No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
The bronze statuette shown in plates ii and iii (2), which represents an enthroned deity, has recently come to Holland from an old Italian collection and is now in private hands. It is 14 cm. high and is hollow; the back has been modelled to just below the waist; the feet are finished in the round. It is of excellent quality and very well preserved and is covered by a light green patina, here and there unfortunately affected by corrosion. The attributes in the right and the left hand are missing; the right thumb and little finger are broken off; the left arm is slightly twisted.
The god, evidently Zeus or Juppiter, is represented with nude torso; a himation covers waist and legs and is arranged on the lap in a kind of loop; the feet are shod with sandals. The right hand is stretched forwards with upturned palm; the left hand is raised high, and clearly once held a long sceptre. The left leg is thrust forward, the right somewhat drawn in, and the head is turned slightly to the right.
1 Sieveking in Brunn-Bruckmann, Denkmäler griech. u. röm. Skulptur, Text 605. Cf. Strong, Art in Ancient Rome (‘Ars Una’ Series, 1929), fig. 117; Furtwängler, , Über Statuenkopien im Altertum (Munich, 1891), 50Google Scholar.
2 Rev. arch. 1903, ii, 203.
3 Michaelis in Jahrb. des Arch. Inst. 1898, 192, fig. 1, probably from Herculaneum.
4 Cook, Zeus ii, fig. 704.
5 The history of the Capitoline temple is treated at length by Platner-Ashby, , Topographical Dictionary of Rome 297–303Google Scholar.
6 Jordan, , Topographie von Rom. I, 25Google Scholar, n. 24.
7 Mattingly, BMC Emp. ii, pl. 29, 5, 6.
8 Richter, Greek, Etruscan and Roman Bronzes 110–111; N.d.Scavi 1921, 441. See also the silver statuette in Cook, o.c. ii, pl. xxxii, 2 and fig. 699.
9 E.g. Furtwängler, , Kleine Schriften ii, 509Google Scholar; his opinion has not been adopted in the excellent description Miss Richter (supra, note 8) gives of the New York bronze. See also Neugebauer, Arch. Anz. 1922, 100, and Lippold in Festschrift Paul Arndt, 1925, 115.
10 Strong, o.c. 77 and 92.
11 Kopien und Umbildungen griech. Statuen 188.
12 Espérandieu, , Recueil général des bas-reliefs de la Gaule romaine ii, 1694Google Scholar.
13 Helbig., Führer (Leipzig 1912–1913) i, 156Google Scholar. The so-called Juppiter Verospi (ibid. i, 156) and a Juppiter-statue at Lyon (Espérandieu. o.c. iii. 1810Google Scholar, and Cook, o.c. i, pl. xxxv) cannot as yet be dated and, therefore, are of no value for our argument. Similarly the fragments mentioned above in notes 2 and 3 cannot be dated with any certainty.
14 Sculptures of the Palazzo dei Conservatori (BSR), pl. 12. See also Piranesi, Magnificenza ed Architettura de' Romani, pl. cxcviii.
15 Cook, o.c. i, pl. vii; Sculptures of the Capitoline Museum (BSR), pl. 66. The date is fixed by the grouping of the figures before the god.
16 Cook, o.c. i, figs. 20 and 21.
17 This is the same with the Juppiter Capitolinus on the Arch of Beneventum (Strong, o.c. fig. 360); but, as the god is represented standing draw further conclusions from it.
18 Espérandieu, o.c. iii, 2346Google Scholar.
19 Ibid. vi, 4927.
20 Ibid. vi, 4916, 4922; vii, 5831; viii, 6216, 6218, 6220, 6325, 6378, 6383, 6386, 6387, 6419, 6606, 6618, 6620, 6621. See also the relief, vii, 5739. By far the oldest of these columns is that of Mainz, still surmounted by a standing Juppiter, an older type than the seated figure. It dates from the days of Nero.
21 Cook, o.c. 42 ff., pl. vi. The ‘Thoughtful Juppiter,’ also occurring on a sarcophagus, which Cook mentions in this connection, has no direct relation with the Capitolinus.
22 Die Wandmalerei Pompejis, 160.
23 Mattingly, o.c. ii, pl. 29, 5, 6; Gnecchi, I medazlioni romani iii, pl. 146, 5, 6, and ii, pl. 50, 5.
24 Jahrb. des Arch. Inst. 1898, 198, fig. 4; A. Hess (Lucerne) Sale Cat., Sammlung F. Trau (22 May, 1935), pl. 7, 549.
25 Sammlung F. Trau, cit. pl. 26, 1974.
26 Mattingly, o.c. i, pl. 39, 19 ff.; Bernhart, , Handbuch zur Munzkunde der röm. Kaherzeit, ii (1926)Google Scholar, pl. 35, 5, 40, 5; Mattingly, i, 60, 27; Sammlung F. Trau, cit. pl. 6, 520. The coin of Nero (pl. v, no. 1) is described by Mattingly as ‘Jupiter, with cloak round lower limbs, bare to waist, seated l. on throne holding fulmen in r. hand and long sceptre in l.,’ but it seems to have the himation hanging down over the left shoulder and seated on a backless throne.
27 Mattingly, o.c. ii, pl. 75, 2; 77, 3; 79, 5; 80, 10. Bernhart, o.c. pl. 35, 9. Sammlung F. Trau, cit. pl. 15, 1096; Grueber, Catalogue of Roman Medallions, pl. ii, p. 3; Gnecchi, o.c. i, pl. 21, 11, 12; British Museum Quarterly viii (1933–1934)Google Scholar, pl. xv, 6; Sammlung F Trau cit. pl. 27, 2009, pl. 32, 2517; Cohen, Descr. bist. des médailles impériales 2, iv, 411 (no. 102); Gnecchi, o.c. i, pl. 4, 12, and ii, pl. 124, 2, 3, 4. Rostovtzeff, Social and Econ. Hist, of the Roman Empire, pl. lix; Gnecchi, o.c. ii, pl. 128, 10; Cohen, o.c. vi, p. 199 (no. 103).
28 See also Suetonius, Caligula 52.
29 Except that the coin of Pescennius Niger places a Victory in his hand, perhaps to celebrate a definite victory.
30 Overbeck, Die antiken Schriftquellen, 2215, quoting Chalcid. in Timaeum Platonis (ed. Meurs), p. 440. This passage has been connected with one in Cicero, Orator (2, ff.), but as Cicero mentions Pheidias, so that there is no question of exact copying, this connection does not prove anything. I have to thank Dr. C. C. van Essen for valuable information on this subject.
31 M. Terenti Varronis de vita populi Romani … quae extant (Halae, n.d. [1863], p. 22=Nonius Marcellus, p. 162, ll. 15ff).
32 Pausanias, Graeciae Descriptio (ed. Schubart, ), i, 18, 6Google Scholar.
33 Suetonius l.c.
34 See supra, note 1.
35 O.c. iii, 761.
36 Johnson, Lysippos 274–276.
37 See Columella, RR (ed. Lundström) i, praef. 31; Propertius, Elegiae (ed. Butler, and Barber, ), iii, 9, 9Google Scholar; Suidas, Lexicon s.v. ἀγαλματοποιοὶ χειρουργοὶ.
38 Pliny, NH xxxiv, 40Google Scholar; Strabo vi, 278.
39 Statius, Silvae iv, 6Google Scholar.
40 See van Essen, in JRS xxiv (1934), 155 ff.Google Scholar
41 Amelung in Thieme-Becker s.v. ‘Apollonios’ and Rev. arch. 1903, ii, 203Google Scholar; Lippold in Festschrift Paul Arndt, 1925, 115.
The ‘Zeus from Otricoli’ is even believed to be a copy after Bryaxis. But the terra-cotta head at Munich, which Lippold rightly connects with a bronze statuette of Juppiter Capitolinus, is a copy of the head of the Imperial statue, whereas the ‘Zeus from Otricoli’ seems to go back to the Republican statue; the head from Nemi (Strong, o.c., fig. 117: see above note 1) is certainly of early date. Sieveking (Münchener Jahrb. für Bildende Kunst 1911, 8, fig. 7) places the Munich head in the first century B.C., but the difference in style from sculptures of that period is apparent from his own descriptions and illustrations. No account has been taken of the successive existence of two different statues.