Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
The marble head of Aphrodite of heroic dimensions from Holkham Hall in Norfolk was published by Michaelis in his ‘Ancient Marbles of Great Britain’ (p. 314, No. 37) and is one of the few works which he thought worthy of being illustrated by a special plate. In his own words: ‘It is one of the most striking specimens of the collection, and richly merits being better known; being a good copy of an original of the best period. The conception stands about half way between the Aphrodite of Melos and the Aphrodite of Knidos by Praxiteles.’ The illustration in Michaelis, which is here reproduced (Fig. 1), gives an entirely wrong conception of the style and character of the head. The head is tilted back too far, which alters the character as far as attitude is concerned, as well as the proportion of the face, which appears too much elongated, and especially in the drawing and modelling of the features and surfaces introduces elements of softness and sentiment which are most misleading. My contention is: That we have to deal, not with a copy, but with an original, and that the relationship to the well-known types of the fourth century B.C. and of later dates, such as those specially mentioned by Michaelis, undoubtedly exists, but that it cannot possibly be that of a further development of Praxitelean or later types, but of an earlier type, out of which the Praxitelean and Scopasian types were developed, no doubt with distinct originality and with the perfection of artistic technique and feeling characteristic of these great sculptors of the fourth century.
1 H. 0·56; 1. of face about 0·28; forehead 0·10 high; nose 0·09 long; space between nose and mouth about 0·025; space from mouth to chin about 0·06; neck from chin to hollow of throat 0·10.
2 Plans, Elevations, dec., of Holkham, by Brettingham, Matthew; London, 1761Google Scholar.
3 p. 278, No. 17.
4 Treasures of Art of Great Britain, London, 1854, vol. iii. p. 417.
5 Ancient Marbles in Great Britain, described by Michaelis, Adolf; translated from the German by Fennell, C. A. M.; Cambridge, 1882Google Scholar.
6 The cast was made by M. Enrico Cantoni; 100, Church St. Chelsea. S.W.
7 Since then, in quite recent times, I regret to say, all the marbles at Holkham, including this head, have undergone a process of ‘cleaning’ which has entirely destroyed the antique patina. It would be well for owners of antique sculpture to consult archaeological authorities before submitting their treasures to any process of cleaning.
8 I may anticipate here, and say, that they chiefly occur on one side, the left side, of the head and to the right of the spectator.
9 Its proportion corresponds, as far as this can be ascertained, to that of the Theseus Olympus from tl.e Eastern pediment of the Parthenon.
10 Antike Denkmäler, 1908, Tafel 59.
11 Essay in Le Musée for Nov.-Dec, 1904.
12 Pausanius, v. 25·l; Plutarch, , Conjug. Praecept. 32Google Scholar; Overbeok, Schriftquellen, Nos. 755, 756. Another marble Aphrodite of supreme beauty later iu Rome, is attributed to Pheidias by Pliny, , N.H. xxxvi. 15Google Scholar; S.Q. 767.
13 Scop et Pracxitèle, 1907, p. 73.
14 Der Weber-Laborde Kopf und die Giebelgruppcn des Parthenon.
15 Reinach, S., Recueil de Têtes Antiques, p. 129Google Scholar.
16 Intacte à quelques morceaux près, cettetête colossale a été rapprochée, dès le début du XIXe siècle, de la Niobé de Florence; puis, dans la première édition de sa Griechische Plastik, Overbeck a supposé qu'elle provenait des frontons du Parthénon et M. Froehner y aégalement reconnu une œuvre de l'école de Phidias (1868). Aujourd'hui, ou est généralement d'accord pour y voir une sculpture praxitélienne, analogue tant à l'Aphrodite de Cnide qu'à la Niobé. L'arrangement des cheveux est plus simple que dans l'Aphrodite de Cnide et le style est plus large que celui des répliques connues de cette statue. On ne s'étonne done pas que des archéologues informés aient pensé à Phidias. Peut-être pourrait-on tenir compte de leur impression en attribuant cette belle tête à l'un des prédécesseurs immédiats de Praxitèle, encore dominé par la grande tradition de l'école attique du Ve siècle.
Il n'existe pas de répliques de l'Aphrodite du Louvre, mais on a signalé des têtes analogues de la déesse à Holkham Hall [Michaelis, Ancient Marbles in Great Britain; Holkham, No. 37 (avec planche)] et à Terracine. [Blandiere, Terracine, Pl. 3. Bouillon, , Musée, t. iii, Pl. 3, 7Google Scholar; Clarac, , Musée, 1096Google Scholar, 2793 c; Froehner, Notice No. 163; Stark, , Niobe, p. 234Google Scholar; Klein, , Praxiteles, p. 48Google Scholar et Fig. 68.]
17 30·5 cm. from the top of head to below the chin; approximate breadth, 26 cm.
18 Guida del Museo Nazionale Romano,p. 68, No. 286; and Savignoni, in Mon. Lincei, viii. p. 83Google Scholar.
19 A Catalogue of the Ancient Sculptures preserved in the Municipal Collectiones of Rome, edited by H. Stuart Jones, 1912, p. 124, No. 51, Pl. 31.
20 Vorschule der Kunstmythologie, p. 53, Pl. 82.
21 Praxitelische Studien, p. 19, n. 2 and p. 54, n. 1.
22 p. 32.
23 236.
24 Chil. viii. 353.
25 Der Parthenon, p. 204.
26 Essays on the Art of Pheidias, pp. 77 79; 202–206; n. D, pp. 227, 228.
27 Waldstein, , Waldstein, The Argive Heraeum, vol. i. p. 184Google Scholar, Pl. XXXIII. Nos. 1 and 2.
28 Mitteil. Arch. Inst. Athen, xxxiii. (1908), p. 17.
29 See J.H.S. xxviii. (1908), p. 47, Pl. XXV.
30 From ear to ear the Athena of the W. pediment is 2·5 em. wider than the Holkham head, 1·5 cm. wider above chin and 1 cm. at base of neck. On the other hand the Holkham head (17 cm.) is 1·25 cm. wider about the middle of the neck than the ‘Theseus-Olympus’ from the E. pediment, height of Holkham head (29·2 cm.) from beginning of middle parting in hair to chin is 5'4 cm. more than Theseus Olympus, from bridge of nose to point of chin 2 cm. longer (19·5 cm.). Also compared to Weber-Laborde head the Holkham head is 1 cm. thicker than the former, or from middle of forehead to end of chin 2·5 cm. longer, while from outer eyelid to eyelid 1 cm. wider.
