DOI article:
Essay VII: The central slab of the Parthenon frieze and the Copenhagen plaque
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.11444#0268
236
ESSAYS ON THE ART OF PHEIDIAS.
[VII.
The head of the boy on the marble frieze is almost com-
pletely destroyed, while in the terra-cotta it is in excellent
preservation. This fragment again enables us to complete a
figure from the frieze and to restore in mind the whole of this
pleasing little figure. When comparing the head on the plaque
with the remaining indications of the head in the marble,
standing below the marble frieze in the British Museum, we
are at first led to believe that the heads differ; for the head
of the plaque then appears more pointed than the remain-
ing outline of the marble seems to indicate. But when we
mount to the level of the frieze in its present position in
the British Museum, we find that the top of the head has been
very much broken away, even more than the lower or middle
parts, and that the remaining outline exactly corresponds to the
pointed top of the extant head in the plaque. Nay we even
find, that there was in the marble the same protruding lock
in the front, like a little horn, a mode of wearing the hair,
which, even in those early days, was common to younger
people. In both cases the upward position of the head causes
a distinct wrinkle in the neck of the boy. In both instances
too a few stray hairs are indicated at the nape of the neck.
The two folds of his cloak running to the peplos are identical.
Where these folds run together the marble is somewhat washed
out, not so the terra-cotta. There is the same triangular cavity
in the two folds ; the hand and arm of the boy are the same ;
the little finger, very distinct in the terra-cotta, is much effaced
and hardly noticeable in the marble, unless carefully examined,
and then it corresponds exactly to its indication on the plaque.
In short, the identity is complete.
With respect to the genuineness of this fragment, the same
arguments as those brought forward with regard to the Louvre
plaque apply. It is difficult to doubt of its genuineness. Nobody
(even if he had found it worth his while) could have copied so
carefully from the marble since the destruction of the Parthenon
in the 17th century. Nay, even then, though a scaffolding had
been built for this purpose to the top of the frieze in its position
in the Parthenon, we may assume that time had worn away
much that, as we have seen, is indistinct in the marble and is
yet clearly visible in the terra-cotta. All we learn from a care-
ESSAYS ON THE ART OF PHEIDIAS.
[VII.
The head of the boy on the marble frieze is almost com-
pletely destroyed, while in the terra-cotta it is in excellent
preservation. This fragment again enables us to complete a
figure from the frieze and to restore in mind the whole of this
pleasing little figure. When comparing the head on the plaque
with the remaining indications of the head in the marble,
standing below the marble frieze in the British Museum, we
are at first led to believe that the heads differ; for the head
of the plaque then appears more pointed than the remain-
ing outline of the marble seems to indicate. But when we
mount to the level of the frieze in its present position in
the British Museum, we find that the top of the head has been
very much broken away, even more than the lower or middle
parts, and that the remaining outline exactly corresponds to the
pointed top of the extant head in the plaque. Nay we even
find, that there was in the marble the same protruding lock
in the front, like a little horn, a mode of wearing the hair,
which, even in those early days, was common to younger
people. In both cases the upward position of the head causes
a distinct wrinkle in the neck of the boy. In both instances
too a few stray hairs are indicated at the nape of the neck.
The two folds of his cloak running to the peplos are identical.
Where these folds run together the marble is somewhat washed
out, not so the terra-cotta. There is the same triangular cavity
in the two folds ; the hand and arm of the boy are the same ;
the little finger, very distinct in the terra-cotta, is much effaced
and hardly noticeable in the marble, unless carefully examined,
and then it corresponds exactly to its indication on the plaque.
In short, the identity is complete.
With respect to the genuineness of this fragment, the same
arguments as those brought forward with regard to the Louvre
plaque apply. It is difficult to doubt of its genuineness. Nobody
(even if he had found it worth his while) could have copied so
carefully from the marble since the destruction of the Parthenon
in the 17th century. Nay, even then, though a scaffolding had
been built for this purpose to the top of the frieze in its position
in the Parthenon, we may assume that time had worn away
much that, as we have seen, is indistinct in the marble and is
yet clearly visible in the terra-cotta. All we learn from a care-