Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T17:03:25.455Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Pre-Persic Relief from Cottenham

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Arthur Bernard Cook
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Early in the year 1911 a labourer working on the farm of Mr. Arthur Bull at Cottenham, near Cambridge, struck with his pick the fragmentary relief here published. Mr. Bull—to whom we are already indebted for much information and assistance in respect of the Romanised British stations in his district, not to mention many points in its more recent history—recognised at once the possible interest of the find and handed it over to me at the Museum of Classical Archaeology. The fragment came to light at a depth of some eighteen inches below the present surface of the soil, and appears to be an isolated relic, thrown out in all probability from a house formerly existing in the neighbourhood. I see from a passage in Lysons' Magna Britannia, to which my attention was directed by the Rev. Dr. H. P. Stokes, that Roger Gale, the antiquary (1672–1744), inherited a manor at Cottenham in 1728. His enthusiasm for ‘Greek and Roman bustoes’ is well known; and it is at least possible that this relief, acquired by him one cannot guess when or where, had at some later date, and by some less instructed owner, been cast away as a broken and worthless bit of marble. Be that as it may, the relief is worthy of serious study. I proceed to describe its material, shape, design, and stylistic qualities.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 37 , November 1917, pp. 116 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1917

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Lysons, D. and Lysons, S., Magna Britania, London, 1808, vol. ii. Pt. 1 (Cambridgeshire), p. 171Google Scholar. The Cambridge University Library possesses an extra-illustrated copy of this work, containing much additional information about Cottenham and its history.

2 See the ‘Beliquiæ Galeanuæ’ = Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica, London, 1781–1782, No. II. Pts. 1–3.

3 Noack, F. in the Ath. Mitth. 1907, xxxii. 514 ff., Pl. 21Google Scholar.

4 Loeschcke, G., ‘Altattische Grabstelen,’ in the Ath. Mitth. 1879, iv. 36 ff.Google Scholar, Pl. 1 (painted stéle of Lyseas), Pl. 2, 2 and 3 (painted fragments); Conze, A., Die attischen Grabreliefs, Berlin, 1890, i. 3Google Scholar f., Pl. 1 (Lyseas), i. 8, Pl. 9, 1 (Barracco fragment), i. 8, Pl. 9, 2 (painted fragment).

5 See, e.g., Collignon, M., La polychromie dans la sculpture grecque, Paris, 1898, p. 43 ffGoogle Scholar.

6 Overbeck, , Plastik 4, i. 450Google Scholar, has some judicious remarks on the subject. Personally I feel that much depends on the proportion of surface covered by the garment. If this were relatively small, the practice would be excusable, or at least tolerable. We do well to assume, e.g., that the bride of the Ludovisi ‘throne’ had painted straps to her carved sandals. But it would be rash to credit the hetaíra of the same monument with a painted chitón (yet see infra Fig. 11). Tried by this standard, a painted chlamýs round the neck of our éphebos is certainly conceivable. Moreover, it is strongly supported by the analogy of Fig. 10.

7 Bulle, H., Der schoene Mensch im Altertum 2, Muenchen und Leipzig, 1912, p. 444Google Scholar, Pl. 196.

8 The nipple is here rendered, not plastically as with the ‘Apollo’ of Tenea (Brunn-Bruckmann, Denkm. der gr. und röm. Sculpt. Pl. 1; Deonna, W., Les ‘Apollons archaïques,’ Paris, 1909, p. 133Google Scholar) or a bronze athlete at Athens (de Ridder, A., ‘Statuette de bronze de l' Acropole’ in the Bull. Corr. Hell. 1894, xviii. 44–52, Pl. 5 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; (id. Catalogue des bronzes trouvés sur ľ Acropole d'Athènes, Paris, 1896, p. 268 f., No. 740, Pl. 3 f.), but by means of a small incised circle, perhaps reminiscent of copper inlay as with the Piombino Apollo of the Louvre (Brunn-Bruckmann, op. cit. Pl. 78), if not also the Libadostra Poseidon at Athens (Philios, D. in the Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1899, p. 57 ff., Pl. 5 f.)Google Scholar.

9 Journ. Hell. Stud. 1916, xxxvi. 21 f.

10 Nos. 6614 and 6615 of the National Museum (de Ridder, A., Catalogue des bronzes trouvés sur l' Acropole d' Athènes, Paris, 1896, p. 275 ff.Google Scholar, No. 750, Fig. 257 f., p. 281 f, No. 757, Fig. 265 f.; Staïs, V., Marbres ei bronzes du Musée National 2, Athènes, 1910, i. 267)Google Scholar.

11 The teeth are carved separately, not as an undivided set, and the canine of the upper row stands, as it ought to stand, well apart from the rest.

12 Dr. W. L. H. Duckworth praises the teeth and mouth as ‘extraordinarily good,’ but regards the line from the brow to the front end of the nasal bone as overstraight. He also notes that the distance from the ear to the throat seems rather short in comparison with the length of the head, the defect being not in the lower but in the upper segment (from the ear to the zygomatic arch).

13 Prop. 3. 9. 10 ‘exactis Calamis se mihi iactat equis’: cp. Ov., ex Pont. 4. 1. 33Google Scholar, Plin., nat. hist. 34: 71Google Scholar, Paus. 6. 12. 1.

14 Morin-Jean, , Le dessin des Animaux en Grèce d'après les vases peints, Paris, 1911, pp. 200–219Google Scholar and passim (series of equine eyes on p. 247, ‘tableau récapitulatif des différents styles dans le dessin du cheval’ on p. 249). See also Thiersch, H., ‘Tyrrhenische’ Amphoren, Leipzig, 1899, pp. 107 fGoogle Scholar.

15 MissRadford, Evelyn enters a useful caveat in the Journ. Hell. Stud. 1915, xxxv. 133Google Scholar.

16 After Milani, L. A., ‘Il vaso François,’ in Atene e Roma (Bullettino della Società Italiana per la diffusione e ľ incoraggiamento degli studi Classici), 1902, v. 709 f. Fig. 3Google Scholar.

17 Furtwängler-Reichhold, Gr. Vasenmalerei Pl. 11 f.

18 Milani, L. A., ‘Il vaso François,’ p. 705 fGoogle Scholar.

19 Plin., nat. hist. 35. 38Google Scholar, ‘Polygnotus Thasius…plurimum…picturae primus contulit, siquidem instituit os adaperire, dentes ostendere, voltum ab antiquo rigore variare.’ The source of the statement appears to have been Xenokrates of Sikyon (c. 280 B.C.): see Jex-Blake, K.—Sellers, E., The Elder Pliny's Chapters on the History of Art, London, 1896, p. xxviiiGoogle Scholar.

20 Furtwängler-Reichhold, , Gr. Vasenmalerei, ii. 244 ff. Pl. 108Google Scholar.

21 Id. ib. p. 244.

22 After Furtwängler-Reichhold, op. cit. Pl. 108.

23 See e.g. Haddon, A. C., Evolution in Art, London, 1895, p. 164 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grosse, E., The Beginnings of Art, New York, 1897, pp. 118 ff.Google Scholar, 163ff.; Wundt, W., Völkerpsychologie, Leipzig, 1908, iii 2 (Die Kunst). 138 ff.Google Scholar, id. Elements of Folk Psychology, London, 1916, p. 106 ff. (wrongly rejecting the view of Reinach, S., ‘Ľart et la magie,’ in Ľ Anthropologie, 1903, p. 257 ffGoogle Scholar. = Cultes, Mythes et Religions, Paris, 1905, i. 125 ff.); Hoernes, M., Urgeschichte der bildenden Kunst in Europa 2, Wien, 1915, p. 157 ffGoogle Scholar.

24 É. Cartailhac, , La France préhistorique, Paris, 1889, p. 70 f.Google Scholar, Fig. 30; Reinach, S., Répertoire de ľart quaternaire, Paris, 1913, p. 148Google Scholar, 5 (cp. ib. p. 149, 4).

25 From the Geryoneus-kýlix at Munich (No. 377) after Furtwängler-Reichhold, op. cit. Pl. 22.

26 From the kýlix signed by Euphronios, as potter, and [?Ones]imos, as painter, now in the Louvre (G 105), after Hartwig, P., Die griechischen Meisterschalen der Blüthtzeit des strengen rothfigurigen Stiles, Stuttgart u. Berlin, 1893, Pl. 53Google Scholar.

27 So on an amphora (F 53), signed by Exekias, in the Louvre (Gerhard, Auserl. Vasenb. Pl. 107; Wien. Vorlegebl. 1888, Pl. 5, 1; Morin-Jean, op. cit. p. 205 f., Fig. 236).

28 From the horse of Kastor on the magnificent amphora in the Vatican, after Furtwängler-Reichhold, op cit. Pl. 132.

29 Gardner, P., Catalogue of the Greek Vases in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 1893, p. 30 f.Google Scholar, No. 310, Pl. 13; Winter, F. in the Jahrb. d. kais. deutsch. arch. Inst. 1893, viii. 135 ff.Google Scholar; Dickins, G., Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum, Cambridge, 1912, i. 138 ff.Google Scholar, with the literature cited ib. p. 140 f.

30 After P. Gardner, op. cit. Pl. 13.

31 Furtwängler-Reichhold, , Gr. Vasenmalerei, i. 124Google Scholar.

32 After Furtwängler-Reichhold, op. cit. Pl. 26–27.

33 Smith, A. H., The Sculptures of the Parthenon, London, 1910, Pl 60Google Scholar; Collignon, M., Le Parthénon, Paris, s.a. Pl. 103Google Scholar. Cp. also Figure 9 on Slab V. of the frieze (towards north end of west side) = Smith, op. cit. Pl. 64, Collignon, op. cit. Pl. 83.

34 e.g., a splendid sepulchral relief, Attic work of c. 400 B.C., in the Villa Albani (Helbig, , Führer 3, ii. 417 f.Google Scholar, No. 1861 = English ed. ii. 31 f., No. 759; Brunn-Bruckmann, Denkm. der gr. und röm. Sculpt. Pl. 437; Conze, , Die attischen Grabreliefs, Berlin, 1898, ii. 252Google Scholar (Lief, x), No. 1153, Pl. 247; Reinach, , Rép. Reliefs, iii. 154, l)Google Scholar; another, Attic work of s. ii. B. C., from Loukou in Thyreatis, now at Athens (Svoronos, , Ath. Nationalmus. p. 452 f.Google Scholar, No. 1450, Pl. 75; Reinach, , Rép. Reliefs, ii. 417, l)Google Scholar. With the Albani relief Bie, O., Kampfgruppe und Kämpfertypen in der Antike, Berlin, 1891, p. 105Google Scholar, compares a slab from the first frieze of the Nereid monument (Mon. d. Inst. x. Pl. 14, O = No. 854 a in the British Museum numeration).

35 It was even transmuted into sculpture in the round, as we see from the Dioskouroi of Monte Cavallo.

36 From a photograph by W. A. Mansell and Co. (No. 1245).

37 Smith, A. H., A Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, London, 1904, iii. 266Google Scholar f., No. 2206.

38 From Olympia, Berlin, 1894, Tafelband iii. Pl. 45, 8 (metope 2 of eastern series).

39 Sauer, B., Das sogenannte Theseion und sein plastischer Schmuck, Leipzig, 1899, p. 173 f., Pl. 6Google Scholar (metope 5 of eastern series). Cp. Tarentine, diobols (Brit. Mus. Cat. Coins, Italy, p. 209Google Scholar; Garrucci, , Mon. It. Ant. p. 128, Pl. 99, 45)Google Scholar.

40 It is possible that the archaic type of Herakles with the horse of Diomedes was itself a variation on an archaic type of Herakles with the Cretan bull (whence also was derived the type of Theseus with the Marathonian bull), and that the type of Herakles with the Cretan bull in turn goes back ultimately, to some ‘Minoan’ scheme of bull-grappling. To trace the whole pedigree would be a task of much interest, but is not here ad rem.

41 From Olympia, Berlin, 1897, Textband iii. 170, Fig. 200 = Cades Class III A, No. 157 (scale ½). See, further, A. Furtwängler in Roscher, , Lex. Myth. i. 2202, 2225 f.Google Scholar, 2243, and in his Die antiken Gemmen, Leipzig-Berlin, 1900, i. Pll. 18, 56 and 24, 1, ii. 90 and 118.