Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

ATTITUDE OF THE VENUS OF MILO.

\Tliere has'.ahvaysM been /cbiisideiabjj; attitude.of. the.'. '. ''.Venus of Milo" wheiV.it w<is intact;; M. ; attempted" restorations, r;'. Jfow. M. Jean LASrar^^.-AVl^t■ingH'ri'tHe^ r''Revue*•Habdonlit.daife," Kasput an end toVajr discussion. •Hi has pos&essron written evidence iXvliich- puts (he matter .bcyo'iid aU question. '"' B'riclTvi" his article amounts to the! following:—When, the statue was discovered atMilo in 1820 the foreigners who'first saw it were-two French officers, named Duniont D'.Urville ■and Matterer. These officers, left behind them two ie-; ports (hitherto unpublished) wherein they cliarlv'state; that-the statue, though con--stitieted of-two blocks, was intact. . The ; lcft*arm raised ail apple in the air. while -tin;' right clasped the girdle. This is ■the authentic attitude of the Venus There were reasons of State why these facts, should not previouslv have been disclosed. Naturally. ' when they arrived at Constantinople, the two officers made an urgent to M. Mareellits. the Secretarv oi the French Kmbassy, that he Mifiulfl acquire the work for the French nation. A.-cordiiiLdy: M. Mareellus tent ;i vessel for it. On May 25, 1820. the Estafette anchored off Milo beside a liri; sailing under the Turkish flag, which ha<f anticipated the French, and had aiivadv embarked the lower part of tlie sia'.ue": while a number of natives were ousv removing the remainder. Relying tip/n the promise made to the officers, the French .-ailors proceeded to take poesession of the whole by force. Tn the stni"ile the block was up«et. and Hie Venn's lost its arms. The official version of the Conservator of the Louvre makesno reference at all to the arms, but explains some of the mutilations of;the torso bv saying that the statue suffered rough hamllincT by porters. TSut this diplomatic version was only designed to hush up the struggle that took place at Milo.. It" is now finally discredited.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/OAM19121216.2.4

Bibliographic details

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXVII, Issue 11806, 16 December 1912, Page 1

Word Count
298

ATTITUDE OF THE VENUS OF MILO. Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXVII, Issue 11806, 16 December 1912, Page 1

ATTITUDE OF THE VENUS OF MILO. Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXVII, Issue 11806, 16 December 1912, Page 1

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert