The Bartlett Head

Fig. 1 Head of Aphrodite (“The Bartlett Head”). 330-300 B.C. Museum of Fine Arts Boston

The Bartlett Head, with eyes lost in a dream, is shrouded in mystery, despite viewers being entranced by its beauty. The piece was created in the Late Classical Period and would have been attached to a full-scale Aphrodite. The work is thought to have been crafted by Praxiteles, one of the most famous artists of the fourth century and known for his recognizable individual style. He is best identified by his work Aphrodite of Knidos, which the Bartlett Head bears strong resemblance to. As a result, based on the likeness to the Knidian Aphrodite, inclusion of key characteristics of Praxiteles’s style, similarities of the rendering of hair, and differences attributed to the variations from Roman copies, this essay infers that this work was in fact sculpted by Praxiteles. 

The provenance of this object is largely unknown, resulting in unanswered questions about the creator and the object’s function. The head was ambiguously described “to have been found during repairs on a hotel, opposite the Monastiraki Station in Athens,” later traded, and eventually sold to the Museum of Fine Arts as a part of the Bartlett collection (“Head of Aphrodite”). It was located “in the area leading from Monastiraki and the Agord toward the Roman Agora” (Comstock and Vermeule 39). These provide little context as to where the object was housed, such as in a temple as a cult statue. It is deduced to have been created between 330-300 BCE out of Parian marble, which is from an island known to hold the highest quality marble (“Head of Aphrodite”). Thus, the piece was expensive to make and commissioned by someone wealthy, likely to a skilled sculptor. The head was carved “separately for insertion into a full-length body fashioned from another piece of marble. With its tilting axes and eye-catching profiles, the head was conceived to be seen fully in the round and was carefully finished at the sides and back, as well as the front” (“Head of Aphrodite”). This suggests the head would have been made for a location that permitted the viewer to walk around as well as been attached to a body. The head is nearly twenty-five centimeters, about half of the size of the average human head; therefore, the body would have been smaller than full scale. In its current state, the “surface of the face is slightly corroded in places, apparently as the result of cleaning with acid. The hair has taken on a brownish color from the soil” (Comstock and Vermeule 39).

The lack of body does not detract from the Head of Aphrodite’s beauty. The object is a lifelike sculpture with only a few inches of the neck attached. She wears a serene expression with downturned eyes and her head tilts slightly to the right. The chin is somewhat fleshy, and the soft cheeks bear almost no evidence of cheekbones. The medium of marble adds to the elegance, particularly since no visible veins can be seen in the stone. The head has a strong, straight nose, nearly in the same angle as the forehead, that leads to plump lips, slightly upturned at the ends. This “sensitive modelling of the lips and of the parts about them contributes to the softness of the expression” (Caskey 68). As for her hair, the bouncy, voluminous, and soft locks are fastened by two concentric bands, loosely pulling back her face-framing hair. The back of her bun holds the bulk of her hair and she has a “bow like topknot” atop her head (“Head of Aphrodite”). The relatively life-like rendering of the hair texture contrasts and thus emphasizes the smoothness of the skin. Additionally, “some inequalities are observable in the carving of the two sides of the face: the right cheek recedes more rapidly; the right eye is longer, and its inner corner is less deeply sunk; the right eye is less carefully worked than the left eye” (Caskey 68). These imperfections may indicate a carelessness or create a sense of humanity with the lack of symmetry, but this does not detract from the engrossing beauty. The expression can especially be seen in the “eyes, not set deeply under the level brows, nor widely opened, [which] have a dreamy gaze, as if they were not fixed upon any definite object” (Caskey 68). While the function and original location are not known, it is likely the Bartlett Head was a cult statue for Aphrodite. Viewers would have been compelled by the ambiguous, otherworldly expression and beauty.

The object was created in the Late Classical style, which stretched from 400-323 BCE. This period emphasized the individual in free standing sculpture, which “was not confined to subject matter. It was also an important feature of style. Fourthcentury sculptors cultivated highly personal styles, as if to brand themselves more effectively” (Neer 337). While still grappling with a play of ideal and realism, the Late Classical’s “return to realism after the extravagance of High Classical [...] is typical of the fourth century” (Neer 340). Sculpture demonstrated the artists’ increased interest in movement and balance. For example, the turning of a sculpture’s head gives it a more approachable look, even when depicting Gods (Late Classical Sculpture Lecture). In fact, twisting poses were popular as “new concepts of space were being realized in the design of such figures” ​​(Boardman 15). This key aspect of Late Classical style can be seen in the Bartlett Head with the turn of Aphrodite’s head. Even just comparing this piece to the rigid, frontal style of a Kore, made just a few hundred years earlier, the head tilt adds a discernible dynamism and lifelikeness. While not observable for this object, “in the fourth century there is more experiment with figures whose weight is largely transferred to a support[…] sometimes of a naturalistic character, like a tree trunk” (Boardman 15). Additionally, the head was found and potentially created in Athens, which was deeply weakened after the Peloponnesian War (Late Classical Sculpture Lecture).

The Bartlett Head is “considered the embodiment of female beauty”–-fitting as Aphrodite is the goddess representing the same ("Head of Aphrodite"). First, the details of the “delicate face and intricate, coquettish hairstyle have led to identification of the head as a representation of Aphrodite, although the goddess appears more girlish than in earlier representations” (“Head of Aphrodite”). Aphrodite’s mythological role can be summarized in that she “emerges in a mythical context of desire and violence, tension and appeasement, mirroring the ambivalence of her powers: seductive charm, the need to procreate, and a capacity for deception” (Pirenne-Delforge and Motte). The emotion captured in the serene expression set on Aphrodite’s face demonstrates some of these characteristics. Because Greeks were unsure whether or not she was from the east, they viewed “Aphrodite to be at the same time Greek and foreign” (Pirenne-Delforge and Motte). The Head of Aphrodite must be taken in the context that the goddess “was worshipped above all as presiding over sexuality and reproduction—necessary for the continuity of the community” (Pirenne-Delforge and Motte). These traits suggest the themes art depictions of this goddess might have contemplated. In these renderings, Aphrodite is on some “of the most erotic scenes in ancient art[, which] are found on personal objects such as vases” (Kondoleon et al. 83). She “is often shown from behind, [...] and the ancient sources who describe her statues emphasize how appealing she is from all sides” (Kondoleon et al. 138). This is fitting since the Bartlett Head was carved fully around. If the head was a cult statue, Aphrodite’s “cult and its rituals often emphasized a personal relationship with the goddess, who was believed to bring harmony and good fortune, both necessary for a successful marriage” (Kondoleon et al. 83). Thus, the humanity of the Head of Aphrodite would be even more engaging with the viewer. The “activities associated with the worship of Aphrodite, including bathing and beautification (anointments, veiling, dressing, and the like), were part of the preparations for marriage, one of the most crucial transitions in a woman’s life” (Kondoleon et al. 83). In this marriage, “the bride was submissive–regarded almost as property–and the groom was often characterized as the abductor” (Kondoleon et al. 83). Aphrodite symbolized the limited but key roles women had in Greek society, and women could look to her for representation. Even further, “throughout Greek mythology the goddess Aphrodite is in control of her own sexuality: she does not simply limit access to her body like the virgin goddesses Artemis and Athena; she actively engages in various love affairs, in a way that would have been unthinkable for actual Greek women” (Lee 283). Aphrodite is given a sense of agency in her sexuality, body, and beauty, and women might have looked to her as a reflection of their gender identity—though there are fundamental differences between human woman and goddess. Thus, gender played a key role in the creator’s choice of subject for the Bartlett Head. 

Some art historians have attributed the Head of Aphrodite to Praxiteles, who is known for having one of the most distinct styles of the Late Classical period (Palagia 91). His technique included the elegant and elongated rendering of bodies with S-curve posture, androgynous men, use of sfumato, narrative details, and dreamy gazes. He is written about in nearly one hundred sources regarding his works across mainland Greece, Asia Minor, and various Greek islands (Palagia 92). Praxiteles is particularly famous for his rendering of “generally female or youthful male beauty” and his use of marble (Waldstein 390). Around the time of the Bartlett Head, “Praxiteles, whose career reached its peak from about 360 to 330 B.C., is credited as being the first Classical sculptor to exploit the special qualities of marble, rather than treating it as a substitute for the preferred material, bronze” (“Head of Aphrodite”). This medium shift supported his identifiable rendering of bodies. These new stylistic techniques included thin limbs, smaller proportioned heads, and exaggerated S-curve postures with natural supports to hold this pose (Boardman 15). His “confident skill in carving and finishing marble, together with the slimmer proportions, gives the figure a certain delicacy” (Pedley 308). He also introduced “sfumato,” which is the “[s]oft modeling of the surface[, which] blurs the smooth transitions from plane to plane[...]and leaves them indistinct” (Pedley 308). This technique makes his works appear as though they were viewed from a distance (Palagia 109). Praxiteles’s technique of “[a]natomical precision and abrupt transitions gave way to an overall smoothness, with features blurring into one another” (Neer 337). As mercenaries rose in Greece, male citizens became less tied to soldiership; this resulting view of masculinity might have shifted the ideas about male body and militaristic musculature (Neer 337). This development along with the Late Classical inclinations toward realism might explain Praxiteles’s more androgynous male figures and soft rendering of bodies. Moving onto the head, a typical Praxitelean face consists of: “a tapering shape, narrow eyes, a smiling mouth, detailed modulation of the forehead, and a dreamy expression. Relaxed and idle, languorous and sensuous, Hermes[, one example of Praxiteles’s work,] exemplifies a far different aspect of divine life than those depicted by sculptors in the preceding century” (Pedley 308). Praxiteles sculpts a similar expression across his works, both male and female, that adds to the embodiment of Greek gods and goddesses. These innovations can be seen in his legacy of influence on other works—though this confuses attribution of the Bartlett Head. Another notable style component can be seen in his Aphrodite of Knidos. 

The main comparison that attributes the Bartlett Head to Praxiteles is the Aphrodite of Knidos. He built the original statue in 350 BCE, known as the first full scale, free-standing female sculpture that is nude. The narrative depicts Aphrodite being surprised while bathing by the viewer, making them a kind of voyeur (Palagia 100). This is a cult statue of the goddess, which was rejected for the intended cult use in Kos on Crete and instead sold to Knidos (Pliny the Elder and Late Classical Sculpture Lecture). Aphrodite’s association with the Near East is particularly significant since Knidos was under the Kingdom of Caria, ruled by the Persians at the time. This influence might explain the nudity, since “Aphrodite’s Near Eastern equivalents, such as Astarte, or Ishtar, were routinely represented naked” (Neer 338). Women had been depicted nude in Greek art previously, but not to this scale and in this context in Greece. In the Knidian Aphrodite, “the divine had become accessible, almost personal, captured in an intimate moment” (Pedley 309). Despite myths warning against seeing a goddess naked—for example, in the story of Artemis and Actaeon—Praxiteles's sculpture controversially displays her unclothing herself (Lee 281). These myths elevate the risk of being the first to create a full-scale nude female sculpture, especially of a goddess. Nonetheless, it is fitting the goddess depicted would be Aphrodite. This image was created in marble by Praxiteles, used for its color and qualities to emulate flesh (Palagia 100). The original no longer remains, but detailed accounts by writers such as Pliny the Elder and Pseudo-Lucian validate the authenticity of Roman copies; the statue also “is well documented in dozens of large- and small-scale copies, on coinage and in multiple literary sources” (Lee 277). Regarding the style, Aphrodite demonstrates the key Praxitelean elements of elongated, thinner limbs, an S-curve posture, and a smaller head with a dreamy, slight smile-expression. Her close knees emphasize the curve and width of her hips, while her hand is positioned over her genitals, called a “pudica” gesture. This both hides and draws attention to this area, a push and pull of flirtation (Palagia 100). The narrative developed by other details of the “self-enclosed landscape appears to be another Praxitelean innovation” (Palagia 100). This work contains many details that are important to identifying Praxiteles’s distinct style, such as the sculptural support, narrative details, and a pose of a moment in time (Palagia 102-103). Additionally, it is speculated that the statue was modeled after Praxiteles’ lover, Phyrne, which could explain the careful and humanlike rendering (Boardman 13). Furthermore, while there are questions about the original location of the Aphrodite of Knidos, it is clear it was inside a temple based on contrasting but enamored accounts by Pseudo-Lucian and Pliny (Palagia 101-102). In one of Pseudo-Lucian’s accounts, he describes theatrically, “skillful was the sculptor that the hard stone appears as flesh and bone in every limb. Kharikles indeed ran up to the statue and kissed it on the lips” (Pedley 309). Further, after describing the fame of the sculpture, Pliny the Elder recounts the open setting allowing “that the beauties of the statue admit of being seen from every point of view; an arrangement which was favoured by the goddess herself, it is generally believed” (Chapter 4 Pliny the Elder). With another melodramatic story, he recounts that a “certain individual, it is said, became enamoured of this statue, and, concealing himself in the temple during the night, gratified his lustful passion upon it, traces of which are to be seen in a stain left upon the marble” (Chapter 4 Pliny the Elder). These two descriptions reveal the shock that an idealized nude female sculpture had on the audience, even hundreds of years later; though dramatized, they reveal the unique reaction to a body when it is not the typical male nude—despite women being depicted nearly-nude in the High Classical wet drapery style. These men personify the Knidian Aphrodite, typical for a cult statue, but perhaps exaggerated by the lifelikeness Praxiteles imbued in the sculpture. 

The Bartlett Head is an important symbol of the ideal female. However, this brings into question the idea of gender in fourth century BCE Greece. Point blank, “The Aphrodite of Knidos was renowned in antiquity because of her nudity” (Lee 278). Thus, it is important to consider what it means for women to be nude and the female body depiction in general. Taken into context, “[w]henever we admire what seems to be a sympathetic treatment of the female, as brave, compassionate or loyal, we need to remember that it was almost certainly devised by a male, for whatever reason” (Boardman 18). Further, in an application of John Berger’s Ways of Seeing to ancient Greek art, Lee quotes that “[m]en act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at” (Lee 260). Particularly, scholarship “about the role and education of women in Classical urban society suggests that they neither aspired to nor were allowed any real contribution to major aesthetic decisions except probably at a domestic level” (Boardman 18). Not only are men depicting women’s bodies, but they are also creating them for their own spectacle. Male portrayal compared to female portrayal of female bodies will obviously differ greatly. For the Bartlett Head, (most likely) a male artist created what is known as the “embodiment of female beauty,” meaning men are setting the female beauty standard (“Head of Aphrodite”). In addition to this representation, women’s bodies “are understood in opposition and inferior to males in every way, yet necessary for social (re)production” (Lee 270). This ideology would explain the length of time taken to display a full-sized nude female. However, the Knidian Aphrodite’s pudica pose and the contrasting lifting or pulling down her garment can be seen as a “type of performance; indeed, a kind of striptease;” thus, Aphrodite “controls the visual, and presumably sexual, access of the spectator to her body” (Lee 281). Despite this agency, it is important to acknowledge that a male artist truly “controls the visual.” The viewer still acts as a kind of voyeur surprising the Knidian Aphrodite, furthering the idea of men as the perceiver of women’s bodies. Because only the head remains of the Bartlett Head, it is impossible to infer what the body would have looked like or how it would have been dressed.

 Comparing these sculptures, they share strong visual similarities in addition to their same subject of Aphrodite. Both have a softness in their facial features of the sfumato technique, as well as in their shallow-carved eyes, fleshy cheeks, and rounded lips. They share the dramatic, approachable tilted head, dreamy look, ribbon hairband, and center-parted flowing back hairstyle—one of the most notable correlating features. Still unconfirmed for the Knidian Aphrodite, both are noted to have been approachable from a 360º view. The girlishness of the Bartlett Head matches Praxiteles’s style, though she appears younger and has a thinner face than the Knidian. This former also has less downturned eyes, and the hair texture shows locks rather than individual strands like in the latter. Nonetheless, they appear overall deeply related to each other. 

As a result of these similarities between these two renderings of Aphrodite, it is argued that Praxiteles did indeed sculpt the Bartlett Head. To preface, Praxiteles’s portfolio is quite ambiguous, as there are “considerable discrepancies in style and composition between the Knidian Aphrodite, the one certain attribution, and other familiar types that constitute his tentative œuvre” (Palagia 91). Reiterating, the key characteristics of Praxiteles’s personal style include long limbs, a smaller head, an overall elegant look, exaggerated posture, “smoothed-out” anatomy, a dreamy gaze, a soft smile, the use of sfumato, and finally the medium of marble. The first few characteristics cannot be applied for the lack of body, but Aphrodite clearly looks into the distance with withdrawn eyes and a graceful face. The tilt of the head implies an S-shaped curve in the missing body. Next, the corners of her mouth reveal the hints of a smile and her features have the softness of appearing as if they are seen from afar, indicating the use of sfumato; this is another of the key features that connect the Bartlett Head to Praxiteles’s other work (Palagia 109). The use of Parian marble in the head provides evidence for Praxiteles’s creation, as such an expensive stone would be commissioned to a renowned artist. In defense of subtle stylistic differences, the only undoubtable attribution to Praxiteles and his most famous work, the Aphrodite of Knidos, no longer exists. Thus, discrepancies between its Roman copies and the Bartlett Head can be explained that when “copying a work of former times, the copyist almost invariably introduces modern elements, and he cannot help it” (Waldstein 383). The differences across copies also cause uncertainties regarding the original. In one theory, Waldstein explains these variations across Praxiteles work by describing his “sensuousness.” This causes the artist to be sensitive to his environment, condition, and frame of mind, thus allowing them to affect his style. Across his sensuousness, Praxiteles maintains a sense of melancholy, which can be seen in both Aphrodite faces (Waldstein 390). However, Waldstein’s hypothesis seems rather opinionated, as most artists can be argued to be sensitive; also, the claims are rather audacious considering there are no existing literary sources from the time in which Praxiteles worked. In another speculation, because it is difficult to determine its full history, “given that the Knidian Aphrodite was a cult statue hidden inside a temple within a sacred sanctuary, it could be argued that relatively few people actually saw it before it became a tourist attraction in the late Hellenistic or early Roman period” (Lee 280). Limiting other artists from seeing the statue and thus recreating it would make it more likely that similar works be made by Praxiteles. Thus, for all these reasons, paired with the sculpture's numerous similarities to the Aphrodite of Knidos, it is likely that Praxiteles created it.

It is important to acknowledge the equally strong counterargument that Praxiteles did not sculpt the Head of Aphrodite. Just because the key elements of his style are present, does not imply he necessarily sculpted it. For some art historians, this means “the sculptor must have been a younger contemporary of Praxiteles, strongly under his influence” (Comstock and Vermeule 39). His style is so notable and unique, making it also very influential. Therefore, it is difficult to interpret if the style was an inspiration to another artist in their creation of the Bartlett Head or if it is his own work. The Aphrodite of Knidos’s nudity was so remarkable that this work would have been even more well-known, which would discount the argument that this object was not accessible to other artists. Additionally, Waldstein’s theories hold weak tangible proof, and stylistic differences might instead imply different artists inspired by each other. For example, the style of the Knidian Aphrodite, particularly the rendering of hair, was very influential for Hellenistic art; thus, the Bartlett Head’s hair could have been inspired by rather than made in the same style (Palagia 101). In addition, at 330 BCE—the end range of the peak of Praxiteles’s career and the beginning range for the creation of the Bartlett Head—the dates overlap. Because both ranges stretch 30 years before and after, it is less likely that these dates would perfectly align (even though their dating are quite broad). It would make sense Praxiteles might recreate one of his most famous works after the peak of his career, but it is also very likely that during this time a successor would instead closely imitate his work. 

Because of the limited evidence, art historians are unable to determine the creator of this object. In general, the similarities between the Bartlett Head and Aphrodite of Knidos can be attributed to inspiration rather than the same creator, while the differences can be attributed to the Roman changes of the copy; thus, doubt is added for each case. Only speculation can decide who created the Head of Aphrodite. Nonetheless the beauty of Aphrodite and the style of Praxiteles (whether created by him or not) can both be appreciated.

A special thank you to Dr. Monica Bulger.

Written by: Isabel Von Mende

Edited by: Brooke Olson

Work Cited:

Boardman, John. Greek Sculpture: the Late Classical Period and Sculpture in Colonies and Overseas. Thames and Hudson, 1995.

Bulger, Monica. Late Classical Sculpture Lecture, Greek Art and Archeology, 20 November 2023. Boston College, Newton. Lecture.

Caskey, Lacey Davis. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Catalogue of Greek and Roman Sculpture. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, MA, 1925. 

Comstock, Mary B., and Vermeule, Cornelius C. Sculpture in Stone: the Greek, Roman and Etruscan Collections of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Museum of Fine Arts, 1976.

“Head of Aphrodite ("The Bartlett Head").” Museum of Fine Arts, https://collections.mfa.org/objects/151059/head-of-aphrodite-the-bartlett-head-;jsessionid=AC7D3BC79BFB8365363F8F605B53A473.

Kondoleon, Christine., et al. Classical Art. 1st ed.., MFA Publications ; D.A.P./Distributed Art Publishers, 2008.

Lee, Mireille M. Body, Dress, and Identity in Ancient Greece. Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Neer, Richard. Art & Archaeology of the Greek World. 2nd ed. Thames and Hudson Ltd, 2019.

Palagia, Olga., et al. Personal Styles in Greek Sculpture. Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Pedley, John Griffiths. Greek Art and Archaeology. Fifth ed., Prentice Hall, 2012.

Pirenne-Delforge, V., and André Motte. "Aphrodite." Oxford Classical Dictionary.  December 22, 2015. Oxford University Press. Date of access 15 Nov. 2023, <https://oxfordre.com/classics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-582>

Pliny the Elder. The Natural History. “The Natural History of Stones.” Book XXXVI, Bostock, John. Perseus Digital Library, Tufts, http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:latinLit:phi0978.phi001.perseus-eng1:36.

Waldstein, Charles. Essays on the Art of Pheidias. University press; The Century co., 1885.