- Project Runeberg -  Roman days /
171

(1887) [MARC] Author: Viktor Rydberg Translator: Alfred Corning Clark With: Hans Anton Westesson Lindehn
Table of Contents / Innehåll | << Previous | Next >>
  Project Runeberg | Like | Catalog | Recent Changes | Donate | Comments? |   

Full resolution (JPEG) - On this page / på denna sida - Antique Statues - 1. The Aphrodite of Melos

scanned image

<< prev. page << föreg. sida <<     >> nästa sida >> next page >>


Below is the raw OCR text from the above scanned image. Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan. Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!

This page has never been proofread. / Denna sida har aldrig korrekturlästs.

ANTIQUE STATUES. I/l
and caught the drapery, as if to prevent it from falling
down.
(2) Antonio Bottojiis, Jorgos’sson. Antonio, who plied
the spade by the side of his father when the discovery
was made, is yet alive. Jules Ferry met him in Castro,
at the younger Brest’s house. On being asked, he de-
clared without hesitation, that when the statue was dis-
covered, it stood upright on its pedestal, with the left
arm outstretched, and an apple in the hand. About the
right arm, his reports were doubtful.
(3) Diiniont d’ Urville. In his account in the year
i82i,hesays: "The statue represented a nude woman,
whose left hand, raised, held an apple, and whose right
grasped a tastefully-draped garment, which fell carelessly
from the hip to the foot. Both, however, were mutilated,
and are now [actuellenient) separated from the body."
(4) Matferer, the major of marines mentioned pre-
viously. This gentleman, who in company with Dumont
d’Urville saw the statue at the peasant Jorgos’s house,
declares, in a notice historiqiie published by Aicard :
"When Mr. Dumont d’Urville and I, in Jorgos’s cabin
took the statue under examination, it had its left arm
raised in the air, ijleve en Vair \sic !^^ ) and held in its
hand an apple. As for the right arm, it was broken at
the elbow. When Mr. d’Urville says that the statue had
both arms remaining, he is slightly mistaken, for the right
fore-arm was wanting."
At the first glance, this evidence seems conclusive.
But on nearer investigation, its worth diminishes not a
little. Dumont d’Urville’s expressions are not clear.
The word actuellenient can be interpreted in two ways ;
and if the right comprehension of d’Urville’s evidence
rested alone on this word, we could never come to any

<< prev. page << föreg. sida <<     >> nästa sida >> next page >>


Project Runeberg, Sat Nov 21 02:44:58 2020 (aronsson) (download) << Previous Next >>
http://runeberg.org/romandays/0217.html

Valid HTML 4.0! All our files are DRM-free