Who is depicted in this statue?

[Colonel Panic]

Are there any historians or classicists that can identify the subject of this statue? It is about 4 feet tall and was installed in a niche in a well posh private house in London in about 1913.

Or would it just be a "generic" depiction of an angelic girl? I know little about this sort of thing.

As always, TIA !!!

[flybymike]

Thread titles ending in prepositions is something up with which the forum pedants will not put.

[Colonel Panic]

Now corrected

[Timothy]

I wonder if it should be "Whom is depicted" on the grounds that some (unknown) artist is the subject and the girl the object?

Not sure, it's complex.

[Keef]

Deffo not "Whom is...". The verb "to be" is intransitive (or was, last time I looked).

The statue doesn't seem to be holding anything specific to identify her, or wearing a recognisable garb, so I'd guess she's a random female.

If you know where she is, there may be a reference to her there.

[Colonel Panic]

I know where she was, but at some time between 1913 and now "she" has been removed. The private home has changed hands several times since, so no chance of asking the owners either.

[Sir Morley Steven]

While the pose is classical the face is contemporary (to 1913) and it appears to be of a teenager.
My guess is that it is the daughter of the original owner.

[Ian Melville]

Not sure about that Sir, would you put up a statue of your daughter in a skimpy outfit now, never mind in 1913?

[Sir Morley Steven]

Not now, no. The world was bloody weird back then. Have a look at some art nouveau and also late pre raphaelite stuff. Plenty of scantily clad nubiles and a quick Wiki suggests familial connections.
And they're all dead so they can't sue me!

[Grumpy One]

Could be a trick of perspective, but the head doesn't seem to match the body - her neck's too long too.

[Pete S]

Not now, no. The world was bloody weird back then. Have a look at some art nouveau and also late pre raphaelite stuff. Plenty of scantily clad nubiles and a quick Wiki suggests familial connections.
And they're all dead so they can't sue me!

Ain't that the truth:

When I first Googled GAYAC (our Arrer reg) I got a bit of a shock.

Peter

[spaughty]

On the off-chance, I tried a google search for "visually similar images".

This was typical of the results!

[Pianorak]

Not now, no. The world was bloody weird back then. Have a look at some art nouveau and also late pre raphaelite stuff. Plenty of scantily clad nubiles and a quick Wiki suggests familial connections.
And they're all dead so they can't sue me!

Ain't that the truth:

When I first Googled GAYAC (our Arrer reg) I got a bit of a shock.

Peter

Only a bit of a shock?
http://www.bridgemanart.com/asset/16303 ... h_context=

[Sir Morley Steven]

Not now, no. The world was bloody weird back then. Have a look at some art nouveau and also late pre raphaelite stuff. Plenty of scantily clad nubiles and a quick Wiki suggests familial connections.
And they're all dead so they can't sue me!

Ain't that the truth:

When I first Googled GAYAC (our Arrer reg) I got a bit of a shock.

Peter

Only a bit of a shock?
http://www.bridgemanart.com/asset/16303 ... h_context=

Jar ops?

[Colonel Panic]

While the pose is classical the face is contemporary (to 1913) and it appears to be of a teenager.
My guess is that it is the daughter of the original owner.

The owner of the house, C H StJ Hornby, married a 21 year old lady in 1898, so unlikely to be her, and they had no female offspring.

CHStJH founded the Ashendene Press, so perhaps it could have been a depiction of The Fairie Queene, or something similar? (My knowledge of such being severely limited).