Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T15:19:21.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Followers of Praxiteles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

Extract

A very large proportion of the statues that fill our museums are liable to be dismissed somewhat curtly in descriptions as belonging to the ‘School of Praxiteles.’ It would be interesting to know exactly what percentage of the total number of ancient statues which have come down to us is formed by the Aphrodites, Satyrs, Erotes, and others usually classed under this head, but it must certainly be a very large proportion.

Considering the very large number of statues which we treat in this way, it is startling to discover that our literary evidence contains no record at all of any such school ever having been in existence. We know of followers and pupils of Pheidias, of Polycleitus, and of Lysippus, but we hear of no followers or pupils of Praxiteles or of Scopas, in spite of the undoubted and obvious influence of their style upon the sculpture that now fills our museums. It is true that we know of two sons of Praxiteles, Cephisodotus and Timarchus, but the list of their works, though containing a Leto, an Aphrodite, and two statues of Artemis, includes a greater number of statues which we should be inclined to call un-Praxitelean in character.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1916

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 1 note 1 This paper formed one of a course of Lectures on Greek Art, which Mr. Dickins delivered in Oxford during the winter of 1913–14. It has been thought better to print it as it stands, rather than to make any attempt at revision.—[Ed.]