historiography of olympian hermes, rough draft

8/2/2019 Historiography of Olympian Hermes, Rough Draft

1/32

The oeuvre of Praxiteles, recognized as one of the most innovative sculptors of the

fourth century BC, as with most other Hellenic sculptors, has survived primarily through

the numerous copies found throughout the Mediterranean and beyond. However, one

work, the statue group variably known as the Olympian type Hermes, the Hermes of

Praxiteles, or simply as Hermes with infant Dionysus, has been championed as one of the

clearest examples of an original by the great sculptor, and indeed one of the few originals

by the great Hellenic sculptors to survive into the modern era. And yet, even as the

sculpture was being excavated, doubts began to arise as to whether this was an original by

Praxiteles or a copy of the Hellenistic or Roman periods, or indeed an original or copy by

another sculptor altogether. As it was discovered in the 1870s in the excavations of the

Heraion of Olympia, along with the sculptures lauded aesthetic qualities, it is

understandable that sifting through the scholarly record on this statue has been a seemingly

Sisyphean task. Sheila Adam has wonderfully encapsulated this sentiment in the beginning

of her discussion of the Olympian Hermes, claiming that, a whole volume would be

required to assess in detail the value of the various opinions expressed since 1927; we have

reached the absurd stage where almost every statement about the statue should be followed

by a string of acknowledgements and refutations. This would be so wearisome that the

present writer prefers to acknowledge at once in toto her debt to the observations and

opinions of others, and to keep the specific references to a minimum.1 Fortunately, the

scope of this paper rests on the attribution of this statue group, and developing a cogent

historiographic narrative is far more manageable.

While from the time of its discovery at Olympia the Hermes evoked occasional

divergent opinions as to its attribution, the archaeological status of this famous statue has

1 Adam, 124.

1


2/32

been seriously threatened ever since the investigations of the German scholar Carl Blmel

in 1927 led to the sensational view that the Hermes was nothing but a Roman copy. This

pronouncement provoked a symposium of articles in the 1931 volume of theAmerican

Journal of Archaeology without resolution, and ever since students of sculpture have been

divided into two rough camps: those who believe the statue to be an original of Praxiteles

and those who believe it to be a copy of some form or an original by anothers hand. Over

the twentieth century certain critiques of the attribution of the sculpture to Praxiteles have

been blunted, although new challenges suggest that the controversy is far from resolved in

this new century. The chief object of this paper is to trace the currents of the controversy,

not so as to provide a fallacious definitive answer but rather to provide a foundation upon

which scholarship of the twenty-first century may progress from.

Prior to considering the Hermes itself along with the related attribution controversy,

it is necessary to first place the sculpture within excavation and purported literary context.

The Hermes was found at the ancient site of Olympia, one of the premier Panhellenic

sanctuaries, dedicated to Zeus, and home to the Olympic games. The first major

excavation of Olympia began in 1875, funded by the German government after negotiation

with the Greek state of exclusive access by Ernst Curtius.2 Led by Curtius,3 major

excavations in the central area of the sanctuary, including the Temple of Zeus, the Heraion,

and the Philipeion began. In 1877 during the excavation, now under the directorship of

Gustav Hirschfeld, of the Heraion on May 8th a portion of the pedestal of the statue was

2 Kyrieleis, 50. While the German excavations have been considered to be the first major excavations,

preliminary survey and exploratory sondages of the site were performed by the French Morea expedition of

1829, conducted during the land intervention of the French Army in the Peloponnese during the Greek War

of Independence.3 Other archaeologists present at the beginning of the excavation were Adolf Furtwangler and later

directors Gustav Hirschfeld and George Treu, who worked alongside architects A. Boetticher, Wilhelm

Dorpfeld, and Richard Borrmann.

2


3/32

found exactly between the second and the third columns of the north side of the cella, 4 and

a larger part of the statue fallen on its face in front of the pedestal and covered over with

the clay of which the upper walls of the temple were originally built.5 Hirschfeld

personally lifted the statue out of the ground, which was in an excellent state of

preservation due to the clay in which it had been embedded in. At the time, the legs from

the knees downwards were missing, as well as the greater part of Hermess right arm and

the body and head of the child. It would take six more separate discoveries, the later

portion during the field directorship of George Treu, to uncover, among other fragments,

the right foot of Hermes and the body and head of the child, to be identified as Dionysos.

6

Just as the fragments later found would prove invaluable in the identification of the

statue and the resultant scholarly debates, so too would several key literary sources drawn

upon by the excavators and subsequent scholars. The most important is drawn from

Pausaniass , who in describing Olympia about the year 174 AD,

gives an account of the statues he saw in the Heraion. Of greatest importance for the

discussion at hand is when he notes that, the figures I have enumerated are of ivory and

gold, but at a later date other images were dedicated in the Heraion, including a marble

Hermes carrying the baby Dionysos, a work of Praxiteles...7 If one is to trust the words of

4 See Image #1, column numbers counting from the east entrance of the cella.5 Corso, 1996: 131.6 See Image #2 for its partial restoration prior to the inclusion of the right foot and base into the

reconstruction.7 Excerpt from Pausanias V.XVII.1-4, translation by WHS Jones in the Loeb edition. The full text of this

section, as it will be useful for later discussion, is as follows: In the temple of Hera is an image of Zeus,

and the image of Hera is sitting on a throne with Zeus standing by her, bearded and with a helmet on hishead. They are crude works of art. The figures of Seasons next to them, seated upon thrones, were made

by the Aeginetan Smilis. Beside them stands an image of Themis, as being mother of the Seasons. It is thework of Dorykleidas, a Lacedaemonian by birth and a disciple of Dipoinos and Skyllis. The Hesperides,

five in number, were made by Theokles, who like Dorykleidas was a Lacedaemonian, the son of Hegylos;

he too, they say, was a student under Skyllis and Dipoinos. The Athena wearing a helmet and carrying a

spear and shield is, it is said, a work of Medon, a Lacedaemonian, brother of Dorykleidas and a pupil of the

same masters. Then the Maid and Demeter sit opposite each other, while Apolo and Artemis stand

opposite each other. Here, too, have been dedicated Leto, Tyche, Dionysos and a winged Nike. I cannot

say who the artists were, but these figures, too are in my opinion very ancient. The figures I have

3


4/32

Pausanias, it would then appear quite clear that in 174 AD there was a work a sculptural

group in marble within the cella of the Heraion, although as shall be seen even this

straightforward assertion has been challenged. While Pausaniass text has been the most

utilized by scholars, a second description of similar importance is from PlinysNatural

History, in when describing the work of Cephisodotus describes how, Cephisodoti duo

fuere: prioris est Mercurius Liberum patrem in infantia nutriens; fecit et contionantem

manu elata, persona in incerto est sequens philosophos fecit.8 Nutriens, most often taken

as grapes by later scholars, has most often been utilized to demonstrate that the Hermes and

baby Dionysos subject was common already prior to the alleged work of Praxiteles, and the

fact that the work is attributed by Pliny to Cephisodotus is even more telling, as

Cephisodotus was Praxiteles father according to the critical tradition.9 Both descriptions,

when combined with the form of the sculpture as it was excavated, were used by the

excavators10 to identify the subject as Hermes with the baby Dionysos. The mythical

episode represented is that of Hermes, who by order of Zeus, brings the child Dionysos to

the cave of Nysa, so saving him from the hate of Hera, jealous of the love between Zeus

and Semele, father and mother respectively of Dionysos.11 While the literary sources have

been enough to almost certainly identify the subject matter of the sculpture,12 it has

enumerated are of ivory and gold, but at a later date other images were dedicated in the Heraion, including

a marble Hermes carrying the baby Dionysos, a work of Praxiteles, and a bronze Aphrodite made by Kleon

of Sikyon. The master of the Kleon, called Antiphanes, was a pupil of Periklytos, who himself was a pupilof Polykleitos of Argos. A nude gilded child is seated before Aphrodite, a work fashioned by Boethos of

Calchedon. There were also brought hither form what is called the Phillippeion other images of gold and

ivory8 PlinyN.H. XXXIV.87.9 Fowler, 37.10 Treu, Olympia: die Ergebnisse III, 198.11 See Gasparri and Veneri,Dionysos, inLIMC, III, 1986, pg. 417 and 479.12 The major exception being the thesis of Oscar Antonsson (1937), to be discussed later as his publication

arose chronologically in the attribution debate.

4


5/32

unfortunately been far from sufficient to clearly identify whether the statue discovered was

indeed an original Praxitelian work of the fourth century.

Scholars have instead been reliant primarily upon the signs of technique and style

left in the form of the Hermes sculpture to make their cases as to the attribution of the

statue. Prior to analyzing their arguments, it is necessary to describe in detail the various

aspects of the statue which have been most utilized by those arguing the dating and hand of

the sculpture. It is important to note that the current reconstruction of the Hermes is

housed in the Olympia archaeological museum,13 and as this author has not had the

opportunity to visit all physical observations of the statue are reliant upon the work of other

scholars. In any discussion about a piece so controversial it is particularly important to

distinguish between fact and opinion or deductions from facts, and so attempt will be made

to reconstruct in order the process by which it was made, but a description will be given of

the statue and the tooling that scholars such as Blmel and Antonsson have expertly

elucidated. From the outset, it is important to note that the scholarly community has

unanimously agreed that the statue is of Parian marble, and was carved largely from one

piece of marble in an impressive display of virtuosity.14 The simplest method is likely to

work from the head to the foot of the sculptural group. (1) As concerns the hair,15 Blmel

was the first to demonstrate that the running drill was used, and carved the surface into

rough lumps at the top and sides.16 In one or two places holes have been drilled right

through a tuft of hair. A fringe of small curls has been chiseled around the forehead, and a

rough arrangement of locks worked out at the back of the hair using only a chisel. A thin

string is carved across the back of the hair. Traces of red pigment were found in the hair,

13 See Image #3 for its current reconstruction as exhibited.14 Pasquier, 120-121.15 See Image #4-6 for views of the hair of the Hermes statue from various angles.16 Blmel,Hermes, 40, fig. 24.

5


6/32

variously attributed to vermillion paint or a medium for gilding.17(2) For the face,18 Adam

and others19 have pointed out that the features have been carved so lightly that it seems

impossible that they were finished with a metal tool on marble. Instead, it is likely that the

sculptor rubbed over the face with an abrasive. The nostrils are drilled out to a relatively

deep degree, and there are short running drill channels at the corners of the mouth. The

running drill was used behind both ears, and has cut a groove in front of the right ear.20(3)

As for the body itself, it is best to separate the front of the body21 from any discussion of

the rear of the body, as will become apparent. Both the face and the body are polished at

the front until they shine, in contrast to the more matte finish found in other fourth century

sculptures.22 The body itself displays a distinctive S-curve which has comparanda in other

Praxitelian sculpture and is thought to be characteristic of his own hand and that of his

school.23 (4) The rear of the statue has stood out for its seeming unfinished nature. The

high shine of the front stops abruptly at the sides, and most of the back displays original

rasp marks.24 The backs of the legs seem to have been abraded after reasping but are not

polished. The rasp work is clearest on the back of the neck and left arm and in a patch on

the left shoulder.25 Other tools were used on the back after the rasp, and include signs of

the use of a claw chisel and a rounded chisel which has cut furrows across parts of the back

and buttocks.26 (5) While the lower legs of the statue were never discovered, the right foot

17 For red paint cf. Corso, 1996: 132; for red pigment as medium for gilding, cf. Carpenter, 1954: 59.18 See Image #7.19

Adam 124-125, Lullies, pl. 223.20 Blmel,Hermes, 44-45.21 See Image #8, a photograph which displays exceptionally the high degree of polish utilized in the

sculpture.22 Adam, 38-39.23 Corso, 1996, 135.24 See Image #9.25 Antonsson, 24-27.26 See Image #10 for Antonssons excellent overview of the locations and types of toolmarks found on the

rear of the statue.

6


7/32

is original.27 Rasp work remains visible on the sandal, where there are also sign of red

pigment within the grooves, thought by certain authors to be cinnabar (mercury sulphide

HgS), a medium used for the application of gold foil instead of a pigment in its own right.28

Apropos to this is the fact that at the time of discovery, although no longer visible, gilt was

visible on the ties of the sandal.29 A bronze ornament was attached to the tongue of the

sandal. The form of the sandal itself is quite striking, with an incurve between the hallux

and second toe. (6) The child, notably cut from the same piece of marble as the Hermes,

has the most carefully worked portion of the statue; with the hair of the child carefully cut

with a flat chisel,

30

although a broken patch above the forehead shows where a topknot is

missing. While the front of the statue is polished similar to the front of the Hermes, the rear

of the child31 is, barely shaped with point and rounded chisel. 32 (7) The tree trunk and

strut are unfinished at the back, with gouges made by a flat chisel the only detail work

attempted beyond the original shaping of the stone.33 There is a leveled surface in the

front, with parallel furrows carved with a rounded chisel across the trunk and small

projecting stumps.34 (8) The drapery, which would prove to be the most contentious aspect

of the statue, is also unfinished in the back, where it has been carved hastily with a flat

chisel.35 The front,36 which bares rasp marks but is highly finished, was not made entirely

of the single Parian stone, as parts of the drapery were fastened on separately, at least one

by a tenon and socket arrangement.37 Just how one might describe the nature of the drapery

27 See Image #1128

Carpenter, 1954: 59-60.29 Treu, Olympia III, 200.30 See Image #12.31 See Image #13.32 Antonsson, 20.33 Ibid, 21-22.34 See Image #14.35 See Image #15.36 See Image #16.37 Treu, Olympia III, 202, fig. 232.

7


8/32

is contentious, although certain generally agreed comments are worth making at this point.

The drapery has a voluminous quality, and does not follow any strictly linear pattern. At

times the fabric of the chlamys appears to follow zig-zag patterns where it falls in

alternating semi-folds rather than straight down. There are signs of so called fingerprints

where light impressions are left in the fabric. (9) While the drapery has been a subject of

contentious debate, the base upon which the sculpture stood has been so successfully

treated by Dinsmoor38 that it will require a limited discussion. That said, it is worth noting

several features of the base.39 The surviving part of the plinth, with the right foot, has a

half clamp to the right of this foot.

40

On the base around the foot a border has been

completely smooth, with the rest clawed. The base itself it relatively tall, with the plinth

jutting out to a comparable distance as the foot of the base. No inscription survives. With

these nine areas of contention in mind we can now proceed into the scholarly discourse on

the attribution of the statue, beginning in the earliest phase of debate which seemingly

began the moment Hirschfeld lifted the sculpture from the earth.

The first phase of scholarly debate on the attribution of this statue, which can be

considered the fifty years from the discovery of the statue in 1877 until Blmel published

his pamphlet in 1927, has often been overly simplified. Antonio Corso, writing recently in

1996, makes such a claim when he writes, after a wide range of suggestions put forward in

the years following the discovery, as usually happens when something important is

discovered, the world of the scholars was unanimous for around half a century in

recognizing in this work an original by Praxiteles41 While this is in spirit true, in that

by the time Blmel wrote his thesis the attribution of the sculpture as an original of

38 Dinsmoor, AJA xxxv (1931), 297.39 See Image #17.40 Corso, 1996, 141.41 Ibid, 132.

8


9/32

Praxiteles was certainly the pervasive opinion, there was still a far deal more debate than

what Corsos claim may lead one to believe. Corso admits to the, wide range of

suggestions of the period immediately following the discovery, and this is indeed evident

in the publications of those closely involved with the German excavations. Gustav

Hirschfeld, in a report published by Blmel,42 was the first to make his opinion of the

sculptural group known, and while he called this find the most delightful and important

result of those days, he still considered the statue a copy of a work by Praxiteles, and not by

the berhmte Bildhauer himself. Ernst Curtius, the prior director, catapulted the

sculpture into the public consciousness with his repeated proclamations on the quality of

the statue, praising it as the flower and crown of all the discoveries in Olympia,43 although

he made no claims as to the statue being an original of Praxiteles. Indeed, it was not until

George Treu published the archaeological reports of the 1870s excavations that the first

definitive attribution of the sculpture to Praxiteles occurred, and indeed Treu found the

value of the sculpture to by comparable in value to the Parthenon sculptures. 44 This

attribution was evident to Treu, and indeed other scholars of his day45 on several accounts.

First, that Pausanias mentions it as a work of Praxiteles, and that the type of Hermes

holding Dionysos was already well known from the passage from Pliny, vase-painting from

around 430 BCE,46 and wall painting.47 And second, that the high quality of the carving

means that no other sculptor could have possibly carved it. Certain features, which had led

42

Blmel, 1944: 7.43 Blmel, 1944: 8f.44 Treu, Olympia III, 195-210.45 Most notably Furtwangler and Brunn.46 Cf. Sieber,Hermes, 1990: 319-320.47As is raised by many scholars, there are later representations of an adult male figure carrying Dionysos in

the same manner as the Olympian sculptural group, and in this case the most often raised example is the

wall-painting of the Casa del Naviglio in Pompeii (See Image #18). Framed by a painted square, Corso and

other scholars have taken this as a, opus nobile, and so would mimic the Hermes of Praxiteles despite the

Hermes now being a satyr.

9


10/32

Hirschfeld and others to doubt its originality, were rather ineffectively dismissed by Treu.

In the case of the strut, True ventures that the strut was intended only to strengthen the

statue in transport, and should have been worked away when the statue was set upbut

was neglected or forgotten.48

However, while many modern scholars have taken Treus assertion to be the last

word in the debate until the challenges of the second quarter of the twentieth century, this

is in fact not the case. While most scholars followed the observation of Georg Treu that the

Hermes was an original by Praxiteles, one notable exception was the prominent Austrian

art historian, Otto Benndorf, who gave the statue to a younger Praxiteles. While this theory

would be continued by scholars with access to the discovery of sculptors names Praxiteles

in Pergamon, prior to the Pergamid excavations Benndorf was content to argue that

Pausanias does not explicitly mention which Praxiteles he was referring to, and that the

strut, incomplete back of the statue, and questionable representation of the child suggests a

hand of a lesser skill than the great Praxiteles.49 Whereas some scholars such as Benndorf

used the nature of the sculpture to change the reading of the Pausanias passage, other

scholars sought to discount Pausanias entirely in favor of the passage from Pliny. In the

Gazette des Beaux-Arts in 1897, Eugenie Sellers made the forceful claim that, But for the

Pausanias passage, the statue at Olympia would have been unhesitatingly identified with

the statue mentioned by Pliny.50 As a reminder, the Pliny passage refers to a statue of

Cephisodotus depicting Hermes offering grapes to the young Dionysos. Sellers first argues

that the Pliny refers to the Hermes of Olympia because if the Hermes was indeed an

original by Praxiteles, then life-size copies would have been made, rather than only the

48 Treu, Olympia: die Ergebnisse, III: 202.49 Bieber, 1950: 281.50 Sellers, 129.

10


11/32

smaller than life size bronze and gem replicas that are found today in examples such as the

Louvre bronze statuette.51 Granting that Pliny then refers to the Hermes of Olympia, one

might wonder how to tell whether Pliny or Pausanias are right. Sellers argues that Plinys

statement is to be accepted for two reasons. First, that when a given work is assigned to

two artists, the lesser artists should be the presumed creator due to the tendency to ascribe

works of art to famous artists if possible. Second, that Pausanias drew his information

from inscriptions and local guides of the period of the second sophistic, while Pliny was

able to rely upon Greek writings of the third century BC.52 That Sellerss argument was

more than just a blip in the uniform opinion of Praxitelian authenticity is demonstrated by

the opinions of several prominent scholars, as her arguments led Henri Lechat to say that

henceforth it might be more prudent to use the expression Hermes of Olympia than

Hermes of Praxiteles,53 and S. Reinach, to call it Hermes dit de Praxitele.54 Admittedly,

Sellers argument was just as often dismissed as accepted, as demonstrated by Harold

Fowler, who in 1900 when pointing out the flaws in Sellers argument concluded that, so

far as the Hermes is concerned, it seems to me that there is no reason to believe that Pliny

refers to the Olympia statue, and even if there were, until it can be made probably that his

[Plinys] remark is derived from a good [third century Greek] source, we should still have

no reason to prefer his statement to that of Pausanias.55 Yet Sellers influence on the

scholarly discussion well past the initial discussions following its discovery demonstrates

51

See Image #19. The statuette has been seen as critical for three reasons, (1) in order to demonstrate theposition of the no longer extant legs of the Olympian Hermes, (2) That the extant arms give a better

understanding of the main figures relationship to the child, and (3) That certain differences in the bronze

statuette and marble group, such as the position of the arms, highlights what may be the key technical

limitations of working in marble vs. bronze (For the most complete discussion of this bronze statuette, cf.

C. Waldstein, Hermes with the Infant Dionysos. Bronze Statuette in the Louvre. JHS, 1882, p. 107-110).52 Sellers, 130-134.53 Henri Lechat, Revue des Etudes Grecques, 1898, 207.54 S Reinach, Repertoire de la statuaire Grecque et Romaine, II. i., 173.55 Fowler, 44.

11


12/32

that even prior to Blmel the question of the sculptures attribution to Praxiteles was far

from universal.

What truly animated the controversy was Carl Blmels epochal study of the

technique of ancient Greek sculpture56 published in 1927, in which he announced that on

purely technical grounds the Hermes could not be accepted as an original by Praxiteles, but

must be a copy made in Roman times. Prior to this publication discussions of the dating of

the sculpture had relied mainly upon evidence from the literary record and impressionistic

judgments about style and quality. Blmel, regardless of whether scholars agree with him,

was critical in raising the intellectual level of the debate as those who responded to him

were forced to also focus upon technical qualities of the statue and an extensive use of

comparanda. Blmels eight contentions also shaped future discussion, and so it is

worthwhile to discuss them in detail. Blmels first contention is that the unfinished back

of the Hermes57 is exceptional for the fourth century, but not for the technique of the

Roman copyist of the so-called Kopistenzeit period, who was more accustomed to

complete statues only for the angle at which they were desired to be viewed. Second, the

dissimilarity in the formal rendering of the back58 is unusual in the fourth century, but

easily explained in copyists technique, in which tools were used from different angles to

achieve a faithful copy. Third, the thoroughgoing use of the flat and the rounded chisel

for working the nude is not to be found in the good tradition of the fourth century, but is the

customary rule in Imperial Roman times, which as can be seen from our previous

discussion was extensively used in nearly every aspect of the statue. The fourth contention

is based upon comparanda, in that, for Blmel, the similarity in execution of the Hermes

56 Griechische Bildhauerarbeit, Jbl Erganzungsheft for 1927.57 Refer to section 4 of the previous discussion of the statue, Images #9-10.58 Cf. especially Image #10.

12


13/32

and of copies such as the Subiaco Youth, the Eubuleus, the Ilioneus, the satyr torso of the

Lourvre are incredibly striking, especially when considering the high finish of the statues

front. Along similar lines, the drapery of the so-called Germanicus59 is surprisingly, to

Blmel, a fantastic comparison. Whereas there is, according to Blmel, no correspondence

for the Hermes in this respect with any fourth century works,60 both the Germanicus and

the Hermes statues share a non-linear sense of gravity. It is important here to highlight the

first association of the Hermes statue with the so-called Germanicus, as the relative

similarities or dissimilarities in drapery have been used by nearly every scholar after

Blmel to argue for the attribution of the Olympian Hermes. The fifth contention made by

Blmel is that the volumetric drill-working of the hair61 is supposedly occurring here on

the Hermes for the first time; but for Blmel the lacuna between this first example and

following examples is too long as it is only in later centuries that the drilling commonly

occurs. The final three contentions, in rapid succession, are that the gouged surface of the

tree-trunk cannot be really paralleled earlier than in Roman copies, that the strut, in a

quietly standing group such as this, where there is no technical necessity for it, is without

parallel in Greek art, but extremely common as a copyists addition. And finally that the

Hermes is set on a base of the first century BC cannot be explained by assuming that the

statue was placed in the Heraeum in a later time. The statue was made for this position and

consequently for its later base.62 While Blmels eight points were all made on claimed

technical grounds, that his selection of comparanda was subjective is an unavoidable fact,

59 See Image #20.60 Blmel, 1927: 86.61 See section one of the previous sculptural discussion of the hair of the statue, and images #4-6 for

illustration.62 Blmel, 1927: 90-94.

13


14/32

but the critique of the sculptures attribution to Praxiteles was damning enough that it

resulted in a surprisingly contentious debate in the following years.

The major response to Blmels critique from the camp of those advocating an

attribution to Praxiteles came in 1929 from Gisela Richter in the form of a review of his

Griechische Bildhauerarbeit. That Richters response came at a time when Blmels

critique was still causing great waves can be seen when Stanley Casson writes that,

concerning her review, the alarm and despondency raised by his [Blmels] powerful

attack has been speedily lulled by an equally detailed and trenchant reply by Miss

Richter

63

As to the nature of the rebuttal Richter provided, to the eight points Blmel

made in his article Richter gives five arguments. To Blmels first argument that the

unfinished back of the Hermes was exception for the fourth century, Richter quite rightly

rebutted that, this is the reverse of the truth. Greeks almost always neglected the unseen

parts in the fourth century and earlier.the Parthenon and Aegina sculptures were

exceptions.64 This effective rebuttal continues throughout her argument, such as when in

order to disprove Blmels third point concerning the unfound use of straight and round

chisels in the nude parts of fourth century sculpture, Richter quotes one of Blmels own

plates to show an example of the flat chisel in fourth-century sculpture, in addition to

giving four other examples of her own,65 and this leveling of his argument continues.

However, Richter does not answer his second argument concerning the process by which

Hermes was cut first from the front and then from the back,66 critical as this is the main

focus of the remainder of his text unfocused on the Hermes, and his seventh argument

concerning the carving style of the tree-trunk having no parallels in fourth century

63 Casson, 1931: 262.64 Richter, 1929: 234-235.65 Richter, 1929: 235-236.66 Ibid.

14


15/32

sculpture, but rather in the Roman copyist tradition. In his own comments in 1931 in the

American Journal of Archaeology, Stanley Casson, in reviewing Richters rebuttal,

concluded about Blmel and Richters exchange, but I must confess I am not satisfied

with the present state of the controversyas in all important discussions or debates, the

opener of the discussion must be held to have gained the day unless allhis major

arguments are satisfactorily disposed of.67

Cassons publication of his article in theAJA sparked an accompanying symposium

of articles which were published over 1931, and this symposium would largely shape the

positions held by the various camps as to the attribution of the Hermes until the present

day. In addition to Casson, Carl Blmel and Gisela Richter reiterated or added to their

argument, along with newcomers Rhys Carpenter, Valentin Muller, and William Dinsmoor.

Blmels 1931 article does little to develop the argument for the Hermes of Olympia being

a Roman copy, and indeed the article seems to be mainly an attempt to show that his theory

was not as radical as many thought, beginning his paper with the claim, die Behauptung,

dass die Hermesgruppe in Olympia kein Original von der Hand des Praxiteles sei, ist weder

sensationell noch besonders neu. Schon G. Hirschfeld, der im Jahre 1877 die olympischen

Ausgrabungen leitete, vertrat diese Ansicht mit guten Grtinden und nach ihm gab es in den

letzten 50 Jahren immer wieder Archaologen.68 That is not to say that Blmel necessarily

had to reformulate his argument, for, as Casson said, some of his points had yet to be

refuted.

Rather, Rhys Carpenter, then a newly chaired professor, was the participant in the

symposium who developed the argument for the Hermes of Olympia being a Roman copy.

67 Casson, 1931: 268.68 Blmel, 1931: 269.

15


16/32

When considering the original eight points elaborated by Blmel, Carpenter says, any

single one of them, if incontrovertible, would be conclusive for the later date of the

Hermes. But is such an incontrovertible objection to be found in the list? I believe that

one exists, though it is only vaguely implied, and nowhere expressly formulated by Blmel.

It is this: the drapery of the Hermes is not Greek, nor even a copy of the Greek work, but

fundamentally and unambiguously Roman.69 If we consider what we already know about

the drapery of the Hermes,70 Carpenter formulates his argument by comparing traditional

geometric drapery to the volumetric, or as he puts it free plastic creation of the Hermes

statue. For Carpenter, traditional geometric drapery arises out of the archaic tendency

add drapery as a simple atelier form of the block of stone.71 Even into the fourth century,

the geometry of consistent line still wholly dominates the sculpture from the temple of

Askleopios at Epidauros and the statue of Eirene and Plutos by Cephisodotus;72 works near

to the period of Praxiteles. Meanwhile, just as Blmel utilized the Germanicus from the

Louvre to make his argument, so too does Carpenter utilize Germanicus to demonstrate

that, while, plastic realism began in Pergamon, the Germanicus demonstrates that it

reached its completion under Roman realism.73 Of these elements of plastic realism, or

mannerisms74begun in the schools of Pergamon in the second century BCE, Carpenter

lists three that are clearly evident to him in the Hermes: fingerprints, zigzags, and

countersunk frets.75 Fingerprints mannerism gives the affect of a putty-soft surface

which has been indented by shallow pressure. According to Carpenter, it is apparent in an

69 Carpenter, 1931: 250.70 Refer back to the formal discussion of the sculpture, specifically section 8, as well as Images #15-16.71 Carpenter, 1931: 250-251.72 See Image #21.73 Carpenter, 1931: 251.74 Ibid, 252.75 See Image #22 for examples of all of these mannerisms as described by Carpenter.

16


17/32

advanced state of over-use on the large pendent surfaces of the lower half of the Hermes

drapery.76 Meanwhile, just as in the Pergamon great altar, the Hermes shows an example

of this mannerism plainly below the horizontal strut as shown in Carpenters image.77

Finally, the countersunk fret mannerism, in which, the furrow assumes the form of a

slot with angular edges, making sunken patterns like frets or keys. It is characteristic that

the breaks, turns, or angles in these patterns are slightly rounded as a result of the drill with

which the corners were laid out.78 Just as in the previous cases, Carpenter finds no

precedence in fourth century art but plenty of evidence in the Roman period.

Now that Carpenter has argued that the Praxiteles found in Olympia is clearly a

Roman copy based upon the drapery techniques, he goes one step further to argue that the

Roman copy is in fact a copy of a bronze original by Praxiteles.79 For proof of this,

Carpenter looks to the support features of the statue, such as the tree trunk and strut, which

in looking to parallels such as the Daidumenos from Delos he argues are most prevalent in

marble copies of bronze originals. Similarly, he argues that the schematic nature of the

hair carving, as well as the likely gilding of the hair, would have mimicked the hair of

bronze statues, which was highly schematized and almost always gilded. Finally,

Carpenter points to the high polish of the statue, arguing that its high polish, unusual until

the Roman period, would have excellently mimicked the reflective nature of bronze.80

Hence, for Carpenter the drapery, strut, and support would have all been later additions to a

Praxitelian original. While Carpenter acknowledges that Praxiteles often worked in

76 Carpenter, 1931: 252.77 Ibid, 253.78 Ibid.79 Ibid, 255-256.80 Ibid, 258.

17


18/32

marble, his interpretation of the carving style would make Carpenter a far more consistent

defender of the Roman dating of the Hermes than even Blmel.

The three other participants in the 1931 symposium, Richter, Muller, and Dinsmoor

all supported the thesis that the Hermes of Olympia was an original of Praxiteles.

Fortunately for our current study, the authors appeared to have been in dialogue during

their writing and so very little overlap exists between their arguments. Richter largely

builds upon the points she made in her 1929 review, although she does delve into

refutations of portions of Carpenters argument, articulate more fully defenses of the

legitimacy of Pausaniass text as challenged by Sellers.

81

Against Carpenter she forcefully

argues against the possibility of the Hermes being a copy of a bronze original by writing,

the posture of the Hermes absolutely demands a support on which to lean. Let anyone

assume the position of the Hermeshe will instinctively change to a pose with a weight

with weight on the left leg unless a support is provided.82 Beyond these technical grounds

Richter points out that, a figure with an accentuated curve and a support or drapery on one

side---specifically interested Praxiteles. Witness the Aphrodite of Knidos, the Eros of

Parion, and the Apollo Sauroktonos.83 As to the other detractors, Richter quotes at length

the passage of Pausanias84 in order to demonstrate that we cannot be certain that Pausanias

only received the provenance of the statues through word of mouth and not through an

inscription as Seller claims, because the passage quoted from Pausanias shows that he did

not mention the dedicator or dedication in any of the statues enumerated. He was

81 Richter, 1931: 277-290.82 Ibid, 280.83 Ibid, 281. Although it is important to note that Richter overlooks the fact that all of these statues exist to

us in Roman copies, and there is always the possibility that the originals could have been to some degree

different. Considering the Knidian Aphrodite, many of the bronze statuettes do not have any form of

hydria and linen, which has been used by certain scholars to argue that the original bore no such forms.84 See footnote 7.

18


19/32

interested at the time in the subject, the sculptor, and the period [and therefore he may have

still seen an inscription].85 While Richter does make a passing attempt at disproving

Blmels arguments, most are reiterations of her 1927 article.

The two new proponents of the Hermes as a work of Praxiteles, Muller and

Dinsmoor, focused on the drapery and base of the statue respectively. Mullers argument

concerns itself with debunking the critique of Carpenter on the drapery of the statue, 86 by

moving through the three mannerisms raised by Carpenter. Where Muller is more broad

his argument is relatively weak, such as when discussing the comparison of the Hermes

and the Germanicus Muller writes, the two draperies are very different. That of the

Hermes gives the impression of a very soft woolen stuff, which does not break in sharp

edges but has sharper angles87 However, in disproving the three mannerisms Muller is

very specific, dismissing the lack of finger-prints in the fourth century outright due to

numerous comparanda,88 and utilizing the sitting muse of the Mantineia base to show that,

both counter-sunk frets and zig-zags can be found in fourth century art.89 Meanwhile,

Dinsmoor made an important contribution in his 1931 article,90 in which he pointed out

marked technical differences between the style of the pedestal in front of which the statue

was found and that of pedestals of the second century AD, to which some would assign the

work. In his opinion the pedestal dates from the second century BC,, a period hardly

possible as the date of the statue itself.91 The reason for the statue certainly being of an

earlier date than the base is because, the surviving part of the plinth, with the right foot,

85 Richter, 1931: 278.86 Muller, 1931: 291-295.87 Ibid, 291.88 Ibid, 29489 Ibid. See Image #23 for a depiction of the Mantineia base. The figure referred to is on the far right of

the composition.90 Dinsmoor, 1931: 296-297. For the discussion refer to Image #17.91 Ibid, 296.

19


20/32

has a half clamp to the right of this footIt could have been caused by the statue being

pried out of its lead sealing the socket of an earlier pedestal.92 It may therefore be inferred

that during that century the statue had been transferred from its original base to a current

base. While Dinsmoor claims that the statue should be seen as an original in light of no

compelling evidence otherwise, his most fundamental contribution was to remove that base

as an effective tool in the controversy. Both critiques were well received, although the

Dinsmoor, despite its brevity, effectively ended any debate on the pedestal93 while

arguments as to the drapery continue to this day.

The 1931 symposium was a decisive moment in the debate on the attribution of the

Hermes of Olympia, not so much in that anything was resolved, but rather that following

this the debate fractured into occasional skirmishes over the next few decades, with less of

the heated rhetoric seen previously. This third phase witnessed several scholarly

exchanges, although three stand out of note. First, in 1937 Oscar Antonsson proposed the

most divergent thesis yet proposed, although this was quickly squashed regardless of its

merits. Meanwhile, from 1940 to 1941 a brief debate over the sandals of the statue resulted

in what one may consider a victory for those attributing the statue to Praxiteles. Finally, in

1948 Blmel unexpectedly renounced his original position in favor of a Hellenistic dating,

which led to a rupture between his scholarship and that of Carpenter. These exchanges

would set the stage for the contemporary scholarly debates of the post-60s, by pruning the

scholarly debate until only several key areas of argument remained.

92 Ibid, 297.93

The only literature on the Hermes pedestal after Dinsmoor has pertained to attempts to explain the

movement of the statues. In 1936, H.W. Law, inJournal of Hellenic Studies (236-237), follows this, saying

the occasion of the transfer was the receipt, in 146 BC, at Olympia of intelligence of Mummius

proceedings at Corinth. He in fact treated Olympia well, dedicating gilded shields on the temple of Zeus

and images of Zeus from the spoils of Achaea, in addition to other gifts. But the authorities may

reasonably not have anticipated such treatment from him, and have decided that removal to the Heraeum,

the oldest temple at Olympia, offered the best chance of preserving the statue.

20


21/32

Six years after the symposium, in 1937, Oscar Antonsson brought out a volume of

some 200 pages under the title The Praxiteles Group in Olympia,94 which occasioned a

deal of unfavorable criticism of his surprising claim that originally the present statue did

not represent Hermes at all, but had been re-cut in Roman times from a Praxitelean statue

of Pan, showing the deityalbeit with human legswith snub nose, prick ears, horned

head, and a panther skin knotted around his neck. This reevaluation of the subject matter

of the statue, inspired by the wall-painting of the Casa del Naviglio in Pompeii,95 say the

wall-painting and other iterations of Pan caring for Dionysos as not just imitations of the

Hermes of Olympia, but actual derivations of what would be considered the Pan of

Olympia. Antonsson say the rasp marks on various areas of the statue not as signs of

unfinishing, but rather as, areas on which the attributes of Pan had either been removed

when they were separate pieces or hacked off where necessary.96 If one considers the

neck of the statue,97 the rasp marks which Antonsson identified on the clavicle of the figure

would have in fact born a panther pelt, which would have covered the unfinished back of

the statue and merged with what remain of the fabric covering the tree trunk. Gouge marks

on the ears and along the nose, often referred to be scholars, were in fact to Antonsson

signs of re-carving what once were pointed ears and a more bulbous nose of a satyr. Most

interestingly, the drill holes and gaps in the hair of the statue, most often taken as signs of

some sort of wreath or wings common to Hermes,98were in fact areas in which horns and a

grapevine wreath were originally attached.99 This idea was unfavorably received by critics

and public alike, seeming so completely improbable that they neglected to entertain the

94 Antonsson, 1937.95 See Image #18.96 Antonsson, 1937: 50.97 See Image #7, discussed by Antonsson on p. 78.98 Cf. Pasquier, 2007: 121.99 See Image #24, cf. Antonsson, pg. 7.

21


22/32

possibility that many of the technical observations on which Antonssons arguments were

based might not be as erroneous as the inferences which he derived from them. Carpenter

put it best in a later 1969 note published in theAJA, when he wrote that, it remains tenable

that Antonsson performed a genuine service to our study of the Hermesthough not, it

would seem, to his own scholarly status at the time.100 Indeed, Antonssons theories

would be utlizied by Carpenter himself to slightly alter his previous 1931 claim, saying that

the Hermes as we have received it is indeed of Roman times, although perhaps as an

altered original rather than a new Roman copy.101

While several of the contentions raised between those advocating its status as a 4

th

century original or later copy/original would continue into the present day, certain lines of

argument have thankfully been limited in their chronological extent. An example of this is

the brief debate of 1940-1941 over the ability to determine the attribution of the Hermes

from the form of the sandal,102although as will be seen later this has done little to stop

contemporary scholars from reexamining them more than sixty years later. In an article

entitled Sutor Supra Crepidam,103 published in 1940 Mary Wallace argued for a terminus

ante quem of a Hellenistic Date for the Hermes statues based upon the form of the sandal.

Wallace sums up her observations in four points, beginning with the fact that the incurving

of the sole in general is not found until the Attalid period,104 although Wallace does

acknowledge the fact that this shape is found in the Minerve au collier, and several other

examples. That said, the gender specificity of the curvature of the sandal is particularly

important, for its sandal has already the careful shaping of the sole and the use of

100 Carpenter, 1969: 465.101 Ibid, 466.102 Refer back to the discussion of the sandal in section #5 of the formal analysis, as well as Image #11.103 Wallace, 1940: 213-221.104 Ibid, 215.

22


23/32

mouldings which was definitely seen beginning in the Pergamon school. 105 Meanwhile, the

division of the thong from between toes low on instep, and the combination of toe-strap

and cross-strap are seen by Wallace as distinct from any examples from the fourth

century.106 Despite Wallaces cogent argument Margarete Bieber was able to quash this

matter in the following year, in the sardonically titledNe Supra Crepidam Sutor

Iudicaret.107 Just as Rechter had disproven many of Blmels points by using his own

evidence against him, Bieber pointed out the fact that Miss Wallaces dismissal of Minerve

au collier among other as, inexact on account of the noted carelessness in rendering details

of the Roman copyists

108

ignores the fact, that the group is too large for this explanation

and include not only careless copies.109 To the group of statues Wallace admitted to

having similar sandal forms Bieber in rapid succession adds examples from tombstones,

the Praxitelean Aphrodite of Ostia, and the Lateran Sophocles; all examples of the sandal

form from the fourth century. The settling of the sandal debate so quickly, while resolving

the issue for the time, did little to settle the overall controversy, for at this point the various

camps in the controversy were beginning to fracture.

Nearly seven years afterwards, when it seemed that the camps had become entirely

immobile, there was a exception event when, in 1948, Carel Blmel unexpectedly

renounced his original position that the Hermes was a Roman copy and put forward the

claim that, after all, the statue was an original marble, and carved by Praxiteles; but rather

than the renowned fourth-century artist, it was another of the same name who lived and

worked 200 years later in the mid-Hellenistic period.110 Blmels argument was not

105 See Image #25, demonstration of the difference from Wallaces article.106 Wallace, 1940: 219-220.107 Bieber, 1941: 62-63.108 Wallace, 1940: 217.109 Bieber, 1941: 62.110 Blumel, 1949.

23


24/32

without prescedent, as his argument was reminiscent of the argument put forward by Otto

Benndorf in the nineteenth century, and that briefly raised by C. H. Morgan in 1937 111 due

to the revelation of another sculptor named Praxiteles, whose signature had been

discovered in the course of the German excavation of Pergamon and belonged to the

second century BC.112 In this slender volume, based on a lecture given atht earchaeological

society in Berlin, Blmel repeats his main eight reasons for doubting the authenticity of the

statue.113 In order to date the statue to the Hellenistic rather than Roman periods, the

corrected and unfinished back of the Hermes is compared to the back of a Zeus in

Pergamon.

114

The surface treatment of the skin, chlamys, and tree trunk seems to him too

refined for the fourth century and only possible in the Hellenistic period.115 Similarly,

Blmel claims that the child is Hellenistic in conception due to its apparent proper

proportions in comparison to Classical sculpture. Thus, instead of a Roman date, Blmel

places the statue in the second century BC, at around the same time that Dinsmoor dated

the pedestal,116 and goes a step further than Morgan in claiming that the Pergamon

inscription mentioning a Praxiteles was in fact a descendent of Praxiteles who would have

carved in a style similar to his ancestor.117

Unsurprisingly, the camp of those supporting the fourth century attribution of the

sculpture responded decisively, demonstrated when in 1950 Margarete Bieber, in a review

of Blmels new work,118 attempted to refute several of his points. Most notably for

disproving his dating of the statue, Bieber pointed out that, the inscriptions [referring to a

111 Morgan, 1937: 61-68.112 Ibid, 67.113 Blumel, 1949: 11-17.114 Ibid, 23-30, figs. 12-15.115 Ibid, 30-46.116 Dinsmoor, 1931: 297.117 Blumel, 1949: 52.118 Bieber, 1950: 281-282.

24


25/32

Praxiteles have been dated by Frankelin the time of Eumenes II (197-159), in the first

have of the second century, rather than in the second half, in which Blmel dates the

Hermes.119 Moreover, while Bieber does not attempt to disprove all of his conclusions,

she does dispute several of his assertions, among others asserting that, the child is in no

way Hellenistic in conception, but like the Pluto on the arm of Eirene, much too mature for

the small size of the body.120 This is certainly Biebers most valid point, and is suggestive

of Blmels consistent failure to recognize similarities in sculpture contemporary to a

fourth century dating of the statue.

Unexpectedly, the most serious critique of Blmels new stance came from

Carpenter, which is perhaps unsurprising considering the solidarity they shared during the

1931 symposium. In Two Postscripts to the Hermes Controversy,121 written in 1954,

Carpenters dismay is already clear in the second paragraph, where he writes that, like

most compromises, such a position is ill calculated to satisfy either party to the dispute; and

it is to be regretted that the courageous Blmel of the now classic Griechische

Bildhauerarbeitshould have adopted that least rewarding of all scholarly mottoes, medio

tutissimus ibis.122 While Carpenter still praises Blmels eight points, unsurprising as

they are a crux of his own argument, he in rapid succession dismisses most of the

comparisons Blmel makes which would suggest a Hellenistic date.123 His main argument

against this Hellenistic dating, however, is made through a tripartite argument that, (1) all

Praxiteles famous enough to be known from the literary record are from the golden age

between 470 and 270, (2) all Pergamon sculptors were new blood and therefore it is

119 Ibid, 282.120 Ibid. Bieber is referring to the statue of Pluto and Eirene made by Praxiteles father, Cephisodotus,

depicted in Image #21.121 Carpenter, 1954: 1-12.122 Ibid, 1.123 Ibid, 3-4.

25


26/32

highly unlikely a Pergamon sculptor had a name derived from Praxiteless family, and (3)

therefore it is far more likely that the Pergamon inscription refers to a statue from the

golden age of Greek sculpture.124 The effective critique contained in this first

postscript,125 and indeed the term postscript, implies that Carpenter felt that in 1954 the

controversy had run its course, ultimately leading into several intractable camps of opinion.

Carpenter was indeed correct to a certain extent, as from the 1960s onwards there

has been little evidence of the rapid exchanges and rejoinders which filled publications

such as theAJA for much of the previous century. Instead, in this fourth phase, opinions on

the dating and attribution of the Hermes of Olympia have been contained largely in

volumes treating the work of Praxiteles in a wider context, and rejoinders have taken

decades to appear in scholarship. However, ever since the 1960s there has been a steady

acceptance by many prominent scholars that the sculpture is likely not a fourth century

original. Sheila Adam, in The technique of Greek sculpture in the archaic and classical

periods, written in 1966, strangly follows the literature of Carpenter and Wallace on the

drapery and footwear respectively, without giving much consideration to those like Muller

and Bieber who attempted to refute the arguments. Indeed, beyond a citation of Richter

and others towards the beginning of her text,126 she does not bother to consider their

arguments. If we recall the citation from Adam in the first paragraph of this paper, in

which she says that the bibliography is too long to cite on a case by case basis, one begins

to wonder if that might have led Adam to ignore certain pro-fourth century arguments in

124 Ibid, 5-6.125 In addition to arguing against Blmels new argument, Carpenter for his second postscript reiterated the

contentions he had originally asserted in 1931. The trenchant beliefs and immobility of the controversy at

this time are apparent in Carpenters own comments, for at a later date in reviewing his past article he wrote,

At the same occasion I reviewed once again the various indications that the Hermes had been copied from

bronzewithout gaining (as far as I know) any additional converts to my way of thinking.126 Adam, 1966: 124.

26


27/32

favor of other points. As an example, after distancing herself from Carpenters

mannerisms, Adam describes how, the sculptor was, in fact, bored by linear draperyhe

does not care for the clear decisive styles which were in fashion in the fourth century. 127

There is no mention, or even attempt to refute, the examples raised by Muller of

comparanda of the fourth century with striking similarities to the Hermes. This leads her to

conclude that, the style and tecnhique of the drapery of the Hermes confirm the suspicions

aroused by other featuresthe hair, the polish, the child, the sandal, the perdestalthat the

statue cannot have been carved in the fourth century.128 Whereas Carpenter is the 50s had

to fight tooth and nail on every point due to the precedents of the scholarly debate,

following Adam conclusions are made with less concern for the historiographical narrative.

In 1982 Brunilde Ridgeway argued that the Olympian Hermes is later than 330, and

therefore post-praxitelian based upon the head of the Hermess striking similarity to other

heads found in and around Olympia and dated to the second century BC. 129 Ridgeways

student Katharine Dohan Morrow suggested a later date as well due to her study of ancient

Greek footwear in sculpture, demonstrating that even though the issue of footwear had

been quashed for decades following Biebers critique of Wallace, new scholars could

always revive issues. According to Morrows analysis, features of Hermess sandals, their

ornamental tongue, squared-off straps and added discs, and the sole, indented between the

rest, are dated no earlier than about 200 BC and could in fact, for Morrow, be even later. 130

In 1990, Andrew Stewart was more circumspect, but still considers that the Hermes to be

probably of the Hellenistic period [because].131

127 Ibid, 127.128 Adam, 1966: 128.129 Ridgeway, 1984: 85-86.130 Morrow, 1985: 83-84.131 Stewart, 1990: [look up citation, lost that section of my notes]: 279.

27


28/32

The most recent publication certain of a later date of the statue arose out of Aileen

Ajootians 1996 volumePersonal Styles in Greek Sculpture. Demonstrating a greater

historical awareness than some of the other scholars arguing for a later date, Ajootian

spends nearly half a page on historiography.132 Generally agreeing with the points raised

by Blumels, Carpenter, and the scholars of the post-60s, Ajootian adds two points of her

own. On the issue of footwear, Ajootian adds to what was said by Morrow, focusing on the

Herakles knot which terminated the instep of the sandal, saying that, for the Herakles knot

adorning sculptured sandals it is difficult to find parallels dating before the second century

BC

133

While she list several examples, it is troubling that she does not address the

examples given by Bieber. One wonders whether this was a lapse or, since footwear is

outside the scope of this papers authors scope, perhaps all the examples raised by Bieber

have been re-dated.

While the treatments of the Hermes of Olympia that have dated it later than the 4th

century have generally arisen within a volume of a broader scope, and often with less of an

investigation of both sides of the argument, the recent proponents of an attribution of the

sculpture to Praxiteles himself have often relied upon a more historiographic approach,

among them the work of R.E. Wycherley and Antonio Corso. Indeed, R.E. Wycherley,

writing in 1982, came to the conclusion ultimately that Pausanias must be trusted, as

ultimately there is evidence from both the Roman and Greek periods that have been used

by both sides which cannot be disproved by the other side unless new ground-breaking

discoveries are made.134 Wycherley eventually came to this conclusion because the focus

of the paper was, the career of the OlympiaHermes reputation.135 Meanwhile, in his

132 Ajootian, 1996: 106.133 Ibid, 107.134 Wycherley, 1982: 190-191.135 Ibid, 182.

28


29/32

article The Hermes of Praxiteles of 1996,136Corso came to the conclusion that in all

likelihood the Hermes of Olympia was in fact an original of Praxiteles, doing so by

considering the entire historiography of the controversy, on both sides of the issue, and

carefully dealing with the arguments made by both sides over the course of nearly 130

years. Addressing in eleven points the issues raised by those believing the statue to be of a

later date, Corso points out solutions to every matter, relying not only upon the stylistic

elements of the statue, but also a comprehensive comparanda of sculptures and literary

sources not utilized previously in the debate. On the subject of the unfinished back of the

Hermes, Corso not only looks back to scholars of the early twentieth century, pointing out

that, Rizzo stressed that the backs of all the copies of the Resting Satyr, also attributed to

Praxiteles, are not well finished,137 but also utilizing new evidence, demonstrating that,

we have to consider not only the sources about Praxiteles collected by Overbeck in 1868,

but also the other sources that have become known since then. Chorikius from Gaza, in his

Declamatio, n. 8, speaks of an Aphrodite made by Praxiteles for the Spartans and that the

Spartans did not acceptamong the reasons the Spartans did not accept the statue was also

the fact that it was unfinished.138 Concerning the drapery of the Hermes, Corso utilizes

even the work of Oscar Antonsson, so quickly dismissed by his contemporaries, pointing

out that, already Oscar antonsson has shown a lot of comparisons with these features

[countersunk frets, zigzags, and fingerprints] of the Vth and IVth centuries BC,139 before

making the often ignored point that a sculptor as great as Praxiteles could be expected to be

especially innovative. On the issue of the right sandal, which appears to be a controversy

that simply will not die, Corso looked to the comparanda raised by Bieber and others,

136 Corso, 1996: 131-153.137 Ibid, 134.138 Ibid.139 Ibid, 137.

29


30/32

noting that in reference to the Chairestratos Themis, since the difference between the

late production of Praxiteles and the Themis is only 20 to 30 years, it is possible that the

first surviving original example of the indentation is that of the Hermes.140 Corso adds

further examples, however, noting four examples, including, the sandal of the Apollo

Belvedere, which, after the find of the cast in Baiai, is a faithful copy of the Apollo Patroos

of Leochares.141 In addition to these arguments, Corso provides three entirely new

arguments for the Praxitelian nature of the sculpture, and a sign of the forcefulness of the

argument can be seen in the fact that in Coros series of three monographs on Praxiteles

published from 2004-2010,

142

he has not had to make any rebuttals or even reiterate his

arguments as to the attribution of the Hermes of Olympia.

It is still unclear to what affect the controversy of the dating and attribution of the

Hermes will affect treatments of the in the twenty-first century. In the exhibition catalogue

written by Pasquier to accompany the 2007 exhibitionPraxiteles at the Louvre, far greater

attention has been given to controversies relating to reconstructions of the statue143 than to

the attribution, for indeed the only relevant section of the catalogue description arise when

Pasquier writes, L'identification des personages, grace a Pausanias, ne faisait pas de

doute.144 Admittedly an exhibition catalogue is no place to delve into the controversy, but

it appears that, in contrast to the 1960s-1990s when scholarly opinion moved forcefully

towards a later dating of the statue, scholars can now comfortably ascribe a positive

140

Ibid, 142.141 Ibid. See Image #26 for a depiction of the sandal of the Apollo Belvedere, which certainly does have a

striking semblance to the sandal of the Hermes, especially in the incurve.142 The art of Praxiteles: the development of Praxiteles' workshop and itscultural tradition until the sculptor's acme (2004); The art of Praxiteles.2, The mature years (2007); and The art of Praxiteles. 3, The advancedmaturity of the sculptor (2010)143Pasquier, 2007: 121.144 Ibid, 120.

30


31/32

attribution. While Pasquiers catalogue demonstrates that the controversy is not pervasive

in the popular consciousness, in 2007 an article published by Heide Froning,145 on the now

well-worn subject of the sandal of the Olympian Hermes, demonstrates that, at least in

specialized circles, the controversy is still alive and well. Whereas publications concerned

entirely with the sandal of Hermes every since Biebers article in 1941 have consistently

come down against the attribution of the Hermes to Praxiteles, let alone the 4 th century,

Fronings analysis seems to side to an extent with Corso. Just as with Corso, Froning

consider the Apollo Belvedere and the Artemis of Versailles, however she goes a step

further by considering a terracotta fragment of a statue found in Elis, now in the

Archaeological Museum,146 das wahrscheinlich einen Nachklang des phidiasischen

Goldelfenbeinbildes der Aprhodite Urania in Elis bewahrt147 Froning has dated this newly

considered fragment to the late classical period. While more reserved than Corso, Froning

was able to conclude by saying, Die form der Sandale des Hermes stellt kein Hindernis

dar, die Gruppe fur eine originale Arbeit des Praxiteles aus der Zeit um 330 v.Chr. zu

halten.148 While the second half of the twentieth century witnessed a movement away

from the 4th century dating of the Hermes, it would seem that new arguments and evidence

have enlivened the proponents of attributing the statue to Praxiteles.

Ultimately, just as asserted by Wycherley, unless some amazing new find was to

create a paradigm shift in how we view and date statues of the Late Classical period

onwards, the controversy will never truly be resolved. Opinions have certainly shifted over

time, with a general consensus on the attribution of the Hermes to Praxiteles from 1877 to

1927 leading into a heated controversy that would eventually see the consensus change by

145 Froning, 2007: 95-101.146 See Image #27.147 Froning, 2007: 99.148 Ibid.

31


32/32

the 1960s toward a dating of the Hermes to later than fourth, only for the consensus to yet

again seem to shift in the other direction at the end of the twentieth and beginning of the

twenty-first century. In all of these periods, there was never universal consensus, whether

in the first fifty years following the sculptures discovery or when Ajootian claimed the

opposite in 1996. However, universal consensus should not be what future scholars strive

for. Blmels 1927 thesis, although displeasing to both acadamia and the public, marked

the rise of technical approaches to classical sculpture which would have a lasting impact on

the field. Antonssons 200 page monograph of the Hermes (or Pan) of Olympia ruined his

reputation, yet so exhaustive was his analysis that it is still being used today whereas others

are not. Corsos article, coming out in the same year as Ajootians claim, marks the

growing trend of a more multidisciplinary approach utilizing literature, numismatics, and

traditional stylistic analysis. With an awareness of the historiographic narrative of the

Olympian Hermes, scholars may have a better understanding the relative strengths and

weaknesses of current approaches, while avoiding the failed or concluded arguments of the

past.

historiography of olympian hermes, rough draft

Documents