Commentary Prepared by Dr. Julia Lenaghan, Ashmolean Museum

B 148
Aphrodite of Melos ("Venus de Milo"). Louvre

Marble (Parian)
Statue
2.112 m with plinth, without plinth 2.04 m

From Melos (a Greek island in the Cyclades). The statue was found by a peasant in 1820 probably in situ in a niche with a total of three small herms.
France, Paris, Louvre, Ma 399
Late Hellenistic

Preservation:
The statue was made of several separately worked pieces which were carefully joined. The two major sections of the statue, the upper body and head and the lower body, were joined where the upper border of the garment crosses the body. In addition, the left arm was dowelled onto the body at the shoulder; the right arm from just above the elbow downwards seems to have been attached by means of a rectangular dowel below the right breast; the left foot and a portion of the plinth were added; and a portion behind the right hip has been added separately in antiquity, probably a repair. The statue is currently missing its left arm, its right arm from a smooth section above the elbow downwards, and its left foot. Both a left foot and a fragment of a left arm holding an apple in its hand were found at the same time as the statue. The left foot, however, has now been lost. The chignon and some pieces of the drapery had broken off and have been reattached. Other restorations include the end of nose, the lower lip, a large section of right foot, and some folds. In addition, the dowel under the right breast and above the navel has been filled. The ear lobes are broken. In the ear lobes and above the smoothly finished end of the right arm are drilled holes. These were for the attachment of earrings and an arm bracelet.

Description:
The statue depicts a standing half-naked female who turns to the left. A heavy rectangular garment is wrapped around the lower body. Its upper border which is rolled into a thick bunch crosses the body just below the hips so that on the front side the beginning of the pubic triangle is visible and on the back side the division of the buttocks is visible. The lower border lies on the ground. The garment, with one end fixed at the left side of the body, moves from the left side across the front of the body, around the back of the body, and back to the front left. The upper exterior corner of the garment lies over the left knee which, being raised, prevents the corner from falling to the ground. The garment is rendered in large thick folds which project significantly and thus, suggest an abundance of material. The statue rests its body weight on its right leg; the right foot rests flat on the ground and points directly outward. The left leg is bent at the knee which is raised and comes forward. The left foot, also in a forward position, rested on a small step. The nude upper body twists to the left so that the right shoulder comes forward and the left shoulder goes backward. It, in addition, tilts to the right so that the right shoulder is lowered and the left shoulder is raised. The right upper arm is lowered and coming forward, touches the right breast. The shoulder of the missing left arm is distinctly raised. The neck follows the torsion and tilt of the body. The body is rendered in massive gently modelled forms which appear to be soft and fleshy. The navel is set deeply in the surface of the stomach and there is a marked indentation at the waist. An engraved line delineates the beginning of the pubic triangle which disappears under the rolled upper border of the garment. On the neck there are two parallel indentations or “Venus lines” between which the flesh bulges outwards. The head turns to the left, presumably following the gesture of the left hand. It features long hair which is parted down the center and is held by a flat fillet which appears only at the front of the head between the temples. The hair around the face and in front of the fillet is pulled to the sides and backward. The backward flow of the hair around the ears actually covers the fillet in that area. The ears themselves are also partially covered. At the back of the head the hair is pulled upward from the hairline and this hair, combined with the hair pulled around from the front, is rolled upward and knotted into itself. A large lock escapes from the knot and hangs down on the nape of the neck. The hair is rendered in thick chunky locks which are separated by deep widely spaced grooves. The face has a large oval shape. The forehead is tall and slopes backwards to the sides. The hair, framing it, rises to a peak at the center part. The cheeks, nose, and chin are all bulky and large. The eyes in comparison are very small. The eyebrows slope downwards and curve around the side of the face. The upper lid projects and significantly overlaps the lower lid. The mouth is small from side to side. The lips are separated by a broad groove the corners of which are deeply drilled and drop downwards. The lips themselves are full and the center portion of the upper lip drops downward.

Discussion:
Because of the sensuousness of its body and the risque nature of its falling drapery, the Aphrodite of Melos has an immediate appeal and is one of the most well-known of all ancient sculptures. When it was found in 1820 its obvious appeal led to an exaggerated estimation. It was, in fact, given to King Louis in 1821 and announced as an original masterpiece of Praxiteles, a predecessor to his fully nude statue of the Knidian Aphrodite. At the end of the nineteenth century, Adolf Furtwängler wrote an article which evaluated the statue in an objective manner. He focused his attention on the original findspot, the inscriptions found with the statue, and the statue type. The statue was originally thought to have been found in a pile of marble rubble assembled for use in a lime kiln. Furtwängler, however, pointed out that it was odd that only fragments of this statue, three complete herms, and an architrave inscription were found. Usually at lime kilns there are numerous broken fragments of different marble statues. The inscription of the architrave recorded the dedication by a gymnasiarch of an exedra, possibly a statue, and herms of Herakles. Since the niche in which the Aphrodite and the herms were found is similar to exedra-like areas in palestrae, since herms are typical decoration in palestrae, and since a gymnasiarch would be likely to make a dedication in a palestra, the statue seems to have been found in situ. The inscription itself can be dated roughly by letter forms between 150 and 50 BC. Among the fragments found with the statue was a portion of a plinth that preserved a front edge and a proper left edge. In addition, it featured a sculptor’s inscription and a raised upper surface with a slot for the insertion of an object. The sculptor’s inscription, written on the front of the raised surface, read ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????. This has been restored as Agesandros or Alexandros, son of Menides, from Antioch on the Meander, made this. Furtwängler convincingly proved that this fragment did indeed belong with the statue and that it fit perfectly against the left foot. Since Antioch on the Meander was founded only in 280 BC and the sculptor is unknown, this portion of the statue was deliberately disassociated in the early 19th century when scholars wanted to believe that it was an original work of the 4th century BC by the famous sculptor Praxiteles. The Aphrodite of Melos is known in no copies but follows the format, that is, the pose and drapery, of a fourth century statue type, the “Venus of Capua”, which is preserved in numerous Roman copies. The figure of the “Venus of Capua” type, which admired itself in a shield held between the raised left leg and the left arm, is only slightly different. The “Venus of Capua” type is viewed in profile; its head tilts downward; the face is less round, more regular, and classical; the hair is carefully rolled at the back so no locks fall onto the nape; the upper border of the drapery does not dip so precariously around the back of the statue; and the fold patterns of its drapery follow regular curving parallel paths. It is clear that the Melian Aphrodite is a late, more “baroque” rendition of the earlier “Venus of Capua.” The “Venus of Capua” introduces another point of controversy. The position of the arms of the Aphrodite of Melos and the action of the statue had been the source of much discussion. A left arm with a hand that held an apple was found at the same time as the statue. Many scholars believed that the quality of the arm was not equal to that of the body of the Aphrodite and, thus, concluded that it did not belong with the statue. Some of these scholars also thought that the Aphrodite formed a group with a statue of Ares or held a shield, in both of which cases the left hand with an apple would have been inappropriate. Furtwängler, when he showed that the now lost piece of the plinth with a slot in its upper surface did pertain to the statue, in essence proved that to the statue’s left there was probably a small pillar which fit into the slot on the base. Pillars were common in classical sculpture and Furtwängler’s suggestion that is derives particularly from the Tyche of Melos (depicted on coins) is possible. Furtwängler reconstructed the left arm resting on the small pillar with the hand dangling over the front edge; the apple would have been in the palm, the back of which would have faced downward toward the ground. This would explain also why the hand was not as perfectly finished as the body. Although most scholars now accept that the left hand held an apple, it remains still open to question. The right arm must have reached across the body. Scholars even before Furtwängler noted that the folds of the drapery above the left knee were disturbed. This combined with a dowel hole under the right breast to support the arm has led to the generally accepted opinion that the right reached across the body and downwards and held the drapery near the corner which falls over the left knee. Since Furtwängler’s discussion of the statue, there have been almost no scholarly contributions towards any further clarification. Charbonneaux refutes a number of the Furtwängler conclusions; for instance, he does not believe the statue was found in situ; he doubts the evidence of either inscription; and believes the apple in the left hand is impossible. Yet through comparisons of other Hellenistic works such as the “Inopos” bust in the Louvre he arrives at the same date for the statue as Furtwängler had. Other scholars have introduced other works as comparabilia of style and trends. L. Alscher compares the Aphrodite of Melos to figures on the relief of the Great Altar of Pergamon. W. Neumer-Pfau sees its composition as similar to the “Aphrodite Anadyomene” type. Both Charbonneaux and Delivorrias introduce a Hellenistic statuette from Kos which shows a similarly draped and posed Aphrodite who regards a figure of Eros seated on a high rocky pillar to her left. All place the statue between the years of 175 at the earliest (Alscher) and 100 BC.

Bibliography:
A. Furtwängler, Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture (Lodon 1895) pp.367-401 identifies the statue as a Hellenistic original based on the "Venus of Capua"
J. Charbonneaux, "La Vénus de Milo et Mithridate le Grand" (Le Revue des Arts 1 1951) pp.8-16 compares statue to a statue in the Louvre which he identifies as Mithridates VI (120-63 BC)
J. Charbonneaux, "La Vénus de Milo" (Opus Nobile 6 1953) questions Furtwängler’s association of the plinth and architrave inscriptions and the hand with the apple
L. Alscher, Griechischer Plastik IV. Hellenismus (Berlin 1957) pp.81-84, 178-179 compares statue to figures of the Great Altar at Pergamon
M. Robertson, A History of Greek Art (Cambridge 1975) pp.553-554 summary of Furtwängler, with observation on Hellenistic freshness in the pastiche
F. Haskell and N. Penny, Taste and the Antique (New Haven 1981) pp.308-309
W. Neumer-Pfau, Studien zur Ikonographie und Gesellschaftlichen Funktion hellenistischer Aphrodite-Statuen (Bonn 1982) pp.218-220 puts in context of other Aphrodite statues of the Hellenistic period
A. Delivorrias, "Aphrodite" Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae II (Zurich 1984) pp.73-74 no.643 descriptions of the opinions concerning the statue
A. Pasquier, La Vénus de Milo et les Aphrodites du Louvre (Paris 1985) pp.21-41, 66-88 history of the statue and summary of modern interpretations
B. S. Ridgway, Hellenistic Sculpture I: The Styles of ca. 331-200 BC (Bristol 1990) pp.81 and 242 fig.305.1-2 summary of salient points of Furtwängler
W. Fuchs, Die Skulptur der Griechen (Munich 1993) pp.230-233 no.251 repeats conclusions of Furtwängler with additional stylistic notes