Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:20:06.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antiques in the Collection of Sir Frederick Cook, Bart., at Doughty House, Richmond

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Eugénie Strong
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The monumental work of Professor Michaelis, Ancient Marbles in Great Britain, must always remain the basis of any study among English collections of antiques. But since its publication in 1882 not a few collections have changed hands, others have been dispersed, while others, more fortunate, have been enlarged; in these various processes much that was unknown even to Michaelis has come to light, and he himself soon supplemented his great work by two important papers printed in this Journal in 1884 and 1885. He prefaced the first of these supplementary papers with the following words:

‘I cannot help thinking that there must be in Great Britain a good deal of bidden treasure…which would perhaps easier come to light if there were a place expressly destined to receive such communications…I have therefore ventured to propose to the Editors to open in this Journal a corner for storing up such supplements…As a first instalment, I here offer some notes which may begin the series…May other lovers and students of the Classic art, especially in Great Britain, follow my example.’

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , November 1908 , pp. 1 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1908

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The following is a list of these papers. Journal of Hellenic Studies: Vol. V. Supp. I. Broom Hall and Antiquarian Remains in the Museum of Edinburgh.—Vol. VI. A. Michaelis. Ancient Marbles in Great Britain. Supp. II. (1) Hamilton Palace; (2) Hillingdon Court, Middlesex; (3) Castle Howard, Yorkshire; (4) Ince Blundell Hall; (5) H. Atkinson, London; (6) Sundorne Castle; (7) West Park, Hants; (8) The Corinthian Puteal.—Vol. VII. C. Waldstein. Collection of Sir Charles Nicholson, The Grange, Totteridge, Herts.—Vol. XI. E. L. Hicks. Museum of the Leeds Philosophical Society. (Chiefly inscriptions.)—Vol. XIV. E. Sellers. Greek Head in the Possession of T. Humphry Ward. (Plate V.)—Vol. XVIII. E. A. Gardner. Head in the Possession of Philip Nelson, M.B. (Plate XI.)—Vol. XIX. E. A. Gardner. Head from the Disney Collection in the Possession of Philip Nelson, M.B. (Plate I.)—Vol. XX. C. Robert. Roman Sarcophagi at Clieveden. (Plates VII.-XII.)—Vol. XXI. A. Fubtwängler. Ancient Sculptures at Chatsworth House.—Vol. XXIII. Mrs. S. Arthur Strong. Three Sculptured Stelai in the Possession of Lord Newton at Lyme Park. (Plates XI, XII.)—Vol. XXV. (1905), p. 157. K. McDowall (Mrs. Esdaile). Bronze Statuette in the writer's Possession.—Vol. XXVI. Mrs. S. Arthur Strong. Statue of a Boy Leaning on a Pillar in the Nelson Collection. (Since gone to Munich.) (Plates I., XI.)—Vol.XXVII. J. Strzygowski. A Sarcophagus of the Sidamara Type in the Cook Collection. (Plates V., XII.)

2 Mr. Arthur Smith's catalogues of the collections at Lansdowne House, Woburn Abbey, and Brocklesby, are cases in point.

3 ‘A Sarcophagus of the Sidamara Type in the Collection of Sir Frederick Cook at Richmond’, J.H.S. 1907, p. 99.

4 50th Winckelmannsprogranim ‘Eine Argivisehe Bronze,’ pp. 125 ff.

5 Wace, also, was reminded by the Ephesus head of the Hesperid of the Olympia metope.

6 Waldstein, C. proposes to recognize in this Apollo a work of the Praxitelean school (see Illustrated London News, July, 1903)Google Scholar.

7 Prof. Michaelis writes to me quoting a letter from the late Dr. A. S. Murray informing him of ‘a marble statue of an Apollo sold at Christie's, 28 February, 1883, with a head much like that of Antinous, and restored in several places; it was formerly in the Shug-borough collection, afterwards in the possession of Mr. Angerstein, with which [sic] it was sold and was bought by Mr. Cook at Richmond.’ This is evidently the Apollo catalogued above. We must therefore suppose that at the dispersal of the Shugborough collection soon after 1802 (see Michaelis, , Anc. Marbles, p. 126Google Scholar) the Apollo found its way to Stowe. The statue in the Shugborough collection with which it should probably be identified is, as Prof.Michaelis, points out to me, the ‘Adonis’ (Anc. Marbles, p. 70, n. 174)Google Scholar—but in the Stowe Coll. it received, as the modern lettering shows, the name of Antinous. This Stowe Antinous was, according to Foster's catalogue, purchased by a Mr. J. Browne, from whose possession it must then have passed into that of Mr. W. Angerstein. In Christie's Catalogue of the Angerstein sale it figures as ‘an antique statue of Apollo, on statuary marble pedestal. From Stowe.’ (Lot 204, purchased for £194 5s.)

8 In the dining-room, unfortunately still unpublished, except for Clarac (=Clarac-Reinach, 241, 1).

9 See Christie's, Sale Catalogue, June 29, 1878, p. 8Google Scholar, Lot 50 c: ‘An Antique Statue of Hercules, the head wreathed with vine leaves, holding a club in his right hand, in his left a cornucopiae; the lion's skin on the trunk of a tree at his side, 4 ft. 3 in. h. This figure which is in fine condition, represents a new and interesting type of Hercules (from Constantinople). This description and the height place the identity with the Cook statue beyond doubt.

10 Fulvius, Andreas, Antiquiates Urbis (1527)Google Scholar fol. xxxv, already mentions a Socratis statua Aleibiadem amplexantis (note by Professor Michaelis.)

11 Cf. also Cultrera, G., Saggi sull' Arte Ellenistica, i. p. 83 ffGoogle Scholar.

12 Revue Archéologique, 1906, ii. pp. 1 ff.

13 Archaeol. Anzeiger, 1905, p. 67.

14 To my regret, insufficient photographs were taken of this interesting bust; I hope, however, to publish it again in different aspects.

15 So too in the Medicean Aphrodite, which Mahler has lately traced back to the school of Lysippus, (Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Inscr. 1905, p. 623)Google Scholar.

16 Amelung, , Museums, p. 96Google Scholar, excellently analyses the type.

17 Gazette des Beaux Arts, 1897, i. p. 314.

18 For instance the two examples in the Brit. Mus. from Patras (No. 282) and Paramythia (No. 280).

19 Reinach, S., ‘La Vénus d'Alesia’ in Pro Alesia, Kov.-Dec. 1905, pp. 65Google Scholar ff.

20 I incline to think that the Richmond example may be identical either with Herzog 5 or 6, belonging respectively to the sculptor Cavaceppi and to the Marquis Giugni. See Gardner, Ernest ‘Statuette representing a boy and goose’ in J.H.S. vi. 1885, p. 6Google Scholar, Nos. 29 and 30.

21 For the χηναλώπηξ, an Egyptian species of small goose, see Herzog, op. cit.

22 τὴν χηναλώπεκα ὡς τὸ παιδίον πνιγει πρὸ τῶν ποδῶν γοῦν εἴ τι μὴ λίθος τοὔργον ἐρεῖς λαλήσει . . . . . .

23 Revue de l'Université de Bruxelles, vi. 1901, pp. 9 ff. (‘L'Enfant à l'oie.’) Reinach, indeed, had proposed tentatively to identify the original of Boethos with the ᾿ Ασκληπιὸς παῖς of the same artist, known from two metrical inscriptions; but see Robert, C. (art. Boethos in Pauly-Wissowa, 604 f.)Google Scholar against the identification of the Coan group with the boy strangling a goose.

24 For votive statues of children see especially Jahn, O., Ber. d. Sächs. Ges. d. Wiss. 1848, S. 41 ff.Google Scholar; Stephani, , Compte-rendu, 1863, S. 53–56Google Scholar ff.; Furtwängler, , Der Dornauszieher u. der Knabe mit der Gans, 1870Google Scholar; cf. Benndorf, , Griech. u. sicil. Vasenbilder, 57Google Scholar f. zu Taf. 31; Baur, Paul, Eileithyia, Philologue, Supplement-band viii. 484 ffGoogle Scholar.

25 Munich 232 (=Clarac-Reinach 417, 6) may also be compared.

26 For a similar relief carved on both faces, see Museo Chiarain. (Amelung, Oat. 106.)

27 Now reproduced in Arndt's Einzelaufnahmen.

28 Professor Michaelis, however, writes to me ‘the photograph looks very modern ; having the original before me I had no suspicion as to its authenticity,— but I am glad that he accepts the identification as Augustus and adds ‘please to observe the peculiar arrangement of the hair above the forehead, which is constant in all his portraits.’

29 Prof. Bosanquet kindly had the sarcophagus photographed for this article.

30 On the interpretation of this figure as Orcus, see Robert, op. cit. p. 274.

31 The group reproduced, Reinach, , Rép. ii. 71Google Scholar, 4, is evidently, as suggested by M. Reinach himself, the same as our Cook group.

31a Professor Michaelis kindly points out to me that similar curious accessories, treated in similar style, adorn the prop of a statue of Dionysus or a Satyr in the Villa Albani (Helbig, No. 872; Clarac-Reinach, 377, 5).

32 Prof. Michaelis writes: ‘The photograph and, perhaps, the condition of the marble do allow a certain judgment, but it appears to be evident that the type belongs to those ancient “Apollo” heads like that in the British Museum (Anc. Marbles, ix. 40, 4=Catal. 150).’

32 On the other hand I can nowhere find Michaelis' No. 7 ‘Statuette of Cybele.’