The Countless Aspects of Beauty in Ancient Art

THE COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF BEAUTY IN ANCIENT ART MARIA LAGOGIANNIGEORGAKARAKOS ποταμῷ γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμβῆναι δὶς τῷ αὐτῷ1 Heraclitus (ca. 535-475 BC) No two men see the world exactly alike2 Johann Wolfgang Goethe (1749-1832) If, in conclusion, we survey the course of history, we find man’s taste, like Proteus, assuming ever-changing forms3 I. Kant (1724-1804) 1. 2. 3. 4. Diehls - Kranz 1960, 171, extr. 91. “You cannot step into the same river twice”. See also Diehls - Kranz 1960, 154, extr. 12, 161, extr. 49a. Goethe 2006, 19. Kant 2011, 95. Black 2009, 221ff. The display of historical time within the finite limits of a museum constitutes one of the most enthralling conventions of our epoch, as it enables the contemporary spectator to experience the pleasure of a brief journey into the past. Divided into large units, the exhibited museum collections present the history of ancient societies, following the marks of archaeological evidence, namely the physical remains and, mainly, the various material artefacts produced by man. Detached from their original context, intact or partially preserved, worn or wounded, ancient works of art keep in them a part of historical memory alive which, together with other testimonies, put together the pieces of the big picture of the history of civilizations. The unfolding narrative of the collections of the National Archaeological Museum concerns geographically a large area where the Greek culture spread (from Southern Italy to Asia Minor, Syro-Palestine and Egypt) covering a time span of 70 centuries. In this wonderful journey that starts from the first Neolithic settlements in Thessaly (ca. 6500 BC) ending in the final gleam of the ancient world (ca. 500 AD), the visitor to the Museum is offered the opportunity to go through extended time periods, distinguish cultural entities, identify similarities and differences as regards beliefs and practices and realize that every society is credited with its own special contribution to the history of civilization and art. Statues, stelae and altars, wall-paintings and mosaics, vases, figurines, jewels, weapons, tools, and various vessels, a wide range of objects made of different materials, evidence of the social organization, the daily life, the cult and chthonic practices pass before the spectator’s eyes in an uninterrupted succession of centuries and compete with today arousing interest, exciting curiosity and causing emotional delight, wonder and, not rarely, embarrassment. The embarrassment, which is usually ascribed to the insufficient interpretation of museum exhibits4, has been associated by modern philosophers of aes- 87 MARIA LAGOGIANNI-GEORGAKARAKOS thetics with the “enigmatic” character of works of art. According to Th. Adorno, “emphatically, art is knowledge, though not the knowledge of objects. An artwork is understood only when it is grasped as a complex expression of truth”. This decipherment of truth though, which is compared to “a jigsaw-puzzle” can only be achieved “through philosophy” and this is “the only thing that provides aesthetic justification”5. The aesthetic inquiry of D. Dutton takes a different stance: “the obsession with accounting for art’s problematic outliers, while both intellectually challenging and a good way for teachers of aesthetics to generate discussion, has left aesthetics ignoring the center of art and its values. What philosophy of art needs is an approach that begins by treating art as a field of activities, objects and experience that appears naturally in human life… Many of the ways art is discussed and experienced can easily move across cultural boundaries, and manage a global acceptance without help from academics or theorists”6. It is the prospect of global acceptance which the daily museum experience advocates. The exceptionally diverse museum audience proves that aesthetic pleasure, namely the exhilaration one experiences at the sight of a beautiful work of art, is brought about most of the times spontaneously and freed from geographical or social constraints and without the aid of connoisseurs. After all, the theoretical approaches of the philosophers of aesthetics regarding the beautiful in art, starting from Dubos, Hutcheson and Burke, up to Kant, Schiller and the modern Adorno, μarcuse, Sircello, Mothersill, Nehamas, Scruton, and Dutton7, even if they set different criteria, they all call attention to the significance and universality of this phenomenon. In the 18th century I. Kant, analyzing our capacity for aesthetic judgement, argued that a judgement of taste is subjective and the satisfaction it is marked by is not associated with any particular interest. Beautiful is that which pleases universally, without the mediation of a concept8. In his discourse Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and the Sublime, Kant refers to the criterion that claims universal validity as to what is beautiful shared by all people arguing that no matter how much aesthetic preferences diverge across the various parts of the world, there is general unanimity of judgement as regards the outstandingly beautiful9. In the 21st century neuroscientists buttress the universality of aesthetic experience proving by experiment that the pleasure which the beautiful excites and the aversion to the ugly are determined by different regions of the human brain10. Nonetheless, it is known that, while art constitutes a universal phenomenon of human behaviour, human societies do not share the same form of art. D. Dutton juxtaposes this fact with another equally all-embracing and panhuman occurrence, that of language. There are approximately 6,000 different local languages in the world that differ from each other in their vocabulary and grammar; and yet they are translated, as they do not show any signs of asymmetry11. According to Dutton, a similar situation occurs in art: “From Lascaux to Bollywood, artists, writers and musicians often have little or no trouble in achieving cross-cultural aesthetic understanding”12. The same “cross-cultural aesthetic understanding” is attested by the millions of visitors that swarm the museums of the world. People with different criteria for good taste express their contentment when their gaze drifts over a par- 88 5. 6. 7. Adorno 2000, 210, 221, 445. Dutton 2010, 81-82. Dubos 1719. Hutcheson 1725. Burke 1757. Kant 1790. Schiller 1795. Adorno 1970. Sircello 1975. μarcuse 1978. Mothersill 1984. Sircello 1989. Nehamas 2007. Scruton 2009. Dutton 2010. 8. Kant 1970. Kant 2005, 69-124. 9. Kant 2011, 69. 10. Chatterjee 2014, 33. 11. Dutton 2010, 52. 12. Dutton 2010, 82-84. THE COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF BEAUTY IN ANCIENT ART ticular work of art, that which in their own language, one of the thousands of languages in this world, is called “beautiful”. It is this “beautiful” that speaks to the mind and the soul of all people and appears in ancient art having “countless aspects” which the namesake exhibition at the National Archaeological Museum of Athens treats with aesthetic disposition, knowledge and thoughtfulness. The exhibition comprises four parts that gradually unravel the museological narrative. In the proemium (Aesthetica Aeterna - Eternal Aesthetics) are presented selected vessels of everyday life that bear witness to the continuous variants and different aesthetic expressions in human diachrony. In the second part (The Beautiful and the Desirable), a comprehensive approach to the aesthetic preferences of the ancient societies is attempted, based on what the ancient Greek myths divulge about beauty and the archaeological finds associated with clothing, hairstyle, jewellery, and personal adornment. The third part (Focusing on the Body) delineates the expression of beauty in the visual rendering of the human body from the Early Neolithic (6500 BC) to the end of the Hellenistic period (30 BC). Finally, the epilogue (Endless Quest) invites the visitor to engage in aesthetic contemplation and dialogue with himself and the others. PROEMIUM: AESTHETICA AETERNA13 ἐκ τῶν διαφερόντων καλλίστην ἁρμονίαν14 Heraclitus (ca. 535-475 BC) ἀεὶ γάρ που τό γε καλὸν καλὸν15 Plato (427-347 BC) 13. “Eternal Aesthetics”. The Latin term serves here as a reference to A. G. Baumgarten, the philosopher who introduced to the modern age the term “Aesthetica” (Baumgarten 1750). 14. Diehls - Kranz 1960, 152, extr. 8. “from things that differ comes the most beautiful harmony”. 15. Plato, Hippias Major or What is Beauty, 292e. “For the beautiful is always beautiful”. 16. Plato, Hippias Major or What is Beauty, 288d. 17. Adorno 2000, 205. According to Papanoutsos (1976, 21), our tendency to knowledge constitutes an impediment to aesthetic experience. This is the case “with the archaeologist who holds in his hands a vase aiming to determine a historical date or the method in which the craftsman modelled his plastic material”. 18. Alteration in the original form of a work is also caused by the effacement of colours; see Schmaltz 2016 and in the present volume, K. Birtacha, pp. 333-344 and E. Leka, pp. 417-432. For the contribution of conservation to the aesthetic valorisation of ancient works of art, see also in the present volume, G. Moraitou, pp. 433-444. if the pot were made by a good potter, were smooth and round and well fired, as are some of the two-handled pots, those that hold six choes, very beautiful ones, if that were the kind of pot he asked about, we must agree that it is beautiful16 Socrates (470/69-399 BC) It has been argued that “in aesthetics the works of art cannot be considered as interpretative objects”17. However, the acknowledgement of the ancient works of art entails difficulties and pitfalls. It is known that most of the ancient works have come down to us in altered form, in consequence of the numerous damages and disfigurements they have gone through during their long existence18. The messages which they convey could thus correspond to their fragmentary and misleading image, particularly with respect to their role and significance within the cultural environment that produced them. The transformation of an ancient work into a museum display and the consequential change in its original character also instigates a clear differentiation in the way the work is viewed that reflects the psychological disparity between 89 MARIA LAGOGIANNI-GEORGAKARAKOS Fig. 1. NAM Π4763. Elaborate marble vessel, “candela”. From Paros, Cyclades. Early Cycladic I period, 3200-2800 BC. the contemporary and the ancient observer19. Hence, the knowledge of the cultural environment is deemed essential in order to comprehend an ancient work and perceive the aesthetic qualities that distinguish it from a utilitarian artefact20. Archaeological research has classified the vessels employed by ancient societies using distinct terms by which their form or use is described. Names, such as prochous, hydria, lebes, oinochoe, kylix, skyphos, rhyton, lekythos, aryballos, askos, pyxis, krater, column krater, calyx krater, etc., appear on the captions of the Greek museums manifesting the wide range of types created by the ancient craftsmen to serve the needs of their epoch. However, it is known that the adjective “beautiful” is not found in archaeological documentation as unscientific, whereas it is usually uttered spontaneously by the spectator once he/she beholds a pleasing utilitarian object21. The introductory unit of the exhibition aims at a seamless aesthetic contemplation, by showcasing selected vessels of everyday life as significant works of art that disclose the countless aspects of beauty. In his desire to leave his imprint on the objects that surround him in his own expressive manner, man experiments with different materials, looks for new 90 19. Chatterjee 2014, 141. 20. According to Ch. Karouzos (2014, 138), “The Museum is required to emphasize in every possible way and shed light over the artistic character and value of the works”. 21. The emotions, which an ancient work could stir in the early 19th century, are described in the example of the Romantic John Keats. An Attic marble vase decorated with a Dionysiac scene, that perhaps summarized all those which the poet contemplated during his visit, acquires voice sending the message: “Beauty is Truth; Truth Beauty”. See Keats 1819. On the “Hellenomania” of Neoclassicism, see in the present volume, Th. Koutsogiannis, pp. 399-415. THE COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF BEAUTY IN ANCIENT ART Fig. 2. NAM Π8638. Vessel made of rock crystal in the shape of a duck. From Grave Circle B, Mycenae. 16th c. BC. 22. NAM π5922, Late Neolithic ι period, 53004800 BC. 23. NAM π4763. Early Cycladic ι period, 32002700 BC. 24. NAM π8638. From Grave Circle B, Mycenae. 16th c. BC. 25. NAM α17972. From Attica. 750-735 BC. 26. NAM α1383. From Boeotia. 420-410 BC. 27. NAM α14500. From Athens. By the Dinos Painter. 420-410 BC. 28. According to Heraclitus, the fluid, full of contrasts world, constitutes a single entity that is subject to a fixed order. See Turner 1903, 53-56. Diehls Kranz 1960, 145. γεωργούλης 1975, 88-89. forms, applies novel techniques, designs alternative decorations, creates new styles. In the hands of the dexterous craftsmen the various vase types and the innumerable utilitarian vessels are frequently transformed into exquisite works of art, such as the outstanding globular clay vase with the polychrome motifs from Dimini in Neolithic Thessaly22 (see p. 36, fig. 1) and the imposing marble “candela” with the masterly shape from Paros in the Cyclades23. Who could question the proficiency of the Mycenaean craftsman who produced the exquisite duck-shaped vessel24 of rock crystal (fig. 2) or the drawing skill of the Athenian vase painter who decorated the clay pyxis (fig. 3) with the plastic horses25? Today, we acknowledge the representational power of the vase painter who depicted on the body of a red-figure calyx krater26 Eos, the goddess of dawn, flying over the sea with her winged chariot (fig. 4) and the man who painted on the surface of a red-figure dinos27 Satyrs and Maenads swirling in an ecstatic Dionysiac dance carrying thyrsus (fig. 5). Decorated gold cups, masterful silver and bronze vessels, vases made of clay, alabaster and steatite, innumerable variations in materials, shapes and colours (see pp. 78-86, cat. nos. 18-34) comprise the proemium to the exhibition revealing to the spectator’s eyes an enchanting picture of the countless aspects of beauty, like a centuries-old aesthetic taste that resides in Heraclitus’ worldview who speaks of a world of constant change and the harmony that results from differences28. 91 MARIA LAGOGIANNI-GEORGAKARAKOS Fig. 3. NAM A17972. Pyxis with four plastic horses on the lid. From Attica. 750-735 BC. 92 THE COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF BEAUTY IN ANCIENT ART Fig. 4. NAM A1383. Red-figure calyx krater with lid. From Boeotia. 420-410 BC. 93 MARIA LAGOGIANNI-GEORGAKARAKOS Fig. 5. NAM A14500. Attic red-figure dinos. By the Dinos Painter. From Athens (Hiera Odos). 420-410 BC. 94 THE COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF BEAUTY IN ANCIENT ART II. THE BEAUTIFUL AND THE DESIRABLE Would that I could go to Cyprus, the island of Aphrodite, where the Loves, who soothe mortals’ hearts, dwell29 ὅτι καλὸν φίλον αἰεὶ30 Euripides (481-407 BC) According to the modern philosopher of aesthetics H. Marcuse, the erotic quality of the beautiful endures through all the changes in “preference”. “As pertaining to the domain of Eros, the Beautiful represents the pleasure principle”31. The erotic attraction instigated by the view of a beautiful body pervades as a notion the ancient Greek art, poetry and philosophy32. In the Platonic Symposium, Socrates associates the beautiful with Eros, son of Poros and Penia, and scrutinizes all those things which Diotima, the wise priestess of Mantineia in Arcadia taught him33. Eros, a great spirit34, deeply in love with the beautiful, invokes in man the desire to generate something beautiful (work or offspring) so as to become eternally immortal35. An example that is indicative of the way the 29. Euripides, Bacchae, 402-405. 30. Euripides, Bacchae, 881, 901, “What is good is always dear”. 31. μαρκούζε 1998, 60. 32. Stewart 2003, 100-104. Νεχαμάς 2010, 13-24. Konstan 2014, 31-80. See also in the present volume, μ. Chidiroglou, pp. 135-146. 33. It is believed that a relief grave stele from Mantineia, now at the National Archaeological Museum, depicts Diotima; see p. 196, fig. 1. See Goethe 2012. 34. “Between a mortal and an immortal”. Plato, Symposium, 202d-e. 35. Plato, Symposium, 201d-212c. 36. NAM α1424. From Euboea. 375-350 BC. 37. Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, VI. 38. According to Homer (The Iliad, V, 348, 370), Aphrodite was daughter of Zeus and Dione, whereas as stated by Hesiod (Theogony, 176201) she was daughter of Uranus. The “foamborn” goddess is accompanied by Eros and followed by Himeros (Desire). 39. Plato, Symposium, 180d. “There is no Aphrodite without Eros”. 40. NAM γ3524. Rendered in the so-called Syracuse type, a variation of the Medici type. From Baiae, Southern Italy. The statue bears evidence of restoration by the Neoclassicist sculptor A. Canova. 2nd c. AD. See Βλαχογιάννη 2016, 458, no. 297. 41. NAM 5753. Unknown provenance. 2nd c. AD. See Βλαχογιάννη 2016, 459, no. 298. 42. Hesiod, Theogony, 116-120. 43. συκουτρής 1949, 30, note 3. On the way the Greeks perceived Eros, see σταμπολίδης 2016. fertilizing power of Eros is reflected in the ancient Greek art is the Attic red-figure hydria36 that depicts the winged god watering beautiful flowers, being among Dionysos, the god of revelry, and two Maenads (see p. 23, cat. no. 2). The interrelation between love and beauty has found its multiple expressions in the ancient Greek mythology also. In the sixth Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite37 the beautiful goddess emerges in Cyprus where she is carried on the breeze of Zephyros over the soft foam of a sea wave38. She is immediately greeted by the gold-filleted Horae (Hours) who clothe her in immortal garments, adorn her with gold jewels and as soon as they complete their assignment, they take her to Mount Olympus where the immortal gods reside. In the exhibition the ancient Greek ideology on beauty and its connection with love are illustrated as two episodes that unfold in scenery with the aid of a central islet comprised of two stops-reference points. i. οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνευ Ἔρωτος Ἀφροδίτη39 In the first reference point, Aphrodite welcomes the visitor in the form of a marble statue40 (fig. 6). Half-naked, with her himation wrapped around her thighs, the goddess is accompanied by a small marble statue that depicts a sleeping Eros figure41 (fig. 7). In Hesiod’s Theogony, Eros “fairest among the deathless gods” appears together with “wide-bosomed Earth” right after Chaos42. According to Sappho, Eros was the son of Gaea (Earth) and Uranus, whereas Simonides maintains that he was the son of Aphrodite and Ares; Alcaeus claims he was the child of Iris and Zephyros and according to Euripides, the son of Zeus43. For the Platonic Diotima, Eros was born on the day 95 MARIA LAGOGIANNI-GEORGAKARAKOS Fig. 6. NAM Γ3524. Marble statue of half-naked Aphrodite depicted as a bathing nymph. From Baiae, Southern Italy. 2nd c. AD. 96 THE COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF BEAUTY IN ANCIENT ART Fig. 7. NAM Γ5753. Marble statuette of sleeping Eros. The flowers and the baby lion on his side indicate its burial use. Unknown provenance. 2nd c. AD. of Aphrodite’s birth and, because by nature he is a lover of beauty, he has always been an attendant and minister to the beautiful goddess44. ii. δῶρον εἶναι τῇ καλλίστῃ θεῶν45 44. Plato, Symposium, 203c. 45. Westermann 1893, 379 (Libanius), “a gift to the fairest of the goddesses”. 46. Epic Circle (Cypria), 1. See also in the present volume, μ. Chidiroglou, pp. 135-146. 47. Hesiod, Theogony, 16. 48. NAM 1811. From the sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas at Epidaurus. First half of the 1st c. AD. The statue is a copy of an original work dated to around 420 BC (in the Aphrodite Frejus type). See Βλαχογιάννη 2016, 455, no. 293. 49. NAM α1629. By the Eretria Painter, 425-420 BC. In the second reference point of the exhibition the spectator is invited to turn his attention to a popular myth of antiquity46. Triggered by the golden apple which Eris throws as a prize of beauty at the wedding of Peleus and Thetis, the great contest among Hera, Athena and Aphrodite as to who is the fairest of all takes place by order of Zeus. A mortal, handsome Paris, is appointed as judge. The three goddesses offer tempting gifts to the young judge to win his favour. Hera promises the kingdom of Asia, Athena pledges wisdom and victory in battle and Aphrodite offers him Helen of Sparta, the most beautiful woman among the mortals. Without hesitation Paris gives the golden apple to Aphrodite, the “quick-glancing”47 goddess. The exhibition displays five works that communicate the mythological narrative. The judgement of Paris is denoted by a marble statuette of Aphrodite48. The goddess is depicted wearing diaphanous chiton leaving her left breast exposed. With a delicate movement of her right hand she raises the fine himation, whereas in her left hand she holds the apple she has been awarded (fig. 8). The famous Attic red-figure epinetron49, which is on display next to the statue of the goddess, depicts, among other mythological wedding scenes, 97 MARIA LAGOGIANNI-GEORGAKARAKOS Fig. 8. NAM Γ1811. Marble statuette of Aphrodite. From the Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas in Epidaurus. First half of the 1st c. AD. 98 THE COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF BEAUTY IN ANCIENT ART Fig. 9. NAM A12545. Attic red-figure calyx krater depicting the Judgement of Paris. Ca. 340-330 BC. 50. NAM α12545. By the Late Classical Krater Group and the Erotostasia Painter. 340-330 BC. Peleus and Thetis (see p. 71, fig. 2). On the Attic red-figure calyx krater50, presented in the same unit, beauty is associated with Dionysiac revelry. On side A the main actors of the Judgement, Paris, Hera, Athena, Aphrodite, and Hermes are shown among winged Erotes, while on side B a Maenad and two Satyrs comprise an orgiastic Dionysiac episode (fig. 9). Also in the same thematic unit are displayed two gold masterworks of ancient jewellery, a belt and a crown, as alluring symbols of female vanity. The masterly 99 MARIA LAGOGIANNI-GEORGAKARAKOS Fig. 10. NAM Στ.339. Gold diadem. From the “Demetrias Treasure”. 325-300 BC. Fig. 11. NAM Στ.362. Belt decorated with gold, garnet and enamel. Unknown provenance (part of the so-called “Karpenisi Treasure”). 2nd c. BC. belt is decorated with gold plastic flowers, fruits, caterpillars, bees, birds, and dolphins and is inlaid with garnet, coloured enamel, glass, and carnelian51 (fig. 11). The diadem is made of gold wire that takes the form of spiral tendrils, shaped in the centre into a Heracles’ knot crowned with the plastic figure of a small winged Eros52 (fig. 10). A unique work of art that accompanied, in life and in death, a woman who knew how to follow the dictates and “secrets” of Aphrodite. iii. ἦ καὶ ἀπὸ στήθεσφιν ἐλύσατο κεστὸν ἱμάντα ποικίλον, ἔνθα δὲ οἱ θελκτήρια πάντα τέτυκτο· ἔνθ΄ ἔνι μὲν φιλότης, ἐν δ΄ ἵμερος, ἐν δ΄ ὀαριστὺς πάρφασις, ἥ τ΄ ἔκλεψε νόον πύκα περ φρονεόντων.53 The significance of clothing and personal adornment in the glorious and invincible presence of Aphrodite is evident in numerous extracts from the 100 51. NAM στ.362. From the so-called “Karpenisi Treasure”. 2nd c. BC. 52. NAM στ.339. From the so-called “Demetrias Treasure”. 325-300 BC. 53. Homer, The Iliad, XIV, 214-217, “She spake, and loosed from her bosom the broidered zone, [215] curiously-wrought, wherein are fashioned all manner of allurements; therein is love, therein desire, therein dalliance‒beguilement that steals the wits even of the wise”. THE COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF BEAUTY IN ANCIENT ART Fig. 12. a) NAM Γ3625. Marble calyx krater with relief decoration of female figures identified as Charites (Graces) or Nymphs. From the area south of the Acropolis. Late 1st c. BC. b) NAM X16771. Bronze statuette of a nude winged Eros. It belongs to the finds of Ampelokipoi, Athens. 1st c. BC-1st. c. AD. Inspired by a creation of the 3rd-2nd c. BC. c) NAM 4164. Figurine of Aphrodite emerging from the sea. From Corinthia. 4th c. BC. 101 MARIA LAGOGIANNI-GEORGAKARAKOS ancient Greek poetry. In Homer’s Odyssey (fig. 12a) the Charites (Graces) bathe her, anoint her with “immortal oil” and adorn the “laughter-loving” goddess, “a wonder to behold”54. In Cypria the Horae (Hours) weave, dye with spring flowers and perfume the garments which Aphrodite is about to wear for the Judgement of Paris55. The goddess is similarly prepared in order to exert her charms on the attractive Anchises. The Charites wash her and anoint her with scented oil, dress her in beautiful robes and adorn her with dazzling jewels56. All those who desire the mystic assistance of Aphrodite have recourse to her irresistible secrets. In Homer’s Iliad Hera asks Aphrodite to loan her the kestos, the embroidered, magic girdle, which she would use on the unfaithful Zeus in order to win him back57. In the same poem, the beautiful Helen maintains a fragrant chamber where she meets Paris, Aphrodite’s protégé58. In contrast, the women of Lemnos, who do not practice the cult of the goddess and do not care for their body, emit unpleasant odour and as a consequence cannot keep their husbands59. The picture which the archaeological evidence conveys corresponds to the written tradition. The unending pursuit of man to interfere in his physical condition, to shape and adjust his image in accordance with his own criteria, the standards and the spirit of his epoch is exemplified in clothing, jewellery, hairstyle, and personal adornment. Exhibits that document this unappeased need in an uninterrupted succession of centuries revolve around the central islet of the exhibition. Imaginative garments60, intricate hairstyles61, elegant shoes62, and impressive jewels63 that start from the Early Neolithic period (6500-5800 BC) reaching historical times reveal, apart from creativity, a particularly cultivated aesthetic taste (figs. 13, 14a, b). In the same unit are presented objects of special use, such as tweezers, paint boxes, mortar and pestle sets, pyxides for cosmetics, and vases intended for the storage of perfumed oils, thereby providing diachronic evidence of the female adornment64 (see p. 155, fig. 2). iv. τὸ δὲ περὶ τὰς ὀσμὰς ἧττον μὲν τούτων θεῖον γένος ἡδονῶν65 In the Platonic Dialogue Philebus or Peri hedonēs the sensual pleasure which olfaction offers is characterized as inferior and is succinctly distinguished from the aesthetic pleasure of visual and auditory stimuli66. However, nowadays, the significance of olfaction is deemed as a major cultural67 and economic68 factor. According to the science of biology, man is equipped with 10 to 30 million odour-receiving cells, for 1,000 different types of molecules and theoretically millions of combinations69, whereas the genes associated with olfaction are estimated to at least 10,000, a proportion much larger compared to the other senses70. It is now certain that olfaction plays a significant role in the perception of the aesthetic (and alimentary) image of the environment71, whereas it functions as a means of communication through the use of smells and pheromones, causing unconscious or conscious reactions72. In a specially arranged space, the exhibition attempts an alternative approach to the beautiful employing olfaction as its vehicle. Three perfumed oils produced with ancient meth- 102 54. Homer, The Odyssey, VIII, 362-366. 55. Epic Circle, Cypria, 6. See Brillet-Dubois 2011, 110. 56. Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, V, 61-65. See Faulkner 2008. 57. Homer, The Iliad, XIV, 214-217. One of the most captivating scenes of female adornment is that of the preparation of Hera; see Homer, The Iliad, XIV, 153 ff. 58. Homer, The Iliad, III, 382. 59. Brunck 1813, 384. 60. See in the present volume, κ. Sarri, pp. 163-174, Β. Jones, pp. 177-190, U. Mokdad, pp. 457-462, D. Wardle, pp. 463-474, Ch. Tsouli, pp. 195-208. 61. See in the present volume, ε. Konstantinidi-Syvridi, pp. 289-301, ε. Vlachogianni, pp. 303-316. 62. See in the present volume, S. Athanasopoulou - N. Palaiokrassa - κ. Paschalidis, pp. 209-236. 63. See in the present volume, ε. KonstantinidiSyvridi, pp. 245-254 and D. Ignatiadou - α. Chatzipanagiotou, pp. 265-281. 64. See in the present volume, μ. Chidiroglou, pp. 135-146, E. Oikonomou, pp. 153-162, κ. Birtacha, pp. 333-344, V. Pliatsika, pp. 355-369, κ. Voutsa, pp. 475-483. 65. Plato, Philebus or Peri hedonēs, 51e, “The pleasures of smell are a less divine class”. 66. ανδρόνικος 1986, 269-270. 67. Classen - Howes - Synnott 2005. 68. The global sales revenue of the fragrance industry for 2017 has been estimated to more than 24 billion Euros (l’Oreal, 2017 Annual report). 69. Buck - Axel 1991. 70. Niimura et al. 2014. 71. Young - Trask 2002. 72. Stern - McClintock 1998. THE COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF BEAUTY IN ANCIENT ART Fig. 13. NAM 15113. Attic red-figure amphora. The centre of Side A is occupied by the figure of Atalante. The young huntress is flanked by two youths, possibly the Dioscuri, dressed in travelling attire, and two more young men beneath the handles. On Side B three young men are depicted dressed in chlamys. Unknown provenance. 400-390 BC. ods and using wild olive oil, cyperus, coriander, rose, and sage, materials recorded on Linear B tablets from Pylos (13th c. BC)73, offer visitors a novel sensual experience and help them recreate aspects of a world that perhaps is not all gone…74. 73. See in the present volume, κ. Voutsa, pp. 475483, ι. Samanidis, pp. 489-495. 74. Reconstruction of elements of the archaeological testimony and approach to the world of the ancient sense will be attempted throughout the duration of the exhibition with the aid of special experimental workshops. See in the present volume, D. Kalessopoulou, pp. 445-456. 103 MARIA LAGOGIANNI-GEORGAKARAKOS Fig. 14. a) NAM A20185. Fragment of an Attic red-figure kylix. Timokrite is shown seated on a couch ready to fasten the edges of her chiton over her left shoulder with a fibula. The fibula is visible on her legs attached to her garment. From Athens (Pompeion, Kerameikos). Ca. 410 BC. b) NAM Στ.259a, b. Four gold crossbow fibulae decorated with globules. 5th-4th c. BC. 104 THE COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF BEAUTY IN ANCIENT ART ΙΙΙ FOCUSING ON THE BODY Sir, you are not aware that the saying of Heracleitus is good, that the most beautiful of monkeys is ugly compared with the race of man, and the most beautiful of pots is ugly compared with the race of maidens, as Hippias the wise man says75 Plato (427-347 BC) “Do you still hold the view then that beauty is the aim of art?” I answered that I was not aware of any higher. “Can you tell me what beauty is?”, he asked. “Perhaps not”, I replied, “but I can show it to you. Let us go and see my fine cast of the Apollo or the beautiful bust of Bacchus, even by candlelight, and see if we cannot agree that they are beautiful”76 Johann Wolfgang Goethe (1749-1832) 75. Plato, Hippias Major, 289a. 76. Goethe 2006, 84. 77. Χέγκελ 2010, 285. The same is maintained by G. B. Goethe (Goethe 2006, 21), who argues that “Man is the highest and proper subject of art”. 78. Perlès 2001. Bailey 2005. See also in the present volume, κ. Manteli, pp. 321-331. 79. NAM π3928. Early Neolithic period, 65005800 BC. 80. For the “imperfections”, the disfigurements and the accentuation of certain parts of the body, as features of symbolic art, see Χέγκελ 2010, 66. 81. NAM π5894. Karditsa. Final Neolithic period, 4500-3300 BC. 82. Ντούμας 1984. Doumas 2000. See in the present volume, κ. Birtacha, pp. 333-344. According to G. Hegel, the human figure is the focus and content of true beauty and art77. To depict visually himself, man externalizes elements of his own uniqueness, whereas simultaneously he reveals or implies truths about the world that surrounds him. The human body, male or female, is presented in the exhibition as a charming narrative in the passage of time that encapsulates the intellectual pursuits of each time period. Starting from the prehistoric societies with the enigmatic abstract figures the exhibition moves on to the archetypal symbols of the Geometric period and as it examines the balanced figures of the imposing Archaic Kouroi, it proceeds to the harmony of the Classical art to culminate in the passion and realism of Hellenistic art. The visual perception that is necessary for the rendering of small sculptural works which portray the human figure is attested in Greece already since the Early Neolithic period78. The earliest preserved works are marked by outstanding aesthetic completeness. A characteristic example is the corpulent nude figurine made of limestone of the “priestess” of Sparta79 depicted with polos headdress and magico-religious symbols incised on the arms (fig. 15). While stone figurines are few, coroplasts produce a large number of female figurines in great variety, nude and obese, with accentuated thighs and breasts80 (see p. 327, figs. 9-13) throughout the Neolithic period. Over the same time period, male figurines are rare and are usually depicted seated. A unique for its dimensions and conception is the ithyphallic male figurine made of clay of the so-called “thinker”81, a work retrieved from a Thessalian prehistoric settlement (fig. 16). Enigmatic in their entirety and incomprehensible to the contemporary spectator, the Neolithic plastic figurines are believed to express the deeper proto-religious needs of the Neolithic man and possibly serve fertility functions associated with the cult of the Mother Goddess. The exhibition traces the history of the sculptural representation of the human figure in the ensuing periods with selected works of the Early Bronze Age. For almost a millennium (3200-2300 BC) figurines are produced in the Cyclades in a variety of forms and sizes82. Sibyllic and indecipherable in terms 105 MARIA LAGOGIANNI-GEORGAKARAKOS Fig. 15. NAM Π3928, Π3929, Π3930, Π3931. Stone figurines of a priestess and female figures. From Sparta. Early Neolithic period, 6500-5800 BC. of their meaning and content83, most of them are found in graves and depict nude full-length female figures with bent arms folded under the chest and feet that point downwards (fig. 17). Male figures or those that are depicted in some form of action are rarer, such as the famous aulos player (auletes)84 and the two harpists85 of the National Archaeological Museum (see p. 336, fig. 5a, b). Characterized during the 19th century as primitive, the Cycladic figurines were “acknowledged” in the 20th century by international collectors as works of art giving rise to the groundless suggestion about the white, abstract simplicity of a world that was in fact colourful86. This misleading idea was discarded by modern archaeological research which proved that the facial features and the anatomical details of the Cycladic figurines, as well as all supplementary decorative elements were painted, mainly in black, light blue and red colour87. Towards the end of the Early Bronze Age and during the 2nd millennium BC the representation of the human figure changes. The depiction of naked fulllength male and female bodies is rare in the art of the Aegean Bronze Age and is limited to young boys and adolescents portrayed in the context of rites of passage. The half naked men with the distinctive perizoma (loincloth) and the impressive women of Crete and Thera with bare breasts88 are now shown in a state of “sturdy youthfulness”89. As a case in point, in the exhibition are presented the figures depicted on the bezel of three signet rings90, as well as two lead figurines91 (figs. 18, 19), works that communicate the prototypes and religious symbolism of Minoan Crete92 to Mainland Greece. 106 83. See in the present volume, κ. Birtacha, pp. 333344, κ. Kostanti, pp. 345-353, μ. Giannopoulou, pp. 383-395. According to E. Simon (1996, 233234), the Cycladic figurines are compared with their motherlike, corpulent Neolithic counterparts and are interpreted as deities of erotic character. 84. NAM π3910 from Keros. 2800-2500 BC. 85. NAM π3908 from Keros. 2800-2500 BC. Also, NAM Βε7.1.2011. 86. See in the present volume, μ. LagogianniGeorgakarakos, pp. 35-48. 87. See in the present volume, κ. Birtacha, pp. 333344. 88. Immerwahr 1990. Doumas 1993. 89. See in the present volume, κ. Kostanti, pp. 345353. 90. NAM π3148. From Mycenae (Chamber Tomb 84). - NAM π3179 (Chamber Tomb 91). 15th c. BC. NAM π992. From the “Acropolis Treasure of Mycenae”. Ca. 1500 BC. 91. NAM π3301, 3302. 15th c. BC. From the tholos tomb at Kambos, Messenia. 92. Marinatos 1993. μανδαλάκη 2017. THE COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF BEAUTY IN ANCIENT ART Fig. 16. NAM Π5894. Clay figurine of a “thinker”. From Karditsa, Thessaly. Final Neolithic period, 4500-3300 BC. Fig. 17. NAM Π3978. Marble statue. From Amorgos, Cyclades. Early Cycladic II period, 2800-2300 BC. 107 MARIA LAGOGIANNI-GEORGAKARAKOS Fig. 18. a) NAM Π3148, b) Π3179. Gold signet rings depicting religious scenes with men and women. From Mycenae. 15th c. BC. c) NAM Π992. Gold signet ring. A group of female worshipers is depicted offering lilies and poppy flowers to a female deity. From the “Acropolis Treasure of Mycenae”. Ca. 1500 BC. Men and women are depicted in a similarly impressive manner in Mycenae, Tiryns, Midea, Pylos, Thebes, etc. throughout the Mycenaean civilization (1600-1100 BC). Gold signet rings, relief cups, sealstones made of a variety of gems, intricate daggers, objects of various uses, vase paintings and polychrome frescoes, glorious finds from palatial centres, settlements and tombs represent rituals, hunting or war scenes, symbolic and hard to interpret, and yet with extraordinary craftsmanship, ingenuity and frequently dramatic intensity93. The female figures, goddesses or mortals, are depicted wearing lavish pleated garments that form a tight bodice highlighting the large breasts (see p. 43, fig. 5 and p. 361, fig. 9). Many times the fleshy breasts are depicted fully exposed in order to emphasize femininity, fertility and motherhood94. A characteristic example of this period is the unique ivory group from the acropolis of Mycenae95 that depicts two women identically dressed looking after a child (fig. 20). Simultaneously, the male figures are usually depicted as robust men, sometimes half naked, wearing only the characteristic perizoma (loincloth) (fig. 21) and occasionally clad in military attire or in formal garb, but nearly always in action96. An outstanding example is the unique work of art that was 108 93. Immerwahr 1990. 94. See in the present volume, V. Pliatsika, pp. 355369. 95. NAM π7711. 15th-14th c. BC. 96. See in the present volume, κ. Paschalidis - κ. Nikolentzos, pp. 371-382. THE COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF BEAUTY IN ANCIENT ART Fig. 19. NAM Π3301, Π3302. Lead male and female figurines. From the tholos tomb of Kambos, Messenia. 15th c. BC. 97. The period has been named after the geometric motifs that prevail in vase decoration. Simultaneously, it has been characterized as “Dark Ages” of “Homeric Age”. See Snodgrass 2000. Coldstream 2003. Schweitzer 1969. 98. Webster 1964. Wilcken 1976, 81-99. Havelock 1990. Βαλαβάνης 2004. Guarducci 2008, 31-57. Burkert 2011. λαμπρινουδάκης 2014. 99. It is presumed that the large cult images of the gods were made of timber (xoana) and were destroyed with the passage of time. 100. Small figurines were dedicated either independently or as attachments fixed onto various vessels (e.g. clay pyxides, bronze cauldrons). 101. Arms are close to their bodies and the legs are joined. 102. Schweitzer 1969. Stewart 2003, 86-99. See in the present volume, M. Giannopoulou, pp. 383395. recently unearthed: the Pylos Combat Agate sealstone from the Griffin Warrior Grave at Pylos (see p. 370, cat. no. 108). The end of the Mycenaean world (around 1100 BC) is followed by a long period covering four centuries, known as the Geometric period97. The culture that now flourishes is marked by the Greek colonization, the establishment of the city-state, the gradual abolishment of kingship instigated by the aristocrats, the Homeric poetry and the formulation of the Greek religion, the adoption of the alphabetic system and athletic contests98. In the art of this complex period there are no monumental sculptures99. In contrast, small-scale sculpture is represented by numerous statuettes, made of terracotta or bronze (and to a lesser extent ivory), which are found mainly in sanctuaries100 and more rarely inside tombs. The most frequently encountered subject matter in small-scale Geometric sculpture is man. Male or female figures, depicted standing or seated in the so-called “synkleiston” configuration101, but also figurines with greater movement (warrior, horse rider, charioteer, archer, musician, etc.) (fig. 22) are rendered always in abstract nudity and with very little information as to their nature and gender102. 109 MARIA LAGOGIANNI-GEORGAKARAKOS Fig. 20. NAM Π7711. Ivory group of three female figures, the so-called “ivory triad”. From the acropolis of Mycenae. 15th-14th c. BC. This archetypal rendering of the human figure103 is followed by the monumental sculpture of the Archaic period (700-500 BC), as this finds its expression in the naked Kouroi and the tastefully dressed Korai104. It seems now that art is marked by the awakening of personal consciousness. Man begins to hold a privileged position, as his problems become manifest in lyric poetry, Hesiod’s verses and the cosmological questions of the natural philosophers of Ionia. The inscriptions that accompany the works referring to the names of the dedicators and the artists105 keep up with the spirit of the epoch (figs. 23, 24). The rich sculpture collection of the National Archaeological Museum offers visitors the opportunity to keep track of the plastic rendering of the human figure in uninterrupted progression starting from the works of the Daedalic Style, such as the female statue dedicated by Nikandra to Apollo (650 BC) (fig. 23), moving on to the Early Archaic period and the monumental Sounion Kouros (600 BC) (fig. 25), continuing with the Volomandra Kouros, a work of the High Archaic period (560-550 BC), and culminating in the Anavyssos Kouros (Kroissos) (530-520 BC) and Aristodikos (510-500 BC)106. In the exhibition a grave stele from Athens denotes the visual conception that characterizes the Late Archaic period107. The relief figure of a nude young 110 103. During the Geometric period it is impossible to identify whether the figure depicts a god or a mortal. On the subject, see Fuchs 1969, 20. 104. Richter 1968. Richter 1970. 105. Wilcken 1976, 173-174. 106. See καλτσάς 2002, nos. 7, 17, 47, 69, 94. The aforementioned series is indicative. See analytically καλτσάς - Δεσπίνης 2014. 107. NAM γ7901. 550-540 BC. καλτσάς 2002, no. 53. THE COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF BEAUTY IN ANCIENT ART Fig. 21. a) NAM Π5883, b) NAM Π5884. Fragments of a miniature frieze with representation of hunters wearing short chiton walking while holding spears. From the acropolis of Tiryns. 13th c. BC. c) NAM Π5878. Fragments from a large fresco of a royal hunting scene of the palace of Tiryns. From the acropolis of Tiryns. 14th c. BC. 111 MARIA LAGOGIANNI-GEORGAKARAKOS Fig. 22. a) NAM X6503. Bronze nude female figurine. From the sanctuary of the Athenian Acropolis. Late 8th c. BC. b) NAM X6179. Bronze nude male figurine. From the sanctuary of Olympia. 750-725 BC. c) NAM X12831. Bronze figurine of a naked warrior. From Karditsa (Thessaly). Ca. 700 BC. athlete that occupies the front of the stele, expresses unquestionably the archaic ideal of male beauty (fig. 26). In Homer’s Iiad, male beauty is reflected in the valiant warriors, such as Nireus, “the comeliest man that came under Ilion of all the Danaans” and impeccable Bellerophon to whom “the gods granted beauty and lovely manliness”108. Apart from the association with the standards of the Homeric poem109 the work belongs to an epoch during which the citizens of Athens construe themselves as part of an organized society and claim written laws, justice and more political rights110. A few decades later, with the reforms of Cleisthenes (508/7 BC) and the establishment of democracy111 the climate in Athens changes and the noble Kouroi are no longer produced112. The victory against the Persians boosts the morale of the Greeks and leads art to new paths113. The human figure is now 112 108. Homer, The Iliad, II, 673-674 and VI, 155-157. 109. In Athens the public recitation of the Homeric poems was instituted by Peisistratos as part of the Panathenaic Games. 110. The late 7th c. and the entire 6th c. BC are marked by social struggles. See ραμού-Χαψιάδη 2007. λαγογιάννη- γεωργακαράκου 2016. 111. λαγογιάννη-γεωργακαράκου 2014. 112. Stewart 2003, 144. Cf. the last Kouros in the series, the Ptoon Kouros NAM γ20, ca. 500 BC (fig. 27). See καλτσάς 2002, no. 102. 113. Wilcken 1976, 194, 242-260. καρούζος 2014, 9-19. THE COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF BEAUTY IN ANCIENT ART Fig. 23. NAM Γ1. Statue of Artemis, votive offering of the Naxian Nikandra. From Artemision on Delos. Ca. 650 BC. 113 MARIA LAGOGIANNI-GEORGAKARAKOS Fig. 24. NAM Γ21 and 21α. Statuette of a winged female figure and inscribed base. From Artemision on Delos. 560/550 BC. 114 THE COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF BEAUTY IN ANCIENT ART 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. Fuchs 1969, 5. Lagogianni-Georgakarakos 2014. Höcker - Schneider 1993. Moon 1995. NAM 1605. See καλτσάς 2002, no. 143. Also an original creation of the Severe Style is the Artemision Bronze (NAM Χ15161). After 460 BC; see p. 390, fig. 11. See καλτσάς 2002, no. 159. NAM γ1572, 1574. See καλτσάς 2002, 207. Fuchs 1969, 422. Relevant comments; see καρούζος 2014, 3334. A significant parameter for understanding the ancient works is their colour decoration which has been nearly eliminated. On the subject, see in the present volume, E. Leka, pp. 417-432. NAM γ1665; see τριάντη 1988. NAM γ1826. Ca. 100 BC. It copies a work of 420 BC. See καλτσάς 2002, no. 201. Pollitt 1995. Plato, Philebus or Peri hedonēs, 66a-b. Observations on the classical sculpture; see καρούζος 2014, 31-34. Aristotle, Athenian Constitution, 60, 3. Deubner 1956, 29. λαγογιάννη-γεωργακαράκου 2017, 70. See also in the present volume, μ. Chidiroglou, pp. 135-146. Ridgway 1997. We know that Praxiteles asked the renowned painter Nikias to invigorate his sculptures with colour; see Fuchs 1969, 97. Moreno 1987. Stewart 2003, 186-201. Corso 2007, 9-186. Over the same time period the Athenian Cephisodotus, the Parian Skopas, known for the fiery, full of passion rendering of his figures, Timotheus and Leochares are active. NAM γ227. From Athens. Venus of Arles type from the best copy. 1st c. BC. See καλτσάς 2002, no. 507. disentangled from the conventions of the Archaic art, as the parts of the body integrate movement and countermovement that imparts greater naturalism and more freedom to the statues. The new style with which the classical creations are infused has been generally regarded a landmark event since it treats the human figure as a new entity defined by intellect, strength of will and psyche. According to the archaeologist and art historian W. Fuchs, “for the first time in world art history, man is encountered as man”114. The classical ideals of measure, ethos and internal balance that coexist with good order (eunomia), equality before the law (isonomia) and the right of equal citizenship (isopoliteia)115 are expressed during that period in the work of two leading artists, the Athenian Pheidias and the Argive Polykleitos116. The exhibition displays selected plastic works in a succession that reveals the changes, the evolution and the accomplishments of the Greek sculpture. Simultaneously, the spectator is encouraged with supplementary digital screenings to visit the permanent collection of the Museum and contemplate emblematic works that complete the big picture of the ancient Greek art. For the purposes of the temporary exhibition, in particular, three outstanding original works were selected on stylistic grounds to represent significant tendencies in classical art. The marble torso of a nude warrior from Daphni117 is a creation typical of the Severe Style (around 490 BC) (fig. 28)118, whereas the two later relief metopes from the Heraion of Argos119 (ca. 420 BC) manifest the essence of the Rich Style and reflect the metopes of the Parthenon120. The first metope depicts the torso of a nude warrior that is ready to attack (fig. 29) and the second illustrates the torso of an Amazon wearing fine, transparent peplos leaving her left breast exposed (fig. 30). Unfortunately, the number of the original classical sculptures that have lived on to this day is small. Our insight into the plastic creations of the great artists is gained mainly through the systematic study of the Roman copies and the analysis of written sources121. As a case in point, the marble headless torso of a man is shown in the exhibition as a copy of an original bronze work of the 5th c. BC122 (fig. 31). The marble statue with the ideal proportions of an athlete binding his hair (Diadoumenos) from Delos123 (fig. 32) is also a copy of a bronze work attributed to Polykleitos, the eminent sculptor, known for the original system of mathematical proportions which he elaborated in his treatise Kanon124. Proportion, beauty, perfection, and sufficiency that characterize the Greek art of the Classical period are concurrently praised by the Attic philosophy as values superior to any pleasure125. At the same time, beauty as a virtue is propagated by beauty and ethos contests for men and women organized in various Greek cities with the euandria (εὐανδρία), male beauty contest which formed part of the Panathenaic Games being the most distinctive example126. The tradition and the accomplishments of the 5th c. BC evolved in the Late Classical period (380-323 BC) taking new directions127. The divine, heroic and human figures are now imbued with passion, vigour or grace and stand in space acquiring a theatrical or painterly character128. The Greek sculpture of the 4th c. BC is marked by the Sikyonian bronze sculptor Lysippos129 and the Athenian Praxiteles, the sculptor who created the fully naked statue of Aphrodite of Knidos130. The exhibition includes the exquisite torso of the socalled Aphrodite of Thespiae131 that depicts the goddess nude from the 115 MARIA LAGOGIANNI-GEORGAKARAKOS Fig. 25. NAM Γ2720. Votive statue of a Kouros. From the sanctuary of Poseidon at Sounion. Ca. 600 BC. 116 Fig. 26. NAM Γ7901. Grave stele of an athlete. From Athens. 550-540 BC. THE COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF BEAUTY IN ANCIENT ART Fig. 27. NAM Γ20. Statue of a Kouros. From Ptoon, Boeotia. Ca. 500 BC. 132. NAM γ15118. Ca. 330 BC. See καλτσάς 2002, no. 509. 133. NAM γ258. From the Asklepieion, Piraeus. 2nd c. BC. Copy of a work of the second half of the 4th c. BC. See καλτσάς 2002, no. 543. 134. Stewart 1977. 135. Havelock 1971, 15-40. Smith 1991. Fig. 28. NAM Γ1605. Torso of a male figure. From Daphni, Attica. Ca. 490 BC. waist up. This is a Late Hellenistic copy of an early work by Praxiteles (ca. 360 BC) that captures the elegance and harmony of the original (see p. 46, fig. 7). An original work of the Late Classical period bearing features of Praxiteles’ art is the masterly bronze statue of a young naked athlete that was found in the sea off Marathon132 (see p. 74, fig. 5). This series of artworks culminates in the impressive torso of Asklepios133, a sculpture marked by passion and intense plasticity that repeats a creation by the Parian sculptor Scopas134 (fig. 33) and foreshadows the tendencies that will ensue. In the turbulent period that followed the death of Alexander the Great (323 BC) until Cleopatra’s death (30 BC) that is called Hellenistic, sculpture conquers realism, dramatic effect, intense movement, and the eruptive spread of the figures in space135. Over the same time period a momentous change takes place that affects the way in which art is perceived. The 117 MARIA LAGOGIANNI-GEORGAKARAKOS Fig. 29. NAM Γ1572. Body of a warrior. From a relief metope of the classical temple of the Heraion of Argos. Ca. 420 BC. Fig. 30. NAM Γ1574. Body of an Amazon. From a relief metope of the classical temple of the Heraion of Argos. Ca. 420 BC. glorious sculptures, which during the preceding centuries served the ideals of the city and religion, turn now into commodities that decorate the palaces of the Hellenistic rulers and later the Roman villas136. From the mid-2nd c. BC the increased demand for works of art results in the mass production of copies that allude to the ideal forms of the 5th and the 4th c. BC. Hence, next to the Late Hellenistic baroque creations, such as the famous bronze statue of a horse and its rider (Jockey of Artemision) that was retrieved from the sea off Cape Artemision137 (see pp. 392-393, fig. 13) and the marble statue that depicts a fighting Gaul warrior who has been wounded, with the agony and pain being sharply reflected in his face138 (fig. 34), tranquil and reticent works rendered in a classicist manner make their appearance, 118 136. Fuchs 1969, 15. 137. NAM Χ15117. Ca. 140 BC. See καλτσάς 2002, no. 603. 138. NAM 247. Found in the Agora of the Italians on Delos. Ca. 100 BC. See καλτσάς 2002, no. 618. THE COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF BEAUTY IN ANCIENT ART Fig. 31. NAM Γ1665. Nude male torso. From Athens. Roman copy of a bronze original of the 5th c. BC. 119 MARIA LAGOGIANNI-GEORGAKARAKOS Fig. 32. NAM Γ1826. Statue of a youth binding his hair (Diadoumenos). From Delos. Ca. 100 BC. 120 THE COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF BEAUTY IN ANCIENT ART Fig. 33. NAM Γ258. Torso of Asklepios. From the Asklepieion of Piraeus in Munichia. 2nd c. BC. 121 MARIA LAGOGIANNI-GEORGAKARAKOS Fig. 34. NAM Γ247. Statue of a Gaul warrior. From the Agora of the Italians on Delos. Ca. 100 BC. such as the marble statue of an athlete from Eleusis139 (fig. 35), the marble statuette of a Satyr, of unknown provenance140 (fig. 36), and the small statue of a youth, which has been interpreted as the personification of Hypnos or Thanatos141 (fig. 37). 139. NAM γ254. Second half of the 2nd c. BC. Free rendering of a work produced by Polykleitos in ca. 440 BC. See καλτσάς 2002, no. 202. 140. NAM γ4800. 2nd c. BC. See καλτσάς 2002, no. 210. 141. NAM γ3631. Late 1st c. BC. See καλτσάς 2002, no. 658. 122 THE COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF BEAUTY IN ANCIENT ART Fig. 35. NAM Γ254. Statue of a young athlete. From Eleusis. Second half of the 2nd c. BC. 123 MARIA LAGOGIANNI-GEORGAKARAKOS Fig. 36. NAM Γ4800. Statuette of a Satyr. Unknown provenance. 2nd c. BC. 124 Fig. 37. NAM Γ3631. Statuette of a youth. From Corinth. Late 1st c. BC. THE COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF BEAUTY IN ANCIENT ART IV EPIMYTHIUM: ENDLESS QUEST πάντων χρημάτων μέτρον ἄνθρωπος142 Protagoras (480-411 BC) “by which everything to which it is added has the property of being beautiful, both stone and stick and man and god and every act and every acquisition of knowledge? For what I am asking is this, man: what is absolute beauty? and I cannot make you hear what I say any more than if you were a stone sitting beside me, and a millstone at that, having neither ears nor brain” 143 For neither could the good be beautiful nor the beautiful good, if each of them is different from the other 144 χαλεπὰ τὰ καλὰ145 Socrates (470/69-399 BC) διὸ καὶ φιλοσοφώτερον καὶ σπουδαιότερον ποίησις ἱστορίας ἐστὶν146 Aristotle (384-323 BC) 142. “Man is the measure of all things”, which means that things do not have an objective quality but they are as they appear to us. For the cognitive relativism of Protagoras, see γεωργούλης 1975, 120-121. 143. Plato, Hippias Major, 292d. 144. Plato, Hippias Major, 304a. 145. Plato, Hippias Major, 304e. “Beautiful things are difficult”. 146. Aristotle, Poetics, 1451b, 5-6. “For this reason poetry is something more scientific and serious than history”. 147. NAM Χ14612. See καλτσάς 2002, no. 623. 148. Buschor 1995, 54. 149. Buschor 1995, 63. 150. λαγογιάννη-γεωργακαράκου 2006, 121. The journey into the ancient art ends with a bronze work (fig. 38), the portrait head of a mature man that comes from Delos147. The work dates back to the early 1st c. BC, a complicated and at the same time critical period that is characterized by contrasting stylistic tendencies, radical and at the same time regressive, free and academic148. Yet, the most important element that distinguishes art during this transitional period is the annihilation of the body’s significance. “The figures leave the space which their body occupied where they radiated until then and enter into the realm of a bodiless, negative space in which they act as mirror images”149. This significant turn of events is directly associated with a new earth-shattering change. From the mid-2nd c. BC on the Romans interfere in the political scene of the Eastern Mediterranean. The gradual collapse of the Hellenistic kingdoms and the prevalence of the new power are reflected also in art. Instead of the idealism, the movement and the passion of the Hellenistic tradition in sculpture the Romans advance the objective interpretation of the world150. The expressive portrait of the epimythium, a portrait-artwork that mirrors the intellectual elaboration of the artist and his model, is clearly affected by the ambience of the new epoch. Mounted in the centre of the room, it unravels the thoughts and the feelings of a man who comes from a turbulent and unstable world, remote, and at the same time similar to ours. Contemplating the perennially changing artistic forms of the exhibition, he seems as though he ponders on the human existence, the truths, the significant and the essential that comprise its value and beauty. These crucial and universal questions do not seem to succeed in securing a univocal answer by the Greek philosophy. In the epilogue of the Platonic Dialogue Hippias Major or What is Beauty Socrates argues that the good and the 125 MARIA LAGOGIANNI-GEORGAKARAKOS Fig. 38. NAM X14612. Bronze male portrait. From Delos (“Granite Palaestra”). Early 1st c. BC. 126 THE COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF BEAUTY IN ANCIENT ART beautiful are identified with each other151. Simultaneously he declares his lack of knowledge of the beautiful in itself concluding that the quest for truth and beauty form a beneficial and at the same time difficult process152. For the pragmatic philosophy of Aristotle, the beautiful in nature and in art is defined by external objective criteria, magnitude and ordered arrangement153. The significance of poetry as well as any other art depends on their ability to meet ethical norms154 as they help in the catharsis of man from his passions and the realization of the truth155. This truth, which is universal and ecumenical, is defined by Aristotle as “more scientific and serious”, and therefore is deemed more important than history156. This is what the journey into the ancient art looks like. The quest for the beautiful, even if it does not end in an absolute truth, enables us to define ourselves. After all, “the source of what is beautiful, good and pleasing lies in ourselves by seeking then to discover its origin, we are in fact looking for the causes of the pleasure felt by our soul”157. BIBLIOGRAPHY Greek Adorno 2000: Th. W. Adorno, Αισθητική Θεωρία, translation, notes λ. αναγνώστου, αθήνα. ανδρόνικος 1986: μ. ανδρόνικος, Ο Πλάτων και η Τέχνη, αθήνα. Βαλαβάνης 2004: π. Βαλαβάνης, Ιερά και αγώνες στην αρχαία Ελλάδα, αθήνα. Benjamin 1978: W. Benjamin, Δοκίμια για την τέχνη. Το έργο τέχνης στην εποχή της τεχνικής αναπαραγωγιμότητάς του, translation Δ. κούρτοβικ, αθήνα. Black 2009: G. Black, Το ελκυστικό μουσείο. Μουσεία και επισκέπτες, translation σ. κωτίδου, αθήνα. Βλαχογιάννη 2016: λήμματα αρ. 293, 297, 298, in μ. λαγογιάννη-γεωργακαράκου (ed.), Οδύσσειες, exhibition catalogue, εθνικό αρχαιολογικό μουσείο, αθήνα. Burke 2016: E. Burke, Περί του Υψηλού και του Ωραίου, translation, introduction, commentary Χ. γρηγορίου, θεσσαλονίκη. Buschor 1995: ε. Buschor, Το Ελληνιστικό Πορτραίτο, translation γ. Δοντάς, αθήνα. γεωργούλης 1975: κ. Δ. γεωργούλης, Ιστορία της Ελληνικής Φιλοσοφίας, αθήνα. Classen - Howes - Synnott 2005: C. Classen - D. Howes - A. Synnott, Άρωμα. Η πολιτισμική 151. Plato, Hippias Major, 304a. 152. He infers that he knows what the phrase “beautiful things are difficult” means, cf. note 145. 153. Aristotle, Poetics, 1450b, 37. 154. Aristotle considered that the works by the painter Polygnotos expressed ethical lessons; as for Polygnotos, Aristotle regarded him as ethographos, namely a worthy painter of character, whereas he criticized the works of Zeuxis. See Aristotle, Poetics, 1450a, 28-29. 155. Aristotle, Poetics, 1449b, 25-29. 156. For Aristotle poetry tends to give general truths while history gives particular facts: “ἡ μὲν γὰρ ποίησις μᾶλλον τὰ καθόλου, ἡ δ΄ ἱστορία τὰ καθ΄ ἕκαστον λέγει”. Aristotle, Poetics, 1451b, 7-8. 157. Montesquieu 2008, 31. ιστορία της οσμής, translation ευ. σιπηνάτου, αθήνα. Dutton 2010: D. Dutton, Το καλλιτεχνικό ένστικτο – Ομορφιά, απόλαυση και εξέλιξη του ανθρώπου, translation Δ. τομαράς, αθήνα. Έκο 2004: ου. Έκο (ed.), Ιστορία της Ομορφιάς, translation Δ. Δότση - Χ. ρομποτής, αθήνα. Goethe 2006: J. W. Goethe, Περί Τέχνης, translation, introduction Β. τομανάς, αθήνα. Goette 2012: H. R. Goette, Klassisches Original oder klassizistische Tradition in der Kaiserzeit? Zum Relief Athen, Nationalmuseum Inv. 226 aus Mantineia, in θ. στεφανίδου-τιβερίου - π. καραναστάση - Δ. Δαμάσκος (eds.), Κλασική παράδοση και νεωτερικά στοιχεία στην πλαστική της ρωμαϊκής Ελλάδας. Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου, Θεσσαλονίκη, 7-9 Μαΐου 2009, θεσσαλονίκη, 213-224. Guarducci 2008: M Guarducci, Η ελληνική επιγραφική. Από τις απαρχές ως την ύστερη ρωμαϊκή αυτοκρατορική περίοδο, translation κ. κουρεμένος, αθήνα. καλτσάς 2002: Ν. καλτσάς, Τα Γλυπτά. Εθνικό Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο, catalogue, αθήνα. καλτσάς - Δεσπίνης 2014: Ν. καλτσάς - γ. Δεσπίνης, Εθνικό Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο. Κατάλογος 127 MARIA LAGOGIANNI-GEORGAKARAKOS Γλυπτών Ι. 1. Γλυπτά των Αρχαϊκών Χρόνων από τον 7ο αιώνα έως το 480 π.Χ., αθήνα. Kant 2005: I. Kant, Κριτική της Κριτικής Ικανότητας, translation, introduction, commentary Χ. τασάκος, αθήνα. Kant 2011: I. Kant, Παρατηρήσεις πάνω στο αίσθημα του ωραίου και του υπέροχου, translation, introduction Χ. τασάκος, αθήνα. καρούζος 2014: Χρ. καρούζος, Αρχαία Τέχνη, ομιλίες - μελέτες, αθήνα (reprint). λαγογιάννη-γεωργακαράκου 2006: μ. λαγογιάννη-γεωργακαράκου, πλαστικά έργα ελληνιστικής εικονιστικής τέχνης από την κρήτη, Πεπραγμένα Δ΄ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, ηράκλειο, 115-128. λαγογιάννη-γεωργακαράκου 2014: μ. λαγογιάννη-γεωργακαράκου, θάλασσα και αθηναϊκή Δημοκρατία, in μ. Ξ. γαρέζου - μ. λαγογιάννη-γεωργακαράκου - σ. μάκκας - σ. πετρουνάκος (eds.), Ναυτίλος: Ταξιδεύοντας την Ελλάδα, exhibition catalogue, μουσείο Bozar, Βρυξέλλες, αθήνα, 174-182. λαγογιάννη-γεωργακαράκου 2016: μ. λαγογιάννη-γεωργακαράκου, Αθηναϊκή Δημοκρατία: Το διαχρονικό ταξίδι μιας συλλογικής αναζήτησης, in μ. λαγογιάννη-γεωργακαράκου (eds.), Οδύσσειες, exhibition catalogue, εθνικό αρχαιολογικό μουσείο, αθήνα, 107-114. λαγογιάννη-γεωργακαράκου 2017: μ. λαγογιάννη-γεωργακαράκου, Αθήνα: λατρεία και πόλη στους Κλασικούς χρόνους, in Ν. σαραγά - ι. θεοχάρης - α. μητροπούλου (eds.), Θεοί και Ήρωες των Αρχαίων Ελλήνων, exhibition catalogue, αθήνα, 67-72. λαμπρινουδάκης 2014: Β. κ. λαμπρινουδάκης, από το αιγαίο στη μεσόγειο: στην αυγή του κλασικού πολιτισμού, in μ. Ξ. γαρέζου - μ. λαγογιάννη-γεωργακαράκου - σ. μάκκας - σ. πετρουνάκος (eds.), Ναυτίλος: Ταξιδεύοντας την Ελλάδα, exhibition catalogue, μουσείο Bozar, Βρυξέλλες, αθήνα, 140-152. μανδαλάκη 2017: στ. μανδαλάκη, αιγαιακές λατρείες: πρώιμες αναπαραστάσεις θεοτήτων στην τέχνη, in Ν. σαραγά - ι. θεοχάρης - α. μητροπούλου (eds.), Θεοί και Ήρωες των Αρχαίων Ελλήνων, exhibition catalogue, αθήνα, 19-28. μαρκούζε 1998: Χ. μαρκούζε, Η αισθητική διάσταση, translation Β. τομανάς, θεσσαλονίκη. Montesquieu 2008: Montesquieu, Essai sur le goût. Περί Καλαισθησίας, translation α. Βέλιος, αθήνα. Νεχαμάς 2010: α. Νεχαμάς, Mόνο μια υπόσχεση ευτυχίας. Η θέση του Ωραίου στην τέχνη και στη ζωή, translation ε. Φιλιππάκη, αθήνα. Ντούμας 1984: Χ. Ντούμας, Κυκλαδική τέχνη. Συλλογή Ν. Π. Γουλανδρή, αθήνα. παπανούτσος 1976: ε. π. παπανούτσος, Αισθητική, αθήνα. ραμού-Χαψιάδη 2007: α. ραμού-Χαψιάδη, Η Γέννηση της Δημοκρατίας και των Ψηφισμάτων, in μ. λαγογιάννη-γεωργακαράκου - κ. μπουραζέλης (eds.), Έδοξεν τηι Βουλήι και τωι δήμωι. Η Αθηναϊκή Δημοκρατία μιλάει με τις επιγραφές της, αθήνα, 17-20. Schmaltz 2016: B. Schmaltz, το άγαλμα της Φρασίκλειας – περί της πολυχρωμίας της ελληνικής γλυπτικής, in μ. λαγογιάννη-γεωργακαράκου (eds.), Οδύσσειες, exhibition catalogue, εθνικό αρχαιολογικό μουσείο, αθήνα, 151-156. Simon 1996: E. Simon, Οι Θεοί των αρχαίων Ελλήνων, translation σ. πινγιάτογλου, θεσσαλονίκη. σταμπολίδης 2016: Ν. σταμπολίδης, Έρως. από τη θεογονία του ησιόδου στην ύστερη αρχαιότητα, in μ. λαγογιάννη-γεωργακαράκου (ed.), Οδύσσειες, κατάλογος έκθεσης, εθνικό αρχαιολογικό μουσείο, αθήνα, 115-122. Stewart 2003: A. Stewart, Τέχνη, επιθυμία και σώμα στην αρχαία Ελλάδα, μετάφραση α. Νικολόπουλος. αθήνα. συκουτρής 1949: ι. συκουτρής, Πλάτωνος, Συμπόσιον (text, translation and interpretation), αθήνα. τριάντη 1988: ι. τριάντη, ανδρικός κορμός εθνικού μουσείου 1665, αντίγραφο έργου του 5ου αιώνα π.Χ., Πρακτικά του 12ου Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Κλασικής Αρχαιολογίας, αθήνα, 276-280. Χέγκελ 2010: γκ. Χέγκελ, Αισθητική, introduction, translation, commentary σ. γιακουμής, αθήνα. Wilcken 1976: U. Wilcken, Αρχαία Ελληνική Ιστορία (9th edition), αθήνα. 128 THE COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF BEAUTY IN ANCIENT ART International Adorno 1970: Th. W. Adorno, Ästhetische Theorie, Frankfurt am Main. Bailey 2005: D. W. Bailey, Prehistoric Figurines: Representation and Corporeality in the Neolithic, London. Baumgarten 1750: A. G. Baumgarten, Aesthetica, Francofurti ad Viadrum. Brillet-Dubois 2011: P. Brillet-Dubois, An Erotic Aristeia. The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite and its Relation to the Iliadic Tradition, in A. Faulkner (ed.), The Homeric Hymns: Interpretative Essays, 105-132, Oxford. Brunck 1813: R. F. Ph. Brunck, Scholia vetera in Apollonium Rhodium, vol. 2, Lipsiae. Buck - Axel 1991: L. Buck - R. Axel, A Novel Multigene Family May Encode Odorant Receptors: a Molecular Basis for Odor Recognition, Cell 65, 175-187. Burke 1757: E. Burke, A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Οur Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful, London. Burkert 2011: W. Burkert, Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche, Stuttgart. Chatterjee 2014: A. Chatterjee, The Aesthetic Brain. How we Evolved to Desire Beauty and Enjoy Art, Oxford. Coldstream 2003: J. N. Coldstream, Geometric Greece. 900-700 B.C., London - New York. Corso 2007: A. Corso, The Art of Praxiteles II. The Mature Years, Rome. Danto 1981: A. C. Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace. A Philosophy of Art, (Cambridge, MA), London. Danto 2003: A. C. Danto, The Abuse of Beauty: Aesthetics and the Concept of Art, Chicago. Deubner 1956: L. Deubner, Attische Feste, Berlin. Diehls - Kranz 1960: H. Diehls - W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, vol. ι, Berlin. Doumas 1993: C. G. Doumas, The Wall-Paintings of Thera, Athens. Doumas 2000: C. G. Doumas, Early Cycladic Culture. The N. P. Goulandris Collection, Athens. Dubos 1719: J.-B. Dubos, Réflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture, Paris. Ehrhardt 1968: A. Ehrhardt, The Beginning. A Study in the Greek Philosophical Approach to the Concept of Creation from Anaximander to St John, Manchester. Faulkner 2008: A. Faulkner, The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, introduction, text and commentary, Oxford. Fuchs 1969: W. Fuchs, Die Skulptur der Griechen, München. Goethe 1799: J. W. Goethe, Der Sammler und die Seinigen. Propyläen, 2. Bd., 2. Stück, Tübingen. Goethe 1816: J. W. Goethe, Über Kunst und Altertum (1816-1832), Stuttgart. Gombrich 1951: E. H. Gombrich, The Story of Art, New York. Goodman 1968: N. Goodman, Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols, Oxford. Havelock 1971: Ch. M. Havelock, Hellenistische Kunst. Von Alexander dem Großen bis Kaiser Augustus, Wien. Havelock 1990: E. A. Havelock, Schriftlichkeit. Das griechische Alphabet als Kulturelle Revolution, Weinheim. Hegel 1835: G. W. Fr. Hegel, Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik, Berlin. Höcker - Schneider 1993: C. Höcker - L. Schneider, Phidias, Hamburg. Hubbard 1908: E. Hubbard, Little Journeys to the Homes of Great Teachers, vol. 22, 3: Pythagoras, New York. Hume 1757: D. Hume, Of the Standard of Taste, London. Hutcheson 1725: F. Hutcheson, An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, London. Immerwahr 1990: S. A. Immerwahr, Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age, London. Kant 1790: I. Kant, Kritik der Urteilskraft, Frankfurt am Main. Keats 1819: J. Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn, Annals of the Fine Arts, IV, 15, 639, v. Konstan 2014: D. Konstan, Beauty: The Fortunes of an Ancient Greek Idea, Oxford. Lagogianni-Georgakarakos 2014: M. Lagogianni-Georgakarakos, The Athenians, in M. Andreadaki-Vlazaki - M. Balaska (eds.), The Greeks. Agamemnon to Alexander the Great, exhibition catalogue, Athens, 292-294. Marcuse 1978: H. Marcuse, The Aesthetic Dimension. Communications and Culture, London. Marinatos 1993: N. Marinatos, Minoan Religion: Ritual, Image, and Symbol, Columbia. Moon 1995: W. G. Moon (ed.), Polykleitos, the Doryphoros, and Tradition, Madison, Wisconsin. 129 MARIA LAGOGIANNI-GEORGAKARAKOS Moreno 1987: P. Moreno, Vita e arte di Lisippo, Roma. Mothersill 1984: M. Mothersill, Beauty Restored, Oxford. Nehamas 2007: A. Nehamas, Only a Promise of Happiness: The Place of Beauty in a World of Art, Princeton. Nietzsche 1872: Fr. Nietzsche, Die Geburt der Tragödie aus dem Geiste der Musik, Leipzig. Niimura et al. 2014: Y. Niimura - A. Natsui - K. Touhara, Extreme Expansion of the Olfactory Receptor Gene Repertoire in African Elephants and Evolutionary Dynamics of Orthologous Gene Groups in 13 Placental Mammals, Genome Research 24(9), 1485-1496. Perlès 2001: C. Perlès, The Early Neolithic in Greece, Cambridge. Pollitt 1995: J. J. Pollitt, The Canon of Polykleitos and οther Canons, in W. G. Moon (ed.), Polykleitos, the Doryphoros, and Tradition, Madison, Wisconsin, 19-24. Richter 1968: G. M. A. Richter, Korai: Archaic Greek Maidens: A Study of the Development of the Kore Type in Greek Sculpture, New York. Richter 1970: G. M. A. Richter, Kouroi, Archaic Greek Youths: A Study of the Development of the Kouros Type in Greek Sculpture, London. Ridgway 1997: B. S. Ridgway, Fourth-Century Styles in Greek Sculpture, Madison, Wisconsin. Schiller 1795: Fr. Schiller, Über die ästhetische Erziehung des Menschen in einer Reihe von Briefen, Tűbingen Schweitzer 1969: B. Schweitzer, Die geometrische Kunst Griechenlands, Köln. Scruton 2009: R. Scruton, Why Beauty Matters (British documentary film directed by Louise Lockwood). Sircello 1975: G. Sircello, A New Theory of Beauty, Princeton. Sircello 1989: G. Sircello, Love and Beauty, Princeton. Smith 1991: R. R. R. Smith, Hellenistic Sculpture, London. Snodgrass 2000: A. M. Snodgrass, The Dark Age of Greece: An Archaeological Survey of the Eleventh to Eighth Centuries B.C., New York. Stern - McClintock 1998: K. Stern - M. K. McClintock, Regulation of the Ovulation by Human Pheromones, Nature 392 (6672), 177-179. Stewart 1977: A. Stewart, Skopas of Paros, New York. Turner 1903: W. Turner, History of Philosophy, Boston and London. Young - Trask 2002: J. M. Young - B. J. Trask, The Sense of Smell: Genomics of Vertebrate Odorant Receptors, Human Molecular Genetics 11(10), 1153-1160. Webster 1964: T. B. L. Webster, From Mycenae to Homer. A Study to Early Greek Literature and Art, London. Westermann 1893: A. Westermann, Μυθογράφοι: Scriptores Poeticae Historiae Graeci, Brunsvigae. Ancient writers Aristotle, Metaphysics, Aristotle in 23 Volumes, vols. 17, 18, translated by H. Tredennick, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1933, 1989. Aristotle, Poetics, Aristotle in 23 Volumes, vol. 23, translated by W. H. Fyfe. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1932. Aristotle, The Athenian Constitution, Aristotle in 23 Volumes, vol. 20, translated by H. Rackhman, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1952. Euripides, Bacchae, The Tragedies of Euripides, translated by T. A. Buckley, London 1850. Hesiod, The Homeric Hymns, and Homerica, Loeb Classical Library. Homer, Iliad, The Iliad with an English Translation by A. T. Murray, Cambridge, MA., Harvard University Press, London 1924. Plato, Hippias Major or What is Beauty, Plato in Twelve Volumes, vol. 9, translated by W. R. M. Lamb, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1925. Plato, Philebus, Plato in Twelve Volumes, vol. 9, translated by H. N. Fowler, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1925. Plato, Republic, Plato in Twelve Volumes, vols. 5, 6, translated by P. Shorey, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, London, 1969. Plato, Symposium, Plato in Twelve Volumes, vol. 9, translated by H. N. Fowler. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1925. 130