^ / DEPARTMENT OF 1^0 T>*L. LIBRARY OF Ys^i. University of Illinois. Books are not to be taken from the Library RoonA. Return this book on or before the Latest Date stamped below. A charge is made on all overdue books. u of L Library r* V M32 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2015 https://archive.org/details/somenotedsculptu01duff SOME NOTED SCULPTURES AND THEIR HOMES. COMPILED BY MARY GRAHAM DUFF. BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY SOULE PHOTOGRAPH COMPANY, 338 Washington Street. 1889. Copyright, 1888, By MARY GRAHAM DUFF. All rights reserved . PRESS OF ROCKWELL AND CHURCHILL, BOSTON. PREFACE. r ^HE favorable reception accorded “ Some Famous Paintings and Their Homes” has encouraged the author to come again before the public in this companion work, which she trusts will meet with even a warmer welcome from all who are interested in the grand subject of plastic art. The field is such a wide one, and so full of the richest treasures, that the difficulty has been, not what to select, but what to leave untouched. There are differences of opinion on this as on most subjects, and, in order to come to a full under- standing of some points, conflicting interpretations must occasionally be cited, and more than once the reader is left in doubt and some perplexity. This is unavoidable in the cases where it occurs, and time, and time alone, will solve the mystery. (O The authorities quoted stand in the front rank of archaeologists and art writers, and having offered their knowledge and research the author can do no more. Mary Graham Duff. The blank leaves are intended for photographic illustrations of each statue and its home. These photographs — $1.50 per dozen — may be procured all at once, or gradually, at the option of the purchaser, from the SOULE PHOTOGRAPH Co., 338 Washington street, Boston. These pictures are ordered by num- ber only, except where no number is given, when they should be ordered by their names. They must be unmounted cabinets, and should be pasted only on the edge nearest the binding or back part of the book, so that they will turn with the leaves. The following numbers, from the “ Soule Catalogue,” are the ones needed for the full illustration of this vol- ume. It has been found necessary to issue the work in two volumes, but each is complete in itself and is sold separately. (O SCULPTURES VOLUME I. THE VATICAN. No. 2262. Jupiter Otricoli. “ 2232. Apollo Belvedere. “ 2233. “ “ Head. S 4 2285. Torso Belvedere. V 2263. Laocoon. 4 4 2237. Apoxyomenos. 4 i 2280. Ariadne Deserted. a . Amazon (Mattei) . ( ?) 4 4 2265. Meleager. 44 2288. Venus of Cnidos. 4 4 2268. Minerva Medica. 4 4 2271. Headless Niobe. THE CAPITOL, ROME, No. 2212. Minerva Bellica. (White Maiden. “ 2202. Faun of Praxiteles. 4 4 2217. Venus of the Capitol. 4 4 2218. “ “ “ Head. 2201. Dying Gladiator or Gaul. 44 2I95. Antinous. ( 3 ) THE LOUVRE, *^No. 2431. Venus of Melos. 4 4 2432. “ “ “ Head and Bust. 4 4 . Fighting Gladiator. “ 2418. Diana k la Biche. 4 4 . “ “ “ Head. 4 4 . Pallas from Velletri. UFFIZI PALACE. No. 2311. Niobe. 4 4 2313 . Daughter. 4 4 2312. 4 4 4 4 2323. Son. 44 2321. 4 4 44 2324. Pedagogue. 2319. Youngest Son. 44 2316. Daughter. 44 2320. Son. 44 2318. Dead Son. 44 2314. Daughter. 4 4 23 I 5 - 44 4 4 2317. 44 44 2322. Son. 2327. Venus de Medici. 2329. “ “ “ Head. 233 I- The Wrestlers. MISCELLANEOUS. No. . StroganofF Apollo. St. Petersburg. “ . Steinhaiiser Apollo. (Head.) Basle. ( 4 ) HOMES VOLUME I. No. 4796. The Vatican. “ 4797 - 44 “ Braccio Nuovo. 44 4799 - 44 “ Gallery of Statues. i i 4800. “ “ “ . “ “ Hall of the Biga. i i 4804. “ “ Museo Chiaramonti. 4 4 4805. 4 4 “ The Rotunda. 4 4 4709. The Capitol. Fa9ade. 44 4711. “ “ Equestrian Statue of M. Aurelias. 44 2946. The Louvre. Colonnade. 44 2948. “ “ Court Front. 44 2951. 44 “ Vestibule. 44 2956. 44 “ Gallery of Venus of Melos. “ . 4 4 “ Salle du Gladiateur. 44 . “ “ “ des Caryatides. 44 . “ “ “ du Tibre. 44 4937 - Uffizi. The Portico. 44 4938 . “ The Tribune. “ 4939 - 44 Third Corridor. 4 4 4940. “ Hall of Niobe. ( 5 ) CONTENTS VOLUME I. Jupiter Otricoli Page. 13 Apollo Belvedere . 24 The Torso Belvedere . 46 The LaocoOn . 59 The Apoxyomenos . 7 i Ariadne Deserted . 75 Amazon .... 83 Meleager 92 Venus of Cnidos 101 Minerva Medica . 109 The Vatican 112 Minerva of the Capitol 128 Faun of Praxiteles 131 The Dying Gladiator, or Gaul 139 Antinous .... 144 The Capitol, Rome 155 The Venus of Melos 162 The Fighting Gladiator 172 The Diana X la Biche . 178 Pallas from Velletri . 186 The Louvre T 93 The Niobe Group . 211 The Venus de Medici . 238 The Wrestlers 247 The Uffizi Palace 251 ( 7 ) INDEX. VOLUME |. Amazon .... Page. • 83 Antinous .... 144 Apollo Belvedere . 24 Apoxyomenos, The . 71 Ariadne Deserted . 75 Capitol, Rome, The 155 Diana A la Biche . 178 Faun of Praxiteles 1 3 i - Gladiator, or Gaul, The Dying 139 Gladiator, The Fighting 172 Jupiter Otricoli 13 - LaocoSn, The . 59 Louvre, The . 193 Meleager .... 9 2 Minerva of the Capitol 128 Minerva Medic a 109 Niobe Group, The . 211 Pallas from Velletri . 186 Torso, The Belvedere . 46 Uffizi Palace . 251 Vatican, The . 112 Venus de Medici . 2 38 Venus of Cnidos . IOI ~ Venus of Melos 162 — Wrestlers, The . 247 ( 9 ) AUTHORITIES QUOTED. VOLUME I. Berens. Chambers. Clarac. Knight. Legrand. Lubke. Murray (A. S.) Murray. Perry, W. C. Redford. Myths and Legends of Greece and Rome. Encyclopaedia. Mus6e de Sculpture, Antique et Moderne. Pictorial Gallery of Arts. GaRries des Antiques. History of Sculpture. History of Greek Sculpture. Handbook of Central Italy. “ “ Paris. “ “ Rome. Greek and Roman Sculpture. Ancient Sculpture. (10) JUPITER OTRICOLI, VATICAN. ' I "HE magnificent bust in the Sala rotonda of the Vatican, known by the name of the Jupiter Otricoli, is supposed by some writers to be a copy from the great work of Pheidias. It belongs, no doubt, to the Roman period ; but it is equally certain that the design is not Roman, but only copied, with cer- tain modifications, from some noble Greek original. It gives with great clearness the characteristics of the type of Zeus, first settled by Pheidias, which recur in all subsequent representations of this deity and some of his reputed sons, — Asklepios, Alexander the Great, etc. Among these characteristics are the manner in which the hair rises straight up on the forehead and falls down on each side of the head like a mane ; the brow, clear and open above, and prominently arched below; the full, massive beard flowing down in rich curls ; the deep-set but widely opened eyes, and the refined and noble expression of mingled (13) majesty and mildness in the face, so suitable to the omnipotent ruler and gracious father of Gods and men. Perry. The Jupiter of Phidias received the highest admira- tion from all antiquity ; it survived the god himself, for it was not until the fifth century of the Christian Era that a fire destroyed both the statues and the temple. Every Hellenist went on a pilgrimage to it. He who had seen it was pronounced happy. “ Even on a Roman, as ^Emilius Paulus, for instance, the Olympic Jupiter produced the most powerful effect. To him, at least, it was the embodiment of the Homeric Jupiter, if not the god himself. “ Pliny speaks of it as inimitable ; later writers extol the view of it as a magic charm, which makes all care and suffering forgotten ; and Quintilian says that the Jupiter of Phidias has even added a new impetus to the existing religion, so much does the majesty of the work equal the god himself.” The ruler of Olympus did not, it is said, disdain to give the master a proof of his satisfaction. For, so says the religious legend, when Phidias, standing before his finished work in the temple, prayed the (i4) god for a token that the work was pleasing to him, a flash of lightning suddenly passed across the un- clouded sky, and through an opening in the temple roof, and touched the ground by the side of the master. Lilbke . The temple of Jupiter at Elis was hypaethral, or open to the sky within, like the Parthenon ; and the statue of the god occupied the same place in it as that of Minerva did in the building just named. Pausanias says of this chryselephantine statue : — “ The god, made of gold and ivory, is seated on a throne. Upon his head is a crown in imitation of an olive-branch. In his right hand he carries a figure of Victory, which is also formed of gold and ivory, holding a wreath and wearing a crown on her head. In the left hand of Jupiter is a sceptre, glittering with various kinds of metals, and on the summit of the sceptre is an eagle. The sandals of the god are of gold, and his mantle is also golden. The figures of various animals, and of all sorts of flowers, par- ticularly lilies, are painted on it. “ The throne is a diversified assemblage of gold, precious stones, ivory, and ebony, on which figures of all kinds are also painted or sculptured. (17) “At each of the four feet of the throne are four Victories, and there are two others in front of the lower part of each foot. “ Upon the summits of the throne, above the level of the head of the god, Phidias has made on the one side the Graces, and on the other the Seasons, three in each group. These were the daughters of Jupiter, as the poets relate. “ Homer, in his Iliad, makes mention of the Seasons, to whom he attributes the care of the heavens, like sentinels who are attending the gates of a palace.” Knight . Jupiter, or Juppiter, in Roman mythology, was the greatest of the gods. The name is a modification of “ Diovis pater ” ; i.e.> the Father of Heaven, or the Heavenly Father. As such Jupiter has all power over the phenomena of the skies ; hence his numerous epithets, such as Pluvius (the Rain-giver), Tonans (the Thunderer), Fnlminator (the Lightning-hurler), and Serenator (the Weather-clearer). But he possessed still higher and diviner attributes. The future was spread out clearly before his all-seeing eye ; the des- tinies of men were in his hands, and events were but the expression of his omnipotent will. But he was not careless of mankind. As the (18) ) national god of the Roman people he went with them into battle (like the Jehovah of the Hebrews), fought for them, procured them victory, and, generally speaking, was their protector at home and abroad. The strong sense of morality which marked the old Romans also found its expression in their view of the character of the best and greatest ( optimus Maximus ) of their gods. He had temples erected to him at Rome under all his different names, but the principal one was on the Capitol, whence he had the title of Capitol inns, and where, with beautiful significance, the statues of Fides (Faithfulness) and Victoria (Victory) were placed beside his own. When consuls or other magistrates entered on the duties of their office, or when the army was about to open a campaign, or a general returned victorious from war, sacrifices were solemnly offered to Jupiter, and his favor invoked. When the Romans began to know the religion and literature of Greece, they fool- ishly sought to identify their own noble, majestic, and gravely upright Jupiter with the slippery, lustful, and immoral Zeus of the Greeks. Hence have originated much confusion and misconception. (2l) Chambers. LEGEND. Zeus ( Jupiter ) the great presiding deity of the uni- verse, the ruler of heaven and earth, was regarded by the Greeks, first, as the god of all aerial phenomena; secondly, as the personification of the laws of nature ; thirdly, as lord of state life; and, fourthly, as the father of gods and men. The Greeks believed that the home of this their mighty and all-powerful deity was on the top of Mount Olympus, that high and lofty mountain between Thes- saly and Macedon, whose summit, wrapped in clouds and mist, was hidden from mortal view. On the snow-capped summit of Olympus was the palace of Zeus and Hera, of burnished gold, chased silver, and gleaming ivory. In the representations of Zeus he is always accom- panied by an eagle. This royal bird was sacred to him, probably from the fact of its being the only creature capable of gazing at the sun without being dazzled, which may have suggested the idea that it was able to contemplate the splendor of divine majesty unshrink- ingly. Zeus had seven immortal wives, whose names were Metis, Themis, Eurynome, Demeter, Mnemosyne, Seto, and Hera. ( 22 ) In the union of Zeus with most of his immortal wives we shall find that an allegorical meaning is con- veyed. His marriage with Metis, who is said to have surpassed both gods and men in knowledge, represents supreme power allied to wisdom and prudence. His union with Themis typifies the bond which exists between divine majesty and justice, law and order. Eurynome, as the mother of the Charities or Graces, supplied the harmonizing influences of grace and beauty, whilst the marriage of Zeus with Mnemosyne typifies the union of genius with memory. (23) Berens. APOLLO BELVEDERE, VATICAN. ' I ''HE Apollo Belvedere is one of the most cher- ished objects of Art in Rome. It was dis- covered about the beginning of the sixteenth century at Porto d’Anzo, the ancient Antium. It was pur- chased by Cardinal della Rovere, afterwards Pope Julius II., and was one of the first specimens of ancient sculpture placed in the Belvedere of the Vatican, or Papal Palace. It was supposed to have been originally placed in one of the imperial baths at Antium. Much diversity of opinion has existed concerning the character in which Apollo is here represented, and the sculptor by whom the statue was produced. Visconti has suggested that it represents the god in his medical capacity after the great plague at Athens ; while Winckelmann thought that Apollo is here rep- resented as the serpent-slayer. Visconti once thought that it was made of Greek marble, and therefore (24) most probably a Greek work; but it has since been determined that the material is Carrara marble, and this has led to the conjecture that the statue was wrought in * Italy. Some writers have supposed that Phidias was the sculptor of the original statue ; while others attribute it to Ageselaus ; but it is gen- erally admitted that nothing decisive can be said on this point. As to the marble copy itself, that which is in the Vatican, it is supposed to have been wrought some- where about the time of Nero. One writer observes : “We cannot assign the Apollo to any other epoch but that of the Roman emperors, and it seems the most probable hypothesis that it was made for Nero to adorn his sea villa at Antium. This man, whom history has represented to us as a cruel tyrant, an unnatural son, and the murderer of his wife, was still a lover of the arts, and, perhaps, no mean judge of them, as far as we can discern through that cloud of abuse in which the history of the early em- perors is enveloped. The noble figure of the Apollo, perhaps one of the last efforts of Grecian art to perfect the ideal form of the Archer god, stood at Nero’s bidding, in all its beauty, before the master of the Roman world.” Those critics who agree that this figure represents (27) Apollo in his character as the serpent-slayer, take the idea from the legend in which Apollo is de- scribed as shooting with his arrow the great ser- pent Python, one of the terrible creatures of the Greek mythology. Knight. Lord Byron thus beautifully alludes to this event, and to the statue : — “The lord of the unerring bow, The god of life, of poetry and light, The sun, in human limbs arrayed and brow All radiant from his triumph in the fight. The shaft has just been shot ; the arrow bright With an immortal vengeance ; in his eye And nostril, beautiful, disdain and might And majesty flash their full lightnings by, Developing in that one glance the Deity.” Thiersch in his criticism on this statue considers that the moment here indicated is the one which the sculptor chose for representing the statue : — “ Already has he turned himself from the left side, in which direction the arrow has sped, and is moving off towards the right, while his head is still directed towards his vanquished enemy on the (28) left, to whom, while in his flight and uttering the words of vengeance, he gives a last look of indig- nation and contempt.” Visconti makes the following objection to this opin- ion : “ Why does not this attitude equally suit Apollo in the act of exterminating the progeny of Niobe? or the faithless Coronis, or the imperious giants? All these subjects are more worthy the vengeance of a deity than the destruction of a reptile ; and the elevated look cannot be directed to an animal on the ground.” When this statue was discovered both ankles and the right leg were broken. The original fragments were fortunately not lost, but they have been joined in so careless a manner as to impair, in some de- gree, the action of the figure. The left hand and right fore arm are modern, but are not deemed sat- isfactory restorations. Knight. This beautiful and famous work of art has been for ages, and still remains, one of the greatest riddles of Archaeology, and in discussing it we have to make our way through a whole thicket of difficult and thorny questions. It is not mentioned in ancient literature, and we know neither its author nor its (29) age. Is it an original or a copy? If a copy, was the original of bronze or marble? Is the work before us of Greek or Italian marble? And, above all, what is the motif ( concetto ) ? What is the action in which the God is engaged? To all these questions different answers are still given by equally competent authorities. The opinion of those who held that it was not an original work of the Roman period was sufficiently justified by the grandeur of the design, and has been completely confirmed by the discovery of another head of Apollo, of Greek marble, identical in design and even in measurement with that of the Vatican statue. This work, called the “ Steinhauser head” after the discoverer, was found, a few years ago, in a magazine at Rome, and is now at Basle. It is of an earlier and simpler style than the Vatican copy , is far more Greek in tone, and shows a fresher and purer feel- ing for organic structure. It may, therefore, fairly be regarded as standing nearer to the common orig- inal of both. In regard to the material of that original we have the concurrent opinions of an illus- trious artist and an illustrious archaeologist — Canova and Brunn — that it was certainly bronze and not marble. “ The artist, in order to make it resemble bronze as C3<>) / much as possible, changes the nature of marble by giving it an artificial polish, and making it produce its effect as metal does by a glancing surface and reflected and refracted lights.” But by far the greatest interest attaches itself to the question as to the motif of the statue. It is quite evident that the God is engaged in some action which would be clear to us if the hands had not been mutilated. The theory that the great “ God of the silver bow ” has just discharged an arrow at the Python, Tityos, or the Niobids, and the interpreta- tion that he is the “ Bringer of the plague,” shooting at the Greeks before Troy, who had dishonored his holy prophet — founded on the restored bow, gradually prevailed until, in i860, attention was directed by Stephani to an antique bronze statuette of Apollo , rather less than two feet high, in St. Petersburg. After passing through several hands it came into the collection of Count Stroganojf in St. Petersburg. Its resemblance to the Vatican Apollo is far too great to be accidental, and there can be no doubt that they are both copies of the same original work. The ornamented sandals and the folds of the drapery on the breast are identical in the two statues, and where they differ in details the style of the bronze is simpler and more archaic. ( 33 ) The most important feature, however, is the left hand, which is preserved in the bronze, and holds, not a bow, but an elastic substance, the bottom part of which is broken off, and which Stephani takes to be the cegis. Basing his arguments on this discov- ery, Preller first suggested that the Apollo Belvedere might be brought into connection with the defeat of the Gauls at Delphi in 279 B.C., on which occasion several statues — two Apollos, an Ath£n£, and an Artemis — were offered in the Temple of Apollo at that place. The reader will remember that in this year a body of Gauls, who had settled in Pannonia (Hungary), broke into Greece under Brennus. After ravaging Macedonia, they marched through Thessaly to Ther- mopylae, which once more became the scene of heroic patriotism and infamous treachery. Some Heracleots played the part of the foul villain Ephialtes in the old Persian days, and led the Gauls into the country by the mountain pass of Anopaea. In this emer- gency, says Pausanias, using almost the very words of Herodotus, the Delphians applied to the oracle for counsel, and asked whether they should carry away the property of the temple. “ I, myself,” the God replied, “ and the White Maidens (Ath£n§ and Artemis), will take care of that.” Encouraged by ( 34 ) this promise of assistance, four thousand Greeks stood ready to defend the temple, but their presence was superfluous. During the battle which ensued the God came through the roof of his temple in super- natural youthful beauty, and the White Maidens came forth from their respective sanctuaries at Delphi, to drive back the sacrilegious barbarians. A mighty, heaven-sent tempest arose, and rocks from the heights of Parnassus fell on the heads of the bewildered Gauls. The twanging bow of Artemis, the clashing shield and spear of Ath£n§, were heard above the din and storm of battle, and the grim flash of the awful Gorgoneion, on the aegis of Apollo, was seen through the mists and clouds. The spectres of departed heroes appeared and mingled in the fray ; the earth shook beneath the feet of the astonished Gauls, who fled in dismay, and fell an easy prey to the pursuing Greeks. The Apollo Belvedere, therefore, may represent the God, as, with the proud consciousness of invincibility, he holds up the aegis, and marks with a mingled expression of scorn and satisfaction its terrible effect on the ranks of the Gauls. It will naturally be asked how Apollo came by the aegis, which is not his proper attribute. There is precedent even for this in a passage in ( 37 ) the Iliad, which records how Zeus intrusted his son with the dreaded instrument of his wrath : “ Take thou and wave on high the tasselled shield, The Grecian warriors daunting.” It was therefore quite open to the artist to repre- sent Apollo in his character of Boedromios (the helper) with the aegis of Zeus and the aspect of the Vatican statue, the self-reliant, serenely contemptuous look, suits well the bearer of an irresistible weapon. This so-called “ Gallic theory ” is rendered the more probable and interesting by the fact of our possess- ing two statues, cognate in spirit and treatment, of the White Maidens , Artemis and Ath£n£, in the famous Diane h la Biche , at the Louvre, and the Athene with spear and shield rushing to the attack, in the Capi- toline Museum at Rome. The Apollo Belvedere is the work of one of those genial, eclectic copyists of the renaissance of Greek Art in Rome, who, having chosen his model from among the older types, was not satisfied with merely reproducing it. He has evidently tried to invest it with the charm of novelty, by substituting for its grand simplicity — which is partly preserved in the Steinhauser head — the ultra-refinement and polished elegance which suited the taste of his own times. ( 38 ) The technical execution of the Belvedere Apollo shows a master’s hand. The artist was evidently in possession of all the knowledge and all the skill which had been accumulated in past ages. We see Lysippus in the form and Praxiteles in the face. The noble limbs are moulded with the ease and freedom which are the result of perfect mastery, and the proud and beautiful face, from which the Muses drew their in- spiration, gleams with expression as he moves along in graceful majesty, bathed in the purple light of eternal youth. And yet the dainty beauty of the Apollo Belvedere does not stir the deepest springs of emotion in those who have the finest feeling for the highest forms of Greek Art. We find a difficulty in regarding the Apollo Bel- vedere as an object of worship; for that it is too ornate. It is rather like the embodiment of the day- dreams of a powerful, bright, but somewhat luxurious imagination, which is not satisfied with the majesty of nature, the awful dignity of the Godhead, but must invest its idol with the external trappings of some Prince of a fairy tale. Such an image, if worshipped at all, could only be the favorite divinity of an ele-, gant and sumptuous court. ( 39 ) Perry. Not till now have we understood the Apollo Bel- vedere. In unveiled beauty we see the elegant form of the slender figure, the left shoulder only being covered by the chlamys which falls down over the arm, which, far outstretched, holds the aegis with its Medusa head. The right arm is slightly turned aside, but both hands have been unskilfully restored. The attitude of the god is full of pathos and is con- ceived at a dramatic moment. Ardently excited and filled with divine anger, with which is mingled a touch of triumphant scorn, the intellectual head is turned sidewards, while the figure, with elastic step, is hurry- ing forwards. The eye seems to shoot forth light- nings ; there is an expression of contempt in the corners of the mouth, and the distended nostrils seem to breathe forth divine anger. It is a bold attitude thus transfixed in marble, full of life-like and excited action, indicating, it is true, a distinct aiming at theatrical effect (this is increased by the faulty restorations of the hands), and therefore calculated to be viewed from one aspect. The smooth sharpness of the form which rivals the lustrous effect of the metal, and the finely cut folds of the slight chlamys, indicate a bronze original as distinctly as does the stem of the tree. The bronze statuette of Count Stroganoff does not (40) exhibit the stem of the tree, and altogether in its more simple treatment it probably approaches nearer the original than the Apollo Belvedere does, in which we perceive the intelligent and masterly work of a Greek artist of the early Imperial period. In the Steinhauser head the treatment unquestionably is more simple, innocent, and fresh ; the hair especially exhibits none of the affected nicety of the Apollo Belvedere, but displays more natural feeling. The chiselling is soft and full of life, and more in accordance with marble, while the other, with all its finish, betrays a striving after effect : and that indeed of a metal work. Equally little, however, can we over- look the fact that the master of the Apollo Belvedere remains unsurpassed in the expression of intellectual power and subjective excitement. The conjecture of Overbeck, who imagines that the Delphic group of the ALtolians can be restored in its principal parts out of the Apollo Belvedere, the Diana at Versailles, and a figure of Minerva hastening to the combat, which is now in the Capitoline Museum, is at the first glance very pleasing and attractive, and is supported by a long-felt affinity between the Diana at Versailles and the Apollo Belvedere. But it must, however, on more accurate observation, be received with hesitation. (40 The god who would occupy the central place is represented, like the two goddesses at his side, rapidly advancing, for he is touching the ground so slightly with the point of his left foot, that to remain in such a position is not conceivable. To combine, however, three figures in such an attitude seems to me trans- gressing the limit allowed to plastic art, and Overbeck himself raises a similar objection to the grouping of an Apollo Citharcedus with the Latona and Diana, all of whom display the same agitated movement. If, however, we may also assume that the pictu- resque style of sculpture in the Diadochae period would not have avoided such a transgression of the limits of the art, we have still to consider whether such an almost tautological attitude of three statues would not have considerably weakened the splendid idea of the Apollo, and whether such an arrangement could be ascribed to an epoch which so well understood effect. However gratifying it would be if the proposed com- bination could bring us an explanation of two works of sculpture hitherto not fully understood, the doubts which arise on the subject cannot be denied. Lilbke. So long as the Vatican statue was generally held to represent Apollo holding out the aegis to destroy an (42) armed host of enemies to Greece, for example the Gauls in their descent upon Delphi, wide scope was offered to the imagination, and the imposing character of the statues was proportionately increased. This notion, however, was based on the comparison of a small bronze figure in St. Petersburg, known as the Stroganoff Apollo, which, it is now argued, held in the left hand a bow and the end of his mantle, not an