Casts & connoisseurs: the early reception of the Elgin Marbles: this month is the 200th anniversary of the Elgin Marbles going on public view in London. The response they received was at first mixed, yet, for reasons that Marc Fehlmann explains, by the 1830s they had become integral to western art history and students everywhere were copying casts of them.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The early reception of the Elgin Marbles has prompted much attention and misunderstanding, and it remains a crucial issue within the history of art and taste. (4) This is why it is important to explain the way that these sculptures became part of the canon of Western art. The first person to address this subject was Adolf Michaelis, in 1877. He showed how the sense of being new and different from established values is a basic element of progressive movements in art. However, at its height--during the Napoleonic wars--Ned-Classicism had further implications. Not only did it change perceptions of classical antiquity, it also led to a shift in the dominant ideal of the human body, based on an imaginary racial construction of the 'authentic Greek'. (6) One way to promote this ideal was by multiplying the Elgin Marbles in the form of plaster casts. White plaster not only reproduced the physical qualities of the original sculptures in an identical form, it also emulated their material and colour. It implied purity and the essence of the form that was perceived as material evidence of the idea of the 'authentic Greek'. (7) Thus, within a generation, the Elgin Marbles became the leading model for artists all over Europe and, as Friedrich Gottlieb Welcker wrote, 'the new centre and ever correct principal of proportion.' (8)
The facts of Lord Elgin's activities in the Ottoman Empire are well known from Arthur Hamilton Smith's account of them. (9) As ambassador to the Sublime Porte at Constantinople--and influenced by the ideas of his architect Thomas Harrison--(10) Lord Elgin used his position to have the remains of the Acropolis in Athens and other ancient monuments measured, drawn, and cast in plaster by his employees, the draughtsmen Giovanni Battista Lusieri and Feodor Ivanovitch, two architects and two formatori. In the favourable circumstances of the British victories over Bonaparte in Egypt, and with the seemingly inexhaustible financial resources of his wife, Mary, (11) Lord Elgin succeeded in obtaining at least seven firmans from the Porte--permits that allowed him and his agents to study, draw, mould, excavate and even carry off various antiquities. (12) Of those firmans, the third (the one contested today) was issued in July 1801. It clearly states that Lord Elgin's agents should not be hindered 'from taking away any pieces of stone with inscriptions, and figures'. (13) The last firman sanctioned the export of the marbles and other antiquities from Ottoman territory in February 1810. (14)
Initially, Lord Elgin did not intend to have samples of ancient sculpture and architecture removed. However, a memorandum by his chaplain, the Revd Philip Hunt (15) describing the continuing destruction of ancient sculpture by the Ottomans in 1801, together with Lord Elgin's own observations in 1802, made it seem advisable for him 'to remove as much of the sculpture as [he] conveniently could.' (16) The process of having the pieces transported to London took several years and met many obstacles, not least because Lord Elgin was taken prisoner of war by the French in May 1803 and was not released until June 1806. (17) During this time in France he made plans for that part of his collection that had already reached British shores. Thus, in December 1804, he instructed his secretary, William Hamilton, to find a grand London townhouse to display the marbles. Hunt, who was also detained at Pau, described the project in more detail in a letter to Mary, Countess Elgin. (18) Meanwhile, the cases that had already arrived in England were first sent to the Duchess of Portland's house in Privy Gardens, and then moved to the Duke of Richmond's house in Westminster. (19) Nothing became of Lord Elgin's initial ambitious scheme, since his wife, after having returned to London on her own in October 1805, was trying to keep her husband's expenditure under control. Hence he could start pursuing his plans only after the French had released him the following year.
One of Lord Elgin's first tasks upon his arrival in London was to find a place where the marbles could be both sheltered and shown. His choice fell on the mansion at the corner of Park Lane and Piccadilly that was later to become the home of Prince William Frederick, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh. The marbles were moved from Westminster to this new residence between 25 October and 8 November 1806, and it took another three months, until 25 February 1807, to build a shelter for their display. Between then and June 1807, they were unpacked and arranged under Hamilton's supervision. (20)
The young C. R. Cockerell recorded this first presentation of Lord Elgin's collection in 1808 or 1810. (21) One of the drawings (Fig. 2) shows four slabs from the Temple of Athena Nike on the back wall, on the left the large central slab from the east frieze of the Parthenon, and above it two slabs from its south frieze. On the opposite wall were, from left to right, some slabs from the north frieze and south metopes nos 2, 27, 4, and, according to a drawing by Robert Haydon (Fig. 3), south metopes nos 7, 29, 28 and 5. The Caryatid from the Erechtheion stood in the centre, while most pieces from the east and west pediments were evenly displayed in a semi-circle around it. (22) Funerary lekythoi and other smaller pieces were dispersed in between to achieve a decorative effect, but the general impression of the gallery was one of a hodgepodge of broken sculptures with certain attempts at symmetry. Hence, the torso of Hermes was placed on a column to the left, which was balanced by the head from one of Selene's horses on the Ionic shaft from the Erechtheion to the right. (23) There seems to have been no symmetrical disposition in the foreground.
[FIGURES 2-3 OMITTED]
This was the first arrangement of the Elgin Marbles in London. It did not include over 40 slabs from the Parthenon frieze, seven metopes and several remaining pieces from the pediments that are in the British Museum today, as they did not arrive in London until 1812. (24) Thus, the initial judgment on the Parthenon sculptures by the London public and connoisseurs was based solely on the main pieces from the pediments, seven metopes and only a very few, and not necessarily the best preserved, slabs from the frieze. The antiquary Richard Payne Knight, then the undisputed authority on matters of taste, passed judgement on Lord Elgin's marbles in 1806, when, without having seen them, he claimed that they 'are overrated; they are not Greek, they are Roman of the time of Hadrian'. (25) The main reason for this statement was a fear that these newly imported antiquities would dull the lustre of Knight's own collection, and thus his status as an authority in the field. (26)
The earliest eye-witness comment on the presentation of Lord Elgin's collection is recorded by Joseph Farington, who, on 6 June 1807, wrote in his diary: 'Nollekens told us that He had seen the works in Sculpture brought from Athens by Lord Elgin, & did not find anything free among them. He could not believe them to be the work of Phidias.' (27) However, when visiting the Elgin Marbles in the British Museum some 10 years later, the ageing Nollekens would admire their naturalism and observe that 'the ancients did put veins to their gods'. (28) John Flaxman was another early visitor to Elgin's house because he was asked to direct and superintend the restoration of the fragmentary pieces, a request that--as is well known--he declined. (29) He had already, at the age of 18, copied a fragment from the Parthenon's north frieze in the collection of the Society of Dilettanti. (30) Later, in 1816, during the hearings of the Select Committee that was to establish the basic facts for a parliamentary decision on the acquisition of the marbles, he would state that the reliefs on the frieze 'are as perfect nature as it is possible' and that all the Parthenon sculptures in general are 'the freest works of art' he had ever seen. (31)
Among the first who also had access to the treasures at Park Lane was the Scottish artist David Wilkie, who, in the summer of 1807, took his friend Benjamin Robert Haydon to see the 'Elgin Marbles', as they were already called. (32) Over the years, Haydon would make numerous drawings after these sculptures that he exhibited with considerable success (Fig. 3). (33) He also had his students copy them for an international host of men of taste, such as Goethe, (34) and later he would make the Elgin Marbles the basis of his personal crusade against the London art establishment. (35) All in all, however, he is best remembered for his detailed records of strong emotional reactions, for his idealising enthusiasm, and the numerous dreams and restless nights that the Elgin Marbles caused him. (36)
Just as Wilkie introduced his friend Haydon to these sculptures, Haydon would do the same for his Swiss friend John Henry Fuseli, who on his first visit paced about the marbles shouting 'De Greeks were Godes! De Greeks were Godes!' (37) Among the other visitors who came to admire Lord Elgin's antiquities were the anatomist Charles Bell, the architect Robert Smirke and the painters Joseph Farington, Benjamin West and Sir Thomas Lawrence. (38) Lord Byron, who came to see them in 1807, later dismissed the exhibition as 'a general mart/for all the mutilated blocks of art.' (39) Yet the collection was not accessible to the general public until April 1808. By then, Hamilton had arranged to have it opened on Saturday and Sunday, because, as he explained to Lord Elgin, the marbles' 'fame is spreading every day and the value set upon them by the public voice will [...] be increased fourfold from what it was six months ago.' (40)
This reveals how the sculptures' monetary value had become increasingly important in view of making an approach to the government about purchasing them. In spring 1808, Lord Elgin's financial situation had dramatically deteriorated, as he had just divorced his wife and thus given up the rich source of income that over the past nine years had largely covered his expenses, including those invested in the sculptures. (41) Nevertheless, proper negotiations on an acquisition for the British Museum did not start until 1810, and the crucial debate about the marbles' price and legal status was not to be decided until 1816. (42)
Meanwhile, attacked by a leading connoisseur and the most famous poet of his day, Lord Elgin was soon forced into action in order to protect the reputation and value of the marbles. Not only did he publish an account on how he had obtained his collection and its potential benefit for the nation, he also allowed artists to study and copy his antiquities in order to spread their fame. (43) In addition, he arranged for the famous actress Sarah Siddons to give an emotional display in front of them--the group of the Fates moved her to tears--and provided connoisseurs of various tastes with an opportunity to compare the physical beauty of the Greek figures with the muscular physiognomy of a naked boxer named Gregson. (44) He also planned a sumptuous publication of his marbles 'for the benefit of artists', (45) although this project never materialised, as the draughtsman entrusted with preparing the plates, Feodor Ivanovitch, succumbed to alcoholism and never finished his work. (46) However, his 62 drawings recording various slabs of the Parthenon frieze and some metopes in the British Museum offer a glimpse of the quality of his art (Fig. 4 and 5). (47) Although Ivanovitch makes the figures look somewhat stout, his attractive drawings reveal the great care he took in rendering the bas-reliefs with precision. The intended result would certainly have been a more satisfying transformation of the Elgin Marbles into engravings than their first publication, by John Taylor, of 1816, or Richard Lawrence's etchings of 1818 (Fig. 6). (48)
[FIGURES 4-6 OMITTED]
A further step in popularising the marbles was taken by John Henning, who started to produce miniature copies of the Parthenon frieze in 1812. (49) He was followed by Haydon, who was permitted to make the first casts from the pedimental sculptures in 1815. (50) From that moment, images and casts from the Elgin Marbles quickly spread throughout Europe, which explains why Berthel Thorvaldsen knew them in Rome in 1812, (51) why Goethe saw casts from the frieze in Darmstadt in 1814, (52) and how Antonio Canova and Johann Heinrich Danecker could have casts of the 'Ilissos' and 'Theseus' in 1816. (53)
However, soon after their acquisition, the British Museum started to control the production of plaster casts from the marbles. Richard Westmacott supplied complete sets of casts to various institutions. (54) As early as May 1818, Jean-Baptiste Giraud put casts of some of the major pieces on display in his private museum in the Place-Vendome. (55) In the same year, the Louvre started to produce its own casts, using moulds that Louis-Francois Sebastien Fauvel had made for Count Choiseul-Gouffier. (56) As a result, plaster casts from the Elgin Marbles quickly became accessible all over Europe: by 1825, they were on show in places as far apart as Plymouth, Paris, St Petersburg, Copenhagen, Bristol and Rome. (57)
A painting by Christian Kobke in the Hirschsprung Collection, Copenhagen (Fig. 7), reflects this development. It shows a young art student carefully dusting the plinth of a plaster of the so-called 'Ilissos' in the cast collection at Charlottenborg. Clear daylight sets the white shining torso against a greyish background, contrasting the sensuous surface of the idealised naked body with the young man in front of it. The student bends respectfully towards the plaster. His shy look suggests that he is both inhibited and intrigued by the divine anatomy of the Greek god--or by the figure's broken genitals. Kobke's evocative image reflects a serene but harmonious synthesis between the ancient past and its modern beholder in the delicate tension between the young, searching spirit and the classical but damaged ideal. It also shows the gradually changing status of mechanically crafted plaster casts, from faithful reproductions to treasured substitutes for the far-distant originals. As well as the formal identity of the casts with their models, their ubiquity ensured their power as facsimiles of classical sculpture in a modern world, that in the end would even usurp the 'authentic'. (58)
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
Thus, year by year, the international fame of the Elgin Marbles grew, and their superiority to any other antique work of art seemed unquestioned. By 1830, they had even replaced the Apollo Belvedere as the leading model in academic training, as is reflected in Ingres' corpus of copies after the antique. No drawing by Ingres after the famous statue in Rome is known and no drawing of it by any artist is preserved in his archive at Montauban, but there are several drawings after the Elgin Marbles by him (Fig. 8) and by his pupils. (59) Yet none of them are related to standard practice in French Academic training, the precise drawing after plaster casts--or the dessin en bosse, which was aimed at teaching students three-dimensional modelling and the effects of light and shade. (60) All these copies show only the principal forms and most dominant effects of light and shade, some even are only the basic outlines, serving as aids to memory in developing formal compositions. Ingres not only copied such casts for his own purposes, he also advised artists to follow only 'Phidias and Raffael'. (61)
[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]
In 1833, Ingres' 18-year-old pupil Barthelemy Menn readily followed his master's instructions when producing a delicate oil sketch of the second slab from the Parthenon's west frieze (Fig. 9). His model was one of Fauvel's early casts that shows the raised left arm of the leading horseman restored and his chlamis shortened as well as restorations on the legs of the two horses. (62) Menu took the greatest care to render the 'plastery' appearance of a slightly patinated, dusty cast, brightening up its surface with hues of yellow, brown and pink that he applied in smooth, even brushstrokes in order to fuse the Phidian model with Ingresque technique.
[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]
The Elgin Marbles remained a standard part of academic artistic training right into early modernism. Artists as diverse as Degas, Seurat, Rodin and Picasso readily copied plaster casts of them (63)--or made copies of prints after such casts, as in an early drawing by Seurat (Fig. 10). (64) These examples are a further demonstration that the Parthenon sculptures would never have exercised such a powerful formative influence on art and taste had they not been multiplied in plaster. More importantly, they might not even exist today if Lord Elgin had not brought them to England 200 years ago.
[FIGURE 10 OMITTED]
I wish to thank the Swiss National Science Foundation for providing me with the necessary funds to undertake this preliminary study. I am also indebted to Ian Jenkins and Thorsten Opper of the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities at the British Museum for allowing me to study relevant material in their collection. I would also like to thank Benedicte Garnier of the Musee Rodin, Paris; Britta Tondborg of the Royal Cast Collection, The Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen; Uta Kornmeier, University of Oxford; Richard Melville Ballerand, London; and Birte Graff, University of Zurich, fur valuable help.
(1) W. St Clair, Lord Elgin and the Marbles, 3rd ed., Oxford, 1998; idem, 'Imperial Appropriations of the Parthenon', in J.H. Merryman, Imperialism, Art and Restitution, Cambridge 2006, pp. 65-97.
(2) A comparison between the slabs from the frieze left on the Parthenon until 1993 with their casts taken in 1802 reveals the serious losses that they have suffered since 1802. See E. Berger and M. Gisler-Huwiler, Der Parthenon in Basel. Dokumente zum Fries, 2 vols., Maince, 1996, vol. I, pp. 41-56 and vol. II, plates 8-35.
(3) M. Beard, The Parthenon, London, 2002, p. 22.
(4) See, e.g., J. Neils's ill-informed remarks on Lord Elgin in her 'Introduction: A Classical Icon', in J. Neils (ed.), The Parthenon: From Antiquity to the Present, Cambridge, 2005, p. 4.
(5) A. Michaelis, 'Die Aufnahme der Elan Marbles in London', Im Neuen Reich, vol. I, 1877, pp. 81-94. For later accounts, see A.H. Smith, 'Lord Elgin and His Collection', Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. XXXVI, 1916, pp. 163-372; J. Rothenberg, 'Descensus Ad Terram', New York and London, 1977; St Clair, op. cit. in n. 1 above (1998); Dyfri Williams, "'Of publick utility and publick property": Lord Elgin and the Parthenon Sculptures', in A. Tsingarida and D. Kurtz (eds.), Appropriating Antiquity, Brussels, 2002, pp. 103-64.
(6) A.S. Leoussi, Nationalism and Classicism: The Classical Body as National Symbol in Nineteenth-Century England and France, London, 1998.
(7) I. Kader, 'Gipsabgusse und die Farbe "Weiss'", in H. Lavagne and F. Queyrel (eds.), Les moulages des sculptures antiques et l'histoire de l'archeologie, Geneva, 2000, pp. 121-55.
(8) F.G. Welcker, quoted in A. Michaelis, Ein Jahrhundert Kunstarchaologischer Entdeckungen, Leipzig, 1908, p. 43.
(9) Smith, op. cit., pp. 163-372.
(10) Lord Elgin in Report of the Select Committe on the Earl of Elgin's Collection of Sculpted Marbles &c., London, 1816. p. 17 (and not p. 31, as erroneously given by Smith, op. cit., p. 165, and as copied by St Clair, op. cit. in n. 1 above (1998), p. 347, note 22).
(11) S. Nagel, Mistress of the Elgin Marbles: A Biography of Mary Nisbet, Countess of Elgin, Chichester, 2004, esp. pp. 23-24, 138-39, 192-200.
(12) The first firman is mentioned in W. Wittman, Travels in Turkey, Asia-Minor, Syria and Across the Desert into Egypt, London, 1803, pp. 65-67. On the second firman, see Williams, op. cit., pp. 107, 113-14.
(13) Ibid., pp. 110-11. Williams translates the 'qualche pezzi di pietra' of the Italian (and only existing) version of this firman with 'any pieces' similar to the Report of the Select Committee of 1816 (p. 69), while St Clair, op. cit. in n. 1 above (1998), p. 341, translates the 'qualche' with 'some'. Philip Hunt's letter to Lady Mary Elgin Nisbet of 1803, in Nagel, op. cit., pp. 261-74, supports the traditional reading.
(14) Williams, op. cit., pp. 133, 135, 149, 152, and note 203 (for the export). See J.H. Merryman, 'Whither the Elgin Marbles?' in idem, op. cit. in n. 1 above, pp. 98-113.
(15) Smith, op. cit., p. 190; Williams, op. cit., p. 108.
(16) Report of the Select Committee, op. cit, p. 20; Williams, op. cit., p. 117.
(17) The Times, 6 June 1806, p. 2; Smith, op. cit., p. 264.
(18) Hunt to Mary Elgin Nisbet, 20 February 1805, in Nagel, op. cit., p. 262.
(19) Smith, op. cit., pp. 295-96.
(20) Haydon to Elgin, 10 March 1819, in ibid., p. 297.
(21) Smith, op. cit., p. 298 gives the date as 1810. There are two smaller sketches in the British Museum, Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, showing the same room. They are part of a portfolio titled: "Sculture dell'Parthenone/done in 1808 from the Elgin Collection when in Burlington House/before CRC went on his travels'.
(22) These are, from left to right, figures E and F from the east pediment, A from the west pediment, K, G, D, L and M from the east pediment, O and M from the west pediment.
(23) Torso H (west pediment) and horse's head O (east pediment).
(24) Smith, op. cit., p. 315. On the remaining pieces in Athens see ibid., p. 273.
(25) M. Elwin (ed.), The Autobiography and Journals of Benjamin Robert Haydon (1786-1846), London 1853 (reprint of 1950), p. 244.
(26) Rothenberg, op. cit., pp. 212-16, 284-90, 384-85, 396-403.
(27) K. Cave (ed.), The Diary of Joseph Farington, New Haven and London, 1982, vol. VIII, p. 3,059, entry of Saturday 6 June 1807.
(28) J.T. Smith, Nollekens and his Times, 2 vols, London, 1828, vol. I, p. 388.
(29) Hamilton to Elgin, 23 June 1807, in Smith, op. cit. in n. 5 above, pp. 297-78.
(30) L. Cust and S. Colvin, History of the Society of Dilettanti, London, 1898, p. 105; D. Irwinn, John Flaxman 1755-1826, London, 1979, p. 230. See I. Jenkins, Archaeologists and Aesthetes in the Sculpture Gallery of the British Museum 1800-1939, London, 1992, p. 80.
(31) Report of the Select Committee, 1816, op. cit., p. 31.
(32) Elwin, op. cit., p. 75; Smith, op. cit. in n. 5 above, pp. 300-301; D.B. Brown (ed.), Benjamin Robert Haydan, 1786-1846, Grasmere, 1996, p. 87.
(33) The Times, 8 February 1819, p. 3.
(34) E. Grumach, Goethe und die Antike, 2 vols., Berlin 1949, vol. II, pp. 500, 502-503; S. Schulz (ed.), Goethe und die Kunst, Stuttgart, 1994, p. 45, fig. 17. See Elwin, op. cit., p. 492.
(35) B.R. Haydon, The Judgment of Connoisseurs upon Works of Art Compared with that of Professional Men, London, 1816.
(36) See, for example, Elwin, op. cit., pp. 88-89, 96-97, 124-25, 136-41.
(37) G. Schiff, Johann Heinrich Fussli (1741-1825). Leben und Werk, 2 vols., Zurich and Munich, 1973, vol. I, p. 304.
(38) K. Cave (ed.), The Diary of Joseph Farington, vol. IX, New Haven and London, 1982, p. 3,230, entry, of 27 February 1808.
(39) L.A. Marchand, Byron: A Biography, New York, 1957, vol. I, p. 221. The quote from Byron's English Bards and Scotch Reviewers, London, 1809, (lines 1031-1032, after S.A. Larabee, English Bards and Grecian Marbles, New York, 1943, p. 152. On Byron and the Elgin Marbles, see pp. 151-58.
(40) Hamilton to Elgin, 18 April 1808, in Rothenberg, op. cit., p. 227.
(41) Nagel, op. cit., pp. 215-18, 225-26.
(42) Smith, op. cit., as in n. 5 above, pp. 307-335; Rothenberg, op. cit., p. 384.
(43) [W. Hamilton] Memorandum on the Subject of The Earl of Elgin's Pursuits in Greece, Edinburgh, 1810, London, 1811 and 1815.
(44) On Sarah Siddons, see Smith, op. cit., as in n. 5 above, p. 306; on the pugilist, see Cave (ed.), op. cit., entry of 30 June 1808, p. 3,306.
(45) Hamilton, op. cit. (1815), p. 39.
(46) Smith, op. cit., as in n. 5 above, p. 255; Rothenberg, op. cit., p. 181 and note 72; Berger and Gisler-Huwiler, op. cit., p. 23.
(47) British Museum, Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, fol. 41e, 'Elgin Drawings'.
(48) J. Taylor, The Elgin Marbles from the Temple of Minerva at Athens, London, 1816; R. Lawrence, Elgin Marbles from the Parthenon at Athens, London, 1818.
(49) J. Malden, John Henning (1771-1851), Paisley, 1977.
(50) Elwin, op. cit, pp. 262-63.
(51) M. Natoli and M.A. Scarpari (eds.), Il palazzo del Quirinak, 2 vols., Rome, 1989, vol. I, pp. 404 and 406.
(52) Grumach, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 494-511.
(53) Quatremere de Quincy, Lettres doits de Londres a Rome, et adressees a M. Canova, Rome, 1818, p. 16; A. Michaelis, Der Parthenon, Leipzig, 1871, p. 86.
(54) I. Jenkins, 'Acquisiton and Supply of Casts of the Parthenon Sculptures by the British Museum, 1835-1939', in The Annual of the British School at Athens, vol. LXXXV, 1990, pp. 101-103.
(55) M. Shedd, 'A Neo-Classical Connoisseur and his Collection: J.B. Giraud's Museum of Casts at the Place Vendome', in Gazette des Beaux-Arts, vol. CIII, May/June 1984, pp. 198-206, especially p. 201, and Jenkins, op. cit. in n. 54 above, p. 103, note 116. Choiseul-Gouffier's casts and moulds were acquired by the Louvre in August 1818.
(56) C.G. Loewe, 'Fauvel's first trip through Greece', in Hesperia, vol. V, 1936, p. 220.
(57) Jenkins, op. cit. in n. 54 above, p. 102; The Times, 11 November 1818, p. 2: 'Introduction of the Elgin Marbles into Russia'; W. Ehrhardt, Das Akademische Kunstmuseum der Universitat Bonn, Opladen, 1982, pp. 24-25; J. Bauer (ed.), Gips Nicht Mehr. Abgusse als letzle Zeugen antiker Kunst, Bonn, 2000, p. 167; Grumach, op. cir., vol. II, p. 506; the casts in the Royal Academy in Copenhagen came from Paris in 1819 (information kindly provided by Dr Britta Tondborg, Copenhagen). (58) See J. Traeger, 'Zur Rolle der Gipsabgusse in Goethe's Italienischen Reise', in H. Wiegel (ed.), Italiensehnsucht, Munich and Berlin, 2004, pp. 45-57.
(59) Following Georges Vignes, Dessins d'Ingres. Catalogue Raisonne des dessins du musee de Montauban, Paris, 1995, the following nos. are copies by Ingres after casts from the Elgin Marbles: 2219, 3700, 3726, 3741, 3753, 3754, 3761, 3763-3765, 3958-9, 3982-3. On similar copies by Ingres' pupils, see e.g. F. Soulier, Ingres, Flandrin. Dessins du musee de Besancon, Besancon, 2000. See M. Shedd-Driskel, 'Moulages a Montauban', in P. Picard-Cajan (ed.), L'illusion Grecque. Ingres & l'antique, Montauban, 2006, pp. 128-35.
(60) A. Boime, The Academy and French Painting in the Nineteenth Century, London, 1971, pp. 22-36.
(61) H. Flandrin to P. Flandtin, 1 March 1833, in D. Ternois (ed.), Amaury-Dural, L'Atelier d'Ingres, Paris, 1993, p. 396; Th. Silvestre, Histoire des artistes vivants--Etudes d'apres Nature--Ingres, Paris, 1855, p. 16.
(62) On Fauvel's casts see D. Willers, 'Erganzungen an Fauvels Gipsabgussen vom Parthenonfries', in E. Berger (ed.), Parthenon-Kongress Basel, 2 vols., Maince, 1984, vol. 1, pp. 343-44. On Menn, see G. Vigne, Les eleves d'Ingres, Montauban, 1999, pp. 144-45.
(63) On Degas, see G. Monnier, "La genese d'une oeuvre de Degas. "Semiramis construisant une ville'", in La Revue du Louvre, nos. 5-6, 1978, pp. 407-26, especially p. 408. On Rodin, see B. Gamier, Rod&. Antiquity is My Youth, Pads, 2002, p. 43, fig, 48. Rodin owned nine plaster casts from the Parthenon frieze: of the east frieze, slab VII, of the north frieze, slabs XLVI and XLVII, and of the west frieze, slabs III, IV, V, XII (information kindly provided by Dr Benedict Garnier).
(64) Seurat copied plate 62 from Charles Bargue's Cours de dessins, 1er Partie, Paris, 1871, while Picasso's 'Dinnysos' from the east pediment, illustrated in C. Zervos, Pablo Picasso, vol. 6, supplement aux volumes 1 a 5, Pads, 1983, no. 4, is a copy after Bargue, op. cir., plate 61.
Marc Fehlmann is Assistant Professor in the Department of Archaeology and Art History at the Eastern Mediterranean University, Northern Cyprus.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Date:||Jun 1, 2007|
|Previous Article:||'Let it wrap itself around you': Philip Johnson's Glass House: on 23 June the National Trust for Historic Preservation opens the Glass House in New...|
|Next Article:||Found in translation the Chinese House at Stowe: the Chinese House in the garden at Stowe, Buckinghamshire, is decorated with enchanting paintings...|