That the fields of Greek and Roman sculpture have been reinvigorated by studies of gender, the body and identity is an understatement. These concerns have reshaped the contours of these fields by enriching and sharpening the more traditional focus on aesthetic appreciation, historical development and social contexts of cult and funerary ritual or institutional power. Of course, ancient sculpture's primary subject of representation, the body, provokes questions of gender and sexuality head on. In recent years, scholarship has been produced at a prodigious pace on a widening variety of topics, from familiar territory to the rather esoteric. Both volumes under review provide clarification and reassessment of common goals and methods to varying degrees.
Rosemary Barrow's book, which was prepared for publication after her premature death by Michael Silk with the assistance of Jaś Elsner, Sebastian Matzner and Michael Squire, offers ten case studies of works of sculpture chosen to illustrate a specific category of body. Most of the case studies focus on major monuments of the canon: the Doryphoros, Aphrodite of Knidos, the Drunken Old Woman, the Sleeping Hermaphrodite and the Augustus of Prima Porta. Lesser-known works, such as the Tanagra figurines, a Roman portrait of a matron as Venus, a relief depicting female gladiators and a statuette of Pan and a she-goat, are also included in the volume and arranged in chronological order (except for the gladiator relief, which can only be assigned a date in the first two centuries c.e., and the Pan and she-goat statuette from Herculaneum, probably dating to the first century c.e., that bring up the rear of the volume).
The volume begins with a valuable introduction, ‘Approaching Gender’ (1–20), that assesses the advances of women's studies in the 1970s through the ’90s, beginning with attempts to define the experiences of women in antiquity and then exploring a more dynamic system of gender construction. Definitions of sexual identity have also moved away from the anachronistic modern notion that it is determined by biological sex; in antiquity, the sexual act itself mattered more, as did, in particular, the power wielded by the dominant partner. Social construction is given its due through Judith Butler's theory of the performative function of gender. Visual culture analyses the experience of viewing, but formulates it as a series of polar opposites: male/female, active/passive, watching/being watched (6). Laura Mulvey's theory of the gaze (although now corrected to the ‘look’ in contemporary feminist film theory) makes its inevitable appearance in this discussion of the spectacle of the body. It is to B.'s credit that she dispatches the theoretical approaches with clear, straightforward language that tethers abstractions to ancient social practices and works of art. For example, homoerotic desire in ancient Greece casts the male body as an object of spectacle. Women's roles in both Greece and Rome, however, depended not only on their gender, but on their status. These are not fresh observations, but bear repeating in a volume for advanced students and scholars, who will turn to the case studies that distill scholarly debates.
The case studies move deftly from a brief introduction to each work of sculpture to the problems of interpretation (broadly) and of a gendered reception (more narrowly). For example, the question posed by the Doryphoros is, ‘If the Doryphoros's body is a cultural map indicating what it is to be a model citizen in fifth-century Athens, how would an Athenian male viewer have received this sculpture?’ (30). The discussion considers what exactly the well-built physique was meant to represent: a warrior or an athlete? a hoplite or pentathlete? an erastēs or erōmenos? The sculpture effectively alludes to a range of ideals summoning male authority and perfection, without conforming completely to any one standard. The discussion of the Augustus of Prima Porta likewise moves from familiar ground (its dependence on the model of the Doryphoros and the political significance of the imagery of its breastplate) to its significance as a copy of a public sculpture erected in Livia's country villa. The setting of the statue has long been known, as has its nature as a copy. B. takes the matter further by lingering on the appeal of the heroic and military statue to the widow Livia. Drawing on a range of maternal imagery on carved gemstones and the multiple roles Livia played in the imperial family after Augustus’ death, along with the Augustan initiatives to stabilise society by aligning the domestic and political spheres, B. concludes that the statue ‘has as much to say about her as about him’ (109). Here, as elsewhere in this volume, the author begins with and then turns away from conventional accounts to take the discussion to an unexpected, but altogether justified and illuminating place. Richly researched, the arguments gain momentum from current scholarly debates without being burdened by them. The text does not bear the marks of last-minute tidying by several hands which one might have expected from the most unfortunate necessities of its production.
Glenys Davies asks whether the modern notion of body language can be applied to the study of Roman sculpture and, in particular, considers how gender roles are represented through poses and gestures in Roman statues (non-verbal communication, etc.). In terms of theoretical positions, D.'s interests align with those of Pierre Bourdieu, rather than that of Judith Butler, whose study of cultural and behavioural patterns among the Berbers in Algeria determined that the opposition of male and female is fundamental to that society (25–7). Modern observers of body language often divide postures and attitudes into two main types, dominant and submissive, as in countless popular self-help guides dedicated to helping readers succeed in business and get an edge over rivals in other endeavours. This is a rather blunt tool, but, perhaps, not unlike other modes of analysis once brandished. The question of its relevance to antiquity is faced head-on: as the author states, ‘it is the pose and posture of the figures represented that are more revealing than specific gestures: these are the elements of body language which are more universal and which tend to be the least culture-specific, and which are also most likely to be performed in daily life subconsciously’ (20). Although the ancient sources lend credence to the broad generalisation that the male in power exhibits an upright, expansive pose, while the subservient female tends to shrink from view, we may wonder what, if anything, we are missing by the lack of further testimony from the ancients. D. also discusses a practice which involved Roman politicians declaiming in public with an established repertory of gestures, namely oratory. Quintilian recommends appropriate gestures to mark inflection points, and expounds on the deportment of speakers (38–45). Yet Quintilian's stage directions cannot conjure up the orator in action with full voice, well-coordinated gestures and erect carriage. Furthermore, the archaeological record also fails us here: statues of orators are often missing the hands extending from their well-wrapped drapery.
The sculpture under investigation is organised into chapters according to statuary types: the standing nude, clothed standing figures of men, draped statues of women, seated statues, and men and women together (chs 4–8). Along the way, D. offers some fresh observations on canonical works, such as the Aphrodite of Knidos, and others less well known but significant to scholars of Roman sculpture (the so-called pudicitia type, the Large and Small Herculaneum women types, the Ceres type, etc.). The discussions of both female and male draped statuary stand out, with broad implications and nuanced arguments about Greek versus Roman garments and cultural identity (for the figures of men), and the significance of status for imperial and elite women commemorated with public statuary in their cities. Imperial women were allowed more open poses, and elite women were represented in more active poses than women depicted in funerary statues; thus representations of honourable women adopted postures that if not considered masculine seemed, at least, less feminine. In particular, the representation of the clothing on the statues is given its due as an integral component of the figure, and the sculpted clothing is considered as prop, protective gear, and a lure to viewers. The larger issue of how Romans honoured elite women with public statuary while controlling their visibility is also a topic of interest that is well handled here.
