Talk:Venus de Milo

"...revealed that it was created after the Classical period"? Nonsense.
Under the heading "Discovery & history: Fame" the 6th-7th sentences state "Based on early drawings, the plinth that had been detached from the statue was known to have dates on it, which revealed that it was created after the Classical period, which was the most desirable artistic period." This is a peculiar and dubious claim. First, because there is no mention otherwise of "early drawings" which depict such a plinth, nor any depictions of them here. Second, "...known to have dates on it" is strangely weasel-wordy. Even if no image of such drawings could be shown here, why would the date(s) not simply be stated, if they were known? And third, there is no suggestion that the statue "was created after the Classical period"; it is explicitly described as "Hellenistic", and its creation is given as between 150BCE and 125BCE. Hellenism died-out no later than 256CE, and the Classical era is widely accepted as extending until the fall of the Western Roman Empire, in 476CE. No one could seriously suggest that this sculpture was created after 476CE (by whom?! This sort of sculpting was unknown between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the Renaissance!) So, no -- nothing has "revealed that it was created after the Classical period". Finally, the editor who added this did not provide any source for the claim. This section should be struck. Bricology (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Most of this paragraph can be supported by e.g. this Smithsonian article used already in the lead. As for "classical", the classical period in Greece is generally considered to end with the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC and the Venus de Milo is inarguably post-Classical.
 * I shall do some work on the paragraph when I'm at a computer and have time to do the reading, but it certainly does not need deleting wholesale. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The more I look at this the more convinced I am that this section needs reworking – discussion of the plinth and the inscription doesn't really belong in the section on "fame", and the rest of this section should probably be merged with the sections on "modern use", "inspired works" and "cultural references" to write a single coherent reception section. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've done some poking at the article. Still a heck of a lot to do, though:
 * Write a proper reception section using Prettejohn (2006) and the Brill's New Pauly article on Venus de Milo; Curtis (2003) will also be useful
 * Write a more thorough discussion of the dating and attribution: the connection of the Alexandros of Antioch inscription to VdM is still disputed by e.g. Kousser (pp.235-236); the Brill's New Pauly entry on Alexander [33] son of Menides says that he is "frequently connected with" VdM but it is still disputed.
 * Sort out discussion of reconstructions. The hand-spinning suggestion (currently the only one explicitly mentioned) is absolutely not consensus; Maggidis and Kousser both broadly accept Furtwangler's theory that she held up her drapery with one hand and an apple in the other; most recently Hamiaux 2017 has argued for her holding a shield as a mirror. Should also mention notable historical theories (e.g. Venus as part of a group with Ares): Maggidis lists a bunch of them (p.182)
 * Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Sculptor's signature ([---]andros, not Alexandros)
Re the inscribed plinth fragment with the artist's signature: it's not just the association of the inscription with the statue that is in doubt; it's also the name of the sculptor himself, which is only partially preserved. The original stone was a fragment and only the letters -ανδρος at the end of the name were preserved when the drawing was made. (A small stroke in the letter space before the alpha may be part of the letter xi, but could also be part of the letter sigma, or nothing at all; since the original stone is lost, it's impossible to be sure). During the 19th century various restorations of the name were suggested, including both Alexandros and Hagesandros (see e.g. RE I.2, 1894, col. 1462, s.v. Alexandros 105). The ubiquity of the restoration Alexandros in modern sources is due to Hiller von Gaertringen, who was the first to connect the partially preserved name in the artist's signature with the poet Alexandros, who is known from Hellenistic inscriptions at Thespiae (see the source cited in the article, and RE Suppl. I, 1903, cols. 55-56). His suggestion has won some support, but it remains a conjecture. Unfortunately, the notion that the inscription actually bears the full name Alexandros has been uncritically accepted in many popular publications (e.g., Curtis 1993). In spite of that, no responsible scholar would claim as a matter of fact that the inscription on the plinth contains the name Alexandros; if you read Kousser 2005 carefully, for example, you will see that she always refers to this as "the sculptor's inscription" vel sim., never as "the Alexandros inscription." In fact, the name Alexandros does not appear at all in her article, in spite of her detailed discussion of date, authorship, interpretation, and the relationship of the inscription to the statue itself. So I have taken the liberty of revising the WP article to reflect this uncertainty. (I've also added IG references with links for those readers who want to see the actual texts of the inscriptions cited; and I've specified "on the Maeander" whenever the name of Antioch is mentioned, since there are so many different Antiochs in the Hellenistic world.) Feel free to edit for style and tweak the wording; I have absolutely no proprietary interest in the prose. But some such qualification of the sculptor's name, whether or not it is correctly associated with the statue, is necessary, I think, especially since you've put this up for GA. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I initially elided the Alexandros/Agesandros debate because it all seems too technical for wikipedia, and my impression was that the modern scholarly consensus is in fact that the name should be restored as "Alexandros": e.g. Brill's New Pauly lists the sculptor as Alexander (33) Son of Menides, and while acknowledging the debate over whether or not the inscription is associated with the VdM does not suggest there is any dispute over the restoration of the name. On further inspection it looks as though most scholars are careful to leave the possibility of Agesandros open, though, so thanks for pointing this out.  I think the third paragraph of §Identification now gets too far into the epigraphic weeds, and would suggest shuffling the detail about the possible restoration of the inscription as Alexandros into a footnote, but my books are currently boxed up for moving so I don't want to propose any particular wording here until I have access to them again. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at shoving the technical details of the debate about the restoration off into a footnote while not committing as hard to any particular restoration of the name; I'd be grateful if you have a look at it and make sure I haven't completely screwed anything up. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. I think moving it all to a footnote was an excellent idea. As you say, most of this is probably too technical for WP, but you do need something to explain the cautious wording of the text to readers who show up here after reading in a guidebook or someone's blog post that the sculptor of the Venus de Milo was named Alexander. I have one serious suggestion and one quibble:
 * Serious suggestion: Change "can be restored as" to "has been restored as." If the letter at the break, before the alpha, was a sigma instead of a xi, then I can think of several other possible restorations: Lysandros, Kassandros, Peisandros. As far as I know, no one has proposed restoring these names, but they could be restored with just as much epigraphical justification as (H)agesandros.
 * Quibble: Re (H)agesandros, my impression is that in recent English-language scholarship the aspirated spelling is much more common. That's just an impression, but to test it I pulled a few general handbooks off my shelf and flipped to the index to check: it's Hagesandros in Robertson's History of Greek Art (1975), Havelock's Hellenistic Art (1981), Pollitt's Art in the Hellenistic Age (1986), Smith's Hellenistic Sculpture (1991), Ridgway's Hellenistic Sculpture III (2002), and Stewart's Greek Sculpture (1990) and Art in the Hellenistic World (2014). I found Agesandros only in Bieber's Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age (1961). It's also Hagesander in the OCD, although I see it's Agesander in Brill's New Paully. Not a huge sample by any means, but you can see the pattern. (All of these sources are of course referring to the Rhodian sculptor of the Laocoon, not to this plinth.) Also in favor of the aspirated form are the etymology (from ἡγέομαι) and the fact that the oldest manuscript of Pliny's NH spells it Hagesander. On the other hand, the Wikipedia article on the Rhodian sculptor uses the unaspirated form Agesander, as does the source you cite in this particular footnote (Maggidis). I don't think it's possible to be certain which is "correct", and of course both pronunciations would have been represented on the stone by the simple letter alpha. All of this is trivial at best, and it doesn't matter to me in the slightest, so I'll leave it to you to decide which form accords best with WP policy. Choliamb (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks – I've adopted both of your suggestions. As you say the spelling of Hagesandros/Agesandros in scholarship is not entirely consistent, and I have no strong views on which is better, but I think you make a good case for Hagesandros, so I'll go with that unless anyone else feels more strongly about it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Pausanias
I've removed: "Pausanias, who described many of the great artworks he saw on his travels, apparently did not mention the Venus, and thus presumably did not consider it a great masterpiece," - as there is no reason to assume he ever saw it. His very comprehensive account of his travels does not mention Melos, or indeed visiting the Cyclades at all. He was no art critic, barely mentioning the style of the statues he describes, and that he had probably never heard of it means nothing. Arguably a better proof of its lack of fame in ancient times is that the Romans did not bother to steal it. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)