Hellenistic and Roman Ideal Sculpture: The Allure of the Classical. By
RACHEL MEREDITH KOUSSER. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2008. Pp. xv + 208. Paper, $85.00. ISBN 978–0–521–87782–4.
Order this text for $85.00 from Amazon.com using this link and benefit
CAMWS and the Classical Journal:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect-home/classjourn-20
Previously published CJ Online reviews are at
http://classicaljournal.org/reviews.php
CJ Online 2009.07.06
This book is an in-depth examination of a widespread visual motif in
ancient art, most famously represented by the Capua Venus and the Victory
of Brescia. The work is divided into four chapters, chronologically ordered
from the Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity. The title promises a much
larger project, which it does not really deliver, and the jacket blurb
announces that the work “draws on contemporary reception theory.” Most
of the time, however, Kousser (K.) takes the bird’s-eye view of the art
historian; she only occasionally touches on the concerns of reception
theory, that is, on the question of how viewers influence the appearance of
art and how they bring to it interpretations not emphasized or intended by
artist or patron.
Chapter 1, which considers the Venus–Victory motif in the Hellenistic
Period, has some of the finest moments in the book as well as some of the
most problematic. K.’s discussion of the Aphrodite of Melos (pp. 30–4)
is fine scholarship. The evidence for whether Aphrodite carried an apple in
her left hand and for the sculpture’s architectural setting is laid out
clearly, and scholarly differences are acknowledged with respect. By
contrast, perhaps the most problematic feature of this chapter is K.’s
tendency to import evidence from other periods into an argument about
Hellenistic sculpture. The debate over whether the Capua Venus replicates
the Armed Aphrodite of Acrocorinth has reached a sort of standoff, and most
of the comparanda K. adduces have already been employed both for and
against this theory. More importantly, much of this evidence is Roman in
date, and since the rest of the book demonstrates handily that this visual
motif can be found in every corner of the Roman empire over many centuries,
the fact that a few examples were found in Roman Corinth does not, to my
mind, advance the argument much. The Hellenistic terracottas K. considers
do not—at least based on the photos and descriptions provided—seem
closely related to her visual motif at all.
With the Roman chapters, K. is generally on firmer ground and tends to be
less speculative, though I do not agree with all her conclusions. Chapter 2
is devoted to instances of the visual motif in the Early Empire, and K.
does touch on reception theory when she considers the famous Roman
Mars–Venus groups based on the type (p. 52). When she wants to make sense
of the pair that stood in the Augustan Forum, she points to lines from
Ovid’s Tristia (2.295–6) that might suggest that a depiction of Mars
and Venus in the “Temple of Mars” could be misunderstood as an
adulterous couple. Leaving aside the possibility that this reference might
not be to the sculptural group in question, Ovid’s point in this passage
is that it is possible to misread just about anything, including his
poetry, if one tries hard enough. Though the poem presents interpretive
difficulties, to my mind it runs counter both to Ovid’s argument and to
his self-interest to read these lines as proof that the adulterous reading
“…was, in fact, common and indeed inevitable” (p. 54). If the
representatives of Augustus thought that the sculptural group in his Forum
was commonly read as a pair of adulterers rather than as the progenitors of
the Roman people, they would never have permitted the sculptures to
continue adorning a space with such great personal meaning to the emperor
and his family. The fact that, a century and a half later, Marcus Aurelius
and Faustina the Younger had themselves represented as this divine pair on
coins only underscores the point.
Unlike K., I believe that these groups lack the eroticism necessary for the
subversive, adulterous reading. In fact, in spite of their nudity (in the
various extant groups, his is a constant and hers is relatively rare), most
of the pairs project the image of the campaigning, male politician with his
wife: she looks adoringly at him, while he looks out at the world; one of
her arms is draped around him, the other usually lightly touches some
symbol of his military virtus, like his baldric. The briefest glance at a
Mars–Venus pair created by Antonio Canova, on display in Buckingham
Palace, is enough to make the point. His group, which was inspired by one
of the ancient pairs, is highly erotic: gestures, drapery, sinuous
proportions and direct, searing eye contact between the two lovers all
contribute to this sense—and, by contrast, reveal the ancient groups for
the tame, political pairs they are.
One detail: In her discussion of these groups, K. refers to the Mars
figures as “a late fifth century type known as the Ares Borghese.” She
seems unaware that Kim Hartswick made a full frontal attack on that
attribution some years ago, since she neither disagrees with his view
explicitly nor footnotes it. [[1]]
Chapter 3 considers instances of the motif from 100–250 CE, especially in
Victory figures on the German limes and Aphrodite figures in Asia Minor,
and so K. invites us to see what happens to the motif far from the center
of power. She suggests that the motif “meant something different to those
who lived on the German frontier than it did elsewhere”(p. 100)—and, in
particular, that the theme of military protection took on greater
prominence in this context. By contrast, she reads the Aphrodite figures
from Asia Minor as symbols of their patrons’ paideia and humanitas. One
of her points in this chapter is that “private patrons freely and
idiosyncratically adapted … imperial images with narrowly defined
meanings” (p. 107). But it would seem from the examples provided that
these adaptations rarely contradicted the imperial messages established for
this visual motif; instead they merely emphasized particular nuances more
useful to the local population.
Finally, Chapter 4 considers Late Antique instances of the motif, casting
them as deliberately retrospective, intended to identify “the new
Christian order with a venerable tradition” (p. 135). This chapter is, in
part, a continuation of the previous one’s argument about aristocratic
demonstrations of humanitas. It also offers some particularly Christian
readings of the motif—on sarcophagi, for example—as emblematic of
victory over death.
K. presents many intelligent and thought-provoking interpretations of
individual works. Her argument proves less satisfying, however, when she
attempts to broaden it from individual instances of one particular visual
motif to a general consideration of the nature of imitation in Roman art.
Especially in her clearly written but oddly combative introduction, K.
exaggerates and at times misrepresents recent scholarship on imitation in
Roman art, in an attempt to position herself as the moderate precisely in
the center of two extremes. K. refers to the “absolutist positions” (p.
5) of her scholarly predecessors, and incorrectly claims that recent
detractors of Kopienkritik, myself included, are concerned with praising
the “Roman original” (p. 149). But one would be hard-pressed to find
anyone in the “new school” of Roman art history seriously arguing that
originality was a preoccupation of Roman artists, patrons or viewers. Many
of these scholars have actually put a great deal of effort into explaining
the cultural context that enabled the formulaic qualities of Roman art.
Such misrepresentations seem grounded in an unfortunate rhetorical
commonplace of our field, namely, that one’s own work is only useful or
necessary if the scholarship of one’s predecessors is inadequate. The
force of this trope sometimes leads scholars, wittingly or unwittingly, to
create straw men with which they then tussle. Most of those who have
expressed their discomfort with traditional Kopienkritik have not done so
simply because they do not believe its conclusions about the origins of
individual visual motifs. The larger problem is that Kopienkritik was a
methodology whose practitioners often claimed to know what was not (though
perhaps in some cases simply not yet) knowable; and because they passed
down to later generations, in the guise of truth, what could only be a
matter of speculation. The new school argues for a healthy skepticism that
presents hypotheses as hypotheses, and does not transform them into
received truth through the alchemy of a forceful personality. I believe
that that healthy skepticism—that call to “show your work,” to borrow
a phrase from mathematics—and not a correct position on the originality
or repetitiveness of Roman art, is the real methodological revolution that
has taken place in our field. And if that is what counts as absolutism,
then sign me up.
ELLEN PERRY
College of the Holy Cross
[[1]] K. Hartswick, “The Ares Borghese Reconsidered,” RA (1990)
227–83.
If you have been forwarded this review, you may subscribe to the listserv
by sending an email to: [log in to unmask]
Leave the subject line blank, and in the first line of the message write:
SUBSCRIBE CJ-Online
You may remove yourself from the CJ-Online listserv by sending an email to:
[log in to unmask]
Leave the subject line blank, and in the first line of the message write:
UNSUBSCRIBE CJ-Online
|