Statue of Aphrodite of the Medici type with Eros on a Dolphin

Roman art

Remarkably restored, the statue is a replica of the Aphrodite Pudica, in her Hellenistic reworking known as an “Aphrodite of the Medici type”. The goddess of love, completely nude, stands on her left leg and is captured in the act of covering her pubic area and left breast; on the right, Eros on a dolphin, evoking the birth of the goddess from the waves of the sea, acts as a support. The soft modelling of the Borghese sculpture, rich in chiaroscuro, characterises it as a Roman elaboration from the first half of the 2nd century.

The statue could perhaps be recognised as the Venus with Eros on a dolphin mentioned by Manilli and Montelatici as being in the Park of the Villa, on the Viale delle Fontane, as an ornament for the oval fountain.

Object details

Commentary

The sculpture represents Venus, goddess of love and fertility, accompanied by Eros on a dolphin, in one of the many Roman variants. The statue can perhaps be recognised as the “Venus with a Cupid on a dolphin” that Manilli in 1650 and Montelatici in 1700 mention as being on the Viale delle Fontane, as an ornament for the “ovate” fountain. Later, in the fideicommissary inventory of 1833, the statue is recorded as “Venere Marina” among the sculptures in Room VII. Nibby’s guide recalls it as being in the same room, and recognises its iconographic similarities to the Medici Aphrodite. It remained in Room VII until 1888 when it was moved to Room III, where it is currently located.

Although many elements have been added (in fact, only the bust and upper limbs of the female figure and part of the Eros are ancient) the sculpture can be identified as a replica of the Aphrodite Pudica. In its Hellenistic reworking, it is known as the “Aphrodite of the Medici type”, from the well-known replica conserved in the Uffizi Galleries (Felletti Maj. 1951, pp. 41-47; Delivorrias et alii 1984, p. 53, nos. 419-421), which differs from the so-called “Dresden-Capitoline” type (Delivorrias et alii 1984, pp. 52-53, nos. 409-418; Schmidt 1997, pp. 204-205, nos. 112-117) – of which some scholars consider it to be a variant – because of the more upright and less forward-leaning position of the torso.

The name alludes to the gesture of modesty, with the torso arched forward and the right arm bent in an attempt to cover the left breast, while the left arm is in front of the pubic area. The figure is naked, the left leg outstretched, bearing the weight of the goddess, while the right leg is bent. The head, which has been restored, reproduces a hairstyle pertinent to the type, while the two ancient locks surviving on the back can be compared to the Hermitage statue (inv. A 150). The head is turned to the right and slightly tilted; the hair, divided on the forehead into two wide strips, is arranged around the face, with the highest locks gathered at the top of the head in a knot and the remaining ones gathered at the nape of the neck in a chignon from which two locks fall to the shoulders.

The eponymous statue of the type, purchased by Francesco de’ Medici in 1584, bears the signature of Cleomenes, an Athenian, son of Apollodorus, on the base. Although the prototype of this new type of Aphrodite embodies the guidelines of Praxiteles’ Aphrodite in the softness of the formal planes and the delicacy and suppleness of the figure, it differs aesthetically and psychologically from the Aphrodite of Knidos and can be traced back to the late Hellenistic age. However, as ascertained for other replicas of Aphrodite Pudica, the statue under examination confirms the difficulty of identifying a precise archetype, given the mix of variants that were already being produced in the neo-Attic workshops of the late Hellenistic period. The variety of the contexts in which the replicas were displayed throughout the Mediterranean, led to a certain iconographic freedom in the reproductions. This can be seen primarily in the multiple solutions adopted for the support, in this case, Eros on a dolphin, recalling the birth of the goddess from the waves of the sea, and similarly widespread in the replicas of the Medici and Capitoline types.

In terms of the production of Roman sculpture, the Borghese statue finds comparisons with the statue in the Farnese collection in Naples, dated to the second half of the 2nd century CE (MANN, inv. 6296; Pafumi 2010, pp. 155-156, no. 59), the statue in the Archaeological Museum in Venice, dating from the Antonine period (Traversari 1986, pp. 27-29, no. 5), a statue in the Dresden Museum, possibly from the Albani collection (Sparti 1998, p. 73), and finally, in the post-Antiquity example in Palazzo Lancellotti ai Coronari (Candilio 2008, pp. 258-259, no. 97).

For the sculpture in question, on the other hand, a dating to the early 2nd century is plausible in view of some stylistic details, such as the rich chiaroscuro of the modelling and, in particular, the repetition, in the Eros, of motifs from the Trajan frieze of the Temple of Venus Genetrix in the Forum of Caesar.

Jessica Clementi