# Talk:Venus de Milo

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)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Venus de Milo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ppt91 (talk · contribs) 18:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Delighted to take this on. I hope to have the first round of my feedback ready in the next seven days, but it might take me a bit longer due to several IRL commitments. I will keep you posted as I am moving through this important contribution! Ppt91talk 18:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! No worries if it takes you longer: this Christmas/new year period is set to be very busy for me anyway! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Overall thoughts: a well-researched and well-written article on one of the most recognized sculptures in the Western canon; images do a good job at supporting the content; based on the first read, I don't see any significant issues and imagine my comments will be mostly about formatting, some prose suggestions, and minor language clarity edits.


### Lead
general comments: I'd like to see the lead expanded to better reflect the carefully compiled content of the article; specific suggestions below

we might want to specify it's a marble statue in the first sentence (even though you discuss the medium later)
 Done
perhaps better to start with when it was discovered and then say it's one of the most famous? Just syntax-wise and for clarity
 Done
On the basis of a now-lost inscription I would add a few clarifying details about these based on later content
 Done
Louvre collection: add something along the lines of "Louvre's collection in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, quickly becoming a celebrated antiquity in Europe" for historical context of the museum
 Done
in the Reception section, you include more details about the works it inspired, so I don't think we should single out the Surrealists in the lead while not including the rest; here is my suggestion "The statue inspired over 70 poems, influenced 19th-century art and the Surrealist movement in the early 20th century, and has been featured in various modern artistic projects, including film and advertising."
 Done
I think you should add a sentence or two--based on Reception--about how the scholarly opinion has been more critical since its re-dating to the Hellenistic period and noting a bias in classical studies favoring written over visual sources
 Done
additional comments: mostly happy with the edits here, though would like to think more about the last point as However, following the work's attribution to the Hellenistic period, scholarly opinions have become more critical alongside a biased preference of written sources over visual in classical studies. sounds a bit unclear. I'll think of some suggestions for alternative phrasing! Ppt91talk 19:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not super happy with that.  I've had a go at rewriting it – let me know what you think. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


### Description
the work is described well and quite thoroughly, although I am not sure we need so many footnotes. Do these indicate diverse—and possibly contradictory—visual descriptions of the sculpture? In other words, is there any scholarly disagreement in this regard? If so, we should make note of it; eg. "John Smith describes the torso as x, while Mary Smith suggests y." Otherwise, I'd probably remove some of the footnotes to indicate there is no controversy.
No, there is no controversy, and I can't see how any reader could reasonably infer from the use of footnotes that there is.  Nothing in the text suggests controversy on this point (compare the sections §Identification and §Reconstructions, where it is made clear in the text where scholars have disagreed and still do disagree), and most of what is discussed in this section is basic fact that anyone can establish from examining the sculpture – are readers really going to be confused into thinking that there is e.g. some ambiguity over whether or not the Venus's arms really are missing?! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
more to follow soon Ppt91talk 19:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
more to follow Ppt91talk 20:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ppt91: Just checking in on this review. The lead has been changed somewhat following your feedback - how is it looking now? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
@Caeciliusinhorto I owe you a huge apology. I have been extraordinarily busy with work IRL and dropped the ball here. However, I would love to finish our work on this and should have the rest of my feedback in by the end of this week. How does that sound? Thank you for your understanding. Ppt91talk 22:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
@Ppt91: no worries - I understand that work you are actually paid to do irl takes priority! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
@Ppt91:, if you've found yourself too busy to continue this, I'm happy to take over the review. Best – Aza24 (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
@Aza24 Thank you very much, I would certainly appreciate that. Unfortunately, I have not been able to dedicate the amount of time needed to carry this out properly (which is also why I have changed now my user page to "semi-wikibreak"). I completely dropped the ball here and I owe @Caeciliusinhorto another round of apologies. Please feel free to go ahead, and I will be happy to assist/give any suggestions. Ppt91talk 02:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Awesome, will get to it later today! Aza24 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


### Further comments from Aza24
Hi there Caeciliusinhorto, nice to work with you again.
Quick thoughts on the lead:
I'd strongly consider moving the IPA/pronunciation stuff to a note; there' s a lot of it, and it makes the first sentence difficult to parse
Good point; done
"The original pose of the sculpture is unknown" may not make sense to the reader; presumably, you are speaking of the complete pose? Perhaps better to say such. Or is there dispute whether the existing materials were reassembled in the correct/original way?
Yes, the original pose of the now-missing arms.  I've rewritten this paragraph slightly; I hope it clarifies things  (There was a slight issue with the original rejoining of the torso onto the legs, but that was minor and as far as I know there is no dispute that the current restoration of that join is correct).
 Not done It still sounds confused; we have "The original position of these missing arms is unknown" and then immediately an explanation for it being "originally identified".... Perhaps we say "The original ... is uncertain", instead?Aza24 (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds good to me. Changed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Excluding the both the date and dimensions from the infobox is at odds with art history standards. I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) this was done to avoid matters of more complexity being oversimplified, but I don't think the debates are intense enough to warrant this. I'd stick with "2nd century BC" and 6'8" (see below). I'd also consider including a "Artist = Uncertain; possibly Alexandros of Antioch".
Yes, I originally removed all of these details from the infobox to avoid having to try to deal with the disputes there.  At the time I didn't have access to Pasquier 1985, so the sources cited in the article gave a variation of 10cm/4 inches for the height with no two sources agreeing, so there wasn't an obvious good height to commit to. Having since accessed more sources, I'd be happy to add back 204 cm/2nd century BC
Thanks, I see you've done this.
Description:
This section is solid, but I fear we could use more detail, and indeed it is rather short at the moment. Some ideas
Expanded a little on face, drapery, and back.  Is this better, or would you still like more?
Anything said on her facial expressions or hair?
The drapery is rather remarkably modeled, surely there is more written about it?
Anything on the back?
I love the Clark quote, but feel that the combination of classical and Hellenistic art is glossed over. Surely there is more to be said about the statue's evocative dynamism, as opposed to often naturalist classical predecessors?
more to be said about the statue's evocative dynamism, as opposed to often naturalist classical predecessors? I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Can you suggest a source which you think treats this well? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I was saying that (what Clark is alluding to) the combination of classical and Hellenic styles is observable through the use of dynamic posing, which could use a more explicit mention. On second thought, I think the current is fine how it is.
A final thought: I'm almost positive that scholars could not have gotten the measurements of the statue off by such a large margin. As you probably realize, I'm almost certain the lower Maggidis is including the plinth, as Pasquier's measurements indicate. I would stick to the Louvre's measurements for the article text. Perhaps a note like "Alain Pasquier notes that the statue is 204 cm (6 ft 8 in) excluding the plinth, or 211 cm (6 ft 11 in) including it. While these are agreed by Brill and Maggidis respectively, Curtis instead reports 6'7 for the former date" would suffice. – Aza24 (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the biggest discrepancy is explained by Maggidis using the height including marble plinth, and everyone else excluding it; even so there's still a slight discrepancy with Curtis and the BNP (both the Louvre and BNP give the dimensions in centimetres, so they very definitely disagree here, even if only by a small amount). And Pasquier/Louvre are really the same source, as Pasquier was writing as the curator of the Louvre in an official museum publication so it's hard to consider that they have decisive weight of numbers.  I think the current compromise of "over two meters" in the article text is precise enough, though if you really feel strongly about it I would be happy to go decisively with 204 cm in the article text; I don't think making the explanatory footnote less precise is a good solution.
Understood—let's stick with what you have then. Aza24 (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Discovery:
For your note, "The name Satios is not otherwise known"–as is, there's no record of it being used in ancient Greece? Not exactly sure about the intention here
Yes. Not sure how else this could be interpreted?
Fair enough
"Contrary to the usual practice at the time" – do we know why this deviation of usual practice occurred? I assume not, but worth double-checking
Yes, it was exhibited unrestored because nobody could agree on how it should be restored.  I will look back at Pasquier and see if I can make this more explicit.
 Not done Any word on this? Seems like an interesting detail. Aza24 (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, looking back at Pasquier this isn't actually explicit, and I can't find a source which does actually say this.  Two sources do say the lack of restoration was on the advice of Quatremere, though so I've added something there. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I wonder if it can be made clearer in the text that the statue was found with the torso and lower-halfs completely separate. The only way one could know this is by the somewhat vague "uncovered two large pieces" and the accompanying image (although I may also be entirely making up this assumption!)
Similarly, it should perhaps be made clearer that the hand holding the apple was also lost
I'm left wanting a continuation of the history...! I'm not entirely sure how the "Display" fits into an "Interpretation" subsection. I would suggest moving the Display and discovery sections under a common header, like history or (everyone's favorite word) Provenance
Hmm, I'm not sure either §History or §Provenance are the best headings here: history is okay, but for a sculpture made c.150 BC it seems odd to begin the §History section in 1820, and I don't think that the varying museum displays of the sculpture are really provenance.  I think you're right about the section ordering, though, so I've moved §Display up to follow §Discovery, and if I can come up with a better overarching header for that section I will add it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Reconstructions section looks great
Display
As above, this section should probably be combined with the discovery section
As above, moved Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Without a link Salle de l'Isis needs clarification of what it is. A section of the Louvre, a different museum? etc.
Salle de l'Isis (and Salle du Tibre, Salle de la Vénus de Milo) is just the name of a room in the museum. I'm not committed to the current text, so if you have a suggestion for rewording it then I'd be happy to change it, but I think that in context it's fairly clear that these must refer to locations within the Louvre. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Reception
The caption of the Venus de' Medici's is highlighting information which really has nothing to do with the article subject. It may be better to note that it was originally the quintessential Greek Venus sculpture before the Venus de Milo
Yeah, this image and caption made more sense in a previous version of the article, I think.  I wonder if a different image entirely might even be better; I'll have a look. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
The Clark quote is, again, nice (everyone loves Kenneth!), but seems like it belongs closer to the final paragraph of the Reception section.
Yeah, that's too much Clark quote for me: I love K as much as the next person, but it's really not saying anything that the article didn't already say in its own words.  I've drastically cut it and moved the most quotable part into what is I think a more appropriate position. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
This above point brings me to the final sentence of your lead: "scholars have been more critical since it was dated to the Hellenistic rather than classical period, preferring to study classical sculptures mentioned in ancient written sources". This is rather hard to parse, presumably you're saying that since the sculpture was redated to the more dashing and showy Hellenistic style, it has been seen as lacking in comparison. Perhaps we can stress that neglecting as a reason here: "Although appreciated in the context of the classical style, when re-dated to the Hellenistic period, scholars have increasingly neglected the sculpture, preferring works for which ancient written sources survive", or something.
Hmm, I've had a crack at rewriting this.  What do you think now? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Still seems a bit tricky to understand, but its rather hard nuance to explain in the first place, so I'm not sure it could be any clearer. Aza24 (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Sources; external links etc.
Jockey is not used in the article. If you move it to a further reading section, perhaps the Vox article would fit there better.
All look great otherwise.
Anyways, great job! The main issues are the description section, a few structural things, and a few clarification. The depth of research is great, sources are high quality, and prose is solid. Feel free to get to these comments whenever in the next few weeks. Best – Aza24 (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@Caeciliusinhorto, no rush for this, I'm just pinging in case you haven't seen these comments above. Best – Aza24 (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@Aza24: thanks for taking this up. Sorry, I've been away from wikipedia for a while due to a combination of real life commitments and catastrophic hardware failure, but I've once again got access to a computer which isn't actively painful to do proper editing on like my phone is, so I've started to work through your comments. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Caeciliusinhorto, no worries, I just wanted to make sure this article was on your radar; feel free to get to it whenever. Thanks for your initial responses! Best – Aza24 (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Aza24 – it's been a while, sorry!  I think I've replied to all of your comments – would be grateful if you could have another look at this when you get a moment Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll try to take a look in the coming days. Aza24 (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Caeciliusinhorto:, everything is looking great, nice work. I've just left two responses for two unaddressed concerns above (marked by the  Not done template for ease of visibility). Best – Aza24 (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
@Aza24: Okay, I've replied to your two {{notdone}} issues inline Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Awesome, I think we're good here. I don't see any sourcing issues, in formatting or reliability. I also spotchecked a few references and caught nothing there. Going to pass the nom now—congrats! Aza24 (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

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)
@Choliamb: 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)
@Caeciliusinhorto: 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)

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)