Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T12:43:06.167Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Statuette representing a Boy and Goose

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Ernest A. Gardner
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The silver statuette which is described in the present paper, and which is represented in the accompanying Plate (A.), acquires a peculiar interest both from its subject and from the circumstances of its discovery. In the first aspect it belongs to an exceedingly numerous class; a boy struggling or playing with a goose seems to have been a very favourite subject with Greek artists of certain periods; the popularity of such representations and the frequency with which they were reproduced are testified by at least fifty extant examples in various galleries and museums throughout Europe. But though belonging to so numerous a family, our specimen differs considerably, both in character and in composition, from all its other members; not more, however, than many of these differ among themselves. Then again, this statuette was discovered together with a hoard of coins, and thus we are able to fix at least a posterior limit of date for the invention not only of the type we find in this figure, but also of all others which show an affinity to it so close as to compel us not to assign them to any very distant period. It is clear, therefore, that we have here an additional clew of no small importance, which may help in the solution of a problem that has already given rise to much controversy among archaeologists.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 6 , November 1885, pp. 1 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1885

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

page 2 note 1 Sitzungsber. d. K. Sächs. Ges. d. Wiss. 1848, pp. 47, sqq.

page 2 note 2 Compte Rendu, 1863, p. 55.

page 3 note 1 Jahn would so restore also 6.

page 3 note 2 No attempt has heen made to render the references complete. Only that one has been given in each case which seemed most convenient as a means of identification. For further references see Stephani, l.c.

page 4 note 1 I have not been able to refer to these works, but quote 11 and 12 here, because of those among which they are mentioned by Stephani, and which they probably resemble.

page 10 note 1 ix. 39, 3. This is a girl with a goose. Some examples of such figures occur, often hard to distinguish from Leda. But all such have been excluded from our present enumeration, which refers only to boys.

page 10 note 2 Nos. 10, 46, 49, 52.

page 12 note 1 Three others, marble copies, in the Villa Borghese, at Florence, and at Berlin. Overbeck, , Gesch. d. Gr. Plastik: II. p. 144.Google Scholar

page 12 note 2 Another, in possession of Baron Rothschild, at Paris. Gaz. Arch. 1882, 9—11.

page 12 note 3 xxxiv. 84. “Boethi…infans (ex aere ?) anserem strangnlat.” For emend, see Overbeck, , S. Q. 1597Google Scholar.

page 13 note 1 The conjecture of Wieseler, ἐπίκυρτον for ἐπίχρυσον is by no means convincing. Even if it be accepted, Overbeck's argument is but slightly strengthened.

page 13 note 2 The type of face, for instance, is anything but Attic. F. anticipates this objection by replying that we have no original Myronic head. Yet surely we recognise the type, as distinctly as that of Polykleitos, for which also we depend on copies. The same objection will apply to Brizio's connection with Kalamis.

page 13 note 3 I learn that M. Kekulé has now given up this view, and holds that the statue is really archaic. Some archaeologists, however, still regard it as axchaistic.

page 13 note 4 L. c. “Boethi quanquam argento melions.”

page 14 note 1 Types I. and II. are too distinct to be immediately derived, but in them a result of the same influence may perhaps be seen.