Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:13:47.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Greek Statuary, Roman Portraits

The Problem of Copies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2024

Jean Charles Balty  and
Mara Bertelsen

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The originals of great classical Greek statuary—cult idols (agalmata) raised in the cella of a temple, or ex-voto (anathemata, offerings) dedicated in a sanctuary, or even, more rarely, political dedications erected in public places, were not destined to be copied and only the pure chance of history, from the fall of Greece to Rome and the emergence of a taste for these works of art, gave rise to a process of copying that would snowball. The Urbild of a Roman imperial effigy was never to remain unique. Quite the contrary, it was, by its very nature, destined to be multiplied from the moment of its completion, for the sake of propaganda and thorough distribution of the emperor's image. At first, we cannot imagine a situation more different. However, today, the historical value of these copies is the same, the original having disappeared in one case as in the other. This is not the only paradox.

Type
Research Article
Information
Diogenes , Volume 46 , Issue 183 , September 1998 , pp. 41 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 Fédération Internationale des Sociétés de Philosophie / International Federation of Philosophical Societies (FISP)

References

Selected Bibliography

Becatti, Giovanni. Arte e gusto negli scrittori latini. Florence: Sansoni,1951.Google Scholar
Bieber, Margarete. Ancient Copies. Contributions to the History of Greek and Roman Art. New York: New York University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Borda, Maurizio. La scuola di Pasiteles. Bari: Adriatica Editrice, 1953.Google Scholar
von Hees-Landwehr, Christa. Griechische Meisterwerke in römischen Abgüssen. Der Fund von Baia. Zur Technik antiker Kopisten, cat. expo. Frankfurt am Main: 1982.Google Scholar
Jucker, Hans. Vom Verhältnis der Römer zur bildenden Kunst der Griechen. Frankfurt am Main: V. Klostermann, 1950.Google Scholar
Landwehr, Christa. Die antiken Gipsabgüssen aus Baiae. Griechische Bronzestatuen in Abgüssen römischer Zeit. Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1985.Google Scholar
Lauter, Hans. Zur Chronologie römischer Kopien nach Originalen des 5. Jahrh. Diss. Bonn, 1968.Google Scholar
Lippold, Georg. Kopien und Umbildungen griechischer Statuen. Munich: C.H. Beck, 1923.Google Scholar
Niemeier, Jörg-Peter. Kopien und Nachahmungen im Hellenismus. Ein Beitrag zum Klassizismus des 2. und frühen 1. Jhs. v. Chr. Bonn: R. Habelt, 1985.Google Scholar
Pape, Magrit. Griechische Kunstwerke aus Kriegsbeute und ihre öffentliche Aufstellung in Rom. Von der Eroberung von Syrakus bis in augusteische Zeit. Diss. Hamburg, 1975.Google Scholar
Sismondo Ridgway, Brunhilde. Roman Copies of Greek Sculpture: The Problem of the Originals. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1984.Google Scholar
Vermeule, Iii, Cornelius, C. Greek Sculpture and Roman Taste. The Purpose and Setting of Graeco-Roman Art in Italy and the Greek Imperial East. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Zanker, Paul. “Zur Funktion und Bedeutung griechischer Skulptur in der Römerzeit,” in Le classicisme à Rome aux 1er siècle avant et après J.-C., in Entretiens sur l'Antiquité classique, XXV. Vandœuvres-Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 1979, p. 283–314.Google Scholar