DOI article:
Essay VI: The Athene from the Parthenon frieze and the Louvre plaque
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.11444#0246
2l6
ESSAYS ON THE ART OF PIIEIDIAS.
[VI.
probably to decorate his private mansion or villa. (3) That it
is a work contemporaneous with the frieze. The last possibility
includes one which, from the prospects which it opens before
our eyes, we dare hardly entertain, namely, that it is one of
the original sketches by Pheidias from which the marble frieze
was enlarged and finished.
(1) This first possibility absolutely falls to the ground upon
examination. The first question we must ask is : Why should
a forger more than twenty years ago (for the plaque must have
been in the Louvre since 1S61, the date of the Campana sale,
and in the possession of Campana some time previously) have
gone to the trouble of making an imitation of this work ? The
second question is : How could he have made it ?
The answer to the first question is very simple. It was for
purposes of gain. But the terra-cotta fragments do not fetch
a very high price at present, and brought but a very trifling one
thirty or more years ago1. In order to obtain any price whatever
for his false antique terra-cotta, it would have to be exceptionally
perfect in its supposed preservation, which such a clever artist
could easily have made it, in adding the lower part of the figure,
the hand, &c. Only then would it have been worth the while
of such a skilful artist and expert counterfeiter to devote his
time and skill to such a work. But there would be one circum-
stance in which even a fragment would be of considerable value,
and that is, if it were in some way connected with a celebrated
work of antiquity. But in order that it might fetch a high
price with this consideration, its being thus connected with a
figure from the Parthenon would have been the first point which
the impostor would have impressed upon the purchaser. And a
purchaser and an amateur like Campana would have set great
store by such a work, and would have put its connexion with
the Athene in the foreground when he sold his collection to the
Louvre. But neither Campana nor the present possessors were
aware of the nature of the work, as is evident from the fact
1 I have since seen H. Pennelli, the ristoratort at the Louvre Museum. His father
hail been with Campana for many years, and he himself was in his service as a lad up
to the time of the sale. He does not remember the acquisition of this "trifling"
fragment; but feels assured that it could not have cost more than 5, 10 or 15 francs.
The Louvre Museum bought it among a series of fragments for a moderate sum.
ESSAYS ON THE ART OF PIIEIDIAS.
[VI.
probably to decorate his private mansion or villa. (3) That it
is a work contemporaneous with the frieze. The last possibility
includes one which, from the prospects which it opens before
our eyes, we dare hardly entertain, namely, that it is one of
the original sketches by Pheidias from which the marble frieze
was enlarged and finished.
(1) This first possibility absolutely falls to the ground upon
examination. The first question we must ask is : Why should
a forger more than twenty years ago (for the plaque must have
been in the Louvre since 1S61, the date of the Campana sale,
and in the possession of Campana some time previously) have
gone to the trouble of making an imitation of this work ? The
second question is : How could he have made it ?
The answer to the first question is very simple. It was for
purposes of gain. But the terra-cotta fragments do not fetch
a very high price at present, and brought but a very trifling one
thirty or more years ago1. In order to obtain any price whatever
for his false antique terra-cotta, it would have to be exceptionally
perfect in its supposed preservation, which such a clever artist
could easily have made it, in adding the lower part of the figure,
the hand, &c. Only then would it have been worth the while
of such a skilful artist and expert counterfeiter to devote his
time and skill to such a work. But there would be one circum-
stance in which even a fragment would be of considerable value,
and that is, if it were in some way connected with a celebrated
work of antiquity. But in order that it might fetch a high
price with this consideration, its being thus connected with a
figure from the Parthenon would have been the first point which
the impostor would have impressed upon the purchaser. And a
purchaser and an amateur like Campana would have set great
store by such a work, and would have put its connexion with
the Athene in the foreground when he sold his collection to the
Louvre. But neither Campana nor the present possessors were
aware of the nature of the work, as is evident from the fact
1 I have since seen H. Pennelli, the ristoratort at the Louvre Museum. His father
hail been with Campana for many years, and he himself was in his service as a lad up
to the time of the sale. He does not remember the acquisition of this "trifling"
fragment; but feels assured that it could not have cost more than 5, 10 or 15 francs.
The Louvre Museum bought it among a series of fragments for a moderate sum.