While recent study of ancient sculpture has found that Roman sculptors not only imitated but also emulated earlier artists, there is a lack of available information on alterations perpetrated by eighteenth-century restorers to adapt... more
While recent study of ancient sculpture has found that Roman sculptors not only imitated but also emulated earlier artists, there is a lack of available information on alterations perpetrated by eighteenth-century restorers to adapt ancient artworks to their own context. As these ancient sculptures are conserved, museums are gaining a greater understanding of eighteenth-century restoration practices but this is generally on a sculpture-by-sculpture basis. Using the sculpture collection of Charles Townley (1737-1805) and the extensive literary evidence provided by his correspondence with the two most prolific dealers of the late eighteenth century, this paper discusses the eighteenth-century approach to the authenticity of ancient statues, busts and reliefs. While much has been written on the collections and motivations of eighteenth-century collectors () their attitudes towards authenticity and restoration practices has not been addressed. And although much of the correspondence between Townley and his dealers has been published (Bignamini & Hornsby, 2010; Cassidy 2011), comparison of those letters with evidence from the sculptures has not thus far been undertaken. This paper evaluates both the correspondence and sculptures, finding that the dealers had at best a casual attitude towards retaining authenticity, and at worst a total disregard. Using sculptures from Townley's collection, including the famous Discobolus, and other less well-known statues and reliefs, the juxtaposition between the attitudes proclaimed in the correspondence, and the evidence from the ancient artworks themselves will be demonstrated.
