Abstract

In his Naturalis Historia (34.68) Pliny the Elder refers to the famous Greek artist Telephanes (dated to the first quarter of the 5th century BC), who came from Phocaea, and has worked not only in Greece (Larisa/Thessaly) but also in Persia, for the Great Kings Darius and Xerxes. He also informs us that none of his glorious works of art has been conserved because they were ʻconcealedʼ (latuerint) in Thessaly. Some modern researchers have assumed that the meaning of this contradictory passage is as follows: because of the disgraceful fact that one of their countrymen has been engaged by the ʻenemyʼ, they decided to hide his works from the eyes of other Greeks and strangers as well. But is such an interpretation possible at all? Is it imaginable that any Greek artist – sculptor, painter or architect – would have been judged as immoral by his own people or even punished as a traitor, just because he offered his services to a hostile patron? The analysis of the ancient text corpus shows that the Greeks distinguished between the sphere of state affairs and arts policy, at least when it was about inner-Greek relations. It seems that artists could work wherever their talent was needed and for whom they wanted to, without limitation. But was the Greekʼs attitude liberal as well when it concerned art-transfer with the enemy par excellence, namely the Barbarians? Modern scholars have interpreted Plinyʼs text passage about the sculptor Telephanes as example for the hostile attitude of the Greeks towards those countrymen who created works for the Persian Kingdom. But, by analyzing Plinyʼs narration on the basis of the historical background of the involved parties (Phocaea, Larisa/Thessaly and the Persian court) it becomes clear that this is not the case at all. The text which appears to be illogical at first glance does make sense when one regards the following connections: the Ionians of Phocaea had tight relations to the Persian kings, shown by their money which was coined in accordance with the Persian standard. Therefor the idea of a Phocaean artist who was commissioned by his cityʼs business partner is not erroneous at all. In addition to it, the relation between the Persian Kingdom and the Thessalian polis of Larisa which existed even before the outbreak of the Persian wars (ca. 500 BC) explains why a Phocaean sculptor should have worked for the

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call