Abstract:
A new interest in seriality and copies of ancient works of art, which no longer looks on them as mere inferior copies of admirable originals, has implications for the question of how copies were attributed to ancient artists. In the case of Myron, one of the world’s bestknown Greek sculptors and credited with creating many famous works, including the Diskobolos and Athena-Marsyas group, no original sculptures remain and a reassessment of attribution in light of modern scholarship has not been made. Identification and attribution has long been based upon questionable ancient sources and stylistic comparison with similar works, culminating in corollary arguments without firm basis. This thesis assembles an appendix of literary sources and a compilation of works that have been attributed to Myron. In analysing those identifications, it questions whether attributions to Myron can be supported, dependent as they are on non-specific literary sources, the legacy of antiquarian ‘restorations,’ and the plethora of conflicting and confusing copies. It also questions the dubious practice of identifying the ‘best’ copy as closest to the prototype. Detailed comparative visual analysis drawing on connoisseurial methods, particularly those of Giovanni Morelli, finds discrepancies in the execution of examples, further undermining the ability to reaffirm compositions to the oeuvre of Myron. But it also reveals certain similarities, which confirm a Classicising approach prevalent amongst Roman copyists, who may have been more concerned to emulate rather than replicate Greek originals. The purpose of which was to satisfy Roman taste and produce works appropriate to contemporary ideals regarding the use and setting of sculpture. These arguments suggest that the putative works attributed to Myron may provide more information about Roman skills, attitudes and values than the oeuvre of the sculptor himself.