{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01837270341207349, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007874015748031496, 'mean_word_length': 4.669144981412639, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Aphrodite of Arles

Despite intensive and recent studies on the subject, our understanding of Hellenistic sculpture remains imperfect. In particular, it is still difficult to identify works in a classicizing style, which often are attributed to the Classical period proper. It is perhaps worth recalling here that the Aphrodite of Melos, which looks now so obviously Hellenistic in her rendering, could be considered a fourth century work as late as 1930; and controversy is still rife over such statues as the Stephanos Athlete, the Idolino, and the Esquiline Venus. I have periodically attempted to redate some ancient works, with varying degrees of evidence and of success; I should like to make here one more suggestion as regards the dating of the so-called Aphrodite of Arles.' The type is named after a marble copy found in 1651 in the area of the Roman theater at Arles. This remains the most complete of the few replicas we possess, and its history deserves brief attention because of the circumstances of discovery and subsequent events." The statue was found by workmen digging a well for a priest living in the area of the theater. The head was found first, at a depth of over six feet, and spurred further excavation which subsequently yielded the torso and the draped legs of the figure. The arms, with whatever attributes they may have held, were never found, despite renewed excavation in 1684 at the request of King Louis XIV to whom the statue had been donated. This extensive search in the area of the