Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
The marble statue of a youthful Athena, which was once in the Mattei collection and is now in the Louvre in Paris, has long been regarded as a work of considerable beauty and charm (Plate 66a–c). It seems to be a copy of an original of the fourth century B.C., but because no other versions of the type are known there has been some hesitation in attributing it to a particular sculptural workshop.
Within the last few years the Athena Mattei has emerged as one of the most important ancient copies in existence. For in 1959 a number of bronze statues were found by chance in Piraeus, and amongst them was a magnificent bronze Athena which appears to be the original from which the statue in the Louvre was copied (Plates 67, 68a). It is the purpose of this article to investigate the relationship between the two statues and to consider the implications regarding the date and authorship both of the marble copy and of the bronze original.
Acknowledgements. I am most grateful to the Greek Archaeological Service for permission to publish the photographs of the bronze Athena from Piraeus.
Other photographs are reproduced by courtesy of: the Louvre Museum (Plate 66a–c); the Mansell Collection (Plates 69a–b, 71a–b, 72a); the Glyptotek, Munich (Plate 72b); the Clarendon Press, Oxford (Plates 68b, 70a–b); and Mr. George Howard of Castle Howard, Yorkshire (Plate 71c). To all these I wish to record my thanks.
1 Louvre 530. Fröhner, , Notice 3 (1876) no. 121, p. 150Google Scholar; Arndt, text to Br. Br. 608 (1909) fig. 3; Walston, , Alcamenes (1926) 195, fig. 176Google Scholar; Rizzo, , Prassitele (1932) 94, pl. 143Google Scholar; Lippold, , Griechische Plastik (1950) 240 n. 2Google Scholar; Picard, , Manuel d'Archéologie iv. 2 (1954) 368Google Scholar, fig. 162.
2 The best account of the discovery of the statues and the fullest description of the Athena is by Vanderpool, in AJA lxiv (1960) 265 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pls. 65. 2, 68, 69. Cf. also ILN 29 Aug. 1959, 130–1; Ergon (1959) 163 ff., fig. 181; PAE lxxxiv (1960) 647 ff., fig. 3; Archaeological Reports (1958) 23 and (1959) 7. The official publication of the bronzes has yet to appear. I rely for my evidence on the above articles and on personal observation of the bronze Athena as she lay in Piraeus Museum in 1966. The statue is at present displayed in the National Museum, Athens. Cf. Kallipolitis, , AAA iv (1971) 47–9.Google Scholar
3 For an example of Athena holding an owl, see the relief in the Acropolis Museum, Walter, Beschreibung, no. 46. For Athena holding Nike on an outstretched hand, see the decree relief NM 2985, Svoronos, pl. 197; also Acr. 3003, Walter, Beschreibung, no. 39. For Athena holding an offering bowl, see Acr. 3007, Walter, Beschreibung, no. 48.
4 Notice 3 150.
5 Text to Br. Br. 608.
6 For example the Giustiniani type (see below, n. 15 and appendix), and the head of Athena in Berlin, Blümel, , Kat. v, K. 247, pl. 66.Google Scholar
7 Vanderpool, , AJA lxiv (1960) 265CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Archaeological Reports (1958) 23.
8 An additional reason for supposing the Piraeus bronze to have been lost at the time of Sulla is that only a single marble copy exists. If the bronze had survived into Imperial times one would have expected many more copies to have existed, as they do for the other main Athena types. The majority of our copies of Greek originals date from the first and second centuries A.D.
It is, however, possible that the marble head found at Sperlonga may be a simplified version of the Piraeus bronze. See Iacopi, , L'Antro di Tiberio a Sperlonga (1963) 130–2, figs. 125–6.Google Scholar The head (height 0·33 m.) leans slightly to the right, and the eyes, mouth, and hair resemble those of the bronze. The forehead seems shorter, however, and the helmet has no decoration.
9 For the date of the establishment of the Neo-Attic workshops see Fuchs, , Die Vorbilder der neuattischen Reliefs (1959) 3–4.Google Scholar Cf. Richter, , Three Critical Periods in Greek Sculpture (1951) 37–52.Google Scholar
10 This seems to me a reasonable inference. If the statue had stood elsewhere in Greece, it would surely have been taken to some other port than the Piraeus for shipment to Italy.
11 Schuchhardt, W-H., Antike Plastik ii (1963) 31 ff.Google Scholar, pls. 20–32.
12 Lippold, Griechische Plastik 190 n. 10, pl. 66. 4; Fuchs, , Die Skulptur der Griechen (1969) 194Google Scholar, fig. 206.
13 The Attic helmet, however, is much commoner than the Corinthian on fourth-century Attic reliefs, perhaps owing to the lasting influence of Pheidias' Athena Parthenos as a model for minor sculptors to follow. For examples of Athenas who wear the Corinthian helmet, note: Walter, Beschreibung, no. 55, of c. 400–375 B.C.; and NM 1467 of 375/4 B.C.: Speier, , RM xlvii (1932) pl. 20. 2Google Scholar; Binneboessel, Studien zu den attischen Urkundenreliefs (1932) no. 34; Süsserott, , Griechische Plastik des 4. Jht. v. Chr. (1938) pl. 3. 2.Google Scholar The Athena of this latter relief is close in style to the Piraeus bronze.
14 Furtwängler, Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture 141 ff., figs. 58–9; Pfuhl, , JdI xli (1926) 1–50Google Scholar; Lippold, , Griechische Plastik 173, pl. 62. 3.Google Scholar For list of copies see appendix.
15 Furtwängler, Masterpieces 359 ff., fig. 157; Picard, , Manuel iii (1948) 65Google Scholar, fig. 15 and p. 862; Lippold, Griechische Plastik 212 n. 15. See appendix.
16 Ashmole, Ancient Marbles at Ince (1929) no. 8, pls. 10–11; Praschniker, , ÖJh xxxvii (1948) Beibl. 11–18Google Scholar; Lippold, Griechische Plastik 184 n. 4. See appendix.
17 Pliny, , NH xxxiv. 77.Google Scholar
18 Thompson, , AE 1953/1954 (in mem. of Oikonomou) iii (1961) 30–44.Google Scholar
19 One finds it equally hard to accept the view of those who go the other way and attribute the original of the Giustiniani to Myron. Cf. Poulsen, , Cat. of Ancient Sculpture in Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (1951) 96Google Scholar, no. 104.
20 Lippold, , Griechische Plastik 191, pl. 70. 1Google Scholar; Fuchs, Die Skulptur 201, fig. 215.
21 Lippold, , Griechische Plastik 192, pl. 70. 2.Google Scholar
22 Reisch, , ÖJh i (1898) 55 ff.Google Scholar; Walston, Alcamenes 179–83; Lippold, Griechische Plastik 265 n. 4; Papaspyridi-Karusu, , AM lxix/lxx (1954/1955) 67 ff.)Google Scholar Beil. 33; Picard, , Manuel iv. 2 (1963) 1053 n. 3.Google Scholar
23 The diagonal aegis occurs in the Vatican, Rospigliosi, Borghese, Ostia, and Cherchel versions—also on the relief NM 1423 which seems to be an almost contemporary copy of the original. In the version in the Louvre, which may preserve the original head, the aegis is considerably enlarged. For details of copies see appendix.
24 Furtwängler, Masterpieces 305, fig. 130; Beazley, and Ashmole, , Greek Sculpture and Painting (1932) 57, fig. 115Google Scholar; Picard, , Manuel iii (1948) 662 ff.Google Scholar; Lippold, Griechische Plastik 232 n. 7; Dohrn, , Attische Plastik (1957) 203Google Scholar; Mansuelli, , Galleria degli Uffizi i (1958) no. 33Google Scholar; Schlörb, , Timotheos (1965) 60–3, pls. 17–18.Google Scholar
25 e.g. Nymphs on NM 2012, Svoronos, pl. 98 and NM 1879, Svoronos, pl. 97; Hygieia on NM 2557, Svoronos, pl. 171; also a Nymph on the Xenocrateia relief, NM 2756, Svoronos, pl. 181.
26 One at Cnidos: Pliny, , NH xxxvi. 20.Google Scholar The other at Thebes: Pausanias, ix. 10. 2.
27 e.g. Picard, op. cit.
28 So Ashmole, Mansuelli, and Schlörb.
29 Leda and Swan: Lippold, Griechische Plastik 221 n. 8, pl. 79. 3; Schlörb, Timotheos 51 ff., pl. 16; Boardman, –Dörig, –Fuchs, –Hirmer, , The Art and Architecture of Ancient Greece (1967) pl. 246.Google Scholar Hygieia: NM 299. Schlörb, Timotheos 37 ff., figs. 37–40; Boardman et al., op. cit., pl. 242.
30 Wace, , JHS xxvi (1906) 237 ff.Google Scholar; Walston, Alcamenes 183–96; Rizzo, , Prassitele 93, pls. 139–42Google Scholar; Lippold, Griechische Plastik 240 n. 1; Picard, , Manuel iv. 1 (1954) 364 n. 5 and 366Google Scholar; Kabus-Jahn, , Studien zu Frauen-figuren des 4 Jht. v. Chr. (1963) 88–92Google Scholar, pl. 16. See appendix.
31 Lippold, Griechische Plastik 238 n. 2, pl. 85. 1; Richter, The Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks 3 (1951) fig. 681. The similarity between this figure and the Athena Vescovali has, of course, long been noted.
32 Pausanias, viii. 9. 3.
33 Horn, , Stehende weibliche Gewandstatuen (1931) 2, 8 ff.Google Scholar, pl. 2. 2; Lippold, Griechische Plastik 275 n. 6; Schuchhardt, , Die Epochen der griechischen Plastik (1959) 120, fig. 95Google Scholar; Bieber, , The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age 2 (1962) 64Google Scholar, figs. 210–12; Helbig4 ii (1966) no. 1732.
34 NM 1482. Süsserott, , Griechische Plastik 67, pl. 9. 4Google Scholar; Lippold, Griechische Plastik, pl. 94. 4; Mitchel, , Hesperia xxxiii (1964) 344Google Scholar, pl. 65d.
35 In general see Lippold, Griechische Plastik 223–5 and Richter, Sculpture and Sculptors 3 257–9.
36 Picard, , Manuel iii (1948) 85–108Google Scholar; Lippold, Griechische Plastik 224 n. 1; Richter, , Met. Mus. Cat. (1954) no. 98, pl. lxxx.Google Scholar
37 NH xxxiv. 50. Cf. Pausanias, i. 8. 2; ix. 16. 1.
38 Other statues, the originals of which have been plaus ibly attributed to Cephisodotos on stylistic grounds, are: The Nemesis-Hygieia type: Buschor, , Antike Plastik für Amelung (1928) 53–4Google Scholar, figs. 1–3; Lippold, Griechüche Plastik 240 n. 3; Mansuelli, , Galleria degli Uffizi i (1958) no. 21Google Scholar, fig. 25. The Artemis from Beirut in Berlin: Blümel, , Kat. v, K. 241Google Scholar; Lippold, Griechische Plastik 224 n. 8.
39 The precise location of this sanctuary is still not known. See Judeich, , Topographie 2 (1931) 453.Google Scholar
40 Some still insist, however, that a separate sculptor, Cephisodoros, be recognized. So Sellers in Sellers and Jex-Blake, , The Elder Pliny's Chapters on the History of Art (1896) lxxv and 60Google Scholar; and most recently von Steuben in Helbig4 ii (1966) no. 1732, and Gualandi, , RA 1969, 263.Google Scholar
41 Frazer, , Commentary on Pausanias ii. 23Google Scholar, attributes these figures to the Elder Cephisodotos, as do most other writers. He also accepts Brunn's conjecture that the statues were probably made after the restoration of the fortifications of the Piraeus in 394–391 B.C.
Another favourite candidate for the Athena Soteira of Cephisodotos has been the Praetoriana statue (see above, n. 33). This would presumably have to be the work of the Younger Cephisodotos, although it seems rather early for him, if one accepts Pliny's floruit date for him of 296 B.C. (NH xxxiv. 51).
42 Many works of art, removed or lost at the time of Sulla's attack, were replaced by copies. Gf. Lucian (Zeuxis or Antiochos 3) who says that in his day the painting of the Centaur Family by Zeuxis existed only in a copy in Athens, the original having been sent to Italy by Sulla, and having been lost when the cargo ship sank while rounding Cape Malea.
43 A tentative and unsubstantiated identification of die Piraeus bronze with the Athena Soteira of the Piraeus sanctuary has already been made by Oikonomides in his foreword to a reprint of Imhoof-Blumer, and Gardner, , Numismatic Commentary on Pausanias (Chicago, 1964) lii.Google Scholar He ignores, however, the textual and chronological difficulties involved in such an identification; and the statue on the coin, NCP, pl. AA. iv (p. 133), which he suggests may represent the statue of Athena Soteira, seems to me to be similar only in pose and presumed attributes (owl and spear). The dress differs, being a peplos with girdled overfall. It looks more like a version of the Ince Athena.
