s statue is a
representation of the famous Phryne, the courtesan of Athens, who at
the celebration of the Eleusinian games, exhibited herself coming out
of the bath, naked, to the eyes of the whole Athenian people. I was
much pleased with the dancing faun; and still better with the Lotti, or
wrestlers, the attitudes of which are beautifully contrived to shew the
different turns of the limbs, and the swelling of the muscles: but,
what pleased me best of all the statues in the Tribuna was the
Arrotino, commonly called the Whetter, and generally supposed to
represent a slave, who in the act of whetting a knife, overhears the
conspiracy of Catiline. You know he is represented on one knee; and
certain it is, I never saw such an expression of anxious attention, as
appears in his countenance. But it is not mingled with any marks of
surprise, such as could not fail to lay hold on a man who overhears by
accident a conspiracy against the state. The marquis de Maffei has
justly observed that Sallust, in his very circumstantial detail of that
conspiracy, makes no mention of any such discovery. Neither does it
appear that the figure is in the act of whetting, the stone which he
holds in one hand being rough and unequal no ways resembling a
whetstone. Others alledge it represents Milico, the freedman of
Scaevinus, who conspired against the life of Nero, and gave his
poignard to be whetted to Milico, who presented it to the emperor, with
an account of the conspiracy: but the attitude and expression will by
no means admit of this interpretation. Bianchi, [This antiquarian is
now imprisoned for Life, for having robbed the Gallery and then set it
on fire.] who shows the gallery, thinks the statue represents the augur
Attius Navius, who cut a stone with a knife, at the command of
Tarquinius Priscus. This conjecture seems to be confirmed by a
medallion of Antoninus Pius, inserted by Vaillant among his Numismata
Prestantiora, on which is delineated nearly such a figure as this in
question, with the following legend. "Attius Navius genuflexus ante
Tarquinium Priscum cotem cultro discidit." He owns indeed that in the
statue, the augur is not distinguished either by his habit or emblems;
and he might have added, neither is the stone a cotes. For my own part,
I think neither of these three opinions is satisfactory, though the
last is very ingenious. Perhaps the figure allude to a private
incident, which never was recorded in any history. Among