F. Carò, Giulia Chiostrini, Elizabeth Cleland, Nobuko Shibayama
Pieter Coecke van Aelst (1502 – 1550) was one of the most celebrated Netherlandish artists of his generation.1 An important panel painter and printer of influential architectural treatises, Coecke was above all a master draftsman-designer, and the primary medium for his artistic expression was tapestry design. Tapestry series based on his cartoons were woven up by the celebrated Brussels-based workshops directed by Willem de Pannemaker and Willem de Kempeneer, as well as lesser-known weavers like Jan van der Vijst and Paulus van Oppenem, and were acquired by the great Renaissance collectors, from Henry VIII to Francis I, Mary of Hungary, Charles V, and Cosimo I de’ Medici. The three securely documented tapestry series that form the core of Pieter Coecke van Aelst’s stylistically attributed body of works are the Life of Saint Paul, the Seven Deadly Sins, and the Story of Joshua.2 These were all phenomenally successful and woven in multiple high-quality editions. The Seven Deadly Sins, in particular, is one of the most appealing and inventive series of Renaissance tapestries known, presenting a subversive triumphal procession of the vices across seven tapestries, each devoted to a different sin. Uniquely for tapestries of this period, a written program survives in a manuscript in Madrid, describing the “significance of the seven tapestries of the seven deadly sins by Willem de Pannemaker of which master Pieter of Aelst, painter of Antwerp, made the designs and compositions.”3 Coecke probably began designing the Sins in late 1532, pausing during 1533, when he traveled to Constantinople (in part on a tapestry-selling expedition to Süleyman the Magnificent), completing the design of the series after his return in early 1534. Of the earliest documented edition, woven before 1536, which belonged to Henry VIII, only Avarice survives; it is now in the Morgan Library and Museum in New York.4 Of the three best-preserved Seven Deadly Sins editions, one (Figure 1) originally belonged to Mary of Hungary (1505 – 1558), governor of the Habsburg Netherlands (1531 – 55). Made before 1544, it is now in the Spanish Patrimonio Nacional. Another (Figure 2), made about 1545, was first acquired by the unfortunate Count Lamoraal van Egmont, prince of Gavere (1522 – 1568). Follow ing Egmont’s execution, it passed to Philip II and is now also in the Patrimonio Nacional. The third, woven about 1548 – 49 and probably originally in the collection of the dukes of Lorraine, is now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna.5 Since 1957, The Metropolitan Museum of Art has owned one piece of the Seven Deadly Sins that Coecke designed; it represents Gluttony and is the only known survival from this, the fifth known edition (Figure 3).6 In a breathtakingly colorful sweep of twisting figures, fantastical beasts, and patterned cloth and trappings, the figures unfurl across the tapestry’s surface.7 The textile’s well-preserved, vivid palette enlivens the full subtleties of Coecke’s des
Pieter Coecke van Aelst(1502 - 1550)是他那一代最著名的荷兰艺术家之一作为一名重要的面板画家和有影响力的建筑论文的印刷商，科克首先是一名绘图大师和设计师，他的艺术表达的主要媒介是挂毯设计。以他的漫画为基础的挂毯系列是由著名的布鲁塞尔工作室编织的，这些工作室由威廉·德·潘纳梅克和威廉·德·肯佩纳尔指导，以及像扬·范·德·维杰斯特和保卢斯·范·奥本南这样的不太知名的织工编织而成，并被伟大的文艺复兴收藏家所收购，从亨利八世到弗朗西斯一世，匈牙利的玛丽，查理五世和科西莫·德·美第奇。三个安全记录的挂毯系列构成了Pieter Coecke van Aelst的风格作品的核心，即《圣保罗的一生》，《七宗罪》和《约书亚的故事》。2这些都是非常成功的，并且编织了多个高质量的版本。尤其是《七宗罪》，它是文艺复兴时期最吸引人、最具创意的挂毯系列之一，在七幅挂毯上展示了一幅颠覆性的罪恶凯旋游行，每幅挂毯都致力于一种不同的罪恶。在这一时期的挂毯中，马德里的一份手稿中保存着一份书面程序，描述了威廉·德·潘纳梅克(Willem de Pannemaker)的“七宗死罪挂毯的意义”，安特卫普画家阿尔斯特大师彼得(Pieter of Aelst)为这些挂毯设计和构图。Coecke可能在1532年末开始设计Sins，在1533年期间暂停，当时他前往君士坦丁堡(部分是在一次销售挂毯的远征中前往sansleyman the Magnificent)，并在1534年初返回后完成了该系列的设计。最早的有记载的版本是1536年以前编的，属于亨利八世，只有《贪婪》幸存下来;在保存最完好的三个《七宗罪》版本中，有一个(图1)最初属于匈牙利的玛丽(1505 - 1558)，她是荷兰哈布斯堡王朝的总督(1531 - 55)。它制作于1544年之前，现收藏于西班牙国家遗产博物馆。另一幅(图2)，大约制作于1545年，最初被不幸的加维尔王子拉莫拉尔·范·埃格蒙特伯爵(1522 - 1568)获得。埃格蒙特被处决后，它传给了菲利普二世，现在也在国家遗产中。第三件编织于1548 - 1549年，最初可能在洛林公爵的收藏中，现在在维也纳的艺术史博物馆。自1957年以来，大都会艺术博物馆拥有科克设计的七宗罪中的一件;它代表了饕餮，是已知的第五个版本中唯一幸存的版本(图3)在一幅令人惊叹的色彩缤纷的画面中，扭曲的人物、奇异的野兽、有图案的布料和装饰物，这些人物展开在挂毯的表面上纺织品保存完好，生动的调色板使Coecke的设计充满了微妙之处。由于救赎彼得·科克·范·阿斯特的饕餮挂毯:从科学分析中学习
{"title":"Redeeming Pieter Coecke van Aelst’s Gluttony Tapestry: Learning from Scientific Analysis","authors":"F. Carò, Giulia Chiostrini, Elizabeth Cleland, Nobuko Shibayama","doi":"10.1086/680030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/680030","url":null,"abstract":"Pieter Coecke van Aelst (1502 – 1550) was one of the most celebrated Netherlandish artists of his generation.1 An important panel painter and printer of influential architectural treatises, Coecke was above all a master draftsman-designer, and the primary medium for his artistic expression was tapestry design. Tapestry series based on his cartoons were woven up by the celebrated Brussels-based workshops directed by Willem de Pannemaker and Willem de Kempeneer, as well as lesser-known weavers like Jan van der Vijst and Paulus van Oppenem, and were acquired by the great Renaissance collectors, from Henry VIII to Francis I, Mary of Hungary, Charles V, and Cosimo I de’ Medici. The three securely documented tapestry series that form the core of Pieter Coecke van Aelst’s stylistically attributed body of works are the Life of Saint Paul, the Seven Deadly Sins, and the Story of Joshua.2 These were all phenomenally successful and woven in multiple high-quality editions. The Seven Deadly Sins, in particular, is one of the most appealing and inventive series of Renaissance tapestries known, presenting a subversive triumphal procession of the vices across seven tapestries, each devoted to a different sin. Uniquely for tapestries of this period, a written program survives in a manuscript in Madrid, describing the “significance of the seven tapestries of the seven deadly sins by Willem de Pannemaker of which master Pieter of Aelst, painter of Antwerp, made the designs and compositions.”3 Coecke probably began designing the Sins in late 1532, pausing during 1533, when he traveled to Constantinople (in part on a tapestry-selling expedition to Süleyman the Magnificent), completing the design of the series after his return in early 1534. Of the earliest documented edition, woven before 1536, which belonged to Henry VIII, only Avarice survives; it is now in the Morgan Library and Museum in New York.4 Of the three best-preserved Seven Deadly Sins editions, one (Figure 1) originally belonged to Mary of Hungary (1505 – 1558), governor of the Habsburg Netherlands (1531 – 55). Made before 1544, it is now in the Spanish Patrimonio Nacional. Another (Figure 2), made about 1545, was first acquired by the unfortunate Count Lamoraal van Egmont, prince of Gavere (1522 – 1568). Follow ing Egmont’s execution, it passed to Philip II and is now also in the Patrimonio Nacional. The third, woven about 1548 – 49 and probably originally in the collection of the dukes of Lorraine, is now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna.5 Since 1957, The Metropolitan Museum of Art has owned one piece of the Seven Deadly Sins that Coecke designed; it represents Gluttony and is the only known survival from this, the fifth known edition (Figure 3).6 In a breathtakingly colorful sweep of twisting figures, fantastical beasts, and patterned cloth and trappings, the figures unfurl across the tapestry’s surface.7 The textile’s well-preserved, vivid palette enlivens the full subtleties of Coecke’s des","PeriodicalId":42073,"journal":{"name":"METROPOLITAN MUSEUM JOURNAL","volume":"49 1","pages":"151 - 164"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/680030","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60341903","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Three silk textiles embroidered with flower, bird, and animal motifs entered the collection of The Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1929 as part of a single bequest. Nineteen years later, the museum received a fourth textile, with similar characteristics, from another donor. About this group of objects, which are clearly identifiable as Chinese export embroideries, little else is known for certain. The present article is a first attempt at establishing a history of these works, provisionally setting forth their dates and place of origin, the uses they possibly served, and the routes they may have taken on their centuries-long journey from China to New York. The formats and decorative compositions of the Metropolitan Museum’s embroideries are consistent with those of a specific class of Chinese textiles that were produced as bedcovers for the European market between 1550 and 1800. Similar pieces currently preserved in Japan and Europe attest to the fact that such textiles were exported to both East and west; none remain in China. Their popularity led to the production of imitations in countries along the trade routes and to the evolution of an international style that spread as far as the Andes. Thus, the Museum’s pieces are part of a larger category of textiles represented in collections around the world. Embroideries of this type feature at their center a peony encircled by a pair of facing phoenixes. The phoenixes, in turn, are surrounded by flowers, birds, and a variety of animals. Such compositions are found in two basic formats: vertical, with distinct top and bottom; and four-directional, with motifs radiating from the center. The backgrounds of these works are of two types also: in one, the background is covered entirely with gold-thread embroidery; in the other, the unadorned foundation fabric serves as the backdrop. The stylistic analysis presented in this article will focus exclusively on four-directional compositions with gold backgrounds. The three embroideries that came to the Metropolitan Museum in 1929 were bequeathed by Mrs. h. O. havemeyer; the fourth, bestowed in 1948, was a gift from Catherine D. wentworth. The havemeyer textiles were regarded initially as discrete objects, and each was assigned an accession number. Many years later, however, the Museum’s Textile Conservation Department discovered that the smallest of the three embroideries had been pieced together mostly with fragments from the other two, and conservators embarked on a project to detach the mismatched fragments and restore them to their original positions in the two larger embroideries (see Appendix Diagrams 1 – 3). As a result of this ongoing work, the number of the havemeyer textiles has effectively been reduced from three to two. (All that remains of the third havemeyer textile are two long, narrow strips; see Appendix Diagram 3.) These two embroideries will be referred to here as MMA I (Figure 1) and MMA II (Figure 2). Of the Metropolitan’s embroideries, only
1929年，三件绣有花、鸟和动物图案的丝绸纺织品作为单一遗产的一部分进入了大都会艺术博物馆的收藏。19年后，博物馆从另一位捐赠者那里收到了第四件具有类似特征的纺织品。关于这组物品，可以清楚地看出它们是中国出口的刺绣，其他的就不得而知了。本文是第一次尝试建立这些作品的历史，暂时列出它们的起源日期和地点，它们可能的用途，以及它们从中国到纽约长达几个世纪的旅程中可能采取的路线。大都会博物馆的刺绣作品的形式和装饰成分与1550年至1800年间为欧洲市场生产的床罩一类中国纺织品的形式和装饰成分一致。目前在日本和欧洲保存的类似碎片证明了这样的纺织品出口到东方和西方的事实;没有一个留在中国。它们的流行导致了沿贸易路线的国家的仿制品的生产，并导致了一种国际风格的演变，传播到安第斯山脉。因此，博物馆的作品是世界各地收藏的更大类别纺织品的一部分。这种类型的刺绣以牡丹为中心，由一对相对的凤凰环绕。凤凰，反过来，被鲜花，鸟类和各种各样的动物包围。这种组合有两种基本形式:垂直的，有明显的顶部和底部;四个方向，图案从中心向外辐射。这些作品的背景也有两种类型:一种是背景完全被金线刺绣覆盖;在另一个空间中，朴素的基础织物作为背景。在这篇文章中提出的风格分析将专注于金色背景的四向构图。1929年来到大都会博物馆的三件刺绣品是h·o·哈梅耶夫人遗赠的;第四个是1948年凯瑟琳·d·温特沃斯(Catherine D. wentworth)赠送的礼物。这些纺织品最初被视为独立的对象，每一个都被分配了一个登记号。然而，多年后，博物馆的纺织品保护部发现，三件刺绣中最小的一件大部分是用另外两件的碎片拼凑而成的，文物保护人员开始了一项工程，将不匹配的碎片分离出来，并将它们恢复到两件大刺绣的原始位置(见附录图1 - 3)。由于这项持续进行的工作，哈夫耶尔纺织品的数量实际上已经从三件减少到两件。(第三种纺织品只剩下两条又长又窄的条;见附录图3。)这两种刺绣在这里被称为MMA I(图1)和MMA II(图2)。在大都会的刺绣中，只有温特沃斯的礼物(下文称为MMA III(图3))是完整的。不幸的是，在早期的修复过程中，这件作品的原始外观发生了很大的变化，而且由于没有关于捐赠者何时何地获得这件作品的信息，因此很难推测它的旅行历史。由于这些原因，MMA III将主要讨论其生产的地点和日期。
{"title":"Trade Stories: Chinese Export Embroideries in the Metropolitan Museum","authors":"Masako Yoshida","doi":"10.1086/680031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/680031","url":null,"abstract":"Three silk textiles embroidered with flower, bird, and animal motifs entered the collection of The Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1929 as part of a single bequest. Nineteen years later, the museum received a fourth textile, with similar characteristics, from another donor. About this group of objects, which are clearly identifiable as Chinese export embroideries, little else is known for certain. The present article is a first attempt at establishing a history of these works, provisionally setting forth their dates and place of origin, the uses they possibly served, and the routes they may have taken on their centuries-long journey from China to New York. The formats and decorative compositions of the Metropolitan Museum’s embroideries are consistent with those of a specific class of Chinese textiles that were produced as bedcovers for the European market between 1550 and 1800. Similar pieces currently preserved in Japan and Europe attest to the fact that such textiles were exported to both East and west; none remain in China. Their popularity led to the production of imitations in countries along the trade routes and to the evolution of an international style that spread as far as the Andes. Thus, the Museum’s pieces are part of a larger category of textiles represented in collections around the world. Embroideries of this type feature at their center a peony encircled by a pair of facing phoenixes. The phoenixes, in turn, are surrounded by flowers, birds, and a variety of animals. Such compositions are found in two basic formats: vertical, with distinct top and bottom; and four-directional, with motifs radiating from the center. The backgrounds of these works are of two types also: in one, the background is covered entirely with gold-thread embroidery; in the other, the unadorned foundation fabric serves as the backdrop. The stylistic analysis presented in this article will focus exclusively on four-directional compositions with gold backgrounds. The three embroideries that came to the Metropolitan Museum in 1929 were bequeathed by Mrs. h. O. havemeyer; the fourth, bestowed in 1948, was a gift from Catherine D. wentworth. The havemeyer textiles were regarded initially as discrete objects, and each was assigned an accession number. Many years later, however, the Museum’s Textile Conservation Department discovered that the smallest of the three embroideries had been pieced together mostly with fragments from the other two, and conservators embarked on a project to detach the mismatched fragments and restore them to their original positions in the two larger embroideries (see Appendix Diagrams 1 – 3). As a result of this ongoing work, the number of the havemeyer textiles has effectively been reduced from three to two. (All that remains of the third havemeyer textile are two long, narrow strips; see Appendix Diagram 3.) These two embroideries will be referred to here as MMA I (Figure 1) and MMA II (Figure 2). Of the Metropolitan’s embroideries, only","PeriodicalId":42073,"journal":{"name":"METROPOLITAN MUSEUM JOURNAL","volume":"49 1","pages":"165 - 185"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/680031","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60341991","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Interest in the provenance of ancient marbles used in Greek and Roman sculpture is long-standing, going back to the very foundation of the study of ancient art, Johann Joachim Winckelmann’s History of the Art of Antiquity, published in 1764. In Part 1 of this seminal text, the German scholar addresses the materials selected by Greek sculptors in two important passages. In the introductory chapter, which discusses the origin of art and the reasons for its diversity among peoples, Winckelmann proposes a line of development for ancient sculptors’ materials that begins with clay and gradually progresses to wood and ivory, and finally to stone and metal. In Chapter 4, on the art of the Greeks, section 4, devoted to the “Mechanical Part of Greek Sculpture,” he addresses first the materials in which Greek sculptors worked and then the manner of their workmanship. In the passage, Winckelmann begins — in keeping with the taste of his time — with marble, and he not only presents the relevant literary sources but also discusses the qualities of different kinds of marble, including texture, consistency, and color. He focuses on marble from the island of Paros but also mentions Thasian, Pentelic, and Carrara marble. He explores the correlation between the qualities of these marbles and their different workabilities and appearances, thus proposing a strong connection between the material and the aesthetic quality of ancient sculpture.1 After such a start, it would seem inevitable that the identification of the marbles used in antiquity would have been a constant concern of both historians of ancient art and archaeologists. However, it was not until more than one hundred years after Winckelmann that the German geologist Richard Lepsius developed the first scientifically correct approach, one that can unreservedly be defined as archaeometric in the strict sense of the term.2 Archaeometry is a rather new science, officially dating to the end of the 1950s when the University of Oxford’s Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art began publishing a bulletin for the purpose of “fostering the close integration between the physical sciences, archaeology, and art history.”3 The bulletin soon became Archaeome try, an international journal now published six times a year that reports on the applications of scientific disciplines, such as biology, chemistry, physics, geology, and informatics, to archaeology, architecture, and art. Among other topics, its contributors discuss methods for determining the age and authenticity of all kinds of artifacts, the nature of their materials, and their sources and manufacturing techniques. One important application of archaeometry concerns marbles.4 Technically, marbles are pure carbonatic (calcitic or dolomitic) rocks with a carbonatic content that is usually well in excess of 95 percent. These rocks are crystalline; they may be white or gray, more rarely black, red, or green; and they will have been produced by contac
人们对希腊和罗马雕塑中使用的古代大理石的来源一直很感兴趣，这可以追溯到古代艺术研究的基础——约翰·约阿希姆·温克尔曼(Johann Joachim Winckelmann)于1764年出版的《古代艺术史》。在这个开创性的文本的第一部分中，德国学者在两个重要的段落中讨论了希腊雕塑家选择的材料。在导论章中，Winckelmann讨论了艺术的起源及其在不同民族之间多样性的原因，他提出了古代雕塑家材料的发展路线，从粘土开始，逐渐发展到木材和象牙，最后到石头和金属。在第4章，关于希腊人的艺术，第4节，专门讨论“希腊雕塑的机械部分”，他首先讨论了希腊雕塑家工作的材料，然后是他们的工艺方式。在文章中，温克尔曼从大理石开始——与他那个时代的品味保持一致——他不仅介绍了相关的文学来源，还讨论了不同种类大理石的品质，包括质地、稠度和颜色。他专注于帕罗斯岛的大理石，但也提到了塔西亚、Pentelic和卡拉拉大理石。他探索了这些大理石的品质与它们不同的可加工性和外观之间的相关性，从而提出了古代雕塑的材料与美学品质之间的强烈联系在这样的开始之后，鉴定古代使用的大理石似乎不可避免地成为古代艺术史学家和考古学家一直关注的问题。然而，直到温克尔曼之后一百多年，德国地质学家理查德·莱普修斯才提出了第一个科学上正确的方法，这种方法可以毫无保留地定义为严格意义上的考古学考古学是一门相当新的科学，正式的历史可以追溯到20世纪50年代末，当时牛津大学考古学和艺术史研究实验室开始出版一份公报，目的是“促进物理科学、考古学和艺术史之间的紧密结合”。这份公报很快变成了《考古尝试》(Archaeome try)，这是一本每年出版六期的国际期刊，报道诸如生物学、化学、物理学、地质学和信息学等科学学科在考古学、建筑学和艺术方面的应用。在其他主题中，它的贡献者讨论了确定各种人工制品的年龄和真实性的方法，它们的材料的性质，以及它们的来源和制造技术。考古学的一个重要应用与大理石有关从技术上讲，大理岩是纯碳酸盐(方解石或白云岩)岩石，其碳酸盐含量通常远远超过95%。这些岩石是结晶的;它们可能是白色或灰色，更罕见的是黑色、红色或绿色;它们可能是由接触作用或区域变质作用产生的。大理石在地中海地区很常见。我们知道其中一些是什么时候被建筑商和雕塑家首次使用的，我们从各种来源获得的信息使我们能够至少部分地重建它们的分布以及它们的交易和运输方式。然而，在大多数情况下，我们所知甚少，主要是因为当大理石被发现用作古代建筑的结构或装饰构件、雕塑或中世纪或文艺复兴时期的纪念碑时，很难可靠地识别它们。大都会博物馆主要希腊雕塑的新分析:岩石学和风格学
{"title":"A New Analysis of Major Greek Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum: Petrological and Stylistic","authors":"L. Lazzarini, C. Marconi","doi":"10.1086/680028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/680028","url":null,"abstract":"Interest in the provenance of ancient marbles used in Greek and Roman sculpture is long-standing, going back to the very foundation of the study of ancient art, Johann Joachim Winckelmann’s History of the Art of Antiquity, published in 1764. In Part 1 of this seminal text, the German scholar addresses the materials selected by Greek sculptors in two important passages. In the introductory chapter, which discusses the origin of art and the reasons for its diversity among peoples, Winckelmann proposes a line of development for ancient sculptors’ materials that begins with clay and gradually progresses to wood and ivory, and finally to stone and metal. In Chapter 4, on the art of the Greeks, section 4, devoted to the “Mechanical Part of Greek Sculpture,” he addresses first the materials in which Greek sculptors worked and then the manner of their workmanship. In the passage, Winckelmann begins — in keeping with the taste of his time — with marble, and he not only presents the relevant literary sources but also discusses the qualities of different kinds of marble, including texture, consistency, and color. He focuses on marble from the island of Paros but also mentions Thasian, Pentelic, and Carrara marble. He explores the correlation between the qualities of these marbles and their different workabilities and appearances, thus proposing a strong connection between the material and the aesthetic quality of ancient sculpture.1 After such a start, it would seem inevitable that the identification of the marbles used in antiquity would have been a constant concern of both historians of ancient art and archaeologists. However, it was not until more than one hundred years after Winckelmann that the German geologist Richard Lepsius developed the first scientifically correct approach, one that can unreservedly be defined as archaeometric in the strict sense of the term.2 Archaeometry is a rather new science, officially dating to the end of the 1950s when the University of Oxford’s Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art began publishing a bulletin for the purpose of “fostering the close integration between the physical sciences, archaeology, and art history.”3 The bulletin soon became Archaeome try, an international journal now published six times a year that reports on the applications of scientific disciplines, such as biology, chemistry, physics, geology, and informatics, to archaeology, architecture, and art. Among other topics, its contributors discuss methods for determining the age and authenticity of all kinds of artifacts, the nature of their materials, and their sources and manufacturing techniques. One important application of archaeometry concerns marbles.4 Technically, marbles are pure carbonatic (calcitic or dolomitic) rocks with a carbonatic content that is usually well in excess of 95 percent. These rocks are crystalline; they may be white or gray, more rarely black, red, or green; and they will have been produced by contac","PeriodicalId":42073,"journal":{"name":"METROPOLITAN MUSEUM JOURNAL","volume":"49 1","pages":"117 - 140"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/680028","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60341801","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the collection of The Metropolitan Museum of Art is a painting most often identified as a self-portrait by Salvator Rosa (1615 – 1673), depicting a man holding a human skull (Figure 1). The identity of the sitter has been disputed,1 though the work can be securely set in the context of the friendship between Rosa and Giovanni Battista Ricciardi (1623 – 1686), owing to an inscription.2 In fact, three inscriptions appear in the composition, and one of them, composed in classical Greek, has previously been misinterpreted. Born in Arenella, near Naples, Rosa traveled to Rome as a young man. There, in addition to painting, from 1638 he received training in poetry and satire from the court poet Antonio Abate (d. 1697), becoming an adept himself.3 A few years later, while in Florence, Rosa first encountered Ricciardi, a future professor of philosophy, who would guide Rosa in that discipline, particularly its source texts from classical Greece and Rome, over the course of a long friendship.4 Ricciardi was a bibliophile, known for his ability to locate and acquire copies of classical and other texts of interest to the literary elite of Tuscany, and Rosa occasionally served as his agent in this enterprise. In 1651, Rosa acquired for Ricciardi in Rome three Greek texts: the Adversus mathematicos by Sextus Empiricus, the Bibliotheca by Photius, and the commentary on Homer by Eustathius of Thessalonike.5 In Florence, Ricciardi participated in the Accademia dei Percossi, which Rosa founded with Lorenzo Lippi (1606 – 1665) about 1643.6 The group included, among other intellectuals, the philologists and classical scholars Carlo Roberto Dati (1619 – 1676), Andrea Cavalcanti (1610 – 1672), and Valerio Chimentelli (1620 – 1668), who had contacts with major centers for the study of antiquity in Rome and at the University of Pisa.7 This milieu would certainly have provided a suitable setting for Rosa to become conversant in Greek and Roman literature and culture. Indeed, there is noticeable selfidentification with classical antiquity among the Percossi, as Rosa describes the villa of his friend Giulio Maffei (d. 1656) at Monterufoli as “the Garden of Hesperides” and a “little Parnassus,” and casts himself and his colleagues as Greek philosophers.8 Their banquets often concluded with orations, including one titled “Encomium of the Golden Age” by Evangelista Torricelli (1608 – 1647), a noted physicist and mathematician, which borrowed heavily from classical texts,9 and a poetic composition by Niccolò Simonelli (d. 1671), an important early patron of Rosa’s work, which praises Rosa as the “Demosthenes of painting.”10 Rosa’s own literary production, situated in this context, bears out his familiarity with classical works. His satires bristle with classical allusions from a wide range of genres, some rather obscure, including direct citations in the original Latin11 and broader textual reminiscences.12 These also appear in the letters Rosa wrote to Ricciardi,13 in whic
{"title":"A Greek Inscription in a Portrait by Salvator Rosa","authors":"Michael Zellmann-Rohrer","doi":"10.1086/680032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/680032","url":null,"abstract":"In the collection of The Metropolitan Museum of Art is a painting most often identified as a self-portrait by Salvator Rosa (1615 – 1673), depicting a man holding a human skull (Figure 1). The identity of the sitter has been disputed,1 though the work can be securely set in the context of the friendship between Rosa and Giovanni Battista Ricciardi (1623 – 1686), owing to an inscription.2 In fact, three inscriptions appear in the composition, and one of them, composed in classical Greek, has previously been misinterpreted. Born in Arenella, near Naples, Rosa traveled to Rome as a young man. There, in addition to painting, from 1638 he received training in poetry and satire from the court poet Antonio Abate (d. 1697), becoming an adept himself.3 A few years later, while in Florence, Rosa first encountered Ricciardi, a future professor of philosophy, who would guide Rosa in that discipline, particularly its source texts from classical Greece and Rome, over the course of a long friendship.4 Ricciardi was a bibliophile, known for his ability to locate and acquire copies of classical and other texts of interest to the literary elite of Tuscany, and Rosa occasionally served as his agent in this enterprise. In 1651, Rosa acquired for Ricciardi in Rome three Greek texts: the Adversus mathematicos by Sextus Empiricus, the Bibliotheca by Photius, and the commentary on Homer by Eustathius of Thessalonike.5 In Florence, Ricciardi participated in the Accademia dei Percossi, which Rosa founded with Lorenzo Lippi (1606 – 1665) about 1643.6 The group included, among other intellectuals, the philologists and classical scholars Carlo Roberto Dati (1619 – 1676), Andrea Cavalcanti (1610 – 1672), and Valerio Chimentelli (1620 – 1668), who had contacts with major centers for the study of antiquity in Rome and at the University of Pisa.7 This milieu would certainly have provided a suitable setting for Rosa to become conversant in Greek and Roman literature and culture. Indeed, there is noticeable selfidentification with classical antiquity among the Percossi, as Rosa describes the villa of his friend Giulio Maffei (d. 1656) at Monterufoli as “the Garden of Hesperides” and a “little Parnassus,” and casts himself and his colleagues as Greek philosophers.8 Their banquets often concluded with orations, including one titled “Encomium of the Golden Age” by Evangelista Torricelli (1608 – 1647), a noted physicist and mathematician, which borrowed heavily from classical texts,9 and a poetic composition by Niccolò Simonelli (d. 1671), an important early patron of Rosa’s work, which praises Rosa as the “Demosthenes of painting.”10 Rosa’s own literary production, situated in this context, bears out his familiarity with classical works. His satires bristle with classical allusions from a wide range of genres, some rather obscure, including direct citations in the original Latin11 and broader textual reminiscences.12 These also appear in the letters Rosa wrote to Ricciardi,13 in whic","PeriodicalId":42073,"journal":{"name":"METROPOLITAN MUSEUM JOURNAL","volume":"49 1","pages":"187 - 192"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/680032","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60342061","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Adam by Tullio Lombardo","authors":"L. Syson, V. Cafà","doi":"10.1086/680047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/680047","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42073,"journal":{"name":"METROPOLITAN MUSEUM JOURNAL","volume":"110 1","pages":"8 - 31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/680047","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60342586","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
C. Riccardelli, Michael Morris, G. Wheeler, J. Soultanian, Lawrence Becker, Ronald Street
{"title":"The Treatment of Tullio Lombardo’s Adam: A New Approach to the Conservation of Monumental Marble Sculpture","authors":"C. Riccardelli, Michael Morris, G. Wheeler, J. Soultanian, Lawrence Becker, Ronald Street","doi":"10.1086/680027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/680027","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42073,"journal":{"name":"METROPOLITAN MUSEUM JOURNAL","volume":"49 1","pages":"48 - 116"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/680027","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60341735","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The city of Chiusi, ancient Clusium in Latin, or Clevsin in Etruscan, lies about 105 miles north of Rome along major trade routes through inland Etruria. Once one of the twelve cities of Etruria and seat of the famous Etruscan king Lars Porsenna,1 Chiusi and its environs have been occupied continuously from the Bronze Age to the present day. Antiquarian interest and fortuitous discoveries by local farmers in the nineteenth century uncovered hundreds of burials — simple pit tombs to multigenerational chamber tombs — in the area. Excavation practices of the day led to the quick excavation and dispersal of archaeological materials to museums and private collections across Europe and the United States, including The Metropolitan Museum of Art, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Objects from a single tomb were usually sold separately, and even if the original context was documented, the information often did not accompany artifacts, especially objects coming to the United States. In some cases, however, inscriptions in Etruscan or other distinguishing features on objects make it possible to determine their archaeological provenance and gain further insight into Etruscan funerary and artistic practices. An analysis of the forms and name inscriptions of a group of six cremation urns from Chiusi at the Metropolitan, never before the subject of a focused study, offers a new understanding of the urns’ manufacture and archaeological contexts as well as Etruscan family relationships and the role of burial containers in the Etruscan funerary environment. The Etruscans of Chiusi preferred to cremate their dead and deposited the ashes in a range of containers. Chiusi is most noted for its production of so-called terracotta “canopic” cremation urns with simple, ovoid bodies containing the cremated remains and with lids in the shape of human heads (Figure 1).2 This urn form “stood in” for the deceased in tombs of the Orientalizing period (seventh to sixth century B.C.) and was often placed on a high-backed chair or throne and arranged before an assemblage of grave goods related to banqueting. Over the course of the Archaic and Classical periods (sixth to fifth century B.C.), the canopic urn gave way to stone cinerary statues or relief-decorated, square cippi (boxes), but these monuments were generally very large, difficult to produce, and available to only a small, affluent portion of the population.3 Hellenistic Etruscan Cremation Urns from Chiusi
{"title":"Hellenistic Etruscan Cremation Urns from Chiusi","authors":"Theresa Huntsman","doi":"10.1086/680029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/680029","url":null,"abstract":"The city of Chiusi, ancient Clusium in Latin, or Clevsin in Etruscan, lies about 105 miles north of Rome along major trade routes through inland Etruria. Once one of the twelve cities of Etruria and seat of the famous Etruscan king Lars Porsenna,1 Chiusi and its environs have been occupied continuously from the Bronze Age to the present day. Antiquarian interest and fortuitous discoveries by local farmers in the nineteenth century uncovered hundreds of burials — simple pit tombs to multigenerational chamber tombs — in the area. Excavation practices of the day led to the quick excavation and dispersal of archaeological materials to museums and private collections across Europe and the United States, including The Metropolitan Museum of Art, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Objects from a single tomb were usually sold separately, and even if the original context was documented, the information often did not accompany artifacts, especially objects coming to the United States. In some cases, however, inscriptions in Etruscan or other distinguishing features on objects make it possible to determine their archaeological provenance and gain further insight into Etruscan funerary and artistic practices. An analysis of the forms and name inscriptions of a group of six cremation urns from Chiusi at the Metropolitan, never before the subject of a focused study, offers a new understanding of the urns’ manufacture and archaeological contexts as well as Etruscan family relationships and the role of burial containers in the Etruscan funerary environment. The Etruscans of Chiusi preferred to cremate their dead and deposited the ashes in a range of containers. Chiusi is most noted for its production of so-called terracotta “canopic” cremation urns with simple, ovoid bodies containing the cremated remains and with lids in the shape of human heads (Figure 1).2 This urn form “stood in” for the deceased in tombs of the Orientalizing period (seventh to sixth century B.C.) and was often placed on a high-backed chair or throne and arranged before an assemblage of grave goods related to banqueting. Over the course of the Archaic and Classical periods (sixth to fifth century B.C.), the canopic urn gave way to stone cinerary statues or relief-decorated, square cippi (boxes), but these monuments were generally very large, difficult to produce, and available to only a small, affluent portion of the population.3 Hellenistic Etruscan Cremation Urns from Chiusi","PeriodicalId":42073,"journal":{"name":"METROPOLITAN MUSEUM JOURNAL","volume":"49 1","pages":"141 - 150"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/680029","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60341866","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The exhibition “Goya and the Altamira Family,” held at The Metropolitan Museum of Art from April 22 to August 3, 2014, brought together for the first time four portraits by Francisco de Goya y Lucientes painted about 1787 – 88. For the occasion, the celebrated “Red Boy” in the Museum’s collection was displayed together with likenesses of his parents and two of his siblings in a gallery of the European Paintings Department. Goya’s portrait of the head of the family, Vicente Joaquín Osorio de Moscoso y Guzmán, conde de Altamira (Figure 1), was paid for on January 29, 1787, and was the first of the artist’s Altamira paintings.1 Commissioned by the Banco de San Carlos (renamed Banco de España after 1829), of which Altamira was a director, the portrait is still in the bank’s collection. In the succeeding two years, the count commissioned Goya to paint three portraits for the family’s palace on the calle de la Flor Alta in Madrid: the Metropolitan Museum’s full-length portrait of Altamira’s first wife, María Ignacia Álvarez de Toledo, with their infant daughter María Agustina (Figure 2), and their sons Vicente Isabel, conde de Trastámara (Figure 3), and Manuel, señor de Ginés (Figure 4), the “Red Boy.” Inventories of the Altamira collection reveal that family portraits by other artists hung in the palace as well. The postmortem inventory of the conde de Altamira, compiled between January 7 and February 8, 1817, lists a series of portraits of the count and his family, including an image of the count on horseback by Antonio Carnicero (1748 – 1814) and, in one room, “eight portraits of the family of the Count of Altamira.”2 A subsequent inventory, compiled on March 13 – 14, 1864, after the death of Vicente Pío Osorio de Moscoso y Ponce de León (the grandson of the conde de Altamira in Goya’s portrait [Figure 1]), lists in detail Goya’s portraits of the Altamira family along with those by a number of other painters.3 The equestrian portrait of the count by Carnicero was still in the palace, as was another portrait of him attributed in the inventory to Luis Egidio Meléndez (1716 – 1780).4 Two of the three Goya portraits — those of the countess with her daughter María Agustina (Figure 2) and the “Red Boy” (Figure 4) — are also listed, while for some unknown reason, the portrait of Vicente, conde de Trastámara (Figure 3), is not mentioned in the document.5 Another portrait by Goya, that of the architect Ventura Rodríguez, now in the Nationalmuseum in Stockholm, was also acquired by the Altamira family before 1864.6 The Altamiras owned a substantial group of family portraits by the Valencian painter Agustín Esteve y Marques (1753 – ca. 1820), who in the 1780s and 1790s collaborated with Goya, especially on portraits, and became a wellknown portraitist himself. According to early sources, he produced fourteen portraits for the family of the duke of Osuna and others for the dukes of Alba.7 Esteve must also have painted a significant number of portraits for the A
2014年4月22日至8月3日在大都会艺术博物馆举行的“戈雅与阿尔塔米拉家族”展览首次汇集了弗朗西斯科·德·戈雅·卢西恩特斯在1787年至1788年间创作的四幅肖像画。为此，博物馆收藏的著名的“红男孩”与他的父母和两个兄弟姐妹的肖像一起在欧洲绘画部的画廊展出。戈雅的家庭首领画像，Vicente Joaquín Osorio de Moscoso y Guzmán, conde de Altamira(图1)，于1787年1月29日支付，是艺术家阿尔塔米拉的第一幅画这幅肖像是由阿尔塔米拉担任董事的圣卡洛斯银行(1829年后更名为España银行)委托制作的，目前仍在该银行的收藏中。在接下来的两年里，伯爵委托戈雅在马德里的la Flor Alta大街为家族的宫殿画了三幅肖像画:在Metropolitan博物馆里，阿尔塔米拉的第一任妻子María Ignacia Álvarez de Toledo和他们的女儿María Agustina(图2)，他们的儿子Vicente Isabel, conde de Trastámara(图3)和Manuel, señor de gin(图4)，“红男孩”。阿尔塔米拉收藏的清单显示，其他艺术家的家庭肖像也悬挂在宫殿里。在1817年1月7日至2月8日期间编纂的阿尔塔米拉孔德的尸检清单中，列出了一系列伯爵及其家人的肖像，包括安东尼奥·卡尼塞罗(Antonio Carnicero, 1748 - 1814)在马背上的一幅伯爵肖像，以及一个房间里的“阿尔塔米拉伯爵家族的八幅肖像”。1864年3月13日至14日，Vicente Pío Osorio de Moscoso y Ponce de León(戈雅肖像中阿尔塔米拉的孙子[图1])去世后，随后的一份清单详细列出了戈雅的阿尔塔米拉家族肖像以及其他一些画家的肖像卡尼塞罗为伯爵画的骑马肖像仍然在宫殿里，还有一幅他的肖像，在目录中被认为是路易斯·埃吉迪奥·梅尔萨姆德斯(1716 - 1780)的戈雅的三幅肖像画中的两幅——伯爵夫人和她的女儿María Agustina(图2)和“红男孩”(图4)——也被列了出来，而出于某种未知的原因，比森特的肖像画conde de Trastámara(图3)没有在文件中被提及戈雅的另一幅肖像，建筑师文图拉Rodríguez，现在在斯德哥尔摩的国家博物馆，也在1864.6阿尔塔米拉家族拥有大量的家庭肖像，由巴伦西亚画家Agustín Esteve y Marques (1753 - ca. 1820)，谁在1780年代和1790年代与戈雅合作，特别是在肖像，并成为一个著名的肖像画家自己。根据早期的资料，他为奥苏纳公爵家族和阿尔巴公爵家族创作了14幅肖像画。7埃斯蒂夫一定也为阿尔塔米拉家族画了大量肖像画。1864年的阿尔塔米拉目录记录了其中的几张，包括一组伯爵和伯爵夫人的肖像，以及另一张伯爵的肖像目前尚不清楚阿尔塔米拉伯爵夫人的这些肖像中是否有一幅可能是目前在格拉纳达大学的埃斯蒂夫签名的那幅(图5)，或者伯爵夫人的肖像是否可以与1957年在马德里的约瑟夫·卡尔沃收藏的那幅相一致。1864年阿尔塔米拉家族目录中列出了埃斯蒂夫的另外五幅儿童画。其中一幅是椭圆形的，画的是蒙特马尔公爵的女儿和一只小狗另一幅画描绘了一个“手里拿着小手鼓的女孩，坐在垫子上”。其中三幅画清楚地描绘了阿尔塔米拉家的四个孩子。第一幅画包括维森特的两幅肖像，孔德Trastámara和他的妹妹María阿古斯蒂娜(两个孩子也被戈雅画过:见图3和图2)第二幅和第三幅是弗朗西斯科·泽维尔和胡安María，他们是维森特的兄弟，曼努埃尔(“红男孩”)和María奥古斯丁。13戈雅“红男孩”的另一个兄弟:Agustín埃史蒂夫的弗朗西斯科·泽维尔·奥索里奥肖像，康德Trastámara
{"title":"Another Brother for Goya’s “Red Boy”: Agustín Esteve’s Portrait of Francisco Xavier Osorio, Conde de Trastámara","authors":"X. F. Salomon","doi":"10.1086/680034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/680034","url":null,"abstract":"The exhibition “Goya and the Altamira Family,” held at The Metropolitan Museum of Art from April 22 to August 3, 2014, brought together for the first time four portraits by Francisco de Goya y Lucientes painted about 1787 – 88. For the occasion, the celebrated “Red Boy” in the Museum’s collection was displayed together with likenesses of his parents and two of his siblings in a gallery of the European Paintings Department. Goya’s portrait of the head of the family, Vicente Joaquín Osorio de Moscoso y Guzmán, conde de Altamira (Figure 1), was paid for on January 29, 1787, and was the first of the artist’s Altamira paintings.1 Commissioned by the Banco de San Carlos (renamed Banco de España after 1829), of which Altamira was a director, the portrait is still in the bank’s collection. In the succeeding two years, the count commissioned Goya to paint three portraits for the family’s palace on the calle de la Flor Alta in Madrid: the Metropolitan Museum’s full-length portrait of Altamira’s first wife, María Ignacia Álvarez de Toledo, with their infant daughter María Agustina (Figure 2), and their sons Vicente Isabel, conde de Trastámara (Figure 3), and Manuel, señor de Ginés (Figure 4), the “Red Boy.” Inventories of the Altamira collection reveal that family portraits by other artists hung in the palace as well. The postmortem inventory of the conde de Altamira, compiled between January 7 and February 8, 1817, lists a series of portraits of the count and his family, including an image of the count on horseback by Antonio Carnicero (1748 – 1814) and, in one room, “eight portraits of the family of the Count of Altamira.”2 A subsequent inventory, compiled on March 13 – 14, 1864, after the death of Vicente Pío Osorio de Moscoso y Ponce de León (the grandson of the conde de Altamira in Goya’s portrait [Figure 1]), lists in detail Goya’s portraits of the Altamira family along with those by a number of other painters.3 The equestrian portrait of the count by Carnicero was still in the palace, as was another portrait of him attributed in the inventory to Luis Egidio Meléndez (1716 – 1780).4 Two of the three Goya portraits — those of the countess with her daughter María Agustina (Figure 2) and the “Red Boy” (Figure 4) — are also listed, while for some unknown reason, the portrait of Vicente, conde de Trastámara (Figure 3), is not mentioned in the document.5 Another portrait by Goya, that of the architect Ventura Rodríguez, now in the Nationalmuseum in Stockholm, was also acquired by the Altamira family before 1864.6 The Altamiras owned a substantial group of family portraits by the Valencian painter Agustín Esteve y Marques (1753 – ca. 1820), who in the 1780s and 1790s collaborated with Goya, especially on portraits, and became a wellknown portraitist himself. According to early sources, he produced fourteen portraits for the family of the duke of Osuna and others for the dukes of Alba.7 Esteve must also have painted a significant number of portraits for the A","PeriodicalId":42073,"journal":{"name":"METROPOLITAN MUSEUM JOURNAL","volume":"49 1","pages":"201 - 206"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/680034","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60341769","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Herakles Takes Aim: A Rare Attic Black-Figured Neck-Amphora Attributed to the Princeton Painter","authors":"M. B. Moore","doi":"10.1086/675312","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/675312","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42073,"journal":{"name":"METROPOLITAN MUSEUM JOURNAL","volume":"48 1","pages":"37 - 58"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/675312","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60201230","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：