DOI Artikel:
No. I: Pythagoras of Rhegion and the early athlete statues
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.11444#0407
372
APPENDIX.
[I-
allow themselves to be influenced by the works of Pythagoras of Rhegion
in fashioning the type of a nude figure which has a common character
in the coins of most of these towns and which is that of the statues with
which we are dealing.
Coins, then, have thus helped us to clench our previous arguments.
By giving a definite locality, or group of localities, as the home of these
mixed characteristics of style, which a study of the monuments themselves
and their history had led us to point to as marks of a positive school,
well defined though ill recognised as yet, they have enabled us to
feel ourselves on safe ground. Let me only add one point more.
During the last few months M. Rayet has given us an excellent repro-
duction of the archaic bronze head at Naples in his Monuments de I'Art
Antique, Livraison ii., referred to in my former paper, p. 331. A more
thorough comparison of this head with the head of our statue is called
for. I must remind the reader that I have throughout accepted the view
that the marbles under consideration are not late and Roman, but early
Greek, copies from a bronze original. Now, if our plate of the
Choiseul-Gouffier statue is placed beside the plate of the Naples bronze
in M. Rayet's book, the extraordinary similarity, almost amounting to
identity, will be most evident. I must, moreover, draw attention to the
fact that this original bronze head was found at Herculaneum in
Southern Italy. But these suggestions open the way to a very wide field,
which it is impossible to enter upon now.
Note.
Dr Th. Schreiber has recently dealt with a special point in Greek head-dress in
two articles on Dcr altattische Krobylos (Milihcil. d. deutsch. Arch. Inst, in Athen,
1883, pp. -246 seq.; 1884, pp. 232 seq.). I cannot enter upon his views here, but it
appears to me that his criticisms on my interpretation of the statues of the type of the
Choiseul-Gouffier Pugilist are strikingly insufficient; in fact he begs the main question.
Tire statues which he adduces in favour of the Apollo interpretation, such as the one
at Kassel, are those that from their head-dress as well as their general character, I
should certainly have myself called statues of Apollo.
APPENDIX.
[I-
allow themselves to be influenced by the works of Pythagoras of Rhegion
in fashioning the type of a nude figure which has a common character
in the coins of most of these towns and which is that of the statues with
which we are dealing.
Coins, then, have thus helped us to clench our previous arguments.
By giving a definite locality, or group of localities, as the home of these
mixed characteristics of style, which a study of the monuments themselves
and their history had led us to point to as marks of a positive school,
well defined though ill recognised as yet, they have enabled us to
feel ourselves on safe ground. Let me only add one point more.
During the last few months M. Rayet has given us an excellent repro-
duction of the archaic bronze head at Naples in his Monuments de I'Art
Antique, Livraison ii., referred to in my former paper, p. 331. A more
thorough comparison of this head with the head of our statue is called
for. I must remind the reader that I have throughout accepted the view
that the marbles under consideration are not late and Roman, but early
Greek, copies from a bronze original. Now, if our plate of the
Choiseul-Gouffier statue is placed beside the plate of the Naples bronze
in M. Rayet's book, the extraordinary similarity, almost amounting to
identity, will be most evident. I must, moreover, draw attention to the
fact that this original bronze head was found at Herculaneum in
Southern Italy. But these suggestions open the way to a very wide field,
which it is impossible to enter upon now.
Note.
Dr Th. Schreiber has recently dealt with a special point in Greek head-dress in
two articles on Dcr altattische Krobylos (Milihcil. d. deutsch. Arch. Inst, in Athen,
1883, pp. -246 seq.; 1884, pp. 232 seq.). I cannot enter upon his views here, but it
appears to me that his criticisms on my interpretation of the statues of the type of the
Choiseul-Gouffier Pugilist are strikingly insufficient; in fact he begs the main question.
Tire statues which he adduces in favour of the Apollo interpretation, such as the one
at Kassel, are those that from their head-dress as well as their general character, I
should certainly have myself called statues of Apollo.