No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Recent Additions to the Sculptures of the Parthenon
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
Extract
The principal object of the present paper is the publication of a remarkable addition to the west pediment of the Parthenon, which is due to the practised eye of Herr Karl Schwerzek of Vienna. At the same time I would take the opportunity of calling attention to other additions and corrections which have been made in the last two or three years, in the sculptures of the Parthenon, as represented by the collection in the Elgin Room of the British Museum. Most of them have already been pointed out in the Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, Vol. i. (1892), but a somewhat fuller discussion seems desirable than is consistent with the scheme of a Catalogue.
The West Pediment of the Parthenon.
The figure, which is known according to the system of notation introduced by Prof. Michaelis as Q, with her attendant figures P, R, was still in good preservation in 1674, when the pediment was drawn by Jacques Carrey for the Marquis de Nointel. Carrey's drawing of the three figures and of the adjoining group is reproduced in the annexed cut (Fig. 1), which has been taken from the facsimile in the British Museum, corrected in certain details from the photograph published in the Antike Denkmaeler, Vol. i. Pl. 6.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1893
References
1 No. 304 P, Q; Mus. Marbles VI. Pl. 19; Michaelis, Parthenon Pl. 8, Fig. 19. See Pl. V. in this volume.
2 Cat. of Sculpture in Brit. Mus. Vol. I. no. 342, 3.
3 Guide to the Elgin Room, Part I. (ed. 1880) p. 39; Cat. of Sculpture, I. no. 342, 2.
4 Michaelis, Pl. 7; Antike Denkmaeler, i. Pl. 7.
5 Dalton's Engravings; Michaelis, Hilfstafel.
6 I believe that Herr Schwerzek has suggested that Carrey's drawing may indicate a large shell below the feet of Q. If so, her marine character is established.
7 Arch. Anzeiger, 1891, p. 70. Here is the list of proposed identifications: A Bouzyges, A l Wife of Bouzyges, B Cecrops, C—F Children of Cecrops, G not stated, H Hermes, L Athene, M Poseidon, N Iris ( = J of east pediment), O Nereid, P Zetes, Q Oreithyia, R Calais, S Ion, T Creusa, U Daughter of Erechtheus who was sacrificed, U 1 Erechtheus, V Boutes, W Wife of Boutes.
8 Athenische Mittheilungen, 1891, Pl. 3 p. 67.
9 Dorpat Programm, 1884.
10 Myths and Monuments of Ancient Athens, p. 445. Sauer (loc. cit. pp. 79, 80) has attributed two male fragments to this figure, which would be conclusive, if the correctness of the attribution could be established.
11 This suggestion is partly due to Herr Schwerzek.
12 Catalogue of Sculpture in Brit. Mus. I. no. 342, 6. Height from crown of head to below chin 6¾ in.
13 Compare Dr.Waldstein, 's analysis of another Lapith head in an earlier volume of this Journal (J.H.S. iii. p. 231)Google Scholar.
14 A curious passage in the letters of Lady Craven, who was afterwards Margravine of Anspach, describes how she would gladly have picked up the broken pieces of the Parthenon sculpture that lay on the ground, but could not have ‘even a little finger or a toe.’ She had come, in May 1786, in a vessel sent by Choiseul-Gouffier to remove sculpture, but the governor represented that if anything were taken, his enemies would have the excuse that they wanted for having his head struck off. Meanwhile the marbles were being freely burnt into lime. A Journey to Constantinople by Craven, Elizabeth Lady, Dublin, 1789, p. 333Google Scholar.
15 By Dr.Waldstein, , who assisted at the discovery and identification, in the American Journ. of Archaeology, v. Pl. 2. p. 1Google Scholar. The present appearance of the slab is given in the Cat. of Sculpture in the Brit. Mus. I. Pl. 6, Fig. 1.
16 For the history of the slab, so far as it is known, see Michaelis, p. 258.
17 Dr. Waldstein is mistaken (loc. cit. pp. 6, 8) in speaking of a restoration of Iris by Stuart, and in the Museum Worsleyanum. The fracture is correctly indicated in both cases.
18 Cf. Antiqs. of Athens, I. Preface.
19 Antiqs. of Athens, I. p. 27; Arch. Zeit. 1874, Pl. 8. MissHarrison, , Myths and Monuments, p. 409Google Scholar (relief reversed).
20 Antiqs. of Athens, II. Chap. I. Pl. 25.
21 Antiqs. of Athens, Preface Vol. II.
22 Perhaps some reader is in a position to pursue the following clue to some of the lost Stuart papers. On Aug. 13, 1809, Mr. Nathaniel Barnardiston of Sudbury wrote to Josiah Newton of High Holborn, the publisher of vol. iv. of the Antiquities of Athens: ‘The two papers you mention in the Gentleman's Magazine for 1788, vol. 58 signed A. H. respecting Stuart were very probably written by the late Anthony Highmore of Canterbury Esqre. (who was intimate with Stuart) and his son Mr. Highmore of Ely Place, Holborn, as a Friend to Literature, will communicate any information that he can obtain from his father's papers. If you should not be acquainted with him, be so good as give my compts. to him, and inform him the last time I had the pleasure of seeing his worthy Father, for whom I had the highest respect, I remember he showed me a vol. of Stuart's views, given him by the author who was his particular friend etc.’ Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 22152, fo. 31. Anthony Highmore of Canterbury was an artist (1719–1799), and father of Anthony Highmore a writer on law (1758–1829). Only one of the two papers is signed A. H.