DOI Artikel:
Essay VIII: The Athene Parthenos and gold and ivory statues
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.11444#0303
ESSAY VIII.
the athene parthenos and gold and ivory
statues.
In the winter of 1s81 the archaeological world was startled
and perplexed by a telegram sent by the Mayor of Athens to
the Lord Mayor of London, stating that the Athene Nikcphoros
of Pheidias had been discovered. The archaeologist could not
help feeling perplexed and sceptical, knowing in the first place
the exaltation of mood which always accompanies a new dis-
covery and the exaggeration to which it leads. It was also
evident, in the second place, that of the Athene statues by
Pheidias it could not possibly be the gold and ivory Athene
Parthenos, which, even if it had not been destroyed could not
well have lain hidden, large in dimensions as it was, under the
ground, nor the Athene Promachos, which stood on the Acropolis
and must have been at least forty or fifty feet in height. The
only statue that could possibly have been meant was the bronze
Lcmnian Athene, so highly praised by ancient authors. But
this statue was not a Nikcphoros, it did not hold a Victory.
Nothing remained but to wait patiently for some further light.
The statue (PI. xiv.) soon turned out to be nothing more
than an inferior late Roman copy of the Athene Parthenos,
important in many ways in confirming or modifying the
views which archaeologists had already formed with regard
to the arrangement and disposition of the details of this
statue, yet otherwise quite incapable of assisting a well-guided
imagination in arriving at any conception of the original
work and its spirit. It has been the subject of careful articles
by learned Greek, French, German, English, and American
the athene parthenos and gold and ivory
statues.
In the winter of 1s81 the archaeological world was startled
and perplexed by a telegram sent by the Mayor of Athens to
the Lord Mayor of London, stating that the Athene Nikcphoros
of Pheidias had been discovered. The archaeologist could not
help feeling perplexed and sceptical, knowing in the first place
the exaltation of mood which always accompanies a new dis-
covery and the exaggeration to which it leads. It was also
evident, in the second place, that of the Athene statues by
Pheidias it could not possibly be the gold and ivory Athene
Parthenos, which, even if it had not been destroyed could not
well have lain hidden, large in dimensions as it was, under the
ground, nor the Athene Promachos, which stood on the Acropolis
and must have been at least forty or fifty feet in height. The
only statue that could possibly have been meant was the bronze
Lcmnian Athene, so highly praised by ancient authors. But
this statue was not a Nikcphoros, it did not hold a Victory.
Nothing remained but to wait patiently for some further light.
The statue (PI. xiv.) soon turned out to be nothing more
than an inferior late Roman copy of the Athene Parthenos,
important in many ways in confirming or modifying the
views which archaeologists had already formed with regard
to the arrangement and disposition of the details of this
statue, yet otherwise quite incapable of assisting a well-guided
imagination in arriving at any conception of the original
work and its spirit. It has been the subject of careful articles
by learned Greek, French, German, English, and American