No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extract
The beautiful marble head of Apollo, which is represented on Pl. III was bequeathed by the late Edmund Oldfield, F.S.A., to the Ashmolean Museum. According to a note sent me by Mrs. Oldfield, it was successively in the Poniatowski and Brett collections. When it was in the former gallery, it was seen by Martin Wagner, and is mentioned by him in the Kunstblatt of 1830 (p. 238) as closely similar to the Pourtales head, but differing in the treatment of the hair. See also Julius in Ann. d. Inst. 1875, p. 33.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1903
References
1 Kunstmythologie: Apollon, p. 141.
2 Formerly the Pourtales head was set on a statue of Apollo to which it did not belong. See Galleria Giustiniana, Pl. 52.
3 I wish to thank Prof. H. A. Miers for his kindness in carefully examining the marble in my company, and giving me valuable information in regard to it.
4 In the British Museum: published by Julius, L., Ann. d. Inst. 1875, p. 27 Google Scholar: Mon. d. Inst. x. 19.
5 In the poorly executed Vatican Citharoedus there is not much expression in the face, but the pose is decisive.
6 Cf. Brit. Mus. Cat. of Sculpture, ii, p. 127, No. 1058;. Pl. XX. Fig. 2.
7 The chief argument to prove that this group represents Apollo and Hyacinthus is the presence of the discus in the hand of the boy. But Michaelis, (Anc. Marbles in Great Britain, p. 281 Google Scholar) gives reasons for thinking that the object is not a discus. Nor does it appear why Apollo should grieve for Hyacinthus while the boy was alive.
8 Le Bas, ed. Reinach, Pl. 143, 3. The date is given by M. Reinach as the first century B.C. He regards the head as female.
9 Height from chin to roots of hair mm. 255; from chin to line of eyebrows 180; between further corners of eyes about 122, but the marble is broken away at the right eye.
10 This is of course not a new attribution; but recent studies put it on a firmer basis.
11 Röm. Mittheil. iv, Pl. 8, 9. See below.
12 Overbeck, , Kunstmythol. Apollo, Pl. XXI. 32 Google Scholar: text, p. 185; where the various engravings of the statue are enumerated.
13 Pliny, , N.H. xxxvi. 25 Google Scholar: Propertius II. 31, 6.
14 List in Overbeck, , K.M.: Apollon, p. 323 Google Scholar; Plates XXI. 18: XXIV. 20, 24, 25, XXV. 3. A relief on a well-head of the Louvre, Pl. XXI. 14.
15 List, ibid. p. 322.
16 The objections brought against this view by Overbeck will be found in his Kunstmythol.: Apollon, p. 186. They are largely based on coins of Augustus and Commodus. While I am unable to explain the inconsistencies put forward by Overbeck, they do not seem to me fatal to the attribution.
17 It is thus described in the British Museum Catalogue of Sculpture (ii, p. 128; No. 1061). ‘Right shoulder of a draped figure, broken off half-way down the upper arm. The figure wore a sleeved chiton, and a large mantle, which was thrown back over the shoulders. The head of the statue was separately worked, and set in a socket. The back is broken away.’ There seems to be no record where exactly the shoulder was found; but probably it was found on the north side of the Mausoleum, with our head and with many fragments of statues.
18 Besides the drapery the fibula which fastened it must have been attached to the head.
19 Compare the coin of Argos: Numism. Comment. on Pausanias, I. xxiii. &c.
20 See especially Graef in Röm. Mittheil. iv.
21 See Preuner, E., Ein Delphisches Weihgeschenk, 1900 Google Scholar; and Homolle, L. in Bulletin de Corresp. Hellén. for 1899, p. 422 Google Scholar.
22 Bull. Corr. Hell. 1897, p. 598.
23 MrsStrong, , in the Classical Review for April, 1901 (p. 188)Google Scholar, writes, ‘the expression has the true Skopasian inwardness, of which the superficial externalizing Lysippus shows himself incapable.’ So sweeping a statement as this in regard to Lysippus has never been justified by the evidence, and is in direct contradiction to the statement of Plutarch.
24 Specimens, i. Pl. 40: Clarac, v. 788, 1973.
25 Anc. Marb. in Great Britain, p. 451.
26 Röm. Mittheil: iv. p. 193.
27 Gardner, Sculptured Tombs of Hellas, Pl. XV.
28 My friend Mr. K. T. Frost, who has made a careful study of athletic art, writes to me as follows in regard to the Agias and Apoxyomenus:—‘In the Apoxyomenus the whole conception of the human figure, the whole athletic ideal, is different. The Apoxyomenus has the tendencies of the Agias towards length of limb and lightness of frame carried a step further. The Agias is alert; but it is the alertness of stability: the Apoxyomenus, lightly poised, seems able to spring off in either direction: the waist tapers more, the limbs are yet longer, and are made to seem even longer in proportion to the body than they really are. Compare for example the lower legs of the two’ (apart from the restorations): ‘in the Apoxyomenus the muscles of the calf are short and swelling, while the tendons which taper from calf to ankle contribute to the grace which permeates the entire design. In the Agias, and in the elder Sisyphus, the calf muscles are longer and the lower portions of the legs fuller. The hollow back of the Apoxyomenus, the way in which the muscles sweep inwards at the waist from above, and outwards below, while the steel-like subsidiary tendons and sinews prevent the slimness from suggesting any lack of strength, find no counterpart in the Agias, whose back is treated rather sketchily, and whose waist, though fine, depends more for its strength on the general solidity of the frame than on specially developed muscles. It is difficult to believe that the two statues represent works by the same artist: it is not only the type of man but the way in which that type is expressed which forms the contrast. The Apoxyomenus, however, compares well with the Fighting Warrior of Agasias: both have the physical character which we associate with the thoroughbred, and towards which Greek art seems to have progressed.
29 Röm. Mittheil. 1901, p. 391, Pl. XVI., XVII.