Both Greek and Roman societies judged menand women by certain standards. Womenwere expected to be modest, chaste, andreserved; these values determined her level of respect from family and peers.1 These personal moralities are central not only inthe written traditions of the ancient worldbut also in its portraiture. Hellenistic andRoman portraits of women typically showthem in canonical modes connected to cer-tain traits, so that the images would be easilyunderstood as commentary on life-style anddisposition. The Gallery’s recent acquisition(fig. 1) is a perfect example of such a portrait;it follows a scheme known to scholars aspudicitia and asserts a strong visual statementabout the decorous and modest character ofthe woman shown. She stands in a self-contained pose, her body enveloped by richgarments and one arm bent so that the handis near the face. This type was a popularoption for images of women, not only infreestanding statuary but also in relief sculp-ture, beginning in the eastern Mediterraneanaround the second century b.c. and spread-ing west.2 It continued to appear through thesecond century a.d., though with decreasingregularity after the early Imperial period.

In creating a late Hellenistic or Romanportrait, artists chose from a variety of standard body types, most of which wereloaded with meaning from centuries of

dissemination. A woman might be shown as Aphrodite, even nude or seminude, andthe image would be interpreted as a state-ment about the woman’s beauty and charm. Hellenistic examples frequently display less concern for individual appearance, so thateven statues designed as portraits tend towardidealization. In the Roman period, statuestended to be strongly personalized, oftenincluding a contemporary fashion hairstyle.Exceptions appear in the Greek East, wherepatrons and sculptors maintained strong tiesto Hellenistic traditions.

There are several variations of thepudicitia statue type, though all carry thesame connotations when chosen for a portrait. Some versions shift the weight to the opposite leg and/or reverse the posi-tion of the arms. The arrangement and treatment of the drapery sometimes alsovaries. The new Yale statue is a high-qualityexample of the so-called Braccio Nuovotype, named for a statue in the VaticanMuseums, in Rome (fig. 2). In this type, the edge of the mantle falls in front of the body, crossing over the left wrist and creating a long diagonal line that accentu-ates the figure’s elegant stance.

The Gallery’s new statue was acquired atSotheby’s in New York in December 2007.3

It came from a private owner in France andhad stood in a garden there since being

143

Portrait of a Lady: A New Statue at the Yale University Art Gallery

lisa r . brody

26.1654.P143 11/20/08 10:55 PM Page 143

26.1654.P144 11/20/08 10:55 PM Page 144

purchased from London antiquities dealerRobert Kime, who had acquired it at aSotheby’s auction in England in 1987.4 Cer-tain restorations, particularly the right arm,suggest that the statue was in a Europeancollection by at least the nineteenth century,when such techniques were common.

The slightly over life-size marble statue,six feet tall, portrays a woman in a frontalpose with her weight primarily on her rightleg, her left leg bent and set slightly forward.She wears a long dress (chiton) covered by amantle (himation) and thin-soled shoes ofsoft leather. True to the pudicitia scheme, the left arm crosses in front of the torso,

145

Fig. 1 (opposite). Figure of a Woman, Roman, 1st century b.c.–early 1st century a.d. Marble, 7715⁄16 x305⁄16 x 18¿ in. (198 x 77 x 46 cm). Yale University ArtGallery, Purchased with the Ruth Elizabeth White andLeonard C. Hanna, Jr., b.a. 1913, Funds, 2007.207.1

Fig. 2 (above, left). Statue of a Woman, Braccio Nuovotype (right hand and head restored), Roman, late 1stcentury a.d. Marble, h. 6 ft. 9√ in. (2.08 m). VaticanMuseums, Rome, Braccio Nuovo 23

Fig. 3 (above, right). Photoshop reconstruction of fig. 1

26.1654.P145 11/20/08 10:56 PM Page 145

enveloped in layers of drapery. The originalright arm would have been bent so that thehand was near the chin, possibly graspingthe mantle that is drawn up over the head(fig. 3). The mantle is notable for its fringededge, carefully and skillfully carved. Suchfringe is a distinctive and individualizing element; fringed garments were worn byboth men and women in antiquity and wereassociated with Hellenistic royalty and theluxurious East.5 The closed shoes are anotherspecific feature, a distinctive fashion elementof metropolitan Rome.6 Since we lack theinscription that originally would have accom-panied this statue on its base, we must relyupon such iconographic clues in discussingits identity and context.

The carving on the Gallery’s statue isexceptionally fine, showing great sensitivityto contrast in texture and detail of drapery.In typical Hellenistic-style sculptural fash-ion, the lines of the heavier chiton are visiblebeneath the thinner mantle overlay. Thecomplex patterns of folds and creases balancethe compositional lines and stabilize thefigure. The face is idealized, the hair brushedback in waves from a central part. It recallsimages of Greek goddesses and suggests astrong Classical tradition, such as existed inthe Greek East even into the Roman era.7

Although largely complete, the statuehas undergone several repairs and restora-tions. These treatments are now being stud-ied to determine an appropriate plan forconservation and display. As mentionedabove, the right arm is obviously restored.The marble limb may have been crafted in the eighteenth or nineteenth century,specifically for the restoration, or it may have been borrowed from another ancientstatue. The long-sleeved garment on this arm suggests that, if ancient, it comes from a statue of a male barbarian. A round marbleplug conceals the dowel used to attach thearm, and the seam where the arm joins thebody was later filled with epoxy resin.

Other areas of the statue, including thechin and two fingers of the left hand, were

also restored in marble. There are significantrepairs to the neck and surrounding drapery,with fragments of marble pieced togetherand the joins covered with epoxy resin. Thenose, upper lip, and left pointer finger arerestored using epoxy; some or all of theserestorations were likely added by RobertKime as the 1987 Sotheby’s catalogue seemsto show the nose and part of the upper lipmissing, with a dowel hole for a previousrestored nose visible. There is a large chipmissing from the proper-right cheek, andanother large loss on the back of the head(the latter was never repaired because thestatue probably would have stood against awall or in a niche, so that the back wouldnot have been visible). Two holes in a brokenarea on top of the head indicate anotherrestoration (now missing). The statue standson a new marble base. The surface is coveredwith gray-black dirt and green moss as wellas iron oxide stains, a condition that is aresult of the statue standing outside. The1987 Sotheby’s catalogue shows that it wasalready in a similar state then, suggestingthat the object had already been in a collec-tion and displayed outdoors for many yearsprior to 1987. Extensive cleaning and conser-vation will take place during the 2008–9academic year.

After treatment, the pudicitia statue is certain to become a highlight of theGallery’s collection. Surrounded by divineand mythological statues, portrait heads and busts, and other objects of ancient art, it will speak elegantly to the visitor of sculp-tural style and portrait traditions during the late Hellenistic and early Roman eras.Scholars, faculty, and students will examinethe significance of its type, costume, andprobable context, while nonspecialists will be drawn to the quality of its carving andthe elegance of its composition. We at theYale University Art Gallery look forward to seeing the statue through its course of conservation, from which we expect it to emerge as a spectacular example of ancient portraiture.

146

281423.P146 11/26/08 10:34 AM Page 146

147

1. The ancient Latin terms associated with these values include pudicitia, castitas, sanctitas, modestia,with related concepts such as eidos and sophrosynein Greek. See R. R. R. Smith, Hellenistic Sculpture: A Handbook (London: Thames and Hudson, 1991),84–85; Paul Zanker, “The Hellenistic Grave Stelaifrom Smyrna,” Images and Ideologies: Self-Definition in the Hellenistic World, ed. Anthony Bulloch et al.(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993),222–27; Paul Zanker, “Brüche im Bürgerbild? Zurbürgerlichen Selbstdarstellung in den hellenistischenStädten,” in Stadtbild und Bürgerbild im Hellenismus,ed. Michael Wörrle and Paul Zanker (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1995), 262–63.

2. See, for example, the statue of Kleopatra fromDelos in Smith, Hellenistic Sculpture, 84, fig. 113. OnHellenistic grave reliefs, see Ernst Pfuhl and HansMöbius, Die ostgriechischen Grabreliefs I–II (Mainz amRhein, Ger.: Philipp von Zabern, 1977–79), 138–48,nos. 413–51.

3. Sale cat., Sotheby’s, New York, December 5, 2007,lot 69.

4. Sale cat., Sotheby’s, Sussex, September 23–24, 1987,lot 598.

5. When fringed cloaks are mentioned in ancient literature, the cloak is often purple or crimson and

the fringe gold, e.g. Ovid, Met. 2.734, 5.51. Oneinstance of a very similar fringed mantle appears onthe famous Hellenistic bronze dancer (the so-calledBaker Dancer) owned by the Metropolitan Museumof Art, in New York (inv. no. 1972.118.95). For suchgarments worn by men, with their connotation ofluxury, see Christopher Hallett, The Roman Nude:Heroic Portrait Statuary 200 BC–AD 300 (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2005), 132–36.

6. Norma Goldman, “Roman Footwear,” The Worldof Roman Costume, ed. Judith Lynn Sebesta andLarissa Bonfante (Madison: University of WisconsinPress, 2001), 116. Among the corpus of portrait statuesfrom Aphrodisias, for example, only three of thetwenty female statues whose footwear survives wearclosed shoes; two of these also have contemporarymetropolitan hairstyles. See R. R. R. Smith et al.,Aphrodisias II: Roman Portrait Statuary from Aphro-disias (Mainz am Rhein, Ger.: Philipp von Zabern,2007), 194.

7. It is evident, despite the restorations to the neck andsurrounding drapery, that the head does belong to the statue. Making statues of a single block becameparticularly desirable in the early Roman period andlater; see Smith et al., Aphrodisias II, 30.

26.1654.P147 11/20/08 10:56 PM Page 147