseems that a statue of Herakles holding in his left hand the apples of the Hesperides, proba-bly copying a work of Lysippos, was set up opposite the Skopaic Herakles.



™ÎÔ¿‰ÂÈ· ∂ÚÁ· ÛÙ· ª¤Á·Ú·

™Ù¤ÏÏ· ¢Ú¤ÓË

°’ ∂ÊÔÚÂ›· ¶ÚÔ˚ÛÙÔÚÈÎÒÓ Î·È ∫Ï·ÛÈÎÒÓ ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÙ‹ÙˆÓ, ∞ı‹Ó·

<[email protected]>

ªÂÙ¿ ÙÔ ¤Ú·˜ ÙÔ˘ ¶ÂÏÔÔÓÓËÛÈ·ÎÔ‡ ¶ÔÏ¤ÌÔ˘ Ë fiÏË ÙˆÓ ªÂÁ¿ÚˆÓ ÂÈ‰fiıËÎÂ ÛÂ Ì›·¤ÓÙÔÓË ‰Ú·ÛÙËÚÈfiÙËÙ· ·ÓÔÈÎÔ‰fiÌËÛË˜. ∏ ÔÏÈÙÈÎ‹ Ô˘ ·ÎÔÏÔ˘ı‹ıËÎÂ Ì¤¯ÚÈ Î·È Ù· Ì¤-

Û· ÙÔ˘ 4Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã., ÙË˜ Â¤ÙÚÂ„Â Ó· ÊÙ¿ÛÂÈ ÛÙÔ ·fiÁÂÈÔ ÙË˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹˜ ÙË˜ ·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË˜.∫·Ù¿ÊÂÚÂ Ó· ÎÚ·Ù‹ÛÂÈ Ì›· ÛÙ¿ÛË Ô˘‰ÂÙÂÚfiÙËÙ·˜, Î·È ÛÂ ÔÚÈÛÌ¤ÓÂ˜ ÂÚÈÙÒÛÂÈ˜, ·ıËÙÈÎfiÙË-Ù·˜ Ô˘ ÙË˜ Â¤ÙÚÂ„·Ó Ó· ‚ÁÂÈ ·ÏÒ‚ËÙË ·fi ·ÌÊÈÛ‚ËÙ‹ÛÂÈ˜ Î·È Û˘ÁÎÚÔ‡ÛÂÈ˜ Ô˘ ÂÎÙ˘Ï›¯ıË-Î·Ó Á‡Úˆ ·fi ÙËÓ ÂÚÈÔ¯‹ ÙË˜, Ó· ‰È·ÙËÚ‹ÛÂÈ ÙËÓ ÂÈÚ‹ÓË ÛÙÔ ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈÎfi ÙË˜ Î·È Ó· Â˘ËÌÂÚ‹-ÛÂÈ ÛÂ fiÏÔ˘˜ ÙÔ˘˜ ÙÔÌÂ›˜.

ª›· ·fi ÙÈ̃ ÂÎÊ¿ÓÛÂÈ̃ ·˘Ù‹˜ ÙË˜ ÁÂÓÈÎfiÙÂÚË˜ Â˘ËÌÂÚ›·˜ ‹Ù·Ó Î·È Ô Î·ÏÏˆÈÛÌfi˜ ÙË˜ fiÏË .̃™ÙÔÓ 4Ô ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã., ·ÊÔ‡ ÍÂ¤Ú·ÛÂ fiÏÂ˜ ÙÈ̃ ‰˘ÛÎÔÏ›Â˜ Ô˘ ÁÓÒÚÈÛÂ ÂÍ·ÈÙ›·˜ ÙÔ˘ ¶ÂÏÔÔÓÓËÛÈ·-ÎÔ‡ ÔÏ¤ÌÔ˘ Î·È Î·Ù¿ÊÂÚÂ Ó· Êı¿ÛÂÈ ÛÂ Ì›· È‰È·›ÙÂÚË ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹ ¿ÓıËÛË, Î·Ù·ÛÎÂ˘¿ÛÙËÎ·Ó Ó¤·‰ËÌfiÛÈ· ÎÙ›ÚÈ· Î·È ÂÈÛÎÂ˘¿ÛÙËÎ·Ó Ù· ·Ï·ÈfiÙÂÚ·, ÂÓÒ ÂÚÁ¿ÛÙËÎ·Ó ÛÂ ·˘Ù‹Ó ·ÚÎÂÙÔ› ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ÁÓˆÛÙÔ‡˜ Î·ÏÏÈÙ¤¯ÓÂ˜ ÙË˜ ÂÚÈfi‰Ô .̆ ∏ ‚·ÛÈÎfiÙÂÚË ËÁ‹ Ì·˜ ÁÈ· ·˘Ù‹ ÙËÓ ¤ÓÙÔÓË ‰Ú·ÛÙËÚÈfiÙËÙ·Î·ÏÏˆÈÛÌÔ‡ Â›Ó·È Ô ¶·˘Û·Ó›· ,̃ Ô ÔÔ›Ô˜ Î¿ÓÂÈ ÏfiÁÔ ÁÈ· ¤Ó· Ï‹ıÔ˜ ·Á·ÏÌ¿ÙˆÓ, ¤ÚÁ· ÙˆÓ ¶Ú·-ÍÈÙ¤ÏË, µÚ‡·ÍË, §˘Û›Ô˘ Î·È ™Îfi·, Ù· ÔÔ›· ÎÔÛÌÔ‡Û·Ó ÙÔ˘˜ Ó·Ô‡˜ Î·È Ù· ÈÂÚ¿ ÙË˜ fiÏË .̃

∞ÓÙÈÎÂ›ÌÂÓÔ ÙË˜ ·ÚÔ‡ÛË˜ ÔÌÈÏ›·˜ ı· ·ÔÙÂÏ¤ÛÔ˘Ó Ù· ¤ÚÁ· ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· Ô˘ ÛÙ¤ÎÔÓÙ·Ó ÛÙÔÓÓ·fi ÙË˜ ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË˜ ÛÙ· ª¤Á·Ú·. ™‡ÌÊˆÓ· ÌÂ ÙËÓ ·Ó·ÊÔÚ¿ ÙÔ˘ ¶·˘Û·Ó›· Ô ∂Úˆ˜, Ô πÌÂÚÔ˜ Î·È Ô¶fiıÔ˜ Ô˘ ÛÙ¤ÎÔÓÙ·Ó ÛÙÔ ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈÎfi ÙÔ˘ Ó·Ô‡ ·˘ÙÔ‡ ‹Ù·Ó ÛÎÔ¿‰ÂÈ·. ¢˘ÛÙ˘¯Ò˜ Î·Ó¤Ó· ·fi Ù·¤ÚÁ· ·˘Ù¿ ‰ÂÓ Ì·˜ ÛÒ˙ÂÙ·È. ∂ÙÛÈ ı· ÂÈ¯ÂÈÚËıÂ› Ì›· ÚÔÛ¤ÁÁÈÛË ·˘ÙÒÓ ÙˆÓ ·Á·ÏÌ·ÙÈÎÒÓ Ù‡ˆÓ,Û‡ÌÊˆÓ· ÌÂ Ù· ·Ú¿ÏÏËÏ· ·fi ·ÓÙ›ÁÚ·Ê· ¤ÚÁˆÓ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi·, ÂÓÒ ı· ·ÚÔ˘ÛÈ·ÛÙÂ› Î·È Ì›· Û¯Â-‰È·ÛÙÈÎ‹ ÚÔÛ¤ÁÁÈÛË ÙˆÓ ›‰ÈˆÓ ÙˆÓ ·Á·ÏÌ¿ÙˆÓ Î·È ÙË˜ ı¤ÛË˜ ÙÔ˘˜ ÛÙÔ ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈÎfi ÙÔ˘ Ó·Ô‡.

The works of Skopas in Megara

After the end of the Peloponnesian War the city of Megara engaged in an intense programof reconstruction. The policy that was followed until the middle of the 4th century BC al-

lowed the city to reach the apogee of its economic development. Megara managed to stay neu-tral, occasionally even passive, stayed intact during the disputes and conflicts that unfoldedaround its territory, and therefore kept its internal peace and enjoyed a general prosperity.

Among the outcomes of this prosperity was the beautification of the city. During the 4thcentury BC, it recovered from the difficulties caused by the Peloponnesian War and experi-enced an economic renaissance. New public buildings were built and older ones were re-paired, and many famous artists of that period worked there. The most important source forthis activity in Megara is Pausanias, who mentions a considerable number of statues by Praxi-teles, Bryaxis, Lysippos and Skopas that stood in the city temples and sanctuaries.

The works of Skopas set up in the temple of Aphrodite in Megara are the subject of thepresent study. According to Pausanias these statues were Eros, Himeros and Pothos. A typo-logical approach to these statues will be attempted here, as it can be deduced through theparallels provided by copies of Skopas’ works, and a reconstruction both of the statues them-selves and of their location inside the temple will be made.



The Marble Statue of Eros Ceraunophoros Attributed to Skopas

Antonio Corso

Numismatica e antichita classiche, Quaderni ticinesi, Switzerland

<[email protected]>

Pliny (36.28) mentions a marble statue of Eros Keraunophoros: “Equally there is a con-troversy about the Cupid Holding a Thunderbolt in the Hall of Octavia as to whether he

was the work of Skopas or of Praxiteles. Only one thing is stated with conviction, namelythat the figure is that of Alkibiades, the most handsome youth of that time”.

It is likely that the statue portrayed Alkibiades as the most beautiful among mortals, andthus worthy to lend his features to Eros, the most beautiful of the gods. In fact, Clement(Protrepticus 4. 47) wrote that at Athens marble sculptors of old kept the habit of portrayingAlkibiades as the supreme emblem of male beauty: “When Phryne the Thespian courtesanwas in her flower, the painters used all to imitate her beauty in their pictures of Aphrodite,just as the marble sculptors copied Alkibiades in their busts at Athens”.

It is probable that Alkibiades was portrayed as Eros Keraunophoros because the emblemof his shield was exactly an Eros holding a thunderbolt. Plutarch (Alkibiades, 16.1-2) wrote:“He had a golden shield made for himself, bearing no ancestral device, but an Eros armedwith a thunderbolt”. Athenaios (12.534 e) is also enlightening: “When Alkibiades was a gen-eral he wanted to be a dandy still: he carried, for example, a shield made of gold and ivory,on which there was the device of Eros with a thunderbolt poised as a javelin”. This emblemis probably copied on a late 5th century BC gem. It is clear that this Eros emblematized Alki-biades’ life style: he claimed to be first both in war and in beauty and love.

It is probable that in late Classical times the marble statue of Alkibiades as Eros Holdingthe Thunderbolt was set up in the context of the social world of the Academy of Plato. Infact the association of Alkibiades with Eros was promoted especially by Plato in his Sympo-sium. We can get closer to this creation thanks to the following epigram in Anthologia Grae-ca (16.250): “To a statue of Eros. See how winged Eros is breaking the winged thunderbolt,showing that there is a fire stronger than fire”.

The configuration of this creation may be recognized thanks to a middle Hellenistic cor-naline at The Hague, Royal Coin Cabinet no. 323. Eros on this gem matches the description ofthe epigram perfectly. The muscular concept of Eros’ body, his nervous attitude, his stockyhead, his projecting nose, finally his wholly hair suggest that the attribution to Skopas is theright one. The attribution to Praxiteles may have become established because of the canonicalassociation of the Athenian master with Eros. Since the portrait of Alkibiades is thought tohave been the first endowed with the sense of pathos, Skopas’ study of this subject may havebeen crucial toward his establishment of an aesthetics based on pathos.

The statue was taken from Athens to Rome probably during the early Augustan period whenAugustus, angry against Athens because it sided with Antonius, removed many of statues fromthe city and set them up in several Roman buildings including the Porticus Octaviae, wherePliny saw this masterpiece. Finally during the Augustan period the statue was probably copiedat Side: the base of a lost statue bears a metric inscription, an epigram with the dedication ofan Eros with a thunderbolt to Aphrodite. Its wording echoes that of Greek Anthology 16.250.



∆Ô ª·ÚÌ¿ÚÈÓÔ ∞Á·ÏÌ· ÙÔ˘ ∂ÚˆÙ· ∫ÂÚ·˘ÓÔÊfiÚÔ˘ Ô˘ ∞Ô‰›‰ÂÙ·È ÛÙÔÓ ™Îfi·

√¶Ï›ÓÈÔ˜ (36.28) ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÂÈ ¤Ó· Ì·ÚÌ¿ÚÈÓÔ ¿Á·ÏÌ· ÙÔ˘ ∂ÚˆÙ· ∫ÂÚ·˘ÓÔÊfiÚÔ˘. «À¿Ú¯ÂÈÂ›ÛË˜ ÌÈ· ‰È·Ì¿¯Ë Â¿Ó Ô ∂Úˆ˜ Ô˘ ÎÚ·Ù¿ ¤Ó·Ó ÎÂÚ·˘Ófi ÛÙËÓ ·›ıÔ˘Û· ÙË˜ Octavia ‹Ù·Ó

¤ÚÁÔ ÙÔ˘ ™Îfi· ‹ ÙÔ˘ ¶Ú·ÍÈÙ¤ÏË. ªfiÓÔ ¤Ó· Ú¿ÁÌ· ‰ËÏÒÓÂÙ·È ÌÂ ÛÈÁÔ˘ÚÈ¿, ‰ËÏ·‰‹ fiÙÈ ËÌÔÚÊ‹ ·˘Ù‹ Â›Ó·È ÙÔ˘ ∞ÏÎÈ‚È¿‰Ë, ÙÔ˘ ÈÔ fiÌÔÚÊÔ˘ ¤ÊË‚Ô˘ ÂÎÂ›ÓË˜ ÙË˜ ÂÔ¯‹˜».

πÛˆ˜ ÙÔ ¿Á·ÏÌ· ·ÂÈÎfiÓÈ˙Â ÙÔÓ ∞ÏÎÈ‚È¿‰Ë ˆ˜ ÙÔÓ ÈÔ fiÌÔÚÊÔ ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ÙˆÓ ıÓËÙÒÓ, Î·È ˆ˜ ÂÎÙÔ‡ÙÔ˘ ¿ÍÈÔ Ó· ‰·ÓÂ›ÛÂÈ Ù· ¯·Ú·ÎÙËÚÈÛÙÈÎ¿ ÙÔ˘ ÛÙÔÓ ∂ÚˆÙ·, ÙÔÓ ÈÔ fiÌÔÚÊÔ ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ ıÂÔ‡˜.™ÙËÓ Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÈÎfiÙËÙ· Ô ∫Ï‹ÌË˜ (Protrepticus 4. 47), ¤ÁÚ·„Â fiÙÈ ÛÙËÓ ∞ı‹Ó· ÔÈ ÁÏ‡ÙÂ˜ ·fi·ÏÈ¿ ‰È·ÙËÚÔ‡Û·Ó ÙË Û˘Ó‹ıÂÈ· Ó· ÂÌÊ·Ó›˙Ô˘Ó ÙÔÓ ∞ÏÎÈ‚È¿‰Ë ˆ˜ ÙÔ ˘¤ÚÙ·ÙÔ ¤Ì‚ÏËÌ· ÙË˜ ·Ó-‰ÚÈÎ‹˜ ÔÌÔÚÊÈ¿˜: «√Ù·Ó Ë ºÚ‡ÓË, Ë ÂÙ·›Ú· ·fi ÙÈ˜ £ÂÛÈ¤˜ ‹Ù·Ó ÛÙËÓ ·ÎÌ‹ ÙË˜, fiÏÔÈ ÔÈ ̇ ˆÁÚ¿-ÊÔÈ Û˘Ó‹ıÈ˙·Ó Ó· ÌÈÌÔ‡ÓÙ·È ÙËÓ ÔÌÔÚÊÈ¿ ÙË˜ ÛÙÈ˜ ·ÂÈÎÔÓ›ÛÂÈ˜ ÙÔ˘˜ ÙË˜ ıÂ¿˜ ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË˜, fiˆ˜·ÎÚÈ‚Ò˜ ÔÈ ÁÏ‡ÙÂ˜ ÙÔ˘ Ì·ÚÌ¿ÚÔ˘ ·ÓÙ¤ÁÚ·Ê·Ó ÙÔÓ ∞ÏÎÈ‚È¿‰Ë ÛÙÈ˜ ÚÔÙÔÌ¤˜ ÙÔ˘˜ ÛÙËÓ ∞ı‹Ó·».

√ ∞ÏÎÈ‚È¿‰Ë˜ ·ÂÈÎÔÓ›ÛÙËÎÂ Èı·ÓfiÓ ˆ˜ ∂Úˆ˜ ∫ÂÚ·˘ÓÔÊfiÚÔ˜ ÂÂÈ‰‹ ÙÔ ¤Ì‚ÏËÌ· ÙË˜ ·Û›-‰·˜ ÙÔ˘ ‹Ù·Ó ·ÎÚÈ‚Ò˜ ¤Ó·˜ ∂ÚˆÙ·˜ Ô˘ ÎÚ·Ù¿ ÎÂÚ·˘Ófi. √ ¶ÏÔ‡Ù·Ú¯Ô˜ (∞ÏÎ. 16. 1-2) ¤ÁÚ·„Â:«∂›¯Â ÌÈ· ¯Ú˘Û‹ ·Û›‰· Ô˘ Î·Ù·ÛÎÂ˘¿ÛÙËÎÂ ÁÈ· ÙÔÓ ›‰ÈÔ, ¯ˆÚ›˜ Ó· Ê¤ÚÂÈ ÚÔÁÔÓÈÎfi ¤Ì‚ÏËÌ·,·ÏÏ¿ ¤Ó·Ó ∂ÚˆÙ· ÔÏÈÛÌ¤ÓÔ ÌÂ ¤Ó· ÎÂÚ·˘Ófi». √ ∞ı‹Ó·ÈÔ˜ (12. 534 e) Â›Ó·È Â›ÛË˜ ‰È·ÊˆÙÈ-ÛÙÈÎfi˜: «√Ù·Ó Ô ∞ÏÎÈ‚È¿‰Ë˜ ‹Ù·Ó ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁfi˜ ¤ÊÂÚÂ, ÁÈ· ·Ú¿‰ÂÈÁÌ·, ·Û›‰· ·fi ¯Ú˘Ûfi Î·ÈÂÏÂÊ·ÓÙfi‰ÔÓÙÔ, ÌÂ ÙË ÌÔÚÊ‹ ÙÔ˘ ∂ÚˆÙ· Ó· ÎÚ·Ù¿ ÎÂÚ·˘Ófi Û·Ó ·ÎfiÓÙÈÔ». ∞˘Ùfi ÙÔ ¤Ì‚ÏËÌ··ÓÙÈÁÚ¿ÊÂÙ·È Èı·ÓÒ˜ ÛÂ ‰·ÎÙ˘ÏÈfiÏÈıÔ ÙÔ˘ Ù¤ÏÔ˘˜ ÙÔ˘ 5Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ· .Ã. ∂›Ó·È Û·Ê¤˜ fiÙÈ ·˘Ùfi˜ Ô∂Úˆ˜ ·ÔÙÂÏÔ‡ÛÂ ¤Ì‚ÏËÌ· ÙÔ˘ ÙÚfiÔ˘ ˙ˆ‹˜ ÙÔ˘ ∞ÏÎÈ‚È¿‰Ë: ÈÛ¯˘ÚÈ˙fiÙ·Ó fiÙÈ ‹Ù·Ó Ô ÚÒÙÔ˜,ÙfiÛÔ ÛÙÔÓ fiÏÂÌÔ fiÛÔ Î·È ÛÙËÓ ÔÌÔÚÊÈ¿ Î·È ÛÙÔÓ ¤ÚˆÙ·.

∂›Ó·È Èı·Ófi fiÙÈ ÛÙËÓ ˘ÛÙÂÚÔÎÏ·ÛÈÎ‹ ÂÚ›Ô‰Ô ÙÔ Ì·ÚÌ¿ÚÈÓÔ ¿Á·ÏÌ· ÙÔ˘ ∞ÏÎÈ‚È¿‰Ë ˆ˜ ∂Úˆ-Ù· Ô˘ ÎÚ·Ù¿ ¤Ó·Ó ÎÂÚ·˘Ófi ·ÓÂÁ¤ÚıËÎÂ ÛÙÔ Ï·›ÛÈÔ ÙÔ˘ ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎÔ‡ ÎfiÛÌÔ˘ ÙË˜ ∞Î·‰ËÌ›·˜ÙÔ˘ ¶Ï¿ÙˆÓ·. ™ÙËÓ Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÈÎfiÙËÙ·, Ë Û˘Û¯¤ÙÈÛË ÙÔ˘ ∞ÏÎÈ‚È¿‰Ë ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ∂ÚˆÙ· ÚÔˆı‹ıËÎÂÎ˘Ú›ˆ˜ ·fi ÙÔÓ ¶Ï¿ÙˆÓ· ÛÙÔ ¤ÚÁÔ ÙÔ˘ ™˘ÌfiÛÈÔ. ªÔÚÔ‡ÌÂ Ó· ¤ÚıÔ˘ÌÂ ÈÔ ÎÔÓÙ¿ ÛÂ ·˘Ù‹ ÙË‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ›· ¯¿ÚË ÛÙÔ ·ÎfiÏÔ˘ıÔ Â›ÁÚ·ÌÌ· ·fi ÙËÓ ∂ÏÏËÓÈÎ‹ ∞ÓıÔÏÔÁ›· (16. 250): «™Â ¤Ó·¿Á·ÏÌ· ÙÔ˘ ∂ÚˆÙ·. ¢Â›ÙÂ Ò˜ Ô ÊÙÂÚˆÙfi˜ ∂ÚˆÙ·˜ Û¿ÂÈ ÙÔÓ ÊÙÂÚˆÙfi ÎÂÚ·˘Ófi ‰Â›¯ÓÔÓÙ·˜ fiÙÈ˘¿Ú¯ÂÈ ÌÈ· ˘ÚÎ·ÁÈ¿ ÈÛ¯˘ÚfiÙÂÚË ·fi ÊˆÙÈ¿».

∆Ô Û¯‹Ì· ·˘Ù‹˜ ÙË˜ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ›·˜ ÌÔÚÂ› Ó· ·Ó·ÁÓˆÚÈÛÙÂ› ÛÂ ¤Ó· ÎÔÚÓËÏÈ·Ófi Ï›ıÔ ÙˆÓ Ì¤-ÛˆÓ ∂ÏÏËÓÈÛÙÈÎÒÓ ¯ÚfiÓˆÓ (Royal Coin Cabinet no. 323, Ã¿ÁË), fiÔ˘ Ë ·ÂÈÎfiÓÈÛË ÙÔ˘ ∂Úˆ-Ù· Ù·ÈÚÈ¿˙ÂÈ Ù¤ÏÂÈ· ÌÂ ÙËÓ ÂÚÈÁÚ·Ê‹ ÙÔ˘ ÂÈÁÚ¿ÌÌ·ÙÔ˜. ∏ Ì˘˚Î‹ Û‡ÏÏË„Ë ÙÔ˘ ÛÒÌ·ÙÔ˜ ÙÔ˘∂ÚˆÙ·, Ë ÓÂ˘ÚÈÎ‹ ÛÙ¿ÛË ÙÔ˘, ÙÔ ÎÔÓÙfi¯ÔÓÙÚÔ ÎÂÊ¿ÏÈ, Ë ÚÔ‚·ÏÏfiÌÂÓË Ì‡ÙË, Ë ·fi‰ÔÛË ÙˆÓÌ·ÏÏÈÒÓ, ‰Â›¯ÓÔ˘Ó fiÙÈ Ë Û˘Û¯¤ÙÈÛ‹ ÙÔ˘ ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ™Îfi· Â›Ó·È Ë ÛˆÛÙ‹. ∏ Û¯ÂÙÈÎ‹ ·fi‰ÔÛË ÛÙÔÓ¶Ú·ÍÈÙ¤ÏË Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· Î·ıÈÂÚÒıËÎÂ ÂÍ·ÈÙ›·˜ ÙË˜ Î‡ÚÈ·˜ Û‡Ó‰ÂÛË˜ ÙÔ˘ ·ıËÓ·›Ô˘ Î·ÏÏÈÙ¤¯ÓË ÌÂÙÔÓ ∂ÚˆÙ·. ¢Â‰ÔÌ¤ÓÔ˘ fiÙÈ ÙÔ ÔÚÙÚ·›ÙÔ ÙÔ˘ ∞ÏÎÈ‚È¿‰Ë ıÂˆÚÂ›Ù·È fiÙÈ ‹Ù·Ó ÙÔ ÚÒÙÔ ÔÚÙÚ·›-ÙÔ Ô˘ ·¤‰È‰Â ÙËÓ ¤ÓÓÔÈ· ÙÔ˘ ¿ıÔ˘˜, Ë ÌÂÏ¤ÙË ·˘ÙÔ‡ ÙÔ˘ ı¤Ì·ÙÔ˜ ·fi ÙÔÓ ™Îfi· ÌÔÚÂ› Ó·‹Ù·Ó ·ÔÊ·ÛÈÛÙÈÎ‹˜ ÛËÌ·Û›·˜ ˆ˜ ÚÔ˜ ÙËÓ Î·ıÈ¤ÚˆÛË ÙË˜ ·ÈÛıËÙÈÎ‹˜ Î·ÙÂ‡ı˘ÓÛË˜ Ô˘ ‚·Û›-˙ÂÙ·È ÛÙËÓ ·fi‰ÔÛË ÙÔ˘ ¿ıÔ˘˜.

∆Ô ¿Á·ÏÌ· ÙÔ˘ ∂ÚˆÙ· ÌÂÙ·Ê¤ÚıËÎÂ ·fi ÙËÓ ∞ı‹Ó· ÛÙË ƒÒÌË, Èı·ÓÒ˜ ÛÙÔ˘˜ ÚÒÈÌÔ˘˜ ·˘-ÙÔÎÚ·ÙÔÚÈÎÔ‡˜ ¯ÚfiÓÔ˘˜, fiÙ·Ó Ô ∞‡ÁÔ˘ÛÙÔ˜, ÔÚÁÈÛÌ¤ÓÔ˜ ÌÂ ÙËÓ ∞ı‹Ó· ÂÂÈ‰‹ Û˘ÓÙ¿¯ıËÎÂ ÌÂÙÔÓ ∞ÓÙÒÓÈÔ, ÌÂÙ¤ÊÂÚÂ ÔÏÏ¿ ·Á¿ÏÌ·Ù· ·fi ÙËÓ fiÏË Î·È Ù· ¤ÛÙËÛÂ ÛÂ ÔÏÏ¿ ÎÙ›ÚÈ· Î·È ÛÙË™ÙÔ¿ ÙË˜ Octavia, fiÔ˘ Ô ¶Ï›ÓÈÔ˜ Â›‰Â ·˘Ùfi ÙÔ ·ÚÈÛÙÔ‡ÚÁËÌ·. ∆¤ÏÔ˜, Î·Ù¿ ÙËÓ ÂÚ›Ô‰Ô ÙÔ˘∞˘ÁÔ‡ÛÙÔ˘ ÙÔ ¿Á·ÏÌ· ·ÓÙÈÁÚ¿ÊËÎÂ Î·Ù¿ ¿Û· Èı·ÓfiÙËÙ· ÛÙË ™›‰Ë, fiÔ˘ Ë ‚¿ÛË ÂÓfi˜ ¯·Ì¤-ÓÔ˘ ¿Á·ÏÌ·ÙÔ˜ Ê¤ÚÂÈ Ì›· ÌÂÙÚÈÎ‹ ÂÈÁÚ·Ê‹, ¤Ó· Â›ÁÚ·ÌÌ· ·ÊÈ¤ÚˆÛË˜ ÂÓfi˜ ∂ÚˆÙ· ÌÂ ÎÂÚ·˘-Ófi ÛÙËÓ ∞ÊÚÔ‰›ÙË. ∆Ô Â›ÁÚ·ÌÌ· ·ÓÙ·Ó·ÎÏ¿ ÂÎÂ›ÓÔ ÙË˜ ∂ÏÏËÓÈÎ‹˜ ∞ÓıÔÏÔÁ›·˜ (16.250).


KATA§O°O™ ™YNE¢PøN

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Aileen Ajootian

Department of Classics

University of Mississippi

University, MS 38677, USA

<[email protected]>

Anton Bammer

Crisler Library at Ephesos

Anton Kallinger Cad. No. 40

35920 Selcuk-Izmir, Turkey

<[email protected]>

Beryl Barr-Sharrar

Institute of Fine Arts

New York University

311 East 72nd Street

New York, NY 10021, USA

<[email protected]>

<[email protected]>

Giuliana Calcani

Dipartimento di Studi Storico-Artistici

Archeologici e Sulla Conservazione

Universita degli Studi “Roma Tre”

Piazza Della Repubblica 10

00185 Roma, Italy

<[email protected]>

Antonio Corso

Numismatica e Antichita Classiche

Quaderni Ticinesi

Lugano, CH-6901, Switzerland

<[email protected]>

AÁÁÂÏÔ˜ ¢ÂÏË‚ÔÚÚÈ¿˜

ªÔ˘ÛÂ›Ô ªÂÓ¿ÎË

∫Ô˘Ì¿ÚË 1, 10674 ∞ı‹Ó·

<[email protected]>

™Ù¤ÏÏ· ¢Ú¤ÓË

°' ∂ÊÔÚÂ›· ¶ÚÔ˚ÛÙÔÚÈÎÒÓ Î·È

∫Ï·ÛÈÎÒÓ ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÙ‹ÙˆÓ

∞ÈfiÏÔ˘ 1 Î·È ¶ÂÏÔ›‰·, 10555 ∞ı‹Ó·

<[email protected]>

Wilfred Geominy

Akademisches Kunstmuseum

Am Hofgarten 21

53113 Bonn, Germany

<[email protected]>

Elena Ghisellini

Archeologia e Storia dell' Arte Greca e Romana,

Facolta di Lettere e filosofia

Universita degli Studi di Roma “Tor Vergata”

Piazza Zama 3, 00183 Roma, Italy

<[email protected]>

<[email protected]>

Filippo Giudice

Dipartimento di Studi Archeologici

Filologici e Storici

Università degli Studi di Catania

Via Biblioteca 2, Palazzo Ingrassia

95124 Catania, Italy

<[email protected]>

¶¤ÙÚÔ˜ °. £¤ÌÂÏË˜

∂Ù·ÈÚÂ›· ªÂÛÛËÓÈ·ÎÒÓ ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏÔÁÈÎÒÓ ªÂÏÂÙÒÓ

æ·ÚÔÌËÏ›ÁÎÔ˘ 33, 10553 ∞ı‹Ó·

<[email protected]>

∫·ÙÂÚ›Ó· ∫·Ú·Î¿ÛË

ÀÔ˘ÚÁÂ›Ô ¶ÔÏÈÙÈÛÌÔ‡ Î·È ∆Ô˘ÚÈÛÌÔ‡

°Ú·ÊÂ›Ô ∂.√.∆. ºÚ·ÓÎÊÔ‡ÚÙË˜

Schloss Str. 19, 60486 Frankfurt ª/Germany

<[email protected]>

¡ÙfiÚ· ∫·ÙÛˆÓÔÔ‡ÏÔ˘

πÓÛÙÈÙÔ‡ÙÔ ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏÔÁ›·˜ ¶¿ÚÔ˘ Î·È ∫˘ÎÏ¿‰ˆÓ

™ÔÏˆÌÔ‡ 58, 10682 ∞ı‹Ó·

[email protected]

Marie Kluge

Department of Classical Archaeology

University of Copenhagen, Denmark

<[email protected]>


°È¿ÓÓÔ˜ ∫Ô˘Ú¿ÁÈÔ˜

∫A’ ∂ÊÔÚÂ›· ¶ÚÔ˚ÛÙÔÚÈÎÒÓ Î·È


∂·ÌÂÈÓÒÓ‰· 10, 10555 ∞ı‹Ó·

<[email protected]>

¢ËÌ‹ÙÚË˜ ∫Ô‡ÛÔ˘Ï·˜

¢’ ∂ÊÔÚÂ›· ¶ÚÔ˚ÛÙÔÚÈÎÒÓ Î·È


¶Ï·ÙÂ›· ™˘ÓÙ¿ÁÌ·ÙÔ˜, 21200 ¡·‡ÏÈÔ

[email protected]

πÊÈÁ¤ÓÂÈ· §Â‚¤ÓÙË

∆Ì‹Ì· πÛÙÔÚ›·˜, ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏÔÁ›·˜ Î·È

∫ÔÈÓˆÓÈÎ‹˜ ∞ÓıÚˆÔÏÔÁ›·˜

¶·ÓÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÈÔ £ÂÛÛ·Ï›·˜

∞ÚÁÔÓ·˘ÙÒÓ Î·È ºÈÏÂÏÏ‹ÓˆÓ, 38221 µfiÏÔ˜

<[email protected]>

<[email protected]>

Ersilia Lopes

Via Antonio Labranca 20

I-00123 Roma, Italy

<[email protected]>

Claudia Lucchese

Dipartimento di Scienze dell’ Antichità

Università degli Studi di Bari

Palazzo Ateneo – Piazza Umberto I, 1

70121 Bari, Italy

<[email protected]>

Clemente Marconi

Institute of Fine Arts

New York University

1 East 78th Street, New York, NY 10075

<[email protected]>

°ÂÒÚÁÈÔ˜ ªÔÛÙÚ¿ÙÔ˜

¶·ÓÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÈÔ ∞ıËÓÒÓ

™ÒÛÔ˘ 18, µ‡ÚˆÓ·˜, 16233 ∞ı‹Ó·

<[email protected]>

µ·ÛÈÏÈÎ‹ ª¿ÚÏÔ˘

Winckelmann Institute

Humboldt- Universitat zu Berlin

Unter den Linden 6

10099 Berlin, Germany

<[email protected]>

Ulrike Muss

Crisler Library at Ephesos

Anton Kallinger Cad. No. 40

35920 Selcuk-Izmir, Turkey

<[email protected]>

Aenne Ohnesorg

Technical University of Munich

Lehrstuhl f¸r Baugeschichte

80290 M¸nchen, Germany

<[email protected]>

Christine Özgan

Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi

Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi

Arkeoloji Bölümü

Meclisi Mebusan Cad./ORYA Han 85B

34427 Findikli-Instabul, Turkey

<[email protected]>

Erik Ostby

Institute of Archaeology, ∏istory

Cultural Studies and Religion

University of Bergen

Box 7805, 5020 Bergen, Norway

<[email protected]>

OÏÁ· ¶·Ï·ÁÁÈ¿

∆Ì‹Ì· πÛÙÔÚ›·˜ Î·È ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÏÔÁ›·˜

¶·ÓÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÈÔ ∞ıËÓÒÓ, 15784 ∞ı‹Ó·

<[email protected]>

∂ÏÂÓ· ¶·ÚÙ›‰·

I’ ∂ÊÔÚÂ›· ¶ÚÔ˚ÛÙÔÚÈÎÒÓ Î·È

∫Ï·ÛÈÎÒÓ ∞Ú¯·ÈÔÙ‹ÙˆÓ, ¢ÂÏÊÔ›

ºÚÔ˘Ú›Ô˘ 8, 33100 ∞ÌÊÈÛÛ· ºˆÎ›‰Ô˜

<[email protected]>

Poul Pedersen

The Danish Halikarnassos Project

Department of Classical Studies

University of Southern Denmark

5230 Odense M, Denmark

<[email protected]>

πˆ¿ÓÓË˜ ¶ÂÙÚfiÔ˘ÏÔ˜

¢ËÌÔÎÚ›ÙÂÈÔ ¶·ÓÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÈÔ £Ú¿ÎË˜

∆Ì‹Ì· ∂ÏÏËÓÈÎ‹˜ ºÈÏÔÏÔÁ›·˜

Î·È ∫¤ÓÙÚÔ ∂ÏÏËÓÈÎÒÓ ™Ô˘‰ÒÓ


¶·ÓÂÈÛÙËÌ›Ô˘ Harvard

¶Ï·ÙÂ›· ºÈÏÂÏÏ‹ÓˆÓ Î·È µ·Û. √ıˆÓÔ˜

21200 ¡·‡ÏÈÔ

<[email protected]>

Francis Prost

University Paris 1-Panthéon Sorbonne

22, quai Duguay Trouin

35000 Rennes, France

<[email protected]>

°ÈÒÚÁÔ˜ ™˘ÚfiÔ˘ÏÔ˜

∫™∆’ ∂ÊÔÚÂ›· ¶ÚÔ˚ÛÙÔÚÈÎÒÓ Î·È


∞ÏÎÈ‚È¿‰Ô˘ 233, 18536 ¶ÂÈÚ·È¿˜

<[email protected]>

Stephan G. Schmid

Winckelmann-Institut

Humboldt Universität zu Berlin

Unter den Linden 6

10099 Berlin, Germany

<[email protected]>

Salvatore Settis

Scuola Normale Superiore

Palazzo della Carovana

Piazza dei Cavalieri 7

56125 Pisa, Italy


Andrew Stewart

Department of History of Art

University of Berkeley

Berkeley CA 94720-6020, USA

<[email protected]

<[email protected]>

David Tandy

Department of Classics

University of Tennessee

1101 McClung Tower

Knoxville, TN 37996-0413, USA

<[email protected]>

Anna Trofimova

Greek and Roman Antiquities Department

The State Hermitage Museum

Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia

<[email protected]>

Bonna D. Wescoat

Art History Department

Emory University

Atlanta, GA 30322, USA

<[email protected]>

Christina Wolf

Department of History and Cultural Studies

Faculty of Classical Archaeology

Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany

<[email protected]>

ºˆÙÂÈÓ‹ Z·ÊÂÈÚÔÔ‡ÏÔ˘

∞Ú¯ÈÂÈÛÎfiÔ˘ ÃÚ˘ÛÔÛÙfiÌÔ˘

¶··‰ÔÔ‡ÏÔ˘ (ÚÒËÓ ªÔÛ¯ÔÓËÛ›ˆÓ) 8

¡. ºÈÏ·‰¤ÏÊÂÈ·, 14342 ∞ı‹Ó·


Third International Conference on The Archaeology of Paros and the Cyclades: Skopas of Paros. Paros,...

Documents

Transcript of Third International Conference on The Archaeology of Paros and the Cyclades: Skopas of Paros. Paros,...