Introduction
In the case of Roman copies of notable Greek sculptures, the presence of certain statue types can substantially enrich our understanding of larger displays.Footnote 1 When contextualized in private settings, such as the domus and villa, the interests and priorities of Roman collectors can be illuminated through their sculptural acquisitions.Footnote 2 The identities of such collectors may even be inferred from their artistic proclivities, such as choice of subject or preferences for particular Greek artists.Footnote 3 On occasion, however, contexts firmly associated with historical figures can enhance our modern understanding of well-known pieces within the canon of classical art – this is certainly the case for two remarkable pendant sculptures once displayed at the villa of the sophist Herodes Atticus (101–177 CE) in the Peloponnese.
Lucius Vibullius Hipparchus Tiberius Claudius Atticus Herodes (“Herodes”) was born at the turn of the 2nd c. CE at his family’s estate at Marathon, and traced his Athenian heritage to the famed 5th-c. BCE general, Miltiades, who in turn claimed autochthonous Athenian heritage through Kekrops and the heroes Theseus and Ajax (Fig. 1).Footnote 4 Herodes was raised partially in Rome and partially in Greece. It was this background, combined with impressive oratorical skills that allowed him to join the limited ranks of sophists who would spearhead the Second Sophistic, a revival of Greek tradition in the Roman Empire of the 2nd c. CE.Footnote 5 As a teacher, his extensive roster of students included two Roman emperors.Footnote 6 As the centerpiece of Philostratus’s Lives of the Sophists, Herodes is simultaneously characterized as a wise thinker, politician, cosmopolitan benefactor, and “larger than life character” (VS 2.1).Footnote 7 Other ancient authors, such as Herodes’s sometimes adversary Marcus Cornelius Fronto, paint one of the richest men of antiquity in a different and less ambiguous light.Footnote 8 Fronto’s adverse letters about Herodes, written around 140 CE, indicate a cruel and capricious nature: Herodes is said to have beaten a freedman, and is even accused of murder.Footnote 9
Map of properties owned by Herodes Atticus in Greece. (Map by Evan Levine.)
Among the sophists, Herodes was distinctive in regard to his bicultural identity, involving numerous political roles in Greece, Italy, and Asia Minor, an exogamous marriage to a Roman patrician woman Appia Annia Atilia Regilla Caucidia Tertulla (“Regilla,” b. 125 CE),Footnote 10 and inheritance of extreme wealth that allowed for elaborate patronage and euergetism in both Greece and Italy.Footnote 11 Equally remarkable was a lifetime of erratic and dramatic behavior that, in turn, spurred moves between and changes to his various properties in Greece and Italy.Footnote 12 All of these traits are visible in the architectural and decorative choices that Herodes realized at his family’s country villa in Arcadia, which he eventually transformed into a pseudo-mausoleum centered on mourning and commemoration of his family and students.Footnote 13 As discussed below, in some cases, the premature deaths of these people were likely tied to Herodes himself.
Among the many suburban and rural properties of Herodes Atticus, the estate at Loukou in Arcadia is notable for its extensive decorative program.Footnote 14 This included an extraordinary range of elaborate mosaics, one of which is published here for the first time (see cat. no. 2). The large sculpture collection displayed at the villa included pieces that were already antiquities in the 2nd c. CE, as well as bespoke copies of famous works (see cat. no. 1). The two pendant sculptural compositions discussed in this essay – both 2nd-c. CE Roman marble copies of Greek bronze opera nobilia of the 3rd or 2nd c. BCE – constitute examples of the latter category.Footnote 15 Each pyramidal sculpture was itself composed of an agonistic pairing of two figures or symplegma. One of these marble sculptures is still extant, while the other is now lost, but antiquarian accounts, fragmentary sculptural remains, and accompanying mosaic and architectural evidence allow for a reconstruction of the original placement and significance of this pairing.
The subjects of both sculptures derive from the Trojan Cycle, and were familiar artistic scenes that had been popular since the Geometric period. Despite the choice of popular subject, the presence of the two sculptural groups in the context of Herodes’s luxurious villa at Loukou was nevertheless unique in regard to their colossal scale, masterful execution, and details preserved from the Hellenistic bronze originals. The first, at a towering 2.5 m, depicts the pathos, or suffering, of the moment when Amazonian Queen Penthesilea, fierce fighter and ally of the Trojans, dies at the hands of the “greatest of the Greeks,” Achilles.Footnote 16 Yet Achilles’s moment of arete, or excellence, is also rooted in a fatal error, or hamartia: although they are opponents on the battlefield, in some accounts, including the Aethiopis, Achilles fell in love with his antagonist in the same moment that he killed her.Footnote 17 As Herodes and other learned viewers would have known, the warrior’s hubris, or pride, eventually led to his own downfall. Achilles and Penthesilea’s pendant, the second, now-lost sculpture, known as the “Pasquino Group” depicted a different iteration of love and death: a Greek soldier’s effort to recover his comrade’s nude corpse from Trojan territory.Footnote 18 In the display context at Loukou, these figures should likely be identified as Ajax carrying the body of Achilles, fitting with a scene described in Lesches of Mytilene’s Little Iliad.Footnote 19
By the time of Herodes, both sculptures were “baroque classics,” a modern art-historical term used to describe the status of well-known Hellenistic works that, in the Roman period, were visual exempla (models of cultural ideals).Footnote 20 These Hellenistic compositions were held in much the same high degree of appreciation by Roman viewers and collectors as their more static Classical counterparts for their depiction of such themes as arete and hamartia.Footnote 21 Both concepts are essential for the interpretation of the Loukou sculptures by educated visitors to the villa.Footnote 22 The pairings were arranged as part of a larger, innovative display context that illuminates critical aspects of both statue groups, including the identities of the figures of the Pasquino Group. Together, the set of four figures invites paragone, or comparison in contrasts.Footnote 23 These contrasts include the juxtaposition between depictions of living and dead, Greek and foreign, masculine and feminine, bravery and defeat, and hubris and hamartia.
The Villa at Loukou
The villa of Herodes Atticus at Loukou is located four kilometers northwest of the modern village of Astros, at a site known in antiquity as Kynouria.Footnote 24 An aqueduct provided the villa, located at the confluence of the Tanos river and the Lekani stream, with additional water from the nearby mountains, and still spans the stream at the nearby Holy Monastery of Loukos, which gives the area its modern name.Footnote 25 This part of the Peloponnese, in Herodes’s time and today, is largely used for olive cultivation. The villa at Loukou was likely acquired after Herodes’s grandfather, Hipparchus (b. 40 CE), was accused of tyranny and his son, Atticus, fled to Sparta.Footnote 26 Although Herodes Atticus did not build the initial stage of his villa, the estate reached its zenith during his lifetime, as he significantly renovated and adapted it between 135 and 174 CE. Links to Herodes’s other properties include similarities in sculptural decoration, including classicizing works and portraits of his family and foster-students.Footnote 27 A 5th-c. BCE epigram commemorating the Battle of Marathon was excavated at Loukou, providing evidence of Herodes’s antiquarian interests and desire to link the Arcadian villa with his hometown estate.Footnote 28 The villa at Loukou was likely bequeathed to the imperial family after his death.Footnote 29 The presence of portrait busts of later emperors through Septimius Severus (r. 193–211 CE) indicates that the estate remained in use after the death of Herodes Atticus, although the nature of that use and the identity of the estate’s new patron are not immediately evident.Footnote 30
The villa at Loukou is not mentioned in any ancient literary sources, creating confusion for the antiquarian and topographer William Martin Leake, who arrived in 1806 thinking that he had discovered the remains of the ancient city of Thyrea.Footnote 31 He mentions that local masons at the monastery were destroying antiquities, motivating him to send a marble torso to the British Museum.Footnote 32 In 1829, Guillame-Abel Blouet visited with the Expédition de Morée. He was followed by Ludwig Ross in 1833 and 1840, who noted that many antiquities had disappeared in the time between his two visits.Footnote 33 Ernst Curtius correctly identified the site as a Roman villa, rather than Thyrea, in 1850.Footnote 34 The site was correctly recognized as an estate of Herodes Atticus in 1906 from epigraphic evidence incorporated into the nearby monastery.Footnote 35 Intensive excavation of the villa began in 1980, led by Theodore Spyropoulos, who was later joined by his son and collaborator, George Spyropoulos.Footnote 36 These efforts revealed about 6,500 m2 of an estimated 20,000 m2 villa complex and continued until 2000.Footnote 37 While we await the full publication of the site, George Spyropoulos has published the plan and critical excavation photos that allow for interpretation of the sculptural display, including copies and original works of Greek and Roman art.Footnote 38
The plan of the villa as excavated centers on three monumental structural terraces, constructed on two artificial platforms so that the villa adopts a tripartite elevation (Fig. 2).Footnote 39 The middle level was dominated by a large peristyle measuring 55 m long and decorated with 1,300 m2 of polychrome tessellated mosaics, including representations of the Muses and the labors of Herakles, and personifications such as Ktisis (foundation) and Apolausis (enjoyment).Footnote 40 The figures are often accompanied by name labels, making this perhaps the earliest example of flooring with identifying inscriptions for characters and scenes.Footnote 41 The peristyle was occupied by an island garden and series of water displays, including a so-called euripus water channel, 1.7 m deep and running 63 m north–south and 20 m east–west.Footnote 42 The garden served as the spine of the whole residential complex, and was surrounded by a canal and porticoes.Footnote 43 Sculpture was omnipresent throughout the portico, with at least 50 statues, including portraits and representations of gods and athletes, on display.Footnote 44 Portraits of Herodes Atticus, as well as family, students, and famous figures, such as philosophers and members of the imperial family, created a “hall of fame combined with a hall of memory.”Footnote 45 A room at the western end of Level II has been identified as an aula: a formal reception and dining area. The view from this space – opening onto the nymphaeum, canal, and peristyle – was surely meant to spark conversation and impress guests.
Plan of the villa. (Plan by the author after Spyropoulos Reference Spyropoulos2006 and Papaioannou Reference Papaioannou, Marzano and Guy2018.)
The east end of the Garden peristyle was adorned with six sculptures of Amazon-caryatids, a motif also employed at Herodes’s and Regilla’s property on the Via Appia.Footnote 46 The west side was decorated by a nymphaeum fountain with six prominent niches, each of which held a 1.10 m-tall marble female figure. One of these survives in good condition. The excavators have associated these “maidens” with the so-called Laconian Dancers by the sculptor Callimachus.Footnote 47 In fact, based on the figure’s scale, triangular shape, and windblown drapery, it is more likely that this “maiden” is a spoliated 5th-c. BCE acroterion. This re-identification as a repurposed acroterion is supported by the presence of six niches for the figures.Footnote 48
The Pasquino Group and Achilles and Penthesilea sculptures
The most remarkable inclusion within Herodes’s sculptural program must have been the presence of two over-life-sized marble copies of famous Hellenistic bronze groups, located at the western end of the garden (Fig. 3). Both were colossal compositions, rising to over 2.45 m (8 ft) tall and placed atop marble-clad brick bases. The customized nature of their display at Loukou, and stylistic similarities in the carving and execution of the copies of the two Hellenistic groups to portraits of Herodes and his trophimoi from the villa, indicate that these paired symplegmata were likely commissioned by Herodes himself, and may have been copied specifically for the villa.
Plan of the villa showing locations of sculptures, mosaics, and water features. (By the author.)
Fig. 3. Long description
Panel A: A statue of a figure holding a spear and shield. Panel B: A plan of the villa with various rooms and features labeled. Panel C: A mosaic depicting a figure in a chariot. Panel D: A statue of a figure holding a spear and shield. The plan shows the layout of the villa, including the positions of the sculptures and mosaics.
During his 1806 visit, Leake noted the presence of a colossal statue – now missing – with a description matching the composition of the Pasquino Group:
The next thing I observe is two fragments of a colossal groupe [sic], which seems to have represented a man carrying the dead corpse of another, with the face upwards…The body is curved backwards, as a dead body would naturally hang. The hand of the figure which was represented carrying the dead body remains on the side of the body; a part of the other figure, covered with drapery, is also attached to the corpse and forms part of the same stone.Footnote 49
One young nude male torso (cat. no. 3, Fig. 10) excavated in this area was initially identified by the excavators as part of the Pasquino Group seen by Leake, but this identification is unlikely. Instead, the torso is more likely a Roman copy of a 4th-c. BCE Greek type, fitting with the varied sculptural program of the garden peristyle. While the Pasquino Group mentioned by Leake is now missing, its presence is concretely attested by mosaic evidence, discussed below.
In contrast, its pendant, the Achilles and Penthesilea sculpture (cat. no. 1) is remarkably well preserved, and it stands as the largest and most detailed example of the type among the Roman copies of the original Hellenistic sculpture (Fig. 4).Footnote 50 The pair of figures stood on a base that is still partially preserved on the southern side of the peristyle. The only other known pairing of the over-life-sized symplegma of Achilles and Penthesilea with the Pasquino Group occurs at the early 2nd-c. CE Hadrianic baths of Aphrodisias, where, as Maryl Gensheimer and Katherine Welch write, “the Achilles and Penthesilea then was a venerable antiquity that had been lovingly cared for, restored, and re-displayed in a new setting.”Footnote 51 Similarly at Loukou, the double display demonstrated Herodes’s antiquarian interests and created a complementary pairing.Footnote 52
Achilles and Penthesilea sculpture. (By the author.)
The Achilles and Penthesilea Group derives from classical precedents and was popular in the Hellenistic period: it is the central motif on a royal Macedonian shield from Vergina (ca. 340–317 BCE), and at least 18 copies of the Achilles and Penthesilea sculptural group are known to have been found around Europe and the Levant.Footnote 53 The pyramidal composition of Achilles and Penthesilea depicts an irreversible instance of violence and hamartia alongside a fleeting moment of intimacy. The Greek hero supports the Amazonian Queen whom he himself has just killed; Penthesilea slumps to her knees as Achilles supports her limp body. The type is compositionally similar to other Hellenistic symplegmata dating to the 3rd or 2nd c. BCE, such as the so-called “Ludovisi Gaul committing suicide.” Likewise, the Achilles and Penthesilea type can be defined by a series of contrasts.Footnote 54 The Greek hero is accordingly large, dynamic, upright, and masculine while Penthesilea is small, sinking, curving, feminine. Despite being similarly armed with swords and shields (a circular shield for Achilles and a crescent-shaped pelta for Penthesilea), the fight hardly seems fair.
Poor preservation of the statue base at Loukou limits our understanding of the exact display of the sculpture. However, the relationship between the location of the fragmentary statue base and a mosaic depicting the same scene immediately to the east likely indicates that the sculpture was positioned such that the colossal figures also faced east, with Penthesilea falling toward the center of the peristyle to the north, while Achilles looked southward. Thus, the primary frontal view occurred when the viewer was standing in front of the sculpture and the accompanying mosaic to the east. An approach from other angles, such as from the aula to the west, would have changed the viewing experience and narrative so that Achilles became the dominant figure who initially obscured the body of Penthesilea.
From the primary vantage point, the sculpture’s narrative progresses along with the viewer’s gaze, starting from the bottom left of the sculpture, and corkscrewing clockwise upward to finish at the crest of Achilles’s helmet.Footnote 55 The viewer’s eyeline would likely have corresponded with the lower part of the sculpture, where Penthesilea’s left hand and legs rest on the plinth. Penthesilea wears a chiton over her left shoulder, but this garment has become undone on the right side, leaving her chest exposed and revealing the fatal wound inflicted by Achilles, surely once brightly painted. The strong right-to-left diagonal nature of the composition from its intended frontal viewing angle is reinforced by Penthesilea’s undone garment strap, passing across her chest and continued by a scabbard, which is mirrored above by Achilles’s balteus (sword belt). Achilles supports Penthesilea with both hands, his left catching her limp right arm, with much attention granted to the rendering of veins and musculature on the surface visible to the viewer (Fig. 5). Meanwhile, his right hand supports her originally drooping head (missing in the Loukou copy), the fingers passing tenderly through her hair, her eyes half-closed.Footnote 56 In opposition to Penthesilea, who collapses to the right, the active, striding body of Achilles strains upwards and to the left, his head turned dramatically to his right, away from the scene.
Detail of Achilles and Penthesilea sculpture: hand. (By the author.)
The Loukou group preserves important aspects of the composition that are missing from other fragmentary copies, such as the head of Achilles and much of the left leg of Penthesilea. It also features specific details likely translated from the lost bronze original, including a careful rendering of the musculature of Achilles’s hands and delicate carved details of embossing and laces on Penthesilea’s leather boot. The head of Achilles from Loukou generally matches the type present in collections at Basel and Madrid, clearly inspired by generic portraits of Alexander with long curly hair, blown upwards from the face around an anastole (cowlick).Footnote 57 The Loukou Achilles’s face is slightly narrower and more gaunt than other examples of the type, each feature carved on a larger scale so as to emphasize the frantic, upward inclination of the eyes (Fig. 6).
Detail of Achilles and Penthesilea sculpture: face of Achilles. (By the author.)
The carving of Herodes’s copy surpasses all other Roman copies of the composition. The head, hair, and crest of the helmet are all drilled and carved deeply to create a strong chiaroscuro, and the round, protruding eyes are highlighted within deeply carved eye sockets; the brow is smooth, seemingly at odds with the lower part of the face. The area around the mouth and chin is carved asymmetrically, with the muscles activated on the proper right side such that Achilles appears ready to speak or cry out. The nostrils and mouth are similarly deeply carved to create powerful shadows when viewed from below. The locks of hair that frame the face are more provisionally carved and obscure the front of an Attic-style helmet. In overall effect, the marble Achilles from Loukou is more individualized and less idealized than other Roman copies, likely emulating key details of the bronze Hellenistic original sculpture.
Unlike all other known Roman copies of this statue, the Loukou Achilles’s helmet is decorated with an elaborate crest, depicting an eagle or another bird of prey with a long, sweeping tail (Fig. 7).Footnote 58 The bird’s feathers are simplified and dynamic, blowing toward the right. Its talons, gripping the smooth surface of the helmet, are carved in relatively low relief, and it is likely that they were difficult to see once the sculpture was installed. The helmet’s visor is extremely narrow, so as to accommodate the eagle, but its scrolls appear at the edge of the helmet just behind the ears. The presence of this unusual crest is surprising: although eagles appear several times in the Iliad as omens,Footnote 59 they are not directly made an attribute of Achilles.Footnote 60 Rather, the eagle is associated with Zeus, who employs the bird as an omen to both the Greeks (8.245–50) and the Trojans (12.195–225). Perhaps the eagle serves as a reminder that Achilles is a descendent of Zeus.Footnote 61 More likely, it is meant to evoke the fighting qualities of Achilles as the “best of the Achaeans,” including his precision, speed, and ferocity.
Detail of Achilles and Penthesilea sculpture: helmet. (By the author.)
Achilles and Penthesilea Mosaic
The presence of these remarkable sculptural details is not the only feature that sets Herodes’s Achilles and Penthesilea apart. Excavators revealed the colossal symplegma group sculpture was “mirrored” below by an accompanying polychrome mosaic, depicting the same scene transposed into a different medium, like a reflection in a tessellated pool.Footnote 62 The multicolor mosaic, bordered by a black and white wave pattern, is well preserved (Fig. 8).Footnote 63 Unfortunately, losses include the upper edge with Achilles’s helmet and crest, and thus, we cannot know if in this mosaic Achilles also wore an eagle-crested helmet.Footnote 64 In the mosaic, Achilles’s sword pommel seems to take the form of an eagle’s head. The preserved zone shows the same composition as that of the Achilles and Penthesilea sculpture described above: Achilles striding forward, grasping the collapsing body of Penthesilea. An axe – a feature now missing in the sculpture – lies on the ground in front of the Amazonian queen, presumably dropped from her empty left hand.Footnote 65 The representation of a known sculptural type in mosaic is paralleled elsewhere, but not in a context where the same scene is definitively present in two media.Footnote 66 Thus, the “mirrored” mosaic sculpture is an essential part of a display that is unparalleled in the Roman world. The doubled nature of the Achilles and Penthesilea imagery underscores its importance within the villa’s decorative program, warranting a closer examination of possible meanings and messages conveyed by the sculpture to its intended audience: Herodes’s students, family, and visitors, as well as the patron himself.
Achilles and Penthesilea mosaic. (Reproduced with permission from Spyropoulos Reference Spyropoulos2006.)
The Pasquino Mosaic
Although heavily damaged, another extraordinary mosaic panel (cat. no. 2) provides compelling substantiation for the claim that the Villa of Herodes Atticus displayed a now-lost colossal Pasquino Group, seen by Leake. The panel depicts the recovery scene of a dead Greek warrior, corresponding with the composition of the Pasquino Group type (Fig. 9). Its position is opposite the Achilles and Penthesilea statue and mosaic, on the northwest side of the peristyle “island garden.” The depiction of a statue base in the mosaic Pasquino Group indicates that the mosaic is itself depicting a statue, a reflexive choice that would be complemented with additional layers of mirroring and paragone, or comparisons.Footnote 67 Because the statue base of the Achilles and Penthesilea sculpture is partially preserved due west of the mosaic, we may infer a similar arrangement for the Pasquino Group on the north side of the garden. The orientation of the Pasquino figures in the mosaic, with heads at the west side, implies that the mosaic formed a sort of mirrored display with the sculpture, although not reversed or flipped as in a true reflection.Footnote 68 Thus, each colossal symplegma was mirrored below by a polychrome mosaic of the same scene. Together, the sculptural and mosaic renderings created a four-part paragone of agonistic scenes, embedded within a complex display environment.
Orthophoto of Pasquino Mosaic. (By the author.)
Similarly, each group was further reflected in the euripus water feature below, allowing for continued discussion and comparison as students, guests, or colleagues moved around Herodes’s elaborate peristyle. Any reflections of the symplegmata in the water may have been visible from an oblique angle.Footnote 69 Thus, we might imagine that as a visiting diner exited the aula reception area and walked around the peristyle, they would have first seen the imposing sculpture version of the symplegma in the round, occupying a larger-than-life space. Visible next would have been the mosaic below, a flattened rendering that placed the agonistic pairs within a larger mosaiced constellation of mythological scenes, which could be commented upon as the visitor circulated. Then, even once the flat mosaic reflection of the group was impossible to view at the eastern edge of the circuit, another reflection of the group in the pool would have been visible. The whole process would itself have been “mirrored” by the opposing symplegma, coming into focus first through a distorted reflection, then the flattened mosaic, and finally the vivid colossal sculpture. The sequence could also have been discussed while circulating the peristyle during a peripatetic lesson, or when moving from the more utilitarian meeting spaces of the villa on the lower terrace to higher and more private levels of the complex.
The upper right zone of the Pasquino mosaic contains several important details offering insight into the composition and ideal viewing angle of the sculpture. The living warrior’s head is inclined upward, turned out to the viewer. He is bearded and wears his brown hair long under a helmet with a tall, elaborate crest that pierces the pictorial border. Despite the nature of the scene, his expression is calm.Footnote 70 He carries a shield on his left arm, which protects the body of his fallen comrade – an important iconographic clue for reconstructing fragmentary sculptural copies of the group.Footnote 71 The reddish-brown contour on the figures perhaps indicates that the represented sculpture was meant to be bronze, while the interior of the shield is composed of curving concentric green and yellow bands. The bottom left corner of the mosaic includes the standing warrior’s proper right leg which cuts across the composition on a neat diagonal. That limb is paralleled by the folded legs of the corpse he carries, rendered in a bluish-grey tone. This cooler tone could have been used to show that in the sculptural representation, the younger warrior’s limbs are in shadow, sheltered under the body of the standing figure. Or perhaps the bluish toneit is meant to indicate that the younger warrior is already dead, in contrast with the rendering of the limp body of Penthesilea; in the mosaic across the peristyle, her flesh is still rendered in primarily warm pink tesserae. Just under the large lacuna in the Pasquino mosaic, the hand of the dead warrior passes in front of the foot of his comrade.
Agōn and Paragone: choice of subject matter at Loukou
Why did Herodes choose to include the large-scale groups depicting Achilles with the dying Penthesilea and Ajax with the dead Achilles in his elaborate villa decoration at Loukou? Several possibilities are likely as well as mutually compatible, including Herodes’s desires to emulate imperial projects, to reference the hybrid nature of his identity, to showcase his antiquarian knowledge, and to reinforce comparisons with mythological figures. Each of these ambitions relates to Herodes’s carefully employed strategies of public mourning and commemoration of his family and inner circle, themselves often self-referential. The agōn (conflict) depicted in the sculptures, when contextualized, invites multiple levels of discourse and paragone (comparison).
The decision to use the copies of the Hellenistic sculptures as the crux of the decorative program may be understood as a mode of emulation: Herodes was eager to draw parallels between himself and Hadrian. Several scholars have noted that the design of the villa at Loukou incorporates elements that may have been chosen in imitation of Hadrian’s villa at Tivoli in a “virtuous emulation of the imperial model.”Footnote 72 This architectural emulation includes a similar island enclosure, the presence of caryatids, and the Pasquino Group at both villas.Footnote 73 As a Roman quaestor in 128 CE and praetor in 133 CE, Herodes witnessed the emperor mourning the death of his beloved Antinous in 130 CE, and the conversion of the grotto triclinium at his villa at Tivoli into a heroön.Footnote 74 Herodes even began commemorating his trophimos Polydeukion in a manner directly imitating that of Hadrian and Antinous, erecting an unprecedented number of statues and even celebrating funeral games in Polydeukion’s honor, evoking the treatment of Patroclus by Achilles.Footnote 75 Hadrian’s choice of the Pasquino Group at Tivoli might have served to associate the sculpture with the celebration of his lover Antinous; for this reason, Herodes might have found it an appropriate choice to honor Polydeukion at Loukou. If that is the case, we might draw further parallels between the Loukou pairing of the Pasquino Group with the Achilles and Penthesilea sculpture and the reinstallation of copies of the two groups in the Hadrianic-era baths at Aphrodisias,Footnote 76 understanding both as emulations of Hadrian’s enthusiasm for the pendant sculptures.Footnote 77
The choice may have also been autobiographical and self-promotional in regard to Herodes’s notable origins, travels, and professional life. George Spyropoulos has argued that the highly personal aspects of the decorative program at Loukou are special to the patron himself, unlike more generic sculptural collections at other Roman villas.Footnote 78 Thus, Herodes’s choice of subject for the sculptures and their paired mosaics might be understood as “a form of meditation about his own bicultural identity.”Footnote 79 Perhaps the choice of subject matter related to Herodes’s familial origins. If the Pasquino Group is understood to represent Ajax recovering the corpse of the dead Achilles, the composition could be related to Herodes’s mythical ancestry, as he claimed descent from Ajax.Footnote 80 Similarly, in the case of the Achilles and Penthesilea group, the iconography of the death of the Amazonian Queen at the hands of a Greek warrior may have been associated with Herodes’s birthplace of Marathon.Footnote 81 Herodes spent time in the cultural hub of Pergamon in 133/4 CE in his role as Corrector of Free Cities of Asia, and he possibly saw there the original symplegmata of Achilles and Penthesilea and the Pasquino Group, or similar compositions such as the Ludovisi Gaul. It is possible that the commission of the paired symplegmata harkened back to time spent in this cultural hub, bringing the prestige of eastern artistic prowess to rural Arcadia. Indeed, the cosmopolitan and antiquarian nature of Herodes’s artistic preferences was on full display at Loukou, and the presence of the two opera nobilia and their “reflection” mosaics signaled the education and academic interests of their patron.Footnote 82
The choice of sculptures also could have evoked a more abstract set of comparisons between mythopoetic mourning and recent tragedies, with groups alluding to painful memories. Herodes experienced no shortage of losses and tribulations: in 160 CE, in the eighth month of her pregnancy with the couple’s sixth child, Regilla suddenly died under mysterious circumstances. Their son Bradua brought a case against Herodes, claiming that his freedman Alcimedon kicked Regilla in the stomach, resulting in the death of both mother and child. Bradua was disowned, and Herodes was acquitted, partially on account of his extreme grief.Footnote 83 The following decade, which corresponded with the joint reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, brought further tragedy. The disowned Bradua was the only one of Herodes’s six children to survive childhood or the plague of 165 CE. Similarly, none of his three favorite trophimoi (student foster-children) survived the 160s CE.Footnote 84 The deaths of the classically renamed Polydeukion, Memnon, and Achilleus seem to have acutely affected Herodes, who set up numerous statues of the “beautiful, good, well-born, and eager to learn” boys around his estates, including at Loukou.Footnote 85 In 174 CE, when Herodes was in his seventies, he was once again brought to court, charged with tyranny and conspiring with Lucius Verus against Marcus Aurelius.Footnote 86 After the sudden and unexpected deaths of Alcimedon’s daughters plunged Herodes back into inconsolable grief, his former pupil Marcus Aurelius once again forgave him. Although Herodes was already in the good graces of the emperor, his demonstrations of extreme grief were instrumental in his treatment.Footnote 87
Through the decorative program of his villa at Loukou, Herodes was able to give these immense performances of grief physical form, translating his emotion into the academic, and therefore acceptable, visual language of Homeric epic. Since male performances of grief were suspect for Roman audiences, Herodes reinforced his message through physical reminders: the contents of his sculpture collections.Footnote 88 Aspects of the customized visual display, and the emphasis on comparison between the survivor and the deceased, reflect elements of the 12 gooi, or personal lament speeches, found in the Iliad.Footnote 89 The gooi include repeated comparisons, which can be expressed through a “contrast to other previous sufferings that the mourner has been through.”Footnote 90 Such comparisons highlight the preeminence of the deceased person. Similarly, Herodes’s decorative program at Loukou exalts the deeds of heroes, showcases their pathos, and invites comparison between the epic figures and their modern patron. The choice of sculpture can therefore be read as a visual manifestation of mythopoetic modes of ancient Roman mourning.
The agōn, or conflict, depicted in the two sculptural groups would have thus alluded to difficulties in Herodes’s own life, and the sculptures may have served a commemorative function. Just as the two groupings of sculpture and mosaic invited a paragone across the peristyle, they also drew a comparison between their subjects and viewers. Stewart reminds us that one of Herodes’s trophimoi was named Achilles, but the boy does not have an identifiable portrait type as Polydeukion and Memnon do.Footnote 91 Perhaps the mythological figure stood in for the fallen foster son–student through his presence in both sculptural groups in the peristyle, where “one can easily imagine [Herodes] lecturing his guests upon the life and tragically early death of his young Achilles.”Footnote 92 In this case, Herodes might have seen himself as the Ajax figure bearing the burden of Achilles’s corpse in the Pasquino Group. It is also easy to imagine how, especially after the 160s CE, Herodes might have related to an unlucky Homeric father figure such as Priam. Achilles’s description of his own father, Peleus, who “excelled all men in good estate and in wealth” (24.535–36) but “upon him the gods brought evil, in that there sprang up in his halls offspring of princely sons, but he begat one only son, doomed to an untimely fate,” (24.538–40) would surely have struck a chord with Herodes after the deaths of his favorite students and all but one of his biological children.
In targeted comparisons between the deeds of living and mythological men at Loukou, the hero most likely to stand in for Herodes, however, was Achilles. Like that of Herodes, Achilles’s status was unique among his peers. Herodes and Achilles shared an “extreme temperament” and “propensity for isolation.”Footnote 93 The death of both male and female companions led both men to extreme actions. The hero is the unifying figure of the two symplegma groups at Loukou, which together depict his reversal of fortune from eutychia (good luck) to dystychia (misfortune). In the two groups, the hero’s reversal of fortune, or peripeteia, progresses from the moment when Achilles is first struck by a pitiable ill-fated love in the Penthesilea group to the instant when the hero is struck down through hamartia as the fallen warrior of the Pasquino Group.Footnote 94
The fortune of Achilles in both sculptures invites a sympathetic response from the viewer. Herodes sought a similar response in his self-aggrandizement, reduced to a father–widower and grieving teacher through his own “subjection to chance.” As for the “full moral guilt,” Achilles provided an exemplum, or precedent, for Herodes’s performance of emotional, and often excessive, displays of mourning.Footnote 95 Herodes had every reason to link himself with the volatile and capricious figure of Achilles. After all, despite his rage, erratic behavior, and violence, Achilles is the “best” of the Greek warriors. In linking the death (and possible murder) of his wife Regilla to the legend of Achilles and Penthesilea, Herodes could express extreme despair and mourning without a direct confession of guilt or involvement. A 3rd-c. CE flask now in Izmir illustrates that the visual motif of Achilles and Penthesilea certainly had associations of metanoia, or a change in the way of life based on penitence. On one side of the vessel, decorated with the scene of Achilles holding the dying Penthesilea, an inscription reads ANEΡECIC KAI METANOIA, or “lift up and grieve/repent.”Footnote 96 Herodes’s use of this iconography may have similarly signaled grieving, repentance, and thus his own metanoia.
The theme of Achilles and Penthesilea as a “parable of great love” was also appropriate in late 2nd- and 3rd-c. funerary contexts, as evidenced by its presence on portrait sarcophagi that showcased the virtus of both male and female patrons.Footnote 97 These sarcophagi would have appealed to elites in the Greek East under Roman rule, and it should therefore not come as a surprise that their presence aligns chronologically with the phenomenon of the Second Sophistic.Footnote 98 Despite the violence depicted between the two figures, the pairing of Achilles and Penthesilea on sarcophagi was evidently interpreted in the Roman context as one that showcased the love between the couple and the piety of the male figure in the moment of his partner’s death.Footnote 99
Thus, in addition to being the most impactful and impressive additions to an already elaborate setting, the copies of the Pasquino Group and Achilles and Penthesilea may have been a subtle form of evidence for Herodes’s visitors. The subject matter demonstrated his purported extreme grief and remorse, emotions that miraculously and repeatedly saved him from trial. In drawing parallels with other tragic exempla through deliberate display at Loukou and his other properties, Herodes was currying favor with visitors to his villa at Loukou and may have even been justifying his own questionable actions. The two colossal groups communicated the key message that even the “best of the Greeks” was responsible for the death of his beloved through hamartia, and had suffered his own parallel and miserable misfortunes of “love lost too soon.” This messaging was likely intended for only the highest social tier of viewers, as the agonistic sculptures’ ability to convey such a message would rely on an intimate knowledge not only of the literary scenes that the artworks represented, but also of the patron and his biography.Footnote 100
Conclusions
Criticized for his installation of numerous statues of his dead trophimoi, or student foster-children, Herodes is reported to have said “What difference does it make to you, if I amuse myself with my trifling marbles?”Footnote 101 The marbles, including the Pasquino Group and Achilles and Penthesilea, along with the mosaics at Loukou, do, however, tell a tragic story. The display creates multiple levels of comparison beyond the traditional art-historical juxtaposition of the Greek sculptural tradition in bronze and the virtuosic Roman treatment of the subject in marble. This comparison can be visual: between the three-dimensional sculptures and their tessellated “reflections” in the peristyle, between “antiquities” displayed nearby and Herodes’s custom-made copies of “baroque classics,” and even between the sculptures themselves, positioned in conversation across the euripus and island garden. There are also social comparisons to be made: between the villa decoration of the richest man in Greece and of others, including the emperor. Finally, a viewer could have drawn comparisons between the subjects of the Pasquino Group and Achilles and Penthesilea and the lives of Herodes’s own circle. A deliberate evocation of the hamartia, or fatal error, of Achilles and his subsequent transition into dystychia, misfortune, is likely, but the installation allowed the viewer to make their own interpretations of the meaning and significance of the two agonistic pairs.
Many, if not all, of the comparisons and resulting messages outlined above are concurrently possible. The double reflections in the water and tesserae were visual echoes that served to compound meaning. In juxtaposing the agonistic pairs, Herodes multiplied their symbolic significance through evoking many interpretations, which visitors could have discussed and debated in context. Even if the two sculptures were erected in commemoration of his wife Regilla and his student foster-child Polydeukion or other deceased figures from Herodes’s life, the grief that motivated their installation was ultimately a reflection of their patron, and their display was part of his own deliberately crafted narrative. As Slatkin writes, “destruction means not the decimation of humanity, but the shattering loss and sorrow that inescapably define the life of every individual.”Footnote 102 As the display at Loukou makes clear, despite his fame and fortune, Herodes was certainly eager to define himself not only in terms of his material and intellectual riches but also in terms of his losses.
An examination of Herodes’s sculptural collection, including the Achilles and Penthesilea and Pasquino Group, in context at Loukou complicates the narrative of an isolated, eccentric mourner. More than simple attestations of a multifaceted identity or imperial emulations, Herodes’s sculptural symplegmata can also be understood as demonstrations of elite interests, and potentially as justifications of his own role in agōn, including violence and homicide. Thus, a consideration of the remarkable copies of two Hellenistic masterpieces is not only illuminating in drawing attention to some of the most remarkable Roman art excavated in Greece, but also in respect to the historical figure of Herodes Atticus and his relationships. When considered in context, this new reading of the paragone between the two sculptures and their paired mosaics at Loukou now provides a new window to their patron, his reversal of fortune, and how he chose to commemorate those whom he lost.
Catalogue
1. Achilles and Penthesilea Sculpture (Figs. 6–9)
Currently in storage at the Archaeological Museum of Astros, Greece, accessed March 2, 2020 with permit.
Preserved height 2.34 m, bottom of plinth to break at helmet crest; P.H. plinth 0.20 m. Restored height at least 2.5 m.
Most of the sculpture appears to be made of a brilliant white medium-grained marble with inclusions. It is taken to a high finish but has not been polished to a sheen as occurred with the Achilles and Penthesilea from Aphrodisias.Footnote 103 At least 30 small fragments of drapery, hair, and helmet crest, most measuring less than 0.10 m in length, remain un-joined to the larger composition.Footnote 104
Achilles
The figure of Achilles is preserved in four major fragments:
a. Head
Top of helmet to break at neck 0.51 m
Length of face (chin to chest) 0.31 m
Width of each eye 0.045 m
Distance between pupils 0.10 m
Width of mouth 0.06 m
Diameter of head at eyebrows 0.90 m
Base of the crest 0.145 m
Total height of helmet with eagle 0.245 m. The crest is itself joined from three pieces, one of those has been cleaned, and appears to be a small-grained fine white marble.
The head is broken across the neck but has now been joined with the large torso fragment
Face is well preserved; broken on one axis across the nose and chin, likely in antiquity. The aquiline crest is also broken, across the chest of the bird, revealing a channel for an attachment pin, perhaps for the head of the bird.
b. Torso and upper right arm
Width at shoulders 0.76 m
Diameter of chest (at nipples) 1.435 m
Distance between nipples 0.32 m
Line of nipples to navel 0.28 m
Width at the waist 0.45 m (break at right side)
Top of pubic hair to break at neck 0.72 m
This fragment runs from the neck to the right leg below the knee. The left leg, once bent at nearly a 90-degree angle, is broken below the left buttock at the back and along the mid-thigh at the front. The upper right arm, although very damaged, appears to have been carved back on the outside plane to accommodate the fitting of a metal shield. The penis shows signs of antique repair.
c. Right hand
Right hand, wrist to thumb 0.31 m
Right hand, wrist to knuckles 0.255 m
Diameter of arm below shield band 0.43 m
The large right hand, which grips Penthesilea’s right inner arm, is composed of two fragments. Despite the damage, it is clear that a great deal of energy has been expended on the rendering of veins and musculature on the back of the hand. The rendering is more complex than that of the Aphrodisias example. Because this plane of the hand is oriented downwards, it is helpful in establishing that the Loukou sculpture was likely mounted on a relatively high plinth and base so that these details would be visible from below.
d. Right foot
Right foot, heel to big toe 0.41 m
The ancient plinth does not survive other than a small fragment attached to Achilles’s right foot. The angle of the figure’s legs indicates that the plinth was is not flat but likely inclined downward at the back of the sculpture. As reconstructed, the base is horseshoe-shaped, with straight front and semi-circular back.
Penthesilea:
P.H. top of the plinth to the break at the neck 1.09 m
P.H. top to break at waist 0.56 m
Width at shoulders 0.67 m
Distance between nipples 0.29 m
Length of wound .055 m
Penthesilea’s body, preserved from the neck to knees, has been assembled from at least seven smaller fragments. She is shown collapsing onto the ground, her right inner arm supported by the right hand of Achilles. Her head is missing but can be reconstructed from examples where Achilles’s left hand supports the head, fingers passing through the Amazon’s hair, such as in Basel (Inv. BS 214), Byblos, and Aphrodisias.Footnote 105
The lower right leg was pieced but does not survive below the drapery. A section of the left leg, including an elaborate embossed and laced boot, is extant, although it does not join. She also wears a long, elaborate mantle, which falls along her back and bent legs. The break across the neck and shoulders leaves the attachment method of this garment uncertain. Despite the rendering of the thick folds, the contour of the Amazon’s spine and buttocks are visible through the garment.
References: Gensheimer and Welch Reference Gensheimer and Welch2013, 327 no. 2; Spyropoulos Reference Spyropoulos2006, 86 + fig. 10; Spyropoulos Reference Spyropoulos2003, 468 + fig. 10; Spyropoulos Reference Spyropoulos2001, 129–58, with a list of replicas.
Fragmentary torso. (By the author.)
2. Pasquino Mosaic
Currently on-site and in situ at the Villa of Herodes Atticus, Loukou, Greece, temporarily re-excavated and accessed September 7, 2020
Total preserved central field, not including decorative border, 1.59 by 1.63 m
Decorative border measures 0.235 m in width and is composed of alternating black and white bands, each about 0.03 m in width, which surround a white and brown wave pattern, 0.12 m in width.
Height of older warrior’s face 0.17 m
Width of head including helmet 0.19 m
Length of fallen warrior’s upper legs from groin to knee 0.29m
Height of statue base 0.195 m
The mosaic employs dark contour lines. The palette of the mosaic, primarily making use of white, pink, brown, and yellow tesserae, is similar to that of nearby mosaic panels and the panel depicting Achilles and Penthesilea.Footnote 106 Each tessera is approximately 1 cm2, although some of those used in the depiction of the figures are much smaller, while those brown, white, and black tesserae employed in the decorative border tend to be the largest.
A large lacuna, presumably damage caused by agricultural activity in the area or incurred during excavation, cuts diagonally through the figural field from the upper left corner to the lower right, obscuring the torsos of both figures. There are other small losses throughout; approximately 60 percent of the compositional field survives. Preserved are the upper right corner, including the left side of the face of the standing older warrior. The presence of a statue base in the mosaic indicates that the Pasquino Group is represented as a physical monument rather than a mythological scene. The representation of sculpture in mosaic is paralleled elsewhere, although not in a context where the same scene is present in both media.Footnote 107 Its presence is also helpful in determining the ideal viewing angle of the sculpture.
Bibliography: previously unpublished. Discussed in Spyropoulos Reference Spyropoulos2006, 148; Dunbabin Reference Dunbabin, Audley-Miller and Dignas2018, 369.Footnote 108
3. Torso of a youthful nude male (Fig. 10)
Currently in storage at the Astros Museum. Accessed September 8, 2020
Nude male torso, previously identified as the dead figure from the Pasquino Group
Width 0.49 m across chest under pectoral muscles
Curving 1.20 m across the chest from armpit to armpit
P.H. 1.07 m
Depth preserved (from abdominals through buttocks) 0.38 m
Length across chest from armpit to armpit 1.29 m
Solar plexus to belly button 0.26 m
Naval to top of groin 0.22 m
This over-life-sized fragmentary torso preserves the abdomen and a section of upper leg from a youth in a standing posture, leaning to the proper left. The chest above the pectorals, neck, head, and all limbs are missing, seemingly broken in antiquity. This may have been the result of reuse, perhaps in a wall or threshold, as a line of differential wear is visible running vertically along the proper right side of the body, and weathering occurs along the right hip and upper leg. The full sculpture was evidently pieced or substantially repaired in antiquity, as the lower surfaces of both legs are anathyrosed and bear cuttings: on the proper right leg this is a huge square dowel measuring 0.085 by 0.075 m, while the proper left has a smaller hole measuring 2.5 by 0.05 m. Another dowel cutting, measuring 0.06 by 0.08 m, was used to attach the proper right arm, which was likely elevated. Two deep cuttings on the back of the sculpture, each measuring 0.05 m in length, are likely from later use or securing a support. Two large modern breaks on the proper right side, likely from excavation or movement into the current storage location, reveal that the torso is carved from a large-grained blueish marble. The resulting pieces have reattached the pins. The upper break passes through the left pectoral muscle, while the lower, caused by a visible impact, runs 0.54 m diagonally through the left hip and leg. Another modern break occurs on the posterior surface of the right shoulder. The carving style highlights the soft forms of the body, there are no visible diagnostic toolmarks (rasping, drill, etc.). At present, the surface is largely obscured by dirt.
Excavators interpreted the torso as the fallen warrior in the Pasquino Group. Although the torso from Loukou is carved at approximately the same scale as other copies of the Pasquino Group,Footnote 109 this identification is improbable on a number of grounds. The Pasquino Group at Loukou was likely carved at a larger scale than the “standard size” of other Roman marble copies excavated in Rome, to match that of the Achilles and Penthesilea.Footnote 110 Compositionally, the torso is not a match. The linea alba of the torso from Loukou forms an “S curve” fitting for the posture of a late Classical model, whereas the younger figure in the Pasquino Group is depicted in a kneeling posture, with the back curling toward the figure’s proper left side and leaning backward, supported by the leg of the standing figure. The torso of the lower Pasquino warrior bends in two directions: the spine arches backward while the figure seems to fall toward his hanging left arm. Neither of these positions is reflected in the Loukou torso, nor is there any indication of the surfaces where the younger torso would have been supported by the right hand of the standing warrior. The huge dowel hole where the Loukou torso was joined with its right leg indicates that it was weight-bearing, and narrow cuttings on the posterior of the sculpture seem to indicate that it was supported on that surface. Instead, the torso from Loukou should likely be understood as a Roman copy of a 4th-c. BCE standing figure.Footnote 111
Bibliography: previously unpublished.
Open access
