Is my reading comprehension bad today, or is that article written weirdly? If I'm reading it right, this statue was dug up in Rome, in 1781, and purchased by Hitler (with shenanigans) and moved to Munich, where it was placed on a base made in the 1600's. After WW2, the Italians took the statue back, but not base. Now the Italians are asking the Germans for the base, while the Germans are asking for the statue, claiming that hitlers purchase was legitimate.
I'm assuming the base was actually made in the 1700's, after this statue copy was unearthed, which makes the article less weird. Either way, though, I can't imaging the base is anything intricate, and as an "aftermarket" addition, I don't know why the Italians would care much about it.
Unless I'm also having an off day, the article is just really confusing. It makes sense to me that Italy would want the base back because it would be like selling a framed painting to Hitler and getting only the canvas back when it was returned. (Hitler, amirite?)
It's probably a pretty nice base. Probably custom made for the statue shortly after it was unearthed, and probably the sort of thing that art historians would care about keeping together with the sculpture for art historian reasons.
Since the statue can be separated from the base, perhaps the base in question was made in the 17th century - before the statue was discovered - intended for something different.
Is my reading comprehension bad today, or is that article written weirdly? If I'm reading it right, this statue was dug up in Rome, in 1781, and purchased by Hitler (with shenanigans) and moved to Munich, where it was placed on a base made in the 1600's. After WW2, the Italians took the statue back, but not base. Now the Italians are asking the Germans for the base, while the Germans are asking for the statue, claiming that hitlers purchase was legitimate.
I'm assuming the base was actually made in the 1700's, after this statue copy was unearthed, which makes the article less weird. Either way, though, I can't imaging the base is anything intricate, and as an "aftermarket" addition, I don't know why the Italians would care much about it.
Unless I'm also having an off day, the article is just really confusing. It makes sense to me that Italy would want the base back because it would be like selling a framed painting to Hitler and getting only the canvas back when it was returned. (Hitler, amirite?)
It's probably a pretty nice base. Probably custom made for the statue shortly after it was unearthed, and probably the sort of thing that art historians would care about keeping together with the sculpture for art historian reasons.
Since the statue can be separated from the base, perhaps the base in question was made in the 17th century - before the statue was discovered - intended for something different.
Here's an article that includes a picture of a little man with said base: https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/68934