Clodion and the Question of Authorship: A Closer Look at "Nymph and Two Satyrs" and "Satyr and Two Nymphs" in the Columbia University Art Collection

Sarah Jane Kim

Introduction

In 1976, Columbia University acquired two terracotta sculptures entitled Nymph and Two Satyrs (Fig. 1) and Satyr and Two Nymphs (Fig. 2).1 A gift to the university, these ornate statuettes appear to have been conceived as a pair: as the titles suggest, the former depicts a nymph dancing with two satyrs, while the latter depicts a "reversal" of this combination of figures. The sculptures, both compositionally and technically ambitious, are certainly the work of a virtuoso artist and would have been perceived as impressive in their contemporary context.2 Although they entered the Columbia collection as works by the renowned eighteenth-century French sculptor Claude Michel, called Clodion (1738–1814), research by Clodion scholars in the past several decades has indicated that many works have been misattributed to the artist. In light of this scholarship, the Columbia sculptures require a closer look and reconsideration of authorship. Drawing upon the work of Anne Poulet and Guilhem Scherf, among others, this paper examines Nymph and Two Satyrs and Satyr and Two Nymphs, the focus of this exhibition, through an object-based approach in order to reevaluate their current attribution.

Setting the Stage: Clodion and the Authenticity Discourse

Clodion is best known for his highly finished terracotta statuettes, which often combine "beautiful nymphs, satyrs, baby satyrs, and children in compositions marked by graceful movement, joyous revelry, and a spirit of eternal youth."3 The artist's early years in Rome (1762–1771) were formative in the development of his own style—small terracotta sculptures that bear a mélange of classical antiquity, the style of Nicolas Poussin, and his own imagination—which suited the market for elegant, small-scale sculptures in the eighteenth century and bred enormous demand from prestigious patrons.4 Minerva (Fig. 3) and Mourner (Fig. 4), examples of the artist's early work, show Clodion's prioritization of a high finish and incredible technical refinement for minute details from the beginnings of his artistic career. While the sculptures from this period are primarily static, single-figure compositions, Clodion "gradually introduced more action and movement into his reliefs and statuettes" once he returned to Paris in the early 1770s (Fig. 5).5 During his middle years (1770s–1780s), the artist established his own studio where he was assisted by his three brothers, and in the 1790s, he began executing complex multi-figure, in-the-round terracotta statuettes of Bacchic subjects, which were "of extraordinary technical finesse and complexity...combin[ing] both running and lifting movements."6 Examples of such works include Bacchante Supported by Bacchus and a Faun (Fig. 6), Satyr Lifting a Tambourine - Playing Bacchante (Fig. 7), and Bacchante with Grapes Carried by Two Bacchantes and a Bacchant (Fig. 8), the last exemplifying one of Clodion's most technically accomplished works during his advanced period of the early 1800s. (For more on Clodion's life and career, see Lowell Sopcisak's timeline.)

The authorship of Nymph and Two Satyrs and Satyr and Two Nymphs is visible on the objects themselves: both are inscribed "CLODION," along with their supposed dates of execution, "1779" (Fig. 9) and "1778" (Fig. 10), respectively.7 However, considering what is known about Clodion's attested works, several aspects of the Columbia pair demand further investigation regarding its attribution. Firstly, Clodion does not seem to have created multi-figure, in-the-round Bacchic terracottas before the 1790s; as such, it is surprising that he would have conceived these compositions over a decade earlier. Moreover, the very fact that the Columbia sculptures are dated is suspect, since Clodion hardly, if ever, included a date with his signature between the years 1771 and 1794, roughly.8 From her first encounter with the sculptures, Anne Poulet has further observed that the pair's large size relative to Clodion's typical production, the massiveness of the tree trunks, and the orangey color of the surface are inconsistent with the eighteenth-century sculptor's oeuvre.9 Finally, the scenes are depicted in a cruder manner than Clodion's approach to similar subjects: the protruding tongues of the satyrs and, more importantly, the uneasy dynamic between the figures in Nymph and Two Satyrs, evoke a coarseness atypical of the artist's other works.10

These contextual incongruities and preliminary stylistic observations situate the Columbia sculptures into the discourse of authenticity now firmly ingrained in the Clodion scholarship. The catalogue for the first ever exhibition devoted to Clodion’s terracottas (Frick Collection, 1984), written by Poulet, marked the beginnings of a systematic reassessment of the artist's oeuvre. Avid research continued during the following years and culminated in the landmark monographic exhibition entitled Clodion, 1738–1814 held at the Louvre Museum in 1992, accompanied by a catalogue raisonné authored by Poulet and Guilhem Scherf.11 This catalogue remains an indispensable source, distinguishing works "in the manner of Clodion" from the artist's own body of work, considering both workshop participation in the sculptor's middle years as well as the phenomenon of "Clodion mania" in the second-half of the nineteenth century. Coined by Scherf, the term "Clodion mania" refers to the years of fervent production and commercialization of clodionesque works, specifically in the form of copies and forgeries produced in the 1870s and 1880s. (See also Hugo Scheithauer’s essay for a contextual analysis on the phenomenon of forgery and "Clodion mania" in nineteenth-century France.) With this brief background on Clodion's oeuvre and the questions of authenticity in mind, a visual critique of the Columbia terracottas may illuminate the pair's true relationship to the eighteenth-century artist.

Materiality and Technique: The Basics

A closer look at the Columbia sculptures reveals the technical ambition of their making and may elucidate the modelling process.12 At first glance, the surface shows significant evidence of the use of toothed tools, brushes, and oval-tip tools.13 The tooth tool incises thin and consistent linear striations into the clay, as those made by a rake (Fig. 11). It is applied not only for representational effects but also to texture raw additions of clay during the revision process, discerned by the raised surfaces that have not been smoothed with the initially finished surface (Fig. 12).14 The tooth marks, incised almost ubiquitously throughout the Columbia terracottas, effectively suggest the rough texture of the boulder (Fig. 13), for example, while their presence on areas depicting flesh seems rather arbitrary (see Fig. 12). Brushes are used to smooth the clay surface and produce sweeping bristle marks (Fig. 14), which are visible all over the sculptures. Oval-tip tools, used for subtractive and additive modelling, can create grooves of various depths and lengths for undulating textures. In the case of the Columbia pair, they have been used to render more elaborate textural forms, as seen in the furrowing texture of the tree trunk bark (Fig. 15), the swirls of hair and fur of the animal skin (Fig. 16, Fig. 17), and the undulation of the drapery folds (Fig. 18).

A detail of Nymph and Two Satyrs juxtaposes the diverse textural effects created by the tools described (Fig. 19). It also conveys the technical feat these terracottas embody—a tour de force in their visual exuberance when viewing the compositions as a whole. However, the abundance of such marks, though unproblematic in and of itself, results in a rougher finish than what is typically seen in works by Clodion. Thus, a comparison between details of the Columbia pair and of works firmly attributed to the artist may shed further light on the former in the context of Clodion's markmaking.

Materiality and Technique: A Closer Look

The overturned wine jar in Satyr and Two Nymphs (Fig. 20) and the tambourine, or tympanum, presented with grapes in both Columbia sculptures (Fig. 21) are frequent motifs of Bacchic iconography that appear in Clodion's works, as in Bacchus and a Nymph with a Child and Grapes (Fig. 22).15 (See also Marie Bouichou's essay on the historical evolution of Bacchic subject matter.) Here, Clodion carefully refined the modelling of the jar by painstakingly smoothing the clay to articulate the perfectly circular shape of the opening rim and the repetitive linear design of the jar's neck, down to its thin circular border. The meticulous delineation of the jar allows the viewer to distinguish the solidity of the jar from the liquidity of the flowing wine, enabling a strong sensory experience. In contrast, the wine jar in Satyr and Two Nymphs shows comparatively less refinement (Fig. 23). The rim of the jar is not as smoothed, as evident by the interior edges, and the linear design on the neck is less consistent in its visual repetition, as some grooves are wider or shorter than others. The thicker border on the neck not only accounts for the stubbier appearance of the jar, but also reveals a lesser consideration to smoothing. Finally, the suggestion of the wine flowing out of the jar is noticeably dissimilar to the overflowing pour seen in Bacchus and a Nymph, appearing more as an oozing viscous substance than a fluid liquid.

Similar to the technical rendering of the jar, Clodion's treatment of the tympanum in Bacchus and a Nymph, as well as in other works such as in The Intoxication of Wine (Fig. 24), is highly refined, down to the minute details of the jingles and circular ornaments around the drum frame. Moreover, the vine leaves and grapes presented on the instrument appear in fruitful abundance but do not fully mask the surface area of the drumhead. Each grape is large and carefully rounded to convey succulence, and the grapes are arranged in distinctive bunches, resulting in a visual collectivity of the individual grapes into their respective bunches (Fig. 25).16 In the Columbia pair, the tympanums are not as finished in their details, as evident by the jingles on the tympanum frames which are less refined (Fig. 26). As for the grapes, their excess in Nymph and Two Satyrs overwhelms the tympanum to the point where the drumhead is not visible (see Fig. 26, left). Overall, what sets the Columbia pair's grapes apart from Clodion's typical treatment of this motif is the absence of a polished coherence. The individual grapes are smaller in size, but appear in greater quantity: as a result, it is difficult to discern to which bunch the respective grapes belong, the broader issue at stake being the hindrance of the visual relationship between a part and its whole. The emphasis, rather, seems to be on sheer abundance. As we will see, these issues are also visible when considering the sculptures in their entirety.

The rendering of flesh in the Columbia statuettes in comparison to Clodion's approach reveals similar inconsistencies in technical handling, specifically regarding tool use and the level of finish. For example, the nymph's backside in Satyr and Two Nymphs shows conspicuous hatching made by brush and tooth tools on the upper back and resting hand (Fig. 27, left).17 The profusion of tool marks here departs from the eighteenth-century artist's customary level of finish, as the resulting effect does not articulate the natural texture of flesh. In contrast, in Clodion's The Intoxication of Wine (Fig. 27, right), the back of the nymph shows the smoothness of youthful flesh; only subtle evidence of brush marks is apparent around the nymph's right upper arm and in selective areas on her back. The subtlety in the revealing of tool markings likewise lends itself to greater naturalism in the overall suggestion of musculature. Furthermore, a comparison between The Intoxication of Wine and, this time, Nymph and Two Satyrs in the depiction of fingers impressed onto the flesh shows a disinterest to minute details in the latter that, as with the case of the wine jar and tympanum, would not have been neglected by Clodion (Fig. 28). The artist's execution is dynamic, indicating the varying topography of the skin on the nymph's back, which rises at distinct pressure points as a result of the flesh-to-flesh contact. Meanwhile, in Nymph and Two Satyrs, the area of skin impressed by fingers is uniform, as if modelled in a rote manner that seems, as it were, mechanical.18 In this way, it is clear that Clodion's technique, relative to that of the Columbia pair's maker, prioritizes the delicate representation of natural features by refining the appearance of skin textures and musculature for anatomical accuracy.

A final visual critique of the Columbia sculptures is worthy of mention. The elaborate texture of the tree trunks, the volume of the sweeping animal-skin draperies, and the luscious locks of hair—both on the heads of the figures and on the goat legs of the satyrs—create the effect of an exuberant flurry that certainly presents the sculptures as a coup d'éclat. Yet, the attempt at an overt technical spectacle comes at the expense of easily distinguishable details, such as the head wreaths of grape vines from the hair of the figures (Fig. 29), or the fur of the animal skin from both the hair of the satyr's leg and the wood texture of the tree trunk (Fig. 30). The similar manner of their execution evokes a mechanization akin to that observed in the rendering of the impressed flesh.19 This visual blending of different figural elements is, as it has now been established, not characteristic of Clodion's art.

Materiality and Technique: The Bigger Picture

Clodion's attention to perfecting accessory details speaks to his broader artistic approach. Generally, Clodion treated the entire sculpture in-the-round with an exceptionally high finish and an "undiminished delicacy and dexterity" that encourages the viewer to savor even accessory elements of the work.20 As discussed earlier, the Columbia sculptures, on the other hand, have a rougher finish by means of both forgoing refinement to certain details (e.g., wine jar, tympanum, impression of fingers onto flesh) and maintaining tool marks that are superfluous (e.g., hatchings on the flesh). In this way, the Columbia pair produces a paradoxical effect counter to Clodion's trademark handling: if Clodion comparatively treats his whole compositions with more refinement, thus favoring a naturalistic effect even for minor ornamental elements, the Columbia statuettes display less refinement in technical finish in favor of abundant and grandiose embellishment for the compositions as a whole (recalling the discussion of the grapes that aptly plays into this theme of excess).

The material abundance that pervades the Columbia sculptures gives them a sense of heaviness, as massive forms spatially crowd their compositions. In Nymph and Two Satyrs, the haphazard protrusion of a satyr's hoof between the tree bark and the drapery, itself adjoined to the trunk, exemplifies the tight jamming of forms as the hoof appears completely isolated from its satyr (Fig. 31), who stands on the opposite side of the tree trunk. Although it demonstrates an effort to assert complex three-dimensionality, the crowdedness of the composition makes details like this appear out of place rather than serving as an example of a visual logic carefully executed.

Further, in both sculptures, the large tree trunk and hefty drapery attached to it do not allow for any negative space around the central point of the compositions where the molds of the figures are joined together. Three-dimensional digital renderings of Nymph and Two Satyrs and Satyr and Two Nymphs, made by Columbia's Media Center for Art History via photogrammetric software, wonderfully illustrate this observation. Beyond their iconographic function, the trunk and drapery play support roles, as the former aims to prop up the standing figures while the latter helps to further stabilize their desired orientation—a reminder that the endeavor of a standing multi-figure sculpture was no simple undertaking. Yet, that they consume a bulk of the positive space within the compositions is problematic when considering the contrary effect produced in Clodion's works. The ambiguity of the relationship between the forms and their spatial arrangement makes the figures appear tightly crammed onto their bases, weighing down the composition.

Clodion's multi-figured, in-the-round terracottas, on the other hand, are animated by a purity of line and an elongation of bodies that lead to an upward pull, providing a lifted feeling to his sculptures.21 The gesture of raised arms, one of Clodion's signature motifs in his late works (Fig. 32, Fig. 33, Fig. 34), energizes the compositions and guides the pull.22 Along with the upward energy, Clodion's attention to the "relationships of forms in space" by balancing the orientation of "[b]odies and accessories [...] produces a well-composed and unified image from a variety of viewpoints, even though the work is intended to be seen primarily from the front."23 These elements, combined with their technical refinement by the artist, create the sense of lightness emblematic of Clodion's art. While the Columbia sculptures also feature raised arms, the lifting energy is counteracted by the heaviness of some of the masses. Based on all these observations, the current attribution of Nymph and Two Satyrs and Satyr and Two Nymphs to Clodion requires a revision.

In Context: Variations and Reattribution

Scientific analysis and socio-historical context may help in considering other possibilities for the attribution of the Columbia sculptures. The Louvre Museum's Two Satyrs Dancing with a Bacchante (Fig. 35)—akin to Columbia's Nymph and Two Satyrs—was a subject in a thermoluminescence (TL) study, which tested the age of the clay and revealed that the terracotta was executed in the nineteenth century.24 In the entry for Two Satyrs Dancing with a Bacchante from the Louvre catalogue, Scherf has further narrowed down the date to pre-1885, as the terracotta pair appears in the seminal illustrated monograph of Clodion published in 1885 by Henri Thirion.25 Given the compositional resemblance, it is very likely that this dating pertains to the Columbia sculptures as well. There are yet additional examples of sculptures almost identical to those at Columbia and the Louvre, such as a pair at Waddesdon Manor (Fig. 36, Fig. 37) and a pair formerly owned by the Detroit Institute of Arts, among others.

Scherf has noted three sizes into which the existing versions of these compositions may be categorized, based on height: the largest group at about 76 centimeters, the medium-sized group at about 71 centimeters, and the smallest group at about 61 centimeters.26 According to this classification, the Columbia pair rests roughly in the medium-sized category. Scherf has additionally identified a 41-centimeter version of Satyr and Two Nymphs formerly in the Marius Paulme Collection as an outlier to his categorization.27 However, the existence of another Satyr and Two Nymphs composition at 48 centimeters high (Fig. 38), sold at a 1999 Galerie Koller auction, suggests that an entire fourth group in the 40s centimeters could exist.

There are also bronze versions of these compositions, which vary in the nature of their inscriptions: while some bear Clodion's signature, others are inscribed with a nineteenth-century foundry mark. In fact, a bronze version of Nymph and Two Satyrs, sold by Neal Auction Company in 2015, is inscribed with the foundry stamp of Graux-Marly (Fig. 39), one of the famous Parisian bronze foundries established from the mid-nineteenth century that also made terracottas and specialized in reproductions after Clodion by the 1880s.28 More recently, in 2018, Christie's New York sold a bronze version of Satyr and Two Nymphs (Fig. 40) that is inscribed "CLODION" along with the inscription "DENIERE," the name of another foundry that produced sculptures in the manner of Clodion.29 Although the bronzes were at times signed by their respective foundries, as in the mentioned examples, they were still distributed as bronzes after 'authentic' Clodion works. Thus, both the terracotta and bronze versions were part of the broader phenomenon of forgery in the nineteenth century, namely "Clodion mania."

However, it is important to note—particularly in the case of the terracottas—that the existence of plural variations of the Columbia compositions does not necessarily designate them as mass-produced objects.30 Rather, it is likely that a single artist or workshop created the various existing terracotta groups in question, and that their production and circulation were consciously limited, perhaps so as to not raise the suspicions of potential collectors. The artist likely casted the main form, thereafter adding and modelling details before the entire product was fired. In this light, the different details between the terracotta versions of these compositions reveal the technical skill and labor involved in the making of the sculptures, as well as highlight the individuality of each of the existing groups. Columbia's Nymph and Two Satyrs and Satyr and Two Nymphs are unique in comparison to their other known counterparts in that they are inscribed with both Clodion's signature and a date, while the others are only signed—a curious discrepancy that calls for a further address.

As indicated by the burr which rises above the incised lines (see Fig. 9, Fig. 10), the dates were incised into the clay before firing, adding another layer of deception beyond the signature. 31 The specific dates of "1778" and "1779" are especially perplexing, given that these years were not particularly prolific for the sculptor. With this in mind, two hypotheses deserve mention. Firstly, 1779 marks the year during which Clodion presented his plaster model for the statue of Montesquieu for the series known as "The Great Men of France" commissioned by the Comte d'Angiviller on behalf of the Bâtiments du Roi. Although the initial model was heavily criticized, the finished marble version, exhibited at the Salon of 1783, was highly praised and is still considered the greatest sculpture in the series by most critics (Fig. 41).32 In other words, its success had left a lasting impact and the sculpture was certainly held in high regard in the nineteenth century, thus branding 1779 as a significant year for the initial conception of the famous work. Secondly, considering Clodion's history of date inscriptions and his tendency of not dating his terracottas during his middle period, sculptures by the artist with these dates would be rare, i.e. enhance their market value.33 For now, however, potential motivations behind the dates remain speculative; ultimately, the enigma surrounding the specific dates may simply boil down to the ignorance of the artist vis-à-vis Clodion's date inscription idiosyncrasies. A question even more difficult to answer, given the meager information available on the pair's provenance history, is why only the Columbia pair, as far as we know, has dates inscribed.34 (For more on the provenance history in relation to the collecting practices of George Blumenthal, a former owner of the Columbia pair, see Nicole Sussmane's essay.) In any case, the attempt to deceive is not so subtle, as the tail end of the drapery in Nymph and Two Satyrs guides the viewer's eye precisely to the "CLODION" signature and inscribed date.

Is it still possible, though, that the Nymph and Two Satyrs and Satyr and Two Nymphs compositions may have been imitations of original models conceived by Clodion? 35 Interestingly, several eighteenth-century sale catalogues mention compositions that are descriptively similar to the Columbia pair. The catalogue from a 1798 sale at the Elysée Palace describes a lot of "Two very beautiful groups in terracotta, subject of Bacchantes and Satyrs, by Claudion [sic]."36 Another sale catalogue from 1793 notes under its terracotta listings, "Two other beautiful groups, subjects of satyrs and bacchantes."37 Unfortunately, it cannot be established with certainty that these groups correspond to the compositions of the Columbia sculptures due to the vague descriptions, lack of illustrations, and absence of further documentation. While these mentions do arouse curiosity, connoisseurship and our very eyes have stronger credibility in this case. Most likely, given the stylistic observations made earlier, the Columbia compositions and their counterparts were not derived from a Clodion prototype.38

While there were many sculptors and foundries in the nineteenth century that produced clodionesque objects, Scherf has deduced that the Louvre version may have come from Graux-Marly.39 This proposition is based on an archival photograph of the Waddesdon Manor pair, which includes an annotation on the verso stating that the group came from Graux-Marly. In addition, Scherf has observed that the orangey ground of the Louvre terracotta is close to that associated with the work of the foundry.40 Considering that the various groups were likely made by a single artist, the suggestion of Graux-Marly could apply to the Columbia sculptures as well;41 however, further research would be necessary to confirm this attribution. Whoever it may be, the artist of Columbia's Nymph and Two Satyrs and Satyr and Two Nymphs knew Clodion's work firsthand (though perhaps not his sporadic inclusion of date inscriptions).42 The artist was likely looking at Clodion's production from around the 1790s when the eighteenth-century artist began to produce multi-figure Bacchic terracottas.43 In the end, what is certain is the dexterity of the nineteenth-century artist who truly authored Nymph and Two Satyrs and Satyr and Two Nymphs.44

Final Considerations

This paper has provided a closer look at the central objects of this exhibition by considering their materiality and technique from both micro- and macro-perspectives, as well as their place in the context of other variations of their compositions, and has led to the deattribution to Clodion for the Columbia pair. The sculptures themselves being the richest source, an examination of their material may provide additional information on their making. A recent study conducted at Columbia University, which tested the surface of both Nymph and Two Satyrs and Satyr and Two Nymphs with an XRF tracer, found on several areas low levels of silicon and calcium but relatively high levels of aluminum and sulfur.45 While these results seem to correspond to plaster rather than clay, an examination of the sculptures' surface, as well as their heavy weight indicate that they are, indeed, terracottas. Furthermore, the results appear generally in line with those from the TL study conducted at the Louvre, which indicates that Two Satyrs and a Bacchante has an "intermediate paste," consisting of "heterogeneous intermediate silico-calcic compositions," relative to the other tested terracottas with homogeneous pastes. 46 While the Columbia statuettes may not exactly fit within the Louvre study's intermediate-paste classification based on the specific chemical makeup, the results from the XRF study also indicate that their surfaces are characterized by heterogeneous mineralogical compositions.

That being said, there is a great possibility that the Columbia terracottas were painted after being fired.47 This practice, in which a badigeon, or a type of wash, is added onto a sculpture after it is fired, existed not only in the nineteenth century during "Clodion mania" but also in the eighteenth century.48 Scherf has noted that these badigeons were not strict recipes but rather byproducts of liberal experimentation; indeed, practitioners in the studio would potentially utilize any material they could get their hands on, occasionally even dust for textural effects.49 Thus, a badigeon could consist of a wide variety of materials, including very diluted clay and pigments, a fact that could potentially explain the results of the XRF tracer study. In the end, many different substances may have made their way into the badigeon, whose purpose was also to help conceal defects that had occurred during the firing process.50 Most recently, conservator Batyah Shtrum has observed both Columbia sculptures and confirmed their medium as terracotta, also noting the application of a wash all over the sculptures given that the bottoms of both of their bases share the same color with each other, neither of which were overpainted.51

While the attribution of Nymph and Two Satyrs and Satyr and Two Nymphs to Clodion can be firmly dismissed, there are still many questions surrounding the origin of the sculptures and the nature of their production. As examples of "Clodion mania," they raise fascinating issues of technique and artistic production, collecting practices and connoisseurship, and authenticity and authorship. The objects at the heart of this exhibition are statements of Clodion's legacy beyond his lifetime, as they exemplify the revival and rematerialization of Clodion's art in the hands of the following century. Though the pair is not by the hand of the great eighteenth-century sculptor, they form a valuable narrative of their own.

1Irma H. Bloomingdale (1888–1989) was the prior owner of Nymph and Two Satyrs and Satyr and Two Nymphs. She and her husband, Lewis Bloomingdale (1878–1939), received the sculptures as a wedding gift in 1909 from George Blumenthal (1858–1941), who reportedly purchased them in Paris at an unknown date.
2Anne Poulet, "Connoisseurship/Curatorship: Part II," Practices of Art History Colloquium (class seminar, Columbia University, New York, March 14, 2019). I give many thanks to Anne Poulet for her visit during the preparatory stages of the current exhibition to provide her insight on the Columbia sculptures in relation to Clodion. Her expertise has greatly informed the analyses conducted in this paper, and has played a crucial role in the research for this exhibition.
3Anne Poulet, Clodion Terracottas in North American Collections (New York: The Frick Collection, 1984), 9. Clodion also specialized in terracotta reliefs and executed grand marble sculptures, but it was for his highly finished terracotta statuettes that he was most renowned.
4During his time in Rome, Clodion received private commissions from many prestigious collectors, including Catherine the Great of Russia. He stayed in Rome six years beyond the three funded for sculptors who had won the Prix de Rome awarded by the French Academy. He was ordered by the Monarchy to return back to Paris from his overdue stay in 1771. For a concise but rich biography of Clodion, see Poulet, "Introduction," in Clodion Terracottas, 3–6. For more on the growing demand for terracotta statuettes by eighteenth-century collectors, see Ian Wardropper, "Adam to Clodion: Four French Terracotta Sculptures," Art Institute of Chicago Museum Studies 11, no. 1 (1984): 23–37.
5Anne Poulet, "On the Run: Clodion’s Bacchanalian Figures," in French Art of the Eighteenth Century: The Michael L. Rosenberg Lecture Series at the Dallas Museum of Art, ed. Heather MacDonald (Dallas: The Dallas Museum of Art, 2016), 172.
6Ibid., 175.
7Clodion varied the style of his signatures, from cursive to print letters, from serif to sans serif, and from the first letter capitalized and the rest lowercase to all capitalized letters. Furthermore, he would occasionally play with small details, such as cryptically reversing the "N." For some visual examples of Clodion’s various signature styles, see Poulet, Clodion Terracottas, 23–24, fig. nos. 1–2, 4–13.
8Terence Hodgkinson, "French Sculpture at Waddesdon," The Burlington Magazine 101, no. 676/677 (1959): 259. Hodgkinson observes that the "dated terracotta groups and statuettes appear to divide themselves, for the most part, into two series, the first including only early works (1766–1770) and the second only late ones (1795–1805). There is a gap of about twenty-five years, probably the most prolific part of the sculptor's life, in which he seems very seldom to have added a date to his signature. This long middle period includes the years (c. 1775–1785) in which he was assisted in his Paris workshop by three sculptor brothers. It should be added that the early inscriptions indicate that the terracottas were made when Clodion was in Rome (for instance, Clodion in Roma 1768), whereas the late ones consist only of CLODION in capital letters followed by the year. Occasionally, in both dated and undated examples, the N in CLODION is reversed." Further, Poulet has noted that, as far as it is currently known, no multi-figure group signed by Clodion from the 1770s exists (Poulet, "Connoisseurship/Curatorship").
9Poulet, "Connoisseurship/Curatorship: Part II."
10 Ibid. Poulet has addressed the issue of crudity in other Clodion-attributed works, of which several have now been confirmed as misattributions. For an example, see the catalogue entry on Satyr with Two Bacchantes and Baby Satyr in Poulet, Clodion Terracottas, 9, cat. no. 3.
11Anne Poulet and Guilhem Scherf, Clodion, 1738–1814 (Paris: Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1992). The catalogue is published in French. The contents of this publication that are mentioned in this paper are translated into English by the author.
12The following observations on tools and surface textures have been greatly informed by Tony Sigel’s visual glossary of the sculpting tools and modelling processes pertaining to the making of terracottas in Bernini's sculpture practice. See: Anthony Sigel, "Visual Glossary," in Bernini: Sculpting in Clay, ed. C.D. Dickerson, Anthony Sigel, and Ian Wardropper (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2012), 87–107. I give many thanks to Mr. Sigel for his personal guidance on this section based on his expertise in the technical studies of terracotta sculpture (Tony Sigel, email message to author, August 19, 2019).
13The following visual examples, diagrammed by the author, aim to guide the viewer in identifying the various surface textures with the respective tools used in modelling clay and how they are rendered on the Columbia sculptures. After the initial guidance of overlaid shapes on the images to aid in the identification process, they will be omitted moving forward in an effort to prevent further interposition with the images.
14Of Bernini's bozzetti (small-scale terracotta models), Sigel observes that revisions carried out after initial completion "[are] indicated by areas with fresh tool marks or clay additions that interrupt previously smoothed and seemingly completed surfaces" (Sigel, "Visual Glossary," 102).
15The tympanum, also called tympanon, was a shallow tambourine from Greco-Roman antiquity that was typically associated with Dionysian and Cybelen rituals. For more on the instrument's historical and iconographical context, see John G. Landels, Music in Ancient Greece and Rome (London: Routledge, 2002), 21, 28. See esp. chap. 6, "Music and Myth."
16Poulet has noted that Clodion had a particular stylistic and technical approach to his rendering of grapes (Poulet, "Connoisseurship/Curatorship").
17Sigel has clarified the use of brush and tooth tools for the hatching on the respective areas (Sigel, email message to author).
18 Poulet, "Connoisseurship/Curatorship." Poulet has confirmed the mechanical appearance of the rendering of the finger impressions on the suggested flesh.
19Ibid. Poulet has particularly noticed that the hair and wreaths on the heads of the nymph figures seem mechanical.
20James David Draper, "French Terracottas," The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 49, no. 3 (Winter 1991/1992): 29. Of Clodion's Bacchus and a Nymph, Draper argues that the "undiminished delicacy and dexterity enabl[es] us to discern the tremulous modeling of the nude girl's flesh...and to savor subsidiary actions, such as the infant's jubilant participation and the wine flowing copiously from the overturned jar at back."
21Ian Wardropper, "Connoisseurship/Curatorship: Part I," Practices of Art History Colloquium (class seminar, The Frick Collection, New York, February 14, 2019). I thank Ian Wardropper, Director of the Frick Collection, for his warm reception of the class into the museum and speaking with us about the Clodion objects held at the Frick. He discussed the elongated bodies and 'lifted' nature of Clodion's advanced compositions in our object-focused examination of Zephyrus and Flora (see Fig. 34).
22Anne Betty Weinshenker, "A Terra-Cotta Statuette by Clodion," Porticus: The Journal of the Memorial Art Gallery of the University of Rochester 6, no. 6 (1983): 23.
23Ibid.
24For the full study, see Anne Bouquillon, Guirec Querré, and Frédéric Saltron, "Terracottas around Clodion: Chemical and Mineralogical Studies and Thermoluminescence Analysis," in Material Issues in Art and Archaeology III, ed. James Druzik et al. (Pittsburgh: Materials Research Society, 1993), 621–26. Thermoluminescence analysis, which reveals the "age of terracottas by measurement of the total irradiation dose absorbed by the artefact from its latest firing," was conducted on thirty-one terracottas attributed to Clodion (ibid., 622). Of the thirty-one terracottas tested, seven, including the Louvre's Two Satyrs Dancing with a Bacchante, were identified as having nineteenth- or twentieth-century origins. The study was initially published in the 1992 Louvre catalogue (see Saltron, Bouquillon, Querré, "Analyses des terres cuites de Clodion, Marin et Michel au Laboratoire de recherce des musées de France," in Clodion, 1738-1814, 415–19).
25Scherf, "Deux satyres dansant avec une bacchante," in Clodion, 372–75, cat. no. 82. Both versions of Nymph and Two Satyrs and Satyr and Two Nymphs were illustrated in Thirion's 1885 publication. See H. Thirion, Les Adam et Clodion (Paris: A. Quantin, 1885), 206–7 and 288–89.
26Scherf, "Deux satyres dansant avec une bacchante," in Clodion, 374.
27Ibid.
28Scherf states that Graux-Marly was known as a specialist of reproductions after Clodion by the year 1880 (ibid., 375).
29A Golden Age: An Important Collection of 19th Century Furniture & Decorative Art, Tuesday, October 16, 2018, Christie’s (New York, 2018), lot 185. The sales catalogue entitles the bronze sculpture The Three Graces, which is incorrect. For Clodion’s Three Graces composition, see Poulet and Scherf, Clodion, 31, fig. no. 9, as "Trois jeunes femmes autour d'une colonne, leurs mains entrelacées."
30Guilhem Scherf (Curator of European Sculpture, Louvre Museum), discussion with Frédérique Baumgartner, July 5, 2019. We give many thanks to Guilhem Scherf for taking the time to share his insight on the historical context of our sculptures, as well as their possible material and creative origins.
31Poulet, "Connoisseurship/Curatorship."
32Poulet, Clodion Terracottas, 5.
33While the public taste had moved away from the style of Clodion’s works by the time of his death in 1814, terracotta statuettes, especially those by Clodion, came back into fashion in France in the mid-nineteenth century as the Second Empire experienced a Rococo revival and the new rising bourgeois class desired to display such objects in the interior of their homes. For more on the Rococo revival in the nineteenth century, see Melissa Lee Hyde and Katie Scott, eds., "Rococo Revivals: The Nineteenth Century," in Rococo Echo: Art, History and Historiography from Cochin to Coppola, Oxford University Studies in the Enlightenment, 2014:12 (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 2014), 31–166.
34George Blumenthal burned much of the documentation for his personal collection, which accounts for the lack of information presently available on the Columbia sculptures.
35This is a subtle adaptation of the question posed by Scherf in his discussion of the Louvre composition: "Mais si la fabrication du groupe est récente, ce dernier peut-il être fidèle à un modèle original conçu dans l’atelier de Clodion?...[Le] modèle ancient pourrait provenir de l’atelier de Clodion, ou avoir été récupérer certains de ses modèles." Scherf, "Deux satyres dansant avec une bacchante," in Clodion, 374.
36"'Deux très-beaux Groupes en terre cuite, sujet de Bacchantes et Satyres, par Claudion'. [duchesse de Bourbon ?], palais de l’Elysée, 14 août 1798, no. 75," quoted in Scherf, "Répertoire thématique des œuvres de Clodion d’après les catalogues de ventes parisiennes (1767–1820)," in Clodion, 426.
37"'Deux autres beaux groupes, sujets de satyres et bacchantes'. Dumont, 4 février 1793, no. 204," quoted in ibid., 441.
38Scherf, discussion with Baumgartner.
39Scherf, "Deux satyres dansant avec une bacchante," in Clodion, 374–75.
40Scherf describes the annotation of the archival photograph for the Waddesdon Manor version, and notes that the orangey ground is close to those of the terracotta editions of Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux (1827–1875), which were specialties of Graux-Marly (ibid., 372, 374).
41It is important to note, however, that not all variations of our compositions have an orangey surface color. In addition, this fact would not counter Scherf's proposition of Graux-Marly, since orangey terracottas were not the foundry's only specialty.
42Poulet, "Connoisseurship/Curatorship."
43Ibid. Poulet has suggested the date ca. 1795.
44Both Poulet and Scherf have acknowledged this dexterity (ibid. and Scherf, discussion with Baumgartner).
45Silicon, as one of the main elements in clay, was expected to be the most abundantly detected all over the sculptures.
46Bouquillon, Querré, and Saltron, “Terracottas around Clodion: Chemical and Mineralogical Studies and Thermoluminescence Analysis,” 623, 626. See the table on p. 623, which identifies the Louvre composition, labeled Deux satyres et une bacchante (Two Satyrs and a Bacchante), analysis no. 29, as having an "intermediate" paste. The study categorizes pastes by "siliceous," "carbonated," "intermediate," and "no determine," based on results conducted with a particle accelerator via an ion beam method of analysis, specifically the PIXE (Proton Induced X-ray Emission) method (ibid., 624), which is also a surface test. The siliceous and carbonated identifications are homogenous paste groups, as the former is generally "characterized by high amounts of silica and alumina" while the latter group "contain[s] more than 20% CaO [calcium oxide] and show[s] a slight enrichment in alcaline elements and iron" (ibid., 625). The intermediate group is thus defined as sculptures with "heterogeneous intermediate silico-calcic compositions" (ibid., 626).
47Poulet, "Connoisseurship/Curatorship."
48Scherf, discussion with Baumgartner.
49Ibid.
50Frédérique Baumgartner, email message to author, July 6, 2019.
51Batyah Shtrum (Independent Conservator), discussion, July 18, 2019. We thank Batyah Shtrum for her treatment work on Satyr and Two Nymphs and sharing her insights during her visit to Columbia University.