Greek Statues, Roman Cults and European Aristocracy: Examining the Progression of Ancient Sculpture Interpretation

Andrew Lusher

doi:10.18533/journal.v6i12.1313

Abstract

<p>In 1747 Frederick II of Prussia acquired a rare and highly valuable statue from antiquity and gave it the description of Antinous (the ill-fated lover of the Roman Emperor Hadrian). Although the bronze statue had always been accepted as an original from ancient Greece, the statue eventually assumed the identity of the Roman Antinous. How could Frederick II, an accomplished collector, ignore the blatant style and chronological discrepancies to interpret a Greek statue as a later Roman deity? This article will use the portraiture of Antinous to facilitate an examination of the progression of classical art interpretation and diagnose the freedom between the art historian and the dilettante. It will expose the necessary partition between the obligations of the art historian to provide technical interpretations of a work within the purview of the discipline with that of the unique interpretation made by individual viewers. This article confirms that although Frederick II lived before the transformative scholarship of Winckelmann, the freedom of interpreting a work is an abiding and intrinsic right of every individual viewer. </p>

Highlights

In the middle of Unter den Linden - the main thoroughfare of Berlin - stands a large bronze equestrian statue of Frederick II of Prussia looking east towards his Forum Fridericianum
Even though it was already known that this work could not have been Antinous due to chronological discrepancies, there was still a desire by artistic circles to properly describe the bronze statue using new, modern methods of interpreting ancient works based on style and typology of the individual
Potential for synonymous interpretation While the statue could not have been intended as portraying the likeness of Antinous and does not meet the crucial requirement of the curls of hair, there is the possibility of its inclusion to the larger shared group, that of beautiful male youths

Summary

Introduction

The head and the face have no resemblance to the ever-recurring forms of the face and characteristics of this youth.” He goes on further to say “it is quite unmistakable that the youthful, delicate, and voluptuous, beautifully formed body, with special attention to the head, can belong to no other than...Ganymede.” even though it was already known that this work could not have been Antinous due to chronological discrepancies, there was still a desire by artistic circles to properly describe the bronze statue using new, modern methods of interpreting ancient works based on style and typology of the individual.

Results

Conclusion