We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
Every visitor of the Vatican 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.
1 Perry, W. C., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Collection of Casts from the Antique in the South Kensington Museum. London, 1884.Google Scholar
2 Archaeol. Zeitung, 1876, p. 145—149, “die vaticanischen Repliken der 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 Bramante, iv. p. 157, ed. Milanesi. Visconti, Mus. Pio Clem. i. p. 68Google Scholar, not. 1, ed. Mil. preferred to understand the Cnidian Venus.
7 Heemskerck's sketch-book is in Berlin, see Springer, J. in Jahrb. der preuss. Kunstsamml. 1884, p. 327Google Scholar, and in Ges. Studien zur Kunstgeschichte für 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.Google Scholar
10 Mauro, L.Antichità de la Città di Roma, Ven. 1556, p. 120.Google Scholar
11 Keyssler, Neueste Reise, 1740, p. 804.Google Scholar The notice seems to contain a misunderstanding of an account of Flaminio Vacca, § 24 in Fea Miscell. p. lxvi. = Schreiber Berichte d. sächs. Ges. 1881, p. 64: À Santi Pietro e Marcellino sotto la chiesa vi si trovò … una Venere grande del naturale, fingeva uscir del bagno con un Cupido appresso, la comprò il Cardinale Montalto. The mention of Cupid excludes our statue.
12 This diversity has first been pointed out by Stahr, , Torso, I., p. 349Google Scholar, 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 has been done independently by Preuner, , Arch. Zeit. 1872, p. 110Google Scholar, and Ueber die Venus von Milo, p. 30, and by Bernoulli, Aphrodite, p. 206.Google Scholar Comp. my own observations, Arch. Zeit., 1876, pp. 145 and 146.
13 In Maffei, P. A.'s Raccolta di statue, 1704, pl. 4Google Scholar, there is an engraving of a “Vencre 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 celebrated 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 inscription on the plate. My former supposition that Maffei's statue might be identical with the statue of the loggia scoperta (see above) is contradicted 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.
15 Indic. 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.Google Scholar Fea Descriz. di Roma, 1820, i., pp. 112 and 114. Gerhard, , Beschr. d. Stadt Rom [1826], ii. 2 p. 173Google Scholar, No. 38 and p. 194, NO. 2. 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 cataloguemakers seems to have paid special attention to the copy; comp. below, A. —As to the statue No. 1, see Braun, Em., Ruinen u. Museen Roms, p. 582.Google Scholar
19 Gall. delle statue, No. 400.
20 Monum. ined. per servire alla storia dei Musci d' Italia, iv. p. 393.
21 See Note 16.
22 Comp. Prof. Percy Gardner's statements, below D.
23 Ueber die Frage ob die mediceische Venus ein Bild der knidischen vom Praxiteles sey, Berlin 1808, p. 73.
24 Berichte der sächs. Ges. d. Wiss. 1860, p. 52.
25 Aphrodite, 1873, p. 206.
26 Comp. Gerhard, Beschr. d. St. Rom. ii. 2, p. 232, No. 10.Google ScholarBraun, Ruinen u. Museen, p. 447.Google ScholarPreuner, Arch. Zeit. 1872, p. 110.Google Scholar Matz and Preuner, in Bursian, 's Jahresbericht 1876, iii. p. 105.Google ScholarTreu, in Ausgr. von Olympia, v. p. 15.Google Scholar
27 The main specimens are one of the Paris cabinet (Gardner “Types of Coins,” pl. 15, 21), which, according to Weil (in Baumeister, 's Denkmäler, iii. p. 1402Google Scholar) 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. cit.), repeated above. A third coin, of the Berlin collection (Overbeck, Plastik 3 ii. p. 30Google Scholar, fig. 98 c, also in the Waddington, collection, see Rev. Numism. 1851, p. 238Google Scholar), shews the goddess grouped with Apollo leaning on a large cithara; a fourth coin, at Arolsen, exhibits a similar composition 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 Keyssler's, J. G.Neueste Reise, Hannover 1740, i. p. 804Google Scholar, and in Falconet's, Oeuvres, ii. p. 330Google Scholar; but it was Visconti's, high authority which gave as it were the official stamp to it (Mus. Pio Clem. i. p. 63. 69)Google Scholar.
29 Pseudo-Lucian, Amores 13Google Scholar, 
(Comp. Cedrenus, p. 322 Par. 
). It is evident that the other hand had no share in covering any part of the nude body. Reinach's, opinion (Nécrop. de Myrina, p. 282Google Scholar, note 3) that ἑτέρα χϵὶρ signifies the left hand is contradicted by numerous passages in Pausanias and elsewhere.
30 Comp. Overbeck's, remarks Plastik ii.3 p. 170, note 54.Google Scholar
31 Froehner, Terres cuites d' Asie Mineure, p. 48Google Scholar, 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 ϵ, “digne du plus grand maître,” to Praxiteles himself. Reinach, , Nécrop. de Myrina, p. 284Google Scholar, lays great stress on the left hand protecting the nudity, and adds “Il faudrait en conclure que certaines figurines sont plus voisines de l' original 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.Google Scholar Overbeck had no reason for quoting this passage as it does not mention expressly the Cnidian statue.
33 Pseudo-Lucian, Amor. 14.Google Scholar
34 C, G—V, c—f, β. The details cannot be made out in a g i k κ. In γ δ, the drapery rests on the left forearm. 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.Google ScholarMurray, Hist. of Sculpt. ii. p. 272, note 1.Google Scholar
37 The vase in the Paris coin is evidently retouched (see Weil, in Baumeister's, Denkm. iii. p. 1402)Google Scholar; parts of the falling drapery seem to have been converted into handles.
38 Hist. of Greek Sculpt. ii. p. 271.
39 The only instance of such an idea I can remember is a phrase of Apuleius Mct. 2, 28, in speciem Veneris quac marinos fluctus SVBIT, though this signifies scarcely more than to bathe in the sea, fluctus subire being different from in fluctus redire.
40 Pliny 36, 21, aedicula tota apcritur, ut conspici possi undique effigies … nec minor ex quacumque parte admiratio est. Anthol. Pal. app. Planud. 160, 
41 Overbeck, Plastik ii 3. p. 170, note 54.Google Scholar Murray ii. p. 275.
42 Amor. 13.
43 Ausgrab. von Olympia, V. p. 15.
44 See Visconti, Mus. Pio Clem. i. p. 64, note 1.Google Scholar
45 Aphrodite, p. 212.—I leave aside the coins of Knidos exhibiting a head of Aphrodite in profile which may be meant to contain a reminiscence of Praxiteles' masterpiece, but which give its features so generalised as to afford no useful material for our enquiry, (comp. Baumeister, Denkm. iii. p. 1402, fig. 1555.Google Scholar Gardner, “Types of Coins,” pl. 15, 20).
46 Michaelis, Verzeichnis der Abgüssc in Strassburg, No. 732Google Scholar, where it is erroneously assigned to the Vatican copy itself. The cast belonged formerly to Steinhaeuser the sculptor.
47 Finati, R. Mus. Borbon. p. 194, No. 77.Google Scholar 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. 333. 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, pl. 82 (Bernoulli, p. 212, 2), and the Borghese one in the Louvre, Bouillon Mus. de Sculpt. i. 68, 1 (Bernoulli, p. 212, 3. Müller-Wieseler, Denkm. i. 35, 146 d)Google Scholar.
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. pl. 25, A. Funde von Olympia, pl. 19, Boetticher, A.Olympia, pl. 6.Google ScholarBaumeister, Denkm. ii. p. 1087, fig. 1294.Google ScholarMitchell, L., Selections pl. 19, 1.Google ScholarHistory of Sculpt. p. 452.
53 So are also the casts which are on sale at the Berlin Museum.
54 Imag. 6.
55 This part too of the Munich statue has suffered from bad restoration. In the Pitti statue C the upper row of teeth becomes slightly visible.
56 Amor. 13, 
57 In the coins mentioned above, note 45, the chin is perhaps that part which best might bear comparison with the marble heads.
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)Google Scholar shared by Murray, (Hist. of Sculpt. ii. p. 274)Google Scholar, 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 Belvedere Apollon or to the Aphrodite of Melss.
59 Treu (note 51). Furtwängler, in Pioscher's, Lex. d. Mythol. i. p. 416.Google ScholarWolters, Gipsabg. ant. Bildw. No. 321.Google Scholar —Flasch in Baumeister's, Denkm. ii. p. 1104 OO would like to assign the head to a later time of Graeco-Roman copying work.Google Scholar
60 Lucian, . De Imag. 23Google Scholar, where the Cnidian statue is said not to be identical with the goddess herself who lives in heaven, but still is referred to as her best representative.
