International Journal of the Classical Tradition

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 344–368 | Cite as

From Praxiteles to de Chirico: Art and reception

  • Rosemary Barrow


This paper aims to interrogate concepts of the classical tradition through an examination of the visual reception of the sculptural female nude. Praxiteles’s fourth-century bce Aphrodite of Cnidos and her variants are cited as a significant presence in the canon of western art through a discussion of paintings from different art historical periods and styles. Works by Titian, Alma-Tadema and de Chirico present complex commentaries on the relationship between ancient art work and its reception and offer not just comparisons but dialogues between antiquity and modernity. Lacanian concepts of desire are utilized to frame a discussion of the originary erotic meaning of the Greek sculptural nude and the appropriation or negation of this meaning in terms of artistic reception.


Classical Tradition Greek Original Mirror Stage Loeb Classical Library Voyeurism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    The reception theory of Hans Robert Jauss (Ästhetische Erfahrung und Literarische Hermeneutik, Uni-Taschenbücher 692 [Munich: W. Fink, 1977]) and Wolfgang Iser (Der Akt des Lesens: Theorie Ästhetischer Wirkung, Uni-Taschenbücher 636 [Munich: W. Fink, 1976]) and the reader-response criticism of Stanley Fish (Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980]) developed as a strand of literary criticism and concerns itself primarily with the readers’ actualization of the text. Reception theory is not as readily applied to the visual arts although this approach is favoured in, for example, A. Richard Turner, Inventing Leonardo (New York: Knopf, distributed by Random House, 1993) and Mieke Bal, Quoting Caravaggio: Contemporary Art, Preposterous History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), and with reference to ancient sculpture in Richard Brilliant, My Laocoön: Alternative Claims in the Interpretation of Artworks, Discovery Series 8 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000) (reviewed in this journal by Bernard Andreae: International Journal of the Classical Tradition 7 [2000/1]: 605–607). A reception theory of the visual aesthetic is outlined in Wolfgang Kemp, ‘The Work of Art and its Beholder: The Methodology of the Aesthetic Reception” in: Mark A. Cheetham, Michael Ann Holly and Keith Moxey, The Subjects of Art History: Historical Objects in Contemporary Perspectives (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998): 180–97.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Giorgio de Chirico, 2 March 1976, quoted in Jole de Sanne, ed., De Chirico and the Mediterranean (New York: Rizzoli, distributed by St. Martin’s Press, 1998): 10.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    From 1908 to 1914 de Chirico’s philosophical interest centred around his discovery of the work of Nietzsche and then of Schopenhauer. For a discussion of the impact of philosophical concepts on his paintings, see, Maurizio Fagiolo dell’Arco and Paolo Baldacci, ‘De Chirico e Nietzsche’: in Giorgio de Chirico, Parigi 1924–1929, dalla nascita del Surrealismo al crollo di Wall Street (Milano: P. Daverio, 1982): 62–66; Wieland Schmied, ‘L’art métaphysique de Giorgio De Chirico et la philosophie allemande: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Weininger’ in: William Rubin, Wieland Schmied and Jean Clair, Giorgio de Chirico (Paris: Musée National d’Art Moderne, 1983): 93–109; Paolo Baldacci, De Chirico: The Metaphysical Period 1888–1919 (Boston: Little, Brown, Co., 1997): 64–97, 126–28, 134–39, 144–48; Keala Jewell, The Art of Enigma: The De Chirico Brothers and the Politics of Modernism, New Modernism Series (University Park, PA: Pensylvannia State University Press, 2004): 29–2.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    In other works of the same period, de Chirico offers similarly surprising assortments of objects: in The Song of Love (1914), the head of the Apollo Belvedere rests next to a rubber glove, and in The Philosopher’s Promenade (1913), a Hellenistic-type head of Zeus shares its space with two artichokes. The notion that de Chirico’s placement of high-art ancient sculptures along-side everyday objects confers upon antiquity a banality which charges it with new meanings is posited by Paolo Baldacci, ‘Le classicisme chez Giorgio de Chirico’, Cahiers du Musée National d’Art Moderne, Paris, no. 11, 1983: 18–31, esp.: 27–28. It is suggested by Michael R. Taylor, ‘Between modernism and mythology: Giorgio de Chirico and the Ariadne series’ in: Michael R. Taylor, ed., Giorgio de Chirico and the Myth of Ariadne (London: Merril; Philadelphia: in association with the Philadelphia Museum of Art, 2002): 35, that the origin of these strange juxtapositions can be found in Cézanne’s Still Life with Plaster Cupid (c. 1895).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conversely, Keala Jewell, The Art of Enigma: ch.4, argues that de Chirico’s classicism functions as a form of continuity between modern Italy and its cultural heritage. Her discussion, however, does not engage with the artist’s representation of ancient statuary and instead concentrates on images of heroic masculinity including mythological and gladiatorial subjects.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    André Breton’s First Surrealist Manifesto (1924) cited de Chirico among others as a forerunner of Surrealism. For a discussion of de Chirico’s anticipation of and influence on the Surrealist aesthetic, see, Laura Rosenstock, ‘De Chirico’s influence on the Surrealists’ in: De Chirico (New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1982): 111–29; Wieland Schmied, De Chirico und sein Schatten: Metaphysische und surrealistische Tendenzen in der Kunst des 20. Jahrhunderts (München: Prestel, 1989).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baldacci, De Chirico: The Metaphysical Period 1888–1919 —(above, n. 3) (: 132–33, does, however, offer an interesting Freudian reading of the connection between de Chirico’s melancholy and interior space.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jacques Lacan, ‘The mirror stage as formative of the function of the I as revealed in psychoanalytic experience; delivered at the 16th International Congress of Psychoanalysis, Zurich, July 17, 1949’ in: Écrits: A Selection, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Norton, 1977, reprinted London: Routledge, 2001): 2–7. ‘Le stade du miroir comme formateur de la fonction du Je telle qu’elle nous est révélée dans l’expérience psychanalytique’ in: Jacques Lacan, Écrits, ser. Le Champ freudien (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1966): 93–100.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Laplanche and J.-B. Pontalis, ‘Mirror Phase (or Stage)’ in: The Language of Psycho-Analysis, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith (London: Hogarth Press, 1973; New York: Norton, 1974): 250 (=Vocabulaire de la psychanalyse, ser. Bibliothèque de psychanalyse [Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1967] 452).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jacques Lacan, Écrits: A Selection —(above, n. 8) trans. Alan Sheridan (, reprinted London: Routledge, 2001): 11. ‘Ce sont les images de castration, d’éviration, de mutilation, de démembrement, de dislocation, d’éventrement, de dévoration, d’élatement du corps’, from ‘L’aggressivité en psychanalyse: rapport théorique présenté au XI congrès des psychanalystes de langue francaise, réuni a Bruxelles à la mi-Mai 1948’ in: Lacan, Écrits (above, n. 8) ser. Le Champ freudien (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1966): 104.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jacques-Alain Miller, ed., The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book III 1955–1956, The Psychoses (London: Routledge, 1993): 39. Jacques Lacan, ‘Il est à l’origine collection incohérente de désirs—c’est là le vrai sens de l’expression corps morcelé’, from ‘L’autre et la psychose’ in: Jacques-Alain Miller, ed., Le Séminaire de Jacques Lacan, III, Les Psychoses 1955–1956, Le Champ freudien (Paris: Éditions de Seuil, 1981): 50.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Peter Fuller, Art and Psychoanalysis, ser. Hogarth Press Criticism (London: Hogarth, 1980): 121, analyzes the fragmented body of another statue, the Venus of Melos, in Kleinian terms as ‘a representation of the internal mother who has survived the ravages of a phantasised attack’.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    For a discussion of the claims surrounding the innovative nature of the Cnidia’s nudity, see, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Reading Greek Art (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998): 187–98.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Antonio Corso, ‘The Cnidian Aphrodite’ in: Ian Jenkins and Geoffrey B. Waywell, eds., Sculptors and Sculpture of Caria and the Dodecanese (London: Published for the Trustees of the British Museum by the British Museum Press, 1997): 91–98, identifies sixty-seven Roman copies of the Cnidia type (93). For a list of ancient descriptions of Praxiteles’s statue, see, J.J. Pollitt, The Art of Ancient Greece: Sources and Documents (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990): 84–89.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    See, Nanette Salomon, ‘The Venus Pudica: Uncovering art history’s ‘hidden agendas’ and ‘pernicious pedigrees’ in: Griselda Pollock, ed., Generations and Geographies in the Visual Arts: Feminist Readings (London; New York: Routledge, 1996): 69–88. See also, Nanette Salomon, ‘Making a world of difference: Gender, asymmetry, and the Greek nude’ in: Ann Olga Koloski-Ostrow and Claire L. Lyons, eds., Naked Truths: Women, Sexuality, and Gender in Classical Art and Archaeology (London and New York: Routledge, 1997): 197–219. Robin Osborne, ‘Looking on Greek style: Does the sculpted girl speak to women too?’ in: Ian Morris, ed., Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies, ser. New Directions in Archaeology (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994): 81–96 (esp. 81–86), also views the Cnidia as constructed solely in terms of male desire. For a discussion of the Cnidia’s pudica pose, see also, C.M. Havelock, The Aphrodite of Knidos and her Successors (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1995): 27–37.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    See, Andrew Stewart, Art, Desire, and the Body in Ancient Greece (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997): 101–104.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    See, Catherine Johns, Sex or Symbol: Erotic Images of Greece and Rome (London: British Museum Publications, 1982); David M. Halperin, John J. Winkler and Froma I. Zeitlin, eds., Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990); Amy Richlin, ed., Pornography and Representation in Greece and Rome (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1992); Natalie Boymel Kampen, ed., Sexuality in Ancient Art: Near East, Egypt, Greece, and Italy (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    For many art historians/classical archaeologists, the link between Greek art and religion is implicit. For a general discussion of the topic, see, Martin Robertson, ‘Greek art and religion’ in: P.E. Easterling and J.V. Muir, eds., Greek Religion and Society (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985): 155–90. For an examination of image and ritualistic practice (with special reference to Pausanias), see, Jaś Elsner, ‘Image and Ritual: Reflections on the religious appreciation of classical art’, Classical Quarterly 46 (1996): 515–31.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Larissa Bonfante, ‘Nudity as costume in classical art’, American Journal of Archaeology 93 (1989): 543–70, argues that the exposure of female breasts and/or genitals in divine iconography operates in terms of magic and offers protection from evil. Catherine Johns, Sex or Symbol (above, n. 17): 72, notes that, although the female genitals are rarely represented in plastic form in Greek and Roman culture, when the vulva is depicted, like the phallus, it could be seen to connote power and good luck.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pliny, Natural History: 36.21, trans., D. E. Eichholz (Pliny, Natural History, vol. X), ser. The Loeb Classical Library (London, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967). See also, Sorcha Carey, Pliny’s Catalogue of Culture: Art and Empire in the Natural History, ser. Oxford Studies in Ancient Culture and Representation (Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lucian, Erotes: 13–17.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality 3, Care of Self, trans. Robert Hurley (London: Allen Lane; New York: Pantheon Books, 1986): 213. ‘Acte ambigu. Faut-il, cette impiété-hommage, cette révérence profanatoire, la mettre au compte de l’amour des femmes, ou des garçons?’. Michel Foucault, Histoire de la sexualité 3, Le souci de soi (Paris: Gallimard, 1984): 245. For a discussion of the section of the pseudo-Lucianic Erotes which deals with the Cnidia and Foucault’s response to it, see, Simon Goldhill, Foucault’s Virginity: Ancient Erotic Fiction and the History of Sexuality, ser. The Stanford Memorial Lectures (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995): 102–110. The modern notion of penetration as a crucial factor in defining Greek homosexuality is challenged in James Davidson, ‘Dover, Foucault and Greek homosexuality: Penetration and the truth of sex’, Past and Present, no. 170 (2001): 3–51.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mary Beard and John Henderson, Classical Art: From Greece to Rome, ser. Oxford History of Art (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2001): 131.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    See, C. M. Havelock, The Aphrodite of Knidos and her Successors —(above, n. 15) (: 69–101.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    For an outline of the Medici Venus’s reception, see, Francis Haskell and Nicholas Penny, Taste and the Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculpture, 1500–1900 (New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 1981): cat. no. 88.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    For a concise discussion of the significance of Greco-Roman sculpture for Rome’s artistic heritage, with useful bibliographical references, see, Geoffrey Waywell, ‘Art’ in: Richard Jenkyns, ed., The Legacy of Rome: A New Appraisal (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1992): 295–327.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    On the discovery and ownership of significant sculptures, see, Haskell and Penny, Taste and the Antique —(above, n. 24) (. On the Renaissance reception of lesser-known statuary, relief sculpture and sarcophagi, see Phyllis Pray Bober and Ruth Rubinstein, Renaissance Artists and Antique Sculpture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986). See also, Nadia J. Koch, “Phidias und Polyklet im Agon. Die neueren archäologischen und kunsthistorischen Forschungen zur Rezeption griechischer Bildhauer in der Renaissance,” International Journal of the Classical Tradition 11 (2004/5): 244–265 (above in this volume).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Leonard Barkan, Unearthing the Past: Archaeology and Aesthetics in the Making of Renaissance Culture (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1999), chs. 3–4. Barkan also argues in favour of a Renaissance aesthetic of fragmentation in which the fragment is valued not only for its lost wholeness but in itself. Accordingly, he interprets the decision not to restore certain pieces as deriving from an understanding of them as aesthetically satisfying in their fragmentary forms.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    See, Patricia Fortini Brown, Venice and Antiquity: The Venetian Sense of the Past (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nikolaus Himmelmann, Ideale Nacktheit, Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 73 (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1985): 52–53.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Robert W. Gaston, ‘Sacred Erotica: The classical figura in religious paintings of the early Cinquecento’, International Journal of the Classical Tradition 2 (1995/6): 238–64, esp. 250–51. See also, Patricia Rubin, ‘The seductions of antiquity’ in: Caroline Arscott and Katie Scott, eds., Manifestations of Venus: Art and Sexuality, The Barber Institute’s Critical Perspectives in Art History Series (Manchester: Manchester University Press; New York: distributed in the USA by Palgrave, 2000): 24–38, which traces allegorized images of Venus and Eve in fifteenth-century painting and interprets both in historical terms as moral arguments concerning sanctioned and illicit desire.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    See, Rona Goffen, Titian’s Women (New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 1997): 84–86.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, Venus im Pelz (Stuttgart, 1870). Sacher-Masoch himself refers to another painting by Titian throughout the text which can be identified as Venus with a Mirror (1555: National Gallery of Art, Washington).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    For a full bibliography on the identity of the painting’s subject, see, Paola Tinagli, Women in Italian Renaissance Art: Gender, Representation, Identity (Manchester: Manchester University Press, distributed exclusively in the USA by St. Martin’s Press, 1997): 124, n. 2; David Rosand, ‘So-and-so reclining on her couch’ in: Rona Goffen, ed., Titian’s Venus of Urbino, ser. Masterpieces of Western Painting (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997): 37–62; Bette Talvacchia, Taking Positions: On the Erotic in Renaissance Culture (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999): 46, n. 29.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    For example, Charles Hope, ‘Problems of interpretation in Titian’s erotic paintings’ in: Tiziano e Venezia: Convegno Internazionale di Studi (Venice: N. Pozza, 1976): 111–124, talks about the ‘alibi of a classical subject’ with reference to the erotic nature of Titian’s large-scale mythological paintings. Talvacchia, Taking Positions (above, n. 33) (Stuttgart, 1870) 46, n. 28, describes the ‘cloak of mythology’ which allowed Titian to use a portrait of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese’s mistress for the face of Danae, commissioned by the Cardinal and hung publicly in his residence. Similarly, Gaston, ‘Sacred Erotica’ (above, n. 31): The classical figura in religious paintings of the early Cinquecento’, International Journal of the Classical Tradition 2 (1995/6): 254, interprets the classical-subject paintings of Bronzino as ‘mythologically sanctioned’ images of desire.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    See, Lynda Nead, The Female Nude: Art, Obscenity and Sexuality (London; New York: Routledge, 1992) for a theory of the position of the female nude within and as art.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    See, Arscott and Scott, eds., Manifestations of Venus: Art and Sexuality —(above, n. 30) introduction.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Miguel Falomir, ed., Tiziano (Madrid: Museo Nacional del Prado, 2003): cat. no. 11, identifies the Celestial Venus as a prototype for Titian’s Venus and notes that a copy was in the Grimani collection and probably on display in Venice in the early sixteenth century.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Alfonso d’Este commissioned a painting on the same subject by Fra Bartolommeo in 1517, but the artist died in the same year after only completing a preparatory sketch. Titian secured the commission the following year, and his instructions would probably have included Fra Bartolommeo’s sketch and Philostratus’s text. Goffen, Titian’s Women —(above, n. 32) (: 108, suggests that the text was accessed via an Italian translation owned by Isabella d’Este, Alfonso’s sister (see, Goffen, n. 11 on the Renaissance transmission of the text).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    See, Norman Bryson, ‘Philostratus and the imaginary museum’ in: Simon Goldhill and Robin Osborne, eds., Art and Text in Ancient Greek Culture, ser. Cambridge Studies in New Art History and Criticism (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994): 255–83; Jaś Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer: The Transformation of Art from the Pagan World to Christianity, ser. Cambridge Studies in New Art History and Criticism (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995): 23–39.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    For a full examination of the painting, the text and the patron, see, Goffen, Titian’s Women —(above, n. 31) (: 108–116.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    \({\rm M}\overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\frown}$}}{\eta } \lambda \alpha E\rho \omega \tau \in \varsigma \mathop \iota \limits^, \delta o\mathop \upsilon \limits^\prime \tau \rho \upsilon \gamma \overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\frown}$}}{\omega } \sigma \iota \nu \), Philostratus, Imagines:, trans. Arthur Fairbanks, ser. The Loeb Classical Library (London: W. Heinemann, New York: Putnam, 1931).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    σύ δέ μoι τήν ’Aϕρoδίτην βλέπε, Philostratus, Imagines —(above, n. 42) trans. Arthur Fairbanks, ser.,–3.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fra Bartolommeo’s sketch includes a figure of Venus on a pedestal. Falomir, ed., Tiziano —(above, n. 37): cat. no. 11, defines the Venus as a sculptural representation, while Goffen, Titian’s Women (above, n. 32), (New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 1997): 113, interprets her as a living incarnation of the goddess.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    For a discussion of the Cnidia’s original location, see, Stewart, Art, Desire, and the Body in Ancient Greece: 97–99.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    ’Eρώτων μητέραζ, Philostratus, Imagines —(above, n. 41) trans. Arthur Fairbanks, ser.: Scholar
  47. 47.
    For a discussion of neo-Attic dancing maenad reliefs, see, Lori-Ann Touchette, The Dancing Maenad Reliefs: Continuity and Change in Roman Copies, University of London, Institute of Classical Studies, Bulletin Supplement 62 (London: Institute of Classical Studies, University of London, 1995).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Mary Rogers, ‘Reading the female body in Venetian Renaissance art’ in: Francis Ames-Lewis, New Interpretations of Venetian Renaissance Painting (London: Birkbeck College, University of London, Department of History of Art, 1994): 81, makes a comparison between the Venus in Worship of Venus and the reclining female nude in the companion painting, Bacchanal of the Andrians (Madrid: Museo Nacional del Prado, 1523–5), in which she sees the opposition between the ‘regularity and ideal proportion’ of the sculpture and the ‘voluptuous irregularity’ of the fleshy body.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    The Roman sites of Pompeii and Herculaneum were first rediscovered in the middle of the eighteenth century and their finds were to influence Neoclassical art, architecture and decoration. By the middle of the nineteenth century, new archaeological method focusing on systematic excavation and cataloguing of finds, centred around the same sites. During the 1850s French Néo-Grec painters introduced precise archaeological settings inspired by finds from Pompeii and Herculaneum into genre scenes of Roman life and by the next decade British artists began to produce comparable images. For a general discussion of the Victorian classical revival, see, Richard Jenkyns, Dignity and Decadence: Victorian Art and the Classical Inheritance (London: HarperCollins, 1991; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1992) and for an examination of images of the Roman past, see, Michael Liversidge and Catharine Edwards, eds., Imagining Rome: British Artists and Rome in the Nineteenth Century (London: Merrell Holberton, 1996).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pliny, Natural History —(above, n. 19) vol. X, ser.: 33.147, trans. Eichholz.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Over his lifetime-Tlma-Tadema accumulated a vast reference collection of over five thousand photographs and four thousand books. His private library consisted mostly of classical texts and translations and classical-archaeological publications by modern authorities, listed in: Alma-Tadema Library: Hand List of Books (Heslop Room, Main Library, University of Birmingham).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Such an antiquity evinces a popular Victorian construction of Rome which itself looks back to Edward Gibbon’s eighteenth-century classic, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Gibbon forged a connection between material prosperity and the demise of empire and, in doing so, delineated a Rome of luxurious indolence. For a full discussion of Alma-Tadema’s construction of Rome, see, R.J. Barrow, Lawrence Alma-Tadema (London, New York: Phaidon Press, 2001).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Athenaeum, 1 May 1896: 606.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Horace, Satires: 1.4.28, trans. Niall Rudd, Campus 304 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982).Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Petronius, Satyricon: 15.31.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Athenaeus, 13.590, 591A; cf. Athenaeus, 13.591B, Pausanias, 1.20.1-2, 9.27.3-5.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    For a discussion of Catullus and Lesbia and the fictional Lesbia’s identification with the historical Clodia Metelli, see, T.P. Wiseman, Catullus in his World: A Reappraisal (London; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985); Suzanne Dixon, Reading Roman Women: Sources, Genres and Real Life (London: Duckworth, 2001):133–156.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ezra Pound, ‘Hugh Selwyn Mauberly’ in: Ezra Pund: Select Poems (London: Faber and Faber, 1959):101.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    David Frisby, Fragments of Modernity: Theories of Modernity in the Work of Simmel, Kracauer and Benjamin (Cambridge M.A.: Polity Press in association with Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1985).Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Linda Nochlin, The Body in Pieces: The Fragment as a Metaphor of Modernity, The Twenty-Sixth of the Walter Neurath Memorial Lectures (London: Thames and Hudson, 1994).Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Louis Engel, From Handel to Hallé (London: S. Sonnenschein and Co., 1890): 159.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    The Memoirs of Giorgio de Chirico, trans. Margaret Crosland (London: Owen, 1971): 41. Giorgio de Chirico, Memorie della Mia Vita (Roma: Astrolabio, 1945): 57.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Elizabeth Cowling and Jennifer Mundy, On Classic Ground: Picasso, Léger, de Chirico, and the New Classicism 1910–1930 (Tate Gallery, London, 1990): 72–73, suggest that the torso probably derived from a modern plaster cast of a Greek or Roman original. They point out that de Chirico’s representations of classical statuary were often copied from book illustrations thus emphasizing both a sense of unreality and a distance from the past.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kenneth Clark, The Nude: A study of Ideal Art (London: J. Murray, 1956): 76.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    See, Nead, —The Female Nude (above, n. 36); ; Helen McDonald, Erotic Ambiguities: The Female Nude in Art (London; New York: Routledge, 2001).Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    This idea was first discussed in: Beard and Henderson, —Classical Art (above, n. 23),: 115.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kaja Silverman, ‘Suture’ in: Kaja Silverman, The Subject of Semiotics (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983): 225.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Laura Mulvey, ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’, Screen, no. 16:3 (1975): 6–18, III A. Mulvey’s article analyzes the spectator-screen relationship in terms of the (passive) woman as recipient of the (active) male gaze, a necessary corollary of which is the ‘masculinization’ of the spectator’s position regardless of gender. Film theory subsequently begins to contest her Lacanian premise that the text constructs the subject, and Mulvey discusses the problematizing of such a position in ‘Afterthoughts on “visual pleasure and narrative cinema” inspired by King Vidor’s Duel in the Sun’, Framework, no. 15–17, (Summer 1981): 12–15. The construction of a masculinized spectatorship is now often discarded in favour of the notion of an audience’s ability to subvert the film’s dominant reading. See, for example: Pat Kirkham and Janet Thumim, eds., You Tarzan: Masculinity, Movies and Men (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1993); Judith Mayne, Cinema and Spectatorship, ser. Sightlines (London and New York: Routledge, 1993); Yvonne Tasker, Spectacular Bodies: Gender, Genre and the Action Cinema (London and New York: Routledge, 1993); Jackie Stacey, Star Gazing: Hollywood Cinema and Female Spectatorship (London, New York: Routledge, 1994).Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Both quotations are from Lacan’s Seminar XI, translated into English by Alan Sheridan as The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis, The International Psychoanalytical Library 106 (London: Hogarth Press, 1977), 72, 106, ‘je ne vois que d’un point, mais dans mon existence je suis regardé de partout’ in: Jacques-Alain Miller, ed., Lé séminaire de Jacques Lacan. Livre XI: Les Quatres Concepts Fondamentaux de la Psychanalyse (Paris: Seuil, 1973): 69.—’dans le champ scopique, le regard est au-dehors, je suis regardé, c’est-à-dire je suis tableau. C’est là la fonction qui se trouve au plus intime de l’institution du sujet dans le visible. Ce qui me détermine foncièrement dans le visible, c’est le regard qui est au-dehors’ in Miller: 98.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kaja Silverman, ‘The Look’, in: Kaja Silverman, Threshold of the Visible World (New York: Routledge, 1996): 163. See also, Silverman’s ‘Fassbinder and Lacan: A Reconsideration of Gaze, Look and Image’, Camera Obscura 19 (1989): 55–84.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    For a discussion of the significance of the banana in modern culture, see, Marina Warner, No Go The Bogeyman: Scaring, Lulling and Making Mock (London: Chatto and Windus, 1998): ch. XVI. Warner interprets the bananas in de Chirico’s The Uncertainty of the Poet as a comment on ‘the crippling and crippled condition of male sexuality’ (354).Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Cowling and Mundy, On Classic Ground: Picasso, Léger, de Chirico, and the New Classicism 1910–1930 (London: Tate Gallery, 1990): 73.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    For example, Aristophanes’s peasant hero, Strepsiades, is presented in intimate conversation with the statue of Hermes at his doorstep (Clouds, 1478 ff.); a marble statue of Heracles by the fourth-century sculptor, Scopas, stood in the gymnasium near the market-place at Sicyon (Pausanias, 2.10.1); as a boy the athlete Theagenes was so attracted to the bronze statue of a god in the market-place at Thasos that he placed it on his shoulders and carried it home (Pausanias, 6.11.2–3). See also, Elsner, —‘Image and Ritual’ (above, n. 18). ‘: 515–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    James Joyce, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, ser. Penguin Modern Classics (Harmondsworth, UK; New York: Penguin Books, 1960 [1916]): 205.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Jacques Lacan, ‘The Freudian Thing, or the meaning of the return to Freud in psychoanalysis: An expanded version of a lecture given at the Neuro-psychiatric Clinic, Vienna 7 November 1955’ in: Écrits: A Selection —(above, n. 8): trans. Alan Sheridan (: 142’ … the motives of the unconscious are limited—a point on which Freud was quite clear from the outset and never altered his view—to sexual desire’. ‘La chose Freudienne ou Sens du retour à Freud en psychanalyse: Amplification d’une conférence prononcée à la clinique neuro-psychiatrique de Vienne le 7 Novembre 1955’ in: Lacan, Écrits (above, n. 8): ser. Le Champ freudien (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1966): 432’ … les motifs de l’inconscient se limitent—point sur quoi Freud s’est déclarè dès l’abord et n’a jamais fléchi—,au désir sexuel’.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Carlo Carrà, Pittura Metafisica (Florence: Vallecchi, 1919). Quoted in Massimo Carrà, Metaphysical Art, Praeger Wold of Art Series P-271 (New York: Praeger, 1971), 45, trans. Caroline Tisdall. The original French quoted in Massimo Carrà, Metafisica (Milan: G. Mazzotta, 1968): 81.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Transaction Publishers 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rosemary Barrow
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Classics, King’s CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations