Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:26:15.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ancient Sculptures at Chatsworth House

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

A. Furtwängler
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The treasures of modern art preserved in Chatsworth House are well known to writers on the history of art. But of the small and choice collection of works of ancient sculpture contained in this fine mansion, the property of the Duke of Devonshire, information has up to now been almost entirely lacking to archaeologists. I myself have to thank the Duke's librarian, Professor Arthur Strong, for calling my attention to it, and for the opportunity of inspecting the collection in the autumn of 1895.

A description of the most important work, the bronze head of Apollo, an original of about B.C. 460, appeared in my book, Intermezzi, kunstgeschichtliche Studien (Leipzig, 1896), Plates 1–4, pp. 3 f. An interesting Roman relief has been published by E. Petersen in the Römische Mittheilungen (1899), Plate 8, pp. 222 f. I have also written a short notice of the whole collection in the treatise Ueber Statuenkopieen im Alterthum, I. (1896), p. 26. That I am now in a position in this paper to enter into more minute details with the help of photographs I owe to the kindness of Prof. Arthur Strong, (who was good enough to supervise the taking of the photographs), as well as of the editors of this Journal, to all of whom I must express my warmest thanks.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 21 , November 1901 , pp. 209 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1901

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 211 note 1 Treu, in the Festschrift für Benndorf, Plates 2, 3; the appellation ‘Zeus’ I do not consider correct.

page 213 note 1 Cf. Berl. Philol. Wochenschr., 1896, p. 1516. The contrary view is maintained by Wulff, O., Alexander mit der Lanze, Berlin 1898, p. 57Google Scholar. The Nelidow statuette probably goes back to the statue of Lysippus; but naturally—for nothing else can be expected with a small bronze statuette of this kind—this is only a free and approximate reproduction of the original. It can very well be connected with the Capitoline head, which—and this is the point—has the same attitude and inclination.

page 213 note 2 The replica of the Capitoline head which Helbig has published in Monumenti Antichi, vi. 1, is probably not ancient at all.

page 213 note 3 Monum. Antichi, vi. 3. Arndt, Porträts, Nos. 477, 478.

page 214 note 1 Arndt, Porträts, No. 472.

page 214 note 2 Torso with head intact; d'Escamps, Marbres Campana, Pl. 50; Sal. Reinach, , Répert, ii. p. 568Google Scholar, 1.

page 214 note 3 The gold and ivory statue in the Philippeion at Olympia was, however, scarcely copied at all.

page 214 note 4 1900, i. Arndt, Griech. Portr. Nos. 475, 476. Arndt has recognised that the head in Erbach (Arndt, Nos. 473, 474) is a replica; and Klein has recognised in the Berlin head, Sculpt. No. 329 (Klein, , praxitel. Studien, p. 51Google Scholar, Fig. 14), a replica of the Athenian one.

page 215 note 1 Cf. Meisterwerke d. griech. Plastik, p. 360 f.

page 215 note 2 Furtwängler-Reichhold, griechische Vasenmalerei, Pl. 20.

page 215 note 3 Clarac, Pl. 690 B. Friederichs-Wolters, Gipsabgüsse, No. 1485. For the photographs which will shortly be published I have to thank the kindness of P. Arndt.

page 215 note 4 Catal. sommaire, No. 87. Clarac, Pl. 272, 1570. Photographie Giraudon, No. 1188.

page 215 note 5 Amelung is wrong in his assertion in Arndt-Amelung, Einzelaufnahmen, No. 1142, that the Madrid and Paris statues go back to two different originals; the difference originated only with the copyists. Amelung makes a further error when he instances the statue of the Palazzo Colonna, Einzelaufn. No. 1142, as a ‘composition’ of the same ‘type’ as that represented by the Madrid and Paris statues. The Colonna statue has nothing in common with these; its whole attitude is different; the god is not here leaning on anything; and the way in which he holds his head and his body is entirely different.

page 216 note 1 In the Madrid example a Herm, in the Paris one a vine-encircled tree-trunk.

page 217 note 1 Cp. Sammlung-Sabouroff, text to Pl. 23.

page 217 note 2 Fröhner, Bronzes antiques, coll. Gréan, Pl. 21, No. 944; Sal. Reinach, , Répert. de Stat. ii. 95Google Scholar, 2, 3.

page 217 note 3 Overbeck, , Apollon, p. 217Google Scholar, No. 28, 29.

page 217 note 4 Meisterwerke, p. 570. Masterpieces, p. 337, 2.

page 217 note 5 Reproduced in Clarac, Pl. 982 A =Sal. Reinach, , Répert. i. p. 606Google Scholar; in his text p. lxiv. Reinach adds the question, ‘ubi nunc?’ The statues had completely disappeared. Montfaucon remarked at the time when they were still in Apt, ‘les statues doivent être apportées à Paris, et apparemment aussi l'inscription.” I am not acquainted with any later mention of them. After nearly two hundred years of concealment they are again restored to the view of scholars in our illustrations.

page 219 note 1 Cf. Sal. Reinach, , Répert. de la Statuaire, i. p. 163Google Scholar, 5; 184, 7; 401, 1; 507, 2; 561, 5; 563, 1; 564, 3; 582, 4; 586, 4. ii. 572, 6, 7; 573, 1, 5, 8; 574, 3, 4; 612, 1, 6.

page 219 note 2 Cf. Reinach, , Répert., i. p. 152Google Scholar, 3.

page 220 note 1 Cf. Mommsen, ), röm. Geschichte, v. 100Google Scholar f.

page 220 note 2 Dr. Ziebarth had the kindness to collate the MS. for me and to ascertain the above facts. On the authority of Suarez this inscription has been admitted to the C.I.L. 12, 1115; in the same place may be found personal details about Suarez and Remerville.

page 225 note 1 Compare, e.g., the Gordian III. in the Louvre, Bernoulli, ii. 3, Pl. 38.