DOI article:
No. I: Pythagoras of Rhegion and the early athlete statues
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.11444#0368
APPENDIX.
333
But that the London statue is an Apollo has been fastened into the
minds of archaeologists by the fact that it has been published and
discussed by Conze (Beitrage, ii.), in connexion with the almost
identical statue in the Patissia Museum of Athens known as the Apollo
on the Omphalos1 (Fig. 23 a), and that it has since then been looked
upon as a kind of replica of that statue. The truth is that the London,
the Athenian, and the Florentine statues are co-ordinate in artistic
excellence, and that they most probably are replicas of an original which,
to judge from traces in the marble in the treatment of the hair, from a
certain sharpness in the modelling of the brows and bones, and other
subtle indications, was most probably of bronze. The other replica
mentioned by Conze2 is in the Capitoline Museum3, and is of inferior
workmanship.
Now if the Athenian statue really was on an omphalos, then it most
likely was an Apollo, and at all events could not have been an athlete.
I was fortunate enough to find the statue and the omphalos which is
supposed to have served as its base separate in the Museum, and I
immediately convinced myself and others by the simplest means (namely,
by standing on the omphalos in the position of the ' Apollo') that they
do not belong together. But as statements once printed have a strange
power of clinging, and as a mere personal assertion on my part will
not suffice to disprove an opinion now generally adopted4, I hope
to prove it conclusively with the assistance of the exact illustrations
(Plate V., Journal of Hellen. Stud., Vol. I.).
Now, in the first place, the circumstances of the discovery are far
from furnishing any evidence that the statue and the omphalos belong
to one another. It is generally assumed that they were found together.
But Conze himself says (p. 14) : ' Es ist zuzugebeti, dass cine voile durch
dussere Umstdnde erwiesenc Sichcrheit fur die Zusammenghdrigkeit nicht
vor/ianden ist. Na?nentlich darf Kohlers Ausdruck, der Omphalos sei
1 Pervanoglu, Bull. Ml' Inst. 1862, p. 168 seq. ; Kohler, B11II. 1865, p. 134;
Liitzow in L.'s Zeitschrift fib- bildeude Kunst, 1868, p. 24, 1869, p. 283; Kekulc,
Bcschrcib. d. Thescions, p. 36, No. 70, in Ncue Jahrbucher fiir Philologie, 1869,
p. 85, ff.; also Die Grnppedes Kiinstlers Menelaos, &c., p. 41; Schwabe, De Apollinc
in Omphalo, Programm. Dorpat, 1870; Bursian, Literarisches Centralblatt, 1869,
p. 592.
2 Ibid. taf. vii. 3 Clarac, Music de Sculpture, 862, 2189.
4 Kohler says, (I.e.): ' Un nuovo esame dei due pezzi ci ha verificato pienamente
qnesta congettura, di modo che anche sulla denominazione della statua non puo cadere
piu alcun dubbio.' This is a step from the probable to the certain ; for Pervanoglu,
who first wrote about the statue (see previous note), merely says, ' Al quale (Apolline)
forse potrebbe aver appartenuto un onfalo di marmo bianco,' &c.
333
But that the London statue is an Apollo has been fastened into the
minds of archaeologists by the fact that it has been published and
discussed by Conze (Beitrage, ii.), in connexion with the almost
identical statue in the Patissia Museum of Athens known as the Apollo
on the Omphalos1 (Fig. 23 a), and that it has since then been looked
upon as a kind of replica of that statue. The truth is that the London,
the Athenian, and the Florentine statues are co-ordinate in artistic
excellence, and that they most probably are replicas of an original which,
to judge from traces in the marble in the treatment of the hair, from a
certain sharpness in the modelling of the brows and bones, and other
subtle indications, was most probably of bronze. The other replica
mentioned by Conze2 is in the Capitoline Museum3, and is of inferior
workmanship.
Now if the Athenian statue really was on an omphalos, then it most
likely was an Apollo, and at all events could not have been an athlete.
I was fortunate enough to find the statue and the omphalos which is
supposed to have served as its base separate in the Museum, and I
immediately convinced myself and others by the simplest means (namely,
by standing on the omphalos in the position of the ' Apollo') that they
do not belong together. But as statements once printed have a strange
power of clinging, and as a mere personal assertion on my part will
not suffice to disprove an opinion now generally adopted4, I hope
to prove it conclusively with the assistance of the exact illustrations
(Plate V., Journal of Hellen. Stud., Vol. I.).
Now, in the first place, the circumstances of the discovery are far
from furnishing any evidence that the statue and the omphalos belong
to one another. It is generally assumed that they were found together.
But Conze himself says (p. 14) : ' Es ist zuzugebeti, dass cine voile durch
dussere Umstdnde erwiesenc Sichcrheit fur die Zusammenghdrigkeit nicht
vor/ianden ist. Na?nentlich darf Kohlers Ausdruck, der Omphalos sei
1 Pervanoglu, Bull. Ml' Inst. 1862, p. 168 seq. ; Kohler, B11II. 1865, p. 134;
Liitzow in L.'s Zeitschrift fib- bildeude Kunst, 1868, p. 24, 1869, p. 283; Kekulc,
Bcschrcib. d. Thescions, p. 36, No. 70, in Ncue Jahrbucher fiir Philologie, 1869,
p. 85, ff.; also Die Grnppedes Kiinstlers Menelaos, &c., p. 41; Schwabe, De Apollinc
in Omphalo, Programm. Dorpat, 1870; Bursian, Literarisches Centralblatt, 1869,
p. 592.
2 Ibid. taf. vii. 3 Clarac, Music de Sculpture, 862, 2189.
4 Kohler says, (I.e.): ' Un nuovo esame dei due pezzi ci ha verificato pienamente
qnesta congettura, di modo che anche sulla denominazione della statua non puo cadere
piu alcun dubbio.' This is a step from the probable to the certain ; for Pervanoglu,
who first wrote about the statue (see previous note), merely says, ' Al quale (Apolline)
forse potrebbe aver appartenuto un onfalo di marmo bianco,' &c.