DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42779#0211
BRONZEWORK 149
alike, however beautiful, are the work of nature and do not
indicate the intention of the artist. Indeed in a sense they
obscure it, especially where the patination is uneven. There
is, however, some indication that the surface of a bronze was
in some cases treated with a preparation. The whole question
indeed as to whether a patination was artificial or natural was
raised by Plutarch.1 In his essay on the Pythian Oracle a
discussion arises about the patina of a bronze group in the
sanctuary. One of the disputants observes that the surface
of the bronze is a glistening blue—’EOauiia^e 8e tou x«AkoO
to &v0r)pov, cbs ou ttIvco TrpocreoiKos ou6e lab, pacpfi 8s Kuavou cttIA-
Povtos. Clearly enough, the contrast here is between the dark
corroded surface which a metal might be thought to acquire
through use and exposure and a vivid shining bluish colour.
It seems certain that what the speakers were looking at was
a group which had stood for some five hundred years, since
the monument was erected to commemorate the battle of
Aigospotamoi. In that time a bronze will acquire a com-
pletely blue surface which is smooth and sometimes with a
dull polish. The copper roofs and cupolas of Tudor mansions
in England are by now almost exactly that colour. There was,
indeed, no basis at all in the alternative view of the disputants
that it might be artificial. The contrast between tqvos2 or
los and the lovely blue patina was merely a contrast between
a newly tarnished surface of bronze, such as the speakers had
seen on the surfaces of their domestic bronze furniture and
objects of use, and a surface which had undergone a chemical
change during several centuries. The former would be black
or dull, the latter coloured and bright. But the discussion,
pointless though it may be to us, led to the further inquiry
1 De Pythiae Oraculis, 395 B. Quoted and discussed by G. M. A. Richter
in Catalogue of Greek, Roman and Etruscan Bronzes in the Metropolitan Museum,
1915, Introduction, p. xxix.
2 There is some reason for thinking that in Roman times a patina was
considered part of the charm of an archaic bronze. See Dion. Hal. irepl
AtiuoctQ. 39: SiacpcdveTca 5e tis 6po(a k&v toutois euyeveia Kai o-epiv6Tr|s &ppo-
vias tov apyaiov (puAccTTOuacc trtvov.
alike, however beautiful, are the work of nature and do not
indicate the intention of the artist. Indeed in a sense they
obscure it, especially where the patination is uneven. There
is, however, some indication that the surface of a bronze was
in some cases treated with a preparation. The whole question
indeed as to whether a patination was artificial or natural was
raised by Plutarch.1 In his essay on the Pythian Oracle a
discussion arises about the patina of a bronze group in the
sanctuary. One of the disputants observes that the surface
of the bronze is a glistening blue—’EOauiia^e 8e tou x«AkoO
to &v0r)pov, cbs ou ttIvco TrpocreoiKos ou6e lab, pacpfi 8s Kuavou cttIA-
Povtos. Clearly enough, the contrast here is between the dark
corroded surface which a metal might be thought to acquire
through use and exposure and a vivid shining bluish colour.
It seems certain that what the speakers were looking at was
a group which had stood for some five hundred years, since
the monument was erected to commemorate the battle of
Aigospotamoi. In that time a bronze will acquire a com-
pletely blue surface which is smooth and sometimes with a
dull polish. The copper roofs and cupolas of Tudor mansions
in England are by now almost exactly that colour. There was,
indeed, no basis at all in the alternative view of the disputants
that it might be artificial. The contrast between tqvos2 or
los and the lovely blue patina was merely a contrast between
a newly tarnished surface of bronze, such as the speakers had
seen on the surfaces of their domestic bronze furniture and
objects of use, and a surface which had undergone a chemical
change during several centuries. The former would be black
or dull, the latter coloured and bright. But the discussion,
pointless though it may be to us, led to the further inquiry
1 De Pythiae Oraculis, 395 B. Quoted and discussed by G. M. A. Richter
in Catalogue of Greek, Roman and Etruscan Bronzes in the Metropolitan Museum,
1915, Introduction, p. xxix.
2 There is some reason for thinking that in Roman times a patina was
considered part of the charm of an archaic bronze. See Dion. Hal. irepl
AtiuoctQ. 39: SiacpcdveTca 5e tis 6po(a k&v toutois euyeveia Kai o-epiv6Tr|s &ppo-
vias tov apyaiov (puAccTTOuacc trtvov.