Skip to main content

Full text of "The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 1946-01: Vol 4 Iss 5"

See other formats







THE METROPOL DEAR Be 





THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART 


VOLUME I\ 


NOTES ON THE COVER this month there 


is a detail from Degas’s Re 


hearsal of the Ballet on the Stage. It is one ol 


three versions by Degas which tog¢ thet provide 


an illuminating study of the artist’s experi 
ments in techniques and his constant interest 
in composition, Probably the earliest of the 
three is the one now in the Louvre, which was 
painted in 1574. Restricted to tones of brown 
and white, it is almost photographic in effect. 
The one here illustrated is painted on pape. 
with oil colors freely mixed with turpentine, a 
medium which Degas frequently used. The di 
luted oil and the absorbent quality of the pape 
have combined to produce a chalky, mat finish 
and more delicate tones than are usual in oil 
painting. In the third version, also belonging to 
the Metropolitan Museum, the artist has used 


yastels over a water-color base, leaving much olf 
a] 


BULLETIN NUMBER 5 


the drawing exposed to add strength and liveli- 
ness to the picture. 

In each case, while using the same pictorial 
elements, Degas has made a striking change in 
composition. In the Louvre painting the edge 
of the stage and a part of the orchestra pit are 
seen to the right. In the painting shown here 
these have been eliminated and the heads of 
two double basses have been introduced, which, 
by accenting the foreground, add to the feeling 
of space and depth. In the pastel only one of 
these is seen; it has been enlarged and moved 
to the extreme left, opening up the center of the 
picture and giving more importance to the 
dancer seated there. 

Fhese two pictures came to the Museum from 
the Havemeyer family, the pastel in the Bequest 
of Mrs. H. O. Havemeyer, and the oil as a gift 


from Horace Havemeyer. LOUISE BURROUGHS 








Tue Bu tetin is published monthly from October to June and quarterly from July to September by The Metropolitan Museum of 
Art, Fifth Avenue and 82nd Street, New York 28, N. Y. Re-entered as second-class matter November 17, 1942, at the Post Office at 
New York, N. Y., under the Act of August 24, 1912. Copyright 1946 by The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Subscriptions $2.00 a year. 








Single copies twenty cents. Sent free to Museum members. Editor: Beulah Dimmick Chase, Assistant Editors: Agnes Peters ané 


Jean Leonard. Assistant: Evelyn Grantham. 











RT 


| liveli- 


ctorial 
nge in 
e edge 
pit are 
n here 
‘ads of 
which, 
‘eeling 
one ol 
moved 
of the 
to. the 


1 from 
equest 
a gilt 
GHS 


— > 
seum of 
)ffice at 
a year. 
rers and 











A LETTER TO 


By the time this issue of the Bulletin reaches 
you, you will have seen in the newspapers that 
the Museum is inaugurating this spring an in 
tensive campaign for funds in order to carry out 
its Seventy-fitth Anniversary Building Program. 
rhe goal of $10,000,000 is high. The results, 
however, we believe will more than justify the 


efforts; for they will per- 


THE MEMBERS 


ol the more brilliant show windows of this me- 
tropolis of the modern world. But we must now 
transform ourselves from the collecting agency 
we have been to a popular force in the intellec- 
tual life of the community; we must digest what 
we have acquired and we must present it with 
Mu 


seum more useful, more 


clarity and purpose. We must make the 





mit the Metropolitan to 
participate more fully 
in the general move- 
ment for the intellectu- 
al and spiritual recovery 
The de- 


struction of Europe lies 


: A LETTER 1O 
of mankind. 


heavy on the hearts ol 
all who care for art and 
for the civilizations of 
ATTIC VASE 
the past, and we know 
that only by preserva- 


tion and an_ intensive By Arese 


study of what is left of 
our hereditary Western OF PAINTINGS 
culture can we hope to 
develop the reason and PORTRAIT OF 
desire with which to re- HOTPE I 
sist the new and terrify- 
ing temptations of the SAINI 
scientist. 

This is a cause which 





CONTENTS 


January, 1946 


THE MEMBERS 
By Francis HENRY 


CAPRICCIO BY CANALETTO 
By JOSEPHINE I 


PERSEUS AND MEDUSA ON AN 
By Marjorit J. MILNE 126 ol 


ARABESQUES IN BRONZE 
TEN Eyck GARDNER 


\ NOTE ON THE RADIOGRAPHY 

By MURRAY PEAS! 136 
KING 
By WILLIAM ¢ 


ELOI AND KING CLOTHAR 
By WILLIAM H. Forsytu 143 


attractive, and more 
modern. It must be an 
example of what the 
great museum ol the fu 
become—a 


ture should 


<a dynamic educational in 
strument and not mere 
ly a static repository ol 
ALLEN 124 é 
the past. 

The present confusion 
has 


the collections 


come about primarily 
131 because of lack of space 
and proper exhibiting 
whereas 


facilities. For, 


Museum has re 


the 


the 


AMEN ceived in past 
twenty-five years several 
HAYES 140 7 ’ 

hundred thousand 
works of art by bequest, 
gift, and purchase 


more in fact than the 








intimately 
every Member; for just as the Museum is in a 
university, depending 


concerns 


sense a type of popular 
for its authority on the masterpieces of the 
creative mind, you Members constitute our 
body of alumni. You are the men and women 
who for three quarters of a century have stood 
by us in the fat years and in the lean, and it is 
you who have made us great. 

This very greatness carries with it grave re- 
sponsibilities; what we have builded in the past 
we cannot now neglect. For seventy-five years 
the Metropolitan has served the community as 
a collecting agency, bringing to New York “the 
peculiar treasures of kings.’ It has been one 


total contents of some 
of the largest municipal museums in the coun 
try—there has been no substantial addition to 
the Fifth Avenue buildings since 1923. For 
nearly ten years a three-and-a-half-million-dol 
lar decorative arts wing, fully designed, was 
approved and carried on the Capital Budget of 
the City of New York and then was discon 
tinued for lack of municipal funds. 

Ihe Museum has therefore been looking fo 
ward to this day for many years. First the de 
pression of the thirties saw the buildings go 
from bad to worse, and after war was declared 
all major repairs and alterations were deferred 
by the City. During this period it often seemed 


12] 








that the libraries and museums would join the 
deserted mansions of Filth Avenue as funerary 
monuments to high taxes and a philosophy of 
despair. 

With regard to the operating budget of the 
Museum, the City did the best it could, faced 
with large relief rolls during the depression 
years and with other emergency demands dur 
ing the war. But it steadily reduced its contribu 
tions from $508,000 in 1932 to $404,600 In 1945 
a fraction of the current operating budget of 
The 


supplied by endowment and private gifts; in 


31,700,000. balance has been necessarily 
deed if it had not been for substantial reserves 
accumulated in the past, the Museum could 
not have stood the operating deficit of the wat 
years. 

Fortunately with the close of the war the tide 
has turned, and a series of events have conspired 
to make it possible for us to look ahead with 
courage The Post-Wat 
Building Program of the City of New York and 
the the Whitney 


and determination. 


the decision of Trustees ol 
Museum of American Art to build its perma 
nent building as part of the Metropolitan have 
made it possible to work out our plans simul- 
taneously. The total building program will cost 
approximately $10,240,000, of which the City 
will provide $2,400,000 exclusively for the re 
habilitation of existing buildings. The Whit- 
ney Wing, to cost approximately $1,500,000, 
will be paid for from the Whitney fund. The 
balance, to be secured through private gifts, 
will provide new galleries connecting the Whit- 
ney Museum to our present plant. 

You will shortly receive several pamphlets 
summing up the objectives of the Museum's 
Seventy-filth Anniversary Program, which will 
describe the building plans in detail, our vart- 
ous needs, and the methods that we will employ 
to raise these funds which we are so confident 
we will obtain. This confidence is based upon 
the following three reasons: 

First, we are fortunate in the leadership of 
our campaign. In Mr. Thomas J. Watson, Gen- 
eral Chairman of the Seventy-filth Anniversary 
Committee, and in Mr. Francis M. Weld, Exec- 
utive Chairman, we have distinguished and 
influential business leaders who are at the same 


time patrons of the arts and thoroughly sym. 


pathetic to our plans. Our Vice-Chairmen ip- 


clude men and women ol equal distinction. Mr. 
Walter S. Gifford, a comparatively new Trus. 
tee, has generously consented to taking the 


committee to solicit the 


chairmanship of a 
larger gilts without which no campaign can 
hope to succeed. A list at the close of this letter 
shows the extent to which public-spirited citi- 
zens have offered to come to the assistance of 
the Trustees, and each day brings in accept 
ances from those who have been invited to be 
sponsors for the Committee. 

The second reason for our confidence lies in 
the ready response that we have received from 
the press not only of New York but of the na 
tion as a whole, which has carried special ar- 
ticles and editorials across the forty-eight states. 
Phe distinguished publisher of a leading South- 
erm newspaper sent an unsolicited cheque with 
the statement, “The Metropolitan belongs to 
the nation; the nation should support it.” This 
national interest is borne out, too, by the fact 
that a third of our nearly two million visitors a 
year are trom out of town. 

Thirdly, our confidence rests on the friendly 
and enthusiastic support of our Members, you 
who know the Museum, its collections and what 
it stands for. We know, too, that you have a 
self-interest in these new plans, for you will be 
the first to benefit from them. We count on 
your support; we hope you will talk about the 
Museum to your friends and will bring them 
here, and that, however little you may feel able 
to contribute yourself, you will do the type ol 
missionary work for us that only our friends 
and well-wishers can do. We have a large fund 
to raise, but it will be raised quickly if we get 
the necessary help. Our main effort will be in 
\pril and May and will include the activities 
of a Men’s Committee, a Women’s Committee, 
a Commerce and Industry Committee, and a 
Membership Committee. We are enrolling 
workers for each of these committees right now. 
Ihe Trustees and staff are ready to co-operate 
with you in every way. 

Won't you please write in and tell us where 
you think you would be most helpful? 

FRANCIS HENRY TAYLOR 


199 








ee 











ly sym- 
nen in- 


on. Mr, 
y Trus. 
ng the 
cit’ the 
on can 
S letter 
ed citi- 
ince of 
accept 
1 to be 


lies in 
d from 
the na- 
‘ial ar- 
states. 
South- 
le with 
TSs to 
” This 
he fact 


sitors a 


‘iendly 
rs, you 
d what 
have a 
will be 
int on 
ut the 


them 


>| able 
ype ol 
riends 
> fund 
we get 
be in 
ivities 
nittee, 
and a 
olling 
t now. 


perate 
where 


LOR 














—— 





EXECUTIVES OF THE SEVENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY COMMITTEE 


norary Chairman William Church Osborn General Chairman ‘Thomas J]. Watson 
onorar ‘ 


Executive Chairman Francis M. Weld 


Vice-Chairmen 


Mrs. Thomas W. Armitage Thomas W. Lamont Elihu Root, Jr. 

Cornelius N. Bliss Robert Lehman Miss Dorothy Shaver 
Mrs. James W. Gerard Mrs. Oswald B. Lord Vanderbilt Webb 
Devereux C. Josephs Roland L. Redmond Mrs. Sheldon Whitehouse 


Mrs. Ogden Reid 


COMMITTEES 
SPECIAL GIFTS: Walter S. Gifford, Chairman 
MEN’S COMMITTEE: Charles E. Wilson, Chairman 
MEMBERSHIP: John Godfrey Saxe, Chairman 
Arnold Whitridge, Vice-Chairman 
PUBLIC RELATIONS AND PUBLICITY: Arthur W. Page, Chairman 


James M. Cecil, Vice-Chairman 


The Seventy-fifth Anniversary Committee, together with its list of ofhcers, 


is still in process of formation. 





A view of the terrace opening from the proposed Members’ Rooms and 
Restaurant, adjacent to the Special Exhibition Galleries 


123 

















CAPRICCIO BY CANALETTO 


By JOSEPHINE L. ALLEN 


{ssistant Curator of Paintings 


Landscape drawings which are complete in 
themselves and not made as studies for paint- 
ings are a pleasant, if minor, form of art. This 
is especially so when one of the eighteenth 
like 


was the draftsman. In 


century Venetians Guardi or Canaletto 


1937 the Museum ac 
quired nineteen Guardis, but until recently had 
none of the rarer and highly prized Canaletto 
landscapes. The sheet here illustrated is doubly 
interesting in having a finished drawing of an 
imaginary scene on one side and on the othe 
a preparatory drawing in pencil of an actual 
canal worked out in extraordinary detail. 

lhe name Capriccio is given in Italy to ar 
tistic fantasies in architecture and landscape. 
In the drawing above Canaletto has composed 
a scene of mild activity among canal barges 
beside a workman’s vine-draped house and a 
battered church. In the distance at the left a 


stone bridge connects two free-standing col- 


124 


umns on the mainland with a small castle. The 
outlines are drawn with pen and bister ink and 
shaded in with washes of India ink, the gray 
making an effective contrast to the brown ink. 
Under some of the ink lines are structural guid- 
ing lines drawn lightly in pencil. 

A good many of Canaletto’s drawings have 
this pencil groundwork, but it is rare to find 
a sketch done only in pencil and so completely 
laid out as the one on the reverse of this sheet. 
Che carrying out of details was usually left to 
the inking process. In this case the artist was 
obviously interested in the scene before him, 
and very likely he intended to finish it im 
more permanent form. Possibly he laid it aside 
and inadvertently started a new drawing on 
the other side of the paper. To draw the canal 
he sat in a window two stories up, and, with 4 
straight edge, set down every ornamented wil 
and molding on the _ houses 


dow, cornice, 





RE TTS ESE 








tle. The 
ink and 
he gray 
wn. ink. 
al guid- 


gs have 
to find 
pletely 
s sheet. 
left to 
ist was 
‘e him, 
1 it mM 
it aside 
ing on 
e canal 
with a 
-d wil: 
houses 








opPposiTE: Capriccio, ink and wash drawing by Canaletto (1697-1768). ABOVE: View of a Venetian 
canal, pencil sketch by Canaletto on the back of the Capriccio. 1014 by 16%6 inches. Rogers 


Fund, 1943. 1n the special exhibition of European drawings, opening on February 8 


down both sides. A woman hangs over a bal- 
cony rail just beyond his vantage point and 
looks down on two boatloads of wood. Two 
low buildings across the way adjoin a hand- 
some palazzo with its awning swung out. A 
low bridge connects the two banks and cuts 
across the curving end of the canal. ‘The scene 
has been tentatively identified by W. G. Con- 
stable as the Rio San Barnaba, which runs 
west from the Grand Canal and turns south be- 
yond a small bridge. Coming from the Grand 
Canal one would pass the church of San Barna- 
ba before reaching this spot. The drawing has 
the convincing air of an actual place. 

We know of four past owners of our draw- 
ing—Baron Vivant-Denon, Lady Sybil Grant, 
Miss Lucy Cohen, and the Earl of Rosebery. 
The first of these had a remarkable career, 
whose peaceful conclusion might well be en- 
vied by certain notorious characters of our 
day. Dominique Vivant-Denon, a writer and 
artist, began his public life by favor of Louis 
XV and continued to prosper till the fall of 


| 


or 


Napoleon. From 1772 to 1787 he was attached 
to several embassies from St. Petersburg to the 
court of Naples, and he made use of his op- 
portunities to form a notable collection of 
paintings, prints, and drawings. While in 
southern Italy he visited Sicily and bought a 
number of Greek vases which he sold in 1788 
to Louis XVI. The funds thus obtained en- 
abled him to return to Italy to s-udy art, this 
time in Venice. It is probable that our drawing 
was acquired then. He returned to Paris in 1793 
in spite of the Terror, and through his friend 
David gained an introduction to Napoleon. Ac- 
companying the army into Egypt, Denon made 
notes and sketches of the monuments (pub- 
lished 1802-1813). In the subsequent campaigns 
in Austria, Spain, and Poland he advised Na- 
poleon in his confiscation of works of art and as 
director of museums Installed the stolen treas 
ures in the Louvre. After Napoleon's fall Denon 
supervised their return or exchange, and then 
retired to private life to write a history of art 


and to enjoy his great collection. 











PERSEUS 


AND MEDUSA ON 
ATTIC VASE 


sy MARJORIE J. MILNE 


Senior Research Fellow, Department of Greek and Roman Art 


Phe Attic red-figured vase illustrated opposite 
and on pages 128 and 129 was acquired by the 
Museum last year. It is an outstanding example 
of the style of Polygnotos, one of the most im- 
portant of the vase painters active in Athens 
about 450-430 B.c., who had been hitherto rep- 
resented in our collection by only a minor work. 

One side is decorated with a conventional 
scene, a king, whom the inscription calls Poly- 


The 


other, o1 pring ipal, side has a pic ture of Perseus 


peithes, standing between two women. 


and the Gorgon Medusa. Medusa lies relaxed 
in sleep on a rocky hillside sparsely grown with 
small flowering plants. Her wings rise half 
opened behind her. She wears a short dress (f01 
Gorgons, when awake, were active creatures 
and had no use for the floor-length robes of 
Greek women) made of heavy wool, woven in 
handsome geometric patterns. Perseus (some 
what unnecessarily identified by the inscription 
Iegpeu{c]), with his head turned away, seizes 
her by the hair and puts the cutting edge of his 
harpe, or sickle, to her neck. The artist has ab- 
sent-mindedly made the wings of his cap point 
Athena 


scene. Her aegis is still bare of the Gorgon’s 


in the wrong direction. watches the 
head, which she will receive from Perseus afte) 
he has completed his mission. 

This scene is interesting for two particulari- 
ties. It is one of the earliest illustrations of the 
story to show the Gorgon not as a hideous mon- 
ster but as a beautiful woman. Art in this re- 
spect lagged behind poetry; in an ode written in 
490 B.c. Pindar already speaks of “‘fair-cheeked 
Medusa.”’ Much more remarkable is the second 
particularity, the presence of rays around Per- 
seus’ head. They do not show in the photo- 
graph, for the paint with which they were 
drawn has flaked off, but the dull lines that it 
has left on the glaze are plainly visible on the 
vase itself (see the drawing on p. 130). 


\t least one other representation of Perseus, 
a drawing on a white-ground toilet box in the 
Louvre, shows him with rays around his head. 
Phe style of this work would date it a few years 
earlier than our new vase, but the attitude of its 
Perseus is very similar. His head is turned back, 
his knees are bent in a running position, and 
one arm (instead of both) is stretched out in 
front of him. It looks as if Polygnotos and the 
artist of the Louvre vase had been inspired by 
the same work. What this work was we may per: 
haps discover after we have considered the 
meaning of the rays. Since the discussion of the 
rays involves details of the story of Perseus and 
Medusa, we shall begin by briefly recalling the 
story. 

When Akrisios, king of Argos, asked Apollo's 
oracle at Delphi whether he would have a son, 
he was told that he would not, but that his 
daughter Danaé would bear a son, at whose 
hands he would meet his death. So he impris 
oned Danaé in an underground chamber, in 
order that no man might approach her. But 
Zeus, who had fallen in love with her, trans- 
formed himself into a shower of gold raining 
through the roof of her prison. To Zeus she 
bore a son, Perseus. When Akrisios discovered 
this, he shut Danaé and Perseus in a chest and 
cast them into the sea. The chest floated to the 
island of Seriphos, where Danaé and Perseus 
were rescued and cared for by a fisherman, 
Diktys. After Perseus grew up, Diktys’s brother, 
King Polydektes, fell in love with Danaé, and 
to get rid of Perseus sent him after the Gor 
gon’s head. With the help of Hermes and 
Athena, Perseus succeeded in obtaining the cap 
Hades, the 
winged shoes, which helped him to fly, and the 


of which made him invisible, 
kibisis, a bag for carrying the head. He found 
the three Gorgons asleep and, looking the 


other way (for the Gorgon’s head would turn 


126 





erseus, 
- in the 
is head, 
W years 
le of its 
d back, 
yn, and 
out in 
ind the 
ired by 
Jay per 
ed the 
. of the 
us and 
ing the 


pollo’s 
‘a son, 
iat his 
whose 
impris- 
yer, In 
r. But 
trans- 
aining 
us she 
overed 
st and 
to the 
erseus 
rman, 
‘other, 
é, and 
>» Gor- 
s and 
ne cap 
», the 
id the 
found 
g the 
| turn 








Perseus cutting off Medusa’s head as she sleeps. Detail of an Attic red-figured vase by Polygnotos. 
About 450-440 B.c. Rogers Fund 














fitic ved-figured vase of which a detail is shown 


on the preceding page 


the beholder to stone), cut off the head of Me- 
dusa, the mortal one. Her two sisters pursued 
him but could not catch him, for the cap of 
Hades 
Seriphos and displayed the head to Polydektes 


made him invisible. He returned to 
and his people, who were immediately turned 
to stone. He then set out with the friendliest 
Akrisios, 
whose fears he finally succeeded in allaying. 


But fulfilled 


one day when he was engaged in a discus- 


intentions to see his grandfather, 


the oracle was nonetheless, for 
throwing contest, his discus by mischance struck 
\krisios, who died of the wound. 

Albert Dumont, who published the Louvre 
vase, explained the rays around Perseus’ head 
as an attempt to show pictorially the magical 
properties of the cap of Hades. Perseus, how 
ever, had been a familiar figure in art and 
legend from the seventh century B.c. on. It 
would hardly seem likely that an artist of the 
mid-filth century should suddenly find it neces- 
sary to draw attention to the well-known power 


of the cap of Hades. Moreover the cap is de 


the “Shield of Herakles,”” a sixth- 


century poem falsely attributed to Hesiod, as 


scribed in 


“having the dread darkness of night.”’ It would 
be strange, as Professor A. D. Nock has pointed 
out to me, to find darkness expressed by rays, 
for rays are the means used by Greek art to 
depict light. The sun, for example, is often 
represented as a man with rays around his 
head, and sometimes other phenomena of light, 
such as the dawn and the morning star, appear 
as human figures surrounded by rays. 

Now a 
thought that Perseus was originally not a hero 


number of modern scholars have 
but a sun god. His journey in the chest and his 
landing on Seriphos have been interpreted as 
a mythical description of night followed by 
sunrise, and the Gorgon is sometimes explained 
as the moon. Our new vase might seem at first 
sight to confirm such theories. 

The study of folklore, however, has shown 
that the story of Perseus, like some other stories 
that in the nineteenth century were interpreted 
as solar myths, has nothing to do with the sun 
or other natural phenomena. It is made up for 
the most part of episodes found in many parts 
of the world and belonging not to nature myths 
but to stories told purely fol pleasure. Such 
stories have made us familiar from childhood 
with the king who desires offspring and 1s 
warned of consequences which he vainly strives 
to avoid, with imprisoned princesses, persons 
put in chests and flung into the sea, dangerous 
missions accomplished with the advice of super- 
natural helpers, caps of darkness, shoes of 
swiftness, and the rest of it. No exact parallel 
for Medusa, it is true, has ever been found. But 
recently a plausible explanation of her has 
been advanced by W. R. Halliday. The story, 
he suggests, was inspired by the Gorgon’s head, 
which occurs in both literature and art in con- 
texts from which Perseus is absent. For ex- 
ample, Odysseus in the eleventh book ol the 
Odyssey, line 633 ff., explains why, on his de- 
scent to Hades, he did not stay longer, “Pale 
fear seized me that noble Persephone would 
send the head of the Gorgon, the dread monster, 
from Hades.” In art the head was very common 
as a decoration on shields, buildings, citadel 


walls, vases, and other objects. It was in fact one 


128 








- $ixth- 
iod, as 
would 
ointed 
yy rays, 
art to 
» often 
nd_ his 
f light, 
appear 


s have 
a hero 
ind his 
eted as 
ved by 
ylained 
at first 


shown 
stories 
preted 
he sun 
up for 
y parts 
-myths 

Such 
dhood 
and is 
strives 
yErsONns 
gerous 
super- 
OCS ol 
arallel 
id. But 
er has 
 SLOrY, 
; head, 
n con- 
or @X- 
of the 
his de- 
“Pale 
would 
onster, 
mmon 
ritadel 
ict one 





of the most frequently used charms against the 
evil eye. People began to wonder where the 
head had come from and how the “Gorgon” 
had been deprived of it. The story of Perseus 
and Medusa was an attempt to answer these 
questions. 

The myth, then, cannot be used to prove 
that Perseus was a sun god. Nor is there any 
trace of an identification of him with the sun 
in genuine popular belief. Philosophic al specu- 
lation is another matter. In Byzantine commen- 
taries on Hesiod we find Perseus explained as 
the sun and Medusa as the moisture that the 
sun evaporates. This probably goes back to an 
ancient source, but it is only one of several 
ancient explanations. Another, for example, 
made the three Gorgons three kinds of Fear 
vanquished by Courage (Perseus) and Wisdom 
(Athena). 

Just when the solar explanation of Perseus 
was first hazarded we do not know; it may be 
as old as our vase. The interpretation of the 
Homeric gods as allegories of natural phenom- 
ena is said to have been begun by Theagenes 
of Rhegium in the twenties of the sixth century 
B.c. In the second half of the fifth century we 
find Metrodoros of Lampsakos applying this 
method even to heroes. Agammemnon, he said, 
was the ether, Achilles the sun, Helen the 
earth, Paris the air, and Hektor the moon. But 
such theories would hardly have been reflected 
in vase paintings. It is the popular forms of 
myths that appear on vases, not the abstruse 
notions of philosophers. 

If our new vase and the Louvre toilet box 
had been painted at a later period and in South 
Italy, we might cite as a parallel the great halo 
of rays around the hero Bellerophon on a 
South Italian vase of the Hellenistic age. Pre 
cisely why these rays were given to Bellerophon 
we do not know. Perhaps they refer to some- 
thing uncanny in him. For we find them (or 
sometimes a mere halo) on South Italian vases 
around such figures as Lyssa, the personifica- 
tion of madness, a sphinx, a sea demon, and 
the sea nymph Thetis, who had the power of 
transforming herself into other shapes. It may 
be, on the other hand, that the custom of giv- 
ing rays to representations of the sun, dawn, 








King Polypeitthes and two women, the othe 


side of the vase shown on the opposite page 


and the morning star, who (except for the Sun) 
were among the less important figures in Greek 
mythology, gave rise, among artists of Italy, to 
a tendency toward bestowing rays on various 
minor mythological figures. This latter habit, 
however, whatever its explanation, is not Attic 
and so cannot be used to interpret our new vase. 

rhe following tentative explanation of the 
rays at least does not contradict what we know 
of Attic art and of the way in which Athenian 
vase painters worked. One of the constellations 
is named Perseus, and since it is described by 
the astronomer Eudoxos, who lived in the first 
half of the fourth century B.c., it was probably 
recognized before his time. Various other con 
siderations have led scholars to conyjec ture that 
its recognition goes back to the sixth century 
B.c. The attitude of the figure in the stars is 
not unlike that of the Perseus on our vase and 
on the toilet box in the Louvre. The knees are 
bent in a running position and the right arm is 
raised. Now Sirius, the dog Star, 18 re presented 


in art, for example on coins of Keos, an island 


129 











Hlead of Perseus. Detail of the shown on 


page 128. Drawn by Lindsley F. Hall 


Vase 


with 
that Poly- 


gnotos and the artist of the Paris vase had seen 


off the coast of Attica, as rays 


around his head. I therefore suggest 


a dog 


a picture-of the constellations among which 
Perseus figured as a running youth with rays 
around his head. Euripides in the Jon, 1146 ff., 
describes a tapestry representing the heavens 
with the sun, moon, stars, night, dawn, and a 
number of constellations which is used to rool 
a banqueting tent. Perhaps some such tapestry 
was the source of the Perseus on our new vase. 

Phere is, however, an alternative possibility 
which has been suggested to me by Professor 
Nock and which seems to me attractive. Home 
describes a supernatural light around the heads 
of fighting heroes (Jliad v. 4 ff. and xvi. 203 
ff.) and in the Birds of Aristophanes (1709 ff.) 
Cloud 


Cuckoo-Town, is said to surpass the brilliance 


Peithetairos, the founder of the city 
of stars and sun. The rays, then, may be a form 
of glorification of Perseus as hero. They were 
perhaps suggested to the artist of the original 
painting by the story of Danaé and the golden 
rain. Double meanings of this kind are not 


characteristic 


of vase paintings but occur in 








major art. The great mural painter Polygnotos, 
for example, represented Phaidra as a girl ina 
swing, a covert allusion to her suicide by hang. 
ing, and a number of similar instances occurred 
in his work. 
The accession number of our new vase is 
45.r1.1. Its height ts 18-13/16 inches (47.8 cm.). 
It has been put together from fragments, with 
a few missing pieces restored in plaster. It was 
first published by G. Libertini in “Grandiosa 
pelike col 
vol. XXVIII (1933), Pp. 554 Ff, 


mito di Perseo,”’ Bollettino d’arte, 
and has been re- 
ferred to in several articles since. It was attri- 
buted to Polygnotos by J. D. Beazley, Attic 
Red-figure Vase-Painters, p. 680, no. 49. The 
ancient literary and archaeological sources of 
the story of Perseus are enumerated and some 
modern theories are discussed or advocated by 
Ek. Kuhnert in Roscher, Austiihrliches Lexikon 
der griechischen und rémischen Mythologie, 
vol. in, cols. 1986 ff.; C. Robert in Die griech- 
ische Heldensage, vol. 1, pp. 222 ff.; and J. L. 
Catterall in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopadie 
der classischen Altertumswissenschaltt, vol. XIX, 
cols. g78 ff. For folklore in the story of Perseus 
see E. S. Hartland, Vhe Legend of Perseus, 
1. H. Krappe, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 
Vol. XXXIV (1933), pp. 225 ff., and W. R. Halle 
day, Indo-European Folk-Tales and Greek Leg- 
end, pp. 113 ff. For rays around figures on 
South Italian vases see L. Stephani, Nimbus 
und Strahlenkranz in den Werken der alten 
Kunst (reprinted from Mémoires de I’ \cadémie 
des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, Series Vi, 
Sciences politiques, histoire, philologie, vol. 1X), 
passim, and K. Keyssner in Pauly-Wissowa, op. 
cit., vol. xvi, cols. 607 ff. The constellation 1 
discussed by Windisch, De Perseo eiusque 
familia inter astra collocatis; Boll and Gundel 
and 
W. Rathmann in Pauly-Wissowa, op. cit., vol. 


xIx, cols. 992 ff. For the Louvre vase see A. Dw- 


in Roscher, Op. cit., vol. VI, cols. 908 7 


mont, Monuments grecs publiés par |’ Associa- 
tion pour l’encouragement des études grecques 


en France, vol. 1, no. 7, 1878, pp. 15 ff., pl. 2. 


a 





lygnotos, 
girl ina 
by hang. 
occurred 


’ vase is 
7.8 Cm.). 
nts, with 
r. It was 
randiosa 
O d’arte, 
been re- 
vas attri 
ey, Attic 
49. The 
yurces of 
nd some 
cated by 
Lexikon 
thologie, 
e griech- 
ind J. L. 
clopadie 
vol. XIX, 
f Perseus 
Perseus, 
‘ilungen, 
R. Halli 
reek Leg- 
rures on 
Nimbus 
ler alten 
.cadémie 
pr1es VI, 
, vol. IX), 
‘owad, Op. 
lation 1s 
eiusque 
Gundel 
ff.; and 
cit., vol. 
e A. Du 


’ Associa: 


grecques 


, pl. 2. 





ARABESQUE 


By ALBERT TEN EYCK GARDNER 
Research Fellow 


From about 1886 until the time of his death in 
1917 the painter Degas cut himself off from the 
world and lived as a hermit in his Paris studio. 
He received only a few intimate friends, and as 
these men of his own generation passed away 
he sank deeper and deeper into an embittered 
solitude. He repulsed the advances of those who 
sought him out to admire him and to hono1 
him as a great artist, and with his antisocial 
eccentricities, his famous sarcasms (he had 
frightened even the glib Jimmy Whistler to 
silence), and his sudden rages, he built up and 
jealously guarded a wall of privacy. 

Degas devoted his time almost ceaselessly to 
work, drawing and painting, but as his eyesight 
failed with advancing age he consoled himsel! 
more and more with modeling little statuettes 
of ballet dancers and horses. In fact, these small 
clay studies became his principal amusement as 
the years closed about him. ‘They were a con- 
stant source of pleasure to him, although he 
worked on them with painful slowness, build 
ing up figures and tearing them down or allow- 
ing them to fall to pieces as his interest lagged 
or shifted. Sometimes the clay or wax proved 
difficult to manage, and his models fell to 















































S IN BRONZE 


pieces of their own weight. Degas spoke ol 
sculpture as a “blind man’s trade,” der iding the 
very art which was his principal solace in afflic- 
tion and loneliness. With an obtuse pride, he 
ignored all but the most rudimentary princi 
ples of the sculptor’s craft and even the me 
chanics that would have made his work easier. 
He believed that “on the whole one amuses 
himself only with what he doesn’t know” and 
worked with whatever materials came to hand. 
Speaking of his sculpture in a letter toa friend, 
Degas exclaims, “Heavens! how I floundered at 
first; and how litthe we know what we are about 
when we do not trust to expert knowledge. It 
is useless to say we can do anything with na 
iveté; we may perhaps get there, but so slop 
pily!” 

It has been romantically supposed by some 
that Degas’s rejection of “the tricks of the 
trade” of sculpture was caused by his feeling 
that properly designed armatures to support 
his figurines would interfere with his freedom 
of expression. But it is more likely, when on 
considers thé remark quoted above, that he r 
garded these little experime nts in clay as 
sketches, not as finished works of art, and that 


13] 





he did not care to have the serious craftsman’s regard tor 
technique interfere with a mere pleasant pastime. He was 
too much of a craftsman in drawing not to know the 
inescapable importance of expert knowledge to prevent 
floundering and sloppiness. 

These litthe dancers, of which he made so many studies, 
were the companions of his old age. The strange ara- 
besques prescribed by the formal ballet, with their curious 
and arbitrary motion, appealed to his taste for “dificult” 
poses. He seems to have found in the postures of the ballet 
a paradoxical beauty-in-ugliness that is greatly at odds 
with the prettiness so fashionable with ordinary painters 
and sculptors of the time. While the dancers ot Carpeaux, 
lor instance, seem to sum up in their imitation vivacity all 
that is vacuous and vulgar, those of Degas have, in spite of 
everything, an air of vitality not to be captured by facile 
modeling, 

heir movement and gestures show in a truly remark- 





able way Degas’s tre- 
ti mendous powers as a 
draftsman. They re- 
state, as it were, In an 
unfamiliar language, 


the keenly dissected 






truths that make his 


drawings and paintings such mas- 
tel ly vivisections. These are 
sketches, or studies, or experi- 
ments, but they cannot be consid- 
ered as serious works in sculpture 
in the academic sense of that word. 
The artist himself refused to have 
any of them cast in bronze during 
his lifetime, saying that “bronze 
was for eternity.’’ Perhaps these works should be con- 
sidered as drawings in clay—the only medium suit- 
able to the hand of a painter with failing eyesight. 

If one asks any proof that Degas was a painter and 
draftsman rather than a sculptor, or that his imagina- 
tion was essentially pictorial rather than sculptural, 
one need only examine his most important finished 
work in wax (the only one exhibited during his 
lifetime)—La Petite Danseuse de Quatorze Ans, made about 1880—quite 





some time before approaching blindness confined him to working in clay. In 
this remarkable figure Degas’s conception of sculpture as realistic illustra- 
tion is carried to the point of decking out a wax image in a skirt of real tulle 
and tying the hair with a real silk ribbon. When the figure was shown in 


Paris it wore a real cloth bodice and real dancing slippers. Although these 


132 




























/ 
r innovations were considered by some a sign of radical 
s modernity, an important advance in the art of sculpture, 
e others thought them in shocking bad taste. Today we sce 
it them as litthke more than a slight modification of the well 
known Victorian obsession with accessories that cropped 
b up So relentlessly in parlor statuary and in religious images 
covered by pious hands with votive vestments and gauds, 
5 or even of that more gruesome popular diversion, the 
” waxworks. 
t Since these bronzes 
5 were cast, tWo esti- 
S mates of their signifi- 
2 cance have crystalized 
| two opinions, which 
f are, to put it mildly, 
rather widely at vari 
ance, First, and_per- 
haps most numerous, 
- there are those critics 
who accept every work 


; of the artist, in no mat- 
ter what medium, as 
the expression of pro- 
found genius—the 


Master is allowed no 






lighter moments. ‘They class him as a great 
sculptor simply because these drawings in clay 
have been preserved in bronze—the conven- 
tional plastic medium of the time. Others feel 
that the statuettes are to be considered as 
Degas seemed to consider them—as experimen- 
tal notes; they feel that had the artist not been 
handicapped by semi-blindness he would have 
recorded his ideas in his proper medium—in 
chalk or pencil. 

It is interesting to note that when even the 
most favorably disposed critics speak of Degas 
as a sculptor, they end their praises of his work in clay, perhaps unconsciously, 
by mentioning draftsmanship, a quality essential in painting but of secondary 
importance in the art of true sculpture. For example, Renoir writes, “Who 
said anything about Rodin? Why, Degas is the greatest living sculptor! You 
should have seen that bas-relief of his... he just let it crumble to pieces. 

It was as beautiful as an antique. And that ballet dancer in wax! .. . the mouth 
... Was just a suggestion, but what drawing!” R. R. Tatlock, reviewing an exhibi 
tion of the Degas bronzes for The Burlington Magazine, says, “Belore spending a 
little time among these exquisite figures of agile women and fleet horses, each a 
complex design of flashing limb and quivering muscle, few of us can have realized 


how tremendous Degas was as a sculptor—and as a draftsman.” 


133 








lhe statuette illustrated 
a set of Degas bronze 


above and those on pag 


S©S 131, 132-133, and 135 are from 


19 and 41, which 


"Yr in TO20. 


S, complete but for the 


absence of numbers 
was bequeathe d to the 


Museum by Mrs. H. O. Havemeys 





Long belore his death Degas had become a 
legend, and curiosity about him and the mys- 
terious contents of his studio ran riot. When 
he died in 1917 his heirs had an inventory 
made of the contents of his rooms in prepara- 
tion for an auction, and among the extraor- 
dinary treasure of paintings and drawings were 
found over a hundred statuettes in wax and 
clay. Many of them were broken and bent be- 
yond repair; some had crumbled away to noth- 
ing. About seventy-three of them, however, 
were salvaged, and at the order of Degas’s 
heirs they were repaired by the sculptor Bar- 


tholomé and cast in bronze. ‘Twenty-two copies 


of each figurine were made: One set was re- 
served for the heirs, one for the caster, A. A. 
Hebrard, the remaining twenty sets were 
marked for sale. 

It has been remarked by certain critics that 
the reduplicate preservation of these unfinished 
sketches in twenty sets of bronzes—when the 
artist so obviously considered them too ephem- 
eral to be worthy of a brazen bid for eternity 
is rather too plainly a franc-stretching gesture 
on the part of the heirs. However that may be, 
it is by this parsimony, more than any other 
factor, that we are allowed, as it were, to ob 


serve the master draftsman at play. 


LA DANSI 


Il semble qu’autrefois la Nature indolente, 


Sure de la beauté de son corps, s endormait 


lrop lourde, si toujours la Danse ne venait 


Léveiller de sa voix heureuse et haletante, 


Et puis, en lui battant la mésure engageante, 
Avec le mouvement de ses mains qui parlaient, 


Et l’entrecroisement de ses pieds qui brulaient, 


La forcer a sauter, devant elle, contente. 


Partez, sans le secours inutile du beau, 


Mignonnes, avec ce populacier museau, 


Sautez effrontément, prétresses de la grace. 


En vous la Danse a mis quelque chose d’a part, 


Héroique et lointain. On sait, de votre place, 


Que les reines se font de distance et de fard. 


Edgar Degas 














A NOTE 
OF PAI 


By 


ON THE RADIOGRAPHY 


NTINGS 


MURRAY PEASE 


Issociate Curator in Conservation and Technical Research 


Museum officials and private restorers are often 
asked for help in having paintings x-rayed (01 
photographed by infra-red, or examined under 
ultra-violet light, or otherwise submitted to 
scientific gadgetry). Some of the inquirers show 
a reasonable understanding of the techniques 
More 


seem to have in mind a sort of oracle, which, 


involved and of the possible results. 
because it has been given the label “‘scientific,” 
is expected to produce automatic and final an- 
swers to all sorts of questions, including those 
of age and authenticity. This is a symptom of 
what G. K. Chesterton called “the incredible 
credulity, which is the mark of the modern 
mind when anyone has uttered the magic word 
‘science.’ ’ It may be quite natural at a time 
when everyday life is conditioned by countless 
mechanical devices, when, in advertising and 
the popular press, science and technology have 
become practically synonymous, and when na- 
tional leaders in scientific development are 
predicting machinery that will think for us. 
seems worthwhile to remind 


Nevertheless it 


ourselves that science is an activity of mind, 


not an apparatus. SO long as we contuse the 


intellectual attributes of science with the 
mechanical accomplishments of its commercial 
by-products, we shall go on expecting too 
much of both. Often the most truly scientific 
statement a man can make is “I am not sure,” 
but the latest thing in mechanical calculators 
would certainly strip its gears and explode if 
any such answer got in among the relays. The 
atom was not split by a cyclotron, any more 
than Michelangelo’s David was created by a 
chisel. Our bodies have been made soft and 
flabby by technological improvements in trans 
portation and labor-saving devices. If we hope 
to save our minds from a similar fate, we must 
keep them exercised. 

All this is not so remote from the radiograph 
of a painting as it may seem. The x-ray is any- 
thing but an oracle. It has the one special use 
that it can record what is below the surface. 


ABOVE: The Nativity, by a follower of Fiorenzo 
di Lorenzo. Italian, xvi century. 111% by 26¥, 


inches. Rogers Fund, 1906 


156 





ee 





' 





use the 
ith the 
mercial 


hg too 


g 
ientific 
t sure,” 
ulators 
slode if 
ys. The 
y more 
d bya 
yft and 
) trans- 
re hope 
re must 


ograph 
is any- 
ial use 
urface. 


rorenz0o 


y 261% 


ABOVE: A normal x-ray shadowgraph of a section of the Natwwity. The white 


streaks and spots are cavities in the reverse which have been filled with white 


lead putty. BELOW: A traversed-focus radiograph of the same section. The 
shadows of the putty fillings have been reduced to faint vertical streaks. 








Source dur, 





re ~ 
no ; 8 Expos, 
eo re 
v oe 
NY 
+ 
< \ 
+ 4 is 
a - 
< 
aA - 
-— — ee 
Pane > PP ce TRE ioe DE coms EY vs oe 1 i 
X-ray Film a 


Diagram of the first method of traversed-focus 
radiography of paintings. The panel painting 
and the x-ray film are stationary; the x-ray 
source ts moved over the indicated space during 
the exposure. The diagrams shown here were 


made by Lindsley F. Hall. 


Occasionally this is very significant, but or- 
dinarily the x-ray can tell us far less about a 
painting than sensible use of the naked eye. 
The radiograph may look rather like the paint 
ing, but that is an accident of paint densities. 
It is more abstract and obscure than any photo- 
graph—almost meaningless without wise inter- 
pretation. We expect too much of it if we hope 
for definitive answers, independent of human 
judgment. Often the radiograph is a_ flat 
failure. 

\ frequent cause of such failure is inherent 
in the construction of paintings on panels. 
I'he process of “x-raying” them is familia 
radiations from the tube are passed through 
the subject onto sensitized film, where they 
project shadows of the paint structure strongly, 
weakly, or not at all, depending on its varying 
density and thickness. If there happens to be 
an earlier draft, or another painting, or any of 
the other entertaining obscurities we read 
about, under the visible paint, it is projected 
along with the latter. But so is everything else. 
If the support is unusually dense, or if it is 
cluttered up by nails, heavy cradle members, 
putty, sealing wax, white lead paint, or other 
very dense material, the desired pattern of 
paint density may be confused or altogethei 
obliterated. 

Some years ago F. Ian G. Rawlins, Stientific 
Adviser to the Trustees of the National Gal- 


lery in London, proposed a line of investiga- 


tion that might circumvent some of these 
failures. His plan involved rotation of a focus. 
film system about an axis passing through the 
plane of the subject, in order to eliminate cer. 
tain parts of the subject from the radiograph, 
Experiments in a similar direction have been 
made in the Metropolitan Museum’s labora- 
tories during the past year. The basic principle 
employed has been understood for a long time 
in the field of medical radiography. It has been 
developed for practical use in Grossmann’s 
tomograph and in Jean Kieffer’s laminagraph, 
which is now used in certain New York hospi- 
tals. By means of it a selected plane in the 
human body can be radiographed, with the 
practical elimination of parts above and below 
it. Ihe Museum’s experiments took advantage 
of the special nature of paintings to avoid the 
very complicated and expensive apparatus 
needed for true planigraphy. A short progress 
report is presented here, partly for its own 
interest and partly because it may serve to 
demonstrate some of the limitations already 
mentioned. 

The application of this principle to the 
radiography of paintings involves focusing on 
the plane of the paint and throwing the rest of 
the panel out of focus. The problem can be 
readily visualized if we keep in mind that a 
radiograph is essentially a pattern of shadows. 
Three dimensions are telescoped into two, just 
as a three-dimensional tree under a street light 
is projected in two-dimensional shadows on 
the pavement. Obviously, if the light were to 
move, the shadow on the pavement would move 





Diagram of the second, and more practicable, 
method of traversed-focus radiography. The 
x-ray source ts stationary; the panel and film are 
rotated in the cone of rays during the exposure. 








of these 
f a focus. 
ough the 
inate cer- 
liograph, 
ave been 
s labora- 
principle 
ong time 
has been 
ssmMann’s 
nagraph, 
rk hospi- 
e in the 
with the 
1d below 
lvantage 
void the 
pparatus 
progress 
its own 
serve to 
already 


to the 
ising on 
e rest of 
can be 
1 that a 
hadows. 
wo, just 
et light 
OWS on 
were to 
ld move 


a 


ticable, 
y. The 
film are 
posure. 





RE - — Cnn 


2 Ey EEE —— 


—— 


} 








also. The shadow of an obstruction (such as a 
plug of putty on the back of a panel painting) 
can be made to move across the x-ray film in 
the same way. It will not stay long enough in 
one place to be recorded strongly. If, at the 
same time, the shadow of paint does not. move 
in relation to the x-ray film, it will be recorded 
without blurring. 

Reference to the diagrams will show that 
this can be accomplished in two ways. The 
bare x-ray film is in either case mounted di- 
rectly against the paint surface and covered 
to keep out light. In one method the panel and 
film remain fixed, while the x-ray source tra- 
verses. In the other, which is much simpler in 
actual practice, the panel and film are rotated 
in the field of a stationary x-ray source. Either 
way the principle and the geometric factors are 
the same. What is vital is the mounting of the 
bare film in the closest possible contact with 
the paint surface, so that we have, for practical 
purposes, a contact print of the paint on the 
negative, while all the material behind the 
paint is blurred. 

As the reproductions show, the effect is a 
little more complete than mere blurring. Most 
of the material behind the paint is lost alto- 
gether. In the case of a panel painting, the 
paint is registered; the panel is not. This 
method has been dubbed “‘traversed-focus.”” It 
requires neither the true geometric rotation 
nor the mechanical linkage between film and 
source which are needed in the other systems. 

Readers familiar with x-ray technology will 
note possibilities of variation and refinement; 





T 
ue 











} 

Panel ———> ? a 
F » = 
Paint——, e=—pe— oe SE eee Sa ee ae 
X-ray Film—*| Sele oa aro gs oh tetrad aran owe <n | 


Path of Shadow of Plug during 
X-ray Exposure 


Schematic diagram of the effect of traversed 
focus radiography. During the exposure the 
density pattern of the paint layer, in contact 
with the x-ray film, is recorded sharply, regard 
less of the angle of the rays. The shadow of an 
obstruction not in contact with the film moves 
during the exposure and ts either blurred or 
lost altogether. 


they will also observe some very strict limita- 
tions. Though experiments are being contin- 
ued, it is not expected that they will ever pro- 
duce more than a minor supplement to the 
radiography of paintings. A survey of the 
Metropolitan Museum’s x-ray files indicates 
that traversed-focus exposure might have been 
useful in perhaps five per cent ol the cases. 
would not necessarily have re- 


Even then it 


vealed any ancient secrets. The means of dis- 
covering such things does not guarantee their 


existence. 


139 








PORTRAIT OF KING AMEN-HOTPE ] 


By WILLIAM C. HAYES 


Issociate Curator of Egyptian Art 


Phe New Kingdom had just reached its thirty- was largely of limestone and to which King 
filth year when, in 1545 B.c., Djeser-ka-R逩  Amen-hotpe himself contributed, in addition 
Amen-hotpe came to the throne olf Egypt. to an alabaster shrine for the barque of the 
Thebes, recently transtormed by the military god, a chamber or building with an inscribed 
prowess of King ‘Ah-mosé I from a hard-fight- | L-mestone doorway. 

ing provincial town in- Lhe identification of 
to the capital ol a great the king portrayed in 
empire, had not yet our relief presents no 


achieved the splendor difficulty, At the upper 
left-hand corner of the 
fragment is part of the 


bottom of a cartouche 


with which the great 
pharaohs of the Eight 
eenth and Nineteenth 
in which is preserved 
the p (f) at the end of 
the name “Jmn-htp. OF 
the four kings of Egypt 
who bore this name, 
Djeser-ka-R逰 Amen 


hotpe I is the only one 


Dynasties were soon to 
endow it, or formed the 
habits of luxury and 
soft living which in 
the Twentieth Dynasty 
were to contribut« Lo 
its decline. Its temples 
were still being con- who regularly wrote his 
structed of mud brick, 


with trim and revet 


personal name without 





a following epithet (eg, 


ments of limestone, and “Ruler of Thebes,” 
though built with skill “Ruler of Heliopolis,” 
and decorated in the ex- etc.) and is therefore 


cellent artistic stvle cat King Limen-hotpe I. Sandstone head found the only king whose cal 


ried over from the Mid- at Deir el Bahri by the Metropolitan Mu touche would show as 


dle Kingdom, two cen- seum’s Egyptian Expedition in 1926 its last sign the hiero 
turies earlier, they were glyph 
modest in size and unpretentious in design. This somewhat detailed method of identift 


From such a building comes a fragment of cation is confirmed by simply comparing the 
fine limestone relief with a profile head of — head of the king in the present relief with any 
Amen-hotpe I (ill. opp.). The scale of the figure, — good portrait of Amen-hotpe I. Here again our 
which was over life-size, and that of the par- task is made easy by the rugged individuality 
tially preserved hieroglyphs suggest that the — of the king’s face: the prominent, arched nose, 
chamber once adorned by the relief was of — the small, tight mouth, the hard, narrow eyes, 
more monumental proportions than those of and the high, massive cheekbones—the clearly 
the known buildings of the king inthe Theban — defined face of a man of action, a fighter, and 
necropolis, notably his mortuary temple in the — an autocrat. 
plain below the Dira Abu’n Naga and his brick Allowing for the slight difference in appeal 
shrine to the goddess Hat-H6r at Deirel Bahri. ance occasioned by the fact that in the reliel 
The most likely source for the block is the the s« ulptor has depicted the king’s eye in full- 
temple of Amun at Karnak, which at this time — front view and has shown more of the mouth 


140 





——e 








PE J 


Lich King 
addition 
ue of the 
inscribed 


ication of 
trayed in 
sents no 
he upper 
er of the 
irt of the 
artouche 
preserved 
ne end of 
n-htp. Of 
ol Egypt 
Ss name, 
 Amen- 
only one 
wrote his 
- without 
thet (eg. 
hebes,” 
ic »polis,” 
heretore 
‘hose cat- 
show as 


1e hiero- 


identifi- 
ring the 
with any 
oain our 
iduality 
ed nose, 
Ow eyes, 
» clearly 
ter, and 
appeal 
re reliel 
in full- 
» mouth 





a 

































































“abt | 40S : 
3 ‘aan 
i SR, ET. ts : 
Sis, . ” hae? 
= ° Ke “0% % i " 
tag i s ry ‘= y 
* ie z netting 
YVTT YTS ys yy hay, / 
snes Te rper erty 
Di siilikas FF) 
Titty saansennnasanncane a 
A 
eR by ee is : 
ATUTT4 





King Amen-hotpe I (1545-1524 B.c.). Limestone relief, Egyptian, XVIIT Dynasty 


Rogers Fund, 1945 


than would normally appear in profile, we 
have not the slightest difficulty in seeing that 
the same face is represented in the sandstone 
head of another portrait (ill. p. 140). This 
head, found in 1926 by the Museum’s Egyptian 
Expedition, is from an over life-size statue ol 
Amen-hotpe I in the guise of the mummiform 
god Osiris. Many of these statues once lined 
the avenue leading to the king’s temple of Hat 
Hor at Deir el Bahri. 

In the relief the king wears a close-cropped 


wig and a diadem, probably of metal, but imi- 


tating a fillet of ribbon tied in a bow knot at 
the back of the head with the ends pendent. 
Che hooded head of the royal cobra, or uraeus, 
rises from the front of the circlet and appears 
again on the streamers at the back. The loops 
of the bow have been given the form olf two 
papyrus umbels springing from a circular boss 
lo 
ancient Egyptian drawing and to obyiat 


often puzzling conventions ol 
a 


offset the 


wordy description of this common royal head 
dress, two actual diadems of very similar typ¢ 


are illustrated here. The inlaid silver circlet ol 


ld] 











Silver diadem of King Nib-kheper-Ré&€ 'Intef. 
XVI Dynasty. In the Rijksmuseum, Leiden 


King Nub-kheper-Ré° ‘Intet of the Sixteenth 
Dynasty was made a century and a half before 
the days of Amen-hotpe I, the more elaborate 
diadem of King Tiat-Cankh-Amiin over two 
centuries after his time. 

Ihe small human foot which appears rathe1 
incongruously above the head of the king is 
the final hieroglyph in a stereotype formula 
that wishes the pharaoh life, prosperity, and 
health and that invariably follows, like the tail 
of a kite, the merest mention of the royal name. 
In the case of Amen-hotpe I it was a wish come 
true, for his reign was long and prosperous, 
and, in view of the portrait before us, we can 
hardly doubt that he was aggressively healthy 


and very, very much alive. 


The relief head of Amen hotpe I (acc. no. 
45.2.7), recently purchased in New York, was 
formerly in the Alphonse Kann collection 
(American Art Association, 1927, part 1, no. 
28). Only the left edge of the stone is broken. 
The others are rough dressed and are the sides 


of the original block. The piece measures 44 


by 44 cm. (17% by 17% 1M.) 
The discovery of the sandstone head (acc. 


no. 26.3.30 Aj—first believed to be froma statue 


of Neb-hepet-Ré° Mentt hotpe of the Eleventh | 


Dynasty—is described by Winlock in the Muse. 





um Bulletin, February, 7928, Section u, p. 24. 


See also Winlock, Excavations at Deir el Bahri, | 


pp. 131, 208-9, and Naville, XIth Dynasty Tem- 
ple, vol. 1, pp. 26, 60, 69, pl. XXv A. 

For the buildings of A men-hotpe I men- 
tioned above, see Winlock, ibid.; Pillet, An- 
nales du Service des antiquités de |'Egypte, 
vol. XXII (1922), pp. 238-40, pl. 1; Legrain, An- 
nales, vol. 1v (1904), p. 14, pl. Vv. 

The diadems illustrated are published, te- 
spectively, by Boeser, Beschreibung ... Leiden, 


vol. 1, p. 8, pl. xvii, and Carter, Tomb of Tut- 
ankh-Amen, vol. I, p. 170, pl. LXXv. 








Diadem of King Tiit-Cankh-A min. Gold, inlaid 


eee 





with carnelian, lapis lazuli, turquoise, mala | 


chite, and sardonyx. XVIII Dynasty. In the 
Egyptian Museum, Cairo 


142 





ead (acc. 
na Statue 
Eleventh 
he Muse. 
I, p. 24. 
el Bahri, 


sty Tem- 


I men- 
let, An- 
Egypte, 
ain, An- 


hed, te. 
Leiden, 
» of Tut- 

















; 

inlaid 
mala- | 
in the | 


; 


i 





SAINT ELOI AND KING CLOTHAR 


By WILLIAM H. FORSYTH 


{ssociate Curator of Mediaeval Art 


A populat saint held somewhat the same posi the same thing, but 


without success, until 


tion in the lives of the people of the Middle Christ came to his rescue and replaced the legs. 
Ages as a household god in ancient Rome; fo) Born near Limoges in A.b. 588, Saint Eloi at- 
he was the protector olf the hearth, the family, tained prominence under Clothar II, King of 


and the guild, and 
acted as intercessor be- 
fore the heavenly 
throne. So intimately 
were the saints associ- 
ated with the round of 
daily life that many leg- 
ends about their deeds 
and characters arose, 
and these became part 
of the folklore of Eu 
rope. The wealth ot leg 
end centering about 
Saint Eloi, or Eligius, 
has caused one writer to 
surmise that some of the 
incidents are drawn 
from old folk tales 
about Wayland the 
Smith. Eloi, the patron 
saint of metalworkers, 
blacksmiths, and kin- 
dred trades, was known 
as “the artist without 
reproach.” Among the 
blacksmiths the story 
was told of how Christ 
gave him a lesson in hu- 
mility. He apprenticed 
himself to Eloi in the 
guise of a humble work- 
man, and when he was 
given an unruly horse 


to shoe, he cut off the 





legs one by one, shod 
them, and replaced King Clothar and an attendant. Relief fram 
them. Eloi, not to be aq retable of painted oak. French, early xvi 


outdone by his mysteri- century. Gift of George Blumenthal, 1941. 


ous subordinate, tried For the complete scene see page 144. 


143 


the Franks, and became 
the king’s chief coiner 
and a person of great im 
portance in the realm 
Later he was treasure! 
to Clothar’s successor, 
the good King Dago 
bert. The close depend 
ence of this king on the 
saint is the subject of 
the well-known French 
nursery rhyme that be 
gins: 

Le bon roi Dagobert 

Avait sa culotte a l’envers 
Le grand Saint Eloi 

Lui dit, “O mon roi, 

Votre Majesté est mal 

culottée.” 

“C’est vrai,” lui dit le roi 
“Je vais la remettre a 


Vendroit.” 


Eventually the saint 
relinquished worldly 
fame and fortune to be 
come Bishop of Noyon, 
although he continued 
to be chief coiner to 
Dagobert. In his labors 
to convert the heathen 
in his diocese he was the 
European counterpart 
of our American pio 
neer preachers and 
Jesuit explorers. He 
died after 650. 

Elo! is said LO have 
been a man of large 
stature, with curly hair, 


a ruddy complexion, an 





angelic countenance, and a trank expression 
According to one of the stories told about him 
he was given just enough gold by Clothar to 


make a is, or ki With it 


21S, 12's throne. 
by amazing skill and ingenuity, Eloi produced 


sella Me 
two. This episode is recounted in the hymn 


sung at matins on the saint’s feast day. Decem 


1g 
ber 1. It is also depicted in a relief given to the 
Metropolitan Museum by George Blumenthal 
in 1941. Here Clothar is shown, accompanied 


That 


this relief followed a version of the 


by an attendant. the wood carver who 


made story 
in which the Latin word sella was contused with 
the French word sel/e is indicated by anothei 
fragment olf the same panel which shows th« 
king receiving, not thrones, but two gold sad 
dles (see the casts of the fragments illustrated 
below). This mistake also occurs in representa- 
tions of the scene in at least four stained-glass 
windows and in Caxton’s translation of the 
story in The Golden Legend. 

Phe least nine 


Museum's relief is one of at 


parts of a dismantled retable that were kept for 
a number of years, until 1889, in the parish 
church of Recloses, a hamlet on the edge of the 
lorest of Fontainebleau, where they were placed 
haphazardly around a modern statue of the Vir. 
Child. 


made for the church and was dismantled in the 


vin and Presumably the retable was 
cighteenth century, possibly at the time of the 
French Revolution. Before its acquisition by 
\M[r. Blumenthal, our relief was in the collection 
of Philip and Rita Lydig of New York. 

The 


1351 are said to be written on the back of vari- 


name Jacques Ségogne and the date 
ous pieces of the retable, although they do not 
appear on ours. Since the writing is in an eight. 
eenth-century hand, the name is probably that 
of a previous owner and not that of the sculp- 
tor, as has been supposed. The date is obviously 
wrong; for the piece is carved in the quiet, well 
mannered style characteristic of French late 
Gothic sculpture and the king is portrayed in 


roval robes of Louis XII's time (1498-1515). 





Casts of fragments from a retable in the church at 


Rec loses. I rance, 


showing King Clothar receiving 





Soren 





os 


— 


ewer 


ee 


— 


a tat ot pee 


two gold saddles from Saint Eloi. Height 211% in. 


Itt 








THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART 


e kept for 
he parish 
dge of the 
ere placed 
of the Vir. 
table was 


OFFICERS NEAR EASTERN ART 
William Church Osborn, President 
Elihu Root, Jr., Vece-President 
Roland L. Redmond, Vice-President 
Thomas J. Watson, Vice-President 
Devereux C. Josephs, 7 reasurer 
Dudley T. Easby, Jr., Secretar) 


Maurice S. Dimand, Curator 
Joseph M. Upton, Senior Research Fellou 


FAR EASTERN ART 

led in the Alan Priest, Curator 

me of the Theodore Y. Hobby, Associate Curator 

isition by MEDIAEVAL ART AND THE CLOISTERS 
TRUSTEES EX OFFICIO 

William O’ Dwyer, Mayor of the City of New York 

Lazarus Joseph, Comptroller of the City of New York 


collection James J. Rorimer, Curator* 


William H. Forsyth, Associate Curator 
Margaret B. 


the date Freeman, Associate Curator in 


k of vari- 
Cy do not 
an eight. 


Robert Moses, Commissioner of the Department of Parks 
of the City of New York 
Hobart Nichols, President of the National Academ) 


Charge of The Cloisters 


RENAISSANCE AND MODERN ART 


Preston Remington, Curator 
ably that ELECTIVE TRUSTEES C. Louise Avery, Associate Curator 
Arthur W. Page 

Roland L. Redmond 
Nelson A. Rockefeller 
Elihu Root, Jr. 

John Godfrey Saxe 
Arthur Hays Sulzberger 
Myron C. Taylor 
Stephen Francis Voorhees 
Thomas J]. Watson 


he sc ulp- Harry Payne Bingham John Goldsmith Phillips, Associate Curator 
Cornelius N. Bliss 
Stephen Carlton Clark 
Marshall Field 

Walter S. Gifford 
Horace Havemeyer 
Devereux C. Josephs 
Samuel H. Kress 
Thomas W. Lamont 
Robert Lehman Vanderbilt Webb 
Robert A. Lovett * Francis M. Weld 
Henry Sturgis Morgan* C. V. Whitney * 

F William Church Osborn Arnold Whitridge 


»bviously 
liet, well THE AMERICAN WING 
Joseph Downs, Curator 


‘nch_ late 
Marshall B. Davidson, Associate Curator 


trayed in 
PAINTINGS 

Harry B. Wehle, Curator 

Charles Sterling, Senior Research Fellou 


515). 


PRINTS 
William M. Ivins, Jr., Curator 
A. Hyatt Mayor, Associate Curator 
Alice Newlin, Associate Curator 
THE STAFF ARMS AND ARMOR 
ADMINISTRATION 





Stephen V. Grancsay, Curator” 


SPECIAL DEPARTMENTS 
‘| heodore » Hobby, heeper of the Ben) Imin 
Altman Collection 


Francis Henry Taylor, Director 
} Horace H. F. Jayne, Vice-Director 
) Dudley 7 
Laurence S. Harrison, Business Administrator 
William M. Ivins, Jr., Counselor 
+ J. Kenneth Loughry, Assistant Treasurer 


Easbv. at. Secretar) 
Murray Pease, Associate Curator in Canservation 
and Technical Research 


Stephen S. Pichetto, Consultant 


} Frank J. Dunn, Examiner Emanuel Winternitz, Aeeper of the Collections 
Robert P. Sugden, Registra of Musical Instruments 

+ John J. Wallace, Superintendent Gerald F. Warburg, Associate in Mus: 

i 


EDUCATION AND MUSEUM EXTENSION 
Richard F. Bach, Dean 
Ludlow ; _— 
Willian cg Mba Cur 2ieel rHE LIBRARY 
Uham C. Hayes, . tate Curator , 
ryes, Associate Curat Walter Hauser, Librarian 


Lindsley F. Hall, Senior Research Fellou 
Charles K are . ais John B. Montignani, Assistant Librariar 
Marles K. Wilkinson, Senior Research Fellou ' 


EGYPTIAN ART 


Ambrose Lansing, Curator 


THE CATALOGUI 


GREEK AND ROMAN AR 
Irma Bezold, Supervisor 


Gisela M. A. Richter, Curator 
Christine Alexander, Associate Curator 
Marjorie J. Milne, Senior Research Fellox 


INFORMATION AND SALES 
Evelyn B. Grier, Supervisor 


* In Service 














= 
sot