THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES BY AD. MICHAELIS k REPRINTED FROM THE JOURNAL OF HELLENIC STUDIES 1887 r T53 PU'I W| ( 3 — s A rt THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. t [Plate LXXX.] N 7] A'ia twv Upa^iTiAovs Tron]ixd.T(iciv rb naWiffTov . — LUCIAN. Every visitor of the Yatican Museum knows the fine statue of Aphrodite placed near the large staircase in the Sala a croce greca on account of its beauty as well as by reason of the fact that its lower half is covered with a drapery of tin. The greater will be the surprise of many of our readers, looking at our Plate LXXX., to see unveiled the secret charms of that figure, and they will ask how the goddess could be allowed to lay aside for some moments the garment forced upon her a century ago by a misplaced sense of pretended decency. We owe it to the persevering zeal of Mr. Walter Copland Perry to have found a means of obtaining such a cast for the Collection of Casts from the Antique in the South Kensington Museum, by the formation of which Mr. Perry has begun so happily to fill up a sensible blank in the artistic collections of the British capital. The British Museum is so astonishingly rich in first-rate Greek originals that we can easily understand how the importance of a museum of casts could be rather undervalued, and how to the University of Cambridge was left the merit of forming the first English collection of casts from the antique on a greater scale. But not even the very first museum of Greek sculpture—a rank which never will be disputed in case of the great national institution— dan be so far perfect as to represent with equal completeness ivery period or school of Greek art, nor can it comprise good I B 2 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. ancient marble copies of all those innumerable masterpieces the originals of which either have been lost, or have become the property of other public institutions or private collections. Nay, precisely the relative completeness of the British Museum would seem at once to require and to facilitate such a supplement as Mr. Perry has had the praiseworthy idea of bringing together with great personal sacrifices of every description. What a splendid thing it would be if in the British Museum the large saloons which contain the original marbles were accompanied by parallel galleries exhibiting choice casts of such sculptures, of the same periods or classes respectively, which are not in the Museum. The whole history of Greek sculpture would be placed in the most perfect form before the eyes of students and dilettanti. But—“ there is nothing perfect under the sun.” As the space in the British Museum would scarcely suffice to allow the execution of such a scheme, the greater universal gratitude and the more general interest are due to the collection recently formed in the South Kensington Museum under the intelligent direction of Mr. Perry. Going through the catalogue of the casts 1 , we not only find such universally known casts as form as it were the indispensable contents of every such gallery, but we are particularly pleased to meet with some very rare pieces, which are not only worthy o gain the interest of the general amateur and to delight the student of classic art, but also to promote the purposes of scientific archaeology. Such a cast, beyond doubt the rarest of all, is that of the Vatican Venus, the moulding of which we understand to have been permitted under the—absurd, to be sure, but strict—obligation that only this one copy should be taken ! In direct contrast with this narrow-minded condition imposed by the Superintendence of the Vatican Museum stands the prompt liberality with which the Editors of this Journal have been allowed to take and to publish photographs of the cast. I especially am under great obligations to Mr. Perry for' having kindly renounced in my favour the agreeable task of accompanying the plate with some remarks, as I can avail myself of this opportunity to correct certain false statements 1 1 W. C. Perry, A Descriptive Cata- Antique in the South Kensington logue of the Collection of Casts from the Museum. London, 1884. THE CN1DIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 3 and erroneous conclusions of a former article on the same subject 2 , to which I was misled by defective knowledge of the matter of fact. The statue of the Sala a croce greca, which has kept that place since the first arrangement of the Museo Pio Clementino, is to- dav nearly universally thought to be that very statue which once adorned the cortile delle statue in the Vatican Belvedere and enjoyed a high reputation. This opinion seems to go back to Gerhard, who, in his catalogue drawn up in 1826, identifying our statue with that engraved in the Museo Pio Clem., 1.11, adds to a short mention of the statue the words: “probably already since Julius II. in the cortile delle statue of the Belvedere ” 3 . Most archaeologists since have neglected the precaution used by Gerhard ; in Em. Braun’s book, for instance, on the “ Ruins and Museums of Rome ”, and in the very defective official catalogues of the pontifical museum, the provenance of our statue from the Belvedere is spoken of as a matter of fact. Bernoulli 4 as well as myself shared this opinion so far as to declare the identity to be likely. An accurate enquiry into the history of the Belvedere collection, the general results of which will soon be published in the Archaeologisches Jahrbucli, has shewn me this opinion to be erroneous. I shall here restrict myself to those observations which deal directly with the Vatican statues of the goddess of love. It is well known that the collection of statues in the Belvedere was founded by Pope Julius II. Among the first statues placed in the court-yard of the Belvedere there was an inscribed group of Venus Felix with young Cupid 5 , a sculpture of very modest merit as a work of art, but nevertheless highly appreciated in those times. This group is meant wherever the older astyqraphi —Fulvius (1527), Marliani (1534), Fauno (1548), Mauro (1556), —speak of the Vatican Venus. It was drawn, between 1535 and 1538, by Marten van Heemskerck, in whose sketch-book there is no other Belvedere Venus 6 . I have little doubt that Vasari 2 Archaeol. Zcitung, 1876, p. 145— 149, “die vaticanischen Repliken dcr knidischen Aphrodite ”. 3 Beschr. d. Stadt Rom ii. 2, p. 232, No. 10. 4 Aphrodite, p. 206. 5 Mus. Pio Clem. ii. 52. Clarac iv. 609, 1349. 6 Life of Brctmante, iv. p. 157, ed. Milanesi. Visconti Mus. Pio Clem. i. p. 68, not. 1, ed. Mil. preferred to understand the Cnidian Venus. B 2 4 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. also (1550) 7 has in view this Venus ; nay, a century later John Evelyn 8 praises this group as one of the “ rare pieces ”, without even mentioning any other Venus in the Belvedere. Long since, however, a second Venus had found a neigh¬ bouring place in the cortile delle statue , probably during the pontificate of Clement VII. (1523—1534). We meet with the first mention of it in the notes of travel of John Fichard of Frankfurt who, in 1536, describes a nudum puellae simulacrum , cui alter pes [quod mutilus erat) a recentioribus statuariis restitutus est , ita tamen ut egregie deprekendas dissimilitudinem, et illos arte veteribus inferiores fuisse 9 . The incognito in which the goddess is here introduced did not last long, for precisely at the place of the “naked girl”, Aldrovandi (1550) noticed a Venere tutta ignuda intier a, eke con la mano dritta si cuopre le membra sue genitali , con la manca tiene la sua camicia pendente sopra un giarrone: ed d ogni cosa di un pezzo 10 . From that time, this statue keeps its fixed place beside the older group in all the later descriptions of the Belvedere, from Gamucci (1565) and Boissard (1597) up to Ficoroni (1744). All these short notices however, do not afford any more detailed knowledge ; the assertion of Keyssler (1730), that it had been discovered about 180 years ago under the church of S. Peter and S. Marcelline, seems to be a mistake n . At last Perrier, in his Segmenta nobilium signorum (1638, published in 1653), PI. 85, gave the first engraving of our Venus e balneo , which is nearly identical with the engraving of Jan de Bisschop (Janus Episcopius) published some time after¬ wards ( Signorum veterum icones, PL 46), from the drawing of a Dutch artist called Doncker; the only material difference being that Bisschop, or Doncker, from artistic reasons omits the trunk of the tree near the right leg which Perrier is scrupulous enough 7 Heemskerck’s sketch-book is in Berlin, see J. Springer in Jahrb. der preuss. Kunstsamml. 1884, p. 327, and in Ges. Studien zur Kunstgeschichte fur A. Springer, p. 226. I owe to Prof. Conze the notice above referred to about the contents of the book. 8 Diary, Jan. 18, 1645. 9 Frankfurtisches Archiv, edited by Fichard, iii. p. 49. 10 L. Mauro Antichitd de la Cittd di Roma, Yen. 1556, p. 120. 11 Keyssler Ncueste Reise, 1740, p. 804. The notice seems to. contain a misunderstanding of an account of Flaminio Yacca, §24 in Fea Miscell. p. lxvi. = Schreiber Berichte d. sacks. Ges. 1881, p. 64 : A Santi Pietro e Marcellino sotto la chiesa vi si trovb . . . ■ana Venere grande del naturale, fingeva useir del bagno con un Cupido appresso, la compro il Cardinale Montalto. The mention of Cupid excludes our statue. 6 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. to reproduce. This stem again serves to identify the statue with that published in Visconti’s Museo Pio Clementina, I. 11, as having been “ gia nel Cortile delle Statue del Vaticano ”, though here the statue is defaced by a drapery of stucco which covers the lower half of the body. This drapery, according to Visconti, was meant to serve as a model for a drapery of metal, by which the goddess, after having been exposed in her unveiled beauty for more than two centuries in the Pope’s palace without giving any offence, was to be adapted to the more modern notions of decency, which liked to adorn statues with fig-leaves and to clothe angels with shirts. Now, such a drapery of tin, as a matter of fact, has been applied to the statue which stands actually in the Sala a croce greca, represented in our plate; but one glance on the vessel and the drapery, and the absence of the trunk, suffice to prove that this is not the old Belvedere statue 12 . What then has become of the latter, and whence did this second statue come into the Vatican Museum ? Up to Visconti’s time no second copy of the same type can be traced in the Vatican 13 . Suddenly Visconti speaks not only of two but of three replicas of that Cnidian type as existing in the Museum 14 . It would seem that two of them belonged to 12 This diversity has first been pointed out by Stahr, Torso , i., p. 349, who blunders in ascribing the tasteless drapery to Julius II., and referring the engraving of the Museo Pio Clementino to our statue, but who rightly discerns the latter from the Belvedere statue engraved by Episcopius. The same lias been done independently by Preuner, Arch. Zeit. 1872, p. 110, and Uebcr die Venus von Milo, p. 30, and by Bernoulli Aphrodite, p. 206. Comp, my own observations, Arch. Zeit., 1878, pp. 145 and 146. 13 In P. A. Maffei’s Raccolta di statue, 1704, pi. 4, there is an engraving of a “ Venere uscita dal bagno. Negl ’orti Vaticani'\ which is neither identical with the statue of the Sala a croce greca nor with that of the Belvedere, although its place in that book among the cele¬ brated masterpieces of the Belvedere (plates 1-9) leaves scarcely any doubt that the author intended to have that statue engraved. On the other hand it corresponds so precisely in every detail, especially in the clumsy arrangement of the (modern) drapery with a much-restored statue in the Ludovisi Villa (see below, J), that the engraver—Claude Randon, who engraved also most of the Ludovisi marbles for that work—seems to have made a mistake, either reproducing the Ludovisi statue instead of the Vatican one, or putting a false in¬ scription on the plate. My former supposition that Maffei’s statue might be identical with the statue of the loggia scoperta (see above) is contra¬ dicted by chronological reasons as exposed above. 14 I. p. 63, note 2, ed. Mil. : due altre antiche ripetizioni di questa statua nello stesso Museo Pio Clementino. THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 7 the recent acquisitions made by the popes in all quarters expressly for the purposes of the new Museo Pio Clementino. This supposition is fully borne out by Massi’s first official catalogue of that Museum of 1792, the only book which affords a complete survey of the Museum before its spoliation by the French in conformity with the treaty of Tolentino 15 . Here we find: (1) in the loggia scoperta (p. 69) : statua di Venere di quelle simili alia Gnidia esistente gid nella galleria Golonna ; (2) in the galleria delle statue (p. 81): H. Statua di Venere con vaso a piedi, eke neU esposizione al Tomo 1. del Museo tav. XI. vien dimo- strata essere un antica copia della famosa Venere Gnidia opera di Prassitele. Esisleva nel Cortile delle Statue qui in Vaticano ; (3) in the Sala a croce greca (p. 127): num 24 16 . Statua di Venere , ultra ripetizione della famosa Venere Gnidia di Prassitele. Nothing is said in the catalogue as to whether these statues were draped or not. Now it is very strange, but still it is certain, that the drapery of tin which was to cover No. 2 really has been made use of to drape No. 3, while the two other statues, Nos. 1 and 2, as is proved by the later catalogues 17 , have remained undraped in their places during the whole reign of Pope Pius VII. at Chiaramonti, No. 2 occupying even a conspicuous place in one of the most splendid compartments of the Museum. Finally a new razzia undertaken—apparently by order of Pope Gregorius XVI.—against naked females in the pontifi¬ cal galleries banished the two nude statues into the magazines, where Anselm Feuerbach, the author of the ingenious book on the Vatican Apollo, was happy enough, in 1839, to discover No. 2, to recognize it as the statue of the Belvedere,. and to admire its “grandeur of conception marvellously blent with the highest charm of beauty ’’ 18 . The place of No. 1 remained 15 Indie, antiquaria del Pont. Museo Pio-Clem ., Rome, 1792. 16 The common number adopted here indicates that the statue is one of the acquisitions made by Pius VI.; see preface, p. 5. 17 Vasi Itinerario di Roma, 1804, ii. pp. 616 and 624. Fea Deseriz. di Roma, 1820, i., pp. H2 and 114. Gerhard, Bcschr. d, Stadt Rom [1826], ii. 2 p. 173; No. 38 .and p. 194, No, %. None of them mentions drapery. 18 Nachgelassene Schriften, iii. (Gesch. d. griech. Plastik, ii.), p. 120. It is worth mentioning that neither Gerhard nor any of the other catalogue- makers seems to have paid special attention to the copy ; comp, below, A. —As to the statue No. 1, see Em. Braun, Ruinen u. Museen Royns, p. f>82. 8 THE CN1DIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. empty, No. 2 was replaced by a big statue restored as a Euterpe 19 ; only No. 3 owing to the mock modesty of its drapery remained undisturbed in its rather dark recess. It may be allowable to put forth a conjecture concerning the place from which the latter statue came into the Vatican Museum. As to the statue of the loggia scopcrta , Massi and the other authorities say that it was formerly in the Colonna Gallery. Now an inventory of the antiquities in that palace, drawn up in 1714 20 , enumerates as existing in its large Gallery the following two statues: (a) Una statua di mar mo antica ristaurata , con un vaso accanto e panno in mano die posa sopra detto vaso, riattaccata alle braccie , testa e gambe, rappresentante una Venere die esce dal bagno, alta pal. 8|, [1.90 m.] . . . ( b ) Una statua di marmo antica con vaso accanto , con panno sopra die lo tiene con la mano, riattaccata alle braccie , gambe e testa, rappresentante una Venere die esce dal baqno, alta pal. 9 [2.01 m.] . . . As neither of these statues actually exists in the Colonna Palace, it is evident that one of them is the statue once exposed on the loggia scoperta. Is it an unlikely supposition that on the same occasion also the second Colonna copy should have been incorporated into the Vatican, and that it is precisely our statue of the S'ala a croce greca, which certainly was acquired at the very time of the foundation of the Museum 21 ? The indication of the modern restorations, identical in both Colonna statues, furnishes no objection to, but seems rather to be in favour of that conjecture 22 ; and the height of b is pretty identical with that of the Vatican statue. It might seem, from this long and rather detailed enquiry, that our statue, renouncing the pretence of being the old Venus of the Belvedere, loses something of its importance. From a certain point of view this may really be the case; on the other hand we shall find that it continues to occupy a very dis¬ tinguished place among the great number of similar statues. For this purpose it will be necessary to draw up anew a critical catalogue of the repetitions of the Cnidian Aphrodite. When 19 Gall.delle statue, No. 400. 21 See Note 16. 2 ° Monum. ined. 'per servire alia storia 22 Comp. Prof. Percy Gardner’s state- dei Musei d' Italia, iv. p. 393. ments, below D. THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OE PRAXITELES. 9 Levezow, in 1808, endeavoured to demonstrate our type to have once enjoyed a high fame 23 , he could bring together not more than four marble replicas (A D J c of the ensuing catalogue). Half a century later B. Stark 24 , with the aid of Clarac’s useful work, was able to enumerate twice as many copies (A B E F J M 0 A). A more thorough and nearly exhaustive enquiry led Bernoulli 25 in 1873 to give a ciitical inventory comprising, besides coins and gems, eight marble statues (A B D E F J Ob), one terracotta figure {h), six torsoes (V T U b e /), and seven marble statues which could not with certainty be ascribed to our type {G Gr K Q d a) } altogether twenty-two pieces. This pretty large number however did not allow a certain judgment on various points of importance, most of the copies being only superficially known. Better catalogues of -certain collections, and several new discoveries enable us not only to considerably increase this number, but at the same time to give more authentic information about some of the marbles in question. On a visit to Borne in 1878, I had an opportunity of examining myself the statues D F H J; I owe some further information to Prof. P. Gardner (Z>), Mr. Murray (a e), Dr. Loewy and Prof. Petersen ( C ), Mr. Pottier (S e), Dr. Studniczka (.D b), Prof. Treu (S U d), Dr. WOLTERS (S U). \JFor convenience’s sake we assign the first place to the statues andAorsoes, life size or colossal, the second to the statuettes, the third to some variations rather than copies. Within these classes, the degree of preservation has determined the order of the individual specimens. I.—FULL SIZE OB COLOSSAL, 1. Statues. A. Vatican, formerly in the Cortile della statue, now in the magazines (Bernoulli p. 207, 2). Engr. Perrier Segm. nobil. sign , pi. 85 (the copies differ in giving the statue either right or reversed ; Arch. Zeit. 1876 pi. 12, 2). Episcopius Sign. vet. icones pi. 46 (reversed; Kraus Sign. vet. ic. pi. 25, right; Muller-Wieseler 23 TJeber die Frage ob die mediceische' 24 Berichte der sacks. Ges. d. Wiss , Venus ein Bild der Tcnidischen vom 1860, p. 52. Praxiteles sey, Berlin 1808, p. 73. 25 Aphrodite , 1873, p. 206. 10 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. Denlcm. n. pi. 35, 146 c, reversed); with the drapery of stucco Mus. pio Clem. i. pi. 11 (Levezow Ueber die Frage &c. fig. 2. Clarac. iv. 602, 1332. Arch. Zeit. 1876 pi. 12, 3).—Marble. H. 1. 91 m. (8 pal. 7 on.), with the plinth 2.09 m. (9 J pal.).—Yisconti testifies that the garment is fringed, that there is an armlet inlaid with a gem at the left arm, and that the head is unbroken. This is corroborated by a curious passage of Baph. Mengs, Opere n. p. 6 ed. Azara (p. 358 ed. Fea. Bottari-Ticozzi Race, di lett. vi. p. 340): “ Nel Vaticano si conserva una Venere assai mediocre , e quasi goffa , ma con la testa molto bella, eguale alia Niobe, e quella certamente e la sua, non essen- dole mai stata staccata ”. In another passage (p. 87 ed. Fea) he says of the same head : “ Puo darsi che la bellezza anche perfetta resti alquanto fredda quando non e aiutata da qualche espressione che possa esprimere la vita. Questo si vede in una Venere al Vaticano , che resta insipida, benche nella sostanza sia piu bella di quella di Firenze in quanto alia testa ”. About the same time a French traveller who visited Borne in 1765 ( Voyage d’un Francois en Italie, 2 ed., Yverdon, 1769, hi. p. 186) speaks of the statue as of a figure antique tres- mediocre. Yasi, Fea, Gerhard (see above p. 7, note 17) mention the statue without adding a word in praise of its artistic merit. A very different judgment is pronounced by Feuerbach (see p. 7, note 18), who praises the figure as distinguished durch die wunderbarste Verbindung einer grossartigen Aujfassung mit dem hochsten Schmelz der Schonheit. As to restorations, the only direct testimony is that of Fichard (see p. 4), that one foot is badly restored; no doubt this refers to the right leg supported by the awkward trunk of the tree. B . Munich, no. 131, until 1811 in the Braschi palace at Borne (Bernoulli p. 207, 8). Engr.. Flaxman Lect. on sculpt, pi. 22. Clarac IV. 618, 1377. Liitzow Munchner Ant. pi. 41 (Boscher Lex. d. Mythol. I. p. 416). Arch. Zeit. 1876 pi. 12, 5. Liibke Plastik i . 3 p. 215 fig. 146. Overbeck Plastik ii . 8 p. 31 fig. 99 b. Perry Greek and Bom. sculpt, p. 447 fig. 196. Baumeister JDenkm. hi. p. 1405 fig. 1557. —Parian marble. H. 1. 62 m., with the plinth 1. 74 m.—Modern : back and right part of head, with the exception of the hair to the left of the forehead, nose, tip of lips; half right forearm, left arm {from armlet inlaid with a gem (which is antique) to wrist, fingers of left hand, feet including ankles, parts of vase and drapery. Tolerably good copy, highly praised by Bauch the sculptor, especially on account of the execution of the body (Urlichs Glyptothek p. 20) which however bears a rather superficial character and is poor in details. C. Florence, Pal. Pitti, gall. d. statue, Diitschke ii. no. 17 (Ber¬ noulli p, 215, 1); it belongs to the old Cinquecento stock of Florentine antiques. Engr. Gori Mus. Etr. ill. pi. 35. Clarac iv. 624, 1388.—Pentelic marble. H. about 2.00 m.—Modern : tip of nose, left arm from below armlet (inlaid with an oval jewel, as in B), half right forearm, lower part of both legs from below knees, vase and drapery, pedestal. Head broken, but its own ; the neck THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 11 is too short, and the restorer has given the head a false direction, the antique part of the neck shewing the original movement to have been the same as in B (Petersen). Gori does not make much of the workmanship ; Burckhardt ( Cicerone 3 p. 466) speaks of good. Homan work ; Diitschke points out the very robust forms (and so does Petersen), and the simple type of the head, being stern and rather lacking charm. D. Vatican, Sala a croce greca no. 574, probably until about 1780 in the Colonna Palace, see above p. 8 (Bernoulli p. 206, 1). Engr. Plate LXXX.; with the drapery of tin Arch. Zeit. 1876 pi. 12, 1. Overbeck Plastik n 3 . p. 31 fig. 99a. Letarouilly Vatican hi., Mus. Bio Clem. pi. 6. Baumeister Denkm. hi. p. 1403 fig. 1556.—Greek marble. H. 2.05m. (Golonna statue b : 2.01 m.), with the plinth 2.13 m.—Modern in the Colonna statue : arms, legs, and head. In the Vatican copy, according to my revision in 1878, which nearly agrees with the observations of Professor Treu made in 1865 26 and is completed by some remarks of Dr. Studniczka, the head (new : half nose), which is much superior to the statue, is attached to the body by the insertion of a modern neck including bottom of chin. Studniczka, examining the statue without the aid of a ladder, had the impression that the head is of different marble (Pentelic) from the body and the drapery (large-grained Greek marble). Modern : right arm from below elbow, left arm including armlet downwards to fingers, the ends of which are antique ; support of vase except upper part of square plinth directly below vase; feet and pedestal. A careful examination of the cast by Prof. P. Gardner has moreover shewn that the right leg is antique to about 0.08 m. above ankle bone and instep, but that there is some repairing just below the knee, and that the left leg is ancient to about 0.08 m. below knee. The puntello which unites statue and drapery is broken at both ends, but seems to belong originally to the statue, as the modern conn position of the two parts being effected by an iron cramp did not require that marble puntello. E. Home, Pal. Valentini, Matz-Duhn no. 756 (Bernoulli p. 207, 6).—Marble. Bigger than life.—Rich hair on the neck. Modern : head, lower parts of legs except feet, part of pedestal. Left arm unbroken, but hand with upper part of drapery seems modern; right arm broken in different places, but antique with the exception of three fingers. The drapery is drawn up with left hand. F. Home, Museo Torlonia no. 106 (104), formerly in the Torlonia Palace (Bernoulli p. 207,4). Engr. Vitali Marmi scolpiti Torlonia ii. 55. Clarac iv. 616, 1366 C.—Greek marble. H. 2.05 m. (Clarac : 8| pal. = 1.90 m., probably without plinth).—Clarac : head un¬ broken (to me it appeared doubtful, but it is nearly impossible to 26 Comp. Gerhard Beschr. d. St. Rom. in Bnrsian’s Jahresbericht 1876, iii. ii. 2, p. 232, No. 10. Braun Ruinen p. 105. Treu in Ausgr. von Olympia % u. Museen, p. 447. Premier Arch. v. p. 15. Zeit. 1872. p. 110. Matz and Preuner 12 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. ascertain such points in the Torlonia Museum, most of the marbles being wretchedly smeared over with colour) ; modern : lobe of right ear, nose, left foot, pedestal except portion below right foot, vase and drapery but for a portion nearest to left hand. Cracks in left arm and right foot. Commonplace copy. G. Home, Museo Torlonia no. 26 (24), formerly not in the Giustiniani collection, but in the Torlonia Palace (Bernoulli p. 216, 5). Engr. Yitali Marmi scolp. hi. 26. Clarac iv. 616, 1366 A. — Pentelic marble. H. 2.05 m. (Clarac : 11 pal. 8 on. = 2.60 m. ?)— Clarac : head broken, but its own; modern : hair on top of head, tip of nose, mouth, chin; fingers of right hand, left arm from deltoides, right leg from below knee, left leg from half thigh. No doubt, pedestal, vase, and drapery are also modern. H. Home, Museo Torlonia no. 146 (144), from the Torlonia excava¬ tions at Porto.—Pentelic marble. H. 2. 05m.—Modern (Schreiber Arch. Zeit. 1879 p. 75) : half of right forearm, left arm including armlet, legs from knees, and all the attributes which serve to convert the statue into an Aphrodite Euploea, dolphin to right, column with ship, dolphin, and oar to left. The head (nose new), though broken and patched at the neck, seemed to be the original head to Schreiber as well as to myself. 2. ToRSOES AND OTHER FRAGMENTS, EITHER UNRESTORED OR MADE UP INTO STATUES. J. Home, Villa Ludovisi no. 97 of Schreiber’s Catalogue (Ber¬ noulli p. 207, 5). Engr. Maffei Raccolta pi. 4 {Arch. Zeit . 1876 pi. 12, 4, see above p. 6, note 13). Braun Vorschule pi. 77.—Greek marble. H. 2.00 m.—Only the torso is antique, including shoulders, thighs, and left knee. Also the head, highly praised by some modern authors, is new. Execution all but excellent, forms rather clumsy, the whole body sadly polished. K. Rome, Villa Pamfili, Matz-Duhn no. 775 (Bernoulli p. 216, 3). Engr. Villa Pamph. pi. 31. Clarac iv. 624, 1386.—Carrara marble. Life size.—Now clad with a shirt of stucco. Antique : torso, greater part of right upper arm, left upper arm with armlet decorated with twigs, thighs excluding knees. L. Lowther Castle no. 1 of my Catalogue, Anc. Marbl. Gr. Brit. p. 488. Found about 1776 in Home near S. Peter’s, within the circuit of the Circus of Nero, sold by Gav. Hamilton to Geo. Grenville, afterwards Marquis of Buckingham, bought at the Stowe sale, in 1848, by Lord Lonsdale. —Thasian marble. H. 1.96 m.— Modern : head and part of neck, right arm, greater part of left arm including armlet, both legs from below knees; toes and portion of pedestal seem to be antique. Very broad in the region of the hips, flatter in the breast. Good Homan workmanship. Vase and drapery belong originally to another copy; see W. THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 13 M. Yatican, formerly in the Colonna Palace, afterwards on the loggia scoperta, not in the magazines (comp. Bernoulli p. 207, 2, see above p. 8).—Marble. H. of Colonna statue a: 1.90 m. (81- pal.).—Armlet on left arm (Yisconti Mus. Pio Clem. I. p. 63 note 2). Much corroded and disfigured by modern restorations (Gerhard) ; modern : arms, legs, and head (Colonna Inventory). N. Mantua, Diitschke iv. no. 825 (Bernoulli p. 208, 13). Engr. Labus Mus. di Mant. II. 37.—Parian marble. H. I. 14 m (colossal).— Torso without head, arms, lower parts of legs ; right knee preserved. On left thigh remains of puntello. “ This torso, one of the best pieces of the whole collection, notwithstanding its horrible mutilation, betrays a grand beauty” (Conze Arch. Anz. 1867 p. 105 *). O. Pome, Palazzo del commercio (formerly Yiscardi), Matz-Duhn no. 759 (Bernoulli p. 207, 7). Engr. Clarac iv. 606 B, 1343 C. Comp. Engelmann, Arch. Zeit. 1878 p. 158.—Italian marble. H. 1. 90 m.(8g pal.).—Armlet on left arm. Head antique, but not its own. Modern : right arm including shoulder, right breast, left forearm and drapery, front of right thigh, right leg including knee, left leg from below knee, dolphin. P. Home, Yilla Ludovisi no. 232 of Schreiber’s Catalogue.— Italian marble. H. 0.80 m.—Torso, half of left upper arm with broad bordered armlet, half thighs. Poor execution. This frag¬ ment may originally have been part of the same statue as P'. Yilla Ludovisi no. 275, life size, comprising legs from half thighs downwards, vase and pedestal. Q. England, formerly in possession of the sculptor Bistroem in Stockholm, and sold by him to England, where it has been lost sight of (Bernoulli p. 217, 6; it has nothing to do with a statue found on the Appian road and preserved in the It. Museum at Stockholm, see Wieseler in Philologus xxvii. p. 194 note 2).—The statue which is known only by the casts in Dresden (Hettner Abgiisse 4 p. 118 no. 215) and at Berlin (Friederichs Bausteine 1 no. 591), is restored after the Capitoline type, but the right leg, on which the body rests, and the more upright position of the body led Bernoulli to ascribe it to our type. Head, arms, and legs seem to be due to a restorer. R. Pome, Yilla Medici, Matz-Duhn no. 776.—Marble. Life size.—Modern : head and neck, right arm with great portion of shoulder, left arm almost entirely, legs from middle of thighs, vase, pedestal. The resting of the figure on right leg seems in favour of the attribution of the torso to the Cnidian type, although it should be ascertained whether the left shoulder is sufficiently raised. S. Paris, Cabinet des Medailles (Luynes Collection) ? A cast of the Mengs collection at Dresden (Hettner Abgiisse 4 p. 101 no. 116. Bernoulli p. 209, 17) is, according to Prof. Treu, probably identical with no. 56 of Chalybseus’ Catalogue ( Das Mengs'ische Museum zu Dresden, 1 843) : “ Bin jugendlich frischer angebl. Venns- korper zu Neapel”. Another copy of this cast, in the Fitzwilliam 14 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. Museum at Cambridge, bears the stamp of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts at Paris, with the same indication that the original is at Naples. Wolters however assures me that at Naples there is neither such a a torso nor a statue made up from it. Messieurs Pottier and Homolle, who saw the cast at Dresden, expressed to Prof. Treu their conviction that the original belongs to the Luynes collection given by the duke to the Cabinet des Medailles ; he may ha ve acquired it at Naples.—H. 0.94 m. (bigger than life). — Torso including shoulders and small portions of arms, and upper half of both thighs, which are a little damaged in front; remains of puntello on left thigh. The cast bears evident marks of the original having at one time been restored. Roman work, but of real beauty. T. British Museum, Gr^co-rom. Sc. no. 172 (Bernoulli p. 208, 14). Found at Nettuno, sold about 1766 by Jenkins to W. Locke, by Locke to the Duke of Richmond, broken at a fire which destroyed Richmond House in Privy Gardens in 1791, bought in 1820 by Devis the painter, and ceded by him in 1821 to the Museum (Noehden in Bottiger’s Amalthea hi. p. 1. J. T. Smith Nollekens n. p. 178). Engr. Amaltliea in. pi. 2. Anc. Marbl. Brit. Mus. xi. 35. Ellis Townley Gall. i. p. 268. Vaux Handbook p. 172.—Parian marble. H. 0. 73 m. (life size).—Torso, including small portions of arms, upper part of right thigh (left thigh modern). Surface cal¬ cined. Very good sculpture. U. Cast of the Mengs collection at Dresden (Hettner AbgA p. 105 no. 146. Bernoulli p. 208, 12), comprising pretty exactly the same portions as the Richmond Venus T. Remains of puntello on right thigh.—H. 0.80 m.—According to Hettner, the original should exist at Naples, but the older catalogues of the Dresden collection, compared by Prof. Treu, afford no evidence of this cast coming from Naples, nor did Wolters find at Naples a marble like U. V. Rome, villa Massimi (formerly Giustiniani, near the Lateran), Matz-Duhn no. 774. Engr. Clarac iv. 634 B, 1386 A.—Italian marble. H. 2. 08 m. (9^ pal.).—Modern: head and neck, arms from middle of upper arm, legs and dolphin ; but also the torso, of disagreeable slender proportions, is not free from suspicion. The position of the left upper arm leaves some doubt whether this copy belongs to our type. W. Lowther Castle no. 1. With the torso L, of Thasian marble, has been united, probably for G. Hamilton, a fragment of Pentelic marble exhibiting the vase and the drapery, which is being lifted up, both much retouched. The combination of the two fragments is rather awkward, the drapery approaching too near the body, and being too much advanced. X. Rome, Villa Wolkonsky, Matz-Duhn no. 757.—Greek marble. Life size.—Left hand laying aside drapery, with portion of it; thumb and index wanting. THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 15 II.—STATUETTES AND OTHER SMALL COPIES. a. British Museum. From Antarados, in Syria. Engr. Murray Hist, of Greek Sculpt, n. p. 396, comp. p. 271.—Small marble sta¬ tuette, height less than 0.30 m., perfect with the exception of left forearm from elbow to wrist. Left hand rests on top of tree stem over which drapery falls to the ground ; towards foot of stem an amphora is marked out in low relief. Execution very poor. b. Vatican, Museo Chiaramonti no. 112 (Bernoulli p. 207, 3).— Marble. H. about 1 m.—Head broken but its own ; modern : nose, right hand, left arm from shoulder to wrist; both calves from knee to ankle broken but apparently antique. Drapery, which is represented falling, and left hand, three fingers excepted, are antique. c. Rome, Villa Borghese. Engr. Scult. d. V . JBorgh. ii. st. vt. no. 10. —Marble. H. 0. 52 m. (2 J pal.)—Nothing known about resto¬ rations ; certainly head vase and drapery are modern, but the whole statuette appears suspicious. I find no further notice of it either in the catalogues of the Villa or in those of the Louvre. d. Dresden no. 234 (340), formerly in the Chigi collection (Ber¬ noulli p. 216, 4). Engr. Le Plat Eecueil pi. 118. Clarac iv. 624, 1387.—Greek marble. H. 0.90 m.—Antique: torso, left shoulder including armlet, both thighs, left knee. Remains of puntello on left thigh. e. British Museum, “ S. a. P. 104”, from Kyrene (Bernoulli p. 209, 15).—Marble. H. 0. 37 m.—Small torso, wanting head, left arm, right hand (marks of fingers remaining on left thigh), half left thigh and lower halves of legs. Armlets on both arms. f. Wurzburg no. 42 of Urlichs’ Catalogue p. 7 (Bernoulli p. 209 no. 16). From Athens, Faber collection (Scholl Mittheil . aus Griechenl. p. 91 no. 54).—Pentelic marble. H. 0.15 m.—Lower part of body and upper part of thighs, with a puntello indicating position of right hand; hole and scratched spot on left thigh. Refined style. g. Rome, Donatuccio, Matz-Duhn no. 758.—Marble. H. 0.09 m.—Pedestal of statuette, with feet, small round vase, drapery, left hand. Elegant work. h. Statuette from Tarsos (Bernoulli p. 208, 9). Engr. Barker Lares and Penates p. 193 no. 48, see below p. 22.—Terracotta.— Ste- phane on head. i. Statuette from Myrina. Pottier and Reinach Necrop. de My- rina p. 284 no. 8.—Terracotta. H. 0.23 m.—Head turned to left; long curls fall down on shoulders. k. Oxford, Mr. Arthur Evans. Murray Hist, of Greek Sculpt. ii. p. 272 note. “Small intaglio of rude workmanship inscribed KOPINOOY. Aphr. standing nude to front, looking to left and holding drapery above a vase on the left.” 16 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. III.—VARIATIONS OF THE TYPE. a. Intaglio : Lippert’s Daktyliothek i. 1, 81. Engr. Miiller-Wie- seler Denkm. i. 36, 146 b. —The goddess rests on left leg, and looks towards her right side. Drapery apparently lifted up with left hand. /3. Munich no. 104 (Bernoulli p. 216, 2). Bought from Pacetti in Home, one of Prince Ludwig’s first acquisitions (Urlichs Glypt. p. 4). Engr. Clarac. iv. 618, 1375.—Parian marble.—H. 1.40 m.— Modern: head, fingers of both hands, tail of dolphin.—Yase and drapery are wanting ; the left arm is bent, with raised hand ; attri¬ bute (mirror ?) lost. y. Statuette from Myrina. Pottier and Beinach Necropole de Myrina p. 284 no. 9.—Terracotta. H. 0.185 m.—Left hand holds apple; forearm covered by drapery falling down on vase. Head wanting. S. Statuette from Myrina. Engr. Froehner Terres cuites Greau pi. 101, comp. p. 65.—Terracotta. H. 0. 25 m.—Besting on left leg. Bight hand, protecting nudity, holds piece of the drapery which, covering the left forearm, falls down on the vase. At the back of plinth potter’s stamp AI 01AOY. (Three copies.) The following terracotta statuettes e—i, from Asia Minor, shew the vase placed near the right leg of the goddess ; consequently she lifts up the drapery with right hand, and protects her nudity with the left. High-hair dressing. e. Athens, Lambros ; from Smyrna % Engr. Froehner Terres cuites d ’ Asie Mineure pi. 22, 3; comp. p. 49.—H. 0.13 m. £. Paris, Louvre ; from Myrina. Pottier and Beinach Necrop. de Myr Catal. no. 19.—H. 0.225 m.— Ornament on breast; ring on left hand. On back of plinth AI0IAOY (ibid. p. 187 fig. 16). 7 j. From Myrina. Pottier and Beinach p. 283 no. 6.— H. 0.18 m.— Ornament on breast ; head turned to her left, looking up a little. 0. From Myrina. Pottier and Beinach p. 283 no. 7.—H. 0.27 m. Ornament on breast; head turned to right; gilt stephane. l. Paris, Louvre ; from Myrina. Engr. Pottier and Beinach pi. 5, 4 ; comp. p. 281. Catal. no. 20.—H. 0.14 m.—Bight arm not bent but extended downwards ; long curls falling on shoulders. k. Bome, Yilla Pamfili, Matz-Duhn no. 760.—Marble. Life size.—Grasping drapery with right hand, covering bosom with left (comp. Froehner Terres cuites d'Asie Min. pi. 21, 1).—Not free from suspicion but, on account of its place, not allowing of closer examination. This list is long enough to prove abundantly that a type is in question which must have enjoyed an uncommon reputation, particularly in Bome and its environs, whence all the large THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 17 copies and some of the statuettes originate. Only very few other types of Aphrodite, of a decidedly more modem, that is to say Hellenistic character—as for instance the Capitoline- Medici type, the goddess arranging her sandal, the crouching Aphrodite—can boast of a greater number of copies. But it is not only Rome where that type was appreciated; its popularity over large parts of the Greek world is attested by the small marble copies from Athens, Kyrene, and Syria (a ef), by the terra-cotta statuette from Tarsos (li), and by an excellent marble head discovered at Olympia of which we shall speak afterwards. If then this often-repeated type agrees in all essential points with certain well-known imperial coins of Knidos 27 , there is at Berlin. Arolsen. least a very strong presumption that all these copies go back to that masterpiece of Praxiteles by which he nobilitavit Cnidum 28 This reason seems good not only against those who, in old and 27 The main specimens are one of the Paris cabinet (Gardner “ Types of Coins,” pi. 15, 21), which, according to Weil (in Baumeister’s Denicmaler, iii. p. 1402) and Dr. Imhoof-Blumer, is very much retouched, especially in the vase and drapery, but also in the hard outlines given to the figure itself; one of the Berlin collection {Arch. Zeit. 1876, p. 149. Weil l. tit), repeated above. A third coin, of the Berlin collection (Overheck Plastik 3 ii. p. 30, fig. 98 c, also in the Wad- dington collection, see Rev. Numism. 1851, p. 238), shews the goddess grouped with Apollo leaning on a large cithara ; a fourth coin, at Arolsen, exhibits a similar composi¬ tion in which Asklepios occupies the place of Apollo (see cut). All these coins shew in the obverse Caracalla (youthful) and Plautilla. 28 I cannot make out who first recognised in these replicas the Cnidian statue. This opinion is spoken of as a common one in J. G. Keyssler’s Neueste Reise, Hannover 1740, i. p. 804, and in Falconet’s Oeuvres, ii. p. 330 ; but it was Visconti’s high authority which gave as it were the official stamp to it {Mus. Rio Clem. i. p. 63. 69). C 18 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. new times, strangely inverting the natural development of Greek art, and neglecting the only direct ancient testimony 29 , have made themselves the advocates of the Medici type as the truest imitation of Praxiteles’ statue 30 , but also against those who quite recently would prefer to recognise the traces of the Cnidian goddess rather in certain terra-cotta figures originating from Asia Minor 31 . In these (e— l) the goddess protects her nudity with her left hand, not with the right, as in the marble copies. Now, to be sure, Ovid says in well-known verses 32 : ipsa Venus pubem, quotiens velamina ponit, protegitur LAEVA semireducta manu , but nothing proves that he speaks of the Cnidian statue, instead of the image most popular at his time, viz. the Capitoline type, in which that function is really performed by the left hand, and which, seems directly hinted at by the expressive word semire¬ ducta . In the terra-cottas, the place of the vase and the drapery near the right leg, on which the figure rests, instead of the left slightly bent, is a consequence of the aforesaid change of the hands, which seriously impairs the original conception, because that position, as we shall explain below, would better agree with the action of laying down than of lifting up the drapery. The direction of the head varies so much in the different terra-cotta replicas that nothing can be deduced from it. Finally that high hair-dressing towering on the head of all of them has nothing to do with the simplicity of Praxitelian style, but is a distinctive 29 Pseudo-Lucian Amoves 13, nav 5e rb KaWos avrrjs aKaKvirrov ovbepuas eadrjros ajuTrexovoys yeyv/ivurai, 7rAV baa tt} erepa X €l P^ T V t/ aldw XeAyObrus eTriKpvTrTeiv. (Comp. Cedrenus, p. 322 Par. yvp.v'f], ybvyv r^v albco rf) %epi TrepiareAAovaa). It is evident that the other hand had no share in covering any part of the nude body. Reinach’s opinion (Necrop. de Myrina, p. 282, note 3) that erepa x*' L P signifies the left hand, is contradicted by numerous passages in Pausanias and elsewhere. 30 Comp. Overbeck’s remarks Plctstik ii. 3 p. 170, note 54. Froehner Terres cuites d'Asie Mineure, p. 48, seems to undervalue the importance of the agreement in the main points of so many copies, though he goes not so far as to ascribe the composition of e, “ digne du plus grand maltref' to Praxiteles himself. Reinach, Necrop. de Myrina , p. 284, lays great stress on the left hand pro¬ tecting the nudity, and. adds “11 faudrait en conclure que certaines figurines sont plus voisines de Voriginal que les imitations de la numismatique et de la statuaire. C’est une question qui doit encore rester ouverte .” 32 Ars Am. ii. 613, see Reinach, p. 282. Overbeck had no reason for quoting this passage as it does not mention expressly the Cnidian statue. THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 19 mark of post-Lysippian art; it appears to have originated in the necessity of giving the head a height proportional to the lengthened limbs of the Lysippian canon of proportions. Con¬ sidering these peculiarities, I cannot find any sufficient reason for taking this figure, which has no representative whatever in coins, in marble statues or elsewhere in monumental art, for more than a variation of the original Cnidian type; the more so as, as far as I can see, in the terra-cotta figures from Myrina, very seldom, if at all, occur exact copies of known works of higher art, the merit of the potters consisting rather in having converted the inspiration received from that quarter into numerous variations, more or leSs free, of the original types. The original type of our figure can he recovered with tolerable exactness by a comparison of the above-named statues and statuettes, which, with the exception of very few slight variations (a —8), are in full accord with oiie another as to certain points which may be looked on as the distinctive characteristics of this type. The figure rests on the right leg; consequently the right hip is considerably curved, forming that gently flowing line for which Praxitelian art has so marked a predilection. The left knee is slightly bent so as to make the thigh advance a little before the right thigh, against which it is tightly pressed, the left foot touching the ground only with the toes. The upper part of the body shows a slight forward inclination, considerably less than in the Capitolirie-Medici type, but sufficient to make the whole position easy, and to withdraw a little the lower part of the body which is protected by the right hand. In this way the whole arrangement places all those parts which serve to assure at once repose and decency to the figure 6n its right side, which, looked at in front, by me^iis of the curved lines of the hip and of the bent arm forms an animated undulating out¬ line. On the other hand the left side, being oil the whole nearly perpendicular, seems to require some supplementary object, and at the same time is at liberty for some freer kind of action.* Both these requirements are served by the drapery held with the left hand. The drapery serves as a material support to the marble statue, and seems to replace in some way the stem of a tree or a similar support of the Olympian Hermes, the Sauroktonos, and other Praxitelian figures. In connexion with the action of the hand, the left shoulder is raised a little above 20 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. the level of the right one, and is slightly withdrawn; a peculiarity so characteristic that, the position of the left arm in B V being not exactly known, it remains uncertain whether these copies really belong to our type. An armlet slightly ornamented seems to go back to the original, as it appears in ABCKMtOPde', hence the restorers of DHLM? b will have borrowed this detail; the armlet is wanting in the inferior copies EFG V (uncertain whether it belongs here); in e both arms bear armlets. The forms of the body are throughout full, /xijt ayav e’A- Xt7T€t9 avTols Tot? octt€069 TTpoaeaTakpievat, fjLrjTe €t9 vrrepoy/cov eiaceyypjkvai Tnorgra^. The Munich copy B, and still more some of the torsoes, particularly those at Mantua ( N ), at Paris ( S ), and the ‘ Richmond Venus ’ of the British Museum (T), seem to have preserved something of the refined and grand style, full of breathing vitality, which must have dis¬ tinguished the original. Other copies bear the common-place character of Roman copiers’ work; among these, I am afraid, notwithstanding Feuerbach’s enthusiastic encomium, would rank also the Belvedere copy A , styled clumsy, goffa, by Mengs and' nearly overlooked by Gerhard and others, if it should rise one day from its tomb in the Vatican magazines. A certain clumsi¬ ness belongs also to C J; in the Vatican copy D too, judging from the photograph which alone I can consult, certain parts /appear rather bulky, and especially those fleshy cushions as it were at the right side of the back, which are caused by the contraction of this part of the body, seem too strongly marked. The want of harmony between the broad hips and the flat breast in Z, or the slenderness of another copy (F), may also be ascribed to want of skill of the copyists. On the whole, it would appear that the larger copies, of heroic size, are fatter and clumsier than those which restrict themselves to the size of life or still smaller proportions. The original itself will scarcely have been bigger than the size of life. There remain two points in which the different copies do not agree, and which require more subtle investigation, as they are of capital importance for rightly understanding and judging Praxiteles’ conception, viz. the drapery with the vase, and the position of the head. 33 Pseudo-Lucian Amor. 14. THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 21 As to the drapery, in most of the copies it is either wanting or due to modern restoration 34 . Those which have preserved it may be divided into two classes. In A B E W the drapery is drawn up with the left hand. Accordingly, in A B W (E is not precisely known in this respect) the garment forms one narrow long mass, slantingly rising from the vase towards the hand, th6 upper face of which is turned outwards 35 . It is quite otherwise in the second class comprising D F X (not known in detail) bhhi. Here the drapery is falling straight down on the vase in broader masses, being laid down by the hand which in D Fb turns upwards its upper face ; the portion of the drapery grasped by the hand in D F forms an end hanging over. The forearm, in harmony with the chief action, seems to be a little more lowered than in the statues of the first class; nay, in the terra-cottas h and i the arm hangs down nearly perpendicularly- Which of these two classes has better preserved the original conception of Praxiteles ? Did the goddess draw up, or lay down the drapery ? Was she preparing herself for the bath, or was she, to use the old inscription of A, a Venus e balneo ? In order to answer this question, I still believe one observation to be decisive which I have set forth in my former article 36 . If the goddess were taking hold of the garment in order to put it on, she would naturally turn her body towards the vase, and she would rest on the leg nearest to it. Indeed this is the direction in which the motive has been changed in the gem a and in the terra-cottas e— 6 , in full accord with the natural movement after the bath, while in the terra-cotta figure l, where the garment is clearly being laid down, the same position of the feet produces an indistinct and ambiguous impression. On the other hand, in all the larger copies as well as in the smaller monuments a — k, the resting of the figure on the right leg stands in connexion with a slight turning of the body in that direction; the bent left leg advances a little between the 34 c, G—V, c—f, 0. The details cannot he made out in agile k. In 7 8, the drapery rests on the left fore¬ arm. Puntelli or remains of them on the left thigh appear in B D L N S d; similar remains on the right thigh in U require explanation. 35 In A part of the drapery issues between the fingers (comp. D F). Probably this was the case also in B, where this portion is to some extent restored. 36 Arch. Zeit. 1876, p. 147, approved by Overbeck Plastik ii. 3 p. 171, note 55. Murray Hist, of Sculpt, ii. p. 272, note 1. 22 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. right one and the drapery; the latter being placed directly near, nay a little behind, the left thigh, and the left arm being accordingly bent backwards, the goddess seems as it were to separate herself from her drapery. Thus the general movement and the action of the left arm appear complete and carried out with full consequence, a clear proof that here the artist’s original idea is preserved. The same conviction results from an examination of the drapery itself. That long towel-like garment of B and its companions, with which F joins in this respect, bears no com¬ parison with those magnificent masses of falling drapery which captivate our eyes most forcibly in B, but an echo of which resounds still from h. It is precisely in this drapery that consists the main value of the Vatican copy; our phototype, taken from the cast, brings forth this excellence to much greater advantage than the common photographs taken from the original in its rather dark recess. The whole treatment of the drapery in its material character, and the folds equally rich and clearly THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OE PRAXITELES. 23 disposed, remind us forcibly of that marvellous masterpiece of sculptured drapery, the mantle of the Olympian Hermes of Praxiteles; nay, the similarity is such as to positively ascertain the Praxitelian origin of this part of the composition. To me it seems absolutely incomprehensible that a Roman copyist should have changed the dry garment of B into this splendid drapery; on the other hand, it is easily understood how the transformation of the general motive into the action of drawing up the drapery could convert the beautiful creation of Praxiteles into that unpleasing towel. The case is the same with the VASE, the shape of which varies in the different copies. Twice {E W) it is qualified as ointment vase ( Salbgefaess ), which seems to point to a taller shape; in F it is a small amphora partly fluted, looking so poor that one would suppose it to be seriously retouched. The common shape is that of a big round vessel, of larger or smaller size, either an amphora, or a so-called stamnos. or hydria (ABab g In a ei)\ the big form belongs also to the vase on the Cnidian coins 37 . But in no other copy the vase shews even approximately that noble and genuine Attic elegance of outline which marks the hydria of B, which moreover, in its fluted handles and the beautiful sculptured ornament at the back below the main handle, betrays the imitation of one of those fine vases of metal which we admire in the museums of Naples, of St. Petersburg, and elsewhere. The square plinth below the hydria returns in the terra-cotta figure e. On the other hand, abstraction must be made of that high and clumsy support on which the modern restorer of JD has placed the hydria. Unless I should prove entirely mistaken, it owes its origin merely to an unskilful recomposition of the figure and the vase with the drapery, which seems to go back to two mistakes. First, the restorer has made the legs a few centimeters too long. A glance at the two cuts suffices to shew that the legs of B are shorter, that is to say, that they agree better with the Praxitelian proportions, as they appear in the Hermes, the Sauroktonos, &c., which, in opposition to the Lysippian canon, combine a rather heavy body with proportionately short legs. A comparative measurement con- 37 The vase in the Paris coin is of the falling drapery seem to have evidently retouched (see Weil in Bau- been converted into handles, meister’s DenJcm. iii. p. 1402); parts 24 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. firms the view that the legs of D are about four centimeters longer than they ought to be in proportion to those of B. Of much greater interest however has been the false ponderation of the figure introduced by the modern restorer who provided the statue with its right foot and left leg. Unfortunately, the artist from whose photographs the cuts have been made has not taken care to keep exactly the same point of view for the two statues; otherwise it would be better evident that the body of D inclines far too much towards its right side, and that the left shoulder stands considerably too high. A glance at PI. LXXX. will serve to corroborate this statement. The figure being rightly placed, and perhaps the forearm being somewhat more lowered (the left arm is modern), vase and drapery would not need to be placed so high, and there is scarcely a doubt that, both faults mended, a small augmentation of the plinth would suffice to allow the vase to be placed directly on the ground. THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 25 Probably the vase and the drapery originally occupied a place a little nearer to the figure. If D really has preserved to us the truest imitation not only of the drapery but also of the hydria, it is clear that the latter cannot be an indifferent accessory, but that the general opinion has rightly referred it to an imminent bath of the goddess. A different view ,has recently been maintained by Murray 38 . Referring to the subordinate way of representing the vase in the statuette a , one of the very poorest copies, he maintains that the greater prominence given to the vase and the relation of it to a bath is an innovation introduced by later copiers, whereas in the original conception it would have merely been “ an artistic accessory required to support the drapery ” ; for, says he, “it must be to the sea where she was bom that the goddess is represented as returning . . . any other interpretation would not be conducive to a reverential regard for the goddess”. But Murray himself is well aware that Aphrodite’s “returning to the ocean is a motive but slightly founded in religious belief”. Generally spread as was the conception of the goddess rising from the sea, the Anadyomene , celebrated by Pheidias and by Apelles, the idea of Aphrodite returning to the sea is, as far as I know, utterly unheard of in ancient poetry and art 39 . On the other hand, the motive derived from the bath is in complete harmony with the general character of Praxitelian art, which likes to transplant the gods into the sphere of purely human situations and feelings, and to lend to their actions as well as to those of kindred human beings rekiovfievy 7, Karayovaa) a genre character. As the unwearied herald of the gods under the chisel of Praxiteles changes into a reposing youth dallying with the infant Dionysos; as his youthful Apollon leaning on the tree is satisfied watching for the playing lizard; as the Satyr in repose, generally referred to Praxiteles, aims at nothing else but fully to enjoy a dolce far niente; as on the whole Praxiteles has become the truest interpreter and the chief waymaker of a new epoch to a great extent precisely by making artistic reasons predominate over 38 Hist, of Greek Sculpt, ii. p. 271. marinos Jluctus SVBIT, though this 3a The only instance of such an idea signifies scarcely more than to bathe in I can remember is a phrase of Apuleius the sea, jluctus subire being different Met. 2, 28, in spcciem Veneris quae from in jluctus redire. 26 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. religious relations : thus the conception of our Aphrodite is taken from common female life, the rich variety of which offers scarcely any motive better answering the purpose of placing before our eyes the full charms of the goddess of beauty than that of the bath, as indicated by the vessel particularly serving such a use, the hydria, and by the action of laying down her drapery. Looked at as a mere support for the drapery, the vase would be superfluous, as the drapery could very well be repre¬ sented as falling on the ground; presuming the goddess to return to the ocean, the addition of the vase would even be a serious fault, as nobody could assign to it a “ function identical with that of the vase constantly associated with river gods in later art”. A few words may here find a place concerning an objection repeatedly brought against the identity of our type and that of the Cnidian statue, that the drapery not only is never mentioned in the ancient descriptions, but also prevents the figure from being looked at equally from any side, an advantage expressly acknowledged by ancient authorities 40 . The fact of the garment not being mentioned, not to speak of the witness furnished by the coins, is of little importance considering the peculiar attraction which necessarily must have been exercised by the charms of the beautiful body. Nor should the words und'ique, ex qnacumque parte, irayrri be laid too great stress upon, the right interpretation, as has well been observed 41 , being afforded by the description given by Pseudo-Lucian 42 . According to this, the statue was placed not in an aedicula quae tota aperitur but in an dfu^tOvpo^ veoos, and whosoever, having paid his tribute of admiration to the front of the image, wanted /cal Kara vcotov ttjv Oeov Ihelv a/cpi/3w was obliged to leave the front part of the chapel, to go round to the back part of the holy circuit (eh to Karoiriv rod chjkov irepie\6elv), and to have the door of the back part of the sanctuary unlocked by an attendant. Hence it is evident that there cannot have been a free space around the statue, 40 Pliny 36, 21, aedieula tota aperitur, ut conspici possi undique effigies . . . nee minor ex quacumque parte admiratio est. Antliol. Pal. app. Planud. 160, irdvTr) S’ ddpriaaaa nepL- (TKenrcp ivl X^PV‘ 41 Overbeck PlastiJc ii 3 . p. 170, note 54. Murray ii. p. 275. 42 Amor. 13. THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 27 but that some insurmountable barrier must have separated the two parts of the chapel, perhaps a wall, in the middle of which an opening was left for the reception of the image. Thus the vase with the drapery would have- found its place exactly between the statue and the wall, so as not to encroach on the view of the statue. Nay so remarkable an arrangement of the temple may serve to shew that the statue (as is the case with the Hermes, the Sauroktonos, the Satyr) was not meant at all to be seen directly from the sides, but was only calculated for the two main aspects, from the front and from the back. The second question arises about the HEAD. In my former article, relying on the notice that the head of the Vatican copy D was unbroken (a notice caused by confounding A and D), I felt authorized to imply that the movement of the head, being more advanced and a little inclined, was the original one. This opinion was shared by Bernoulli and others. But Treu was right in rejecting it 43 . The whole neck of D being a modern insertion, and the head moreover being made of different marble, the argument falls to the ground. On the other hand, the Belvedere and the Munich statues (A B), and perhaps the Torlonia statue F, have preserved the neck unbroken, and all of them equally give it the same direction towards the left shoulder, combined with a slight inclination backwards. In CL the remaining portion of the neck points to the same movement; the restorers of J K V d, perhaps led by similar traces, have followed the same line ; only b, the head of which was broken, and H 0 seem to have approached nearer to the movement of D. (The terra-cotta figures may better be left aside, as a great variety reigns in them as to this point). Reasoning from these facts, there can scarcely subsist any doubt that the authority of monumental tradition speaks in favour of the movement of the head as represented by the Munich statue and its companions, the more so as the direct profile of the head in the Cnidian coins, though evidently exaggerated on account of the rules of the severe styles of relief 44 , is more easily explained by that position than by that of the Vatican copy D. Another argu¬ ment may be deduced from the general observation that 43 Ausgrab. von Olympia, V. p. 15. 44 See Visconti Mus. Pio Clem. i. p. 64, note 1. 28 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. Praxiteles had a marked predilection for shewing his heads in a three-quarters’ profile. What troubles have arisen from the circumstance that the Olympian Hermes does not look directly at the little brother he bears on his arm but, in gentle reverie, looks into the void. Instead of all efforts more or less artificial towards interpreting this fact, it suffices to refer to the Apollon Sauroktonos, who in exactly the same way does not direct his eyes towards the lizard he is threatening with his arrow, but looks past the animal more towards the spectator. Both these gods shew the head in a three-quarters’ profile, evidently because the sculptor wished to exhibit the countenance under the most favourable aspect. The same favourite motive of Praxiteles appears in our Aphrodite, though modified in so far as no certain object, as in those statues, calls forth an inclination of her head, but the head left entirely to itself takes a soft and easy position which is in admirable harmony with the flowing lines of the whole figure. Hence this manner of carrying the head appeared to be so characteristic for Aphrodite, that it passed but little modified to more recent images of the goddess, like the famous Medici statue. But it is not only the position but also the type and expression OF the head which require some words. This to be sure is a very hard enquiry without a new examination of the principal specimens in the original, or at least in casts or photographs, the common engravings, particularly the older ones, being insufficient for such subtle analysing work. Thus I am unable to judge about most of the heads and busts enumerated by Bernoulli 45 , and I must restrict myself to exemplif}^ my opinion by a few copies of which I am sufficiently informed. These agree in the proportions and the general features of the countenance, in the simple arrangement of the wavy hair which, being simply parted and brushed back on both sides in accordance with the old Attic way, without any elevated hair-dressing towering above the forehead, gives full prominence to the beautiful outline of the skull. Twice encircled 45 Aphrodite, p. 212.—I leave aside its features so generalised as to afford the coins of Knidos exhibiting a head. no useful material for our enquiry, of Aphrodite in profile which may be (comp. Baumeister DenJcm. iii. p. 1402, meant to contain a reminiscence of fig. 1555. Gardner, “ Types of Coins,” Praxiteles’ masterpiece, but which give pi. 15, 20). THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 29 by a simple fillet, the hair is gathered into a small knot behind, the absence of which in B is exclusively due to the restorer who supplied the occiput. These details, common to all copies, serve to distinguish our type from the later heads with their artificial hair-dressing. But apart from these accords, we may easily observe in the individual copies certain differences which, if I am not quite mistaken, are connected with the larger or smaller size of the copies (comp. p. 20). Of the heads of heroic size I possess sufficient information of that of the Vatican copy D, of an exact but rather superficial replica, a cast of which is in the Strassburg Museum 46 , and of a Farnese head in the Museum of Naples 47 . All of them shew rather robust forms, and a precise, nay sharp indication of certain details, especially of the line of the brows and of the eyelids; the hair, meant to produce a soft and wavy effect, is not free from hard and dry treatment, and its beginnings at the forehead are too sharply marked. All these heads, though of tolerably good execution, yet bear unmistakably the rather dry character of Roman copiers’ work which destroys the subtleties of the original the more these are of a refined character. The same seems to be the case with the Florentine statue G ; and also in the head of the Belvedere copy A, which is said to be decidedly superior to the rest of the statue, Mengs blames the insipid expression which proves the beautiful forms to lack internal life 48 . An entirely different style reigns in the head of the Munich statue B (which is only the size of life), although the workman¬ ship is all but refined. Instead of the sharp outlines we here meet with soft transitions, instead of the rather stern expression with a charm which approaches to coquetry. This expression may easily lead, and, as a matter of fact, has led several judges 46 Michaelis Verzcichnis der Abgiissc in Strassburg , No. 732, where it is erroneously assigned to the Yatican copy itself. The cast belonged for¬ merly to Steinhaeuser the sculptor. 47 Finati R. Mus. Borbon. p. 194, No. 77. New: nose, neck, and bust. Prof. Treu has placed to my disposition a large photograph made by R. Rive at Naples. 48 See above p. 10. Of the Madrid head highly praised by Mengs we have no exact information; we cannot even say whether No. 102 of Huebner’s catalogue be meant.—To the same class with the above-named heads seem to belong the Capitoline head, Braun Vorschule, pi. 82 (Bernoulli, p. 212, 2), and the Borghese one in the Louvre, Bouillon Mus. de Sculpt, i. 68, 1 (Bernoulli, p. 212, 3. Muller-Wieseler JDenbn. i. 35, 146 d). 30 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. to give the preference to the head of D. But as soon as one compares the charming little head which, in January 1881 , was found in Olympia in the ruins of the Leonidaion (the ‘South- West edifice’), and has soon acquired a well-deserved favour 49 , one will easily become aware that the unfavourable impression of B is chargeable partly to the lack of skilfulness of the copier, and partly to the additions of the restorer. Speaking of the Olympian head, Curtius has contented himself with acknow¬ ledging generally the Praxitelian character of the work 50 , but Treu is completely right in recognizing in it not only a replica of the Cnidian goddess, but the very best of all 51 . If the engravings hitherto published 52 , although most of them are good in their way, still could leave a doubt about the identity, because in all of them the head is wrongly placed 53 , our autotype, which shews the head in exactly the same position as that of the Munich statue, will serve to remove any doubt, and at once it will prove the head to be a much finer and more authentic replica. What in the Munich head may be guessed in a faded reflection and as it were through a disfiguring veil, here appears incarnate before our eyes in a slight but spirited sketch. All the forms are well rounded, and exhibit that sober fulness which distinguishes the best copies of the body (p. 20). The plain round forehead towers in calm splendour over the softly vaulted brows, and with incomparable ease the hair is detached from the forehead—forming an eloquent commentary on the praise bestowed by Lucian 54 in his description of the Cnidian image upon ra a/bi/fil rrjv /cofirjv /cal fierooTrov ocjypvcov re to ev^pafi/iov. The hair itself in an easy and sketchy way is rather indicated than executed, reminding us of the Hermes, inasmuch as there too the rough and curly hair is treated quite differently from the soft flesh. The fillet is not rendered directly, but only its place is slightly indicated by a furrow; the occiput, which was made of a separate piece of marble, is lost. Still 49 Height 0.16, length of face 0.10 m., that is to say, about half the size of life. 50 Funde von Olympia , p. 15. 51 Arch. Zeitung, 1881, p. 74. Athen. Mittheil. 1881, p. 418. Ausgrab. von Olympia , v. p. 15. 52 Ausgrab. von Olympia, v. pi. 25, A. Funde von Olympia , pi. 19, A. Boetticher Olympia, pi. 6. Baumeister Denkm. ii. p. 1087, fig. 1294. L. Mitchell, Selections pi. 19, 1. His¬ tory of Sculpt, p. 452. 53 So are also the casts which are on sale at the Berlin Museum. 54 j w r. - Q. THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 31 more than the contrast between the hair and the flesh, the eyes afford a striking analogy with those of the Hermes and of the infant Dionysos sitting on his arm, especially the lids, the soft and subtle texture of which forbids any sharp outline; the gentle, nearly imperceptible transition of the lid to the eye itself is rendered with remarkable refinement. In this respect I know nothing which would better bear comparison with the Hermes. The narrow shape of the eye, the slight upcast of the upper, and the equal drawing up of the whole lower lid, the effect of which is an expression of tender sentiment and of long¬ ing languor, correspond again exactly to Lucian’s words about rcov ocf)daX/M(jov to v (f>cu 8 p(p koli Ke^aptapievco. Unfortunately the nose is sadly battered, and the Munich statue with its restored nose affords as little compensation as the noses either totally or partly modern of the larger copies. On the contrary the mouth gently opened, with its full lips 55 , is really charming, without a trace of that luxurious excess which spoils the countenance of the Medici Venus; precisely in this respect our autotype is superior to the former publications, most of which giving the head an exaggerated inclination backwards seem to disfigure and to vulgarize the really noble expression of our marble. If the conformation of the mouth itself is in harmony with the puicpov vrrropLeiSidv of Pseudo-Lucian 56 , the movement of the head produces the effect of the vireptf^avov, and only the aecrripcbs 76X0)5 of the description appears to contain a slight exaggeration or incongruity. A peculiar charm lives in the small round chin which as it were rises a little towards the mouth, and at the same time forms a gentle line of transition towards the inferior part of the chin 57 . Not less beautiful is the junction of the head with the neck, a beauty which again we admire in the Hermes, and which we should probably admire also in the Saurok- tonos if better copies were preserved to us. The neck itself in the Munich statue appears rather long, and the same will have been the case in the Olympian statuette, as it cor- 55 This part too of the Munich statue has suffered from had restoration. In the Pitti statue C the upper row of teeth becomes slightly visible. 56 Amor. 13, virepr)(pat'ov Kat aecnjpoTi yeXwri fjUKpbv {nrofji.€ibio!>cra. 67 In the coins mentioned above, note 45, the chin is perhaps that part which best might bear comparison with the marble heads. 32 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. responds with the other also in the fleshy fulness of the neck. It is certainly no mere chance that we meet with the same peculiarity in a still higher degree in the neck of the beautiful Demeter from Knidos in the British Museum, a statue the origin of which nobody would like to search for far beyond the limits of Praxitelian influence. To sum up: we possess very few antique heads of a similar tenderness of feeling 58 , and I see no decisive reason against the opinion of those who would assign our head to a time and a school not very distant from the original itself 59 . Imagining the whole figure executed in a similar refined but less sketchy style, we may understand the ecstasy of whole antiquity caused by this SaiSaXjbLa kclWicttov. And though we should scarcely like to take it for the best representative of ovpavia ’A (ppoborr ) 60 , still we may look at this image as the most perfect specimen of an artistic tendency which aimed to transplant the gods into the reach of human feelings, which made the goddess of beauty and love a beautiful wife, feeling at once and inspiring love, but still maintaining intact that ideal spirit of inherited divine nature, which preserved her from merging, like her later com¬ panions, into the vulgarity of mere earthly instincts. In our goddess there is still something of that lofty character which reminds us of the poet’s words : das ewig Weibliche zieht uns hinan. Ad.. Michaelis. Strassburg. 58 A comparison of our head with the fine bronze head of Aphrodite from Asia Minor, in the British Museum, will easily shew why I cannot approve Engelmann’s opinion {Arch. Zeit. 1878, p. 150) shared by Murray [Hist, of Sculpt, ii. p. 274), that this head might go back to a similar bronze statue by Praxiteles. The general character of the countenance with its slight pathetic tendency as well as certain details seem to point rather to the Hellenistic period, and to assign to the head a place nearer to the Belve¬ dere Apollon or to the Aphrodite ot Melos. 59 Treu (note 51). Furtwangler in Roscher’s Lex. d. Mythol. i. p. 416. "Walters Gipscibg. ant. Bildw. No. 321. —Flasch in Baumeister’s Denkm. ii. p. 1104 00 would like to assign the head to a later time of Graeco-Koman copying work. 60 Lucian. Be Imag. 23, where the Cnidian statue is said not to be identical with the goddess herself who lives in heaven, hut still is referred to as her best representative.