Capitoline-Type Statue of Aphrodite

Pieced together with various fragments, the statue is a replica of the Modest Aphrodite, in her Hellenistic re-elaboration also known as ‘Dresden-Capitoline Aphrodite’ (Brinkerhoff 1971, pp.10-11;) Delivorrias et alii 1984, pp. 52-53, nn. 409-418; Schmidt 1997, pp. 204-205, nn. 112-117) from the best copies of the head (Dresden, Albertinum. Inv. 239) and of the body (Rome, Museo Capitolino, inv.409). The name alludes to the modest gesture, her torso leaning forward and her right arm bent trying to cover her left breast, while the left arm covers her pubic area. Her weight is on her left leg, while the right leg is bent, and slightly forward. The head is turned to the right and slightly bowed; the hair is parted at the centre forming two wide bands around her face, the higher strands of hair are tied in a topknot and the rest is pulled back into a chignon at the nape of her neck from which two lose strands fall onto her shoulders.

The eponymous statue of the type, found in Rome in the 17th century, originates from the Aphrodite of Knidos, created by the Athenian sculptor Praxiteles in mid-4th century BCE: it was the first Greek sculpture of a female nude showing the goddess just before or after a sacred bath. The great renown of Praxiteles’ work resulted in numerous copies and variations: it is difficult to be precise about when the archetype of the Modest Aphrodite was made, its creation is dated between the end of the 4th century and 1st century BCE, attributed, among others, to Cephisodotus the Younger, whose statue in Parian marble, that became part of the Roman collection of Gaius Asinius Pollio in the second half of the 1st century BCE, was considered one of the masterpieces of marble sculpture (Pliny, Naturalis Historia XXXVI, 24). The great success of this model in the Greek and Oriental ambits in the mid and late Hellenistic period, confirmed by the numerous reproductions also in a smaller size and by the coining of Asiatic cities in the Imperial era, was followed by its wide circulation with hundreds of copies in all the provinces of the Roman Empire.

The variety of display contexts – private contexts, with frequent adaptations of the type for iconic statues, and public contexts, above all in thermal baths, nymphaea, fountains – resulted in a certain iconographic liberty in the reproductions. This is quite clearly seen in the various solutions adopted for the support, which in this case is a smooth surfaced vase on which a simple cloth is draped, or in some cases is an ornate loutrophoros with a fringed cloth draped over it – like the Capitoline example – or a dolphin (Algiers, National Museum, inv. 5), a Triton (Vatican Museums, inv. 263bis), a tree trunk, or Eros (MANN, inv.6296).

The softly modelled Borghese replica, with a full drape without the fabrics resulting over abundant – comparable with an Aphrodite in the Farnese collection in Naples (MANN, inv. 6283) – repeats the realistic and sensual connotations, as well as the flowing contours that characterise the Modest Aphrodite in contrast to Praxiteles’ Aphrodite of Knidos; the process used for the hair and the drape, for which a drill was not used, allow us to date itto the mid-2nd century CE.

Jessica Clementi