1. ENGLISH - Antonio Corso - The Art of Praxiteles - The late phases of his activity - Reconstruction of his activity from about 350 to his death in 326 BC.

Antonio Corso Professor of Classical Archeology Visiting Professor University of Cyprus, Nicosia

επισκεφθείτε την παρακάτω ιστοσελίδα... please visit the following web page ... in the original Article in the Greek language ...

https://www.themata-archaiologias.gr/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/praxiteles-ysteres-faseis-neotitas-2021-5-3-333-366.pdf

και κατεβάστε τα περιεχόμενα της ιστοσελίδας... and download the contents of the web page ...

Your Attention please ... on 2023-10-13 I first translated from the original Greek to English using the 'Google Translate' program. I will come back to do manual editing of the translated text, and to insert the photographs as in the original Greek article in .pdf in due time ... God Willing ...

Praxiteles is one of the most important sculptors of ancient Greece. His name is mentioned most often, after Pheidias, in ancient Greek, Latin and Byzantine literature. In addition, several statue bases with his signature or inscriptions identifying Praxiteles as the creator of the relevant statues have been discovered. Praxitelic statuary types are among the Greek masterpieces that were pre-eminent models during the period of "copy production" (from the 2nd century BC to the 2nd century AD). Finally, there are sculptures that can be attributed with absolute certainty to the famous creator, so that the reconstruction of his artistic activity is possible.

Praxiteles must have been born at the beginning of the 4th century. e.g. The production of his works dates from approximately 375 BC. Cephisodotus the Elder, probably his father, was already an accomplished sculptor; his sister married Phokion, a prominent statesman and student of Plato.1 The most important works of the early years are the Cupid of the Thespians, part of a trio with statues of Aphrodite and of his beloved courtesan, Phryna,2 statues of Eleusinian deities3 as well as of Dionysus with his retinue, associated with theatrical life.4 The epigram of Praxiteles, which was written on the base of the Eros of the Thespians, stated that the sculptor represented in this work has Eros "as an archetype in his heart" (ἐξ ἰδίης ἕλκον ἀρχετυπον κραдиις, Athinaios 13.591), thus seeking to declare the adoption of the Platonic conception of this god. The artistic production of Praxiteles' youth is marked by his love for Phrynis, a person with a prominent position in his art. The early works indicate the artist's keen interest in life, both in the private and public/professional spheres. Aphrodite's Knidia (fig. 1), which dates to the end of 360 BC, must have given him a much wider reputation.5 At that time, Knidos belonged to the satrapy of Caria, which was ruled by Mausolus, and it is possible that he it was the ruler who commissioned the creation of the new statue. Eudoxus the Cnidius,6 a famous philosopher at the court of Mausolus and one who had reinterpreted the Platonic theory of ideas in hedonistic terms claiming that pleasure is the highest idea, may have influenced Praxiteles' tendency to create an "art pleasure". Another important work of Praxiteles's maturity is the Apollonian triad carved for the sanctuary of Apollo the protector at Megara (Pausanias 1. 44. 2).7 These three statues are depicted on coins of Megara (fig. 2). The depiction of Artemis on these coins leads to the recognition of the type of Artemis of Dresden, a sculpture of the copyist tradition that echoes the original statue of Megara.8 The Artemis of Dresden (fig. 3) appears

as an attractive teenage girl, hunting in the groves. The resting Satyr (fig. 4), from the same period, brings to the fore the happiness that one feels in a grove, far from human society.9 With these creations, Praxiteles attempted to "visualize" the so-called "Arcadian dream" , that is, the notion that man can feel happier away from human communities, among groves, meadows, cattle and mythical beings, an idea, however, aristocratic since it is based on contempt for the "plebeians".10 Starting at the end of the decade of 350 BC, Praxiteles worked a lot for clients from Asia Minor especially, taking orders from satraps. During these years, the Greek cities engaged in endless wars, which exhausted their economic potential, resulting in the great monumental projects

letters to be rare in the cities of metropolitan Greece.11 It is not surprising that several famous sculptors, such as Zeuxis, Timotheus, Praxiteles, Scopas, Leocharis, Vryaxis, Euphranor, Nikias, etc. they sought work opportunities offered by the satraps of Asia Minor and the kings of Macedonia. It can be taken for granted that these commissions determined changes, both in the artists' pictorial repertoire, and in the messages they wanted to "pass" through these works. We know from Vitruvius (7. praefatio 13), that Praxiteles delivered works intended to be erected in the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus.12 The problem of identifying Praxiteles' art in the Mausoleum can

to be solved by the example of the colossal female head from the Mausoleum, located in the Greek and Roman section of the British Museum (fig. 5).13 The head was placed on a statue

with a robe, with the upper edge of the robe reaching the head on the left side. The face is oval, the upper edge of the forehead curved, the eye sockets are narrow and elongated, the surface is worked with the typical praxitelian rendering of light and shadow, and the curvature of the neck is similar to that of Cnidia. This head, leaning gracefully to the right, must have conveyed the attractiveness and freshness of a young woman. I recognize in this work Praxiteles' perception of young female beauty. The marble used is Pentelic, a material preferred by Praxiteles (Propertius 3.9.16). Comparison with the female figures of the Hecatomnides in London (British Museum, nos. 1001 and 1051) indicates that this work probably depicts a young woman of the Carian court. Her statue was probably one of the colossal creations arranged in the intermediate columns of the Mausoleum's enclosure.14 One of Praxiteles' most important creations, Apollo Sauroktonos, should be dated to the same period. This statue is known thanks to Pliny (34.70), "Praxiteles also created a youthful Apollo who was called in Greek the lizard-slayer because he waits with an arrow for a lizard that crawls towards him"; Martialis (14.172), describes a small copy of the Lizard-slayer given as a gift to Rome: Lizard-slayer in Corinthian bronze; 'Save the lizard, crafty boy, as he creeps towards you. He wants to die from your fingers." The clarity of Pliny's description led, from 1724 onwards, to the recognition of this type of Apollo on gems, coins and free copies.15 The type of Apollo Sauroktodon is known from a group of at least 113 ancient sculptures. The most important example is the life-size bronze statue now in Cleveland, USA. (fig. 6). The young god has a diagonal position. Its configuration

his body is sigmoid and curved. This impression is conveyed by the projection of the chest, by the thin waist, by the curvature of the hips, particularly the outward right, by the concave upper line of the right shoulder and finally by the left leg which is placed behind the right . The back is also dominated by many sigmoid patterns, the back is concave to the right of the figure, convex to the left. Correspondingly the line of the spine is also curved. The glutes reveal a reverse curvature that is convex on the right and concave on the left; the depression of the two gluteal muscles is also pronounced. The rendering of the body anatomy is remarkable due to the subtlety of the transitions. The head (fig. 7) tilts down, forward and slightly to the left me-

ria of the statue. As a result the neck is also curved. The bun is parted in the middle and consists of wavy bangs gathered at the sides and nape and held in place by a band. Blisters look like thin sigmoid bands that are slightly flattened at the top. The very high quality of the statue, the style and anatomical method-

dos, which do not resemble the stylistic features of copies, suggest that the Cleveland statue is the original of Praxiteles. The copying tradition of this type is divided into two sub-types: a) the Vatican, with a large gap between the body of the god and the tree trunk (fig. 8), and b) the Borghese (fig. 9), where the body is much closer to the tree trunk. I believe the Vatican subtype is closer to the original Praxiteles statue because it is iconographically closer to the Cleveland statue. The Borghese subtype is probably a

copycat variation, which he introduced to save marble and money. The tree trunks vary from copy to copy and retain from Praxiteles' original only the general idea of this feature, not its exact shape. Likewise, the lizards on the tree trunks are different from statue to statue and do not exactly replicate this feature. The bronze copy from the Villa Albani (fig. 10) and the reproductions of the iconography of the type in precious stones (fig. 11) suggest that the tree trunk of the original statue of Praxiteles

it was rather thin and that it has been enlarged in the marble copies for static reasons. The early style of Praxiteles is characterized by the moderate sigmoid shape, as seen in the Satyr Oinochoos. Over time, Praxiteles adopted a vertical element on the side of his statues, which was not yet a static support, as in the case of Cnidia. However, in later statues, such as the recumbent Satyr, the Lizard Slayer and the Olympian Mercury, the vertical side element, a tree trunk, became the static support of a god in sigmoid

stand. With this in mind, the Lizard Slayer is probably later than the Cnidia. But the rendering of the anatomy of the Lizard Slayer does not show the constant mutations in the surfaces that characterize late works, such as the Olympian Mercury or the Eubuleus. Thus a dating around 350 BC. is possible for this creation. To ascertain the original location of the statue, the numismatic evidence is useful.

Three ancient cities depicted for a certain period the type of Apollo the Lizard Slayer on their coins. The city of Apollonia ad Rhyndacum in Mysia (Apollonia ad Rhyndacum)16 minted coins depicting this statuary type for a long period, from the time of Domitian to the time of Gallienus: the statue of the god, inside the temple, is depicted in coins from the time of Antoninus Eusebius (fig. 12) to Gallienus. In addition, Nicopolis ἡ πρὸς Ἴστρον (Nicopolis ad Istrum)17 struck coins with Sauroktonos (fig. 13) from the time of Antoninus Eusebius to Makrinus. Finally, the sculptural type appears on coins of Philippopolis18 during the periods of Antoninus Eusebius and Faustina the Younger. Nicopolis was founded by Trajan in a peripheral area, so the original statue of Praxiteles could not have been erected there. The Lizard Slayer appeared on the coins of Philippopolis only in the years of Antoninus the Pious and Faustina the Younger. These representations were inspired by those at Nicopolis and therefore do not suggest that the statue stood there. We have no evidence that works of great sculpture were exhibited in this Macedonian city. Therefore, of the three cities that depicted Saurocide on their coins, Apollonia ἐπί / προς Ryndakῳ is the only city where the original statue of Praxiteles could have been placed. Since the Lizard Slayer on the coins of this city is depicted inside a temple, it seems to be implied that he is depicted as a cult statue. The Lizard Slayer on the coins of Apollonia rests with his left arm on a column and not on a tree trunk, which is found in the free statuary copies. The replacement of the original vertical element with a stele also appears in mystical copies of the Cnidia Aphrodite of Praxiteles.19 In these cases, the stele could have identified the statue as sacred and revered. It is, therefore, possible that the original statue of Praxiteles was located in the temple of Apollo in Apollonia of Mysia, which, in 350 BC, when Apollo the Lizard Slayer was created, was under Persian rule.20

Praxiteles also created another statue, a marble Eros,21 for the nearby city of Parion (Pliny 36.22), a statue also depicted on coins. This statue, identified in a copy from Co,22 also responds to the adolescent conception of divine figures. It should also be noted that Scopas created a statue of Apollo with a mouse for the sanctuary of Apollo Sminthea at Chrysis of Troas, also in northwestern Asia Minor (Strabo 604 and Eustathius, Ad Homeri Iliadem 2. 34.16), which is also depicted on local coins. 23 Euphranor created a statue of Paris that probably coincides with the statue of this hero placed in the Parian market. 24 This regional concentration of statues by the most important sculptors of the late Classical period suggests that these cities competed with each other for sculptures by famous sculptors. Chrysis and Apollonia in particular seem to have competed for statues of Apollo with small animals. Praxiteles, Scopas, and Euphranor may also have been competing for clients in northwestern Asia Minor. Moreover, the ruler of this region, the satrap Artavazos,25 whose capital was Daskyleion, may have decorated the sanctuaries of his satrapy with works of famous glyphs.

birds, as the Hecatomnids did in southwestern Asia Minor. In considering the form of the Lizard Slayer, the following observations should be taken into account: 1. The statue appears on Apollonian coins ad Rhyndacum in the center of a temple, so it was probably a cult statue; it is unlikely that the god in a cult statue would depicted while playing a game. 2. The lizard had a negative connotation in antiquity.26 The conclusion of these observations is that Apollo kills the lizard probably to fight evil. Regarding the possible mythological context in which Apollo acts as the Lizard Slayer, three observations should be considered: 1. The composition has a bucolic overtone defined by the tree trunk, by the lazy attitude of the young god resting on the side, and by the position of his feet (one behind the other), which resembles the position of the feet of the Resting Satyr, a mythical inhabitant of the groves. 2. The concept of the adolescent-looking god is androgynous, as suggested by the 'velvet

fibrous skin' and from the thin torso under the chest. Additionally, Apollo's headdress consists of wavy tresses that are parted in the middle, held in place by a band that partially overlaps the hair, brought back, and gathered at the nape of the neck in a crown. This earl style is inspired by AspremontLynden's Aphrodite, Arle27 type female head and Cnidia Aphrodite, and betrays a desire to render a female interpretation of the god. 3. This creation was reproduced only on coins of cities of the peripheral area. There is only one mythic episode that explains these considerations: Apollo's service as shepherd to King Admetus.28 This mythic context explains the bucolic tone of creation. Apollo, while a shepherd, was thought to have had a homosexual relationship with his master:29 the androgynous Lizard Slayer fits this setting well. Eventually Admetus became one of the leading heroes in the Argonaut campaign.30 The god who protected the Argonauts was Apollo31 and it is logical that Apollo, as a shepherd and worshiper of Admetus, became popular in

parevsini Greek world. The Argonauts, including Admetus, are believed to have stationed at Mysia,32 and perhaps for this reason the Mysian city may have requested a statue of Apollo as the shepherd and lover of Admetus. Since Euripides composed a tetralogy, of which the tragedy about the king of Mysia, Telephos, is followed by the tragic comedy (satyrikon) about Alceste (Αλκεστίδα), wife of Admetus, in which Apollo was one of the characters, the story of Apollo and Admetus may have already been connected with the mythic story of the Myses.33 Apollo had to serve the Thessalian king as punishment for killing Python according to Anaxandris of Delphi.34 This version of the myth, as it became accepted at Delphi, must have had great prestige in the cult centers of Apollo in the colonial area. The relation of the slaying of the lizard to the slaying of the python is clear; the slaying of the lizard refers back to the previous episode of sanctification and reveals the god's purpose in combating evil. Furthermore, the killing of the lizard is an adaptation of the killing of the Python in a bucolic context. With the rise of Christianity, Apollo's place in Apollonia was taken by another reptile slayer: Saint George.35 This fact shows that the mythical model had its roots in the local religious culture. The Lizard Slayer represented Apollo as an androgynous youth with "velvet skin", relaxed and leaning on a support. Such a representation was, one might say, a palimpsest of the Ionian gentle way of life, symbolized in the adolescent interpretation of male youth. Later criticism of ancient art argued that the art of Praxiteles expressed the typical Ionian troupe (Choricius, Declamationes 8. 57), while Eudoxus the Cnidius provided, as it was said, the appropriate theoretical background of the "art of pleasure." The Lizard Slayer of Praxiteles may have been erected in the Ionic temple erected at Apollonia (ἐπί Ryndakῳ), on a small island in Lake Apollonia, and whose dedication to Apollo is possible. This fact would explain both the relation of the Lizard Slayer to the Ionian

column in representations on precious stones36 and coins, as well as its depiction inside an Ionic temple on numismatic types of Apollonia. Another statue of the artist, which was also placed in the satrapy of Hellespontian Phrygia, is the marble Cupid of Parius (Pliny 36.22).37 The above reasons that explain the concentration of statues of famous sculptors in northwestern Asia Minor probably also apply to this statue. The cult of Eros at Parion was associated with the memory of Paris, the hero who was believed to have spent his youth there and whose supposed tomb and statue were in the city's marketplace.38 The remark suggests that the kingdom of Troy was considered the “ mythological precedent" of the satrapy of Artavazos. The depiction of this Eros is known thanks to coins of the Roman Imperial period from Parion, which bear the image of the statue on the reverse39 (fig. 14). Even this god has a sigmoid body. The right foot rests on the ground with full sole, while the left is bent at the knee and the corresponding foot rests on the ground with the tip of the toes. The left arm is lowered with the forearm forward; the right is also lowered and brought to the side. The god is naked, except for the robe, which he holds on the left arm and falls below the forearm. The wings are large, the face is oval and the crown is gathered back in a dome. Under the right arm appears a small archaic figurine: probably the original cult statue of Eros, proving the antiquity of the cult of Eros in

the Parion. The combination of the statue of the god with an archaic figurine under his hand is due to modern culture showing particular pre

respect to ancient myths and statues as symbols of the prestige of a sanctuary.40 Of the statues that do not have a supporting body, the closest example to the Eros of the Parian coins is the one from Kos (fig. 15), which preserves something of the "velvety skin" of the original statue.41 The general style is close to that of the Lizard Slayer, but the use of the large wings and cloak as a background foreshadows Praxitelian creations of the 340s BC.

Another statue, which probably belongs to the later production of Praxiteles, is Artemis which was placed in the Brauronium of the Acropolis of Athens. Praxiteles worked a lot with works that were intended to be placed in Athenian sanctuaries.42 His signatures on the bases of statues dedicated by Athenian women in Attic sanctuaries reveal the close relationship of this sculptor with his female clients,43 who came to the sanctuary of Artemis Bravronia as worshippers. , entrusting their clothes to the goddess.44 It is to be expected that a statue of Praxiteles, which Pausanias had seen (1.23.7), was dedicated in this sanctuary. Petronius (126) compares the Artemis of Praxiteles to a beautiful maiden in a grove of laurels, who has her tunic gathered high, and provides a detailed description: “Her hair long in natural waves flowed over her shoulders, her forehead was small and the roots of her hair had a backward curve, her eyebrows formed on the contour of her cheekbones and almost met again near her eyes and those eyes were brighter than stars when there is no moon and the her nostrils had a little curve, and her little mouth was the kind that Praxiteles had dreamed Artemis had, and her chin and her neck and her hands and her feet gleamed beneath a light girdle of gold. The marble of Paros in front of her was dull." The description suggests that the goddess, fashioned from Parian marble, was in a small grove of laurels, that her dress was gathered, probably belted, below her breast, that she wore sandals with gold bands; it also gives a clear idea of her head: her countenance was drawn back behind her forehead, which was small, and the eyebrows reached the cheeks. The groves are the obvious natural place of Artemis, while the laurel is the sacred tree of Apollo. This creation, like others of Praxiteles' late artistic production (from the Resting Satyr to the Olympian Mercury), presents the forest as the environment in which one can enjoy the sight of adolescent deities, endowed with grace.

Two identifications of this statue have been suggested. One is from Despinus, who suggested that a head from the small sanctuary of Athena Hygia on the Acropolis – very close to the Brauronio –, now in the Acropolis Museum, was part of the original statue of Praxiteles45 (fig. 16). Despines proved that the head count dates from the 330s. The head is of Parian marble, of supernatural size and therefore associated with a colossal statue. The artistic quality of the head is excellent. Its surfaces are still in good condition and have not corroded, a feature that suggests that this statue was inside a building. Despinis suggested that there must have been a small temple in the courtyard of Vravronius, although there is no archaeological evidence for this. However, the headdress is not typical of the female heads captured by the artist and the waves-

the rearward-bred ostriches, to which Petronius refers, are absent from this sculpture. This head may have been part of the statue of Hygia, daughter of Asclepius, which Pausanias saw (1.23.4), which also agrees with its origin from the small sanctuary of Athena Hygia. Other scholars believe that this statue is modeled on the Roman copy of the Artemis of the Gabiones46 (fig. 17), a type that corresponds well to Petronius' description. The goddess, with an adolescent appearance, is "surprised" by the presence of the viewer, while fastening her tunic over her right shoulder. Under the tunic he wears a short double-breasted robe. Her head conforms to the anatomical method of praxitelic heads. The face is oval, the forehead triangular, with the upper contour convex, the eyes narrow and elongated, the mouth short and the chin slightly protruding. The crown consists of strands that are brought behind the forehead, gathered in a crown and fixed with a band. The neck, upper chest and left shoulder are bare. Cloth folds are rendered in a natural way. The sandals, formed by narrow strips, reveal a recess between the large and s

the other fingers. These elegant and curvaceous footwear add to the goddess appeal. Her gesture of tying the tunic should be related to the votive garments of Athenian women to the Brauronian Artemis; does the goddess accept to wear a tunic offered by an Athenian, thereby revealing her appreciation of the offerings of the faithful? Both anatomy and clothing are in keeping with the art of Praxiteles. This Artemis conforms to a "theatrical conception" as she "appears on the stage", where she is admired by the spectators even though she is indifferent to their gaze. The fresh and youthful appearance of the goddess evokes the blissful and eternal youth of the immortals.47 The attractiveness of this youthful goddess, showing bare arms, legs and one shoulder, presents a shift towards an 'art of pleasure', inviting viewers to enjoy life. The statue is at the beginning of the creation of mundane forms of deities that engrave-

builds on the later art of Praxiteles. However, this particular goddess does not yet display the surface treatment with continuous alternations, which characterizes Hermes of Olympia and Eubuleus, so a dating to early 340 BC is possible. The sculpture is an eloquent testimony to the poetic imagination of Praxiteles creating beautiful views

The Parian marble Satyr of Praxiteles placed in the sanctuary of Dionysus at Megara (Pausanias 1.43. 5-6) probably dates to this period. It is possible that the Megarians commissioned the statue from the sculptor after the great success of the two Athenian Satyrs (Satyros inochoos and Satyros resting). The statues of Peithous and Parigorus of Praxiteles in the temple of Aphrodite, called praxis, at Megara (Pausanias 1.43.6), were personifications depicting the goddess of love. They were standing near the statues of Eros, Hemerus and Lust, works of Scope. The statue of Aphrodite was of ivory. It is likely that when the sanctuary authorities decided to endow it with this series of personifications, both Praxiteles and Scopas competed for the assignment of these orders. Both of them had already worked on the monumental complex of the Mausoleum and, being the best sculptors, their rivalry was obvious. The fact that Skopas assumed the three male personifications and Praxiteles the two female ones, shows that the latter was now considered the great exponent of young female beauty. In Megara, the Socratic student Euclid, who had established a school of philosophy there, wrote his dialogue Erotikos (Diogenes Laertius 2.106-108), which suggests that the study of the action of love was a major concern in this city. It is reasonable to assume that the series of personifications reflects the theory of love developed in the local philosophical school and that the dating of these statues should coincide with the flowering of the school. After 350 BC, Praxitelus' production was characterized by a rapid pace, his art met with great success and his works were sent to distant places, such as Olbia on the Black Sea. The formal characteristics of his creations suggest the 'art of pleasure', a feature which goes hand in hand with the growing hedonistic tendencies of the time. Two bronze emblematic statues, the bases of which are signed by Praxiteles, were placed on a raised step in the

Acropolis of Athens and date based on their inscriptions after 350 BC.48 The creation of Artemis Bravronia would have encouraged the Athenians to place nearby statues of the great sculptor. Another statue, whose base is signed by Praxiteles, is that of Archippa which was found on the northern slopes of the Acropolis of Athens and was probably placed in the nearby Eleusinium.49 The dedication was made by the mother of this woman and is dated based on her type inscription after 350 BC Praxiteles is here in the world of the female followers of Demeter and Koris. A statue of the poet Ibycus designed by Praxiteles is known thanks to an inscription engraved on a bust of the poet found in a Roman villa in Narbonic Gaul.50 The bust has been lost, but a cast of the inscription survives. In the description of the bust, the figure is defined as an old and bearded man. Probably the same portrait was also copied on a Hermaic stele from Tibur, of which only a part of the inscribed base survives.51 It is possible that Praxiteles' rendering of the portrait of Ibycus as an old man was an allusion to Plato's reference to Ibycus as an elderly love poet (Parmenides 9. 137a); this portrait may have been taken in the surroundings of the Academy. Two inscriptions with the name of Praxiteles on bronze statue bases found in the sanctuary of Athena Polias in Pergamum probably belong to the collection of famous statues

of artists from the kings of Pergamum.52 The upper face of the first base bears above the inscription of Praxiteles a hole on the right side of the traces of the soles. It is tempting to associate this statue with a sigmoid-shaped Eros with his right hand on the head, his left hand resting on the corresponding hip and with a tree trunk as a side feature, a representation that appears on Pergamum coins53 (fig. 18 ). This Cupid appears to be resting in a grove. The association of love with the world of trees and the forest may have been a step towards the idealization of groves.

Another signature of Praxitelus was read on the covering marble base slab of a statue set up in the marketplace of Olbia on the Black Sea, in front of the sanctuary of Apollo Delphinium. Fragments of the statue's dedicatory inscription suggest that it was Apollo.54 A headless marble Apollo from Olbia kept in Kiev55 dating to the Late Classical period may shed light on this creation (fig. 19). The god is bent to the right side, the left arm is lowered with the forearm forward, while the right was raised and probably rested on the head. His mantle placed over his left shoulder falls below his left forearm. The position of the left forearm suggests that he held a bow in the left hand. The surface reveals the typical praxetical rendering of the "velvet skin" texture to the muscles and bones. The sigmoid configuration is within the framework of the general character of the sculptor. The idea of this work foreshadows the Apollo Lycaeus, which will be dated to the 330s BC. A bronze Aphrodite of Praxiteles was erected in Rome in front of

the temple of Eutychia and was burned by fire during the reign of Claudius (Pliny 34. 69). Most of the works that adorned this temple came from the sack of Corinth by Mommius (Strabo 8.6.23.381; Cassius Dion 22.76.2).56 Thus the original location of this statue was probably Corinth. Since Mommius never removed statues from sanctuaries (Cicero, In Verrem 2.4. 2.4), it is possible that the statue was located in the Corinthian marketplace, where a new temple of Aphrodite was built in the time of Augustus. The cult statue of this temple, by Hermogenes of Kythera, seen by Pausanias (2.2. 8), was probably inspired by the Aphrodite of Praxiteles brought to Rome.57 This pictorial tradition of Aphrodite is probably depicted on Corinthian coin types. of the period of Iulia Domna and Caracalla58 (fig. 20). The goddess is depicted naked, her figure is sigmoid, her left leg

rests on the ground, while the right foot rests on the toes with the knee bent. Her left arm is lowered, elbow bent, and brought in front of the body, presumably to hold an object, perhaps a mirror. Her right arm is at her side, the elbow bent, the forearm brought to her head, probably to crown it; that is, she is an Aphrodite Stephanoussa. The goddess looks into the mirror, crowning her head. The same type is also known thanks to marble statuettes from Corinth59 and from Tenea, in the territory of ancient Corinth.60 Finally, this iconography is known thanks to a bronze statuette, probably of Corinthian production, dating to the end of the 4th century. BC, which was found in Thera and is now in Berlin61 (fig. 21). The general style of the statuette is the same as that of Aphrodite on the above coins. In addition, the face is typically praxitelic (oval in shape, triangular forehead, narrow and elongated eyes, long nose, short mouth and slightly protruding chin). The crown is parted in the middle and ends at the nape of the neck with wavy bangs. The skin suggests a “velvety texture”; bones and muscles are not expressed. The face is similar to those of the Aphrodite types attributed to Praxiteles, although based on the same female model (Phrynis?), i.e. those of the Arles type, the Aspremont-Lynden/Arles type, the Pourtales Pseliumeni type, the Townley type and of the type Le-

confield (see below). The clear Praxitelian features of this work suggest that it is inspired by the bronze Aphrodite of Praxiteles. An idea for the head of the bronze Aphrodite of Praxiteles cuts a late Hellenistic life-size head in Parian marble, probably from Rome, in the Vatican Museum, which is based on a bronze prototype62 (fig. 22). Wavy bodices are worn at the nape of the neck and gathered in a canopy in keeping with the Praxitelian sense of grace. A band, surrounding the hair with two circles, underlines the softness of these vostrichs. The head retains the "soul" of the bronze Venus of Praxiteles, expressing the inner

ultimate, seductive energy of the goddess. He also clarifies that the copied original is later than the Cnidia: the latter stands bounded by its serenity on a higher and remoter level, ideal and otherworldly. On the contrary, the gaze of this creation reveals that the goddess is considered the highest pleasure of all human experiences. The feel of the skin and the play of light and shadow on the hair are much clearer than Cnidia. This Venus is the emblem of a hedonistic concept of the visual arts that invite viewers to enjoy life. The work is important, because it leads to a new way of perceiving the goddess of love.

In the late 340s, Praxiteles continued his research to emphasize the "velvet skin" and the surfaces of statues through plays of light and shadow, at the expense of the rendering of muscle and bone. From a pictorial point of view, he increasingly captured his figures in remote places denoted by rocks and trees, setting his creations in an "Arcadian" kind of setting. An Apollo and Poseidon composition in marble is attributed to Praxiteles by Pliny (36.23). Lucian (On Sacrifices 4-11) perhaps refers to this composition and suggests the mythic context of this creation: Apollo and Poseidon are depicted building the walls of Troy for King Laomedon. Was this composition one of the tributes erected to the satrapy of Hellespontian Phrygia and intended to emphasize the old glory of Troy? In this case, the help guaranteed by the two gods to Troy would be the usual metaphor in the myth of the hope and supposed divine protection enjoyed by that satrapy. An Apollonian triad of Praxiteles was seen by Pausanias (8.9.1) in the temple of these three deities in Mantineia. The three statues were placed on a plinth on which was sculpted the race of Marsyas playing the flute in the presence of

of the Muses. The author specifies that the triad was created by the third generation after the local statue of Asclepius of Alkamenus. This statement suggests a date in the 340s BC. Apollo is probably represented on local types of coins minted under Iulia Domna and Plautilla63 (fig. 23). The god is dressed in a long tunic over which is tied a robe with a high belt, in his right hand he holds a pen and in his left hand he has a guitar. His left forearm with the guitar rests on a column. His mane is similar to that of the recumbent Satyr with a large volume of hair around the head, secured with ribbon to form a braid down the back. This shape is consistent with Praxiteles's preference for figures resting on lateral vertical supports, which characterizes his late production. This Apollo the guitar player was probably considered the patron of the musical contests held in Mantineia (Plutarch, On Music 32.1142e-f). Artemis is also represented on coin types of Severus64 (fig. 24) clad in a short double-layered tunic which she strides and holds a torch in each hand. Her head has her hair pulled back in a bun. Her short garment as well as her hood may emphasize the goddess' adolescent attractiveness.

The base of the triad is partially preserved. Three Pentelic marble slabs represent the fight between Apollo and Marsyas in the presence of the Muses who would judge their performances, according to the testimony of Pausanias.65 A detailed study by Walter Amelung66 reached firm conclusions about what this scene looked like. base. A core, probably of limestone, was covered externally by marble slabs. There were two marble slabs on the long side of the base and one on each short side. Each slab was carved with three figures in a rocky landscape. On the front view, one plaque depicted Apollo, Scythia and Marsyas at the right end (fig. 25), while at the left end, the other plaque, which does not survive, depicted three Muses. The plaque with the seated Muse (fig. 26) was placed on the short right side of the base while the plaque with the three standing Muses (fig. 27) was placed on the short left side of the base. The arrangement of the base resembles those of the bases of the statues of Cleocratia and Spudia from the Agora of Athens67 and the House of Hermes at Delos.68 A limestone core covered by marble slabs was one of the methods used in the workshop of Praxiteles for the construction bases. Five of the six Muses are variants of the same type of standing robed maiden depicted in the Vescovali type of Athena (see below) and the Uffizi type of the Daughter.69 These Muses of Praxiteles are attractive and fresh images of young maidens who express a quiet and almost idyllic atmosphere

of peace. On the short right panel, the first Muse from the viewer's left is a variant of the praxitelic Maiden, as is known especially from the statuette of the Maiden from Kyparissi.70 The second figure from the left is a variant of the type of Dionysos Sardanapalus,71 with the difference that both arms are wrapped in the fabric and the form is more slender and feminine. The head looks forward, slightly bowed, as a sign of concentration, while the crown is of wavy tresses brought back and secured with a band.

The third Muse from the left of this plaque is seated on a rock, a belt just below her breast emphasizing her sensual allure, her neck bare, the oval of her face responding well to the anatomical method of Praxiteles. Her coiffure is of wavy tresses pulled back, tied with a ribbon and gathered into a bun, one of the earliest examples of the mellon coiffure. Her head is bowed, showing concentration. Her right hand holds a musical instrument, possibly a trichord. The only plaque that survives from the front view has, to the viewer's left, Apollo seated on a rock, wearing a guitar tunic and robe. The count falls on his shoulders in a huff. He's holding a monumental guitar that he's about to play with. The god looks calm and dignified. The Scythian is standing, wearing a short tunic, sandals and a Scythian tiara on his head. His left hand rests on his hip, while his right hand holds the knife with which he will skin Marsyas alive. On the right side of the plaque, as seen by the viewer, Marsyas plays a double flute. His form is inspired by Myron's Marsyas, his nervous attitude contrasts with Apollo's calmness and foreshadows the outcome of the fight. Finally, the plaque on the left side of the base bears three standing Muses. The first Muse (from the viewer's left) holds a volumen while the Muse in the middle has a cylindrical capsa for a volumen. This form is close to the Vescovali / Arretium type of Athena. Finally, the Muse on the viewer's right holds a guitar. Apollo and the Muses celebrate the musical skills of the Mantineans, while the rocky landscape foregrounds an environment away from the world of the homeless, where Apollo and the Muses appear. Here one can "enjoy" divine music, poetry and girlish beauty. Thus, the reliefs from Mantineia are one of the first clear depictions of the concept of "Arcadia" and indeed in the region that bears this very name.

The above considerations suggest that these reliefs were carved in the workshop of Praxiteles. However, the quality of the art is not so high as to warrant attribution directly to the sculptor himself. It is likely that Praxiteles carved the statues on top of this base, while the base reliefs were carved by assistants or students in the workshop, based on the shapes Praxiteles conceived. Another triad of Praxiteles, Athena, Hera and Hebe, was seen by Pausanias (8.9.3) in the temple of Hera at Mantineia: Hera seated on a throne, while Athena and Hebe stood. Praxiteles' statue of Athena may have been a variant of the Vescovali type of the goddess, whose original statue has been reconstructed from several fragments and stood on the Acropolis of Athens, and whose Praxiteles authenticity has been recognized by generations of scholars.72 The Vescovali goddess ( fig. 28) stands upright, resting on her right leg, while her left knee is bent and the corresponding leg is brought to the side. She wears sandals, similar to those of Irene of Cephisodotus, and a veil, over which is placed a robe. Her left hand rests on her respective hip and is also wrapped in the robe. A pleated cloth encloses the goddess just below her breasts. The distance between the two breasts is small, like that of Irene of Kephisodotus, while the size of the bare breast is larger than in Praxitelian female statues. Her posture indicates a turn to the left side of the goddess. The aegis is placed on her chest towards her left side. The bare neck is reminiscent of the Peace of Kifisodotus. Her head is raised to look over the spectators, while she turns it three-quarters to the left. The facial features are similar to Irene's as are the wavy sideburns, pulled back and gathered into a braid, almost replicating Irene's sideburns. Her right hand is not preserved but may have been brought to her side to hold a scepter. We can follow the visual continuity of this creation

from the 4th c. e.g. until the late Antonine period.73 The shape of Athena Vescovali was used again for the Muse of Mantineia (see above), i.e. for a relief carved in the workshop

of Praxiteles. It is possible that the same technique was used for a statue of the same goddess made by the sculptor in the same city. The

forms of the Praxitelic Hera and Hebe of Mantineia are unknown. These statues must have been overshadowed by the chryselephantine statues of Hera by Polykleitos and Hebe by Naucides erected in the famous Heraion of Argos. A Dionysus of Praxiteles was seen by Pausanias (6.26.1-2) in the temple and sanctuary of the god in Elis. The worship of Dionysus was the most important in Elis already from the 4th century. e.g. (Theopompos, FGrHist 115 F 277; Aristotle, De mirabilibus auscultationibus 3; Plutarch, Mulierum virtutes 15. 250 f -253 f): there the god is represented as a bull (ibid., Quaestiones Graecae 36.299 ab; Osiris 35.364 f). It is possible that the commissioning of this new statue was part of the renewal of the city carried out by Plato's student Phormion in the 340s BC. (see ibid., Adversus Colotem 1126c, Praecepta gerendae reipublicae 805 d). Dionysus is represented on a type of coin minted by Elis in the period of Hadrian74 (fig. 29). The god is standing and frontal. His right hand is raised and holds a ryot. He pours wine into a goblet he holds in his left hand. The left arm is lowered with the corresponding forearm forward. His head has two horns. A cloak is tied around the god's neck that falls behind his body and wraps around his lower legs. The legs are crossed. A fabric-covered vertical support is located under the left forearm. The thyrsus is behind the left shoulder, while at the god's feet are a drum to his left and a panther to his right. This creation must have been very evocative. Here Dionysus gives the Ilians the gift of joy and relaxation represented by the wine, as well as the drum that refers to the sacred dances that accompany the local festivals Thyia of the god.75 The head of the god of Elis is probably known through Roman of copies referred to the press with the name "Dionysos Tavros"76 (fig. 30). The oval face responds well to the usual anatomical method of Praxiteles. The god appears to be in his late teens. The hair is curly, gathered, and held in place by a twisted band tied at the nape of the neck. Two

horns appear on the head. The twisted headband, uncombed hair and sensual smile on the face convey the sense of a god who looks kind and handsome, but hides an animal soul. The combination of soft looks and animalistic sensuality turns this head into a masterpiece. The Dionysus of Praxiteles placed in Elis must have been an extraordinary creation. Dionysus' bull horns and smiling expression must have conveyed a sense of his vital force, and the enlargement of the sculptural creation at the sides must have suggested a sense of majesty. The Ilians must have felt proud of this statue because they also commissioned another work from Praxiteles: this work is Hermes holding the infant Dionysus, which Pausanias (5.17.3) saw in the temple of Hera at Olympia. The iconography was traditional in Sparta because it already appeared on the throne of Amykles (ibid. 3.18.11) and in the market of Sparta (ibid. 3.11.11). This work probably coincides in time with that done by Cephisodotus the Elder, possibly the father of Praxiteles (Pliny 34.87). The mythological theme was dear to the oligarchic world of Peloponnesian society. In 343 BC, the Illian oligarchs took power in Elis with the help of the Arcadians (Demosthenes 9.27; 18.295; 19.260 & 294; Diodorus 16.63.4-5; Pausanias 4.28.4 & 5. 4. 9). Then,

the Helians may have dedicated the work of Hermes with Dionysus. Dionysus, who personifies Elis, is rescued by Mercury who personifies Arcadia. This dedication would fit the growing tendency for allegory characteristic of the late 4th c. e.g. The greater part of the work, which Pausanias saw, was found in the excavations of Heraeus of Olympia (fig. 31). It is carved from the best quality Parian marble (lychnite).77 Mercury has a young athletic body leaning to the left. The god's head responds well to the usual anatomical method of Praxiteles; the hair is of

shower His left hand is lowered and the forearm rests on a tree trunk over which the god has thrown his robe. With his left hand, which probably once held a caduceus, the adult god carries Dionysus. The child's body is bent towards the object that Hermes was holding in his right hand. Later depictions of this work suggest that Hermes was holding a bunch of grapes. The child god reaches out to the object, thus revealing his own identity. The two gods are considered the

what they stopped during their journey in a forest, which is indicated by the existence of the tree trunk. Since the authoritative version of this story (Homer, Iliad 6.132-133; Hymns 1.9-10) holds that Hermes carried Dionysus to the mythical mountain of Nyssa, which is far to the east, the place where Hermes and Dionysus rest he is also considered remote in a world of narratives and forests. The frontal side of Mercury reveals the prevalence of transitions in the distinctions between muscle and bone. The surfaces are highly polished and appear shiny, conveying the "velvety look" of the skin. The knowledge of anatomy is excellent and reveals the art of one of the greatest sculptors of antiquity. This observation leads to the conclusion that the trunk was carved by Praxiteles himself and is the highest quality example of his late art, which is characterized by smooth and glossy surfaces. The back of the statue was left unfinished, probably because Praxiteles knew that the statue would rest against a wall. Hermes' gaze, concentrated, looks away, a characteristic which may have been a solution to "isolate" the two gods from the viewer and to suggest their connection to a world different from that of humans. In addition, the concentration of Mercury expresses the "spirit of the times", the philosophers and the tendency of people of the spirit to turn the gaze towards an inner world. The robe that is cast on the trunk of the tree is one of the most wonderful examples of textiles in sculpture during antiquity, re-

plausibly producing the actual fold of a garment casually thrown on a support. It was carved by one of the greatest marble sculptors of antiquity. The sandals are crafted from curved strips and have an indentation between the big and other toes. They are very similar to those of Artemis of Gavi and were a particularly clever type of footwear, in use in the third quarter of the 4th century. BC78 The rendering of Dionysus is not so high and may have been done by the artist's students. Traces of paint have been found on the hair and on the only surviving sandal of Hermes: the tuft(?), hair, eyes, sandals and robe were probably painted. Hermes wore a metal crown made of ivy leaves, the sacred plant of Dionysus. The work is remarkable for three reasons: 1. It is one of the few surviving original masterpieces, at least partially carved, of one of the greatest sculptors of antiquity, and thus provides an idea of the extremely high level of his art. 2. It is a good example of the late artistic creation of Praxiteles, which is characterized by surfaces projecting a continuous play of light and shadow, endless transitions and virtuosic rendering of the folding of the garment. 3. It shows the progress of the myth of "Arcadia" as an idealized world/grove in which the gods are projected, a world inaccessible to the spectators of the play.79 Another statue, dated to the late 340s BC, is mentioned by Horikio (Declamationes 8 = 29 Foerster). The story Choricius tells is this: The Spartans went to Delphi asking the oracle of Apollo what they should do to deal with the oligarchy that afflicted Sparta. The oracle ordered them to erect a statue of Aphrodite. The Spartans commissioned the statue from Praxiteles who used his friend and courtesan Phrynis as a model for the statue. This fact is placed by Horikios shortly after the speech of Demosthenes (On the embassy), dated 343 BC. The statue

of Praxitelus was not accepted by the Spartans because they wanted an image of the goddess as the patroness of marriage, and not of love with courtesans. So they commissioned a new Aphrodite, invoking Ambologira (the goddess of "postponing old age"), which was dedicated on the Acropolis of Sparta; Pausanias (3.18.1) specified that it was "created at the behest of an oracle". The Venus of Praxiteles was bronze and was considered by Chorikios to reflect the worldliness of Praxiteles' art, reflecting the world of the partners. This rhetorician, in sections 62 and 71 of his work (Declamationes), asserts that "Praxiteles never thinks of anything but Phrynis, when he is awake and when he sleeps, when he speaks and when he is silent, when he is alone and when he is with other people, when he is working and when he is doing nothing. […] He is subject to her love, to which he is a slave. His only concern is to please his beloved in any way." The ideal of the life of the servus amoris no longer stems from the Platonic tension to achieve absolute beauty and love, but expresses a way of life based on the satisfaction of pleasures according to

the hedonistic tendencies of the age as expressed from Eudoxus to Epicurus. From this author's description it is argued that this Venus was bronze, naked, and lightly crafted. This statue, after being rejected by the Spartans, must have been sold and placed elsewhere. Thus it is tempting to identify it with the bronze nude necklace-wearing Aphrodite or Pseliumene mentioned by Pliny (34.69, in the catalog of bronze statues of Praxiteles) and by Tatian (Ad Graecos 34.3). This writer specifies that she represented "a wicked woman," that is, a courtesan. The Pseliumene of Praxiteles is recognized in the type of Aphrodite of Pourtales who wears her necklace80 (fig. 32). The stylistic examination of the type must be done on this Pourtales bronze copy because it is of the best quality and clearly preserves the characteristics of Praxitelus' art. The goddess stands on her left leg and has her right leg bent

and brought back. She prepares to fasten her necklace which she holds with her fingers, a gesture that gives the goddess a casual air. The face is the same as the other "praxytelic Aphrodites" inspired by Phrynia (Arles, Aspremont-Lynden/Arles, Cnidia and Stephanoussa type). So even this necklaced Aphrodite must represent the beautiful courtesan of the Thespians. The bun is parted in the middle, crafted from wavy thin tresses that are held in place by a band and gathered back at the nape of the neck. The attitude of the goddess is

nervous and unsteady, as shown by her right leg with the knee close to the left leg as well as the right leg brought back and to the side. She seems confident that no one is looking at her beauty, as revealed by her gaze that is completely focused on her action as well as by the fact that she does not hide the teenager. These observations suggest that the event is taking place in some "inner space". The representation of the goddess is filtered through the figure of the courtesan who pampers herself in her room while waiting for her lover. This creation is a masterpiece because it expresses at the same time a peculiar moment from a psychological point of view, both from the everyday life of a courtesan, and of Venus as the patron goddess of the world of courtesans. The "secularization" of the goddess is so clear that the severe criticism of this version of Aphrodite on the part of the most conservative part of Greek society is not surprising.81 This concept of the goddess foreshadows the new comedy, when the courtesan will be considered a central figure every society. A statue of Tychis of Praxiteles was seen by Pausanias (1.43.6) at Megara, in the sanctuary of the goddess, near the temple of Aphrodite. In the dawn of society reflected in the new comedy, in which Fortune will be regarded as the supreme judge of the happiness of persons, it is no wonder that she is placed near Venus. Tychi is represented on Megarian coins of the Imperial period from Commodus to Geta (fig. 33) and is given a style befitting a statue.82 The goddess stands near her altar. This detail identifies her as a cult statue in her Megarian sanctuary. Her left leg stands straight on her rectangular base while her right leg is bent and brought to the side. This detail defines a sigmoid configuration. She is clothed, the belt is placed just below her breast, she wears a tunic characterized by a fine pleat, while a robe is placed on her abdomen and has oblique curved folds. Her left hand is lowered with her forearm forward to hold a Horn of Amalthea, while her right hand is also lowered with her forearm at her side holding a flask Her hair is wavy and combed towards

her back and head are crowned by a muraria crown (corona muralis). The Horn of Amalthea and the flask, which we must assume is full of wine, convey an optimistic message: the goddess brings joy and prosperity to the community. The type of the goddess Fortune in the aforementioned types of Megarian coins also corresponds to the type of Fortune Braccio Nuovo83 (fig. 34). With the Fate of the Mansions, Praxiteles created a type that conveys the notion that the goddess was strong in her stance and secure, sure of herself, and bringing joy to her worshipers, as the attributes of the Horn of Amalthea and the flask would indicate · created, consequently, a figure that represented the prestige of the ruler of the states and persons of the age of the new comedy. This technique became important until Late Antiquity. Pausanias (9.11.6) saw on the pediment of the temple of Heracles in Thebes sculptures of Praxiteles representing an irregular sequence of the Panhellenic hero's exploits. The Stymphalian hens and Augeas' cleaning of the stables were not included, while Heracles' fight with A

daeo was included. The sanctuary of Heracleus in Thebes was located southeast of Cadmeia, outside the Electra gates.84 The pediment sculptures of Praxiteles probably date to the period 346-339 BC, when Thebes was an ally of Athens85: the alliance of those years could to be an explanation for the fact that an Athenian sculptor undertook to create works in one of the most important sanctuaries of Thebes, which expressed her mythical

identity and memory. Since this sanctuary exemplified a military identity and the victorious exploits of Thebes, the mythical but victorious exploits of the Theban Heracles on the pediments of this temple were considered possibly the progenitors of the city's more recent victories which occurred during the period of late Theban hegemony. The accepted way of presenting the hero's exploits excluded two typically Peloponnesian exploits and included Heracleus' fight with Antaeus, probably because according to the myth Heracles left Thebes to reach Libya, a feat praised by Pindar (Isthm. 4.52-54; Pyth. 9.105-125). The appearance of eleven labors on two late classical pediments seems strange, because the thematic unity of the performance on a pediment had been established by that time. However, the temple was considerably older and these new gables may have replaced archaic ones. So some religious conservatism would demand that the narrative of eleven works on the two gables be preserved. After the renovation of the temple, Heraklion appears as an important landmark, as is evident from the account of Alexander's attack on Thebes in 335 BC.86 The work of Praxiteles, dating from the 330s, presents "velvet skin" and surfaces, endless transitions and plays of light and shadow and lack of a strong sense of body structure. The late works of Praxiteles are like dreamlike visions, related to a world of beautiful stories in a wonderful and distant Arcadia. This detached art will meet with both popular acceptance and criticism from followers of a more austere lifestyle. An inscription on a late Antonine marble column, which once supported a head, reveals that Praxiteles created a statue of Eubuleus,87 the mythical Eleusinian swineherd who witnessed the abduction of the Maiden by Hades who was worshiped at Eleusis in Plutonium.88 The upper part of a statue was found in Plutonium, near dedications to

this demon (fig. 35). The work, carved on a square piece of the best quality Parian marble (lychnite), depicts a young barren man. The count is similar to that of the resting Satyr and is surrounded by a band. The part of the crown that includes the band is carved in low relief and is attached to the head. The sturgeons outside the band are sigmoid and protrude from the head. The disheveled count suggests that the depicted man has been created away from the civilized world and thus invites the viewer to imagine a bucolic environment around this figure. His identification with Eubouleas is based on the find-spot of the work as well as this observation. It cannot be Triptolemus, because he was a king and this head does not betray any royal majesty. The face reveals the typical praxetelic anatomical method. The surfaces shine, the "velvety" rendering and the subtle transitions of the skin, the continuous play of light and shadow defined by the spiraling bostrichs, reveal a phase of praxistelic art that is more advanced than that represented by Hermes of Olympia. The look is remarkable; it looks both vicious and sensual and befitting a swineherd associated with the mysteries of the Underworld. The head, a masterpiece, expresses the ambiguous allure of beings living far from society. The exceptional quality of the head confirms its attribution to Praxiteles. The sloppy count suggests that the god is represented while working as a swineherd and witnessing the miraculous event. His malevolent gaze reveals his complicity with Hades.89 This head was copied during the late Hellenistic and Roman Imperial times.90 The statue of the mythical swineherd fits well with the cultural moment of Athens after the defeat of Chaeronea, characterized by nostalgia for the old, ancient glories that contrast strikingly with the less brilliant and pretentious present.91 With the battle of Chaeronea, the Boeotian cities that had previously joined the Theban hegemony regained their own autonomy

There were cities – such as Thespies and Plataies – that suffered the partial destruction of their urban centers and the exile of their most important citizens. After Chaeronea, these cities must have asked for new monuments, both civil and religious

their needs, as much as to highlight their restored dignity and ambitions. At that time Praxiteles must have been popular in Boeotia because of his work of the trinity of Eros, Phrynis and Aphrodite in Thespias. Pausanias (9.2.7) saw, in the temple of Hera at Plataeia, a statue of Rhea, the work of Praxiteles of Pentelic marble, bringing the stone to Saturn, wrapped as if it were the child she had given birth to. Praxiteles probably followed the pictorial tradition of Rhea in profile, standing, wearing a tunic and robe and ready to deliver with her outstretched hand the

wrapped stone in Saturn, a tradition known from the early Classical to the Roman Imperial era.92 Rhea's determination to use this trick led to a better divine order. This message may have contained a political allusion; after the Chaeronea, a new order had been created that was much better for the Plataeans. In the same temple, Pausanias (9.2.7) saw a Pentelic statue of Hera Thelia of Praxiteles, larger than life-size and standing. The colossal size of this statue betrays the desire of the Plataeans to express the power they acquired after Chaeronea. The popularity of Praxiteles in Thespians determined the requests from private Thespian citizens to the sculptor for the creation of emblematic statues. Thus a statue base found near this city bears the dedication of the lost statue of Thespieus Thrasymachus with the signature of Praxiteles.93 The top view of the base suggests a standing figure with a vertical support to its left. A statue of Trophonius by Praxiteles was seen by Pausanias (9.39. 2-4) in a temple of the demon in a grove in Livadia. In Trophonius, the iconography of Asclepius was adopted. This detail suggests that Trophonius was standing, bearded, his hair styled in spiral braids, pitiful-looking, bare-chested and the rest of his body clad with the cloak wrapping around the left shoulder and the left hand listening to

tucked into the corresponding hip. The right hand must have been lowered, holding the scepter with the snake winding around it. Praxiteles is also mentioned in an inscription from Livadia (IG 7.3089). This fact probably reflects the city's pride in having a statue of their demon by such a famous artist. A votive relief from Livadia of 330-320 BC. (fig. 36)94 perhaps echoes the Trophonius of Praxiteles. The hero stands in the middle of the relief, he has a long, wavy mane, he is bearded, his chest is bare, while his robe wraps the lower part of the body, the left shoulder and the arm. He holds a Horn of Amalthea in his left hand, while his right hand is lowered and holds a snake. The deity promises abundance (Horn of Amalthea) and health (serpent). A colossal Artemis carrying a torch in her right hand, a quiver on her shoulders and a dog on her left, the work of Praxiteles, was seen by Pausanias (10.37.1) in the sanctuary of the goddess at Antikyra.95 Artemis with these features is depicted in coin type struck from the city96 (fig. 37); the goddess is shown running to the left, her duke is brought back and gathered in a canopy, she wears a short double-sided tunic, with a belt high below the breast, and a fold; the quiver projects behind her right shoulder, holds her bow in her right hand and torch in her left, while her dog is near her left leg. The image of the coin is partially represented in comparison with

the description of the statue by Pausanias. The hunted Artemis reflects the growing idealization of the groves, where she appears as a teenage goddess, attractive in a short tunic. As usual in Praxitel creations, the deity is busy with its affairs and does not care about the gaze of the viewer, who faces the goddess, as she is distant and belongs to a "fairytale world". Praxiteles's late work, which became most famous, is the gilded bronze statue of Aphrodite, bearing the features of Phryna, placed on a column of Pentelian marble at Delphi, in front of the altar and temple of Apollo (Alketas, FGrHist 405, 1 · Dion Chrysostom, Speeches 37. 28; Plutarch, On Alexander's Fortune or Virtue 2. 3, Ethics - On not counting now the Pythian 14-15, Erotikos 9; Pausanias 10.15.1; Aelianus, Miscellaneous History 9. 32 · Diogenes Laertius 6. 60; Athenaeus 13. 591; Livanius, Logoi 25. 40. R. 4. 444). This monument was placed between the statues of Archidamus III and Philip II, as we know from Plutarch, which were created after the death of these two kings (respectively 338 and 336 BC). The terminus ante quem is provided by Diogenes Laertius who places the monument before Diogenes' meeting with Alexander in late 336 BC. So this tribute should date

in 336 BC We argue, based on Athenaios and Aelianus, that the Thespians commissioned the work. Their decision to place it between the statues of Archidamus III and Philip II probably had a political message, because both of these kings fought the Thebans and the latter restored the independence of the Thespians. We know from Plutarch that permission to dedicate the monument was obtained through the mediation of Praxiteles. We know from Alcetas, Pausanias and Diogenes Laertius that Phrynis had permission to write the official dedication. With this monument the Toad becomes a symbol of an earthly history, characterized by elegance, beauty and love: it was considered the best way to make Aphrodite known

in the world. The Delphic Toad presents the worldly message characteristic of Praxiteles's later output, despite his earlier ideal of knowledge. Her prominent position in the sanctuary made the statue a symbol of the "spirit of the times" of the New Comedy, focused on the centrality of love as a universal principle experienced in everyday life, as well as the "pleasant courtesan" (meretrix blanda, Ovid, Amores 1.15 .17-18). However, this message was controversial, since the monument of Phrynis was erected at Delphi and Phrynis wrote on its base the inscription PHRYNIS EPIKLEOUS THESPIKA. The philosopher Diogenes added the following inscription below it: From the Greek nation (Diogenes Laertius, op. cit.). This criticism was continued by Kratis, who argued that this monument was a trophy of the disrespect of the Greeks. During the middle Imperial period, with the growing nostalgia for "late classical culture" focused on the great importance of partners, the monument becomes the symbol of an idealized past. Plutarch argued that Praxiteles, by placing a courtesan next to kings, declared the futility of power and wealth. However, with this creation Praxiteles expressed an important element of his own perception: the attractive and beautiful courtesan.97 There is no evidence to prove that the Macedonian kings, i.e. the new rulers of the Greek world, commissioned statues from Praxiteles and probably not did they ever The Macedonians liked the athletic young men better in Lysippus' swift movement, advancing

a heroic ideal of life. Praxiteles's androgynous adolescent male figures and female figures, his voluptuous goddesses and courtesans, who had been associated with the licentiousness of Asia Minor, even his forest deities, suggested an idealized detachment from the present, which was hardly could be adopted by the Macedonian pro-war aristocracy. The base of a lost iconic statue of Charidemos found at Delphi bears the signature of Praxiteles.98 It is probably dated to around 330 BC.99 The statue was colossal, markings on the upper surface of the base suggest that the statue's right foot was fully stepped on at the base, while the left only at the nose. Near the left leg is a round hole for a vertical object, possibly a spear. Works by Praxiteles decorated the altar of the late-classical Artemisium of Ephesus, according to the Artemidorus preserved by Strabo (14.1.23). After the fire that destroyed the archaic temple of Artemis in 356, the construction of a new temple began. The construction of the temple was in progress when Alexander passed through Ephesus in 334 BC. The altar in front of the temple was built later, so after 334 BC. The building consisted of a square wall. Columns stood on both the outer and inner faces of the wall. A frieze existed under the interior columns. The largest surviving fragment depicts an Amazon inspired by the Sciarra type of the Ephesian Amazons (fig. 38). Other fragments bear a horse, a hand, a female head (fig. 39) and a charioteer, echoing the Attic spirit. In the intervening elements were free-standing statues, young women dancing and wearing thin transparent tunics: the best-preserved example is a masterpiece (fig. 40). The slender body, the small breasts and the simplicity of the movement of the arms and legs convey the sincerity and ingenuity of the young girl. There were also statues of Ephesian officials. The best-preserved example, a male figure clad in tunic and mantle, conveys a sense of static solemnity and grandeur. Another group of three statues opposite

silenced the Apollonian triad. A thigh clothed in a short tunic may have been part of the statue of Artemis. Another fragment is an excellent example of undulating bostrichs falling on the paria (fig. 41), probably part of a statue of Apollo. The lower part of the enthroned figure, with tunic and mantle, may also be associated with Apollo. Groups of chariots crowned the building. The snout and part of the body are preserved a

of speech (fig. 42). The large eyes and wavy mane suggest this horse's connection to a mythical world, making this horse a masterpiece.100 Most likely Praxiteles sent to

Ephesus small-sized preforms, which Ephesian craftsmen used as samples for their works. Praxiteles' art is clear in the dancing girls, in the short-robed Artemis, in the young and attractive Amazon. The practical transformation of mythical episodes into beautiful stories is observed here. The cool young Amazons, the naive maidens, the magnificent horses, the short-robed goddess, all hint at a distant beauty. An Aphrodite of Praxiteles adorned the Adonis of Alexandria on Mount Latmos (Stephanos Byzantios, s.v. Ἀλέσανδρειαι πόλεις). Mal-

we can get an idea of a late Venus praxitella thanks to the Leconfield head101 (fig. 43). The rendering of the surfaces as a continuous transition, the "velvet look of the skin" and the softness of the crown are reached here to the extreme; the quality is very high. The gaze of the goddess reveals a sense of seduction. A statuette, in green stone, of the Letus throne of Praxiteles was placed in Myra of Lycia (Codex Vaticanus Graecus 989. 110). Praxiteles died in 326-325 BC.102 His son, Kephisodotus the Younger, followed his art, acquired wealth and maintained his father's status as a member of the liturgical order.103 His works, such as the depiction of Olympus, with beautiful deities as well as a heroic mythology that suggests an idyllic otherworldly space, it will form the basis of all neoclassicists, both in Antiquity and in modern times.

Bibliography • Altripp I. 2010, Athenastatuen der Spaetklassik und des Hellenismus, Cologne, Böhlau. • Amelung W. 1895, Die Basis des Praxiteles aus Mantinea: archäologische Studien, Munich, Verlagsanstalt für Kunst und Wissen-schaft. • Anguissola A. 2019, "L'immagine della completezza nella scultura greca e romana: due note al gruppo di Ermes e Dioniso da Olimpia", Scienze dell'Antichita 25, 101-116. • Aravantinos V. L. 2017, "The sanctuaries of Herakles and Apollo Ismenios at Thebes", Interpreting the seventh century BC: tradition and innovation, (ed.) X. Haralampidou, Oxford, Oxbow, 221-230. • Aybek S. & Oez, S. 2004, "Preliminary Report of the Archaeological Survey at Apollonia ad Rhyndacum in Mysia", Anadolu 27, 1- 25. • Bennett M. J. 2013, Praxiteles: the Cleveland Apollo, Cleveland Museum of Art. • Bravi A. 2012, Ornamenta Urbis, Bari, Edipuglia. • Briant P. 2002, From Cyrus to Alexander, Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. • Clare R. J. 2002, The Path of the Argo, Cambridge University Press. • Clinton K. 2005, Eleusis, Athens, Archaiologiki Etaireia. • Corso A. 2004, The Art of Praxiteles, Rome, "L'Erma". • Corso A. 2007, The Art of Praxiteles 2, Rome, "L'Erma". • Corso A. 2013, The Art of Praxiteles 4, Rome, "L'Erma". • Corso A. 2014, The Art of Praxiteles 5, Rome, "L'Erma". • Corso A. 2014a, "Retrieving the Style of Cephisodotus the Younger", Arctos 48, 109-136. • Corso A. 2015, "The Birth and the Development of the Idealized Concept of Arcadia in Late Classical Societies", Actual Problems of Theory and History of Art 5, 50-54. • Corso A. 2015a, "Retrieving the Aphrodite of Hermogenes of Cythera", Hyperboreus 21. 80-89. • Corso A. 2017, "La Fortuna tipo Braccio Nuovo", Fanum Fortunae e il culto della dea Fortuna, edited by O. Mei, Fano: Centro Studi Vitruviani, 131-147. • Corso A. 2020, "The Statue of Apollo Smintheus by Skopas", In Propontis and surrounding cultures, Constantinople, Ege Yayinlari, 248-253. • Corso A. 2020a, "The bronze statue of Paris by Euphranor", Spondis: Tribute to the memory of Giorgos Despinis, (ed.) A. Delivorria. Athens, Benaki Museum, 355-360. • Corso A. 2021, "The Masters of the Maussoleion of Halikarnassos", in Karia and the Dodekanese 1, (ed.) P. Pedersen, B. Poulsen and J. Lund, Oxford, Oxbow, 41-51. • Corso A. 2021a, "Praxiteles' statue set up at Olbia Pontica", Indo-European linguistics and classical philology 25, 620-626. • Cristilli A. 2015, "Una nota di archeologia campana: il Dioniso nel tipo "Sardanapalo" dalla villa imperiale del Pausilypon a Napoli", Oebalus 10, 243-259. • Despinis G. 1994, "Neues zu einem alten Fund", Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 109, 173-198. • Diacciati E. 2013, "Una testa di Dioniso Tauro alla Galleria degli Uffizi", Studi e restauri: i marmi antichi della Galleria degli Uffizi, (ed.) A. Romualdi Florence, Edizioni Polistampa, 17-52. • DNO 2014, Der neue Overbeck 3, (ed.) S. Kansteiner, Berlin, de Gruyter. • Froning H. 2007, "Die Sandale des Hermes des Praxiteles in Olympia", Potnia theron, (ed.) E. Christof, Vienna, Phoibos, 95- 101. • Guarisco D. 2015, Santuari 'gemelli' di una divinita' : Artemide in Attica, Bologna, Bononia University Press. • Hintzen-Bohlen B. 1997, Die Kulturpolitik des Eubulos und des Lykurg, Berlin, Akademie-Verlag. • Hunte

r H. 1986, "Apollo and the Argonauts," Museum Helveticum 43, 50-60.

• Imhoof-Blumer F., Gardner P. & Oikonomides A. N. 1964, Ancient Coins Illustrating Lost Masterpieces of Greek Art, Chicago, Argonaut. • Iorizzo C. 2009, Venus Cnidia, Tibur, Tored. • Ivanov R. T. 2012, Roman cities in Bulgaria, Sofia; Marin Drinov Academic Publishing House. • Jost M. 2010, “Pausanias and the Testimony of Severian Coins in Arcadia”, Archaeological Review, 227-257. • Kahil L. 1984, "Artemis," Lexicon Iconographicum Classical Mythology 2, 618-753. • Καλτσάς N. 2007, “Environmentally responsible for the recovery of snowflakes”, àραξιτέλης, (επ. ) Ν. Καλτσά & Γ. Δεσπίνη, Αθήνα, Καπόν, 82-87. • Kaschnitz-Weinberg G. 1937, Culture of the Vatican Museum Magazine, Vatican City, Vatican Monuments in Archeology and Art. • Katsonopoulou D. 2020, “Famous Sculptures by Classical Greek Masters in Parion and the Troad”, Proposals and Surrounding Cultures, Constantinople, Ege Yayinlari, 496-5 • Keesling, C. M. 2007. “Early Hellenistic Portrait Statues on the Athenian Acropolis”, in Early Hellenistic Portraiture, (ed.) P. Schultz. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 141-160. • Korka E., Lefantzis M. & Corso A. 2021, «New Finds regarding the Architecture and Sculptures of Ancient Tenea», Current Problems of Theory and History of Art 9, 172-191. • Kryžickij D & Krapivina VV 2001, “Olbia Pontica”, Ancient Greek Cities on the Northwest Coast of the Black Sea, (ed.) E. Samaritaki, Kiev, Mystetstvo, 15-70. • Kuhrt 1997, “Artabazos [4]”, The New Paul, (ed.) H. Cancik, Stuttgart, Metzler, 2.44. • Lasserre F. 1966, The Fragments of Eudoxos von Knidos, Berlin, de Gruyter. • Lauter H. 1980, "On the Social Position of the Praxiteles Family," Archaeological Survey, 525-531. • Leventi I. 2019, “The Politics of Population”, (ed.) H. R. Goette, Rahden, Marie Leidorf Publishing House, pp. 127-139. • Maaskant-Kleibrink M. 1978, Catalog of the Engraved Gems in the Royal Coin Cabinet. The Greek Etruscan and Roman Collections, The Hague, Govt. Pub. Office. • Mancuso S. 2013, “In the Spirit of the Copy: the Replicas of the Apollo Sauroktonos of Praxiteles”, Zurück zur Klassik, (ed.)A. Sulzbach, Frankfurt, Liebighaus, 214-229. • Marginesu G. 2016, “Eirene, Ploutos, Cephisodotus and Cecropia”, Aristonothos 12. 45-52. • Μέννεγκα I. 2007, “Environmentally friendly”, Πραξιτέλης, (επ.) Ν. Καλτσά & Γ. Δεσπίνη, Αθήνα, Καπόν, 182-184, αρ. 58. • Moggi M. & Osanna M. 2010, Pausania. Guide to Greece 9, Milan, Thief. • Μποσνάκης Δ. 2007, «Christianity of the Äη Κω», Πραξιτέλης, (επ.) Ν. Καλτσά & Γ. Δεσπίνη, Αθήνα, Καπόν, 140-141. • Muss U. 2001, “The Sculptures”, The Altar of the Artemision of Ephesus, (ed.) U. Muss and A. Bammer, Vienna, Publishing House of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, 96-116. • Nobiloni B. 1992, “Ibico”, Pirro Ligorio and the Tiburtine Arm, (ed.) B. Palma Venetucci, Rome, Leonardo-De Luca, 37-38, 295. • Pasquier A. 2007, “Statue of Nude Woman », Praxitele, (ed.) A. Pasquier & J.-L. Martinez, Paris, Louvre, 196-197, no. 47. • Pasquier A. 2007, “The Leconfield Dite Female Breast”, Praxitele, (ed.) A. Pasquier, Paris, Louvre, 116-117, no. 18. • Preisshofen R. 1975, «Statue group from the Demeterheiligtum at Kyparissi on Kos», Antiquity Plastics 15, 31-64. • Preisshofen R. 2002, "The Saurochthonous Apollo of Praxiteles," Antiquity Plastic 28, 41-115. • Queyrel F. 2021, “From a Disappearing Statue of Praxiteles to a Mysterious Divinity in the House of Hermes at Delos”, ἔξοχος ἄλλων. To stir up the snow-white snow-white snow, (επ.) Β. The snowstorm. Lancaster, Review of the Catholic Church, 633-646. • Rizzo GE 1932, Prassitele, Milan, Treves. • Rodenwaldt G. 1944, Theoi reia zōontes, Berlin, Academy of Sciences Publishing House.

• Şahin M. 2020, “Apollonia Ad Rhyndacum”, Journal of Turkish Literature and Culture 9 (4), 1861-1 • Saladino V. 2008, «The Minerva of Arezzo», The Minerva of Arezzo, (ed.) M. Cygielman, Arezzo, Studi storici Carocci, Arezzo Series Ideas, Soggetti, Imagini, 13-39. • Schachter A. 1986, Cults of Boiotia 2, London, Institute of Classical Studies. • Scheer T. 1996, “Admetos”, The New Paul, (ed.) H. Cancik, Stuttgart, Metzler, 1,118. • Schepens G. 1998, Biography and antiquarian literature 1, Leiden, Brill. • Schmidt M. 1981, “Admetos”, Lexicon Iconographicum Classical Mythology 1. 218-221. • Schuermann W. 2000, “The Type of the Athena Vescovali”, Ancient Plastics 27, 37-90. • Schild-Xenidou V. 2008, Corpus of Boiotischen Grab- and Weihreliefs, Mainz, P. von Zabern. • Scullion S. 2001, “Dionysos at Elis”, Philologus 145, 203-218. • Case A. 2014, Political: Policy & Accessories, Catholic, Catalan Catholic, Cape οβας, Αντίκυρας. • Soles M. E. C. 1983, Aphrodite at Corinth, Ann Arbor, University Philos, Fac. • Solima I. 2011, Sanctuaries of Artemis in the Peloponnese, Heidelberg, Publishing House of Archeology and History. • Tandy DW 2013, “Scopas of Paros and the Fourth Century BC”, (επ.) Δ. Κατσονοπούλου Ο

Proceedings of the Paros and Cyclades Institute of Archaeology, Cairo, The Paros and Cyclades Institute of Archaeology, 65-7 • Todisco L. 2020, “Frine to Delphi”, Historical Quarterly 91, 209-2 • Tsantsanoglou K. 2012, “The Statue of Philitas”, Journal of Papyrology and Epigraphy 180, 104-1 • Valeri C. 2006, “The Female Testa ‘of the Aspremont-Lynden/Arles Type’”, The Imagination of Greek Originals, (ed.) M. G. Picozzi, Rome, Casa Ed. Univ. degree Studies in Rome La Sapienza, 139-141. • Vikela E. 2015, Apollon, Artemis, Leto, Munich, Hirmer. • Waywell G. B. 1978, The Free-Standing Sculpture of the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, London, The British Museum.

Details 1. Equivalent of a snowmobile, DNO 201, αρ. 1832–1848· Margins 2016, 5–52. 2. DNO 201, nos. 1891-1892, 1918-1935, 1961-1963. 3. DNO 2014, 1900-1904, 1944. 4. DNO 2014, nos. 1915-1917, 1949-195, 2026. 5. Corso 2007, 9-187· Iorizzo 2009, DNO 2014, αρ. 1855-1888. 6. Lasserre, 1966. 7. Proceedings of the National Institutes of Health, December 2015. 8. DNO 2014, no. 1895. 9. DNO 2014, no. 1952. 10. Corso 2015, 50-54. 11. Tandy, 2013, 65-75. 12. DNO 2014, no. 1853. 13. Waywell 1978, 107–108, αρ. 31 και eικ. 17. 14. Corso 2021, 41-51. 15. Bennett 2013· Corso 2013, 22-65· Mancuso 2013, 21-229 & DNO 201, αρ. 1912-1 16. September 2020, 1861-1 17. Ivanov 2012, s.v. Nicopolis and Isthrum. 18. Ivanov 2012, s.v. Philippopolis. 19. Corso 2007, 91–92, p. 60. 20. Briant 2002, 697–700. 21. Sociology 2020, 496–502. 22. Posnakis 2007, 140-141. 23. Corso 2020, 248-253. 24. Corso 2020a, 35-360. 25. Kuhrt 1977, 44. 26. Preisshofen 2002, 48-53. 27. Valerie 2006, 139-14.1. 28. Schmidt 1981, 218-221. 29. Callimachus, Hymns 2. 47-54· Rhianus, FGrHist 265 F 6. 30. Scheer 1996, 118. 31. Hunter 1986, 50-60. 32. Clare 2002, 88–104. 33. Euripides, frgg. 696-727 c Collard & Crop.

34. Anassandridas, FGrHist 404 F 5· 1. 35. Aybek, S. & Oez 2004, 6. 36. Maaskant-Kleibrink , 110-111, αρ. 102. 37. Katsonopoulou 2020. 38. Athenagoras, Legatio pro Christianis 26.3: Corso 2020a 39. 39. Course 2013, 6-7 40. Schepens 1998, 84–372. 41. Cos, Archaeological Museum, αρ. 54· Mposnakis 2007, 140-141 αρ. 36. 42. Πραξιτέλεια αγάλματα στημένα στην Αθήνα: βλ. DNO 2014, αρ testimony. 1900-1904, 1910-1911, 1916-1917, 1942-1943, 1946-1947, 1949-1950, 1952-1954, 1973, 1977-1979, 1981-1983, 1991-1993, 2000, 2006, 2012-2013, 2023-2024 to 2026-2 43. Η σρούσιων κυρισν κλούσιων κυριών The snow-covered snow-covered snow-covered snowflakes According to DNO 2014, yes. 1843-1845. Η нνέχιση υτού κατά κηην της δραστηριότητας του Πραξ Case in point DNO 2014, αρ. 1974-1976. 44. Guarisco 2015. 45. Annals 1994, 173-198. 46. Corso 2013, 75-83· Leventi 2019, 127-1 47. Για την ρηνεία των θοτήτων Πραξιτέλους βλ. Rodenwaldt 1944. 48. Keesling 2007, 141–160. 49. DNO 2014, αρ. 1974. 50. Chemistry 2012. 104-116. 51. Nobiloni 1992, 37-38 και 295. 52. DNO 2014, αρ. 1985-1986. 53. Rizzo 1932, p. 118. 4-5. 54. Corso 2021a, 620-626. 55. Kryzickij & Krapivina 2001, 46-47. 56. Bravi, 2012 4 2-44. 57. Corso 2015a, 80–89. 58. Corso 2015a, pp. 83–84. 3 e4 59. Suns 1983, 124–12, αρ. 22. 60. Corka, Lefantzis & Corso, 2021, 176-178, 8, αρ. 6. 61. Pasquier 2007, 196–197, αρ. 47. 62. Kaschnitz-Weinberg 1937, 140, no. 287. 63. Jost 2010, 227–257; 64. Solve 2011, 8-89. 65. Psychology 2007, 82-87. 66. Amelung 1895. 67. DNO 2014, αρ. 1976. 68. Queyrel 2021, 633–646. 69. Corso 2004, 18–229. 70. Press 1975, 31-64. 71. Crystal 2015, 243–259. 72. Γι’ slightly stirred up Αθηνάς, Βλ. Schuermann 2000, 37- 90· Saladino 2008 13-29 Altripp 2010, 108-1 73. Corso 2013, 147–159. 74. Rizzo 1932, 78-79; 118.1-3 75. The Revised Code of Constitution of the Republic of the Congo, The rest of the climbing walls of the Ήλιδας για Διόνυσο. 76. Γι’ αυτόν τον τύπο Βλ. Diacciati 2013, 17–52. 77. Η βιβλιογραφία γι’ υτό το οριστούργημα κίναι οολύ κοάλη. Review of the books of the Anguissola: Anguissola 2019, 101-1 78. Σχετικά με τα σανδάλια του Ερμή, βλ. Froning 2007, 95–101. 79. Corso 2013, 16–172. 80. DNO 2014, αρ. 1977-1978. 81. Corso 2013, pp. 172-185, quotes from the Pourtales. 82. Imhoof-Blumer, Gardner & Oikonomides 1964, 7-8. 83. Corso 2017, 131–147. 84. Chemistry 2017, 221-230. 85. Moggi και Osanna 2010, 284–287. 86. Schachter 1986, 22, σηµ. 3. 87. DNO 2014, αρ. 1944.

88. Clinton 2005, 1, pp. 28a, 88, 12 p.239. 8 με βιβλιογραφία. 90. Ολοκληρωμένη έρευνα των αντιγράφων βλ. Corso 2014, 12-19. 91. Hintzen-Bohlen 1997. 92. Corso 2014, 19-22. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.1980.001003 , Google Scholar Crossref 93. DNO 2014, 1980. 94. Schild-Xenidou 2008, 340–341, αρ. 108, pl. 42. 95. Sideris 2014. 96. Cahill 1984, 656–657, αρ. 434. 97. Corso 2014, 34–46· Todisco 2020, 209–218. 98. DNO 2014, 2424. 99. Corso 2014, 55–56. 100.Muss 2001, 96–116. 101.Pasquier 2007, 116–117, αρ. 18. 102.On the ground

of the sculptor is supported by the Athenian records of the liturgical order: see Lauter 1980, 2-31. 103. Corso 2014a, 109-136.

Illustration provenance 1. Paul Carus. Venus of Milo: An Archaeological Study of Woman. The Open Court Publishing Company, 1916. Page 162. An engraving by Roscher of an ancient coin from Knidos, showing the Aphrodite of Knidos by Praxiteles. 2. Numismatic Museum of Athens. 3. Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Skulpturensammlungen. 4. Musei Capitolini, Marie-Lan Nguyen 2006. 5. British Museum 6-7. Cleveland Museum of Arts. 8. Rome, Vatican Museums, Pius-Clementine Museum, Gallery of statues, 62. 9. Louvre Museum, After Praxiteles, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. 10. Rome, Villa Albani. 11. London, British Museum, Townley Col. 12-14. coinarchives.com. 15. Archaeological Museum of Kos. 16. Acropolis Museum. 17. wikipedia. 18. British Museum. 19. Kyi Region Archaeological Museum. 20. St. Florian, Museum des Stiftes. 21. Antikensammlung Berlin im Alten Museum, Johannes Laurentius. 22. Rome, Vatican Museums. 23-24. coinarchives.com. 25-27. Athens, National Archaeological Museum. 28. St. Petersburg, Hermitage. 29. Athens, Numismatic Museum. 30. Cliche Bibliotheque National de France. 31. Wikipedia. 32. British Museum. 33. coinarchives.com. 34. Wikipedia. 35. Wikipedia. 36. Athens, National Archaeological Museum. 37. coinarchives.com. 38-42. www.khm.at/en/visit/collections/ephesos-museum/ 43.www.nationaltrustcollections.org.uk/object/486379.

The Art of Praxiteles. The late phases of his activity A reconstruction of his activity from around 350 until his death in 326 BC Antonio Corso Professor of Classical Archeology Faculty of History and Archaeology, University of Cyprus Themes in Archeology 2021, 5(3): 333 - 366 This article aims at a reconstruction of the late production of Praxiteles in the third quarter of the 4th c. BC. His works of this period reveal the shift from Platonic idealism to hedonistic concepts and ideas. In this period the oeuvre of this master is characterized by disengaged, dreamy figures, endowed with velvety surfaces, which suggest a world of beautiful tales. Some creations introduce us into the environment of the courtesans of this period. His art will be crucial towards the establishment of the idea that ancient art was an art of pleasure.

Key words: Praxiteles, Mausoleum, Apollo Sauroctonus, Stephanusa, Pseliumene, Hermes of Olympia, Eubuleus, Leconfield head