APHRODITE
Αφροδίτης
Sandro Botticelli, Birth of Venus, c. 1484, The Uffizi Gallery, Florence, tempera on canvas.
Lillian Liu
Aphrodite, the goddess of love and beauty, is one of the most well-known and highly revered deities in ancient Greece. As a renowned cultural symbol of beauty and sexuality, Aphrodite and her Roman counterpart, Venus, are celebrated throughout time and are a source of inspiration for innumerable artists. This essay will explore the Birth of Venus, a tempera on canvas by the Italian painter Sandro Botticelli in c. 1484, and its similarities or differences with the depiction of Aphrodite in ancient Greek mythology.
In the composition, Venus, born from the sea and carried by the winds Zephyr and Aura, arrives on the island of Cyprus (Uffizi). The goddess has flowing blond hair and radiant skin. She uses her hand to cover her breasts and her pubis, which may imply her innocence. The seashell that Venus stands on adds to her innocence, as if she is “as pure and perfect as a pearl” (Uffizi). Flowers fall from the sky to celebrate the arrival of the goddess and as a sign of Spring. On the right, one of the Graces or a Horae holds out an intricate floral cloak, ready to embrace the goddess.
Botticelli largely stays true to the ancient account of the goddess. One such example is the artist’s depiction of Aphrodite’s birth from the foam of the sea, which mirrors Hesoid’s version of Aphrodite’s birth in Theogony in which the goddess arose from the foam produced by the castrated genitals of Uranus thrown into the sea by Cronus (La Fond 1:38). Furthermore, Botticelli’s painting mirrors the story depicted in the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, in which the West Wind Zephyrus “blows her there amidst the soft foam on the waves of the resounding sea; the gold-bedecked Hours gladly received her and clothed her in divine garments” (Morford et al. 192). Similar to its mythic narrative, Venus in the painting is accompanied by one of the Graces (Charities) or a Horae, who is shown on the right holding a flowered cloak, ready to embrace the goddess. This painting is exactly how I pictured the scene while reading the Homeric Hymn; I think Botticelli’s piece is very realistic and stays true to the ancient account of the goddess as the epitome of grace.
One main difference is seen between Botticelli’s portrayal of the goddess and the depictions of Aphrodite Pandemos. It is worth noting that there are two versions of Aphrodite. In Plato’s Symposium, Aphrodite Urania, born from the castrated genitals of Uranus, is older, more intelligent, and spiritual, whereas Aphrodite Pandemos, born from both sexes, is lustful and “devoted primarily to physical satisfaction” (Morford et al. 190). Aphrodite Urania, also known as Celestial Aphrodite, is depicted as a virtuous goddess of purity and spiritual love, which is the stark opposite of Aphrodite Pandemos’ lustful physical love. As seen by Venus’ modest pose that covers her private parts, Botticelli’s Venus likely portrays Aphrodite Urania, who came to being from Uranus alone. Though Aphrodite is fully nude, I think that the painting evokes a sense of elegance and modesty through the reserved pose of the goddess. Looking at this piece, I am mesmerized by the celebrated arrival of Aphrodite, whose nudity is not lewd or vulgar to me in any way. The positioning of Aphrodite on the seashell also reminds me of a sense of innocence and purity, as if she is as pure as a pearl.
Another similarity between Botticelli’s piece and ancient mythology is the portrayal of Aphrodite as an idealized feminine goddess who has immense power. In the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, Aphrodite is depicted as a goddess whose “devastating beauty” gives her “mighty power in the universe” as she can sway the hearts of all gods and mortals with the exception of Athena, Artemis, and Hestia (Morford et al. 201). As a viewer, I feel as if I’m drawn to Botticelli’s Venus, who is depicted as an all-powerful being with such beauty that is seductive and mesmerizing. I think that the physical attributes of the goddess, such as her glowing skin and flowing hair, make her the embodiment of beauty and accentuate her power over love and sexuality.
Abbie Gray
The Group of Aphrodite, Pan, and Eros is a statue made of Parian marble from the Hellenistic Period and is originally from the House of Poseidoniastai of Berytos (Beirut) in Delos, Greece. As defined by Darvill, Parian marble is “[m]arble from quarries on the island of Paros, Greece, which is white in colour, close‐grained, and peculiarly suitable for sculpture: it was widely used by the leading sculptors throughout the Mediterranean world”. The House of Poseidoniastai was constructed in 153 BCE and began to decline following 88 BCE, with the statue Group of Aphrodite, Pan, and Eros created directly within the middle of its lifetime in 100 BCE. The statue is currently held in The National Archaeological Museum in Athens, Greece where it is on display in a hall of Hellenistic Sculpture, alongside a bronze portrait head from the early 1st century BCE, which is also from Delos, as well as the Statue of Poseidon from Melos, from around 100 BCE as well. The Group of Aphrodite, Pan, and Eros is not only powerful when standing among its contemporaries, but also holds power and influence standing on its own. The Group of Aphrodite, Pan, and Eros exhibits a side of Aphrodite and a type of love that is not always shown center stage in many artistic representations of her, and that is unrequited love. Considering the positioning of the figure of Aphrodite in comparison to the other two figures within this statue, Pan and Eros, as well as context and background on the featured gods themselves, I will share my personal thoughts and perspectives on this piece and its reflection on the characteristics and power of Aphrodite as well as its reflection on the characteristics and power of love in result.
Aphrodite is commonly portrayed as wielding the power of lust and love in ways that innately serve her, bring her pleasure, or entertain her, without much consideration for the possibility that this power may also result in potentially negative, unwanted, or even harmful situations. As seen in the positioning of Aphrodite in relation to Pan, Pan’s advances are unwanted. Pan is holding Aphrodite in place with one hand grasping the small of her back and the other firmly grasping her wrist, with the bulging of the veins in his forearm showing the force in which he is holding her there. He also has one of his legs placed behind her and one in front, further holding her in place and preventing her from getting away from him. While Pan’s positioning strongly implies his desire for Aphrodite to stay there with him, Aphrodite’s positioning strongly suggests the opposite feeling, rather a desire to flee. This can be seen as she is turned away from Pan, seeming to try to twist away from his grasp, with a sandal held above her head as she appears to be preparing to strike him with it. While the commonly positive portrayal of Aphrodite’s power is intuitive in a manner, as she is a goddess and very powerful in nature, the lack of representation over the ways beauty and lust over that beauty can result in harmful interactions when consent is ignored is harmful in and of itself. Lack of representation over this changes the dialogue from recognizing that love involves more than one individual to a dialogue where lust and power justify the pursuit of love and sexual pleasure regardless of the reciprocation of those same desires by the individual being pursued. As Pan is god of fertility and the wilds, and is commonly depicted as a satyr, as discussed in lecture, there are elements of ferality at play within his depiction here, playing into this idea of lack of thought and rationality within his pursuits, acting on lust and power alone. The presence of the three Greek gods associated with love and sexuality within the same sculpture offers interesting contrast in the elements of love and sexuality, through the vulnerability displayed by Aphrodite, the aggressive and wild tendencies of Pan, and the loyalty displayed by Eros.
Works Cited
Chaniotis, A., T. Corsten, R.S. Stroud, and R.A. Tybout, eds. 2006. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. 52-758. Leiden – Boston. http://dx.doi.org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a52_758.
Darvill, Timothy. "Parian marble." The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology. : Oxford University Press, . Oxford Reference. Date Accessed 18 Feb. 2023 <https://www-oxfordreference-com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/view/10.1093/acref/9780199534043.001.0001/acref-9780199534043-e-2999>.
Morford, Mark, et al. Classical Mythology. 11th ed., Oxford UP, 2019.
Pleket, H.W., and R.S. Stroud, eds. 1981. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. 28-666. Amsterdam. http://dx.doi.org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a28_666.
“The Birth of Venus by Botticelli: Artworks: Uffizi Galleries.” The Birth of Venus by Botticelli | Artworks | Uffizi Galleries, https://www.uffizi.it/en/artworks/birth-of-venus.
“UW Canvas Login.” Canvas Login, https://canvas.uw.edu/courses/1619626/pages/lesson-4-video-lectures?module_item_id=17175838.