Part 1

Produced by Turgut Dincer, Chuck Greif and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)

THE VENUS OF MILO

AN ARCHEOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE GODDESS OF WOMANHOOD

BY

PAUL CARUS

ILLUSTRATED

αἰδοίν χρυσοστέφανον καλὴν Άφροδἰτην ᾄσουαι--HOMERIC HYMN.

CHICAGO LONDON THE OPEN COURT PUBLISHING COMPANY 1916

COPYRIGHT BY THE OPEN COURT PUBLISHING COMPANY 1916

CONTENTS.

PAGE

List of Illustrations v

The Discovery of a Rare Art Treasure 1

Dumont d’Urville’s Report 5

Viscount Marcellus on his “Souvenirs” 11

Debay’s Drawing 15

Description of the Statue 22

Restorations 27

Recent Theories 42

What the Facts Reveal 51

The Meaning of “Aphrodite” 62

The Cult of Aphrodite 68

The Goddess of War 77

The Descent into Hades 83

The Magna Dea of the Nations 96

The Origin of Woman 121

Aphrodite in Art 145

Classical Hymns 171

Index 179

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

PAGE

The Venus of Milo (Frontispiece).

The Field of Yorgos Bottonis 2

The Site of Melos from the Port 6

Fragments Found at Melos 12

Debay’s Drawing of Venus 16

Head of the Venus of Milo 18

The Head of Tralles 19

The Venus of Milo 23

A Mutilated Statue of Eros 28

Venus with Shield and Pencil 29

Venus with Mirror 30

Venus as Victory 31

Drawing by Hasse and Henke 32

Restoration by Furtwaengler 33

Saloman’s Latest Restoration 34

Restoration by Saloman 35

Venus Sending out the Dove 36

The Mother of the Gods. Painting by Francisca P. Del Mar 38

Venus on the Swan 55

Head of Venus of Milo. Profile view 57

Head of Venus of Milo. Front view 59

Heavenly and Worldly Love. By Titian 66

Birth of Venus. Ludovisi relief 70

Detail from the Ludovisi Relief 72

Winter and Summer 73

Venus and Anchises 75

Venus Victrix 77

Eros in the Underworld 84

Carrying in Procession the Symbol of Istar 97

Isis and Horus 99

Egyptian Representation of the Dead Man and His Soul 99

Astarte and the Dove 100

The Human-Headed Bird 101

Amulet of the Mycenaean Period 102

Isis and the Fish 102

Aphrodite with Rabbit 103

Relief from Boghaz-Köi 104

A Later Astarte 105

A Leaden Idol 105

Astarte in Cyprus 106

The Goddess of Navigation 107

Sargent’s Astarte 108

The Immaculate Conception. By Murillo 109

Kwan-Yon and the Fish 111

A Poem on Kwan-Yon 112

Benten, The Japanese Goddess of Divine Love 113

Kwan-Yon. By Li Lung-mien 114

Kwan Yon as the Buddha 115

T’ien Hou, Queen of Heaven 116

Freya 119

Adam and Eve Called to Account 133

The Creation of Woman 136

Detail from Ghiberti’s Doors 137

The Creation of Woman. By Michelangelo 138

Adam and Eve in Paradise. By Gustave Doré 139

The First Family. By Schnorr von Carolsfeld 140

Primitive Man. By Gabriel Max 142

Babylonian Clay Figures 145

The Venus of Brassempouy 146

Lakshmi 147

Coins of Cilicia, Tarsus, Gaulos and Perga 148

Coins of Perga in Pamphylia 149

Three Artemis Medals 149

Coin of Antiochus Euergetes 150

Istar on a Coin of Tarsus 150

Coins of Emesa, Iasos Caria, Paphos and Lydia 151

The Diana of Ephesus in the Vatican 152

The Diana of Ephesus in Naples 153

Cyprian Aphrodite 154

Archaic Aphrodite with Dove 155

Archaic Venus in Pompeian Style 155

Aphrodite Sosandra by Kalamis 156

Aphrodite and Ares 157

Attic Sculpture of the Fifth Century B. C. 158

Aphrodite of Alcamenes, Known as Venus Genetrix 159

Head of the Cnidian Venus. Profile 160

The Cnidian Venus of Praxiteles 161

The Venus of Praxiteles on a Cnidian Coin 162

Head of the Crouching Venus 163

Venus Crouching in the Bath 164

Venus with the Unguent Jar 165

The Venus of Panderma. Front view 167

The Venus of Panderma. Rear view 168

The Venus Head in the Museum of Bardos 169

Head of the Cnidian Venus. Front view 172

Another View of the Cnidian Venus 175

THE DISCOVERY OF A RARE ART TREASURE.

Melos (Italian _Milo_), one of the smallest Greek islands, would scarcely be known at all except to specialists in geography or ancient history, had not a happy accident brought to light on one of its hillsides that most beautiful piece of sculpture which ever since its discovery has been known as the Venus of Milo.

_Melon_ means apple, and the island of Melos (the “apple island”) belongs to the Cyclades, being the most southern and western member of that group. It lies almost straight west from the southern tip of the Peloponnesus and in a direction south to south-west from Athens.

Melos was inhabited in ancient times by Dorians who sympathized with Sparta against Athens, but when the Athenians conquered it after a most stubborn resistance they slaughtered the entire Dorian male population and replaced them by Athenian colonists. Since then the island remained absolutely faithful to Athens, in fact it was the last possession which still belonged to Athens when the Ionian confederacy broke up, and the friendly relations between Melos and her metropolis continued even after Greece had become a Roman province.

On this island of Melos, a peasant by the name of Yorgos Bottonis and his son Antonio, while clearing away the stones near the ruins of an ancient theater in the vicinity of Castro, the capital of the island, came accidentally across a small underground cave, carefully covered with a heavy slab and concealed, which contained a fine marble statue in two pieces, together with several other marble fragments. This happened in February, 1820.

The Rev. Oiconomos, the village priest who guided the finder in this matter, invited M. Louis Brest, the French consul of Melos, to see the statue and offered it to him (in March of the same year) for 20,000 francs. M. Brest does not seem to have been in a hurry to buy, but he claims to have written to the French minister at Constantinople. One thing is sure, no answer had come by April when His French Majesty’s good ship “Chevrette” happened to cast anchor in the harbor at Melos and an ensign on board, Monsieur Dumont d’Urville, went to see the statue. The inability to sell it had brought the price down, and the finder was willing to part with it to the young Frenchman for only 1200 francs. M. d’Urville was more energetic than M. Brest and as soon as he reached Constantinople the French Minister at once authorized a certain Count Marcellus, a member of the French embassy, to go to Melos and procure the statue.

Count Marcellus arrived on the French vessel “Estafette” in May, but found that the statue in the meantime had been sold to a certain Nikolai Morusi for 4800 francs and had just been placed aboard a little brig bound for Constantinople, the home of the buyer. At this juncture the three Frenchmen, M. Brest, M. d’Urville and Count Marcellus, decided not to let their treasure so easily escape them, so M. Brest protested before the Turkish authorities that the bargain had been concluded, declaring that Bottonis had no right to sell his prize to any other party. They even threatened to use force and, being backed by the French mariners of the “Estafette,” said that under no conditions would they allow the statue to leave the harbor.

While the three Frenchmen claimed that France was entitled to have the statue for 1200 francs they were willing to pay not only 4800 francs, the price promised by Morusi, but 6000 francs. The new buyer had not yet paid and so the peasant was satisfied with the cash offered him, while the Turkish authorities did not care either way. Thus it came to pass that the valuable marble was transferred to the French warship on May 25, 1820, (so at least runs the original report without the fantastic story of a battle) and after much cruising was carried to Constantinople where it was placed on the “Lionne,” another French ship bound for France and destined to bring home the French Minister, Marquis de Rivière. The “Lionne” reached France in October, 1820, and the statue was delivered at the Louvre in February, 1821.

DUMONT D’URVILLE’S REPORT.

The most important passage of Dumont d’Urville’s report[1] about the discovery of the statue reads in an English translation thus:

“The Chevrette set sail from Toulon on April 3 (1820) in the morning, and anchored on the sixteenth in the roadstead of Milo....

“On the 19th I went to look at some antique pieces discovered at Milo a few days before our arrival. Since they seem to me worthy of attention I shall here record the result of my observation in some detail....

“About three weeks before our arrival at Milo a Greek peasant digging in his field ... came across some stones of considerable size. As these stones ... had a certain value, this consideration encouraged him to dig still further, and so he succeeded in clearing out a sort of recess in which he found a marble statue together with two hermae and some other pieces, likewise of marble.

“The statue was in two pieces joined in the middle by two small iron tenons. Fearing he would lose the fruit of his toil, the Greek had the upper part of the two hermae carried away and deposited in a stable. The rest were left in the cave. I examined all very carefully, and the various pieces seemed to me in good taste, as far as my slight acquaintance with the arts permitted me to judge of them.

“I measured the two parts of the statue separately and found it very nearly six feet in height; it represented a nude woman whose left hand was raised and held an apple, and the right supported a garment draped in easy folds and falling carelessly from her loins to her feet. Both hands have been mutilated and are actually detached from the body. The hair is coiled in the back and held up by a bandeau. The face is very beautiful and well preserved except that the tip of the nose is injured. The only remaining foot is bare; the ears have been pierced and may have contained pendants.

“All these attributes would seem to agree well enough with the Venus of the judgment of Paris; but in that case where would be Juno, Minerva and the handsome shepherd? It is true that a foot clad in a cothurnus and a third hand were found at the same time. On the other hand the name of the Island Melos has a very close connection with the word μῆλον which means apple. Might not this similarity of the words have indicated the statue by its principal attribute?

“The two hermae were with it in the cave. Beyond this fact there is nothing remarkable about them. Their height is about three feet and a half. One is surmounted by the head of a woman or child and the other by the face of an old man with a long beard.

“The entrance to the cave was surmounted by a piece of marble four feet and a half long and about six or eight inches wide. It bore an inscription of which only the first half has been respected by Time. The rest is entirely effaced. This loss is inestimable; ... at least we might have learned on what occasion and by whom the statues had been dedicated.

“At any rate I have carefully copied the remaining characters of this inscription and I can guarantee them all except the first, of which I am not sure. The space which I indicate for the defaced part has been measured in proportion to the letters which are still legible:

:ΑΚΧΕΟΣΑΤΙΟΥΥΠΟΓΥ...........ΑΣ ΤΑΝΤΕΕΞΕΔΡΑΝΚΑΙΤΟ............. ΕΡΜΑΙΗΡΑΚΛΕΙ

“The pedestal of one of the hermae also bore an inscription but its characters had been so mutilated that it was impossible for me to decipher them.

“At the time of our passage to Constantinople the ambassador asked me about this statue and I told him what I thought about it, and sent to M. de Marcellus, secretary of the embassy, a copy of the inscription just given. Upon my return M. de Rivière informed me that he had acquired the statue for the museum and that it had been put on board one of the vessels at the landing. However, on our second trip to Milo in the month of September I regretted to learn that the affair was not yet ended. It seems that the peasant, tired of waiting, had decided to sell this statue for the sum of 750 piasters to a neighboring priest who wished to make a present to the dragoman of the Captain Pacha, and M. de Marcellus came just at the moment when it was being shipped to Constantinople. In despair at seeing this fine piece of antiquity about to escape him he made every effort to recover it, and thanks to the mediation of the primates of the island the priest finally consented, but not without reluctance, to abandon his purchase and give up the statue....

“On April 25 in the morning we doubled the promontory indicated....”

I understand from M. Dumont d’Urville’s report that the statue was in “two parts” each about three feet high, that both hands were mutilated and detached from the body,” and that he had reason to believe that the “left hand was raised and held an apple and the right supported a garment.” I say “he had reason to believe” it, but he positively speaks as if he had seen it although this cannot be the case, for he contradicts this fact by the unequivocal statement that the hands “are actually detached from the body.” He says, “it represented a nude woman, etc.” and the word “represented” need not mean that it was complete with all the limbs intact and in their proper places.

Obviously M. d’Urville here describes the statue restored with the fragments which were found in the cave, were bought of the finder, the peasant Bottonis, and are now preserved in a glass case in the Louvre at Paris. One of these fragments is a hand holding an apple, and there is also a portion of an arm.

This interpretation is important in so far as discussions have arisen in later years as to the original position of the hands when attempts to restore the statue were made, and then the claim was made that the statue had been found complete, that it had been broken by the French sailors in its transportation and that the French authorities had been careless in handling the whole affair.

VISCOUNT MARCELLUS ON HIS “SOUVENIRS.”

It is important to know the facts with regard to the debris found together with the so-called Venus of Milo, as stated by a second eye witness, the Viscount Marcellus. He wrote his reminiscences on the Venus of Milo in a book entitled _Souvenirs_, and the second edition of this was reviewed by Lenormant. In answer to some objections of the latter the Viscount published “a last word on the Venus of Milo.”[2]

In this he enumerates as follows the objects brought away from the cave where the Venus had been found:

“No. 1. The nude upper part of the statue.

“No. 2. The lower draped portion.

“Yorgos, their original owner ... gave me at the same time three small accessories of the statue found in a field near by.... These were:

“No. 3. The top of the hair commonly called the chignon, etc.

“No. 4. A shapeless and mutilated fore-arm.

“No. 5. Part of a hand holding an apple.

“The last two objects seemed to me to be of the same kind of marble and of a grain near enough like that of the statue, but I could not tell whether they could reasonably be assumed to belong to a Venus whose attitude I no longer remembered....

“The primates at the same time sent me the three hermae (Nos. 6, 7 and 8) which were still at Castro, and a left foot in marble (No. 9) which had been found in the neighborhood of the field of Yorgos lower down toward the valley where the burial caves are.

“They wished also to give me the inscription found in the same locality which I had already seen in their town. It is the one which commences with the Greek words: ΑΓΧΕΟΣ ΑΤΙΟΥ....

“I here repeat that with this exception I took away from Milo everything which had been taken from the ground with the Venus or near by, and I have no remembrance of having seen there, much less of having received or acquired myself, any other Greek inscription which made mention of a sculptor with a mutilated name, etc. Of course I would be eager enough with anything that might be able to throw light on the discovery, and since in my _Souvenirs de l’Orient_ (I, p. 249) I cite an epigraph of almost no significance I would not wittingly or negligently have omitted any Greek letters near the excavation or relating to its details. Neither should it be forgotten that in fact I indicate only ‘three hermae, some pedestals and other bits of marble debris’ (I, p. 237) as the result of Yorgos’s successive excavations; and further down (p. 48) these same hermae and other antique fragments without ever speaking of any inscription.”

The inscription more completely mentioned by Dumont d’Urville has also been published by Clarac with only a few insignificant variations. He adds the missing B at the beginning, reads I in place of E, and has two Σ’s. It is a votive inscription which has no connection with our Venus. Being of little value, the authorities of the Louvre did not take good care of it and it is now lost. The probable meaning of the inscription is “Bakchios, (son of) Atios the subgymnasiarch (has donated) the arcade and the ... [he has erected according to a vow] to Hermes, Heracles, ...”

* * * * *

These reports of two eye-witnesses are important not so much for what they contain as for what they do not contain. Neither M. Dumont d’Urville nor Viscount Marcellus mentions the name of the artist of the statue. An inscription is copied by both in which Bacchus, Hermes and Heracles are mentioned, but no reference is made to the name of Agesander or Alexander of Antioch as having been seen on a fragment of the pedestal--an artist who makes his appearance in a mysterious way and whose acquaintance we shall make in the next chapter. Moreover, since other pieces of debris were found either in the cave or in a neighboring field, there is no reason whatever that any one of them, let alone the left hand holding an apple, should have been attached to our statue.

We shall have occasion to refer to these points again.

DEBAY’S DRAWING.

The famous French painter David happened to be in exile at the time of the discovery of the Venus of Milo, and, taking an especial interest in this wonderful piece of ancient art, he induced one of his disciples, a certain Debay, to have his son Auguste Debay, a young art student, make a drawing of the statue as soon as it was put up in the Louvre. This drawing was afterwards published by M. de Clarac in his “Notice” and we here republish it on account of the importance it has gained as a document in the history of the statue.

Debay’s drawing shows a plinth bearing an inscription and also exhibiting a square hole in the ground near the left foot of the statue. The angle of vision is indicated by the line “_xx_” which shows the height from which the statue was viewed by M. Debay. The point _a_ corresponds to the place of the eye projected horizontally at a distance in front which cannot have been more than one and one-half times the height of the statue. Geometrically this place is determined by the intersection of two lines

from _a_ and _b_ constructed in a horizontal plane at right angles to the vertical axis of the statue.