Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T19:41:10.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Date of the Nike of Samothrace1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

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

Extract

The problem of the Nike has long been confused by Benndorf's theory that it is the Victory represented on the coin of Demetrius Poliorcetes of c. 306. ‘But,’ it has been said, ‘the statue has no connection with the coin, for a detailed study of the neck and fragments of the right shoulder reveals the impossibility of the trumpet-blowing attitude. The right hand and arm are raised high and backwards, probably with a victor's wreath.’ It may be objected that the condition of the statue does not admit of absolute proof; while the fact that the coin does not show a mantle such as the statue had is poor evidence against the identity of the figures, for small variations must be expected in coins of Hellenic period. A more valid argument against the connexion with Demetrius lies in the circumstance that Samothrace belonged to Lysimachus, who was a bitter personal enemy and would not have allowed the setting up of a trophy on his ground. Benndorf's interpretation must accordingly be given up. Klein produced a theory that the statue was of the time of Mithradates, and then he changed his views on the development of ‘ancient rococo art’ and said it was a Rhodian memorial for the Battle of Actium; but a gigantic Rhodian monument for a Roman civil war would hardly be met with on a distant island, and when Augustus himself wanted a good Nike he had to use an old one from Tarentum.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , 1926 , pp. 213 - 218
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1926

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

2 Bulle, 139, Dickins, Hell. Sculpt. Fig. 34; Brunn-Bruckm, ., Denkm. Pl. 85Google Scholar, and Ersatz; Rayet, , Mon. de l'Art Ant. ii. Pl. 62Google Scholar; collignon, , Histoire, ii. Pl. X. at p. 464Google Scholar; Cultrera, , Saggi sull' Arte Ellenistica, p. 124Google Scholar, on it and Niobe; Studniczka, , Siegesgöttin, p. 23.Google Scholar

3 Reinach, S., Gaz. des Beaux Arts,3 v. 1891, p. 89Google Scholar; summarised by Dickins, , Hell. Sculpt. p. 46Google Scholar; restoration republished, Jahrb. xxxviii–ix., 1923–4, p. 125, Fig. 21.

4 Hatzfeld, , Rev. Arch., 1910, i. p. 132.Google Scholar

5 Gr. Kunstgesch., iii. p. 293.

6 Vom antiken Rokoko, 106.

7 Dio Cassius, li. 22.

8 C.R. Acad. Insc. 1891, p. 269.

9 Münch. Jahrb. vii. 1912, p. 123.

10 Röm. Mitt. xxxviii–ix., 1923–4, p. 151.

11 Br.-Br. 79; Krahmer's Fig. 3.

12 Ath. Mitt. xxxv. 1910, p. 495, Pl. XXIII. 4.

13 Br.-Br. 19, 20.

14 Amelung, , Ausonia, iii. 1908, p. 98Google Scholar, Figs. 5, 6; Caskey, Cat. No. 40; Br. Br. 674; Chase, Sculp. in America, Fig. 109.

15 Glypt. No. 472.

16 B.M. Cat. II. Pl. XIX; Br.Br. 71.

17 Beschreibung, 494; Kekulé, Gr. Skulp. 3 p. 292.

18 Herrmann, 396; Collignon, Stat.funer., Fig. 187.

19 List in B.M. Cat. III. No. 1710. The Hanover copy is Einz. 1073.

20 Aus. iii. 1908, p. 101 and Fig. 7.

21 Mon. Piot. i. 1894, Pl. XX.

22 Bull. Comm. Arch. xxxv. 1907, p. 34, Pl. VI.; Lippold, , Kopien, p. 154.Google Scholar

23 Ny C.G. Cat. No. 83, Billedtavler, Pl. VII; Iphigenia alone, Bull. Comm. Arch. xiv. 1886, Pls. XIV–XV.Google Scholar Photo by courtesy of Mr. Harold Ingholt and the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek.

24 In the Danish, version of his restoration, Fra Ny C. G. Samlinger, ii, 1922, p. 60Google Scholar; in his Artemis und Iphigenie, published since this article was written, the date suggested is the decade 340–330.

25 Röm. Mitt. xxxiv, 1919, p. 65.

26 B.C.H. xxv. 1901, Pl. VI; Dugas, –Berchmans, –Clemmensen, , Sanctuaire à Tégée, Pls. XCVI.–XCVIII.Google Scholar

27 Ibid., Pl. CVII. c.(lO). They give 380–350 as the date of the temple, p. 127.

28 Reinach, , Rep. ii. 310, 6Google Scholar; Einz. 112; Klein, , Praxiteles, p. 336Google Scholar, note 1, compares Nike of Samothrace; Mahler, , Rev. Arch. 4 i. 1903, i. p. 383Google Scholar; Sauciuc, , Andros (Sonderschriften d. Österr. Inst. viii), p. 45, Fig. 56.Google Scholar

29 Klein, , Rokoko, p. 114Google Scholar, Fig. 48, and Prax. Stud. p. 55, Fig. 15.

30 Mendel, , Cat. I. pp. 171, 197Google Scholar (bibliography); Hamdy, –Reinach, , Nécrop., Pls. XXIII–XXXVII.Google Scholar

31 Jahrb. xxxviii–ix., 1923–4, p. 124, Fig. 20 (pediment fragments).

32 Johnson, , A.J.A. 2 xvii, 1913, p. 515.Google Scholar

33 Iliad, XIII, ii; Kinglake, Eothen, chap. iv.

34 Map in Conze, and Benndorf, , Samothr., ii, Pl. I.Google Scholar

35 Röm. Mitt. xxxviii–ix., 1923–4, p. 151.

36 Studniczka, , Jahrb. xxxiv., 1919, p. 112Google Scholar, note 4; Artemis u. Iph., p. 90, no example certainly previous to 336.

37 Bears an inscription of Mnesimachus, who is probably the Diaetetes of a list of 325/4. Duhn, v., Ath. Mitt. ii. 1877, Pl. XVI. p. 220Google Scholar; Svoronos, , Nat.-Mus. Pl. 36Google Scholar, 4, No. 1335; Einz. 1231, where Löwy says the date suits excellently.

38 Lippold, , Röm. Mitt. xxxiii, 1918, p. 95, Fig. 10Google Scholar; Kopien, p. 25; Bull. of Arch. Inst. of Amer. ii, 1911, p. 161, and Pl. LXXV, from which my photo is copied. Cf. the Chiaramonti Niobid for the position of the girdle.

39 Br.-Br. 211–213 (statues), 214–219 (frieze).