624882

The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

The Venus de Milo and the Apollo of Cyrene Author(s): W. R. Lethaby Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 39 (1919), pp. 206-208Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/624882Accessed: 30-05-2015 04:54 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.38 on Sat, 30 May 2015 04:54:11 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE VENUS DE MILO AND THE APOLLO OF CYRENE.

AT the recent temporary rearrangement of the sculpture galleries of the British Museum a cast of the Aphrodite was accidentally placed by the side of the large Apollo discovered at Cyrene by the British excavating party. This Apollo has, it appears to me, suffered from an inadequate appreciation of later Greek art, especially of the Eastern schools, and it has been a victim to our poverty in descriptive terms. By this poverty Greek sculptures which are later than what has been supposed a 'good period' are all swept up together as 'Roman.' Roman Art at the simplest is quite the most difficult to determine because so little of it was truly and characteristically Roman. The term is used as of local significance, then in an imperial sense and again of an undefined span of time.

The following rough grouping of late classical sculptures may be suggested tentatively, but the whole question of an extended and precise nomenclature needs to be considered and would be a fit subject for a con- ference of archaeologists.

(1) Original works wrought in Greece and Hellenised lands, which necessarily continued older traditions and often showed admiration and study of the great masters (Later Greek and Hellenistic).

(2) Semi-original work which intentionally simulated the style of some former school (Archaising, Archaistic and New Attic).

(3) Copies of antique sculpture more or less accurate and competent (Antique Copies).

(4) Original Sculpture wrought in Rome and lands artistically de- pendent on Rome answering to a Latin tradition (Roman).

(5) Work supplying a Roman demand, by Greek artists following Greek traditions (Graeco-Roman).

Our Apollo of Cyrene belongs to Class I. It was no reproduction for a collector but it was a traditional work wrought for a definite place and for a ritual purpose. It is the cult statue of an important temple in a rich and artistic city: it is of semi-colossal scale, choice material and most competent workmanship: it must be one of the most perfect temple statues known and is a finely preserved example of the sculptor's art; the polished radiance of the face reflects a light on marble sculptures generally, and yet this fine statue is hardly mentioned in the books and

206


THE VENUS DE MILO AND THE APOLLO OF CYRENE 207

is badly crowded by inferior works in the Museum. It should be isolated, set in a vista and made known as an authentic cult statue which once occupied the chief place in the temple which sheltered it.

It belongs to a well-known group but it is a variant of an unexhausted type; an original Hellenistic work of 'sacred' character, it may have had more than a local reputation. The type was still famous at the beginning of our era and such an Apollo was represented in a painting of the twelve gods at Pompeii illustrated by Gell. The juxtaposition of the cast of the Aphrodite and the marble Apollo brought out quite remarkable- resemblances in their general structure and treatment, so much so that I could readily believe that both might have been the work of one master. Several points of evidence which I must pass over might be brought forward to show that this Apollo is a work of the second century B.C.

Three suggestions may be gathered from the Apollo to apply to the restoration of the Aphrodite. Her left foot was certainly raised a few inches above the ground and rested on an object or step 1: her right hand did not necessarily support slipping drapery; indeed the raised left foot throwing the thigh out at an angle, the 'straddling' pose and inward, swing of the left leg would just serve to support drapery thus wrapped around the hips: By her left side was some accessory taking the place of the tree-stump and serpent of Apollo. In Furtwingler's excellent account of the Aphrodite he shows that a subsidiary figure 2 was found with the statue but he summed up against its authenticity and, in his restoration, substituted a plain pillar. Now in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, I have just seen a fragment of a Venus (about half scale) which obviously repeated the characteristics of the Venus de Milo and must have been a very inferior copy of it. It is described as: 'Fragment of Aphrodite found in the Troad-Clark No. 2' (Note the place of finding). The upper part of the figure is missing but fortunately it was broken across the nude body at some distance above the drapery, which is complete. The left foot is whole and was raised above the ground level. By the left side of the goddess, a statuette on a pedestal was represented. This companion figure was draped to below the knees but the manner of draping suggests a male figure (a Hermes ?). Its proportions show that when complete it must have risen above the waist of the greater figure of the goddess to a height which would have been suitable to support her left arm when partially extended. I may mention also that at the Victoria and Albert Museum there is or was a little terra cotta figurine of Aphrodite who leaned against Eros standing at her left side. Again the Cnidian had a support for her left arm.3

We may now confidently conclude that the Venus de Milo leaned her left arm on a pillar or a subsidiary figure representing a statuette; for-

1 Compare the Venus of Capua which is practically a copy of the Venus de Milo; also the Victory of the Trajan column. 2 Two herms were discovered but a socket

in the plinth of the statue shows that only one figure or object was associated with it.

3 See Reinach's Rdpertoire for other figures.


208 THE VENUS DE MILO AND THE APOLLO OF CYRENE

myself I think the evidence is in favour of the latter. As Fiirtwangler points out, the carving of the left side of the statue suggests that an object prevented its being fully seen and a pillar would hardly have been sufficient reason for any modification of workmanship. The same attitude, leaning

for support to the left with the left f6ot raised on a step, is found on a little ivory relief of Hygieia (c. 380 A.D.) in the Liverpool Museum (Venturi, Storia vol. i. p. 391.). Here however the support is a tripod with a coiling snake. This support for the arm rises high and the hand droops. The source of this design may have been an Apollo of the Cyrene type, but there is in it, I feel, some memory of the Aphro- dite. As to the action of the lost right hand of the Aphrodite; the Cambridge fragment shows that the drapery was not held. As this little work was all in one piece, traces of the hand could not be lost, as might possibly be the case with the great original, if the lower arm of that had been in a separate piece.

There is in the Print Room of the Victoria and Albert Museum a drawing by Mr. S. Vacher of a faded painting at Pompeii of a Venus which to some degree seems to echo the statue although it is more nude (Fig. 1). This painted Venus held a mirror in her left hand and with her right adjusted a wreath; and I am drawn to think that the Venus de Milo followed the toilet motive of the Cnidian. It has hardly been brought out that the latter, occupying an open

FIG. 1. - SKETCH FROM A DRAWING OF A PAINTING AT POMPEII.

kiosk in an enclosed garden or 'grove,' would almost certainly have stood close to a fountain basin in which it was reflected-a Bath of Venus. Polished, coloured, gilt 4 and set around with flowering shrubs it was far more than what we call a statue, it was an apparition. The Aphrodite of the 'Gardens' at Athens again must have represented the goddess in a sylvan sanctuary.

W. R. LETHABY.

4 The hair of this Venus de Medici was gilt.


Article Contentsp. 206p. 207p. 208

Issue Table of ContentsJournal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 39 (1919), pp. i-lvi+1-256Front Matter [pp. i-256]Proceedings [of the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies]. Session 1918-1919 [pp. xvii-xxxi]Greek Papyri and Their Contribution to Classical Literature [pp. 1-15]The Value of Papyri for the Textual Criticism of Extant Greek Authors [pp. 16-36]Admetus, Verrall, and Professor Myres [pp. 37-47]Cornelius Nepos on Marathon and Paros [pp. 48-61]The North Greek Affiliations of Certain Groups of Trojan Names [pp. 62-68]A Bronze Head of the Fifth Century B. C. [pp. 69-78]A Vase Fragment from Orvieto [pp. 79-81]Three Red-Figured Cups [pp. 82-87]Queen Dynamis of Bosporus [pp. 88-109]A Greek Carnival [pp. 110-115]Notes on the Imperial Persian Coinage [pp. 116-129]Mikon's Fourth Picture in the Theseion [pp. 130-143]Ancient Decorative Wall-Painting [pp. 144-163]Cleostratus [pp. 164-184]Some Balkan and Danubian Connexions of Troy [pp. 185-201]Two Notes on Hellenic Asia [pp. 202-205]The Venus de Milo and the Apollo of Cyrene [pp. 206-208]The Progress of Greek Epigraphy, 1915-1918 [pp. 209-231]Postscript to Paper on Diadumenus Head [p. 232]Notices of BooksReview: untitled [p. 233]Review: untitled [p. 233]Review: untitled [pp. 233-234]Review: untitled [p. 235]Review: untitled [p. 235]Review: untitled [p. 236]Review: untitled [pp. 236-238]Review: untitled [pp. 238-239]Review: untitled [pp. 239-240]Review: untitled [pp. 240-241]Review: untitled [p. 241]Review: untitled [p. 242]Review: untitled [pp. 242-243]Review: untitled [pp. 243-244]Review: untitled [pp. 244-245]Review: untitled [pp. 245-246]Review: untitled [pp. 246-247]Review: untitled [pp. 247-248]

624882

Documents

Transcript of 624882