The Language of the Muses: The Dialogue between Roman and Greek Sculpture by Miranda Marvin

Abstract

BOOK REVIEWS 371 Antinous' complexity ("...seen by some as perhaps..."; "Is itnot also possible that...?"; "This is not to deny that itmight be..."). Sterner editing would have been in order. Plates are sometimes poorly inte grated: in a few instances, V/s captions forphotos so differ from her discussions of them in the text that it is difficult to tell ifone is look ing at the correct picture. Quotations do not receive adequate identi fication when they appear, nor are subsequent references to ancient testimonia adequately signposted. (A new section on p. 168 begins, "This question asks thatwe take them seriously as historical docu ments.") The casualness with which sources are integrated adds to the difficulty of an already challenging work. Finally, two works by Amy Richlin appear in the bibliography as 1992a and 1992b, but in numerous footnotes are both just "1992." This is a dense, complicated work, containing a great deal of in teresting material. The bibliography is extensive and up-to-date. V/s care to incorporate non-Roman points of view is particularly stimu lating, and her close analyses of literature and artwork are often so phisticated and perceptive. The numerous plates are all of excellent quality and, with few exceptions, contribute helpfully to the discus sion. The book would have been stronger, however, if the author had presented her arguments less densely and if her conclusions had been more clearly reasoned. Many of her positions may be right; cer tainly, her suggestions are so interesting that one would like them to be right. But we are not likely to acquire the solid ancient evidence thatwould really support V/s arguments, which means that Chap ters 2 and 3 in particular do not contribute to our knowledge of Antinous or Sporus, or of either individual's social circumstances. These chapters?and the book as a whole?are valuable nonetheless, in that they take suggestive material and develop its possibilities in new and creative ways. University ofTennessee Elizabeth H. Sutherland The Language of the Muses: The Dialogue between Roman and Greek Sculp ture.By MIRANDA MARVIN. Los Angeles: J.Paul Getty Museum, 2008. Pp. viii + 304. Plates. Cloth, $100.00. ISBN 978-0-89236-806-8. Originals and copies in ancient sculpture is an important and current topic inGreek and Roman art historical research. In the past, the trend was to classify and discuss certain works of art as "Roman copies of Greek originals," the implication being that these pieces were only valuable as reflections of other, earlier sculpture. This art historical transparency evolved from attitudes of early European 372 BOOK REVIEWS writers such asWinckelmann, Furtwangler, and Lipp old, and itwas tied to the widely accepted idea that the Greeks were artistically superior to the Romans, who were admired primarily as engineers and strategists. Sculptors of the Roman era were generally catego rized as copyists rather than creators, carvers producing cold, slavish imitations of Greek masterpieces. Such generalizations led to the art historical practice of Kopienkritik, examining replica series with the intention of reconstructing the original model and determining which copies were most faithful to it. In recent years, classical scholars have reacted against earlier as sumptions by asserting the significance of Roman copies as works of art in their own right, as invaluable products of the artists who cre ated them and the era inwhich theywere made. Objective analysis is making itevident that, as with art of any period, some Roman sculp tures are derivative while others are original, and some are cold and lifeless while others are vibrant and fresh.1 In reality, though, this is an issue that every art historian who works with ancient Greek and Roman sculpture must confront. Marvin (hereafter "M.") has written previously on this subject, including book chapters entitled "Copying inRoman Sculpture: The Replica Series"2 and "Roman Sculptural Reproductions, or Polyklei tos: The Sequel."3 Here she goes into greater depth and places more emphasis on the attitudes of early modern writers, scholars, and col lectors. M. begins with a sort of preface, titled "The Argument," in which she outlines her intent inwriting the book and provides clear definitions for essential terms such as "type" and "replica series...