Review: Phyromachos

Author(s): R. A. Tomlinson
Reviewed work(s):
Phyromachos-Probleme: mit einem Anhang zur Datierung des grossen Altares von
Pergamon by Bernard Andreae
Source: The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 43, No. 2 (1993), pp. 384-386
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/713585
Accessed: 29/04/2009 02:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org
384 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

storey,with or withoutrooms behindthe colonnades)they are all distinctlylarge,

appropriatelyenoughfor gifts. Such details,inevitably,are less importantthan the
factorswhichlead to the giving,and S. sensiblybeginsher studywith a discussionof
the motivationthat lies behindthe donation.
Even so, there is preciouslittle evidence,normally,to determinethe motivation
behindany particulargift. SeleucusI (at Didyma)and Antiochuswerewell disposed
to Miletusfor the supportthe founderof the dynastyhad receivedfromthe oracleof
Apollo. Are these gifts acts of piety and gratitude,or an attemptto gain supportin
an importantcity dominatedby their Antigonidrivals?How spontaneousare the
gifts?The gymnasiumof Eumenesseemsto have been plannedand designedby the
Milesiansthemselves,who may well have approachedEumenesfor support.The
buildingsthemselvestell us nothingof motivation;this we can learnonly if thereare
relevantinscriptionswhichconcernthe circumstances of the gift itself.Theseexistfor
the stoa of Antiochus at Miletus, as well as the gymnasium,and it is perhaps
unfortunatethat S. does not quotethesein theirentirety.On the otherhand,shedoes
give us architecturaldetails(dimensionsof columnsand entablature,for example,of
the stoa at Priene)which are not reallyrelevantto the questionof donation.
The book is, of course,a doctoralthesis,and thereforeincludesmaterialwhichis
neededto demonstrateall aspectsof the subjectdiscussed.Thiscan leadto digression,
for instance on the form of council buildings,and the arrangementsin the new
Bouleuterionat Athens, which are outside the main argument;they may serve to
demonstratethe distinctiveplan of the bouleuterionat Miletus,and thus supportthe
hypothesis(whichhas to remainhypothetical)that it is of a distinctivetype peculiar
to the Seleucidempire(and thus a completegift, even down to the planning);but
given the total inadequacyof the evidence,this cannot be takenas proven.
S.'s discussionof the northstoa of the agoraat Prieneis interestingand the most
originalpartof the book. Shegivesa good analysisof its architectural details,and by
comparingit with other structuresin Prieneand the neighbourhoodcomes to the
conclusionthat it belongs to the first half of the second century,and argues(on
historicalevidencealso) that it was the gift of AriarathesIV. The difficultyis in
determiningwhetherin a smallbut architecturally activeplace like Prieneformsof
detailmay not persistover a longerperiod.Evenso, this is a most usefulsuggestion.
Universityof Birmingham R. A. TO M LIN SON

PHYROMACHOS

BERNARD ANDREAE (ed.): Phyromachos-Probleme.' mit einem

Anhang zur Datierung des grossen Altares von Pergamon. (Mitteilungen
des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Romische Abteilung,
Erganzungsheft 31.) Pp. 172; 9 figures, 97 plates. Mainz am Rhein:
Von Zabern, 1990. DM 135.
The startingpoint for these studiesis A. Stewart'sargumentthat a colossalbearded
head, of Pergamenestyle, in the SyracuseMuseumshould be linkedto a seriesof
Pergamenecoins on whicha not dissimilarheadis labelled'of AsklepiosSoter',and
identifiedwith the Asklepios statue carved by Phyromachus.The present book
investigatesthe problemsunderlyingthis identification.
? Oxford University Press 1993
 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 385

Of the generalPergameneattributionof the statue (or, rather,the originalfrom

whichthis Romancopy wouldhave beenderived),thereis no realdoubt. Therewas
a statueof Asklepiosin his sanctuaryat Pergamon,whichPolybiosdescribesas the
work of Phylomachus (the relevant fragment of Diodorus calls the artist
Phyromachos),takenby PrusiasII of Bithyniain his raidon Pergamonin 156B.C.An
inscriptionfrom Ostia namesPhyromachusas the sculptorof a portraitbust of the
philosopherAntisthenes.A namedbust of Antisthenescan be linkedstylisticallyto
the SyracuseAsklepios. Finally Phyromachusis named by Pliny as the sculptor
responsiblefor the statuescommemoratingthe Gallicwarsof Attalusand Eumenes.
The papersin the presentvolumeconsistof a studyof the Antisthenesportrait,by
NikolausHimmelmann;of the cult of Asklepiosin Pergamonby Gioia de Luca; a
thoroughinvestigationof the Asklepiosof Phyromachusby BernardAndreae;and
an accountof the seatedstatueof a beardedgod at Cherchelby ChristaLandwehr.
In addition,for the context, an appendixdiscussesthe datingof the Great altar at
Pergamon(new observationson the altar,by Max Kunze,and on the late beginning
and interruptionof the work on the altar,by Theun-MathiasSchmidt).
Thereareproblemsof chronology,as wellas the identificationof Phyromachos.Of
crucialimportanceis the identificationof the templein whichthe Phyromachosstatue
was dedicated,and from which it was taken by Prusias(which,of course, thereby
providesa preciseterminusantequem).On militarygroundsit canbe arguedthatthis
was the extra-muralsanctuary,exposedand easilyraided:but whateverwas therein
the 2nd centuryseemsto have been relativelyinsignificant.The key is providedin a
veryshortchapterby ErnstLudwigSchwandner,whichdescribesthe evidencefor a
monumentalDoric temple, found beneath the Ionic Temple 'R' of the upper
gymnasium.(An accountof this by Schwandneris also to be found in Hermogenes
unddie hochhellenistische Architektur,reviewedby me in CR 42 [1992],147-8: the
definitivepublicationwill be in Ist. Mitt.)Schwandnerdatesthis to the earlyyearsof
EumenesII's reign.The successortemplehas alreadybeen dated to the secondhalf
of the secondcentury,and identifiedas a templeof Asklepios.Thereis then a strong
likelihoodthatthe destructionwas due to Prusias,thatit was in the Dorictemplethat
Phyromachus'statue was set up, and that we have a terminuspost quem of the
beginningof the reignof EumenesII.
Andreaediscussesthe problemsof the Syracuseheadin detail.A close comparison
of the hair forms of the head, and the indicationon the (much smaller,of course)
versionsof the coins point to identity. It seems certainthe Syracusehead is the
AsklepiosSoterof Phyromachos(presumablyreturnedto Pergamonafterits removal
by Prusias).Himmelmann,on the otherhand,argues(as he has done elsewhere)that
the 2nd centuryB.C.cannot be the date for the portraitof Antisthenes(whichhe
comparesratherwithportraitsof the 4th century),largelybecauseof a lackof similar
2nd centuryportraits.The argumentis fairlypresented:on balance,becauseof the
stylisticlinks betweenthe Asklepiosand Antisthenescopies, and becausein a 2nd
century context negative evidence cannot be regarded as definitive, Andreae's
interpretationseems to prevail.Is this more than giving a name to the artist of a
survivingbut anonymousstatue, or attributingactual work to a sculptorwho is
otherwise only a name? There is evidence for other Phyromachoses,especially
Phyromachosof Kephisia,who is namedas one of the sculptorspaidfor workon the
Erechtheumfrieze.Inscriptionsname the HellenisticPhyromachosand Nikeratos,
who worked with him, as Athenians. The Athenian origins of the Asklepios
Phyromachusseemassured:the interestingresultis the linkingof the Pergamenestyle
with an Atheniansculptor.The possibilitythat Phyromachusalso worked on the
386 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
Great altar is raised, perhaps speculatively, but leads to the examination of the date
for the altar. Peter Callaghan's arguments, based on the typology of Hellenistic relief
vase sherds found in the excavation, are discussed. These are updated by Schmidt, to
give a foundation date of c. 180. The evidence is slight, and taking into account the
possibility of some interval between the first manufacture of these wares, and the
depositing of the altar sherds, all seems uncertain. My own feeling is of some wariness
in accepting an earlier rather than a later date.
University of Birmingham R. A. T O M L I N S O N

SELEUCID RULE R-PORTRAITS

ROBERT FLEISCHER: Studien zur Seleukidischen Kunst.' Band I

Herrscherbildnisse. (Deutsches Archaologisches Institut.) Pp. xiii+
159; 58 plates. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 1991. DM 150.
It is logical to begin a study of Seleucid art with an investigation of the ruler portraits,
since the rulers are obviously central to the state, and this certainly should mean that
the portrayal of them is central also to the history of their art. A comparison with the
quality and changing styles of Roman imperial portraiture makes this point most
clearly. The problem, as L.'s thorough study of the Seleucids demonstrates only too
clearly, is the lack of surviving evidence; plastic (as opposed to numismatic) portraits
survive of only six of the Seleucid Kings out of a total (including Usurpers) of thirty-
four. Even these are of unequal artistic value. The head, presumably of Antiochus II,
from the Belevi sarcophagus is battered beyond recognition, let alone any
appreciation of it as a work of art. The Berlin head identified as Antiochus the Great
is rejected (rightly) in favour of an anonymous Roman attribution. Within this list
only Seleucus I, the founder of the dynasty, has portraits of any importance as works
of art, the superb bronze in Naples, from the villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum,
whose identity has been effectively argued by a long line of scholars, and confirmed
here (with a comparison of the coin portraits) as a Roman copy of a Hellenistic
original; and, secondly, a curious, partly reworked marble bust in the Pergamon
Museum in Berlin, whose attribution is less certain and debated, identified on its
original discovery, at Pergamon, as Attalus I, an attribution which many still support.
The find spot is not significant since at the end of his reign Pergamon came under
Seleucus' control and the dedication there of a portrait statue is entirely appropriate,
though the head may well be 2nd century, not 3rd century in date. Its technical
interest is the attachment to the head of the locks of hair separately carved. The
identification of all these heads depends very largely on the more numerous and
excellent coin portraits.
All this material, sculpture, coins, glyptic, is meticulously described by L., with
exhaustive bibliographic references. The whole work is a most thoroughgoing piece
of scholarship and though points of detail will continue to be argued, this is obviously
the definitive study of the subject.
There are questions, of course, which it cannot answer. Why are so few of the
Seleucid rulers represented in portrait sculpture? L. reminds us in his foreword that
the political centres - the Macedonian cities - of the Seleucid empire are relatively
unknown, and that we simply do not have a sequence of sculpture comparable with
that unearthed in the excavations at Pergamon. The remains of Hellenistic Antioch
? Oxford University Press 1993